tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post8539660533488435256..comments2024-03-28T17:08:15.784-07:00Comments on Social Democracy for the 21st Century: A Realist Alternative to the Modern Left: A Note on the Libertarian Asteroid DilemmaLord Keyneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comBlogger16125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-59150409268601948622012-04-23T16:55:49.679-07:002012-04-23T16:55:49.679-07:00I think the problem is that they assume that ratio...I think the problem is that they assume that rationality will hold constant.<br /><br />What I mean by this is that there's a question as to whether everyone will contribute. How many religious people might view it as a sign of "end times" and decide that this is it and consequently not contribute? Similarly, how many people will completely lose their mind and go into a deep pessimism and believe that it doesn't matter anyway, it's not going to work we are all doomed so don't bother?<br /><br />So I really don't think it's reasonable to just proclaim that everyone will understand and contribute.IRhttp://www.incoherentrambling.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-31649736735300954932011-09-18T06:20:28.001-07:002011-09-18T06:20:28.001-07:00Anonymous,
I am well aware that the Austrian sch...Anonymous, <br /><br />I am well aware that the Austrian school includes numerous subgroups, with different views on the state and ethical theories:<br /><br />http://socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogspot.com/2010/12/different-types-of-austrian-economics.htmlLord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-27673283190543872272011-09-18T03:31:03.536-07:002011-09-18T03:31:03.536-07:00Some people here really misunderstand Austrian met...Some people here really misunderstand Austrian methodology and all I ever see is a critique of Rothbard. <br /><br />Who are these prominent Austrians who are publishing and writing empirical studies and theoretical advances that are natural-rights Rothbardians, hmm?<br /><br />Or do the random posters on Mises.org opinions represent the whole of libertarian thought?<br /><br />Not to mention, quite a few Austrians aren't even anarcho-capitalists, let alone believers in natural-rights...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-64403503738565531702011-09-17T23:09:26.215-07:002011-09-17T23:09:26.215-07:00What are you referring to? Newton didn't say F...<i>What are you referring to? Newton didn't say F=ma. What he said was the relativistically correct F=d(mv)/dt. Smart guy.</i><br /><br />First, the commenter was referring to an earlier thread which included a discussion about epistemology. So, not only did you manage to completely miss the point, but you focused on the only part of the post that's largely irrelevant.<br /><br />Second, F = m dv/dt is not relativistically correct - but F = dp/dt can be, provided that the momentum is relativistic (i.e. p = mv times the Lorentz factor). It's an understandable mistake for someone with no physics training.<br /><br />Now can we please get back on topic? kthx.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-34244847809815405622011-09-17T13:02:45.033-07:002011-09-17T13:02:45.033-07:00Anonymous--successfulbuild: excellent comments
Th...Anonymous--successfulbuild: excellent comments<br /><br /><i>There are cases in physics where even Newton's second law doesn't hold.</i> What are you referring to? Newton didn't say F=ma. What he said was the relativistically correct F=d(mv)/dt. Smart guy.<br /><br />On Rationalism vs. Empiricism. We <i>are</i> rationalism. And the rational thing "it" tells "us" is that it looks like there is an empirical out there. Putting one above the other is not very sensible.<br /><br /><i> "deductive logic" are really only used in science to properly order things, in much the same way as a lawyer collects facts,</i> Aristotle famously studied the Athenian law courts to develop his logic.<br /><br />What's wrong about the Austrian approach is that it is just uh, wrong, about some basics, particularly money. Maybe on Planet Austeria in the Zargool Galaxy, it is a good description. <br /><br />But the old Austrians did try to be consistent and think. They are worthwhile as a foil to more realistic ideas. Much modern mainstream econ is so confused it is "not even wrong". The web-Austrians however, are a cult. They learn a science. Web-Austrian Economic Science is a Science just like Christian Science, Creation Science, Vedic Science, Scientology etc.Calgacushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06031818010224747000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-69332980182663551192011-09-16T14:31:00.780-07:002011-09-16T14:31:00.780-07:00I'd also like to note that someone was saying ...I'd also like to note that someone was saying that physics is a "predictive science" and that its laws are "true" and so on. There are cases in physics where even Newton's second law doesn't hold. I may eventually write up a post explaining how I was taught physics as it contradicts the Austrian approach. And the stuff about human behavior being grasped a priori is just nuts.