An Open Letter to Skeptics: Consider Also The State
Michael Shermer, Founder of Skeptic magazine, science writer, and author of The Mind of the Market, is both libertarian and skeptic. As one blog commented recently, "Many libertarians know much about economics, law and ethics but are very weak on natural sciences. Michael Shermer is a brilliant intellectual who knows about both natural and social sciences, a great combination of intelligence and freedom."
The converse is also true: many secular, scientific, and "skeptic" types are woefully ignorant of or have otherwise flawed views on economics and politics. The "skeptics" types are usually left-wing, and have the expected views on global warming, welfare, social security, nuclear power, etc., combined with the typical statists' smug intolerance of debate. See, for example, the comments by skeptics to Shermer's pro-libertarian blogposts The Other 'L' Word: Why I am a Libertarian and How I Became a Libertarian.
This is one reason I dropped out of the skeptics group I helped co-found in Baton Rouge in the 1980s, when I was in college: the members purported to be in favor of reason, in their opposition to pseudoscientific notions like astrology and clairvoyance, but they seemed to have no principled opposition to the state or understanding of free market economics. To my mind, anyone of reason and independent mind would be skeptical of the state and command economics.
Skeptics, insofar as they are genuinely in favor of reason and freedom of expression and scientific inquiry, should also:
- oppose global warming hysteria (or, at least, politically-charged and usually scientifically illiterate attempts to muzzle open debate about it);
- favor nuclear power (especially if you are an environmentalist concerned about greenhouse gases!);
- be skeptical of the chilling of free speech and other state-influences on thought and expression and open inquiry posed by (a) chilling effect of various state laws on discrimination etc.; (b) even worse, the idea of government schooling, where it is inevitable--indeed a purpose of it--that the state will propagandize students); and
- stop equating "favoring science" with "favoring federal subsidies for science", etc.
- stop equating "science" with the causal, natural sciences--study a bit of Austrian dualism (see also, on the scientism-monism that affects engineers and scientists: C.P. Snow's "The Two Cultures" and Misesian Dualism, Yet More on Galambos, and Libertarian Activism-comments).
In a sense, despite personally being secular, in my view having a sound understanding of political philosophy and economics is more important and more fundamental than having an advanced view on particular issues of the causal sciences. Those who believe in ESP, UFOs, Yuri Geller's spoon bending, water-divining, horoscopes, clairvoyance, telekinesis, and even Creationism and other religious views and the like are merely mistaken, and pose no harm to others--in a free society. Their views neither pick my pocket nor break my leg, as Jefferson would say.
By contrast, secularists who have less outlandish views on evolution, ESP, and the like but who also favor state funding of science, global warming, "democracy," government education, and taxation are a much bigger threat and problem. These views aid and abet political oppression and intolerance and hamper the ability to engage in honest, open, free debate in the first place. Give me a horoscope-touting libertarian over a statist secularist any day. The secularists must realize that political and economic freedom are preconditions for open intellectual discourse.
Update: In Selective Skepticism, one anti-libertarian "skeptic" gives a good illustration of the typical confusion and "reasoning" of his crowd. They are just out of their depth.
Comments (74)
Jay Greathouse
It seems to me you have offered an excellent example of the difference between science and ideology. In my understanding, science looks out to what is happening and attempts to build mental models that conform to reality.
Ideology, on the other hand, starts with a mental model which is then imposed upon reality, with violence if deemed necessary to force reality to conform.
As long as intellectual sloth is perpetuated in academic institutions large and small to the benefit of financially corrupted governments, ideologs will outnumber and hence democratically submerge the few honest scientists capable of intellectual thought.
We are no longer circling the drain. The courious scientist can now only investigate how far down the tube we've been sucked.
Published: May 19, 2009 5:50 PM
Mrhuh
The ironic thing is that the natural sciences provide a major basis for Austrian Economics. Murray N. Rothbard once pointed out how chaos theory wrecked havoc with mathematical economics (and the history of Chaos Theory also interestingly gells with the Kuhndian "Paradigm Shifts" of history that Murray N. Rothbard once noted in his history of Economic Thought). Biological Evolution also serves as the basis for the inherent inequality of human beings (the term Social Darwinism was itself coined by defenders of laissez-faire individualism such as Herbert Spencer and William Graham Sumner). Much of biological evolution also gells with Natural Law and I can't thing of one physicist that will deny the inherent reality of scarcity. Albert Einstein himself once claimed to be a socialist in "Why Socialism" but if one reads this, it's obvious that Ludwig Von Mises and F.A. Hayek could've changed his mind had they the opportunity to meet with him. Einstein once wrote that the problem with socialism is how to prevent some socialized bureacracy from becoming corrupt and unresponsive. F.A Hayek and Mises wrote about that a lot and Einstein also once condemned in his writings about socialism the arrogant tendency by economists to apply the methods of the natural sciences to the human society despite the innability to factor out variables in society through controlled experiments. Sounds like a critique of positivism to me.
Published: May 19, 2009 6:17 PM
D. Saul Weiner
Many of the so-called secularists have quasi-religious faith in Democracy, the God that Failed.
Published: May 19, 2009 9:18 PM
james_joyce
Great post.
re: the global warming debate, what's always bothered me about it is the assumption that if anthropogenic global warming is real (and I believe it is, although I recognize the dissent), that the government must be the best way to deal with it. Even many libertarians seem to think this way, and are willing to concede that function to the state because, "it's so important." But on the contrary, that's exactly the reason it should not be delegated to the state. If it is real, and if it's a threat to us, the one sure way to make sure it is not solved quickly, and quite possibly made worse, is by delegating the problem to the state.
Published: May 19, 2009 9:32 PM
Nate Y
Nice post.
I actually think the Darwinian view of the market breaks down due to the naturalistic fallacy among other things. However, I think the human body/brain provides a strong analogy for the market. People often talk about how complex the market is. Well, the biologists/psychologists/neurologists are quick to point out that the (very complex) human brain does not have a "central control" area. In fact, they argue that the brain wouldn't be nearly as efficient (wouldn't work) if it had such a central planner. See how nicely that fits into free market reasoning?
Published: May 20, 2009 12:57 AM
Mushindo
exquisitely perceptive post.
Being both libertarian and skeptic, I have to agree with the point made. Case in point Alan Sokal, the physicist whose famous mischevious attack on postmodernist mumbojumbo I consider to be one of the Great Contributions to rational thought. But he's still an unreconstructed leftist with an instinctive and entirely not-thought-through distaste for the same straw-man 'capitalism' he shares with his woolly-thinking targets.
which makes me want to shake him back and forth and shout 'you just dont get it - THINK, man!'
Published: May 20, 2009 3:57 AM
Peter Surda
Thank you Dr. Kinsella very much for this post. I have asked myself often why the overlap between skeptics and free market adocates appears to be so small. I see it the same way as you: being skeptical about the state is merely the next logical step of being skeptical about pseudoscience. Once you start to apply skeptical inquiry into the nature of the government, the popular notions turn out to be at best unsubstantiated and at worst outright fraud.
As I would like to contribute to creating a larger overlap between those two groups, here is a question to pro-government skeptics: if you assume that people suffer from certain negative traits ("market failure") and therefore must be ruled, what makes you think that the ruler (government) is immune to these negative traits? Isn't it only wishful thinking for a magical wand? Isn't it rather that, a government being a monopoly, without the pressure by competitors and the risk of going bankrupt these negative traits are encouraged?
That being said, there are some well known people who fall into both categories, for example Penn&Teller or John Stossel.
Published: May 20, 2009 4:21 AM
geoih
I agree. Most of the "skeptics" (humanists, atheists, agnostics, etc.) I've encountered have simply exchanged a metaphysical diety for the physical diety of state socialism.
Published: May 20, 2009 6:34 AM
fundamentalist
MrHuh: “Biological Evolution also serves as the basis for the inherent inequality of human beings (the term Social Darwinism was itself coined by defenders of laissez-faire individualism such as Herbert Spencer and William Graham Sumner).”
