Author Topic: Thoughts On Austrian Economics?  (Read 2588 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Kronze21

  • FDR Enlightened
  • ***
  • Posts: 230
  • Respect: +1
Re: Thoughts On Austrian Economics?
« Reply #15 on: June 30, 2018, 01:47:45 AM »
0
I never said private schools didn't exist in America stop fabricating my postion like a propagandist.

I'm not an anarchist like stef. I'm a classical liberal.   I do believe the government should have a small  role and that includes helping children get a good education so they can succed in capitalism.



Even countries like Sweden at least have school choice which includes private schools.  We don't even have that in America.

There are no private schools in America?  Is this a joke?

No, we don't have school choice.

Yea, you do. You don't have to send your kid to a school. Lots of people are home-schooled, unschooled, or go to private institutions. "School choice" is a buzzword for being allowed to chose what public school you want to attend as opposed to being assigned based on your home address. In that sense no, but in an actual sense you can chose to privately educate your kids.

LMAO that's not a school, by definition we don't have school choice, a country like Sweden does.  You can go to a pubic school or you can take that money you would use to go to a public school and go to a private school instead.  that's what school choice is.  The choice to go to public or private school, K-12 free of charge.

Anyone that doesn't even know that U.S. has private schools while claiming to live in the U.S. probably would not know how educational systems work in any other country.

Anyone who expects the government to pay for private school while claiming to prefer, and understand capitalism, probably does not.

LMAO

Brainpolice2

  • FDR Enlightened
  • ***
  • Posts: 102
  • Respect: +92
Re: Thoughts On Austrian Economics?
« Reply #16 on: July 01, 2018, 04:01:49 PM »
0
As an aside, Molyneux is explicitly not an anarchist for a number of years now, and implicitly wasn't one before. A number of his key positions have been in favor of government intervention for a while now, when it suites his message and involves the government imposing restrictions and enacting violence on people he doesn't like.

But, of course, I don't think anarcho-capitalism is anarchism anymore, and neither did Murray Rothbard exactly. It's a misnomer of a title for what is basically neo-fuedalism and autocratic "private government", which places like The Mises Institute have functioned as a propaganda tool for a growing fringe that I used to be part of but disassociated myself from. I'm honestly not sure that half of what they promote would even have been approved by Mises, who was a moderate classical liberal compared to anarcho-capitalism.

Individualist anarchism and the rest of the anarchist spectrum is interested in protecting the individual from both "private" and "public" power, in some way. So-called anarcho-capitalism is really just a form of purism in favor of "private" power, while authoritarian communism and some of the more questionable strains of anarcho-communism is just a form of purism in favor of "public" power, or more often than not, a form of "private" power masquerading as "public".

But if you read a lot of the early left-anarchists in general, most of them have some concept of individualism in there and have philosophies that are critical of both government and economic force. A tall order perhaps, but integral to the development of anarchism in the 19th century. Everyone from Godwin to Proudhon to Tucker to Bakunin to Goldman have some form of individual/collective force balance concept. Yes, even a commie like Kropotkin still thinks that you should be able to own a house and tools and stuff. And the individualists like Spooner and Tucker were basically self-employment advocates, *as* critics of capitalism.

Anarcho-capitalist advocates and writers tend to spend most of their time making apologetics and fundamentalist rationalizations for economic and legally determined "private" power. Places like LewRockwell.com and The Mises Institute are the prime hotbeds for this. The gist of what they do is convince people to be "anti-government", from the perspective or in terms of anything that might stand in the way of economic forces. This is then turned, in the name of fundamentalist ideology, into a rationalization for things that violate the vast majority of human being's ethical intuitions. When you think about it further, this is kind of a shallow way of being anti-government.

The modern right-libertarian movement, for the most part, is just not really anarchist. Sometimes the two camps circle each other and interact and people "cross the aisle" to the other side, but there's ultimately a fundamental irreconcilable difference. Being anti-government in a vaguely understood way isn't enough. Too much of what gets passed down to young libertarians forming themselves into radicals at an impressionable stage of their life is tinged by some serious right-wing BS that easily turns into a rationalization for authoritarianism and closed societies. People like Molyneux and Hoppe help set that atmosphere.

