4 ms·

> There are a lot of libertarians who disagree with other libertarians. Lots of scientists disagree with other scientists. I find science to still be valid. >

by smokeyj 13y ago

> There are a lot of libertarians who disagree with other libertarians. Lots of scientists disagree with other scientists. I find science to still be valid. > If this were actually true, then libertarians couldn't say anything useful about groups of people. Obviously I'm here to argue the opposite :) Libertarian insight is more relevant because it's deduced using principled and empirically evident reasoning. This is like saying a microeconomics has nothing to contribute to macroeconomics, wherein reality macroeconomics is simply the resultant of microeconomic activity. Trying to understand economics from a strictly macro perspective leaves you with.. modern numerology. > So what's the incorrect statement here? False dichotomy ;) > I get that you're proud of your philosophy, but why is it that every time someone represents it to me, they open gaping wide holes large enough to fly a planet through? Many self-proclaimed libertarians don't understand the logical conclusion of the philosophy and do a poor job of representing it. With people like Glenn Beck claiming to be libertarian, I can see where you're coming from. If I could try to convey the essence of what I, and many other self-proclaimed libertarians view the philosophy as -- it's a framework for analyzing human action. Much like game theory, it doesn't tell you what the game is or how to play. It's simply saying, here's a framework for analyzing human action, and here's what the outcomes will be.

saraid216 13y ago
> Lots of scientists disagree with other scientists. I find science to still be valid. I wasn't saying libertarianism isn't valid. I was saying that making a claim about what libertarianism is is necessarily suspect, mine as much as yours. > Libertarian insight is more relevant because it's deduced using principled and empirically evident reasoning. Are the principles deduced from empirically evident reasoning, or is it as questionably axiomatic as any other system? This isn't a "libertarianism makes sense" claim you're making; this is a "libertarians are so awesome" claim. Furthermore, neither this sentence nor your economics analogy actually refutes my essential claim that the inability to evaluate and reason at anything other than the individual level makes it impossible to speak usefully about groups of people. The empirical evidence is that groups have significant effects on people. It is quite clear that it is extremely rare, if at all extant, that people can be defined without relation to a group. That leaves libertarianism and its radical individualism very suspect, from an empirical point of view. > False dichotomy ;) You have to present a third alternative to show it's a false dichotomy. > It's simply saying, here's a framework for analyzing human action, and here's what the outcomes will be. To be frank, that's not a philosophy at all. That's a model. These are two hugely different things, not least because philosophies are normative. Libertarianism, as I understand it, is founded on the claim that the word "liberty" has an esteemed place in the structure of the world. That isn't a "framework for analyzing human action"; that's an assertion that "freedom is important and we should not impinge on it". This is a really significant deviation from your claims. Or I guess you could disagree with all this. Are you sure you're a libertarian? You haven't brought up freedom or liberty at all. You kinda sound like an economist.
- smokeyj 13y ago
  > making a claim about what libertarianism is is necessarily suspect You're right, libertarianism is really an umbrella term for many schools of economic, political and other philosophical thought. I'm simply representing what I found to be the most established and logically consistent tenants of said philosophy. > Are the principles deduced from empirically evident reasoning, or is it as questionably axiomatic as any other system? I'm speaking to the works of Ludwig Von Mises (along with Murray Rothbard) and his work on Human Action, specifically the development of Praxeology and Catallactics -- which are derived from the Action Axiom. I would say the core tenants of Austrian Economics are very much observable and repeatable, much like game theory. > Furthermore, neither this sentence nor your economics analogy actually refutes my essential claim that the inability to evaluate and reason at anything other than the individual level makes it impossible to speak usefully about groups of people. Sure I did. Microeconomics is a counter-example. There's also game theory and personal psychology. I guess it depends on what you consider useful. > The empirical evidence is that groups have significant effects on people. It is quite clear that it is extremely rare, if at all extant, that people can be defined without relation to a group. I guess I concern myself with the the largest of these groups, the human species. While cultures and economic landscapes change, the basic tenants of Praxeology and value-theory do not. Preference and desire is present in all acting humans, and I think these realities can be best used to explain why actions are taken. > That leaves libertarianism and its radical individualism very suspect, from an empirical point of view. I'm not claiming individuals don't act differently based on their setting and peers, just that these phenomenas can be observed at the individual level in an empirical fashion. If it isn't, then your group knowledge is limited. > To be frank, that's not a philosophy at all. That's a model. Yeah, it's a big tent.. > You have to present a third alternative to show it's a false dichotomy. That I didn't make an incorrect statement? > Libertarianism, as I understand it, is founded on the claim that the word "liberty" has an esteemed place in the structure of the world. I would argue that libertarians believe in the antithesis of authoritarianism, and that they have economic and philosophical principles for believing so. While governments and corporations are groups of people, the fruits of their actions can be better analyzed by the actions they take and not what they call themselves.
  - 13y ago