Social Darwinism created fodder for socialists because evolution is a brutal process. Many people rebel at that analogy to capitalism because they don’t think people should act like vicious animals or treat others like animals. They countered with the claim that socialism is humane. But as most economists have pointed out, the division of labor requires harmony and cooperation. Competition in the market is not vicious, kill or be killed, as it is in the animal world. Competition in the market is more like romance where guys compete for the favor of a beautiful girl.
Hayek tried to make the comparison of biological evolution with spontaneous organization of humanity, but I think the analogy does more harm than good.
MrHuh: “Much of biological evolution also gells with Natural Law and I can't thing of one physicist that will deny the inherent reality of scarcity.”
Most physicists that I have read fixate on scarcity. They’re obsessed with it. And their response to it is more state control over scarce resources so that they will be more evenly distributed.
At least Creationists promote their causes with private dollars. Macro-evolution exists only because it is state supported and enforced. If it weren’t for state enforcement, the theory would die quickly.
Published: May 20, 2009 8:06 AM
J Cortez
I want to preface my comment by saying it is not my intention to offend any religious people on this site. If you disagree, that's ok. We can agree to disagree. I have no interest in getting into a theological discussion.
It has been my experience that what Shermer said is true. Atheists and agnostics tend to lean socialist. As an agnostic Austro-lilbertarian, I often compare the idea of free market anarchism with the concept of atheism to friends that are atheists. They can see how people evolved ethics and don't need an artificial construct like a religion. Taking their logic a step further, I ask them why an artificial construct, like the political class, is needed to for law and ethics as well. Always, they don't accept this. I exaggerate when I say this, but to them, it's as if the state has replaced god.
In my view, the problem with atheists and agnostics currently, is that they are no better than the theocrats they oppose. They wish to impose their own beliefs on others through the use of governmental force. The current times are made worse by people like Sam Harris, Richard Dawkings, Daniel Dennett and Christopher Hitchens. While I completely agree with their logical arguments against religion, I totally reject their activism and policy recommendations. These people speak on and on about religious types imposing their ideas on secular things while not seeing the hypocrisy of the reverse also happening.
Take a thing like public education, where various special interests grapple over curriculum and funding, of course by its very nature there will always be fight. One group wants to destroy prayer, the other wants science to be compromised, etc. . . How much time, money and resources are wasted by these people? In a voluntary private system, this would be a not be a problem. Of course, neither side wants to consider this since it would be they have to leave each other alone.
Published: May 20, 2009 9:18 AM
Stephen
I think I smell burning straw...
As a sceptic I oppose global warming hysteria (though I concur with the scientific consensus); I support modern, safe nuclear power; I believe speech should be as free as possible.
However, I also believe that some science should always be state funded as the industrial approach to research (where I work) is often very narrow-minded and can miss a lot that free, academic research might discover.
I have no "faith" in democracy, however it is clear to me that Libertarianism is built upon shaky idealism just as much as Communism or Socialism. You demand that we be sceptical of our political beliefs but I see no such scepticism from the Libertarian camp.
Calling yourself a sceptic is not the same as being sceptical.
Published: May 20, 2009 9:20 AM
Gil
"At least Creationists promote their causes with private dollars. Macro-evolution exists only because it is state supported and enforced. If it weren’t for state enforcement, the theory would die quickly."
Suurrrrrrreeeee! ;)
Published: May 20, 2009 9:21 AM
Chris MacDonald
Your 5 bullet points may be consistent with Libertarianism, but they certainly don't add up to it. In other words, an individual (claiming the title "skeptic" or not) could concede all of those points, and yet disagree vigorously with Libertarianism.
Published: May 20, 2009 9:27 AM
artificialhabitat
In the introduction to the revised edition to Martin Gardner's 'Fad's and Fallacies' he talks about the people who wrote in to him to say that his book was great, tearing apart all these silly delusions that people held, except (of course) for the chapter where he's critical of their pet belief.
Hmmm.
For people who believe in "honest, open, free debate", libertarians are strangely swift to resort to pitiful, childish whining whenever people treat their views with anything other than awestruck reverence.
Published: May 20, 2009 9:28 AM
WyrdestGeek
I agree with part of what you wrote.
I agree, generally, that at least some people in the "skeptic movement", if there is one, will call themselves skeptical and bang the drum of science one moment, then turn right around and make purely ideological claims backed up by only the flimsiest of reasons the next.
However, I have yet to meet a single human being on the planet that is entirely immune to this sort of thing.
It is a little ironic that your whole angle is the economic one. Economics, of course, being one of those subjects that is not and probably will never be a pure science as it's impossible to take the whole of the world's economy and correctly reproduce it in a lab for the purpose of running detailed experiments.
Of course, whenever we humans are presented a situation where we cannot accurately predict what will happen next, we are forced to guess. When we guess a lot over time, eventually an ideology forms. I seem to recall that was what you were arguing against in your letter.
Being skeptical is hard. Surely the only way to do it well is to question everything; including and most especially one's own beliefs. Have you questioned your ideologies recently?
--
Furry cows moo and decompress.
Published: May 20, 2009 9:44 AM
Jeremy
Stephen,
If you think that industrial science can miss important things then feel free to supply some of your own money to help advance science for science's sake. I don't see why you must leap from the proposition that industrial science may "miss" certain discoveries to the conclusion that science must be funded with dollars taken by force from people like me (who may not care how far into space the Hubble can see).
If there are people like you who value 'pure science' why must force be used to acquire the resources to fund it?
Published: May 20, 2009 9:44 AM
Jeremy
artificialhabitat,
You said: "For people who believe in "honest, open, free debate", libertarians are strangely swift to resort to pitiful, childish whining whenever people treat their views with anything other than awestruck reverence."
Unbacked assertions and crass generalizations are not the mark of a scientific mind. But let me try anyway: for people who believe that they are open minded and hip, all socialists swiftly resort to moronic claims based on anecdotal evidence and emotion.
Hey, this is fun. One need not think or argue honestly ever again!
Published: May 20, 2009 9:54 AM
Stephen
Jeremy, you said:
"I don't see why you must leap from the proposition that industrial science may "miss" certain discoveries to the conclusion that science must be funded with dollars taken by force from people like me (who may not care how far into space the Hubble can see)."
OK. Here's the leap:
1) Industrial science focuses almost exclusively on what is immediately profitable.
2) Many key developments in science have come from state-funded research with a longer term outlook, and would probably not have been developed in an industrial setting.
3)Therefore state-funded science has an important contribution to make.
I presume you have some awareness of the benefits that science has brought to humanity? We are, for example, conversing on the internet, a technology developed by Government funded science.
In many countries, state-funded vaccination programs ensure that diseases like measles remain rare to non-existent.
You may not see an immediate benefit to Hubble or the LHC, but these programs do bring advances that improve people's lives and bring greater prosperity.
Why must "force" (to borrow your charmingly childish word) be used to acquire funding for state research? Because there are too many short-sighted, greedy children out there to guarantee its funding any other way.
Published: May 20, 2009 10:05 AM
artificialhabitat
Jeremy
Am I a socialist? Hmmm. Making assumptions now, aren't we.
"Unbacked assertions and crass generalizations are not the mark of a scientific mind."
Not a lot of 'scientific minds' contributing to this thread, apparently.
Of course "waaaahh, the state wants to take MY money away from ME and use it to do things that might benefit people who aren't ME", is not anything like the kind of petulant whining I was alluding to in my first comment. I guess that means I was making a 'crass generalisation', doesn't it?
Perhaps if you go and sacrifice a goat to the free market, it might smite me for you.
Published: May 20, 2009 10:08 AM
Stephan Kinsella
WyrdestGeek:
I fail to see how the observation that people are not perfect justifies irrational beliefs held by people who purportedly favor reason. It also does not justify the use of aggression implicitly favored by many so-called "skeptics" and "advocates of science."
You are confused. This is incorrect.
In this statement, you have demonstrated you have indeed fallen prey to the scientism of our age that infects too many science and engineer types. In fact, proper economics, a teleological science, is a "harder" science than even physics since it rests on uncontestably true axioms (those bound up with the idea of human action), while the natural, causal sciences are always contingent. You make the mistake common in our age in thinking that only the empirical, "testable" "sciences" are "real" science. This is myopic and ignorant. I suggest you read up on the links I provided above re Austrian dualism; C.P. Snow's "The Two Cultures" and Misesian Dualism, and Yet More on Galambos.