When I was more involved in the libertarian and anarchist communities, I personally watched as people who at first seemed more like reasonable, centered and well-intended libertarians follow the Hoppe route and get into this "white nationalism cloaked as freedom" stuff. It was very disconcerting to see. Molyneux's turn is sort of the pop version of that.
« Last Edit: July 01, 2018, 05:18:26 PM by Brainpolice2 »

Weston Dupree

  • FDR Enlightened
  • ***
  • Posts: 133
  • Respect: +62
Re: Thoughts On Austrian Economics?
« Reply #17 on: July 01, 2018, 11:53:17 PM »
0
As an aside, Molyneux is explicitly not an anarchist for a number of years now, and implicitly wasn't one before. A number of his key positions have been in favor of government intervention for a while now, when it suites his message and involves the government imposing restrictions and enacting violence on people he doesn't like.

But, of course, I don't think anarcho-capitalism is anarchism anymore, and neither did Murray Rothbard exactly. It's a misnomer of a title for what is basically neo-fuedalism and autocratic "private government", which places like The Mises Institute have functioned as a propaganda tool for a growing fringe that I used to be part of but disassociated myself from. I'm honestly not sure that half of what they promote would even have been approved by Mises, who was a moderate classical liberal compared to anarcho-capitalism.

Individualist anarchism and the rest of the anarchist spectrum is interested in protecting the individual from both "private" and "public" power, in some way. So-called anarcho-capitalism is really just a form of purism in favor of "private" power, while authoritarian communism and some of the more questionable strains of anarcho-communism is just a form of purism in favor of "public" power, or more often than not, a form of "private" power masquerading as "public".

But if you read a lot of the early left-anarchists in general, most of them have some concept of individualism in there and have philosophies that are critical of both government and economic force. A tall order perhaps, but integral to the development of anarchism in the 19th century. Everyone from Godwin to Proudhon to Tucker to Bakunin to Goldman have some form of individual/collective force balance concept. Yes, even a commie like Kropotkin still thinks that you should be able to own a house and tools and stuff. And the individualists like Spooner and Tucker were basically self-employment advocates, *as* critics of capitalism.

Anarcho-capitalist advocates and writers tend to spend most of their time making apologetics and fundamentalist rationalizations for economic and legally determined "private" power. Places like LewRockwell.com and The Mises Institute are the prime hotbeds for this. The gist of what they do is convince people to be "anti-government", from the perspective or in terms of anything that might stand in the way of economic forces. This is then turned, in the name of fundamentalist ideology, into a rationalization for things that violate the vast majority of human being's ethical intuitions. When you think about it further, this is kind of a shallow way of being anti-government.

The modern right-libertarian movement, for the most part, is just not really anarchist. Sometimes the two camps circle each other and interact and people "cross the aisle" to the other side, but there's ultimately a fundamental irreconcilable difference. Being anti-government in a vaguely understood way isn't enough. Too much of what gets passed down to young libertarians forming themselves into radicals at an impressionable stage of their life is tinged by some serious right-wing BS that easily turns into a rationalization for authoritarianism and closed societies. People like Molyneux and Hoppe help set that atmosphere.

When I was more involved in the libertarian and anarchist communities, I personally watched as people who at first seemed more like reasonable, centered and well-intended libertarians follow the Hoppe route and get into this "white nationalism cloaked as freedom" stuff. It was very disconcerting to see. Molyneux's turn is sort of the pop version of that.

You make a lot of interesting points. What jumps out to me is the position that "ancaps" take on immigration. I know I've made this point before, but if you call yourself an anarchist you need to support abolishing all immigration enforcement. If not, then just be a minarchist.

I also see your point about convincing impressionable young people to hold radical political views. Even if you're right about politics, you gotta be careful with messing with people's minds. Liberals who work in public schools tell the kids that Trump is more or less the devil. When a lot of people hold different kinds of radical views, it creates chaos.

Brainpolice2

  • FDR Enlightened
  • ***
  • Posts: 102
  • Respect: +92
Re: Thoughts On Austrian Economics?
« Reply #18 on: July 02, 2018, 09:28:08 PM »
+1
As an aside, Molyneux is explicitly not an anarchist for a number of years now, and implicitly wasn't one before. A number of his key positions have been in favor of government intervention for a while now, when it suites his message and involves the government imposing restrictions and enacting violence on people he doesn't like.