by smokeyj 13y ago

saraid216 13y ago

> Lots of scientists disagree with other scientists. I find science to still be valid. I wasn't saying libertarianism isn't valid. I was saying that making a claim about what libertarianism is is necessarily suspect, mine as much as yours. > Libertarian insight is more relevant because it's deduced using principled and empirically evident reasoning. Are the principles deduced from empirically evident reasoning, or is it as questionably axiomatic as any other system? This isn't a "libertarianism makes sense" claim you're making; this is a "libertarians are so awesome" claim. Furthermore, neither this sentence nor your economics analogy actually refutes my essential claim that the inability to evaluate and reason at anything other than the individual level makes it impossible to speak usefully about groups of people. The empirical evidence is that groups have significant effects on people. It is quite clear that it is extremely rare, if at all extant, that people can be defined without relation to a group. That leaves libertarianism and its radical individualism very suspect, from an empirical point of view. > False dichotomy ;) You have to present a third alternative to show it's a false dichotomy. > It's simply saying, here's a framework for analyzing human action, and here's what the outcomes will be. To be frank, that's not a philosophy at all. That's a model. These are two hugely different things, not least because philosophies are normative. Libertarianism, as I understand it, is founded on the claim that the word "liberty" has an esteemed place in the structure of the world. That isn't a "framework for analyzing human action"; that's an assertion that "freedom is important and we should not impinge on it". This is a really significant deviation from your claims. Or I guess you could disagree with all this. Are you sure you're a libertarian? You haven't brought up freedom or liberty at all. You kinda sound like an economist.

smokeyj 13y ago
> making a claim about what libertarianism is is necessarily suspect You're right, libertarianism is really an umbrella term for many schools of economic, political and other philosophical thought. I'm simply representing what I found to be the most established and logically consistent tenants of said philosophy. > Are the principles deduced from empirically evident reasoning, or is it as questionably axiomatic as any other system? I'm speaking to the works of Ludwig Von Mises (along with Murray Rothbard) and his work on Human Action, specifically the development of Praxeology and Catallactics -- which are derived from the Action Axiom. I would say the core tenants of Austrian Economics are very much observable and repeatable, much like game theory. > Furthermore, neither this sentence nor your economics analogy actually refutes my essential claim that the inability to evaluate and reason at anything other than the individual level makes it impossible to speak usefully about groups of people. Sure I did. Microeconomics is a counter-example. There's also game theory and personal psychology. I guess it depends on what you consider useful. > The empirical evidence is that groups have significant effects on people. It is quite clear that it is extremely rare, if at all extant, that people can be defined without relation to a group. I guess I concern myself with the the largest of these groups, the human species. While cultures and economic landscapes change, the basic tenants of Praxeology and value-theory do not. Preference and desire is present in all acting humans, and I think these realities can be best used to explain why actions are taken. > That leaves libertarianism and its radical individualism very suspect, from an empirical point of view. I'm not claiming individuals don't act differently based on their setting and peers, just that these phenomenas can be observed at the individual level in an empirical fashion. If it isn't, then your group knowledge is limited. > To be frank, that's not a philosophy at all. That's a model. Yeah, it's a big tent.. > You have to present a third alternative to show it's a false dichotomy. That I didn't make an incorrect statement? > Libertarianism, as I understand it, is founded on the claim that the word "liberty" has an esteemed place in the structure of the world. I would argue that libertarians believe in the antithesis of authoritarianism, and that they have economic and philosophical principles for believing so. While governments and corporations are groups of people, the fruits of their actions can be better analyzed by the actions they take and not what they call themselves.
- 13y ago