Being pro-reason and pro-science, and having a general skepticism towards outlandish claims, does not imply radical skepticism or relativism is true. In fact, we do have knowledge, much of it apodictic in character--I know I exist, for example; and the law of non-contradiction is undeniably true.
Published: May 20, 2009 10:23 AM
twv
I imagine a world where, someday, people who bring up Herbert Spencer and Social Darwinism have ACTUALLY READ Herbert Spencer.
Such is not the case on this list.
Competition in the market is competition to co-operate. This was made very clear by Spencer. Spencer also advanced the Smithian understanding of sympathy as integral to sociality, and liberty as a doctrine of sociality.
His evolutionary view of society was not simple-minded Darwinism. Pretending that it is doesn't make it so.
Hayek is warmed-over Spencerianism, and Spencer made the point (better) before him. But just saying that the "analogy" does "more harm than good" doesn't make it so.
Published: May 20, 2009 10:31 AM
Jeremy
artificialhabitat,
You missed my point. I was mocking people who make sweeping generalizations (as you did) by making such a generalization myself.
Published: May 20, 2009 10:39 AM
fundamentalist
twv, You're right. I have read a little of Spencer, but not enough to be an expert on him. My take on Social Darwinism has been based on the reaction to it rather than what Spencer intended. For example, PBS ran a documentary a few years ago about the untintended consequences of Darwin's thought--Nazism and capitalism. The capitalism part was supposedly based on Spencer's ideas. Socialists may have distorted Spencer's views, but those distortions are what people understand of Spencer's argument today.
Published: May 20, 2009 10:46 AM
Jeremy
Stephen,
You missed my point. I do not dispute the fact that state sponsored science can make discoveries. Discoveries could also be made by chaining scientists to their laboratories. Does the fact that discoveries can be made in this way justify the means?
But if you think that things like the Hubble will benefit people in the long run, by all means use some of your own resources to fund it. I object to my money being taken (yes, by force – a word that describes the factual situation, despite that you find the word “childish” for some reason) to fund such projects.
I’ll repeat myself – if there are people like you who value things like Hubble or LHC go ahead and donate your own money to fund them. However, I don’t think that you have the right to force me to fund these projects because you or anyone else thinks that they may benefit “us” in the long run.
Published: May 20, 2009 10:48 AM
Stephan Kinsella
A friend of mine wrote me that one reason it seems to me that many libertarians are not skeptics is that I am "in the midst of paleos. So of course you find various religionists in your midst, and of course they turn off skeptics."
I do not think, however, that it is the religious element among many libertarians that repels skeptics; I think it is their lack of consistency and ignorance of thought outside the causal, empirical sciences.
I realize that among libertarians at large, they are probably more skeptical, pro-science, and pro-reason than the populace at large. In this sense, libertarians are better than skeptics, since most skeptics are leftish, while most libertarians are relatively pro-reason, pro-science, secular, and skeptical. Now it is true that I tend to associate with Austro-anarchist-Rothbardian libertarians, and among this subset of libertarians, they are perhaps more religious than the typical libertarian--but even they are mostly pro-science and pro-reason. The main exception would be the anti-evolution and similar views of many of this crowd. But even here, the libertarians do not wish to impose this view on others, e.g. by uniform government education. So their Creationist views are not a threat to the skeptics--under the libertarian society we all favor, skeptics and secularists are free to advocate Darwinism.
In other words, I think that religious libertarians can easily co-exist with skeptic or secular libertarians--so long as we are all libertarian. What is common to libertarianism is a belief in liberty and rights. There is no necessary incompatibility between between being religious, and being pro-liberty.
The problem is the statist skeptics. What the skeptics claims is that they are pro-reason and pro-science. But if they are for the state, or gobble up global warming malarkey, or for government education, then they are not being consistently pro-reason and pro-science. Moreover, since science and reason and discourse require freedom, they ought also to be in favor of general liberal principles (and if they are consistent, then of libertarian principles).
Further, to the extent skeptics want to weigh in on the nature of science (as they invariably do) then it is unreasonable for them to mindlessly adopt monism and scientism; they ought to look into a better view of the nature of causal versus teleological sciences--or shut up.
So I think the problem is not that too many libertarians are not skeptical enough--I don't care if they are religious. I don't care if they are not skeptical of ESP or astrology claims. I care that they are skeptical of the state.
The problem is skeptics who are poseurs. They pretend to be pro-reason and pro-science, but are not--rather, they are, but only in limited, narrow areas. They are (the leftish ones among them) largely hypocrites and have no basis for their smug arrogance and assumption of superiority over, say, religious or superstitious or New Age people--they are just as bad--nay, they are worse--in their adoption of various aspects of the religion of statism. For even if one is not religious, one can appreciate that religion started as a proto-science, an attempt to discover truth; one can appreciate the institutional role of religions as a counterbalance to the state; one can appreciate the moral instruction and good works promoted by virtually all religions. By contrast, modern idoleologies like statology, democracy, environmentalism, leftism are just as irrational as any religion ever was, but are artificial and aimed at violence and domination and control, so are much, much more dangerous and worse, and have none of the salutary or beneficial attributes that genuine religions do.
Published: May 20, 2009 10:50 AM
Daniel Loxton
The process of systematically testing empirical claims is the definition of science. Defending and explaining that process of testing claims and deferring to the evidence is the point of modern skepticism.
You can't arbitrarily redefine "science" to suit your preferred worldview any more than Intelligent Design proponents can.
(I'm really shaking my head about this one. The idea that "economics…is a 'harder' science than even physics" so outlandish that I'm tempted to think you're joking.)
Published: May 20, 2009 10:55 AM
artificialhabitat
Jeremy,
The post itself was little more than a prolonged whine about how 'skeptics' don't treat libertarian views with the respect they apparently deserve. It wouldn't be the first time I've read this kind of thing, although I will admit that I have read some posts by libertarians that did not come across like that. So perhaps it was a 'crass generalisation' that I made, but I remain unconvinced.
There were numerous 'sweeping generalisations' about 'skeptics' in the post, so perhaps I could claim that I was simply mocking that, and that you missed my point.
Published: May 20, 2009 10:56 AM
Stephen
Actually, I don't think that chaining scientists to their laboratories would offer a significant improvement in the scientific process. And yes, I certainly do believe that the fact of the discoveries (and their clear benefit to every member of western society) justifies the means.
Also, my point is that state-funded science makes discoveries that industry-funded science would not.
Let's remember that we're talking about taking some of your (and my) money away, not about sacrificing our firstborn or cutting off limbs. It is short sighted and greedy to demand that you keep all of your money and progress be damned, whilst also benefiting materially from that progress on a daily basis.
There are also examples of programs that will only work properly when state-run. One would be the state requiring vaccination of infants against disease.
For vaccination to work, uptake must be above the threshold for herd immunity, since the effectiveness of a vaccine might only be 90%. If vaccination is optional and enough parents refuse it, they not only open up their own children to infection but the children of others who have been vaccinated.
This is a clear example of something that affects everybody in the society, even if only a minority opt-out. There are already problems in some countries that are fairly strict about this, I can only see a Libertarian society making this worse.
Published: May 20, 2009 11:01 AM
artificialhabitat
"Further, to the extent skeptics want to weigh in on the nature of science (as they invariably do) then it is unreasonable for them to mindlessly adopt monism and scientism; they ought to look into a better view of the nature of causal versus teleological sciences--or shut up."
"honest, open, free debate"
Ooops.
Published: May 20, 2009 11:07 AM
Gil
Hmmm, S. Kinsella, that reply seemed wonderfully relativistic. It was akin to saying: "It doesn't matter what you believe in as long as you're sincere". Except you have the caveat ". . . except for statism".
I don't go for ho-hum relativism and do believe there are positions which cannot be held because it's demonstrably false or does affect others. I'd rather have a government agency to arrest someone dumping toxic waste into a river than for someone to say "well no one owns the river therefore no one can stop him or impose their will against his as it's not their place so until someone figures out a way of owning the river through homesteading, he gets to continue dumping his toxic waste." Or, I do find it offensive if a child refuses life-saving treatment because it goes against the religion the parents have given the child. And, of course, I despair with people holding outdated beliefs (which may have been scientific a few hundred years ago) because it 'comforts' them.