<br /><br />http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2011/08/11/what-can-we-know-about-the-world-without-looking-at-it/<br /><br />This is a good, quick summary of why empiricism rules the day and why things like "deductive logic" are really only used in science to properly order things, in much the same way as a lawyer collects facts, comes up with principles to organize and order them, and then explains them in a coherent fashion.<br /><br />The link above should be the final word on empiricism here and the latest austrians coming on this blog should adhere to it instead of bringing up praxeology. <br /><br />I think it's actually dangerous because psychology is a well-respected, and now highly technical field of study. Certainly much more technical and technological than economics. So to place economics above what is known, and above centuries old methodologies, is offensive.<br /><br />--successfulbuildAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-76680577668360043452011-09-16T13:54:31.549-07:002011-09-16T13:54:31.549-07:00I think what should make people jump the shark wit...I think what should make people jump the shark with Libertarianism is property:<br /><br />" Now let’s get to that more serious reframing.<br /><br />I had to live outside the Libertarian worldview for many years before I began to grasp the deeper problem with it: property. Every property system in history (and all the ones I’ve been able to imagine) are unjust. So a government that establishes a property system, defends it, and then stops is an agent of injustice.<br /><br />Libertarians tend to take property as a given, as if it were natural or existed prior to any government. But defining what can be owned, what owning it means, and keeping track of who owns what — that’s a government intervention in the economy that dwarfs all other government interventions. You see, ownership is a social thing, not an individual thing. I can claim I own something, but what makes my ownership real is that the rest of you don’t own it. My ownership isn’t something I do, it’s something we do."<br /><br />http://weeklysift.com/2011/08/22/why-i-am-not-a-libertarian/<br /><br />That's all that really needs to be said about Libertarianism. Just as behaviorism breaks down at the point where they say all human actions are learned behavior and that we can be studied just as a physicist studies a rock, Libertarianism breaks down in their attempts to make all rights a matter of property rights. A great deal of capitalist philosophy is refuted by this. <br /><br />A better way to approach political systems is the empirical approach, i.e., noticing which system works best for the majority of the people. If Libertarians want to say that we should have inefficiencies in the name of liberty, which indeed may be the case (such as having open borders despite terrorists coming in), the burden of proof is on them to make their case in a coherent fashion. Faulty arguments don't do anybody any good.<br /><br />As for the asteroid thing, I can see why it would make people leave Libertarianism. It could be seen to be a special case of the property rights refutation: they're effectively saying that (government backed) property is more important than human life.<br /><br />Ron Paul also has made the point that government backed property is more important than human life when he maintains that letting people starve would be more ethical than taxing away money that Libertarians themselves believe is the government's in the first place.<br /><br />The only way I would support markets is if markets are really better than a bunch of democratically run communities scattered throughout the country, but I will never believe property is more important than life and even many early philosophers said that if property has been extended to the point where people are harmed by it, that it has been extended too far and must be curtailed. <br /><br />In conclusion, pointing out that property and capitalism are government systems for all intents and purposes is also a death blow to their philosophy, esp. anarcho-capitalism. <br /><br />--successfulbuildAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-23125639712488990962011-09-16T08:34:38.205-07:002011-09-16T08:34:38.205-07:00It supposes (a priori) that a large plurality of p...<i>It supposes (a priori) that a large plurality of people would be so stupid as to not want to contribute to blowing up the asteroid, but are smart enough to vote for people to tax them and engage in the correct response.</i><br /><br />Well it's an imaginary pure libertarian world, Bob! It's bound to be silly!<br /><br /><i>"It warms my heart to know that this is the best that the statists can do."</i><br /><br />Well actually the example came from the Volokh Conspiracy blog.Argosy Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13134092636821697655noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-73402934595343413612011-09-16T08:34:24.636-07:002011-09-16T08:34:24.636-07:00"There's a 1/45,000th chance of me gettin...<i>"There's a 1/45,000th chance of me getting hit on the pavement by a truck carrying dangerous toxic liquids and melting down my body to an unrecognizable state"</i><br /><br />The difference is your death does not mean the exinction of species.Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-11442129008371192812011-09-16T08:29:36.635-07:002011-09-16T08:29:36.635-07:00"It supposes (a priori) that a large pluralit...<i>"It supposes (a priori) that a large plurality of people would be so stupid as to not want to contribute to blowing up the asteroid, but are smart enough to vote for people to tax them and engage in the correct response."</i><br /><br />A mere cowardly evasion of the issue.<br /><br />I have already conceded that it may well be that people would contribute freely. But that is not the issue. The issue is constructing realistic and possible hypothetical scenario to test the implictaions of natural rights theory. <br /><br />The implications are clear: this theory would literally justify the destruction of humanity as opposed to private property rights violations. <br /><br />If your moral theory can't even attain the end of preservation of the species, even when the cost involved would be might not even be that large are anyway, then you have severe problems.<br /><br />And good luck trying to convince people that their extinction is preferable to some taxation.Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-58440020144874417252011-09-16T08:06:12.523-07:002011-09-16T08:06:12.523-07:00This is actually dumber by a factor of 4 than the ...This is actually dumber by a factor of 4 than the "multiple natural interest rates means the demise of Austrian theory".<br /><br />It supposes (a priori) that a large plurality of people would be so stupid as to not want to contribute to blowing up the asteroid, but are smart enough to vote for people to tax them and engage in the correct response.<br /><br />It warms my heart to know that this is the best that the statists can do. Shooting Nerf bullets.... and missing.Bob Roddisnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-67128314298022807892011-09-16T07:55:23.462-07:002011-09-16T07:55:23.462-07:00What is the appropriate anarcho-capitalist respons...What is the appropriate anarcho-capitalist response to a potential pandemic situation? How would/could a quarantine be enforced, for instance? <br /><br />(I suspect that it wouldn't be about keeping the infected contained so much as letting them go where they please with the caveat that most private property owners will bar them from entry.)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-16091325644107301162011-09-16T00:54:14.126-07:002011-09-16T00:54:14.126-07:00"1/45,000th"
That's not enough info..."1/45,000th"<br /><br />That's not enough information to base an analysis upon. To begin we need to know over what time period this 1/45,000th figure refers to, and also how much damage the asteroid will do. We also need to know how much warning will be afforded, how long a response would take, and how much preliminary work would cost.<br /><br />Since the earth has been hit by massive asteroids already several times, I'd say the probablility of its being hit again are closer to 1.00 than 1/45,000.<br /><br />Considering that in the worst case all human life might be extinguished, I think the small investment that has been made in asteroid defense is not unreasonable in the least.argosyjonesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-81164875707420395962011-09-15T18:36:30.336-07:002011-09-15T18:36:30.336-07:00In your opinion, what theory of ethics solves the ...In your opinion, what theory of ethics solves the is/ought dilemma?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-30782045481682524182011-09-15T18:23:57.316-07:002011-09-15T18:23:57.316-07:00The problem with hypothetical scenarios is that th...The problem with hypothetical scenarios is that they try to create a problem in isolation when nothing in this world exists in isolation.<br /><br />I don't have any particular core principle, and I just see issues from pure casuitry. Works just fine.<br /><br />Neil deGrasse Tyson spoke about the possibility of an asteroid hitting the earth, and said it was about 1/45,000th. He explained, "But some people think they have a good chance of winning the lottery on that". Yeah, but some people are stupid.<br /><br />There's a 1/45,000th chance of me getting hit on the pavement by a truck carrying dangerous toxic liquids and melting down my body to an unrecognizable state - but I don't really worry about it. Let alone the ethical dillemmas there.<br /><br />The fact that government officials have set up asteroid collision prevention committees shows their lack of<br />a) proportion<br />b) scale<br />c) priority<br />None of which is surprising.Prateek Sanjaynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-1992346471899597572011-09-15T11:19:18.932-07:002011-09-15T11:19:18.932-07:00Classic comment from Sasha Volokh's post on as...Classic comment from Sasha Volokh's post on asteroid impact:<br /><br /><i>Shark says:<br />I think this is the posting where libertarianism did this for me:<br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MDthMGtZKa4<br /><br />(Fonzi jumps the shark)</i><br /><br />I have to agree.argosyjonesnoreply@blogger.com