NationStates Jolt Archive

I personally adhere to the teachings of the Austrian school of economics. I was just wondering how many other Austrians there are on this board, and what other people's opinions of this school of economic thought are.

Pretty damn good.

I really like Hayek, personally. I'm lukewarm on Mises because I really haven't read anything by him. I really ought to get around to it, sometime when I'm not buried under a thousand pages of reading for class.

I personally adhere to the teachings of the Austrian school of economics. I was just wondering how many other Austrians there are on this board, and what other people's opinions of this school of economic thought are.

I support free and open education. What do they preach?

I support free and open education. What do they preach?
That education is a service, and isn't something that should be free.

Österreich!!!!1111 :eek:

Im not very familiar with it. Can you recommend any literature with which I could become aquainted with it?

I personally adhere to the teachings of the Austrian school of economics. I was just wondering how many other Austrians there are on this board, and what other people's opinions of this school of economic thought are.

I personally can't stand Austrian school, but I don't really mind the people who are adherants to it.

What do you think of the Austrian school of economics?

Same as any "school" (let us do away with euphemisms and just call it what it is -- a political special interest group) of economics:

Meh.

Im not very familiar with it. Can you recommend any literature with which I could become aquainted with it?
http://www.mises.org/books/onelesson.pdf

http://www.mises.org/books/econforrealpeople.pdf

That education is a service, and isn't something that should be free.

Proletarians need to take over that capitalistic paradise, it is unfair to the people that don't have enough paper for the opportunities of other. The capitalistic filter system!

www.socialismforum.com

I'd be interested in learning, but I'm interested in learning anything. I'm a more of a monetarist when it comes right down to it.

I didn't know Austrians had schools.

I personally adhere to the teachings of the Austrian school of economics. I was just wondering how many other Austrians there are on this board, and what other people's opinions of this school of economic thought are.
It's a dangerous, anti-freedom and pro-suffering ideology.

It's a dangerous, anti-freedom and pro-suffering ideology.
I seem to remember you saying something about making wild allegations (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11868143&postcount=52), and how that's not good. You wouldn't happen to be making one right now, would you?

Why yes--yes you are.

The Austrians seem to be popular among many non-economists these days.

What most fail to realize, I think, is that the Austrian "school" is not just a like-minded subset of modern economists. Rather, it is a separate discipline characterized by its own assumptions, "methodology" and scientific philosophy. It has been repudiated by mainstream economists as rationalistic and unscientific.

This should not be surprising, since Austrians explicitly reject empirical epistemology. They are not bothered in the least when experience tends to refute their theories. They are always right. It's reality that sometimes gets it wrong.

In other words, the Austrian school is the economic equivalent of "creation science".

what is the austrian school

Österreich 4 ever!

Honestly, without Austria what country could I always take the role of?

The Austrians seem to be popular among many non-economists these days.

What most fail to realize, I think, is that the Austrian "school" is not just a like-minded subset of modern economists. Rather, it is a separate discipline characterized by its own assumptions, "methodology" and scientific philosophy. It has been repudiated by mainstream economists as rationalistic and unscientific.
In the same way that creationists have "repudiated" evolution, you mean.


This should not be surprising, since Austrians explicitly reject empirical epistemology.
Only for the a priori sciences. Tell me--do you empirically prove that 2 + 2 = 4? No, you don't, do you. Thus, you reject empirical epistemology for mathematics. Shockhorrorshock!


They are not bothered in the least when experience tends to refute their theories.
Such as?

In the same way that creationists have "repudiated" evolution, you mean.

Creationism used to be the mainstream, too...

In the same way that creationists have "repudiated" evolution, you mean.Well, sort of.

If you're going to put it that way, then what you're really saying is that creationists and evolutionary biologists "repudiate" each other. In that case, the real question is which side has the scientific method on their side.

The same can, in fact, be said of Austrian school and mainstream economists: they "repudiate" each other, but only the real economists have science on their side.

Only for the a priori sciences.Right. And treating economics as an a priori science makes sense in what fantasy world, again?

Anyone who thinks that it is more important for a theory to be logically consistent than it is to describe and explain a phenomenon in the real world... that person wants nothing to do with science.

The Austrians are like right-wing Marxists, at least in so far as they pull many of the same rhetorical tricks. Whenever the behavior of real people defies the "logic" of their constructions, they complain that "ideology" or culture have somehow inhibited the ability of people to act "rationally"--that is, how the Austrians think they should behave.

They explicitly reject the notion of falsifiability: the world cannot possibly prove them wrong, because they do not admit the relevance of real-world evidence.

How convenient for them.

Don't you understand that noone has a right to charge anyone for an education? That is discrimination. Education should remain completely open and free, not monopolized by capitalists such as yourself.

Well, sort of.
Not "sort of". "Exactly like". The "mainstream" haven't got anything on their side. Period.


If you're going to put it that way, then what you're really saying is that creationists and evolutionary biologists "repudiate" each other.
No, only the biologists do the repudiating.


In that case, the real question is which side has the scientific method on their side.
Again: do you use the scientific method (which by that you mean doing experiments ala physics and chemistry) to determine that 2 + 2 = 4? No, you don't. Shockhorrorshock!


Right. And treating economics as an a priori science makes sense in what fantasy world, again?
In reality.

Treating mathematics as an a posteriori science makes sense in what fantasy world? Seriously--do you perform experiments to determine that 2 + 2 = 4? Yes or no. Why did you not answer my question when I originally asked it? Did it cause you too much pain to realize that you do not use empiricism to determine that 2 + 2 = 4? Are you having to hang your head in shame at the thought of grasping that mathematics, logic, and praxeology are a priori in nature?


Anyone who thinks that it is more important for a theory to be logically consistent than it is to describe and explain a phenomenon in the real world... that person wants nothing to do with science.
Anyone who makes such a statement is creating a strawman.

But then, you don't know anything about economics anyway. Why should I bother with you, creationist? You--the one who thinks that we do experiments to prove that 2 + 2 = 4. What a load!

Don't you understand that noone has a right to charge anyone for an education?
No one has the right to demand the time and effort of others without recompense and their consent. That is called SLAVERY.

You DO think that slavery is wrong, don't you?

That education is a service, and isn't something that should be free.

How would they respond to the criticism that that creates a cycle of class. IE the ones who have the richest parents pay for their childrens education to be best. They get the best education and then have the best jobs. The people who have the best jobs then are able as parent to give their children the best education etc... Where as people who cannot afford it will have children who also will be unable to afford it for their children etc.

No one has the right to demand the time and effort of others without recompense and their consent. That is called SLAVERY.

You DO think that slavery is wrong, don't you?

That is why we have TAX. IE The government pays the teachers money. That is what we have in the UK, a well funded state education system.

How would they respond to the criticism that that creates a cycle of class.
"Class" is entirely arbitrary. And with privatization comes lower-costs and more choices. Thus, there's no reason that people wouldn't be able to afford schooling for their children.

I'd also point out that one of the criticisms of the current government-run education system in the US is that the inner-city schools are shit and the suburban schools are great. Sounds like the government-run schools are creating the "class" situation of which you speak.

That is why we have TAX.
Taxation is theft.


IE The government pays the teachers money.
You mean the taxpayers pay the teachers their salaries.

Well, it's better than (what I know of) the Chicago school, but that isn't saying much.

Same as any "school" (let us do away with euphemisms and just call it what it is -- a political special interest group) of economics:

Meh.


I have twelve thousand anchovies swimming as one on my side at my who would say you are wrong, if they could speak, and werent busy swimming.

Not "sort of". "Exactly like". The "mainstream" haven't got anything on their side. Period.Other than the fact that they are actually willing to test their theories against experience... yeah, I guess not. :rolleyes:

Again: do you use the scientific method (which by that you mean doing experiments ala physics and chemistry) to determine that 2 + 2 = 4?No, but mathematics is an axiom-based system which does not offer up experiential evidence. (No one has ever "seen" the number two, no matter how many groups of "two things" they have encountered.)

Of course, the actual foundations of mathematical knowledge are very much up for grabs. If you are thrilled with the concept of mathematics as a purely a priori science, then you might subscribe to some sort of construction theory, in which it is the fact that the terms of mathematics are entirely idealized (imagined) that allows it to avoid empirical tests. On the other hand, naturalism in mathematics seems to be an increasingly important position--and if it's true, then even mathematics would be a priori in only the weakest sense. For myself, I adhere to something like Quine's pragmatic epistemological wholism, which really denies the distinction between a priori and a posteriori sciences insofar as it makes the truth claims of both rest upon a "usefulness" criterion.

In any case, all of this is moot when it comes to economic science: there is utterly no reason to class it with mathematics as a pure a priori science. Austrians want to claim that the "rules" of human behavior are fixed--probably drawing on Locke's moral "modes" in An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, or something like it--despite overwhelming evidence that even "rational" human behavior changes according to cultural circumstances and emotions that the Austrians completely discount.

Of course, they do take these factors into account--every time they turn out to be WRONG, they claim that it is because some version of false consciousness has prevented people from acting "rationally."

Every time they are wrong, they complain that the market they are looking at just isn't free enough. If we would only let it be free, we would see that they are right.

Their theories are nothing like mathematics, which has proven its usefulness for thousands of years. It has proven that it does NOT depend on experience, so far as we can tell--it is timeless. Austrian economics, meanwhile, can only insist that it WILL prove itself, if only we give it the chance.

The question is, why should we?

Don't you understand that noone has a right to charge anyone for an education? That is discrimination. Education should remain completely open and free, not monopolized by capitalists such as yourself.


Everybody should receive things of immeasurable value for free.

Other than the fact that they are actually willing to test their theories against experience
Do you test 2 + 2 = 4?

And the Austrian school doesn't deny that one can point to experience as confirmation of ideas. But, you wouldn't let a little fact like that stand in your way, would you?


No, but mathematics is an axiom-based system
Same with economics.


Of course, the actual foundations of mathematical knowledge are very much up for grabs.
Oh, we abstract it.


If you are thrilled with the concept of mathematics as a purely a priori science,
It is. Unless, of course, you wish to create some strawman version of what a priori is.


In any case, all of this is moot when it comes to economic science: there is utterly no reason to class it with mathematics as a pure a priori science.
Except for the fact that it is. Humans behavior is not described by an equation like inverse square or the like.


Austrians want to claim that the "rules" of human behavior are fixed
They claim that there are general axioms upon which we can create a system, such as "humans act". If you'd like to deny that, you'd act, which would create a performative contradiction.


--probably drawing on Locke's moral "modes" in An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, or something like it--despite overwhelming evidence that even "rational" human behavior changes according to cultural circumstances and emotions that the Austrians completely discount.
Except that they don't.


Of course, they do take these factors into account--every time they turn out to be WRONG, they claim that it is because some version of false consciousness has prevented people from acting "rationally."
Evidence? Cite?

Oh that's right--you don't have any.


Every time they are wrong,
And when is that?

Please--enlighten me. Don't just make blatant assertions.

Everybody should receive things of immeasurable value for free.
Then you endorse slavery. Please stay away from me.

Treating mathematics as an a posteriori science makes sense in what fantasy world? Seriously--do you perform experiments to determine that 2 + 2 = 4?


No one is treating mathematics as an "a posteriori science." The claim being made is that it is not sufficient to treat economics as purely a priori. Of course, this distincition is being missed (ignored) because of the attempt to reduce all of economics to something akin to "2+2=4," which is an oversimplification of mindnumbing proportions. :D

Biology, physics, chemistry, etc. are all experimental sciences regardless of the fact that they all utilize mathematics, and regardless of any lack of experimental proof of "2+2=4;" this is because there is a whole lot more to biology, physics, and chemistry than "2+2=4." And all that is being claimed is that the same is true for economics.

They claim that there are general axioms upon which we can create a system, such as "humans act".

How in the world can we move from "humans act" to any meaningful notion of human behavior?

How in the world can we move from "humans act" to any meaningful notion of human behavior?

By inserting "axioms" to the effect that "human beings should behave how I think they should"
(edit: recall what I said about political special interests)

How can the economy and aggregate (and individual) human economic behavior be observed an documented in any controlled method?

Certainly the factors of human behavior are far too complex and interwoven to be isolated and measured.

How can the economy and aggregate (and individual) human economic behavior be observed an documented in any controlled method?


I would think that the collection and comparison/analysis of quantitative data (of which economics is certainly not lacking) would be a good place to start. (edit: being a student of political science, I will be must be] the first to admit that the processes of social science are not, at this moment, nearly as clear as those of the physical sciences. However, to conclude that "hard" immediately means "impossible" strikes me as a false conclusion. To completely close one's eyes to the value of observation of reality strikes me as absurd.)

Certainly the factors of human behavior are far too complex and interwoven to be isolated and measured.

Being an advocate of the scientific method, and empiricism in general, I cannot help but notice the similarity of the above sentence to similar sentiments felt by various religious organizations and entities concerning the works of scientists past and present. The universe is too big and complex, so such studies are impossible, pointless, or even sinful (i.e. "immoral" or "anti-freedom" in the context of this thread).

Of course, they've been proven wrong before, and we're (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_science) working on doing it again. :D

No one is treating mathematics as an "a posteriori science."
Oh, I think the person who disdains "non empirical epistemology" would. And there is such a person here who has said disdain.


The claim being made is that it is not sufficient to treat economics as purely a priori. Of course, this distincition is being missed (ignored) because of the attempt to reduce all of economics to something akin to "2+2=4," which is an oversimplification of mindnumbing proportions. :D
I'm trying to figure out how it's an oversimplification. Help me out.


Biology, physics, chemistry, etc. are all experimental sciences regardless of the fact that they all utilize mathematics, and regardless of any lack of experimental proof of "2+2=4;" this is because there is a whole lot more to biology, physics, and chemistry than "2+2=4." And all that is being claimed is that the same is true for economics.
What's being claimed by some is that economics is wholly a posteriori, as evidenced by the disdain by one who says that anything else is "not a real science". This, of course, is just bullshit.

At any rate, economics is an a priori science, as a branch of praxeology, just as calculus is a branch of mathematics.

How in the world can we move from "humans act" to any meaningful notion of human behavior?
What is it they are doing when they act? They have some goal in mind, otherwise they wouldn't act.

It's quite simple.

By inserting "axioms" to the effect that "human beings should behave how I think they should"
False.

Being an advocate of the scientific method, and empiricism in general, I cannot help but notice the similarity of the above sentence to similar sentiments felt by various religious organizations and entities concerning the works of scientists past and present. The universe is too big and complex, so such studies are impossible, pointless, or even sinful (i.e. "immoral" or "anti-freedom" in the context of this thread).
Of course, that's just a blatantly false analogy bordering on poisoning the well.

What is it they are doing when they act? They have some goal in mind, otherwise they wouldn't act.

Instinct or reflex.

Leaving that aside, we still have no idea what that goal is, or what they attempt to do to achieve that goal. We need empirical data to learn either.

Instinct or reflex.
Ah, so everything we do is instinct or reflex. Gotcha.


Leaving that aside, we still have no idea what that goal is, or what they attempt to do to achieve that goal.
That's irrelevant. The fact is that they have a goal--whatever it is. We don't need to know what it is in order to make the statement that humans act. If you like, I can make it a little more clear for you in that purposeful action (so you can't try the bullshit of instinct or reflex) necessitates a goal in mind. Although even instinct can have a goal (such as self-preservation). But that's irrelevant. Economics is a value-free science. That is to say, it does not prescribe what people should do, but rather makes generalizations of human behavior based on certain axioms.

Being an advocate of the scientific method, and empiricism in general, I cannot help but notice the similarity of the above sentence to similar sentiments felt by various religious organizations and entities concerning the works of scientists past and present. The universe is too big and complex, so such studies are impossible, pointless, or even sinful (i.e. "immoral" or "anti-freedom" in the context of this thread).

I wonder if the human mind with its self-consciousness is not so much too complex, but too resistent to controlled observation for empiricism to be very effective.

Ah, so everything we do is instinct or reflex. Gotcha.

No, that isn't what I said. I disputed the notion that all human action has a goal in mind, not that some human action does.

You will never be able to tell what is and what isn't without empirical evidence.

That's irrelevant. The fact is that they have a goal--whatever it is. We don't need to know what it is in order to make the statement that humans act.

No, but as I recall my question was aimed at how one moves beyond the notion that humans act.

"Humans act" tells us very little that is useful in attempting to understand how human societies (and economies) function.

If you like, I can make it a little more clear for you in that purposeful action (so you can't try the bullshit of instinct or reflex) necessitates a goal in mind.

Impressive, BAAWA! You have mastered the principle of non-contradiction.

"Purposeful action necessitates a goal in mind." About as insightful as noting that white horses are white.

Economics is a value-free science. That is to say, it does not prescribe what people should do, but rather makes generalizations of human behavior based on certain axioms.

"Humans act" and "purposeful action necessitates a goal in mind"? Neither statement tells us anything useful.

I seem to remember you saying something about making wild allegations (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11868143&postcount=52), and how that's not good. You wouldn't happen to be making one right now, would you?

Why yes--yes you are.
You should have just asked me to explain it.

Dangerous - lack of liberal support for public education means that in the future our economies may not be able to adapt to new conditions. Lack of support for public medicine would probably case the death rate to increase.

Anti-freedom - liberals don't want me to be able to speak my mind on corporate property, which could be everywhere in the free-market paradise. Another example: liberals don't support my right to an education, which I believe I have.

Pro-suffering - in the free-marketopia there would be no minimum wage, thus most people would probably be poor at best, probably barely surviving. More people would starve. More poor people would die of easily treatable illnesses.

When I say liberals I'm talking about these Austrian economists, not American liberals.

You will never be able to tell what is and what isn't without empirical evidence.
So what?


No, but as I recall my question was aimed at how one moves beyond the notion that humans act.
I explained it.


Impressive, BAAWA! You have mastered the principle of non-contradiction.
How nice. Next, do you think you could put some effort into your posts. Thanks.