P.S. Is 'poseur' a fancy term for 'troll'?
Published: May 20, 2009 11:14 AM
Jeremy
Stephen,
No, they are not taking limbs, but they are presuming the right to take my resources to fund things that _they_ think will benefit "us." The Bush administration thought that going to war in Iraq would benefit "us," does that make such a use of my forcibly taken money okay?
Again, I say that people who value science for science's sake (and I am one of those) may donate their money to fund research. You say that people are to selfish or greedy for such a system to work, yet at the same time you are willing to give coercive power to greedy, selfish people so as to benefit "us'?
Your lack of faith in humanity in one sphere is at odds with your absolute faith in humanity in another.
Published: May 20, 2009 11:24 AM
geoih
Quote from Stephen: "Why must "force" (to borrow your charmingly childish word) be used to acquire funding for state research? Because there are too many short-sighted, greedy children out there to guarantee its funding any other way."
Thanks for setting us straight, daddy. Such a well reasoned defense of robbery I've never heard before.
Published: May 20, 2009 11:26 AM
Michael A. Clem
Stephen,,
Academic research is not necessarily more free and open-ended than industrial research, since it has to pass the PC (politically-correct) test to be funded. This could be resolved by going back to private colleges and universities funded (as they used to be) by philanthropists and organizations dedicated to academia and research. Furthermore, have you considered the possibility that industrial research is more narrow and limited because government-funded research precludes researching in broader avenues? Why fund some kind of research that government is already doing?
Published: May 20, 2009 11:46 AM
Stephen
"Thanks for setting us straight, daddy."
When one side insists on behaving like unruly teenagers, it's inevitable that the other takes on some parental characteristics.
Jeremy:
I do not have faith in government. In fact I don't trust the state, and nor do I think I should. I am skeptical about what it does and sometimes disagree with the decisions it makes. Making me, and all "leftists", out to be "true-believers" makes it so much easier to simply deny our points doesn't it?
The state we have at the moment is far from perfect, but I certainly believe it is better than the one you describe. I'm not retreating behind "faith" in humanity or ideology. I'm simply looking for the approach that benefits the most people.
Without governments, how would people be able - even assuming they were willing - to fund multi-billion dollar enterprises like Hubble or the LHC?
I see the state as the best way to ensure accountability, even if it doesn't always work. We both agree that there are things wrong with the current system, I just don't see throwing it all out as the correct solution.
The most common words for taxation used here are "robbery" and "theft." I do not believe either of these to be analogous.
I may be naive, but I place some value upon society and humanity as a collective entity rather than pure individualism. Even the animal kingdom shows us many examples where cooperation achieves more than individualism. All very Darwinian really.
Published: May 20, 2009 11:53 AM
Jeremy
Stephen,
Obviously our disagreements are fundamental and cannot all be addressed here. I wish to make two points on your last post.
1. You are conflating the state with cooperation. The state is not cooperation. Private institutions and individuals, in fact, are where cooperation and coordination occurs. To impugn libertarians as eschewing cooperation is mistaken. Individualism does not entail lack of cooperation. I agree that cooperation acheives more than each individual operating only in his own sphere. However, true cooperations is voluntary.
2. You question how things like Hubble and LHC could be supported without the state. The assumption you make is that these things should be funded. I dispute this assumption. Why should billions be spent there when it could be put to better use on Earth (as is my opinion)? The fact that such projects would not be funded by private indivuduals means that such projects are not valued by private individuals (or not valued enough to divert resources towards them). Who are you or Obama or JFK or whoever to dictate what people should value and what projects to support?
Published: May 20, 2009 12:02 PM
artificialhabitat
If this is your view, you should take a principled stand and refuse to use any technology which is the fruit of any research which was funded by 'coercion'.
Just because you can't see the future applications of space research doesn't mean they aren't there. You've proved Stephen's point. If you, as someone who claims to believe that science should be funded, refuse to fund research where you see no immediate application, then we might as well forget the whole thing.
If the LHC (which is on Earth, by the way) were funded entirely by private individuals, they would be under no obligation to share any benefits with anyone. If I fund obscure and seemingly pointless research into, I don't know, deep sea sponges, and this results in the discovery of a new cancer drug, why should I allow you to reap the benefit?
Published: May 20, 2009 1:07 PM
Stephan Kinsella
Stephen:
So what? The money used to fund these discoveries is taken from other uses it would have been put to. How do you know that the value of the marginal new discoveries is greater than what was lost?
When I hear things like this, I'm reminded of a portion of the "Money Speech" from Rand's Atlas Shrugged:
Gil:
I never said that it doesn't matter what you believe in. I said that it is more important to have political liberty, as a precondition to prosperity and a flourishing life and a society in which there can be open scientific discourse in the first place. I said that what libertarians have in common is their opposition to aggression--both private and institutionalized.
This is the typical dishonest approach of the modern-day leftoid monist engineer. You want to have political opinions--here you are preaching several--while pretending your views are asceptic and non-normative, and merely objective and "scientific." You do not even seem to be aware that you need to find a way to justify the various norms and policies you propose. You need to have a clear, rational understanding of the nature of the state and whether you want to favor or oppose aggression.
Stephen:
The question is not whether you have faith in the state, or whether you are "skeptical" of it (whatever this means)--but whether you endorse it as being justified. You do, yet your reasons are shoddy-- as can be seen here:
How do you know that the right policy is to have an "approach" that "benefits most people"? Are you a utilitarian? What justifies this moral stance, if so? Do you think the state does benefit most people? If so, how do you know? How do you know it's even possible for a state to benefit most people? Are you even aware of the manifest problems with utilitarianism? I suggest you read Rothbard's Toward a Reconstruction of Utility and Welfare Economics and my There's No Such Thing as a Free Patent.
The fact that you can dash off questions to which you do not know the answer is not even a pretension at an attempt at a sketch of a possible defense of the institutionalized aggression that is the state.
"best"? "way to ensure accountability'? Good God, man, what are you jabbering about? Does this sound like the use of reason to you? Does it sound like you have a clue as to what you are talking about? How does your spouting off coarse bromides you no doubt learned in elementary school serve to justify organized violence which is what the state is?
The most common words for taxation used here are "robbery" and "theft." I do not believe either of these to be analogous.
Correct. It is not an analogy. It is in fact a literal, accurate description of what taxation is: it is theft. It is property taken from owners by the threat of force.
This is a good demonstration of the superiority of libertarians over poseur-humanist secularists and skeptics. Bad showing, chap.
Published: May 20, 2009 1:25 PM
Jeremy
artificialhabitat,
You said: "If the LHC (which is on Earth, by the way) were funded entirely by private individuals, they would be under no obligation to share any benefits with anyone."
Of course they wouldn’t be obligated to share the benefits. Why would they be so obligated? If they wanted to share they could. They could also sell such benefits. They could also blast them off into space. The point is that I have no moral claim to anyone else’s property. That is a fundamental principle of libertarian thought. I would suggest that you become acquainted with such principles before you spout off on libertarian websites, lest you look like a fool.
You said: "Just because you can't see the future applications of space research doesn't mean they aren't there. You've proved Stephen's point. If you, as someone who claims to believe that science should be funded, refuse to fund research where you see no immediate application, then we might as well forget the whole thing."
How have I proved Stephen's point? I made no claim regarding the possibilities of space research. I did not say that I would not donate to such endeavours. I'm not sure you understood my point, but you may elaborate if I have missed something.
You said: "If this is your view, you should take a principled stand and refuse to use any technology which is the fruit of any research which was funded by 'coercion'."
Let me ask you this: are you against murder and colonization? If that is your view perhaps you should take a principled stand and get off the continent of North America. If you are not on that continent perhaps you should refrain from taking part in any benefit derived from that continent.
Do you see that ridiculousness of that argument?
Published: May 20, 2009 1:49 PM
fundamentalist
Kinsella: "There is no necessary incompatibility between between being religious, and being pro-liberty."