But, of course, I don't think anarcho-capitalism is anarchism anymore, and neither did Murray Rothbard exactly. It's a misnomer of a title for what is basically neo-fuedalism and autocratic "private government", which places like The Mises Institute have functioned as a propaganda tool for a growing fringe that I used to be part of but disassociated myself from. I'm honestly not sure that half of what they promote would even have been approved by Mises, who was a moderate classical liberal compared to anarcho-capitalism.

Individualist anarchism and the rest of the anarchist spectrum is interested in protecting the individual from both "private" and "public" power, in some way. So-called anarcho-capitalism is really just a form of purism in favor of "private" power, while authoritarian communism and some of the more questionable strains of anarcho-communism is just a form of purism in favor of "public" power, or more often than not, a form of "private" power masquerading as "public".

But if you read a lot of the early left-anarchists in general, most of them have some concept of individualism in there and have philosophies that are critical of both government and economic force. A tall order perhaps, but integral to the development of anarchism in the 19th century. Everyone from Godwin to Proudhon to Tucker to Bakunin to Goldman have some form of individual/collective force balance concept. Yes, even a commie like Kropotkin still thinks that you should be able to own a house and tools and stuff. And the individualists like Spooner and Tucker were basically self-employment advocates, *as* critics of capitalism.

Anarcho-capitalist advocates and writers tend to spend most of their time making apologetics and fundamentalist rationalizations for economic and legally determined "private" power. Places like LewRockwell.com and The Mises Institute are the prime hotbeds for this. The gist of what they do is convince people to be "anti-government", from the perspective or in terms of anything that might stand in the way of economic forces. This is then turned, in the name of fundamentalist ideology, into a rationalization for things that violate the vast majority of human being's ethical intuitions. When you think about it further, this is kind of a shallow way of being anti-government.

The modern right-libertarian movement, for the most part, is just not really anarchist. Sometimes the two camps circle each other and interact and people "cross the aisle" to the other side, but there's ultimately a fundamental irreconcilable difference. Being anti-government in a vaguely understood way isn't enough. Too much of what gets passed down to young libertarians forming themselves into radicals at an impressionable stage of their life is tinged by some serious right-wing BS that easily turns into a rationalization for authoritarianism and closed societies. People like Molyneux and Hoppe help set that atmosphere.

When I was more involved in the libertarian and anarchist communities, I personally watched as people who at first seemed more like reasonable, centered and well-intended libertarians follow the Hoppe route and get into this "white nationalism cloaked as freedom" stuff. It was very disconcerting to see. Molyneux's turn is sort of the pop version of that.

You make a lot of interesting points. What jumps out to me is the position that "ancaps" take on immigration. I know I've made this point before, but if you call yourself an anarchist you need to support abolishing all immigration enforcement. If not, then just be a minarchist.

I also see your point about convincing impressionable young people to hold radical political views. Even if you're right about politics, you gotta be careful with messing with people's minds. Liberals who work in public schools tell the kids that Trump is more or less the devil. When a lot of people hold different kinds of radical views, it creates chaos.

That's one of the internal controversies that people like Hoppe created, and back when I was still rolling with the libertarian community, I was in the camp who was arguing that the anti-immigration position is fundamentally inconsistent if you're a well-meaning libertarian worth your salt. But it became surprisingly popular for people who claimed to be libertarian purists and radicals to rationalize strict border control and even stuff that amounts to an authoritarian state.

Half of the time, their argument amounts to something quite petty and inconsistent based on the following logic: people from other countries tend to be left-leaning and economically deprived, and will raise crime rates, and therefore are going to vote for more welfare, so it's okay to pre-emptively stop them from coming here in order to preserve the greater good and protect "our" resources.

Aside from the dubious assumptions involved in that, you can use that same logic to eliminate much of the rest of the libertarian position. It's arbitrary as to which issue you use it for. The logic of pre-emptively stopping people from being free based on what they *might* do with their freedom in the future isn't really a libertarian or consistent thought. And neither does making these kind of strong distinctions of "us and them" jibe with individualism in general.

One may as well just say "I'm a selfish asshole who has bad faith assumptions about people I don't know, and I'm irrationally paranoid about my stuff being taken, so they don't deserve freedom". That's pretty much an accurate emotive translation of the position.