And yes, the statements tell us something useful. Unless, of course, you're just using a specific definition of "useful" that you've come up with in order to attempt to make economics a posteriori. Which, of course, it seems you've done.

You should have just asked me to explain it.
But then I wouldn't have been able to point out your hypocrisy.


Dangerous - lack of liberal support for public education means that in the future our economies may not be able to adapt to new conditions. Lack of support for public medicine would probably case the death rate to increase.
Of course, there's no evidence for that emotive hysteria.


Anti-freedom - liberals don't want me to be able to speak my mind on corporate property,
And jews don't want neo-nazis to speak their mind in a synagogue. What's your point? Are jews now anti-freedom?


which could be everywhere in the free-market paradise.
Could it be? Even in people's homes?


Another example: liberals don't support my right to an education, which I believe I have.
You can believe that you have a right to be waited on hand-and-foot; that doesn't mean that you do.


Pro-suffering - in the free-marketopia there would be no minimum wage, thus most people would probably be poor at best, probably barely surviving.
Ah, so you've bought into the myth that capitalists are all evil, heartless, and only want to starve the workers.

Get back to me when you're not hysterical.

So what?

So you cannot base any science aimed at examining how humans actually act in the real world on tautological statements solely applicable to purposeful human action.

I explained it.

No, you didn't.

You said that "purposeful action necessitates a goal in mind." So? How does that get us anywhere? We still don't know anything about the actual goal, nor do we know which actions are purposeful and which aren't, so we still are completely incapable of predicting what humans will actually do in the real world.

How nice. Next, do you think you could put some effort into your posts. Thanks.

I put in effort where effort is required. Your arguments, for the most part, can be dealt with without much of it.

And yes, the statements tell us something useful.

Which is?

So you cannot base any science aimed at examining how humans actually act in the real world on tautological statements solely applicable to purposeful human action.
Why not? Don't just assert.


No, you didn't.
Yes, I did.


You said that "purposeful action necessitates a goal in mind." So? How does that get us anywhere?
Are you under the mistaken and idiotic notion that we have to determine what they want in order to make statements about human action?


We still don't know anything about the actual goal, nor do we know which actions are purposeful and which aren't, so we still are completely incapable of predicting what humans will actually do in the real world.
Ah, so you want to predict each and every action that humans will do. Good luck with that. You'll need it.


I put in effort where effort is required.
And my arguments require it.


Which is?
That humans will act toward a goal. That they do so with scarce means. That they have to figure out what they really want to act on, since they can't act upon everything.

Or are you under the mistaken view that "useful" is something defined solely by YOU, and that YOUR definition requires that we have a specific answer as to what they are acting toward.

Why not? Don't just assert.

Because if you can't tell which actions are purposeful, you can't tell which actions have goals.

Are you under the mistaken and idiotic notion that we have to determine what they want in order to make statements about human action?

No, just to make meaningful statements about human action - statements that actually are useful in determining the real world results of certain social structures and economic policies.

Ah, so you want to predict each and every action that humans will do. Good luck with that. You'll need it.

That's not what I said.

That humans will act toward a goal.

Only when they are acting purposefully. (That is to say, they will act towards a goal as long as they are acting towards a goal. How useful.)

That they do so with scarce means.

Questionable. The scarcity of the means is relative to the ends - at least, its relevance is.

That they have to figure out what they really want to act on, since they can't act upon everything.

Okay. They have to make choices. So?

But then I wouldn't have been able to point out your hypocrisy.
ROFL.

Of course, there's no evidence for that emotive hysteria.
The 19th Century.

And jews don't want neo-nazis to speak their mind in a synagogue. What's your point? Are jews now anti-freedom?
Jews don't own the whole country.

A prime example is the rise of the shopping centre/mall. It

Could it be? Even in people's homes?
Yes, if the corp owned your home.

You can believe that you have a right to be waited on hand-and-foot; that doesn't mean that you do.
Everyone has a right to an education because that gives them the ability to make something of themselves, and to succeed on their own merits.

Ah, so you've bought into the myth that capitalists are all evil, heartless, and only want to starve the workers.
It happened when laissez-fair economics ruled in the 19th century, why wouldn't it happen again?

Because if you can't tell which actions are purposeful, you can't tell which actions have goals.
Why wouldn't we be able to tell?



No, just to make meaningful statements about human action
There you go again: re-defining a word to suit your own agenda. As if it can't be meaningful unless we know precisely what the person is acting for. What a load!


That's not what I said.
That is what you said. Otherwise, how would we determine the real world results of certain social structures and economic policies?



Only when they are acting purposefully. (That is to say, they will act towards a goal as long as they are acting towards a goal. How useful.)
It is.


Questionable.
No, it's factual. Resources are scarce--that is a fact. We do not, for instance, have unlimited time. We cannot do everything at once.


Okay. They have to make choices. So?
So that's the point. The make choices. They have things they value. They work to achieve their goals.

The 19th Century.
Isn't evidence for your emotive hysteria.


Jews don't own the whole country.
Irrelevant. The synagogue is not owned by the neo-nazis, yet the jews are preventing them from using it to preach anti-jewish messages. They are denying the poor neo-nazis their right of free speech!

Unless, of course, you realize the stupidity of your initial claim. Do you realize it, or are you a hypocrite? Those are the ONLY options.


Yes, if the corp owned your home.
Why would that be the case?


Everyone has a right to an education because that gives them the ability to make something of themselves, and to succeed on their own merits.
That's a wonderful non sequitur, and it doesn't demonstrate that we have the right to demand of others their time, effort, and knowledge in order to educate us. It doesn't demonstrate that we have the right to enslave others. THAT is what you're driving at: slavery.


It happened when laissez-fair economics ruled in the 19th century,
I wasn't aware that it did. I was aware of a lot of interventionism and mercantilism, with a small period of lessening of the regulations (during which time the standard of living for everyone in the US shot through the roof). And I've done a lot more research than you have.

Now then, if you have some evidence I should think that you'd provide it. I, of course, can provide tons of examples of governmental intervention causing the problems you're going to attribute to capitalism. That will make you cry and scream at me. It's ok, though: I'm used to that happening. It always happens when I burst the bubble of the ignorant.

Why wouldn't we be able to tell?

Because you explicitly restrict yourself to a priori knowledge.

There you go again: re-defining a word to suit your own agenda. As if it can't be meaningful unless we know precisely what the person is acting for. What a load!

Like I said before, it's about as meaningful as declaring that a white horse must necessarily be white, and pretending that this tells us something useful about horses and their characteristics.

That is what you said. Otherwise, how would we determine the real world results of certain social structures and economic policies?

By predicting some of their actions - by examining human behavior and human societies and coming to conclusions about how humans tend to act, and extrapolating from there.

It is.

No, it isn't.

Either you know which actions have a goal in mind, or you don't.

If you do, not only have you moved beyond purely a priori reasoning, but you have reduced the notion that purposeful actions necessitate goals to uselessness. You already know that they have goals.

If you don't, it doesn't help you learn how humans actually behave.

No, it's factual.

Empirically factual, incidentally.

Resources are scarce--that is a fact. We do not, for instance, have unlimited time. We cannot do everything at once.

But both the extent of this scarcity and its relevance to our desires are empirical facts.

So that's the point. The make choices. They have things they value. They work to achieve their goals.

And that has what relevance, exactly, to raising the minimum wage?

Unless, of course, you realize the stupidity of your initial claim. Do you realize it, or are you a hypocrite? Those are the ONLY options.

If the owner of the synagogue let the Neo-Nazis spread their racist filth within the synagogue, would you have no problem?

For some of us, obesiance before property rights has nothing to do with being opposed to racists violating other people's privacy.

Because you explicitly restrict yourself to a priori knowledge.
No.


Like I said before, it's about as meaningful as declaring that a white horse must necessarily be white, and pretending that this tells us something useful about horses and their characteristics.
Ah, so you think that useful must be whatever you define it as. Just as I said.

You really need to stop believing that you get to define what words mean.



By predicting some of their actions - by examining human behavior and human societies and coming to conclusions about how humans tend to act, and extrapolating from there.
But that's not meaningful, nor useful. You need to be able to predict exactly what they will do, or else it's useless and meaningless.



No, it isn't.
Certainly it is.


Either you know which actions have a goal in mind, or you don't.

If you do, not only have you moved beyond purely a priori reasoning, but you have reduced the notion that purposeful actions necessitate goals to uselessness.
Non sequitur.


If you don't, it doesn't help you learn how humans actually behave.
There you go again with redefining terms to suit you. Silly person, thinking that a priori is mere tautology, and thus empty.


Empirically factual, incidentally.
Only incidentally, as we must start out with knowing that we exist. If you're going to go that route, then you're going to have to deny the a priori in total, and thus logic and mathematics become a posteriori. One wonders how you test the law of non contradiction and the axiom of infinity.


But both the extent of this scarcity and its relevance to our desires are empirical facts.
So what?


And that has what relevance, exactly, to raising the minimum wage?
That if you raise the minimum wage, people will have to compensate by changing their goals. No testing is needed.

If the owner of the synagogue let the Neo-Nazis spread their racist filth within the synagogue, would you have no problem?
I would have no problem with that at all from the standpoint of rights. After all, if the owner doesn't mind, it's none of my business.


For some of us, obesiance before property rights has nothing to do with being opposed to racists violating other people's privacy.
Privacy is a form of property right.

No.

You've been insisting that economics is like mathematics in its a priori status. What empirical evidence is there in mathematics?

Ah, so you think that useful must be whatever you define it as. Just as I said.

You really need to stop believing that you get to define what words mean.

Do explain to me the use of pointing out that white horses are white.

But that's not meaningful, nor useful. You need to be able to predict exactly what they will do, or else it's useless and meaningless.

That's not how I've used either term.

Non sequitur.

No, it isn't. Such an "extrapolation" would be redundant, and thus useless.

There you go again with redefining terms to suit you. Silly person, thinking that a priori is mere tautology, and thus empty.

1 + 1 = 2 does not merely note that 1 = 1, or that 2 = 2.

Statements like "purposeful action necessitates a goal in mind" are simply useless redundancies.

Only incidentally, as we must start out with knowing that we exist.

No, actually we don't, but I digress.

If you're going to go that route, then you're going to have to deny the a priori in total, and thus logic and mathematics become a posteriori. One wonders how you test the law of non contradiction and the axiom of infinity.

No, knowledge of scarcity depends directly on empirical observation. The laws of logic and mathematics do not.

So what?

So if you're trying to understand the way economies work, and what happens when you manipulate them, you need empirical facts. Economics must thus be a science that depends on empirical facts - not on purely a priori knowledge, as you insist.

That if you raise the minimum wage, people will have to compensate by changing their goals.

Why? And what does it mean in terms of actual economic consequences?

I would have no problem with that at all from the standpoint of rights. After all, if the owner doesn't mind, it's none of my business.

Then it is your claim whose stupidity should be realized, not his. I doubt Ardee Street's likely indignation at the notion of Neo-Nazis marching in a synagogue has much to do with considerations of property rights. Mine certainly is not; I would object just as strongly whoever owned the synagogue.

Privacy is a form of property right.

No, it isn't. Someone who steals a pen I drop on the floor does not violate my privacy. Someone who enters my place of residence without my permission, even if I do not own it, does.

You've been insisting that economics is like mathematics in its a priori status. What empirical evidence is there in mathematics?
We abstract concepts like "unit" from what we see.


Do explain to me the use of pointing out that white horses are white.
Do explain why you feel that a priori statements are useless tautologies.



That's not how I've used either term.
Yes, that is EXACTLY how you've used the terms.



No, it isn't.
Absolutely it is.


1 + 1 = 2 does not merely note that 1 = 1, or that 2 = 2.
But it's an empty, useless, meaningless, vacuous tautology. It's devoid of any meaning about the real world. It's got no use at all.

If you can't see your own argument in that, you're in worse shape than I thought.



Statements like "purposeful action necessitates a goal in mind" are simply useless redundancies.
Just like 1 + 1 = 2. Useless. Redundant.


No, actually we don't,
Actually, we do. Because if we don't, how is it that we are coming up with these concepts?


No, knowledge of scarcity depends directly on empirical observation.
Not really.


The laws of logic and mathematics do not.
Well then, they are empty, useless, vacuous, meaningless voids.


So if you're trying to understand the way economies work, and what happens when you manipulate them, you need empirical facts.
No you don't.


Economics must thus be a science that depends on empirical facts
Non sequitur.


Why?
Because something has changed.


And what does it mean in terms of actual economic consequences?
I told you what it meant. Now then, when are you going to address your irrational belief that a priori statements are useless, empty, meaningless tautologies?

Then it is your claim whose stupidity should be realized, not his.
Except that my claim has no stupidity. His does. He believes that if someone cannot say whatever they want on the grounds of some corporation, that is a violation of freedom of speech. So I gave his idiocy a twist and showed everyone just how much of a hypocrite he is.


I doubt Ardee Street's likely indignation at the notion of Neo-Nazis marching in a synagogue has much to do with considerations of property rights.
Then he shouldn't object if a corporation has rules about what can be said on the property of the corporation.


Mine certainly is not; I would object just as strongly whoever owned the synagogue.
You could object on aesthetic grounds, but not on moral grounds. Ardee was objecting on moral grounds (violating free speech).

You REALLY should read more carefully.


No, it isn't.
Yes, it is. It's about being left alone--not having your space violated. Property rights.


Someone who steals a pen I drop on the floor does not violate my privacy.
You do realize that I said "form of property right", don't you? You DID read that, didn't you? I certainly wouldn't want to think you didn't read what I wrote. That would be stupid of you.

We abstract concepts like "unit" from what we see.

Then you are the one denying that mathematics is a priori, not me.

And how do we manage this abstraction?

Do explain why you feel that a priori statements are useless tautologies.

I didn't say that.

Yes, that is EXACTLY how you've used the terms.

No, it isn't.

But it's an empty, useless, meaningless, vacuous tautology. It's devoid of any meaning about the real world. It's got no use at all.

It has obvious implications for the real world. Put one object on a table, put another on the table, and suddenly you have two. Using "1 + 1 = 2", this conclusion is perfectly predictable.

Just like 1 + 1 = 2. Useless. Redundant.

No. 1 = 1 is useless and redundant.

Actually, we do. Because if we don't, how is it that we are coming up with these concepts?

The point is that it is not a necessary premise of a priori knowledge, not that it is not a necessary conclusion of a priori knowledge.

Not really.

So how do we discover scarcity independent of empirical observation?

Well then, they are empty, useless, vacuous, meaningless voids.

It's rather pathetic how the best you can manage is obvious straw men.

No you don't.

So you're saying that a world in which everyone's preferences could be perfectly satisfied by complete inaction (that is, a society without relevant scarcity) would have a similar economy to one that required extensive systems of exchange for such preference satisfaction?

Because something has changed.

So? Things change all the time, that doesn't mean that my goals change as well.

I told you what it meant.

No, you didn't. You said that people's goals change. That is hardly a conclusion that can tell us whether, say, such increases generate unemployment or inflation, whether they genuinely improve the lives of those they help, and so on.

Now then, when are you going to address your irrational belief that a priori statements are useless, empty, meaningless tautologies?

No, since that is not my belief.

Except that my claim has no stupidity. His does. He believes that if someone cannot say whatever they want on the grounds of some corporation, that is a violation of freedom of speech. So I gave his idiocy a twist and showed everyone just how much of a hypocrite he is.

Expressing one's non-racist opinion on the Iraq War on land owned by some random corporation or landowner is not equivalent to spewing anti-Semitic bigotry in a synagogue.

Then he shouldn't object if a corporation has rules about what can be said on the property of the corporation.

No, that doesn't follow. You are making the assumption that the only criterion that can be used to distinguish legitimate and illegitimate free speech is property rights. Unfortunately for your argument, that is not the only criterion.

I could, for instance, maintain that property does not permit the owner to restrict speech in ordinary speech, but that all bigoted speech should not be classified as free speech, and as such can be restricted.

You could object on aesthetic grounds, but not on moral grounds. Ardee was objecting on moral grounds (violating free speech).

So was I.

Yes, it is. It's about being left alone--not having your space violated. Property rights.

It is not "your space" in the sense that you own it, however; it is "your space" in the sense that you live there, that you want yourself to be protected and secure there. Violating that is violating your right to privacy, whoever owns it legally.

No one is treating mathematics as an "a posteriori science." The claim being made is that it is not sufficient to treat economics as purely a priori. Of course, this distincition is being missed (ignored) because of the attempt to reduce all of economics to something akin to "2+2=4," which is an oversimplification of mindnumbing proportions. :D

Biology, physics, chemistry, etc. are all experimental sciences regardless of the fact that they all utilize mathematics, and regardless of any lack of experimental proof of "2+2=4;" this is because there is a whole lot more to biology, physics, and chemistry than "2+2=4." And all that is being claimed is that the same is true for economics.

Since it would be utterly pointless for me to say it again, I merely "second" this response to BAAWA.

Oh, I think the person who disdains "non empirical epistemology" would. And there is such a person here who has said disdain.I'll assume this is a reference to me.

Where you get the idea that I "disdain" non-empirical epistemology per se--so that such disdain would apply against its use in mathematics--is beyond me. Reading things into what I write will not help you.

Of course, when it comes to empirical sciences--like economics--then... yes, I "disdain" those who refuse to test their theories against experience. They are no better than creationists.

What's being claimed by some is that economics is wholly a posteriori, as evidenced by the disdain by one who says that anything else is "not a real science". This, of course, is just bullshit.Nice straw man, but no one here is making that claim. No one is claiming that mathematics and deduction are not useful in studying economics, as they are useful in studying every other science.

What we contest is the delusion that one can STOP with "logical deductions" in the realm of human behavior.

At any rate, economics is an a priori science, as a branch of praxeology, just as calculus is a branch of mathematics.Well, at least I know whom to call if I'm looking for a good brainwasher...

:rolleyes:

Then you are the one denying that mathematics is a priori, not me.
Not in the least.