Good point. Actually, if anyone should be skeptical of the state it's religious people. States have always been and still are the greatest enemy of freedom of religion. The adoration of the state expressed by the left is tantamount to Old Testament idolatry, from which every religious person should flee.
Hayek wrote: "It may indeed prove to be far the most difficult and not the least important task for human reason rationally to comprehend its own limitations. It is essential for the growth of reason that as individuals we should bow to forces and obey principles which we cannot hope fully to understand, yet on which the advance and even the preservation of civilization depends."
"Historically, this has been achieved by the influence of the various religious creeds and by traditions and superstitions which made men submit to those forces by an appeal to his emotions rather than to his reason. the most dangerous stage in the growth of civilization may well be that in which man has come to regard all these beliefs as superstitions and refuses to accept or to submit to anything which he does not rationally understand." The Counter-Revolution of Science
Stephen: "Without governments, how would people be able - even assuming they were willing - to fund multi-billion dollar enterprises like Hubble or the LHC?"
Where do you think the state got the money to build those? The state has no wealth of its own. It has to take the money from individuals to build its temples. Those same individuals are free to cooperate, pool their money and build the LHD and Hubble if they want.
Daniel: " The idea that "economics…is a 'harder' science than even physics" so outlandish that I'm tempted to think you're joking."
You really should read Hayek's "Counter-Revolution in Science." If you accept the modern definition of science, then economics is far from one. But then so is history and all social "sciences". The modern definition of science is a very emaciated one. It limits science to only what can be measured, whereas the really important things we know about humanity cannot be measured. Therefore, any study of humanity must be regarded as unscientific.
I'm not sure why people covet the title of science for their endeavors, except that the term has become synonomous with truth and certainty. But many more truths can be known with certainty through logic and reason than through measurement, and those truths are more important to mankind than truths that can be measured. If science is measurement, then science has exiled itself to the field of technological advances only. Meanwhile, the "non-scientific" endeavors of economics and sociology are left to the more important tasks of understanding humanity and how to advance humanity's welfare.
Keep in mind that the old USSR had some of the most brilliant scientists the world has ever seen. Yet they were kept in compounds where they conducted their research in isolation from the rest of society while the state murdered and starved the citizens by the millions. A little less science and more economics would have benefitted the Soviets immensely.
Published: May 20, 2009 2:03 PM
Michael A. Clem
The best way to ensure accountability is competition, i.e., being free to opt out and choose someone else. Government-funding offers neither.
I may be naive, but I place some value upon society and humanity as a collective entity rather than pure individualism. Even the animal kingdom shows us many examples where cooperation achieves more than individualism. All very Darwinian really.
A free market is the ultimate in cooperation, because nobody has to work with anybody else except under voluntary conditions. And individuals do it all the time because of the benefits of such a society, as "society" is not equal to "government". And as Hayek has shown us, society is very good at economic calculations that are impossible for any particular individual or small group to perform, much less control.
Thus, I too value society and humanity.
Published: May 20, 2009 2:53 PM
FTG
So their Creationist views are not a threat to the skeptics--under the libertarian society we all favor, skeptics and secularists are free to advocate Darwinism.
In many discussions I had with libertarians that have Creationist beliefs, I always contend that their beliefs are just as harmless to me as my views on science and evolution would be for them, since it is a basic principle of human liberty that neither them nor I have a right to impose those views of the world upon each other. Skeptics have a right to review these beliefs and forward criticisms on them; as for Creationists, they can either take these criticisms and give counterarguments, or take no notice of them.
The problem both skeptics and believers have is when these beliefs spill to the political arena, in the form of public policy, the best example being public schooling. Since public schooling is imposed by fiat upon all citizens, it becomes a threat to held ideas for both skeptics and believers when their children start to receive indoctrination from both sides. For Skeptics, since their ideas are supposedly founded in science, they must be correct and must be taught to children, regardless of the parents' objections; whereas for believers, the threat of their children receiving information that contradicts cherished beliefs is not acceptable.
The solution to this conundrum is not seen either by skeptics nor by believers as simply getting rid of public schooling, for there is a sense of empowerment by knowing that YOUR ideas or MY ideas will have fertile grounds by compulsory measures, without going through the painful effort of convincing others by virtue of reason and the cogency of arguments.
No, there is no need for such efforts if the State can do this for ME! So, the solution (in the minds of skeptics) is to require schools to give the "correct" information to children under the justification that it comes from a sound scientific background. This may well be the truth, but that does not mean ALL information given under the guise of being "scientifically sound" is correct (Global Warming myths in mind). For Creationists, they make a similar request - that THEIR information be required teaching, for the sake of balance and fairness.
Both have it entirely wrong - beliefs in the Almighty or NON belief comes directly from careful reasoning and rational thinking, regardless of which way one reasons [it is reasonable to conclude a Primary Cause for all and, by the same token, it is reasonable to ask for evidence of this cause in order to consider its possibility]. The point is that these conclusions cannot be imposed upon free thinking people just because we are made to pay for the venue, for if the venue is the reason, then whoever imposed it is the one in the wrong!
If we are to behave like free thinking individuals (and please, be reminded that choosing to believe in a Primary Cause can come from free thinking individuals), then we must work together to stop these impositions from the very root, which is none other than the State. It is the State, and none other, that generates these very destructive conflicts between free individuals, by pitting one side against the other - a divide and conquer scheme.
I am an agnostic who has come to the realization that the best way to argue with people is by avoiding making fun of their beliefs if these are harmless. If I believed in a Prime Cause, that should not be cause for alarm for anybody for these beliefs are mine and mine alone. The same if I choose NOT to believe in a Prime Cause. However, HARMFUL beliefs SHOULD be ALWAYS combated, for these are the starting point for truly evil acts. The belief that people SHOULD be saved from themselves, or that people should do this or do that and, if not compliant, then by the point of a gun.
Evil ideas must be fought, no matter who espouses them, since these ideas will call for violations upon people's rights. Any other idea, no matter how "scientific", or kooky, or unreasonable, as long as they are harmless, cannot pose a threat to anybody's well being. In this, libertarians should strive to convince skeptics and believers alike, that the common enemy of both is evil, embodied in people of "good intentions" with too much power in their hands.
Published: May 20, 2009 5:18 PM
geoih
Quote from Stephen: "I may be naive, but I place some value upon society and humanity as a collective entity rather than pure individualism."
Does that make libertarians some sort of disease infecting your collective entity? The forest is not a tree, nor is humanity a person.
You prove my original observation. The state is your god.
Published: May 20, 2009 6:29 PM
Stephen
Stephan Kinsella:
I cannot draw definite conclusions about what has not happened yet and neither can you. Based upon the observation that blue-sky research has led to clearly beneficial technologies in the past, and that such research is much less likely to be funded industrially, I conclude that continuing funding for such research is likely to be beneficial to society. Also, if I am forbidden assuming that the benefit would be greater than the alternative, you shouldn't be allowed to assume that such discoveries will be "marginal."
Ah yes, Rand. If, as geoih says "The state is [my] god" then I think we've found yours. I do not believe that money is evil, I just don't see its acquisition as the ultimate purpose of humanity. Neither do I damn money. It is clearly a useful tool in the running of a society.
I'd have thought it was fairly clear what I meant, though I didn't phrase it as you have. I regard it as part of my responsibility as a citizen to be critical of the actions and motivations of the state, and where possible to see that accountability is maintained.
You demand answers to a long list of questions, presumably in order to demonstrate my ignorance and dismiss my points out of hand. I could easily just fire the same questions back at you, but that would be boring.
I do not "know" that what the right approach is and neither do you. So what? Down this path lies paralysis. I'm not certain how to label my own ethical stance, although it seems to have a lot in common with utilitarianism. Utilitarianism certainly seems to me to be a good system by which to run a state.
I certainly think a state is preferable to no state, this being a provisional conclusion based upon my observations as it must be.
What? Once again: I don't know. You don't know. Provisional conclusions based upon interpretation of available data? It is also obviously possible for a state to do great harm and I'm not advocating any state at all over no state.
How does your assertion that the state is evil with little supporting evidence constitute an argument? This is the argumentative level that is always reached at some point in these discussions. I learned a lot in elementary school, and more in subsequent stages of education. The main thing I learned that I would pass on to you would be to grow up.