This is aside from the fact that the base assumptions are rationalizations for racism and negatively stereotyping poor people based on badly interpreting cooked information and relying on psuedoscience and outdated quack fields that have been debunked.
« Last Edit: July 02, 2018, 10:11:56 PM by Brainpolice2 »

Kronze21

  • FDR Enlightened
  • ***
  • Posts: 230
  • Respect: +1
Re: Thoughts On Austrian Economics?
« Reply #19 on: July 14, 2018, 08:11:19 PM »
0
Uh no he's an anarchist dude.  Nope he wants no goverment intervention and doesn't want to harm those simply because he doesn't like them but Its fun watching you make things up.

Everything is propaganda if you don't like it.

All anarchism is wrong IMO.  The fact is a government has to exist or order breaks down.

I'm no white nationalist but if white people or any other race want to create their own ethno anarcho society who cares??  I don't see that as bad at all.  Even if I wouldn't want to live like that.  BTW Stef is no white nationalist.

As an aside, Molyneux is explicitly not an anarchist for a number of years now, and implicitly wasn't one before. A number of his key positions have been in favor of government intervention for a while now, when it suites his message and involves the government imposing restrictions and enacting violence on people he doesn't like.

But, of course, I don't think anarcho-capitalism is anarchism anymore, and neither did Murray Rothbard exactly. It's a misnomer of a title for what is basically neo-fuedalism and autocratic "private government", which places like The Mises Institute have functioned as a propaganda tool for a growing fringe that I used to be part of but disassociated myself from. I'm honestly not sure that half of what they promote would even have been approved by Mises, who was a moderate classical liberal compared to anarcho-capitalism.

Individualist anarchism and the rest of the anarchist spectrum is interested in protecting the individual from both "private" and "public" power, in some way. So-called anarcho-capitalism is really just a form of purism in favor of "private" power, while authoritarian communism and some of the more questionable strains of anarcho-communism is just a form of purism in favor of "public" power, or more often than not, a form of "private" power masquerading as "public".

But if you read a lot of the early left-anarchists in general, most of them have some concept of individualism in there and have philosophies that are critical of both government and economic force. A tall order perhaps, but integral to the development of anarchism in the 19th century. Everyone from Godwin to Proudhon to Tucker to Bakunin to Goldman have some form of individual/collective force balance concept. Yes, even a commie like Kropotkin still thinks that you should be able to own a house and tools and stuff. And the individualists like Spooner and Tucker were basically self-employment advocates, *as* critics of capitalism.

Anarcho-capitalist advocates and writers tend to spend most of their time making apologetics and fundamentalist rationalizations for economic and legally determined "private" power. Places like LewRockwell.com and The Mises Institute are the prime hotbeds for this. The gist of what they do is convince people to be "anti-government", from the perspective or in terms of anything that might stand in the way of economic forces. This is then turned, in the name of fundamentalist ideology, into a rationalization for things that violate the vast majority of human being's ethical intuitions. When you think about it further, this is kind of a shallow way of being anti-government.

The modern right-libertarian movement, for the most part, is just not really anarchist. Sometimes the two camps circle each other and interact and people "cross the aisle" to the other side, but there's ultimately a fundamental irreconcilable difference. Being anti-government in a vaguely understood way isn't enough. Too much of what gets passed down to young libertarians forming themselves into radicals at an impressionable stage of their life is tinged by some serious right-wing BS that easily turns into a rationalization for authoritarianism and closed societies. People like Molyneux and Hoppe help set that atmosphere.

When I was more involved in the libertarian and anarchist communities, I personally watched as people who at first seemed more like reasonable, centered and well-intended libertarians follow the Hoppe route and get into this "white nationalism cloaked as freedom" stuff. It was very disconcerting to see. Molyneux's turn is sort of the pop version of that.

Kronze21

  • FDR Enlightened
  • ***
  • Posts: 230
  • Respect: +1
Re: Thoughts On Austrian Economics?
« Reply #20 on: July 14, 2018, 08:15:05 PM »
0
I don't think you understsnd Hoppe's postion.    He wants to abolish public property so borders and all property are essentially private and therefore have nothing to do with the government.  Going on private land without permission is trespassing.

As an aside, Molyneux is explicitly not an anarchist for a number of years now, and implicitly wasn't one before. A number of his key positions have been in favor of government intervention for a while now, when it suites his message and involves the government imposing restrictions and enacting violence on people he doesn't like.