Tell me--how are we going to come up with something without any reference whatsoever to the fact that we're coming up with it?


And how do we manage this abstraction?
In our minds.


I didn't say that.
You say it every time you call the a priori statements "meaningless". Every. Single. Time.

Now then, do you wish to revise your stance?



It has obvious implications for the real world.
No it doesn't. It has no implications at all. After all, you can't find me "1". Thus, it has no implications at all. Just an empty, useless, meaningless statement that tells me nothing about reality. Nothing at all.

Hint: if you can't see your stance in that, then you're just a hypocrite.


Put one object on a table, put another on the table, and suddenly you have two. Using "1 + 1 = 2", this conclusion is perfectly predictable.
Then mathematics isn't a priori, since you've tested it.


No. 1 = 1 is useless and redundant.
Which means that you believe that tautologies are useless and redundant, which of course means that, given that the tautology is a priori, the a priori is useless and redundant.


The point is that it is not a necessary premise of a priori knowledge, not that it is not a necessary conclusion of a priori knowledge.
Then you've contradicted yourself.


So how do we discover scarcity independent of empirical observation?
How do we discover the axiom of infinity independent of empirical observation?


It's rather pathetic how the best you can manage is obvious straw men.
It's rather pathetic that you have to distance yourself from your own stance by calling it a strawman!


So you're saying that a world in which everyone's preferences could be perfectly satisfied by complete inaction (that is, a society without relevant scarcity) would have a similar economy to one that required extensive systems of exchange for such preference satisfaction?
How did you come up with that "gem" (and I use that term sarcastically).


So? Things change all the time, that doesn't mean that my goals change as well.
It does when your resources change. You have to make adjustments.


No, you didn't.
Yes, I did, unless you're using some hitherto unknown-to-everyone-except-you meaning of the term "meant" (which is exactly what you're doing).


No, since that is not my belief.
No. 1 = 1 is useless and redundant.
I love it when people contradict themselves.

Expressing one's non-racist opinion on the Iraq War on land owned by some random corporation or landowner is not equivalent to spewing anti-Semitic bigotry in a synagogue.
It is when they are uninvited.

Or are you confusing aesthetic and moral, which, I know that you are.


No, that doesn't follow.
No, it follows perfectly. He's the one who made the claim about restricting freedom of speech. I merely showed him where his stance leads. It's called "reductio ad absurdum". Perhaps you've heard of it.


You are making the assumption that the only criterion that can be used to distinguish legitimate and illegitimate free speech is property rights.
No, I'm merely demonstrating the idiocy of a stance which says that people should be able to say what they want wherever they want, regardless of where it is. That is what the other person was claiming, dearie, when he said that corporations which do not allow people to say certain things on the property of the corporation violate the freedom of speech of those people.

Or is that just way too logical and well thought-out for you to grasp?


I could, for instance, maintain that property does not permit the owner to restrict speech in ordinary speech, but that all bigoted speech should not be classified as free speech, and as such can be restricted.
Then you'd have to give valid reasons why, lest you special plead.



So was I.
No, you were objecting on aesthetic grounds. "Bigoted". Aesthetic.


It is not "your space" in the sense that you own it, however; it is "your space" in the sense that you live there, that you want yourself to be protected and secure there.
That you want to have your privacy respected.


Violating that is violating your right to privacy, whoever owns it legally.
So you've come around to the idea that it's a form of property right. Good.

What is it they are doing when they act? They have some goal in mind, otherwise they wouldn't act.

It's quite simple.Yes, quite simple. And utterly stupid.

The briefest study of psychology would make plain that people "act" all the time--probably most of the time--without a "goal," or at least without having one "in mind." Perhaps worse, when they do have a goal "in mind," it may become clear on close examination that this is not really the goal driving their behavior.

In other words, unless you include neurotic compulsions, habit, conditioned response, addiction and various other behavior-causing factors in your definition of "goal"--and such a definition would be so perverse as to lose the meaning of the term--then it is simply not true that one can deduce the existence of a "goal" from the fact of human action.

I'll assume this is a reference to me.

Where you get the idea that I "disdain" non-empirical epistemology per se--so that such disdain would apply against its use in mathematics--is beyond me.
Other than your own words, you mean.


Of course, when it comes to empirical sciences--like economics
Demonstrate that it is an empirical science. Please provide the empirical method for it. Now.


--then... yes, I "disdain" those who refuse to test their theories against experience.
Ah, yes. That old chestnut of a lie that says no Austrian ever refers to the real world.

Think you could ever bother to stop flinging that lie around?


Nice straw man,
It's not; it's your stance.


but no one here is making that claim.
You did.


No one is claiming that mathematics and deduction are not useful in studying economics, as they are useful in studying every other science.
But mathematics isn't a real science, since it doesn't use empirical epistemology.

I will refer you to your post here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11871763&postcount=20).


What we contest is the delusion that one can STOP with "logical deductions" in the realm of human behavior.
I contest the delusion that economics is an a posteriori science. I contest the delusion that you can objectively quantify "value". I contest the delusion that humans are described by mathematical formulae.

Now then, do you have anything of merit?

Not in the least.

Tell me--how are we going to come up with something without any reference whatsoever to the fact that we're coming up with it?

The source of the knowledge is not empirical. Which is the whole point.

In our minds.

Obviously.

How do we move from the sensory information we derive from experience to the notion of a unit?

I see an object. Examine it as I will, I will never discover a status of "unit" from the object itself; indeed, the very concept of "object" is not apparent from pure sensory data.

Perhaps more importantly, mathematics as a whole has necessity to it; not only does empirical reality not support the notion that 1 + 1 can equal anything but 2, but we cannot conceive of a world where it does not. It thus cannot be empirical.

The tenets of economics are very much different.

You say it every time you call the a priori statements "meaningless". Every. Single. Time.

Because when I say that some statements that happen to be a priori are meaningless, I really mean that all such statements are meaningless?

No it doesn't. It has no implications at all. After all, you can't find me "1". Thus, it has no implications at all. Just an empty, useless, meaningless statement that tells me nothing about reality. Nothing at all.

I've never said that, and I've never even implied it.

Then mathematics isn't a priori, since you've tested it.

No. Then mathematics has actual implications for the real world, because they're apparent.

Were it to be the case that adding one object to another did not generate two objects, but rather three, or four, or some other number, I would consider my observation mistaken, not my a priori knowledge of mathematics.

I'm going to delete the rest of your repetitive straw men, because I've already responded to them.

How did you come up with that "gem" (and I use that term sarcastically).

That is not a response.

It does when your resources change. You have to make adjustments.

But not to your goals. And you have not yet shown that the resources change relevantly.

Yes, quite simple. And utterly stupid.
Only if you think that mathematics is stupid. Which you clearly do.


The briefest study of psychology would make plain that people "act" all the time--probably most of the time--without a "goal," or at least without having one "in mind."
What a nice blatant assertion.

[snip the rest of the delusion]

Ah, so everything we do is instinct or reflex. Gotcha.That's not what he said, is it? I think the purpose of his remark was to point out that NOT everything we do is "goal-oriented."

The point is not to insist on a narrowly deterministic view of human behavior which rules out the possibility of free (goal-oriented) will. Rather, it is to demonstrate that we can verify empirically that human behavior is sufficiently constrained by circumstance that universalizing appeals to a priori reason are likely to be misplaced.

If you like, I can make it a little more clear for you in that purposeful action (so you can't try the bullshit of instinct or reflex) necessitates a goal in mind.

Again, this just doesn't hold up; especially if you insist on the "in mind" part. Driving a car would be classified by most people as an extremely purposeful activity. Yet most people have had the experience of getting in the car to drive to a doctor's appointment, only to discover a few minutes later that (without thinking about it) they have been driving to work, or to school. Psychologists describe this as a "trance" state, the actions performed during which bear no immediate relation to whatever "goals" the individual has "in mind."

This is just one example of the empirical complexities of the human mind. There are many, many more.

The source of the knowledge is not empirical. Which is the whole point.
Oh, but it is, since we created the concept of unit from seeing the separations of entities. It stems from the empirical, oh yes it does.



Obviously.

How do we move from the sensory information we derive from experience to the notion of a unit?
Abstraction.


Perhaps more importantly, mathematics as a whole has necessity to it; not only does empirical reality not support the notion that 1 + 1 can equal anything but 2, we cannot conceive of a world where it does not. It thus cannot be empirical.
And I cannot conceive of a world where humans do not act. Thus, that cannot be empirical.


The tenets of economics are very much different.
No, they aren't.


Because when I say that some statements that happen to be a priori are meaningless, I really mean that all such statements are meaningless?
You never said "some", liar.


I've never said that, and I've never even implied it.
Lie and lie, as I've demonstrated.

You're now a confirmed hypocrite.


No. Then mathematics has actual implications for the real world, because they're apparent.
Oh no, they are just empty, useless tautologies. They mean nothing. After all, they have no reference to the real world. Empty, useless--they are.


Were it to be the case that adding one object to another did not generate two objects, but rather three, or four, or some other number, I would consider my observation mistaken, not my a priori knowledge of mathematics.
But then you're testing math, aren't you?

Hint: I'm demonstrating how you've got the whole notion of Austrian a priorism utterly fucking wrong, and that it would be a really good fucking idea if you either STFU or did some research before typing.


I'm going to delete the rest of your repetitive straw men, because I've already responded to them.
Thanks for yet again confirming your hypocrisy by calling your stance a "strawman".



That is not a response.
Main Entry: re·sponse
Pronunciation: ri-'spän(t)s
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English & Latin; Middle English respounce, from Anglo-French respuns, respounce, from Latin responsum reply, from neuter of responsus, past participle of respondEre
1 : an act of responding
2 : something constituting a reply or a reaction: as a : a verse, phrase, or word sung or said by the people or choir after or in reply to the officiant in a liturgical service b : the activity or inhibition of previous activity of an organism or any of its parts resulting from stimulation c : the output of a transducer or detecting device resulting from a given input
synonym see ANSWER

Main Entry: 1an·swer
Pronunciation: 'an(t)-s&r
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English andswaru (akin to Old Norse andsvar answer); akin to Old English and- against, swerian to swear -- more at ANTE-
1 a : something spoken or written in reply to a question b : a correct response <knows the answer>
2 : a reply to a legal charge or suit : PLEA; also : DEFENSE
3 : something done in response or reaction <his only answer was to walk out>
4 : a solution of a problem <more money is not the answer>
5 : one that imitates, matches, or corresponds to another <television's answer to the news magazines>
synonyms ANSWER, RESPONSE, REPLY, REJOINDER, RETORT mean something spoken, written, or done in return. ANSWER implies the satisfying of a question, demand, call, or need <had answers to all their questions>. RESPONSE may imply a quick or spontaneous reaction to a person or thing that serves as a stimulus <a response to the call for recruits>. REPLY often suggests a thorough response to all issues, points, or questions raised <a point-by-point reply to the accusation>. REJOINDER can be a response to a reply or to an objection <a salesman with a quick rejoinder to every argument>. RETORT implies a reaction to an implicit or explicit charge, criticism, or attack which contains a countercharge or counterattack <she made a cutting retort to her critics>.

I think you'll find that it was a response. Unless, of course, you're using a definition of "response" wholly unknown to we Mere Mortals.


But not to your goals.
Yes, to your goals.


And you have not yet shown that the resources change relevantly.
Sure I have. You provided it for me already: INCREASE IN MINIMUM WAGE.

Or don't you remember your own words?

Are you under the mistaken and idiotic notion that we have to determine what they want in order to make statements about human action?I doubt he is. Rather, I think he is making the case that in order for your "actions imply goals" logic to work out, it must be empirically true that goals are sufficiently related to actions for this statement to be realistic.

All the logic in the world doesn't get you anywhere unless real people actually behave how you think they will.

That humans will act toward a goal.This presumes a lot. Human beings fail to act on even their most "important" goals--that is, the ones they subjectively perceive as important concerns to them, and who are we to argue?

That they do so with scarce means.Surely this is a relative statement. Means may be "scarce" in the economic abstract, but this affects human behaviors very differently depending on the individual's actual relation to scarcity.

That they have to figure out what they really want to act on, since they can't act upon everything."Figure out" is a nice little phrase, serving well to obscure the normative aspects of the Austrian account. They assume that people "rationally" link goals to means, that they "figure out" what will be the most advantageous outcome, and they "act" on their reasoning. This is where the Austrians run into trouble: when the great majority of people fail to act in a manner that the Austrians regard as "rational" (who let them decide that, anyway?), they do not set aside their assumptions. Oh no. Rather, they complain that people are "not acting rationally" because of some combination of ideological and social constraints, and that if they would just "act rationally" the virtues of the Austiran "science" would be seen at once.

This "science" smacks of Marxist "false consciousness" bullshit, their divergent conclusions notwithstanding.

as I've demonstrated

anyone else ever suspect that there must be some private definition of that word in use in this troll's posts?

Oh, but it is, since we created the concept of unit from seeing the separations of entities. It stems from the empirical, oh yes it does.

No, the concept of unit does not depend on any empirical experience.

Abstraction.

"Abstraction" of what?

And I cannot conceive of a world where humans do not act. Thus, that cannot be empirical.

Again, this whole argument began when I asked you to move beyond that statement.

And why on earth can you not conceive of a world where humans do not act?

You never said "some", liar.

No, but I never said "all" either.

So if I affirm the meaningfulness of some a priori statements while questioning the meaningfulness of others, the response from someone who was rational and intellectually honest would have been to assume that I meant "some."

Lie and lie, as I've demonstrated.

You're now a confirmed hypocrite.

The only person who's ever lied in any of our discussions is you - even after I proved you wrong with your own source.

But then you're testing math, aren't you?

No.

Hint: I'm demonstrating how you've got the whole notion of Austrian a priorism utterly fucking wrong, and that it would be a really good fucking idea if you either STFU or did some research before typing.

I am merely responding to your own statements. If you are misrepresenting your ideology, that is your own problem.

I think you'll find that it was a response. Unless, of course, you're using a definition of "response" wholly unknown to we Mere Mortals.

My mistake. That was not a response that actually contributes anything of worth.

Yes, to your goals.

Why should it alter your goals? It might alter your means, but not your goals.

Sure I have. You provided it for me already: INCREASE IN MINIMUM WAGE.

A change, yes. You have not yet shown that it is a relevant one to human action, enough to come to any meaningful conclusions about the actual results of such a change.

You need empirical evidence to do it.

I doubt he is. Rather, I think he is making the case that in order for your "actions imply goals" logic to work out, it must be empirically true that goals are sufficiently related to actions for this statement to be realistic.

Not really.

Rather, I was making the point that even if actions imply goals, this doesn't tell us anything about how people will actually act under certain circumstances; that is to say, if we are trying to understand what a good economic policy would be, it is utterly useless.

Silly person, thinking that a priori is mere tautology, and thus empty.My impression was that Soheran was responding, not to a priori truth in general, but rather more specifically to your assertion that "purposeful actions imply goals." His concern is that this statement is analytic, which implies nothing about other synthetic a priori statements.

Of course, as a follower of Quine, I deny the analytic/synthetic distinction altogether.

Only incidentally, as we must start out with knowing that we exist.Really? Empirical science could help you out again here. The "self" as we know it seems to be, in the first place, highly constructed; and whatever the construction, science finds little confirmation for the unified, independent "self" upon which Austrian theory (like the Enlightenment theories from which it descends or the Marxist theory which it parallels).

If you're going to go that route, then you're going to have to deny the a priori in total, and thus logic and mathematics become a posteriori. One wonders how you test the law of non contradiction and the axiom of infinity.I think this is highly off-topic, but this is not so hard to imagine at all--and certainly more believable than a purely a priori economics.

Quine's confirmational holism rests all knowledge on perfectly empirical criteria. The truth-status of the law of non-contradiction and the axiom of infinity derive from their usefulness within the entire network of human beliefs. Since we cannot test them singularly, we can only say of them that they "work" in the interface between human beliefs and empirical experience.

I don't think that argument is relevant to the discussion at hand, however, because the issue is whether economics is purely a priori, NOT whether the same is true of mathematics.

My impression was that Soheran was responding, not to a priori truth in general, but rather more specifically to your assertion that "purposeful actions imply goals." His concern is that this statement is analytic, which implies nothing about other synthetic a priori statements.

Not merely "analytic." You can accomplish things with analytical judgments - in regard to something with a complex definition, for instance, concluding that certain aspects of its definition must be true of it is purely analytical, but nevertheless useful.

Mere repetition, however, is completely useless.

Ah, yes. That old chestnut of a lie that says no Austrian ever refers to the real world.

Think you could ever bother to stop flinging that lie around?I never said that.

They're perfectly happy to "refer" to the real world, when it happens to agree with them. It's only when the world gets things "wrong" that Austrians insist that it's not important. Very convenient.

But mathematics isn't a real science, since it doesn't use empirical epistemology.

I will refer you to your post here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11871763&postcount=20).I referred to "real economists," who have science on their side. They need it, because their subject matter is empirical (and contingent). Mathematicians do not, because their subject matter is axiomatic (and universal).

Economics is not mathematics. Get over it.

I contest the delusion that you can objectively quantify "value".Who said you needed to? I contest the delusion that humans are described by mathematical formulae.Sure, but logical formulae will suit you just fine. :rolleyes:

anyone else ever suspect that there must be some private definition of that word in use in this troll's posts?Yes... Just when I forget why I block him and start reading his posts again... Well, I remember why I block him!!

Not really.

Rather, I was making the point that even if actions imply goals, this doesn't tell us anything about how people will actually act under certain circumstances; that is to say, if we are trying to understand what a good economic policy would be, it is utterly useless.

Well, the Austrians are going to reply that all we need to know is that people have goals, that they can and do "rank" them... and that given these assumptions we know that, rationally, people will act so as to maximize their subjective utility.

The problem with treating this as a priori comes in the assumption of rationality: it's never clear exactly what it means, why it should mean what Austrians claim it means, or why people don't actually seem to behave that way much of the time. It's an assumed connection between "goals" and "actions" that just isn't verified empirically.