If the state perpetrates "organized violence" please provide evidence of how it might be in your society. Or is it only organized violence you oppose?
It is not literally theft and it is ridiculous to say that. For one, you see some return on what is taken, although in many states not as much as you should. In addition to this, it is theft that is announced loudly in advance. If you so wish, you can move to some other place if you do not wish to pay.
Even if I were to accept your definition, I would still be in favour of taxation.
To simply assert this is a very good example of who it is making the bad showing. I'm impressed that you have found evidence to support the innate superiority of Libertarians over all these other people and would dearly love to see it, for if it is true I must convert at once. And convert here seems to be a valid term, for your brand of Libertarianism seems to have much in common with religion.
Published: May 20, 2009 11:25 PM
Stephan Kinsella
Stephen:
You should read Rothbard's article that I linked on utility and welfare economics. I know that when two people engage in voluntary trade each is ex ante subjectively better off. This is the only way to demonstrate that wealth is gained. When the state robs me to subsidize you, you are helped, and I am harmed, and the state takes its handling charge. There is no rational way to conclude that there is net gain; and there is no way to even think of gain in cardinal terms, since value is subjective, ordinal, and not interpersonally comparable--and even it it was, it's not moral to steal from me to help you, even if you gain "more" than I am harmed. Surely your "science" cannot gainsay this.
Even in your crude utilitarian terms, it can only be beneficial if the marginal gain or benefit is greater than the cost of what was lost. You have no idea what the cost is, so you have no basis to conclude this. Since you are the one advocating forcible redistribution of wealth--theft--on the basis that it results in a net gain to society, the burden of proof is on you. "Maybe it does" or "no one can know" doesn't cut it, bub.
Fine by me--let's just leave everybody the hell alone, and you bluenose, interfering, busybody planners go your own way, and fund your own damn causes, hey?
This snide observation of yours in no wise justifies the institutionalized aggression that you are implicitly endorsing. The burden is on you to justify it. You haven't, and you can't.
Who said it was "the ultimate purpose of humanity"? Obviously you don't see it as evil, or you wouldn't want to steal it from me.
Vague comments like this demonstrate that you haven't the foggiest notion of the role of money or sound economics.
My, aren't we a good little citizen! The civics lessons from public school, the Saturday Morning commercials, have done their job!
Go play citizen in your own club, but don't reach in my pocket for your dues, bub.
I know that I prefer peace and cooperation and civilization and prosperity to their opposites. I know that I will oppose and fight you atavistic brutes and savages as long as I live. I know that I am on the side of justice, and that others choose not to be.
Ah, what the hell, then--let's give it a try!
If you think it's hard to find evidence that states are uniformly evil, either you are evil, or amoral, or blind.
Grow up and learn to "take it" as you and your statist, criminal fiends rob me blind, eh?
In my society there is no organized aggression, and what private aggression there is, is kept to a minimum and suppressed by the private defense forces of the civilized, free people.
The fact that the theft is publicly known does not change its nature. The fact that I could avoid the theft by moving to another regime of institutionalized theft does not change its nature.
Of course, because you are a criminal. Be glad you do not live in a society composed mostly of your betters, where people like you would be sideshow freaks. As it is, you can get your way by brute force. Congratulations!
Published: May 21, 2009 12:23 AM
Peter
"At least Creationists promote their causes with private dollars. Macro-evolution exists only because it is state supported and enforced. If it weren’t for state enforcement, the theory would die quickly."
On the contrary, "macro-evolution" is a chimera invented by creationists. (In much the same way "macro-economics" is a delusion of Keynesians and their ilk)
Published: May 21, 2009 2:13 AM
Peter
The process of systematically testing empirical claims is the definition of science. Defending and explaining that process of testing claims and deferring to the evidence is the point of modern skepticism.
In that case, there's no such thing as science...since all of your "systematic testing of empirical claims" and "defending and explaining" rests on the applicability of such utterly non-scientific things as mathematics...
(Or do you attempt to empirically test the claim that 2+2=4?)
Published: May 21, 2009 2:24 AM
Peter
If the LHC (which is on Earth, by the way) were funded entirely by private individuals, they would be under no obligation to share any benefits with anyone. If I fund obscure and seemingly pointless research into, I don't know, deep sea sponges, and this results in the discovery of a new cancer drug, why should I allow you to reap the benefit?
Err..because that's the only way for you to reap the benefit!
Published: May 21, 2009 2:28 AM
db0
What? Is that the best you can say little tool? That I am "out of my depth"? My what a shallow and useless dismissal. I'd never expect that from a Miseoid...
Here's an idea: Consider also the Austrian school of economics, which unlike science, has been proven wrong and is unwilling to change.
Published: May 21, 2009 2:37 AM
db0
(Or do you attempt to empirically test the claim that 2+2=4?)
As luck would have it, I wrote about this yesterday.
You do not understand the role of mathematics. No, they're not a science. No, they cannot prove anything. Yes, they can be used to communicate a proof.
Published: May 21, 2009 2:41 AM
matt
I've always thought atheist supporting government were better than the theocrats, simply b/c at lest the atheist can claim moral relativism, while the theocrats have a huge problem with their ethics.
Published: May 21, 2009 4:49 AM
Mushindo
seems from some of th eposts here that the oddity of skeptics who also have a blind spot in their leftism, also has an inverse: Libertarians who also hold absurd creationist beliefs. O the irony - in my experience, if you scratch the skin of such a being, you will find underneath a full-blown neocon, first in line to support the outlawing of activities that they regard as immoral - from prostitution, and recreational drugs, to retailing wine on Sundays, same-sex marriage and stem-cell research.
Published: May 21, 2009 5:44 AM
G
Stephan,
"OK. Here's the leap:
1) Industrial science focuses almost exclusively on what is immediately profitable.
2) Many key developments in science have come from state-funded research with a longer term outlook, and would probably not have been developed in an industrial setting.
3)Therefore state-funded science has an important contribution to make."
What is a "key development" without a profit or loss system you can only answer that in an arbitrary manner that abstracts from the wants of consumers.
So, sure, as a scientist you may be able to answer that question, but that's about it. Likewise, as a religious individual I might be able to point out that the state has been useful in advancing religion (I don't actually believe this), without being subject to the market test, neither of us can be correct because we can't tell what society values more.
Published: May 21, 2009 5:50 AM
Matthew
Stephen,
Like state-funded research, human testing can have many important benefits, too! Libertarians just happen to have the oddball belief that test subjects should be volunteers, not conscripts.
Published: May 21, 2009 6:02 AM
Matthew
It's the notion that you can't just do whatever you want to people just because you like it.
Also, unless you [Stephen] are rooting for a dictatorship, I don't see how a "democracy" of people who are allegedly too stupid to fund brilliant research on their own is going to vote for the "right" people to administer the research funding... which, if you assume that the general populace is a bunch of dunces, brings into question the quality of government-funded research by your own reasoning, I would think.
At least in a libertarian society, the "smart" people get to choose what the important projects are to spend their own money on, even if shortsighted fools won't help out. But given that the former group is so intelligent, they should be able to round up enough capital to make up for the latter, and they probably have a pretty good idea as to what the important projects are to fund.
Published: May 21, 2009 6:50 AM
Ted
@ Stephan Kinsella
Leave the poor boy alone! Nice article, btw.
Published: May 21, 2009 7:17 AM
Stephan Kinsella
Mushindo:
You have a point, with respect to mainline American Christians, but this is utterly untrue with respect to libertarian Christians. They are opposed to war, outlawing prostitution or drugs, and the like. They cannot be blamed for positions they do not and will not hold. This is why I said above that the religious views of libertarians are no threat to secularists, while the statist views of secularists are a problem for all.
Published: May 21, 2009 7:31 AM
fundamentalist
FTG: "The problem both skeptics and believers have is when these beliefs spill to the political arena, in the form of public policy, the best example being public schooling."
Good point. I oppose introducing creationism in the public schools, although most creationists don't agree with me. And I don't oppose the teaching of evolution. I insisted that my three children learn as much as possible about the theory of evolution so that they could discuss it intelligently. Well-educated people should know both sides of any argument equally well. They only thing I would wish for public schools is that they teach the whole science, and not just the selective and distorted science that supports only the theory of evolution.