But, of course, I don't think anarcho-capitalism is anarchism anymore, and neither did Murray Rothbard exactly. It's a misnomer of a title for what is basically neo-fuedalism and autocratic "private government", which places like The Mises Institute have functioned as a propaganda tool for a growing fringe that I used to be part of but disassociated myself from. I'm honestly not sure that half of what they promote would even have been approved by Mises, who was a moderate classical liberal compared to anarcho-capitalism.

Individualist anarchism and the rest of the anarchist spectrum is interested in protecting the individual from both "private" and "public" power, in some way. So-called anarcho-capitalism is really just a form of purism in favor of "private" power, while authoritarian communism and some of the more questionable strains of anarcho-communism is just a form of purism in favor of "public" power, or more often than not, a form of "private" power masquerading as "public".

But if you read a lot of the early left-anarchists in general, most of them have some concept of individualism in there and have philosophies that are critical of both government and economic force. A tall order perhaps, but integral to the development of anarchism in the 19th century. Everyone from Godwin to Proudhon to Tucker to Bakunin to Goldman have some form of individual/collective force balance concept. Yes, even a commie like Kropotkin still thinks that you should be able to own a house and tools and stuff. And the individualists like Spooner and Tucker were basically self-employment advocates, *as* critics of capitalism.

Anarcho-capitalist advocates and writers tend to spend most of their time making apologetics and fundamentalist rationalizations for economic and legally determined "private" power. Places like LewRockwell.com and The Mises Institute are the prime hotbeds for this. The gist of what they do is convince people to be "anti-government", from the perspective or in terms of anything that might stand in the way of economic forces. This is then turned, in the name of fundamentalist ideology, into a rationalization for things that violate the vast majority of human being's ethical intuitions. When you think about it further, this is kind of a shallow way of being anti-government.

The modern right-libertarian movement, for the most part, is just not really anarchist. Sometimes the two camps circle each other and interact and people "cross the aisle" to the other side, but there's ultimately a fundamental irreconcilable difference. Being anti-government in a vaguely understood way isn't enough. Too much of what gets passed down to young libertarians forming themselves into radicals at an impressionable stage of their life is tinged by some serious right-wing BS that easily turns into a rationalization for authoritarianism and closed societies. People like Molyneux and Hoppe help set that atmosphere.

When I was more involved in the libertarian and anarchist communities, I personally watched as people who at first seemed more like reasonable, centered and well-intended libertarians follow the Hoppe route and get into this "white nationalism cloaked as freedom" stuff. It was very disconcerting to see. Molyneux's turn is sort of the pop version of that.

You make a lot of interesting points. What jumps out to me is the position that "ancaps" take on immigration. I know I've made this point before, but if you call yourself an anarchist you need to support abolishing all immigration enforcement. If not, then just be a minarchist.

I also see your point about convincing impressionable young people to hold radical political views. Even if you're right about politics, you gotta be careful with messing with people's minds. Liberals who work in public schools tell the kids that Trump is more or less the devil. When a lot of people hold different kinds of radical views, it creates chaos.

Kronze21

  • FDR Enlightened
  • ***
  • Posts: 230
  • Respect: +1
Re: Thoughts On Austrian Economics?
« Reply #21 on: July 14, 2018, 08:25:20 PM »
0
I disagree considering  freedom of movement doesn't apply to land owned by others.  I see the no border libertarians as inconsistent as they dont seem to understand property rights when it comes to immigration.

I don't think we should keep them all out just vet them.

Being suspicious of outsiders is hardly irrational.  It's a natural instinct and thank goodness for it.

No one is entitled to live in a nation.  Nothing selfish about having standards about who comes in and who doesn't.

No they havent, they're just offensive to some so they are now conssidered  taboo but they are accurate not false or "cooked"  but by all means believe what you want because the truth makes you feel bad.



As an aside, Molyneux is explicitly not an anarchist for a number of years now, and implicitly wasn't one before. A number of his key positions have been in favor of government intervention for a while now, when it suites his message and involves the government imposing restrictions and enacting violence on people he doesn't like.