We don't even need economics for verification on this. Psychology was way ahead of them.

Well, the Austrians are going to reply that all we need to know is that people have goals, that they can and do "rank" them... and that given these assumptions we know that, rationally, people will act so as to maximize their subjective utility.

And, like I said, this gets them absolutely nowhere. Maximizing "subjective utility" is a notion so broad that it can encompass any action. It can only generate meaningful conclusions if you equivocate; if you move from "subjective utility" to "rational self-interest" or something to that effect.

Mises, for instance, wants us to believe, so that his "economic calculation" argument will be valid against market socialism, that economic planners would have no incentive to act like private investors would. Not only does this ignore the obvious (that economic planners can be paid according to results just as anyone else can) but it makes the assumption, one in need of empirical validation, that non-financial incentives would not be sufficient.

The problem with treating this as a priori comes in the assumption of rationality: it's never clear exactly what it means, why it should mean what Austrians claim it means, or why people don't actually seem to behave that way much of the time. It's an assumed connection between "goals" and "actions" that just isn't verified empirically.

Undoubtedly. But I had made that point before, and BAAWA had ignored it, so I progressed to another.

Mises, for instance, wants us to believe, so that his "economic calculation" argument will be valid against market socialism, that economic planners would have no incentive to act like private investors would. Not only does this ignore the obvious (that economic planners can be paid according to results just as anyone else can) but it makes the assumption, one in need empirical validation, that non-financial incentives would not be sufficient.That's a really good point, and suggests others. They deserve emphasis.

First, Austrians blandly assume that economic motives ARE sufficient to produce economically advantageous decisions (which are the kind that drive the Austrian logic), yet empirically this does not seem to be true: consumers have loyalty, employers have compassion, and so on. (These important non-rational characteristics are usefully examined in Hirschmann's Exit, Voice, and Loyalty.)

Secondly, as you point out, Austrians assume that no non-economic motives are capable of reasonably approximating the "efficiency" of the rational-maximizer's economy. They are on somewhat firmer ground here to the extent that there is a necessary relationship between economic motives and economic outcomes, but that does not preclude the possibility that other motives could be effectively brought to bear--especially when, as in market socialism, social engineering of one kind or another attempts to align economic and other goals.

anyone else ever suspect that there must be some private definition of that word in use in this troll's posts?
Translation: anyone who presents something Free Soviets cannot refute is a troll.

No, the concept of unit does not depend on any empirical experience.
Of course it does. How else do we acquire it if not by abstracting from the individual existents?



Again, this whole argument began when I asked you to move beyond that statement.
Why do I need to?


And why on earth can you not conceive of a world where humans do not act?
Because it's self-contradictory.



No, but I never said "all" either.
You made no qualification. Unqualified statements are automatically taken to mean "all".


So if I affirm the meaningfulness of some a priori statements while questioning the meaningfulness of others,
Nice backpedal.


The only person who's ever lied in any of our discussions is you - even after I proved you wrong with your own source.
Except that you never did. Another lie from you.


No.
Sure you are. You're placing things next to each other and testing that equation.

Hint: again, this is just demonstrating your own ignorance of Austrian apriorism. I'm taking your stance and applying it to mathematics to show you how wrong you are.


I am merely responding to your own statements.
Your responses show a lack of knowledge of Austrian apriorism. That is YOUR problem.


My mistake. That was not a response that actually contributes anything of worth.
Except that it did.



Why should it alter your goals?
Change in resources.


A change, yes. You have not yet shown that it is a relevant one to human action,
But I have.


enough to come to any meaningful conclusions about the actual results of such a change.
Again with the Soheran proprietary definition of "meaningful".


You need empirical evidence to do it.
No you don't.

My impression was that Soheran was responding, not to a priori truth in general, but rather more specifically to your assertion that "purposeful actions imply goals."
No, it was to a priori truth in general.


Really? Empirical science could help you out again here.
Really?


The "self" as we know it seems to be, in the first place, highly constructed; and whatever the construction, science finds little confirmation for the unified, independent "self" upon which Austrian theory (like the Enlightenment theories from which it descends or the Marxist theory which it parallels).
Mmmmhmmm. Silly dualist. Mind without body/body without mind. Ghost/zombie. Neither of which can exist. Silly dualist.


I think this is highly off-topic, but this is not so hard to imagine at all
Oh, it's quite difficult to imagine.


--and certainly more believable than a purely a priori economics.
Only if you're ignorant of maths.

I never said that.
Yes you did.


They're perfectly happy to "refer" to the real world, when it happens to agree with them. It's only when the world gets things "wrong" that Austrians insist that it's not important.
Cites? Evidence?

I'll be waiting while you run around in terror that you've been asked to back your claim.


I referred to "real economists," who have science on their side.
And because neither mathematics nor logic "have science on their side", as they are not empirical, mathematicians and logicians are not "real scientists".

Oh, now don't go crying. It's your own fault that you made such an idiotic claim in the first place.


They need it, because their subject matter is empirical (and contingent). Mathematicians do not, because their subject matter is axiomatic (and universal).
And non-empirical. Which means it isn't a science. You've stated as such.


Economics is not mathematics.
It's a priori, just like mathematics. Get over it.


Who said you needed to?
You.

And axiomatic statements work just fine, such as "Humans generally prefer more of a good to less".

We don't even need economics for verification on this. Psychology was way ahead of them.
Pssssst....Menger had it first.

Irrelevant. The synagogue is not owned by the neo-nazis, yet the jews are preventing them from using it to preach anti-jewish messages. They are denying the poor neo-nazis their right of free speech!
My point is that if you own enough, you can curtail the right to free speech. If Jews owned all the bookshops and all public fora, Nazis and anyone else the owners dislike wouldn't have the right to free speech.

Isn't evidence for your emotive hysteria.

Yes it is. Are you saying that we will get different results even if we try the same policies as 19th century governments did?

Why would that be the case?
Corporations like Cadburys owned the homes of their workers in the 19th century.

That's a wonderful non sequitur, and it doesn't demonstrate that we have the right to demand of others their time, effort, and knowledge in order to educate us. It doesn't demonstrate that we have the right to enslave others. THAT is what you're driving at: slavery.
It's no more slavery than employment is. What were you saying about emotive hysteria?

a small period of lessening of the regulations (during which time the standard of living for everyone in the US shot through the roof).
When?

And I've done a lot more research than you have.
How arrogant of you.

Now then, if you have some evidence I should think that you'd provide it. I, of course, can provide tons of examples of governmental intervention causing the problems you're going to attribute to capitalism. That will make you cry and scream at me. It's ok, though: I'm used to that happening. It always happens when I burst the bubble of the ignorant.
How can you be so blind to the obvious??? Sweatshops are not caused by regulation, they're caused by deregulation. Employers are going to act in their self-interest. If starving the workers is compatible with that, many will do it.

The people are wealthier with socialism than without it beause the money of the rich is distributed to them and thus our lives are better. Whether you think that is morally right or not doesn't matter. The fact is, we voted for our self-interest, not the interests of the rich.

My point is that if you own enough, you can curtail the right to free speech. If Jews owned all the bookshops and all public fora, Nazis and anyone else the owners dislike wouldn't have the right to free speech.
That's nice. Now explain the relevance of that.


Yes it is.
No it isn't.


Are you saying that we will get different results even if we try the same policies as 19th century governments did?
You mean mercantilism?


Corporations like Cadburys owned the homes of their workers in the 19th century.
Yes, but why would it be the case? You're making the claim--unqualified--that it would necessarily be the case. So--why would it be the case?


It's no more slavery than employment is.
No, it's slavery, as you make a demand of someone because you claim to have the right to make them educate you. That's slavery in apparently everyone's book but yours.


When?
The 1880s-1900


How arrogant of you.
No, it's simply a fact.


How can you be so blind to the obvious???
Rather, the question is how can you be so blinded by propaganda.


Sweatshops are not caused by regulation, they're caused by deregulation.
Prove it. And prove that sweatshops are necessarily bad.


Employers are going to act in their self-interest. If starving the workers is compatible with that, many will do it.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Oh jeez, you'd fail Into to Management.


The people are wealthier with socialism than without it beause the money of the rich is distributed to them and thus our lives are better.
So people's lives are made better by theft? WTF?

And because neither mathematics nor logic "have science on their side", as they are not empirical, mathematicians and logicians are not "real scientists".

true. neither mathematicians nor logicians are scientists. what of it?

true. neither mathematicians nor logicians are scientists.
Yes, they are, unless you wish to define science as something merely empirical.

That's nice. Now explain the relevance of that.
The point is that if you are on somebody's land there is no freedom of speech. If there is no public land where freedom of speech is ensured, then it does not exist.

You mean mercantilism?
No I mean deregulated market economics, but I doubt a bit of protectionism removed would make much of a difference.

Yes, but why would it be the case? You're making the claim--unqualified--that it would necessarily be the case. So--why would it be the case?
Because it was the case before. If you try the same thing twice, it's logical to expect the same result both times.

No, it's slavery, as you make a demand of someone because you claim to have the right to make them educate you. That's slavery in apparently everyone's book but yours.
This is surely the stupidest thing you have ever said. If your sociopathic ideas enjoyed more popular support than mine, then why is the status quo more in line with my ideas? Why do most people support public education?

The 1880s-1900
Were not years of prosperity for the majority of people

No, it's simply a fact.
Do you assume you've done more research than everybody else?

Rather, the question is how can you be so blinded by propaganda.
I'm not the Randroid here.

Prove it. And prove that sweatshops are necessarily bad.
It's in an employer's self-interest to work as close to sweatchop conditions as the workers will tolerate. It increases efficiency.

Sweatshops are bad because they are not conducive to a high quality of life.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Oh jeez, you'd fail Into to Management.
Explain why.

So people's lives are made better by theft? WTF?
If theft is what is, then yes. People's lives are made better by theft.

No, it's slavery, as you make a demand of someone because you claim to have the right to make them educate you. That's slavery in apparently everyone's book but yours.


Not slavery just simple theft. No one is forcing the teachers to educate you infact most of them do it by choice for very little pay (despite good qualifications).


So people's lives are made better by theft? WTF?

Sure.
Unregulated capitalism has a tendancy to centralize money into the hands of few. Someone with vast ammounts of money can make more much more easily than someone with nothing (interest, giving out loans, better payouts from investments and so forth).

Each day this rich individual makes a penny more and the poor individual breaks even or he becomes a penny in debt. Over time this keeps getting bigger.

The point is that if you are on somebody's land there is no freedom of speech. If there is no public land where freedom of speech is ensured, then it does not exist.
How nice. Now why would that happen?


No I mean deregulated market economics,
Oh, so you mean mercantilism, since that's the part you're railing against, only you're being deceitful and calling it "deregulated market economics".


Because it was the case before.
So what? It was the case before that the Romans ruled most of Europe. Thus, it must be the case the in the future, they will again.

Yes, that's truly how stupid your claim is.


This is surely the stupidest thing you have ever said.
No, it's proper.


If your sociopathic ideas
So says the person who endorses slavery.


enjoyed more popular support than mine, then why is the status quo more in line with my ideas? Why do most people support public education?
Ah--argumentum ad populam. I love that fallacy.

Y'know, just because most of the people on the planet believe in a god doesn't mean that there is a god, right? Similarly, just because a lot of people have a silly idea that education should be free doesn't mean that it should. The number of people who believe something stupid doesn't make that idea correct, proper, or morally respectable.


Were not years of prosperity for the majority of people
No, they were, despite your lie that they weren't.


Do you assume you've done more research than everybody else?
Just you.


I'm not the Randroid here.
Nor I.



Is it?


[QUOTE=Ardee Street] It increases efficiency.
Prove it.


Sweatshops are bad because they are not conducive to a high quality of life.
Let's look at that, shall we? A lot of people whine and cry about the Nike sweatshops. Now then, what was the quality of life for those people like BEFORE those supposed sweatshops of Nike existed? Answer: somewhere around the quality of your average North Korean.


Explain why.
Because if the employer tries to starve the worker, the worker won't work.


If theft is what is, then yes. People's lives are made better by theft.
Then you're no better than a common burglar.

Not slavery just simple theft.
It's slavery when someone says that they have a right to be educated. Someone must then be impressed to service to educate them.



Sure.
Unregulated capitalism has a tendancy to centralize money into the hands of few.
No it doesn't.

It's slavery when someone says that they have a right to be educated. Someone must then be impressed to service to educate them.

No it doesn't.

BAAWAKnights, you are getting almost trollish in your defense of laissez faire. It would be wise to cool down a bit, and try some Rogerian argumentation, before you alienate everyone to left of Von Mises.

nothing of any consequence
If I want your opinion, I'll read your entrails.

It's slavery when someone says that they have a right to be educated. Someone must then be impressed to service to educate them.
.

How is someone supposed to take personal responcibility for thier actions or flourish in a free market without the basic foundations to do so?


And this is also done with simple things like legal aid, or would you deny an uneducated/illiterate man even basic legal help... or would that mean enslaving a lawyer.


No it doesn't.

Assume we need around 100 gold to live each day.
Person X makes 101
Person y makes 99
This continues each day for a while untill person x has lots of extra money while person y in in more and more debt.
Person y needs loans to keep himself homed or fed (and thus get in worse problems, that will give him child ((if he has one)) far less opportunity in his life) while person x can loan out his extra gold and make even more money and thus the cycle continues.

Its a pretty recognised fact that less regulations will lead to greater gaps in income untill the top 1% tends to own mass ammounts.

Oh, but it is, since we created the concept of unit from seeing the separations of entities. It stems from the empirical, oh yes it does.This would make the unit an a posterori concept. Are you suggesting that it is?

(Emphasis mine):

a posteriori

1. from particular instances to a general principle or law; based upon actual observation or upon experimental data: an a posteriori argument that derives the theory from the evidence. Compare a priori (def. 1).
2. not existing in the mind prior to or independent of experience. Compare a priori (def. 2).

How is someone supposed to take personal responcibility for thier actions or flourish in a free market without the basic foundations to do so?
That doesn't make education a right. Emotive pleas do not help you, period.


And this is also done with simple things like legal aid, or would you deny an uneducated/illiterate man even basic legal help... or would that mean enslaving a lawyer.
It would mean enslaving a lawyer.

But you do realize that lawyers can and do take work pro bono or on contingency, right?



Assume we need around 100 gold to live each day.
Person X makes 101
Person y makes 99
This continues each day for a while untill person x has lots of extra money while person y in in more and more debt.
Why should I assume a static situation? As such, I will not play your little game.


Its a pretty recognised fact that less regulations will lead to greater gaps in income untill the top 1% tends to own mass ammounts.
Only by those ignorant of economics.

This would make the unit an a posterori concept.
Only if you don't understand the difference.

Only if you don't understand the difference.What's the difference between observing the unit in the method you stated and observation as part of an a posterori concept?

What's the difference between observing the unit
You don't observe the unit. You observe something. You create the idea of unit from noticing the differences between things.

You can't be this dense.

That doesn't make education a right. Emotive pleas do not help you, period.



Who said its a right? I'm just saying its more desirable to make sure children get a decent education regardless or the incompatency of their parents. Or do you simply not care since you were lucky enough not to need to worry about that.


It would mean enslaving a lawyer.


Just like policemen are enslaved because they don't work towards market forces?
At any rate how can the law be upheld equally or even fairly if some people don't have the capability to defend themselves in court.



Why should I assume a static situation? As such, I will not play your little game.


yep because its not like the people in debt keep getting further into debt each day and those with the capability arn't making more and more.
I'm not saying they don't deserve it just that an unregulated economy will concentrate more and more wealth into the possetion of fewer people.
Or do you want to ignore evidence that the gap between the rich and poor is rising?

Who said its a right?
Many people have.


I'm just saying its more desirable to make sure children get a decent education regardless or the incompatency of their parents.
And I'm saying that it's undesirable to steal money from others in order to make that happen.

Or do you have no problem with theft?

btw: I've never been anything remotely close to "rich". In fact, I've been 3 weeks from dead flat broke. So keep your bullshit to yourself, ok? I don't know why there are morons who think that if you don't want your money stolen to pay for the education of others you must be super-wealthy. Load of bullshit, that idea is.


Just like policemen are enslaved because they don't work towards market forces?
No one has yet said anything about police protection being a right. Therefore, false analogy.


At any rate how can the law be upheld equally or even fairly if some people don't have the capability to defend themselves in court.
Why wouldn't they have said capacity?


yep because its not like the people in debt keep getting further into debt each day and those with the capability arn't making more and more.
It's not like life is a 0-sum game.


I'm not saying they don't deserve it just that an unregulated economy will concentrate more and more wealth into the possetion of fewer people.
Which is bullshit.


Or do you want to ignore evidence that the gap between the rich and poor is rising?
You want to ignore that we don't live in an unregulated economy. Therefore, your example is of absolutely no use to you.

Im not very familiar with it. Can you recommend any literature with which I could become aquainted with it?
The Road to Serfdom by Friedrich Hayek is a really easy read. That's a great place to start.

You don't observe the unit. You observe something. You create the idea of unit from noticing the differences between things.

You can't be this dense.What's the difference between observing something and creating the idea of the unit from it and observation as part of an a posterori concept?

What's the difference between observing something and creating the idea of the unit from it and observation as part of an a posterori concept?

The former requires a pre-existing capacity; you must use something to make the transition from the sensory data to the concept.

But you're right; it's still a posteriori knowledge.

What's the difference between observing something and creating the idea of the unit from it and observation as part of an a posterori concept?

The former requires a pre-existing capacity; you must use something to make the transition from the sensory data to the concept.

But you're right; it's still a posteriori knowledge.

I was going to be good, but not after two uses of a posteriori in a row ...

I thought the Austrian School was okay but they really need to work on the cafeteria menu, I mean, wiener schnitzel three days out of five?

The former requires a pre-existing capacity; you must use something to make the transition from the sensory data to the concept.