Published: May 21, 2009 9:52 AM
fundamentalist
Peter: “On the contrary, "macro-evolution" is a chimera invented by creationists.”
Creationists did invent the term “macro-evolution”, but they were forced to do so by the inherent dishonesty in the marketing of the theory of evolution. Open any textbook on evolution and you’ll find that all of the evidence for it is nothing more than change across species but within genera. The evidence for evolution from one genus to another such as from a monkey to a human is almost non-existent. This is dishonest, no different from the old bait and switch scam. Creationists invented the terms micro-evolution and macro-evolution to simplify the technical terminology and to make clear the dishonesty in the marketing of evolution. Creationists have no problem with speciation via evolution. The evidence for it is overwhelming, as the evolution textbooks make clear. We have a problem with evolution from genus to genus, and so should real science because the evidence for it simply doesn’t exit.
Gregor Mendel tried to explain to the cult of Darwin that the variation possible in species was limited and could not extend to a change between types of animals, but they wouldn’t listen. Later, when the science of genetics advanced Mendel’s findings sufficiently, geneticists had to admit that the variation in the genome was limited. If evolution were to happen between genera, or animal types, then mutations would have to provide the necessary new information.
So the terms micro-evolution and macro-evolution were invented, but the science behind them is real. Micro-evolution happens naturally with the existing genetic information. Macro-evolution requires mutations to make the leap from one type of animal to another.
Published: May 21, 2009 10:27 AM
Stephen
Stephan Kinsella:
"Grow up and learn to "take it" as you and your statist, criminal fiends rob me blind, eh?"
I can be pretty sure that I've never spent a single cent that you earned.
"If you think it's hard to find evidence that states are uniformly evil, either you are evil, or amoral, or blind."
It seems to me a logical impossibility to prove that all states are uniformly evil. It's very easy to assert the fact though.
"In my society there is no organized aggression, and what private aggression there is, is kept to a minimum and suppressed by the private defense forces of the civilized, free people."
What happens when two private defence forces disagree about who owns what?
"Of course, because you are a criminal. Be glad you do not live in a society composed mostly of your betters, where people like you would be sideshow freaks."
Believe me, I am thankful that it is I who lives in the society where you are the sideshow freak.
Published: May 21, 2009 10:29 AM
Mr.huh?
"Here's an idea: Consider also the Austrian school of economics, which unlike science, has been proven wrong and is unwilling to change."
Really. That's strange considering that it was the Austrian Economists like Ron Paul, Peter Schiff, etc. who predicted the current economic downturn years in advance.
Published: May 21, 2009 8:58 PM
Jeff Wagg
I'm actually glad you don't consider yourself a skeptic anymore. Your post reveals that you are essentially dogmatic, and this is the antithesis of skepticism. It doesn't matter if your conclusions are right or not... what makes you a skeptic is the acceptance of a provisional nature to your arguments. I detect none here.
Published: May 22, 2009 11:42 AM
Bob Roddis
I have spent a week or so recently jousting with the Matt Yglesias blog commenters. I pointed out to them that in 36 years, I had never once seen a fair exposition of the basic principles of Austrian economics set forth by an opponent of Austrian economics (that didn't spur any Austrian opponents to action, however). This reinforces my long held view that progressive politics is a religion as much as the religion of any Islamic jihadi. Think about how they no longer seem to care about the government's wars and violations of civil liberties.
For liberals, progressive politics is their religion, their faith, their entire reason for being. Therefore, they will always be impervious to economic arguments proving that their economic vision invariably leads to economic misery, the gulag, Rwanda. Having the STATE bossing around the unwashed and unenlightened is the whole point. Obama has spent his entire life learning to be the perfect liberal messiah. And he is. Now that he is in charge of the U.S. government, it too is now cloaked in the religious aura of Obama and the progressive faith. Because the government is now progressive and therefore HOLY in all its missions, its military can authentically teach the evil Taliban and Muslims how to live their lives, something the military of the evil Republican Christian Dubya could never do. This situation is exactly the same as the progressives’ indifference to poor black kids stuck in inner city public schools. The whole point of all of the religious progressive's programs is the never-ending war on the unenlightened from whence the progressive obtains personal salvation.
As such, they are impervious to logic, evidence and facts. They will never even admit the existence of contrary facts. Has any progressive answered Tom Woods' demonstration that cutting spending and not inflating cured the 1921 depression? Has any progressive answered Bob Murphy's demonstration that Hoover and Roosevelt prolonged the depression? Has any progressive answered Bob Higg’s demonstration that WWII didn't cure the depression?
So, just who are the really dangerous non-skeptical religious fanatics?
Published: May 22, 2009 10:31 PM
db0
What?! Aaahaahahah
Marginal Productivity - Debunked (Check the Cambridge Capital controversy)
Labour "market" can achieve equilibrium - Debunked
Credit market can achieve equilibrium - Debunked
And lots more where that came from.
Here you go
Published: May 23, 2009 4:21 AM
Bob Roddis
I guess db0 has nailed us. The Austrians have NEVER even considered Marxist analysis, have we?
http://mises.org/media.aspx?action=category&ID=47
http://mises.org/books/socialism/contents.aspx
http://mises.org/journals/rae/pdf/RAE4_1_5.pdf
Published: May 23, 2009 6:21 AM
db0
Unfortunately, what you did is not only a Tu Quoque fallacy, but a Strawman as well, since the arguments I presented were not explicitly Marxist.
Many of them have actually come from Economists. And many others come from simply logical deduction.
So back to the drawing board Bob.
Published: May 23, 2009 10:44 AM
Bob Roddis
In further response to db0:
Our hero, Bob Murphy, explained away the so called “Cambridge Capital Controversy” six years ago:
“But Samuelson was quite wrong when he thought his discovery in any way contradicted Austrian theory. Contra Samuelson, no Austrian ever claimed that reswitching was mathematically impossible. Indeed, Austrians do not normally think in those terms at all, except when forced to in response to mainstream challenges.”
http://mises.org/daily/1148
Further, everyone in their everyday life understands marginal utility. Value is personal and subjective. In 1990, people paid a lot for and bought a lot of Vanilla Ice albums. Not so today:
http://tinyurl.com/py5ktk
Murray Rothbard, in his great book “The Essential Von Mises”, explains:
“The Austrian, or Menger-Böhm-Bawerkian, solutions to the dilemmas of economics were far more comprehensive than by the Ricardians, because the Austrian solutions were rooted in a completely contrasting epistemology. The Austrians unerringly centered their analysis on the individual, on the acting individual as he makes his choices on the basis of his preferences and values in the real world. Starting from the individual, the Austrians were able to ground their analysis of economic activity and production in the values and desires of the individual consumers. Each consumer operated from his own chosen scale of preferences and values; and it was these values that interacted and combined to form the consumer demands that form the basis and the direction for all productive activity. Grounding their analysis in the individual as he faces the real world, the Austrians saw that productive activity was based on the expectations of serving the demands of consumers. Hence, it became clear to the Austrians that no productive activity, whether of labor or of any productive factors, could confer value upon goods or services. Value consisted in the subjective valuations of the individual consumers. In short, I could spend thirty years of labor time and other resources working on the perfection of a giant steam-powered tricycle. If, however, on offering this product no consumers can be found to purchase this tricycle, it is economically valueless, regardless of the misdirected effort that I had expended upon it. Value is consumer valuations, and the relative prices of goods and services are determined by the extent and intensity of consumer valuations and desires for these products.”
http://mises.org/books/evm.pdf
Rothbard notes that Mises specifically attacked the neo-classical ideas of “perfect competition” and “general equilibrium”. Your link:
http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secC1.html#secc14
also attempts a critique of these same ideas. These are not Austrian concepts so you have failed to critique Austrian economics. Rothbard explains it all in “The Essential Von Mises”. You should read it. It’s free. He destroys Ricardian, Neo-Classical, Keynesian, Socialist and Marxist economics in nice, pleasant easy to read prose.