But, of course, I don't think anarcho-capitalism is anarchism anymore, and neither did Murray Rothbard exactly. It's a misnomer of a title for what is basically neo-fuedalism and autocratic "private government", which places like The Mises Institute have functioned as a propaganda tool for a growing fringe that I used to be part of but disassociated myself from. I'm honestly not sure that half of what they promote would even have been approved by Mises, who was a moderate classical liberal compared to anarcho-capitalism.

Individualist anarchism and the rest of the anarchist spectrum is interested in protecting the individual from both "private" and "public" power, in some way. So-called anarcho-capitalism is really just a form of purism in favor of "private" power, while authoritarian communism and some of the more questionable strains of anarcho-communism is just a form of purism in favor of "public" power, or more often than not, a form of "private" power masquerading as "public".

But if you read a lot of the early left-anarchists in general, most of them have some concept of individualism in there and have philosophies that are critical of both government and economic force. A tall order perhaps, but integral to the development of anarchism in the 19th century. Everyone from Godwin to Proudhon to Tucker to Bakunin to Goldman have some form of individual/collective force balance concept. Yes, even a commie like Kropotkin still thinks that you should be able to own a house and tools and stuff. And the individualists like Spooner and Tucker were basically self-employment advocates, *as* critics of capitalism.

Anarcho-capitalist advocates and writers tend to spend most of their time making apologetics and fundamentalist rationalizations for economic and legally determined "private" power. Places like LewRockwell.com and The Mises Institute are the prime hotbeds for this. The gist of what they do is convince people to be "anti-government", from the perspective or in terms of anything that might stand in the way of economic forces. This is then turned, in the name of fundamentalist ideology, into a rationalization for things that violate the vast majority of human being's ethical intuitions. When you think about it further, this is kind of a shallow way of being anti-government.

The modern right-libertarian movement, for the most part, is just not really anarchist. Sometimes the two camps circle each other and interact and people "cross the aisle" to the other side, but there's ultimately a fundamental irreconcilable difference. Being anti-government in a vaguely understood way isn't enough. Too much of what gets passed down to young libertarians forming themselves into radicals at an impressionable stage of their life is tinged by some serious right-wing BS that easily turns into a rationalization for authoritarianism and closed societies. People like Molyneux and Hoppe help set that atmosphere.

When I was more involved in the libertarian and anarchist communities, I personally watched as people who at first seemed more like reasonable, centered and well-intended libertarians follow the Hoppe route and get into this "white nationalism cloaked as freedom" stuff. It was very disconcerting to see. Molyneux's turn is sort of the pop version of that.

You make a lot of interesting points. What jumps out to me is the position that "ancaps" take on immigration. I know I've made this point before, but if you call yourself an anarchist you need to support abolishing all immigration enforcement. If not, then just be a minarchist.

I also see your point about convincing impressionable young people to hold radical political views. Even if you're right about politics, you gotta be careful with messing with people's minds. Liberals who work in public schools tell the kids that Trump is more or less the devil. When a lot of people hold different kinds of radical views, it creates chaos.

That's one of the internal controversies that people like Hoppe created, and back when I was still rolling with the libertarian community, I was in the camp who was arguing that the anti-immigration position is fundamentally inconsistent if you're a well-meaning libertarian worth your salt. But it became surprisingly popular for people who claimed to be libertarian purists and radicals to rationalize strict border control and even stuff that amounts to an authoritarian state.

Half of the time, their argument amounts to something quite petty and inconsistent based on the following logic: people from other countries tend to be left-leaning and economically deprived, and will raise crime rates, and therefore are going to vote for more welfare, so it's okay to pre-emptively stop them from coming here in order to preserve the greater good and protect "our" resources.

Aside from the dubious assumptions involved in that, you can use that same logic to eliminate much of the rest of the libertarian position. It's arbitrary as to which issue you use it for. The logic of pre-emptively stopping people from being free based on what they *might* do with their freedom in the future isn't really a libertarian or consistent thought. And neither does making these kind of strong distinctions of "us and them" jibe with individualism in general.

One may as well just say "I'm a selfish asshole who has bad faith assumptions about people I don't know, and I'm irrationally paranoid about my stuff being taken, so they don't deserve freedom". That's pretty much an accurate emotive translation of the position.

This is aside from the fact that the base assumptions are rationalizations for racism and negatively stereotyping poor people based on badly interpreting cooked information and relying on psuedoscience and outdated quack fields that have been debunked.