But you're right; it's still a posteriori knowledge.
Then mathematics is a posteriori. Which it isn't. Ergo, you must be wrong.

No one has the right to demand the time and effort of others without recompense and their consent. That is called SLAVERY.

You DO think that slavery is wrong, don't you?

I think education should be free, open, also nationalized.

I think education should be free, open, also nationalized.
All the better to indoctrinate the kiddies.

Education: Free and Compulsory (http://www.mises.org/story/2226), by Murray Rothbard.

Then mathematics is a posteriori. Which it isn't. Ergo, you must be wrong.Again, what's the difference between observing something and creating the idea of the unit from it and observation as part of an a posterori concept?

I believe that at page 8, this thread deserves the distinction of my famed rolling boil comment: AKA


Chumble-sputz-puuuuuhhhhhzzzzzzzz!

Again, what's the difference between observing something and creating the idea of the unit from it and observation as part of an a posterori concept?
Then mathematics is a posteriori. Which it isn't. Therefore, you have no idea of that which you are trying to proclaim that you know.

Austrian all the way!

And I'm saying that it's undesirable to steal money from others in order to make that happen.
.

And its desirable to be screwed over and options extremely limited if you have parents who don't provide these things for you?


Or do you have no problem with theft?
.

Sure I do, but call it a neccessary evil. I do assume you'd want to live in a meritocracy.


btw: I've never been anything remotely close to "rich". In fact, I've been 3 weeks from dead flat broke. So keep your bullshit to yourself, ok? I don't know why there are morons who think that if you don't want your money stolen to pay for the education of others you must be super-wealthy. Load of bullshit, that idea is.
.

A child can't provide for himself and its unfair to hold him accountable for a large chunk of his life because he lacked decent opportunities. How rich you are now is irrellivent I'm assuming you had some education and thus you had the opportunities to excell in whatever way you wanted.


No one has yet said anything about police protection being a right. Therefore, false analogy.
.

I dislike using the word "right", but is it not a right to have property and be free from violence. Without police protection people can take our property and/or physically coerce us without anyone to stop them.


Why wouldn't they have said capacity?
.

Bobs parents thought school was a waste of money and Bob can't read and can't make a decent defence of himself (or atleast not even close to the extent a trained lawyer could)


It's not like life is a 0-sum game.
.

I'm not denying that.



Which is bullshit.
.

Money makes money, the more you invest the more profit you make. As a general trend those with money to begin with keep making it those without have to take bigger risks and get less payoffs.
And are you going to ignore all the evidence of the gap between the rich and poor rising particualry in Britain and America in 80's onwards.


You want to ignore that we don't live in an unregulated economy. Therefore, your example is of absolutely no use to you.

So looking at what happens with less regulation isnt a good indicator of what will happen with no regualtion?

And its desirable to be screwed over and options extremely limited if you have parents who don't provide these things for you?
Is it desirable to have your money stolen?


Sure I do, but call it a neccessary evil.
There's no such thing as a necessary evil.


I do assume you'd want to live in a meritocracy.
I'm not seeing the relevance.



A child can't provide for himself and its unfair to hold him accountable for a large chunk of his life because he lacked decent opportunities.
It's unfair and immoral to steal from others in order to provide your child with an education.


I dislike using the word "right", but is it not a right to have property and be free from violence.
Yes, but that doesn't mean that police protection is a right.


Bobs parents thought school was a waste of money and Bob can't read and can't make a decent defence of himself (or atleast not even close to the extent a trained lawyer could)
So you're just making it up out of thin air.


Money makes money, the more you invest the more profit you make. As a general trend those with money to begin with keep making it those without have to take bigger risks and get less payoffs.
And are you going to ignore all the evidence of the gap between the rich and poor rising particualry in Britain and America in 80's onwards.
Is that relevant, given that neither country is really capitalist? Answer: no.



So looking at what happens with less regulation isnt a good indicator of what will happen with no regualtion?
But you're not looking at what happens with less regulation. You're looking at what happens with more regulation.

Again, what's the difference between observing something and creating the idea of the unit from it and observation as part of an a posterori concept?Since BAAWA invariably prefers to hurl vague and useless insults rather than explain anything, I would like to clear up this confusion so that this conversation (if it survives) can get back on track.

Modern apriorism does not presume that a priori knowledge does not depend, at the most abstract level, on experiential learning--that is, no one really believes any more that people are born with "innate" ideas or something to that effect. We don't "know" anything until we start to interact with the world.

Thus, in the modern context a priori truth is that which can be known without any particular experiences--rather, a priori truth is arrived at through the bare essentials of experience. "Number" and the truths of mathematics are generally considered a priori, therefore, because you don't need any particular experience to verify them: you do not need to (in fact cannot) test them empirically.

No one denies that you need to have some experience of the world from which you will conceive of "unit" and "number"... what the apriorist claims is that you will (or can) arrive at these concepts no matter what experience you have.

Austrians want to make the same claim with respect to human behavior, which is nonsense. They like to pretend that the human will obeys laws of "reason" that are knowable a priori, completely ignoring the accumulated evidence that human beings are much more complex and contingent creatures than they want to believe.

Since BAAWA invariably prefers to hurl vague and useless insults rather than explain anything, I would like to clear up this confusion so that this conversation (if it survives) can get back on track.

Modern apriorism does not presume that a priori knowledge does not depend, at the most abstract level, on experiential learning--that is, no one really believes any more that people are born with "innate" ideas or something to that effect. We don't "know" anything until we start to interact with the world.

Thus, in the modern context a priori truth is that which can be known without any particular experiences--rather, a priori truth is arrived at through the bare essentials of experience. "Number" and the truths of mathematics are generally considered a priori, therefore, because you don't need any particular experience to verify them: you do not need to (in fact cannot) test them empirically.

My understanding is that the distinction is more one of source; a priori knowledge may be dependent on experience in that it cannot be achieved without experience, but it is not derived from experience as a posteriori knowledge is.

What I read BAAWA as claiming is that "unit" is abstracted from observation; it is thus a posteriori, if he is right.

What would make it a priori is a status similar to Kant's Categories; we may need experience to recognize it, for it to manifest itself in our minds, but its origin is not in observation. That is not "abstraction."

There's no such thing as a necessary evil.

I'm not seeing the relevance.

.

How can you have a system bassed on merit without basic opportunitys and the option of having subsidised health or education.


It's unfair and immoral to steal from others in order to provide your child with an education.
.

My child? All children. Preferably means tested to ensure its just the kids from disadvantaged familys get the bulk of the help.


Yes, but that doesn't mean that police protection is a right.
.

What good are property rights without such a right being enforced.


So you're just making it up out of thin air.
.

Because that type of thing wouldn't happen?


But you're not looking at what happens with less regulation. You're looking at what happens with more regulation.

So why would no regulation concentrate wealth in the hands of more rather than less.

My understanding is that the distinction is more one of source; a priori knowledge may be dependent on experience in that it cannot be achieved without experience, but it is not derived from experience as a posteriori knowledge is.

What I read BAAWA as claiming is that "unit" is abstracted from observation; it is thus a posteriori, if he is right.

What would make it a priori is a status similar to Kant's Categories; we may need experience to recognize it, for it to manifest itself in our minds, but its origin is not in observation. That is not "abstraction."
I am currently taking philosophy to try and better understand the distinction between the two. It's frustrating to read in Economics textbooks that "the form of reasoning Economics uses is that of natural scientists" as if Economics is perfect science itself, and then for the textbook to issue a dismissive statement with regard to deductive reasoning as being "predictive", therefore, "useful", but "not as useful as a posteriori reasoning." These books are pedantic about everything else, yet take this to be an assumption.

Once I have resolved this issue I will either commit myself to the Austrian School or something else, depending on whether a priori is indeed the tool by which Economics should be studied.

I liked Descartes' observations on a priori knowledge, following his realization that cogito ergo sum. I personally think that a priori theory can be influenced by experience (ie the premises must correspond with reality or rationality to be true), rather than ignores it completely. To what extent the distinction is validly applicable in Economics is something necessary of further examination -- denying the centrality of theory in the discipline though is idiocy.

I like their ideas, but I personally feel that they need to be refined and subject to more real-world testing before I'd consider embracing them. Still, they are worthy of consideration and testing.

I like their ideas, but I personally feel that they need to be refined and subject to more real-world testing before I'd consider embracing them. Still, they are worthy of consideration and testing.
Mises did mention in "Human Action" that in formulating a priori theories one must exercise the greatest deal of scrutiny and put them to constant tests to ensure that they are as accurate as possible. Yep, definitely a bloke which ignored reality. :)

Mises did mention in "Human Action" that in formulating a priori theories one must exercise the greatest deal of scrutiny and put them to constant tests to ensure that they are as accurate as possible. Yep, definitely a bloke which ignored reality. :)

All we need is someone with the balls to put their policies in to action (some of them, at least...economic about-faces are pretty damn hard to do) and see how they work out. I mean, we do know that economic liberalization works with current models (which are hardly examples of efficient markets, or even inefficient ones), and I imagine continuing our attempts to eliminate decades of failed populist schemes in favor of freedom will show that their ideas have merit in practice as well as theory.

Or do you have no problem with theft?

I have absolutely no problem with the "theft" of something that is the product of someone else's labor, and is now owned by someone who did not contribute the creation of its present value. I also have no problem with the "theft" of something created as a product of resources previously stolen. Face it, private property has no legitmacy in a nation build off of land stolen from Native American communities.

eliminate decades of failed populist schemes in favor of freedom

Do me a favor and define "freedom."

All we need is someone with the balls to put their policies in to action (some of them, at least...economic about-faces are pretty damn hard to do) and see how they work out. I mean, we do know that economic liberalization works with current models (which are hardly examples of efficient markets, or even inefficient ones), and I imagine continuing our attempts to eliminate decades of failed populist schemes in favor of freedom will show that their ideas have merit in practice as well as theory.
It'd be interesting to see. I first need to see whether or not a priori theory is the best tool for economic analysis before fully embracing the AS though.

At any rate, here is an article of interest:

http://www.strike-the-root.com/62/olesen/olesen1.html

All we need is someone with the balls to put their policies in to action (some of them, at least...economic about-faces are pretty damn hard to do) and see how they work out. I mean, we do know that economic liberalization works with current models (which are hardly examples of efficient markets, or even inefficient ones), and I imagine continuing our attempts to eliminate decades of failed populist schemes in favor of freedom will show that their ideas have merit in practice as well as theory.

In that case, I'm going to go get my passport now so that I can flee the US before the resulting corporate coup d'etat.

Do me a favor and define "freedom."

Freedom is the ability to choose between options freely given without being coerced in to a particular decision.

In that case, I'm going to go get my passport now so that I can flee the US before the resulting corporate coup d'etat.

That's why there is always a qualifier: "some" aspects of their thought. The corporations today are a product of government gone amok and the ability of that government to manipulate economic decisions to benefit the people in power.

We're trying to undo 150 or more years of corporatist influence on the economy and government and it's not easy to do it either.

Freedom is the ability to choose between options freely given without being coerced in to a particular decision.

So if my options are "be exploited in a coal mine" or "be exploited in a sweatshop," and I'm graciously permitted perfect freedom to decide which to choose, am I free?

If my choice is between starvation and exploitation, am I being coerced?

Freedom is the ability to choose between options freely given without being coerced in to a particular decision.

Bingo! Ding! Ding! Ding!

You've answered the 500 dollar question, and shot yourself in the foot at the same time!

It doesn't take an incredible leap of faith to realize that under hierarchal systems, like laissez faire capitalism, freedom is maximized for one group, and almost non-existant for another group.

Employees and employers are not on a level playing field. Employees can only obtain what they have the power to enforce in a contractarian system. Since most wage laborers own little property, and have little wealth, they can only sell their labor at a loss. A worker is "free" to accept a job at the going rate, or he/she is "free" to perish.

That's why there is always a qualifier: "some" aspects of their thought. The corporations today are a product of government gone amok and the ability of that government to manipulate economic decisions to benefit the people in power.

We're trying to undo 150 or more years of corporatist influence on the economy and government and it's not easy to do it either.

If you remove the State's power to regulate business, then business will inevitably become the State. Power will concentrate more and more into fewer hands, and then democratic means of exercising authority will be swept aside in favor of propertarian authority. That was the entire premise of the book Jennifer Government. These forums that we are debating in are for a web game based off that very book. You would do well to read it.

If you remove the State's power to regulate business, then business will inevitably become the State. Power will concentrate more and more into fewer hands, and then democratic means of exercising authority will be swept aside in favor of propertarian authority. That was the entire premise of the book Jennifer Government. These forums that we are debating in are for a web game based off that very book. You would do well to read it.
Have you heard of government regulation having a peverse as opposed to desired effect? This is what he means.

Have you heard of government regulation having a peverse as opposed to desired effect? This is what he means.

I know it does. But that doesn't mean that you throw the baby out with the bathtub. Completely ending regulation because of a possible perversion is tantamount to rewarding bad behavior by the Corporations who corrupt the political process. What is required is more direct representative democracy, not rule by property.

I know it does. But that doesn't mean that you throw the baby out with the bathtub. Completely ending regulation because of a possible perversion is tantamount to rewarding bad behavior by the Corporations who corrupt the political process.
And he is not referring to complete deregulation either. He is referring to government favouritism towards corporations.

Even the corporate charter is a government creation.

We're trying to undo 150 or more years of corporatist influence on the economy and government and it's not easy to do it either.

It will never happen, try as you will.

Any modern capitalist economy both requires a powerful state and will tend to generate private economic power centers; that combination will result in a merging of the two, and in the current state-corporate partnership that dominates the economy.

And he is not referring to complete deregulation either. He is referring to government favouritism towards corporations.

Even the corporate charter is a government creation.

Laissez faire has never really been about ending government favoritism. Laissez-faire almost always leads to justifications for out right conspiracies against the public by business. It is impossible to seperate government favoritism in a system that is becoming increasingly dominated by private power centers.

My understanding is that the distinction is more one of source; a priori knowledge may be dependent on experience in that it cannot be achieved without experience, but it is not derived from experience as a posteriori knowledge is.What does "derived" mean, anyway?

A priori knowledge is "derived" from experience in the sense that the innate qualia of experience give rise to a priori categories.

What I read BAAWA as claiming is that "unit" is abstracted from observation; it is thus a posteriori, if he is right.What does "abstracted" mean, anyway? A priori knowledge inheres in the nature of experience. To be able to state such knowledge explicitly presumes some manner of abstraction and reification, doesn't it?

What would make it a priori is a status similar to Kant's Categories; we may need experience to recognize it, for it to manifest itself in our minds, but its origin is not in observation. That is not "abstraction."Kant arrives at his categories through an analysis of the basic elements of experience (space/time/identity). Everything about it looks like "abstraction" to me.

But then again, maybe you're using a special definition of abstraction with which I am not presently familiar. I sense semantic subtleties here for which I have little taste. :)

Laissez faire has never really been about ending government favoritism. Laissez-faire almost always leads to justifications for out right conspiracies against the public by business. It is impossible to seperate government favoritism in a system that is becoming increasingly dominated by private power centers.

This is only true in a mixed economy. Laissez faire can't have favouritism since there is no government intervention.

I am currently taking philosophy to try and better understand the distinction between the two. It's frustrating to read in Economics textbooks that "the form of reasoning Economics uses is that of natural scientists" as if Economics is perfect science itself, and then for the textbook to issue a dismissive statement with regard to deductive reasoning as being "predictive", therefore, "useful", but "not as useful as a posteriori reasoning." These books are pedantic about everything else, yet take this to be an assumption.

Once I have resolved this issue I will either commit myself to the Austrian School or something else, depending on whether a priori is indeed the tool by which Economics should be studied.Sounds like a crappy textbook, but from what I can tell it is talking about the uses of a priori and a posteriori knowledge specifically within the natural sciences. Most likely, the author does not mean to disparage a priori reason in mathematics. Rather, he/she wants to suggest that when it comes to science (i.e. the inductive study of natural phenomena) the "use" of a priori reason is hypothesis/theory building: using the (a posteriori) knowledge that a scientist already has, he/she may "deduce" conclusions from this knowledge... but such deductions do not have the status of scientific knowledge until they are tested empirically (a posteriori).

Mises did mention in "Human Action" that in formulating a priori theories one must exercise the greatest deal of scrutiny and put them to constant tests to ensure that they are as accurate as possible. Yep, definitely a bloke which ignored reality. :)If he said that, then he's just being inconsistent.

I would need the specific citation to check on it. My suspicion is that by "test" he did not mean "test empirically" but rather "test rationally."

What does "derived" mean, anyway?

A priori knowledge is "derived" from experience in the sense that the innate qualia of experience give rise to a priori categories.

In order to comprehend the law of non-contradiction, I need experience; I cannot conceive of it without anything about which to conceive it. But I do not "derive" it from experience, the way I might derive, say, gravity; it is a priori in that the empirical observation does not demonstrate it, it merely causes it to manifest itself.

But then again, maybe you're using a special definition of abstraction with which I am not presently familiar. I sense semantic subtleties here for which I have little taste. :)

Okay. Let's see if we can clear this up.

You don't observe the unit. You observe something. You create the idea of unit from noticing the differences between things.

I read this, and BAAWA's similar posts, to mean that he was deriving "unit" from experience; I observe my surroundings, I notice something fairly regularly ("differences between things"), I generalize (abstract) from my experience and give the result a name.

A priori knowledge is different - I observe my surroundings, I notice something, and the rule regarding that thing is immediately apparent on some level.

I don't come to the law of non-contradiction by noticing that, wherever I look, there are no contradictory truths; I do not induce it. The only purpose experience has is in providing for me a basis from which to conceive it; I need to be able to conceive of an object or quality before conceiving the idea that such an object or quality cannot simultaneously exist and not exist, but I do not need to have this rule repeatedly demonstrated to me empirically before I can reach it.