I note that the link to db0’s blog leads one to the post entitled “Why talking about Communism matters”:
http://dbzer0.com/
We should talk about Communism because it leads directly to mass murder in the tens of millions. From “The Forsaken” by Tim Tzouliadis, page 354:
“Near Minsk, in Byelorussia, workers laying a gas pipeline through a pine forest discovered a mass grave dating from 1937 to 1941. The bodies were still clutching reading glasses, purses, children's toys, medicines, and the host of random, everyday possessions that people take with them when they are seized. The mass graves at Kuropaty Forest were estimated by Memorial to contain 150,000 victims. At Bykovna, outside Kiev, another mass grave was found in which an estimated 200,000 victims of the Terror lay buried."
In the Donetsk province, mass graves were discovered in Rutchenko fields containing 40,000 victims. On Golden Mountain, near Chelyabinsk, Memorial discovered a mass grave containing an estimated 300,000 victims. And so it continues, until we are rendered senseless by the numbers.”
Published: May 23, 2009 10:42 PM
db0
Oh, Bob, Bob, Bob...
I don't see how he did. The Capital controversy proved that marginal productivity as a concept does not apply to mutli-commodity markets where the end commodities are different than the capital. What you quotes does not seem to counter it to the least.
Yes, so? I accept marginal utility as well, as much as I accept the labour theory of value
However, starting from the simple premise "People want diverse stuff instead more of the same" does not lead to any economic theories.
Yes, and the problem here are the assumptions Mises made about how and why humans act. Assumptions which have been proven wrong by actual sciences mind you, such as psychology.
Come on Bob, did you jump on the first Strawman you could find there. Just a little bit further below, there's another nice section:
C.1.6 Is it possible to have non-equilibrium based capitalist economics?
Gogogo
As for again bringing up what you call "Communism", well since I do not promote this kind of of system, I don't see what it has to do with me.
So again, strawman Bob. Come on, you can do better than that :)
Published: May 24, 2009 4:06 AM
Bob Roddis
1. Your writer is quite uninformed and/or dishonest. In no particular order, he/she claims that money creation by a central bank out of thin air is not caused by the state:
“In effect, they [Austrians] think that the money supply and interest rates are determined exogenously (i.e. outside the economy) by the state. However, this is unlikely as the evidence points the other way, i.e. to the endogenous nature of the money supply itself. This account of money (proposed strongly by, among others, the post-Keynesian school) argues that the money supply is a function of the demand for credit, which itself is a function of the level of economic activity. In other words, the banking system creates as much money as people need and any attempt to control that creation will cause economic problems and, perhaps, crisis. Money, in other words, emerges from within the system and so the Austrian attempt to "blame the state" is simply wrong.”
Austrians propose a complete separation of money and state. Fraud and counterfeiting would be prohibited. The only new money would be from mining operations. Absent the find of a huge amount of new gold and silver, an inflationary boom would be virtually impossible. The unit of money stated in long term contracts would not change in value significantly over time (except perhaps to gain value). A central bank creates money out of thin air BY STATE AUTHORITY and that money must be accepted by everyone as legal tender due to state legal tender laws even as the state dilutes its value. The central bank in effect is constantly diluting the money supply. Those getting the new money are in effect stealing the purchasing power of those holding the old money. As the value of the money is constantly diluted, long term contracts become difficult to evaluate. Asset prices are bid up artificially and people think they are richer than they are. They then act foolishly. Such a boom must collapse. These are two complete different monetary regimes which your writer must ignore. Your writer is clearly addressing his polemic to those already converted to the anti-Austrian position. It is just another (boring) example of someone not addressing the actual Austrian position, just like I have complained for 36 years.
2. Your author claims that Austrians expect the working class (whatever the hell that is; we disdain such categorizations) to “bear the price for any recession”:
“Unsurprisingly, the Austrians (like most economists) expect the working class to bear the price for any recession in terms of real wage cuts in spite of their theory indicating that its roots lie in capitalists and bankers seeking more profits and, consequently, the former demanding and the latter supplying more credit than the "natural" interest rate would supply.”
WRONG. Austrians were at the forefront in demanding NO BAILOUTS for big business or any business. If you are a big AIG shareholder or big shot, and you go bankrupt, you might be expected to a take greeters job at the House of Blues. It’s very simple. We expect that if you can’t make money in your chosen line of work, FIND ANOTHER LINE OF WORK. Doh.
3. Your writer claims that Austrians IGNORE all history of the 19th century booms and busts:
“Luckily, though, the Austrian school's methodology allows it to ignore such irritating constrictions as facts, statistics, data, history or experimental confirmation.”
Every Austrian economist I’ve read in 36 years explains how Pre-FED fractional reserve banking causes and caused booms and busts. Why not read Tom Woods’ great new book, “Meltdown”. He goes into significant detail explaining how fractional reserve banking was problematic in the 1800s. Further, watch his magnificent video explaning how DOING NOTHING other than cutting spending cured the 1921 depression:
http://consultingbyrpm.com/blog/2009/04/tom-woods-only-threat-to-my.html
Also read Bob Murphy’s definitive new book “The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Great Depression and the New Deal”:
http://tinyurl.com/olu3d9
Conclusion: It’s boring refuting the same old same old disinformation I’ve seen for almost four decades. I’m not sure that the comments section of this particular post is the best place to debate long dishonest Marxoid rants. Rothbard’s “The Essential Von Mises” and the Woods and Murphy books (both released in 2009) explain virtually every phony complaint you and your authorities have made.
Now, I’m going to do something more exciting and "socially beneficial", climb a ladder and clean out my gutters by hand.
(By the way, who decides in your anarchist utopia what is "socially beneficial" and what do they do about it? Who decides who decides what is "socially beneficial"?)
Published: May 24, 2009 12:23 PM
db0
Ah, Bob, you always seem one step less that what is required to get the point. The author says that the Austrians claim that currently the money supply is created out of thin air and you somehow think you're arguing by confirming the author?
The author says that the Austrians expect that working class will get the brunt of any depression and you say that's not true, because they suggest no bailouts, which will of course lead to the closing of factories, severe downturn and generally a nice "creative destruction". Which is going to go unemployed in all this mayhem? Who is going to get his wages lowered because of the rising unemployment? The working class.
As such, really, I have no reason to keep demolishing your strawmen, but it at least becomes obvious why you didn't see any argument against Misean arguments, since you probably misunderstood them.
Published: May 24, 2009 1:13 PM
Matthew
db0: I think you misinterpreted the context in which he was writing.
Published: May 24, 2009 2:06 PM
Bob Roddis
db0:
I haven't misunderstood anything here.
You have yet to make a single argument or point and you really don't seem to get the gist of the Austrian position whatsoever.
1. There won't be depressions caused by money dilution without money dilution.
2. Life is messy. There may be plagues and earthquakes and floods. Maybe a fearsome meteor shower. These could cause widespread economic hard times. People should prepare for the worst and join voluntary relief and charity associations. And save their money for a rainy day. Austrians and libertarians only object to being forced to be charitable at the point of a gun. You have a hell of a lot more to fear from a do-gooder SWAT team than any short term economic crisis.
Now, refute the points I've made and questions I've asked in my various posts in your own words. Don't give me a link to some Marxoid nonsense and don't just blurt out that I don't understand something.
Published: May 24, 2009 4:10 PM
db0
No Bob, I'm sorry but you're not worth the effort and neither is the location. If anyone not already convinced of Misoid nonsense ever stumbles on this conversation, at least they will see some antilogue and may follow the links to get some "inoculation".
Published: May 24, 2009 6:21 PM
Bob Roddis
Hey db0, I'm at the same place.
Why don't you guys go BUY several thousand acres of farm land and set up an anarchist community on your very own PRIVATE PROPERTY? You'd find your strongest defenders will be libertarians and Austrians when the S.W.A.T. teams arrive to unconstitutionally and illegally hassle you.
Published: May 25, 2009 4:20 PM
Vichy
"To my mind, anyone of reason and independent mind would be skeptical of the state and command economics."
This is because most atheists, sceptics, humanists etc. are (on average) just as stupid as the vast majority of 'intellectuals' - and I would certainly not exclude libertarians from this latter category, as there are a good number of blockheads running around that camp, too.
Published: May 31, 2009 3:28 PM