Sounds like a crappy textbook, but from what I can tell it is talking about the uses of a priori and a posteriori knowledge specifically within the natural sciences. Most likely, the author does not mean to disparage a priori reason in mathematics. Rather, he/she wants to suggest that when it comes to science (i.e. the inductive study of natural phenomena) the "use" of a priori reason is hypothesis/theory building: using the (a posteriori) knowledge that a scientist already has, he/she may "deduce" conclusions from this knowledge... but such deductions do not have the status of scientific knowledge until they are tested empirically (a posteriori).
No, the textbook is actually very good. It just automatically lumps Economics along with the other natural sciences though. Economics is not and never will be a natural science, it will always be a social science. Therefore pure induction will never be adequate. What did, however, seem idiotic to me in this book was that it considered deductive reasoning to be predictive (ie mainly associated with economic models that predict behaviours). This is flat out wrong. The entire premise that the book is making is wrong -- it is induction that is predictive in its nature. Economics is theory-driven. Ergo, a priori theory is central to it. Empiricism can then test the theory. I see no distinction between the two -- they are both equally necessary.

If he said that, then he's just being inconsistent.

I would need the specific citation to check on it. My suspicion is that by "test" he did not mean "test empirically" but rather "test rationally."
Here then is what he said:

Man is not infallible. He searches for truth­--that is, for the most adequate comprehension of reality as far as the structure of his mind and reason makes it accessible to him. Man can never become omniscient. He can never be absolutely certain that his inquiries were not misled and that what he considers as certain truth is not error. All that man can do is to submit all his theories again and again to the most critical reexamination. This means for the economist to trace back all theorems to their unquestionable and certain ultimate basis, the category of human action, and to test by the most careful scrutiny all assumptions and inferences leading from this basis to the theorem under examination. It cannot be contended that this procedure is a guarantee against error. But it is undoubtedly the most effective method of avoiding error.

Praxeology­--and consequently economics too­--is a deductive system. It draws its strength from the starting point of its deductions, from the category of action. No economic theorem can be considered sound that is not solidly fastened upon this foundation by an irrefutable chain of reasoning. A statement proclaimed without such a connection is arbitrary and floats in midair. It is impossible to deal with a special segment of economics if one does not encase it in a complete system of action.

The empirical sciences start from singular events and proceed from the unique and individual to the more universal. Their treatment is subject to specialization. They can deal with segments without paying [p. 69] attention to the whole field. The economist must never be a specialist. In dealing with any problem he must always fix his glance upon the whole system.

Historians often sin in this respect. They are ready to invent theorems ad hoc. They sometimes fail to recognize that it is impossible to abstract any causal relations from the study of complex phenomena. Their pretension to investigate reality without any reference to what they disparage as preconceived ideas is vain. In fact they unwittingly apply popular doctrines long since unmasked as fallacious and contradictory.

http://www.mises.org/humanaction/chap2sec10.asp

Prima facie, it does seem that he means re-examining the a priori reasoning used to reach a conclusion.

In order to comprehend the law of non-contradiction, I need experience; I cannot conceive of it without anything about which to conceive it. But I do not "derive" it from experience, the way I might derive, say, gravity; it is a priori in that the empirical observation does not demonstrate it, it merely causes it to manifest itself.Sounds like semantics to me. Especially since "causes it to manifest itself" is so hopelessly mystical.

To my mind, however it "arises" from experience, it depends on experience and it is secondary to experience: it is, in other words, derivative.

I observe my surroundings, I notice something fairly regularly ("differences between things"), I generalize (abstract) from my experience and give the result a name.Yep, that's pretty much how moderns understand a priori categories, the only proviso being that what you "notice" and "generalize" are features of experience itself. Giving "flowers" a name is a posteriori. Conceptualizing "unity" is not, because no matter what experience you have (as long as it is the experience of a finite sentient creature), you will experience unity and you will be able to reify that experience into logico-mathematical concepts such as number and identity.

A priori knowledge is different - I observe my surroundings, I notice something, and the rule regarding that thing is immediately apparent on some level.What is "immediately apparent"? And what is this about "on some level"? You can term nothing "knowledge" which you do not conceptualize, which implies mediation.

Immediate experience bears no conception of time or space (as Kant astutely noted). Immediate experience is just a wash of sensory data.

I don't come to the law of non-contradiction by noticing that, wherever I look, there are no contradictory truths; I do not induce it.No, but the law of non-contradiction is also highly mediate... and interestingly, still much disputed. If the criticisms of non-contradiction as an ontological principle are correct, then it must necessarily be classed with the synthetic a priori (or simply as an axiomatic construction, which I prefer).

The only purpose experience has is in providing for me a basis from which to conceive it; I need to be able to conceive of an object or quality before conceiving the idea that such an object or quality cannot simultaneously exist and not exist, but I do not need to have this rule repeatedly demonstrated to me empirically before I can reach it.No, what you need (following Kant) is not an object or quality, but objects and qualia. One object does not make experience, because it does not permit relative motion which is the experience through which we conceive of time and space.

How can you have a system bassed on merit without basic opportunitys and the option of having subsidised health or education.
There can be subsidized health and education--just not coerced subsidization. There's nothing which prevents scholarships and free care from being given.


My child? All children.
And the people without children? Oh that's right--they're just fucked.


What good are property rights without such a right being enforced.
That doesn't make police protection a right.


Because that type of thing wouldn't happen?
I'm wondering why you think that without the theft of money to educate the kids that everyone but the super-rich would be stupid. What in the world makes you think that?



So why would no regulation concentrate wealth in the hands of more rather than less.
It doesn't.

I have absolutely no problem with the "theft" of something that is the product of someone else's labor, and is now owned by someone who did not contribute the creation of its present value.
Ah. So you believe in the idiotic and refuted-to-death labor theory of value.


I also have no problem with the "theft" of something created as a product of resources previously stolen. Face it, private property has no legitmacy in a nation build off of land stolen from Native American communities.
Ah, so you believe they owned the land.

Face it: you have no case. You're just crying the same old bullshit tune that's been refuted to death. Knock it off. Grow up.

Bingo! Ding! Ding! Ding!

You've answered the 500 dollar question, and shot yourself in the foot at the same time!

It doesn't take an incredible leap of faith to realize that under hierarchal systems, like laissez faire capitalism,
It's not really heirarchical.


freedom is maximized for one group, and almost non-existant for another group.
False.


Employees and employers are not on a level playing field.
False.


Employees can only obtain what they have the power to enforce in a contractarian system.
And employers can only obtain what they desire by accommodating what the employees desire.


Since most wage laborers own little property, and have little wealth, they can only sell their labor at a loss.
Only if you accept the bullshit-and-utterly-refuted-to-death labor theory of value.

If you remove the State's power to regulate business, then business will inevitably become the State.
False.

Do you even bother to put effort into your posts, or are you content with emotive hyperbolae?

Laissez faire has never really been about ending government favoritism. Laissez-faire almost always leads to justifications for out right conspiracies against the public by business. It is impossible to seperate government favoritism in a system that is becoming increasingly dominated by private power centers.
Then you speak of some perversion thereof. Any so-called laissez-faire society that allows favouritism by the government is a contradiction in terms.

No, the textbook is actually very good. It just automatically lumps Economics along with the other natural sciences though. Economics is not and never will be a natural science, it will always be a social science.There may be a problem of equivocation here. Did the book actually distinguish explicitly between "natural" and "social" science? Because often we lump physics, chemistry, psychology, political science and the rest together as "natural science"--that is, the range of fields that use the scientific method as opposed to the "mathematical sciences," philosophy, and other fields which do not. Within natural science we then distinguish between the "physical" sciences (chemistry, etc) and the "social" sciences (psychology, political science, economics)... sometimes treating the "biological" sciences as a separate category as well.

So if that's what the book is doing, fine: it is not claiming that economics is NOT a social science. Otherwise (if it is declaring that economics is not social science) then that's a pretty grievous misclassification--certainly as it's made without comment.

Therefore pure induction will never be adequate.Pure induction is a myth, even in the physical sciences. It just doesn't work, and it is NOT the way in which scientists actually do science. The practice of science includes a large deductive component, with which scientists build theories and hypotheses or try to come up with explanations for their data.

It is in this sense that deduction is "predictive." When I come up with a hypothesis, I am predicting what will happen when I make some empirical test: the results of that test tell me whether my prediction (and therefore my deduction) was right or wrong.

The entire premise that the book is making is wrong -- it is induction that is predictive in its nature.Not really... It's a fine point, but what you're thinking about is inductive fact-building: when we see something over and over again, inductively we take it as fact--which is to say that we "predict" we will see the same thing again under similar circumstances.

Induction as a mode of science, however, is really descriptive. It provides the "facts" (as above) by which we describe the world, but once these facts are established we do not expect them to change for no reason. Thus, induction never says anything "new" about some future event. Deduction can: by fitting the pieces together, deduction can make "guesses" (which, strictly speaking, induction does not) that we can test.

Economics is theory-driven. Ergo, a priori theory is central to it.Non sequitur. Theory is not fundamentally a priori. Scientific theories may make use of a priori reason (in the form of logic/mathematics), but as descriptions of contingent phenomena they are fundamentally a posteriori.

To clarify: detective work is also very theory driven, yet surely no one would claim that a detective solves crimes a priori!!

Prima facie, it does seem that he means re-examining the a priori reasoning used to reach a conclusion.Indeed.

So if that's what the book is doing, fine: it is not claiming that economics is NOT a social science. Otherwise (if it is declaring that economics is not social science) then that's a pretty grievous misclassification--certainly as it's made without comment.
No, it isn't declaring that it's not a social science. My problem with it is that it doesn't really make much of an effort to clarify that economics observes human behaviour, and therefore is innately more limited in some ways -- it just throws in mention of astronomists and physicists also being scientists, which is fine and all, but an economist is not the same sort of scientist.

Not really... It's a fine point, but what you're thinking about is inductive fact-building: when we see something over and over again, inductively we take it as fact--which is to say that we "predict" we will see the same thing again under similar circumstances.

This is more or less what I have in mind.

Induction as a mode of science, however, is really descriptive. It provides the "facts" (as above) by which we describe the world, but once these facts are established we do not expect them to change for no reason. Thus, induction never says anything "new" about some future event. Deduction can: by fitting the pieces together, deduction can make "guesses" (which, strictly speaking, induction does not) that we can test.
Which would mean essentially induction is ideal for describing what is, whereas deduction for what could be.

Yep, that's pretty much how moderns understand a priori categories, the only proviso being that what you "notice" and "generalize" are features of experience itself. Giving "flowers" a name is a posteriori. Conceptualizing "unity" is not, because no matter what experience you have (as long as it is the experience of a finite sentient creature), you will experience unity and you will be able to reify that experience into logico-mathematical concepts such as number and identity.

Oh, I see what you are saying. Our semantic difference does not concern "derive" or "abstract"; it is, rather, rooted in differing uses of "arrive" and "know."

Of course it's true that in order to conceive of the concept of unity as a concept, I must examine my experience. But I wasn't talking about such a conception; rather, I meant that the origin of unity, as far as its manifestation in our judgments and categorization of objects go, is not experience.

So, yes, "unit" as a consciously understood, explicit concept is derived from experience, but in order to see an object as possessing of unity I need not possess such a notion. In the second sense, "unity" is not derived from experience at all; it merely manifests itself through it.

No, what you need (following Kant) is not an object or quality, but objects and qualia. One object does not make experience, because it does not permit relative motion which is the experience through which we conceive of time and space.

Is this just a quibble, or relevant to the greater point? I'll concede it, though I am skeptical of Kant's argument that time and space are necessary conditions of experience.

Which would mean essentially induction is ideal for describing what is, whereas deduction for what could be.Not quite.

Science is a continuous process of testing "could be true" statements to find out if they are, in fact, true. The results of such tests are not in any reasonable sense "inductive"... they are scientific, which simply means that they result from an inductive/deductive process of hypothesis-verification.

In my opinion (speaking as a scientist who just passed his Ph.D. exams--yay!!), you cannot really separate the two in the practice of science. BOTH are necessary to figure out "what is."


:)

Oh, I see what you are saying. Our semantic difference does not concern "derive" or "abstract"; it is, rather, rooted in differing uses of "arrive" and "know."Perhaps. But while I am aware of many a priori theories of knowledge, I am aware of no such theory of "arrival."

Of course it's true that in order to conceive of the concept of unity as a concept, I must examine my experience. But I wasn't talking about such a conception; rather, I meant that the origin of unity, as far as its manifestation in our judgments and categorization of objects go, is not experience.Either its origin is experience, or its origin is "innate." To maintain the latter would require a serious step backward in philosophical history.

Is this just a quibble, or relevant to the greater point?It's not a quibble, because if an a priori truth could "manifest" from only one object, then it might be appropriate to maintain that this manifestation is "immediate." Thus, Kant's derivation of time and space from movement (which requires more than one object) demonstrates that a priori knowledge is necessarily mediate.

I'll concede it, though I am skeptical of Kant's argument that time and space are necessary conditions of experience.He doesn't say that they are. Rather, he concludes that they are necessary conditions of experience for creatures like us.

*pokes*

In my opinion (speaking as a scientist who just passed his Ph.D. exams--yay!!), you cannot really separate the two in the practice of science. BOTH are necessary to figure out "what is."

:)
All right, then we are more or less in agreement. Forgive me for any ignorance on my part, for I am still trying to understand the a priori/ a posteriori dichotomy and its relevance to Economics.

I'll ask this then -- what is your view of a priori and a posteriori, and where do you think they are suitable?

Perhaps. But while I am aware of many a priori theories of knowledge, I am aware of no such theory of "arrival."

rather, a priori truth is arrived at through the bare essentials of experience.

I'm sure you knew what I meant.

Either its origin is experience, or its origin is "innate." To maintain the latter would require a serious step backward in philosophical history.

How can a necessary condition of experience (for creatures like us or not) have its origin in experience?

It's not a quibble, because if an a priori truth could "manifest" from only one object, then it might be appropriate to maintain that this manifestation is "immediate." Thus, Kant's derivation of time and space from movement (which requires more than one object) demonstrates that a priori knowledge is necessarily mediate.

All a priori knowledge is mediate in that it does not come directly from experiential inputs. If that is what you are getting at, yes, I agree.

He doesn't say that they are. Rather, he concludes that they are necessary conditions of experience for creatures like us.

Yes, but beside the point. I don't accept that either. I see no reason not to consider space, at least ("time" is more uncertain, because the argument could be made that without time there is no experience at all) to be an external object like any other.

I'll ask this then -- what is your view of a priori and a posteriori, and where do you think they are suitable?As a Quinean positivist, I'm not convinced there really is "a priori" knowledge; the things to which we usually apply the term can just as readily be understood as axiomatic constructions.

That caveat aside, a priori truth refers to that which is not contingent--which does not depend for its truth on what "happens" to be the case. Thus, it is the ultimate set of abstractions: number, logic, etc. It is useful for pure deduction.

Thus, it is not useful in itself for studying the messy world of matter and energy, and even less so for studying the even messier world of human relations. Far too much here is contingent: if we didn't happen to have a particular set of hormones, we would behave differently; if we lived in a different society, we might behave differently; if we... well, you name it. We need science--real, empirical science--to figure out what the results of these factors are. We need empirical observation and hypothesis testing to figure out why people behave the way we do, and thereby to predict our behavior in the future.

I cannot accept that a discipline (the "Austrian school") which explicitly rejects the usefulness of empirical testing will ever amount to much scientifically.

How can a necessary condition of experience (for creatures like us or not) have its origin in experience?Clearly that wouldn't make sense. Knowledge of that condition has its origin in experience.

I see no reason not to consider space, at least ("time" is more uncertain, because the argument could be made that without time there is no experience at all) to be an external object like any other.I'm not sure what you could possibly mean by that.

As a Quinean positivist, I'm not convinced there really is "a priori" knowledge; the things to which we usually apply the term can just as readily be understood as axiomatic constructions.

What would lead to such a conclusion?

What would lead to such a conclusion?Well, for one thing literally every "a priori truth" anyone has ever suggested turns out to be problematic in at least some circumstances. Logico-mathematical identity and non-contradiction "laws" do not necessarily hold up within either advanced physics research or ethical philosophy. In fact, the math/logic turns out to be much easier in certain areas when you just "do without" non-contradiction.

Thus, these a priori "truths" look a lot more like "useful fictions"--useful, that is, within the realm of ordinary experience... perhaps less so when we stretch our knowledge to the outer limits of experience.

Clearly that wouldn't make sense. Knowledge of that condition has its origin in experience.

Of course it's true that in order to conceive of the concept of unity as a concept, I must examine my experience. But I wasn't talking about such a conception; rather, I meant that the origin of unity, as far as its manifestation in our judgments and categorization of objects go, is not experience.

If you are using "knowledge" in the first sense, I already indicated that I have no dispute with that.

If you are not, I'm not sure how you're differentiating "necessary conditions" from "knowledge" of such conditions.

I'm not sure what you could possibly mean by that.

Merely that "space" is not part of the way we perceive the world, it is merely something we perceive. It is perfectly possible to conceive of "no space."

What Kant points out is that in order to conceive of objects in spatial terms, we need space - but this is hardly a proof that space is a priori, since space could just as easily be a posteriori knowledge upon which all other kinds of spatial a posteriori knowledge are based.

Clearly that wouldn't make sense. Knowledge of that condition has its origin in experience.Of course it's true that in order to conceive of the concept of unity as a concept, I must examine my experience. But I wasn't talking about such a conception; rather, I meant that the origin of unity, as far as its manifestation in our judgments and categorization of objects go, is not experience.

If you are using "knowledge" in the first sense, I already indicated that I have no dispute with that.

If you are not, I'm not sure how you're differentiating "necessary conditions" from "knowledge" of such conditions.

It should be obvious that just as "knowledge of X" is not the same as "X", "manifestation in our judgments of X" is also not the same as "X".

Merely that "space" is not part of the way we perceive the world, it is merely something we perceive.And just what is the operational difference between these two? Whether space is "real" or merely an artifact of our own perception, the fact remains that we cannot have experience without it. Because we have experience, we know a priori that there is (for us) space. But by the same token, because we "know" space only because we have this particular kind of "experience," we cannot judge whether space is "real" in itself.

In other words, it may well be that space is "real," but we are not in a position to judge. We simply don't know, and within the bounds of our finite sentient existence, we have no way to know.

It is perfectly possible to conceive of "no space."No, it's not. And if it were, it would still be impossible to conceive of experience (as we know it) within "no space."

What Kant points out is that in order to conceive of objects in spatial terms, we need spaceNo, what he points out is that in order to experience objects, we must experience them spatially. - but this is hardly a proof that space is a priori, since space could just as easily be a posteriori knowledge upon which all other kinds of spatial a posteriori knowledge are based.If you can figure out how to have experience without space, then you have a point. Otherwise, Kant is still right.

It should be obvious that just as "knowledge of X" is not the same as "X", "manifestation in our judgments of X" is also not the same as "X".

It should be obvious that if "X" has no necessary existence outside of our minds, as Kant argues, it must be a necessary mental condition of experience.

So, where does it come in, if both "knowledge" of it and its "manifestation in our judgments" are derived from experience?

Whether space is "real" or merely an artifact of our own perception, the fact remains that we cannot have experience without it.

This is precisely the point of contention.

There is no reason to suppose that we cannot have experience without space.

No, what he points out is that in order to experience objects, we must experience them spatially.

Yes, and in order to experience them spatially, we need space. The second is obviously true, but the first is not.

He argues that in order to experience objects, we must conceive of them as spatially external to ourselves - yet I do not see why this is the case. Perhaps we need to conceive of them as different from us, but that is a different claim, and requires identity, not space.

If you can figure out how to have experience without space, then you have a point.

All that is required is replacing a spatial perception of an object ("close", "far", "long", "short", etc.) with a simple dichotomy of "sensed" and "not sensed."

There can be subsidized health and education--just not coerced subsidization. There's nothing which prevents scholarships and free care from being given.
.

Sure theres nothing that prevents free care but why would exist in any significant amount, it'd just be a waste of resources that can be sold to the highest or richest consumer.


And the people without children? Oh that's right--they're just fucked.
.

You miss my point. I'm speaking of circumstances when the parents don't care or would not want to waste their income on educating their own child well.
The child would be fucked. And everyone is at some point a child so it has the potental to help everyone. Yeah sure some people would be better off without it since they might have good parents but personally those with bad parents would screwed over much worse, and I'd rather the successful earned it rather from merit over luck.


That doesn't make police protection a right.
.

Than not everyone has private property rights. And here I thought Austrians cared about that.


I'm wondering why you think that without the theft of money to educate the kids that everyone but the super-rich would be stupid. What in the world makes you think that?
.

Because so many people live by paycheack to paycheack you yourself said you were nearly bankrupt at one point. True education is generally poorly run but surely you could see the vast benefits of school vouchers or interest free loans to those going to uni.



It doesn't.

Okay I put to you that less economic regulation generally has that effect. WHY would no regulation not do the same. (I'm hoping for more than a 2 word reply for this one)

Then mathematics is a posteriori. Which it isn't. Therefore, you have no idea of that which you are trying to proclaim that you know.Or, it could have been that your explanation of how the unit is come up with was wrong.
However, AnarchyEl explained the difference.

Sure theres nothing that prevents free care but why would exist in any significant amount, it'd just be a waste of resources that can be sold to the highest or richest consumer.
Why would it need to be in any significant amount? And why do you hate the rich?


You miss my point. I'm speaking of circumstances when the parents don't care or would not want to waste their income on educating their own child well.
It sucks for the child, but that doesn't give you the right or authority (claimed moral or otherwise) to demand that others give up their property to educate that child. ESPECIALLY those without children.



Than not everyone has private property rights.
Non sequitur.



Because so many people live by paycheack to paycheack you yourself said you were nearly bankrupt at one point. True education is generally poorly run but surely you could see the vast benefits of school vouchers or interest free loans to those going to uni.
No, I don't. All I see are huge problems with credit expansion and an artificial shifting of resources.


Okay I put to you that less economic regulation generally has that effect.
Then you'd have to demonstrate it.

Or, it could have been that your explanation of how the unit is come up with was wrong.
It wasn't.

Why would it need to be in any significant amount? And why do you hate the rich?
.

In a significant ammount to benefit those who need the help and opportunities. I quite like the rich actually but children and the sick can't compete in a market that only sells to the highest bidder.


It sucks for the child, but that doesn't give you the right or authority (claimed moral or otherwise) to demand that others give up their property to educate that child. ESPECIALLY those without children.
.

So how do you come to the conclusion or get the authority to tell/demand a society that you should not attack or murder anyone else. Surely because things are better if we coerce people (via police/prisons) if they do such actions.



No, I don't. All I see are huge problems with credit expansion and an artificial shifting of resources.
.
Look at your own logic. What does this shifting in resources entail, movement of resources from those who have lots of money towards helping children from extremely poor families. Quite clear that without this the gap between the rich and poor would be larger.


Then you'd have to demonstrate it.

Currently we have a progressive taxation system, this website shows how cutting taxation on the rich or leveling out to a flat income tax or even abolishing tax all together will make the rich richer and the poor pooer

http://www.voice.buz.org/mailarchive/msg00029.html

In a significant ammount to benefit those who need the help and opportunities. I quite like the rich actually but children and the sick can't compete in a market that only sells to the highest bidder.
Why does "need" have any title to anything?


So how do you come to the conclusion or get the authority to tell/demand a society that you should not attack or murder anyone else.
The right of self-ownership (private property) in no way means that police protection is a right. Only the most flagrant of non sequiturs could state such. And only a flagrant reversal of reality would state that without police protection there is no self-ownership.


Look at your own logic. What does this shifting in resources entail, movement of resources from those who have lots of money towards helping children from extremely poor families.
So what? You say that as if it's some moral imperative to "help children [and] extremely poor families". It isn't.


Quite clear that without this the gap between the rich and poor would be larger.
Is the fact that there is a gap bad? And why shouldn't there be a gap? Why do you take these things for granted?



Currently we have a progressive taxation system, this website shows how cutting taxation on the rich or leveling out to a flat income tax or even abolishing tax all together will make the rich richer and the poor pooer
It makes a bunch of assumptions, such as that all current programs would still be in place, rather than cutting expenditures. Bunch of nonsense.

It should be obvious that if "X" has no necessary existence outside of our minds, as Kant argues, it must be a necessary mental condition of experience.No, that's not what Kant says at all. Because we cannot know what "really is" outside of our own experience, we cannot comment on the thing in-itself. We know that space is necessary for our experience, whether or not it is necessary per se. Even if we could say with confidence that it "has no necessary existence outside of our minds" (which Kant does not think we can), it would not logically follow that it does not exist outside of our minds. (Non-necessity does not prove non-existence!!)

So, where does it come in, if both "knowledge" of it and its "manifestation in our judgments" are derived from experience?You just said it. It "comes in" (for us) through experience.

There is no reason to suppose that we cannot have experience without space.You can recite that as dogmatically as you like, that doesn't help it make sense. Perhaps you should re-read Kant's aesthetic in the First Critique?

He argues that in order to experience objects, we must conceive of them as spatially external to ourselves - yet I do not see why this is the case. Perhaps we need to conceive of them as different from us, but that is a different claim, and requires identity, not space.You are trying to invent some kind of experience that human beings do not have. Kant is an empiricist to this extent: he is concerned with the human experience, and our experience is of "objects." Kant demonstrates why, for us to have this experience, objects must be "out there" perceptually, in some sense. He is not concerned with how God may experience the world, or how some fourth-dimensional alien experiences the world. He is concerned with how human beings experience the world.

All that is required is replacing a spatial perception of an object ("close", "far", "long", "short", etc.) with a simple dichotomy of "sensed" and "not sensed."Yes, that is where Kant starts: simple experience, the "sensed." But then he proceeds to notice that we do describe "objects," and the only way we can do so is spatially. There is no such thing as a "non-spatial object." Again, you are trying to invent some experience that human beings do not have.

Why does "need" have any title to anything?
.

Less need more opportunity. Other wise your society would lack social mobility and meritocracy would be a joke.


The right of self-ownership (private property) in no way means that police protection is a right. Only the most flagrant of non sequiturs could state such. And only a flagrant reversal of reality would state that without police protection there is no self-ownership.
.

People can attack me steal my money and make me a slave. Assuming all my moneys been taken how can I afford protection or to try to get retribution.


So what? You say that as if it's some moral imperative to "help children [and] extremely poor families". It isn't.
.

Screw social mobility then.


Is the fact that there is a gap bad? And why shouldn't there be a gap? Why do you take these things for granted?
.

Because wealth will concentrate into fewer hands. People become vast land owners renting off property and making more money and this only extends and gets more extreme over time. There should certainly be a gap but one that is controllable and neccessary taxes usually help aliviate rich familys staying rich for generations and poor ones staying poor.

No, that's not what Kant says at all. Because we cannot know what "really is" outside of our own experience, we cannot comment on the thing in-itself. We know that space is necessary for our experience, whether or not it is necessary per se.

Of course. I never disputed any of that.

Even if we could say with confidence that it "has no necessary existence outside of our minds" (which Kant does not think we can),

True, it can be necessary in some other sense - but it does not follow necessarily from our experience. Which is the only point I was making.

it would not logically follow that it does not exist outside of our minds. (Non-necessity does not prove non-existence!!)

I never said it did.

You just said it. It "comes in" (for us) through experience.

That is disingenuous. My concern is not how it manifests itself, or how it appears to us. My concern is its origin.

You have already granted that its origin cannot be in experience. It thus must in some sense exist independently of experience. You have refused to classify this existence as knowledge, and have refused to grant that its manifestation in our judgments and categorizations has an origin in something other than experience - thus, it cannot constitute that either.

What does it constitute, then?

You can recite that as dogmatically as you like, that doesn't help it make sense. Perhaps you should re-read Kant's aesthetic in the First Critique?

I did, last night. It didn't convince me any more than it has in the past.

You are trying to invent some kind of experience that human beings do not have. Kant is an empiricist to this extent: he is concerned with the human experience, and our experience is of "objects." Kant demonstrates why, for us to have this experience, objects must be "out there" perceptually, in some sense.

No, he really doesn't. Or, rather, though he demonstrates that space is necessary to have some particular experience, namely the experience of spatial relations, he does not demonstrate that space is necessary for all experience - even keeping to human experience.

As well say that water is a priori, because we need it in order to understand objects as "wet."

Yes, that is where Kant starts: simple experience, the "sensed." But then he proceeds to notice that we do describe "objects," and the only way we can do so is spatially. There is no such thing as a "non-spatial object." Again, you are trying to invent some experience that human beings do not have.

How is it that "the only way we can do so is spatially"?

Less need more opportunity.
I repeat: since when does "need" have title to anything? Answer the question.


People can attack me steal my money and make me a slave. Assuming all my moneys been taken how can I afford protection or to try to get retribution.
Ah, so you're thinking like a Trac-phone "pay when you need it" or "pay as you go". But what about something like car insurance?


Screw social mobility then.
Ah, so you are one of those brainwashed who believes that it's a moral imperative to "help the children [and] extremely poor families".


Because wealth will concentrate into fewer hands.
Prove it. You just keep repeating the same claim over and over and over and over and over and over and over. But you never bother to provide me some evidence that it would be the case. I'd be much obliged if you could.

Then you speak of some perversion thereof. Any so-called laissez-faire society that allows favouritism by the government is a contradiction in terms.

By not intervening, the system is inherently skewed in favor of business. Laissez faire is in itself favoritist towards business, because much of government regulation is used to protect consumers from business. Remove that, and businesses may not get protectionism, but they won't have to worry about pesky labor unions or employee rights laws.

That is disingenuous. My concern is not how it manifests itself, or how it appears to us. My concern is its origin.Then your concern is with metaphysics or with theology--or, at best, with cosmology--, not with epistemology. With Kant, I would argue that questions about the "origin" of space in other than a scientific "Big Bang" sense are beyond our abilities.

You have already granted that its origin cannot be in experience. It thus must in some sense exist independently of experience.No. It may exist "in some sense" independently of experience, or it may be an artifact of the manner in which we experience. We cannot answer that question.

What does it constitute, then?Existence in itself, which we cannot know.

I did, last night. It didn't convince me any more than it has in the past.Now I think you're being disingenuous, because I do not believe that you re-read anything last night. If you did, it must have been the most cursory review imaginable, because a careful analysis of Kant's position takes days (at least), even for the world's finest experts on Kant.

Or, rather, though he demonstrates that space is necessary to have some particular experience, namely the experience of spatial relations, he does not demonstrate that space is necessary for all experience - even keeping to human experience.Yes, he did. There is nothing "particular" about the experience he analyzes. If you had re-read the aesthetic last night, you would surely recall that he begins with the pure data of sense experience, from which he concludes (a priori) that there is a world "out there" separate from us. From there he considers the experience of objects--not this or that object in particular, but the experience of objects in general (which we all share), and concludes (a priori) that such experience can only be spatial experience.

As well say that water is a priori, because we need it in order to understand objects as "wet."First of all, the conclusion does not follow because other things are wet. More importantly, "wetness" is a particular experience; it is not a sensation involved in experience itself. It is perfectly possible to experience the world at any given moment without experiencing "wetness." It is NOT possible to experience the world (at least not the world we know) without objects, without space. While you may be able to imagine a space-less experience (and I am dubious, because like Kant I am not convinced that a space-less succession of sensory data would allow the development of personal identity), that is not the world that we DO experience. Kant was interested in an epistemology for this world, not some possible world with some possible creatures.

How is it that "the only way we can do so is spatially"?The answer is contained in our conception of "objects." Whatever we might (hypothetically) experience without spatial extension could not be an "object." We might "sense" some "change" in our experience, but it would not be the experience of being "confronted" by an "object."

Keep in mind that in space-less experience you could not have a body, because your body is extended in space. You would not have a "position" either, relative to any "thing." Such a bodyless experience might be imaginable, but it would have no bearing on actual experience in the world that we know.

By not intervening, the system is inherently skewed in favor of business.
*laughs uproariously*

Oh please--you're making me laugh so much that my sides hurt.

By not intervening, the system is inherently skewed in favor of business. Laissez faire is in itself favoritist towards business, because much of government regulation is used to protect consumers from business. Remove that, and businesses may not get protectionism, but they won't have to worry about pesky labor unions or employee rights laws.
By not intervening, the system is -- guess what -- simply not intervening.

In minarchist regimes labour unions may still form, negative rights may still prevent employee abuse and misinforming or harming consumers. In complete anarchism, employees may form unions to represent their interests, as may consumers, and they may still seek legal recourse where necessary.

Furthermore, you've created a strawman. The point was not about laissez-faire economics itself, but about government regulation that aids corporations cement their dominance. The system of economics is irrelevant here -- government action is what is under question.

Then your concern is with metaphysics or with theology--or, at best, with cosmology--, not with epistemology. With Kant, I would argue that questions about the "origin" of space in other than a scientific "Big Bang" sense are beyond our abilities.

Now you are simply dodging the question.

I don't want its metaphysical, theological, or cosmological origin.

I want its epistemological origin - like I have from the start (and, indeed, it is in that sense that you have taken the term so far.)

No. It may exist "in some sense" independently of experience, or it may be an artifact of the manner in which we experience. We cannot answer that question.

The two amount to one and the same. "The manner in which we experience" must be determined by something other than experience itself - otherwise, it would be contingent on particular experiences, precisely what you have argued a priori knowledge must not be.

Existence in itself, which we cannot know.

I don't see how that makes any sense at all.

Kant does, after all, explicitly say that these are subjective conditions of experience, and should not be taken to imply anything about objects as they actually are.

Indeed, I am having trouble understanding how you can can possibly say that the conditions themselves, as they are manifest in experience, are experientially based. That seems simply self-contradictory.

Now I think you're being disingenuous, because I do not believe that you re-read anything last night.

You believe wrongly. I tend not to argue against the positions of people without reviewing what they actually said.

If you did, it must have been the most cursory review imaginable,

I will not deny that it was cursory, if that is your concern. I am perfectly willing to admit that it is possible that it was too cursory, and that I am overlooking something - indeed, that is one reason I am arguing this out. But I did re-read it. And I did not give it so cursory an examination in prior readings.

Yes, he did. There is nothing "particular" about the experience he analyzes. If you had re-read the aesthetic last night, you would surely recall that he begins with the pure data of sense experience, from which he concludes (a priori) that there is a world "out there" separate from us.

Right. The problem is that the only necessary sort of separation is not spatial, but rather that of identity. I can consider something to not be me without considering it to be in some other place than me.

From there he considers the experience of objects--not this or that object in particular, but the experience of objects in general (which we all share), and concludes (a priori) that such experience can only be spatial experience.

Only by considering space to be something other than an object. I referenced this at the beginning of this argument.

We do experience most phenomena spatially - but if space itself is merely an object of experience, there is no difficulty here, any more than there is in perceiving wet things as wet.

More importantly, "wetness" is a particular experience; it is not a sensation involved in experience itself. It is perfectly possible to experience the world at any given moment without experiencing "wetness." It is NOT possible to experience the world (at least not the world we know) without objects, without space. While you may be able to imagine a space-less experience (and I am dubious, because like Kant I am not convinced that a space-less succession of sensory data would allow the development of personal identity), that is not the world that we DO experience. Kant was interested in an epistemology for this world, not some possible world with some possible creatures.

That caveat aside, a priori truth refers to that which is not contingent--which does not depend for its truth on what "happens" to be the case.

It seems that you are contradicting yourself here, though I may simply be misunderstanding you.

The answer is contained in our conception of "objects." Whatever we might (hypothetically) experience without spatial extension could not be an "object." We might "sense" some "change" in our experience, but it would not be the experience of being "confronted" by an "object."

Okay. So what? You are only pointing out that space is necessary for certain kinds of experience, which I have always granted.

Thus, in the modern context a priori truth is that which can be known without any particular experiences--rather, a priori truth is arrived at through the bare essentials of experience.

It seems to me that you can either consider "objects" broadly to be anything experienced (in which case it is false to say that we cannot experience objects without space) or more narrowly, in which case things necessary to experience objects may not be necessary for experience itself.

I do think a broader definition of a priori might allow for space as something which is not necessary for all experience, merely for some particular experiences, but which is also not derived from external objects - but then you must explain how it cannot, unlike water, be an external object in itself.

Keep in mind that in space-less experience you could not have a body, because your body is extended in space. You would not have a "position" either, relative to any "thing." Such a bodyless experience might be imaginable, but it would have no bearing on actual experience in the world that we know.

Indeed. But all of the things you mention as lacking are particular experiences.

All the better to indoctrinate the kiddies.

Education: Free and Compulsory (http://www.mises.org/story/2226), by Murray Rothbard.

Maybe you don't understand the concept of a free open education? The American education system is horrific, I think it's worthless. :)

Maybe you don't understand the concept of a free open education?
Did you read the essay? Just wondering.

At any rate, I understand the concept of a free, open education. I also understand that education is a service, and should be paid for.


The American education system is horrific, I think it's worthless. :)
That makes two of us.

I repeat: since when does "need" have title to anything? Answer the question.
.

It doesn't but fairness and opportunity do.


Ah, so you're thinking like a Trac-phone "pay when you need it" or "pay as you go". But what about something like car insurance?
.

- not everyone will have cover. If I know you have no cover I can steal from you with no consequences.
- Police won't walk the streets or spend as much time in poorer areas
- being a policeman is a dangerous job, (especially in a world with no welfare for the poor and cheap guns). Just see how many people will want to be policeofficers, unless pay dramatically rises in which case even less have cover.
- Assume their is an emergency, you call the insurence company and they would have to waste time looking up your details, make sure your payments are up to date and then respond according to what cover you're paying for.
- Who pays for the prisons, the courts and would there even be a jury?
- Who would use their insurence cover to report a murder they saw or other such crimes that don't directly affect them but clearly need police involvement.


Ah, so you are one of those brainwashed who believes that it's a moral imperative to "help the children [and] extremely poor families".
.


No I beleive in a meritocracy (unlike you) extremely poor familys usually have brought it on themselves. But that doesn't mean their kids should suffer since they are not responcible for the stupidity or incompetancy of their parents.

Actually this leads me on to another point about "private" police. If parents are neglecting their kids or abusing them what can the child do, they can't phone social services or the police. Hey they can't even run away from home and try and make in on their own since they have nothing to support them.


Prove it. You just keep repeating the same claim over and over and over and over and over and over and over. But you never bother to provide me some evidence that it would be the case. I'd be much obliged if you could.

http://www.levy.org/default.asp?view=research_distro

According to Wolff's figures, about 70 percent of the wealth in the US is in
the hands of 10 percent of population. He also notes that the disparity
between the distribution of wealth rose from 1989 to 1998, although the pace of the inequity was slower in the 1990s.

Now please tell we why abolishment of progressive taxation (for things such as emergency services, defence, roads, basic welfare, inheritence) will make the rich have less money and the poor more. That is what you're arguing right, or do you agree that something like abolishing inheritence tax will mean a rich family will keep its money for many more generations.

It doesn't but fairness and opportunity do.
No, they don't.



- not everyone will have cover. If I know you have no cover I can steal from you with no consequences.
False.


- Police won't walk the streets or spend as much time in poorer areas
False.


- being a policeman is a dangerous job, (especially in a world with no welfare for the poor and cheap guns). Just see how many people will want to be policeofficers, unless pay dramatically rises in which case even less have cover.
False.


- Assume their is an emergency, you call the insurence company and they would have to waste time looking up your details, make sure your payments are up to date and then respond according to what cover you're paying for.
False.


- Who pays for the prisons, the courts and would there even be a jury?
Why would there be prisons? Courts are covered by the insurance policies, and juries could be professional juries, not the conscripted drek we get now.


- Who would use their insurence cover to report a murder they saw or other such crimes that don't directly affect them but clearly need police involvement.
I'm afraid that sentence makes no sense whatsoever.




No I beleive in a meritocracy (unlike you) extremely poor familys usually have brought it on themselves. But that doesn't mean their kids should suffer since they are not responcible for the stupidity or incompetancy of their parents.
And that doesn't mean others should have to suffer by having their property stolen to pay for the stupidity of those parents.

Two wrongs DO NOT make a right. Period.


Actually this leads me on to another point about "private" police. If parents are neglecting their kids or abusing them what can the child do,
Oh, are you one of those who incorrectly thinks that children would have no rights and can't do anything about any wrongs committed upon them?




http://www.levy.org/default.asp?view=research_distro

According to Wolff's figures, about 70 percent of the wealth in the US is in
the hands of 10 percent of population.
Relevance? None.


Now please tell we why abolishment of progressive taxation (for things such as emergency services, defence, roads, basic welfare, inheritence) will make the rich have less money and the poor more.
They will both have more money.

No, they don't.


They don't? And so why does negative freedom completely trump say some equality of opportunity.



False.


Yet not all people have health insurence or car insurence. So true. And if I know that you are not protected by the law or police I can violate your property rights.


False.


True. Why would the do a more dangerous job for less money.


False.


I assume your ideology will let people starve and be homeless rather than redistribute any money. Tell me what do you think a large number of people would resort to in those circumstances. Would you work as a policeman and try to arrest such a person with a gun?


False.


So insurence companys won't want to cheack and confirm your a paying customer before helping? Oh wait but they do that now, and their usually quite slow about it...


Why would there be prisons? Courts are covered by the insurance policies, and juries could be professional juries, not the conscripted drek we get now.


And if I take out a cheap insurence policy I have a judge and jury who are paid very little and quite easy to be corrupted. Great system of justice.

What do we do with criminals or the insaine if not lock them up? What if they can't afford to compensate the family of a person they murdered?


I'm afraid that sentence makes no sense whatsoever.


In todays world if I see someone being attacked or someone injured I'll call the police or an ambulance straight away. In one where my insurence premiums would go up for helping someone in need I'd most likely think twice about helping.




And that doesn't mean others should have to suffer by having their property stolen to pay for the stupidity of those parents.

Two wrongs DO NOT make a right. Period.


You would equate the suffering of a child in poverty (and the limits they have imposed on opportunity due to being unlucky) to the suffering of having to pay 10%/20% income tax.


Oh, are you one of those who incorrectly thinks that children would have no rights and can't do anything about any wrongs committed upon them?


What rights they have no money.


Relevance? None.


I hate to repeat myself but lower taxes and moves towards laissez faire put % of total money into less hands. WHY will laissez faire itself not only increase this effect.

They don't? And so why does negative freedom completely trump say some equality of opportunity.
Equality of opportunity does not require that you steal from some to give to others.



Yet not all people have health insurence or car insurence. So true. And if I know that you are not protected by the law or police I can violate your property rights.
You can do it even if they are. What's your point.



True.
No, it's false. You assume that the world would be more dangerous without a welfare nanny net and that somehow there would be a large amount of cheap firearms. I don't know why you make those assumptions, and I will not grant you them. Ergo--false.


I assume your ideology will let people starve and be homeless rather than redistribute any money.
Redistribute = THEFT.


So insurence companys won't want to cheack and confirm your a paying customer before helping?
You said it would take a while. Why would it? Ergo, false.


And if I take out a cheap insurence policy I have a judge and jury who are paid very little and quite easy to be corrupted.
Why would they be paid very little, and why would they be easy to corrupt?

Stop making unsupported assertions.


What do we do with criminals or the insaine if not lock them up?
Remunerative compensation.


What if they can't afford to compensate the family of a person they murdered?
Garnishment.



In todays world if I see someone being attacked or someone injured I'll call the police or an ambulance straight away. In one where my insurence premiums would go up for helping someone in need I'd most likely think twice about helping.
Why would that happen?

Please--STOP MAKING UNSUPPORTED ASSERTIONS!



You would equate the suffering of a child in poverty (and the limits they have imposed on opportunity due to being unlucky) to the suffering of having to pay 10%/20% income tax.
Suffering is suffering. Trying to downplay one vs the other is sick, twisted, demented, and sociopathic.



What rights they have no money.
Rights have nothing to do with money.



I hate to repeat myself
You do it often, but it doesn't get you anywhere.


but lower taxes and moves towards laissez faire put % of total money into less hands. WHY will laissez faire itself not only increase this effect.
I'm afraid that I cannot understand your question.

Equality of opportunity does not require that you steal from some to give to others.
.

Unless differences in wealth are so great that you can only hope to succeed if you come from the right backround and have the right parents/education.



You can do it even if they are. What's your point.
.

I can also murder today. But I know I'll most likely be caught and punished if I do that. If the guy has no police insurence the odds of me being caught and punished are far less (possibly 0)



No, it's false. You assume that the world would be more dangerous without a welfare nanny net and that somehow there would be a large amount of cheap firearms. I don't know why you make those assumptions, and I will not grant you them. Ergo--false.
.

Sorry I'm taking it on assumption that as an Austrian you'd support the right to bear arms (even if you don't whos going to stop you anyway). As a result if you need instant money or unfortunate circumstances mean you lose your job theft and violence will be the last resort for some.
Personally I'd rather steal than starve or go homeless.


Redistribute = THEFT.
.

I take it thats a yes then.



Why would they be paid very little, and why would they be easy to corrupt?

Stop making unsupported assertions.
.

Either insurence companys would cater to the poor (and offer a lower quality service - Ie. Lower paid/ skilled judges) or the poor would not be able to afford insurence.


Remunerative compensation.
.

How long will a muderer need to work to pay back full compensation. What if he refuses to work, surely security to stop him escaping and harming people would cost more than his uncooperative labour would be worth.


Garnishment.
.

So someone who most likely was struggaling financially will have the majority of all future money taken away from him. Tell me why he wont try to committ more crime, at what point does someone who consistently breaks the law need to be locked away from society?



Why would that happen?

Please--STOP MAKING UNSUPPORTED ASSERTIONS!

.

If I make a claim on my car insurence my premiums go up. If I phoned for a police car or an ambulance I'd have to pay for the cost of the fuel and worker who responds in higher premiums.


Suffering is suffering. Trying to downplay one vs the other is sick, twisted, demented, and sociopathic.
.

Whats sick is letting people starve to death and children live in poverty and limiting peoples options to make a change in their lives.



Rights have nothing to do with money.
.

Sure it does. If I have property rights but have no money to have this right enforced its meaningless to me. Its like giving me the right to build a spaceship and fly to pluto, its completely pointless.



I'm afraid that I cannot understand your question.

Currently around 70 percent of the wealth in the US is in
the hands of 10 percent of population. Do you accept this will be even more under a laissez faire economy.

Unless differences in wealth are so great that you can only hope to succeed if you come from the right backround and have the right parents/education.
Why would that happen?



I can also murder today. But I know I'll most likely be caught and punished if I do that.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!


If the guy has no police insurence the odds of me being caught and punished are far less (possibly 0)
False.



Sorry I'm taking it on assumption that as an Austrian you'd support the right to bear arms
Yes, but why does that entail a huge amount of cheap firearms?



Either insurence companys would cater to the poor (and offer a lower quality service - Ie. Lower paid/ skilled judges) or the poor would not be able to afford insurence.
Why would they be lower skilled? I really don't understand where you're getting these wild ideas from.



How long will a muderer need to work to pay back full compensation.
Don't know.


What if he refuses to work, surely security to stop him escaping and harming people would cost more than his uncooperative labour would be worth.
People would simply refuse to deal with this person, and he would be known to the private police agencies.



So someone who most likely was struggaling financially will have the majority of all future money taken away from him.
What makes you say that the person was most likely struggling financially?


If I make a claim on my car insurence my premiums go up. If I phoned for a police car or an ambulance I'd have to pay for the cost of the fuel and worker who responds in higher premiums.
No you wouldn't.


Whats sick is letting people starve to death and children live in poverty and limiting peoples options to make a change in their lives.
No, what's sick is treating the rich like some faceless ATM that you can just pull money from in order to "alleviate all the problems of the world". That's dehumanizing someone. That's sick.



Sure it does. If I have property rights but have no money to have this right enforced its meaningless to me.
Why do you need money to have a right enforced?


Currently around 70 percent of the wealth in the US is in
the hands of 10 percent of population. Do you accept this will be even more under a laissez faire economy.
No.

Either insurence companys would cater to the poor (and offer a lower quality service - Ie. Lower paid/ skilled judges) or the poor would not be able to afford insurence.
BAAWAKnights is pretty much decimating you, but I'll further elaborate on this one -- companies seek to profit-maximise. In order to do so, they price-discriminate (ie charge each consumer the most that they are willing to be charged; for instance, airline flights with their various classes). What this means is that these companies will milk as much as possible out of their potential customers. But, wait. These companies, and courts in particular, will have their costs covered by the guilty party -- the so-called victim:criminal restitution ratio (which is currently in favour of criminals; ie the victim usually bears most of the costs). This means they can even further lower their prices to attract more customers. Assuming this market remains competitive, there will be cheaper justice available to the poor, and more expensive to those who can afford it. Therefore, these companies will have a large profit basis, and be able to offer lower prices where necessary.

What will happen to uncooperative criminals? No company will insure them, or if it will, it will do so at a high cost and at the risk of its reputation, people will disassociate with them, and knowing that they have no protection this time in a legal sense, their incentive to harm others will be lowered as it will maximise the risk they are under.

These companies jeopardise their reputation and their profit-basis if they are inefficient at delivering a service. Ripping off clients in this industry will crush them. Furthermore, if the poor are careful, their insurance premiums will remain low. It is high-risk individuals that will pay more usually.

Why would that happen?
.

It already does.



False.
.

Why



Yes, but why does that entail a huge amount of cheap firearms?
.

Since lots of people would want them.



Why would they be lower skilled? I really don't understand where you're getting these wild ideas from.
.

Typically if you pay less money you get worse service. If you get cheaper insurence you won't get as good judges.



People would simply refuse to deal with this person, and he would be known to the private police agencies.
.

Not good enough. You can't just let violent agressive people walk the streets they're a threat to everyone.



What makes you say that the person was most likely struggling financially?
.

Typically criminals are poor.


No you wouldn't.
.

Who pays for the cost of calling out an ambulence or a police car then. What if the victem didn't have insurence or didn't want to use the service, it'd be wrong to charge them without concent.


No, what's sick is treating the rich like some faceless ATM that you can just pull money from in order to "alleviate all the problems of the world". That's dehumanizing someone. That's sick.
.

I'm not trying to alleviate all the problems in the world. I just want people with tallent and motive to succeed to have a realistic chance of doing so. When you look at the consequences of each policy you'll see why most people arn't too keen on Austrian economics.



Why do you need money to have a right enforced?
.
We've established that no one will protect you for free or enforce your rights for free.


No.

Whats so magical about laissez faire then that stops this trend.

In order to do so, they price-discriminate (ie charge each consumer the most that they are willing to be charged; for instance, airline flights with their various classes).
.
Yes the poor get worse courts because they pay less. Thats was my point...


These companies, and courts in particular, will have their costs covered by the guilty party --
.

So if a case could go either way a poor person will be refused service.
Not to mention if the guilty party has no money and reperations will take many many years its not in the interest for the police to arrest them (they'll get payment quicker from aressting/charging a wealthyer person)



(which is currently in favour of criminals; ie the victim usually bears most of the costs).
.

Which is why we should keep courts and police free at the point of use.



What will happen to uncooperative criminals? No company will insure them, or if it will, it will do so at a high cost and at the risk of its reputation, people will disassociate with them, and knowing that they have no protection this time in a legal sense, their incentive to harm others will be lowered as it will maximise the risk they are under.
.

But they can harm others all they want without going to prison. They'll only have furture money taken away from them, and if they're unemployed or have no money why should they care.


Furthermore, if the poor are careful, their insurance premiums will remain low. It is high-risk individuals that will pay more usually.

Or the unlucky ones who are subject to theft or being attacked.

Yes the poor get worse courts because they pay less. Thats was my point...
You're ignorant in Economics, aren't you? Price-discrimination is something firms do within their clientelle. It means to charge the the maximum they are willing to pay, thereby gaining maximum profit -- it will be significantly less for some than others.

So if a case could go either way a poor person will be refused service.
Not to mention if the guilty party has no money and reperations will take many many years its not in the interest for the police to arrest them (they'll get payment quicker from aressting/charging a wealthyer person)

Not quite. Cases can always go either way the majority of times, so this is irrelevant. Ordering the criminal to pay reparations to the victim will always generate profit. The Court can compensate the victim from its profit base (thereby ensuring loyalty), and from there on ensure that the aggressor makes good. It is always in the interest of the police to arrest aggressors in this case, as they risk losing clients otherwise.

Which is why we should keep courts and police free at the point of use.
Umm, why? I just explained the situation as it is -- the victim ends up paying most of the costs. The current restitution ratio is distorted. And by the way, the legal system is not free at the point of use.


But they can harm others all they want without going to prison. They'll only have furture money taken away from them, and if they're unemployed or have no money why should they care.
I don't see why prisons won't exist. Plus, as BAAWAKnights said, they will be known to the police.

Or the unlucky ones who are subject to theft or being attacked.
Again, you do not understand economics. The victim will not be the one with the higher premium; the aggressor will be. No insurance agency would want to provide protection to someone who is going to cost them money by attracting constant lawsuits. Lawsuits initiate from the victim, not the aggressor. It is therefore the aggressor who is the highest potential cost to any agency.

I don't want its metaphysical, theological, or cosmological origin.

I want its epistemological origin - like I have from the start (and, indeed, it is in that sense that you have taken the term so far.)Yes. And if you want its epistemological "origin," then you should only care how we know about it, not "where it comes from." And we know about it through experience (as we know everything else).

For the last time (I hope), the difference between a priori and a posteriori is not a difference between "non-experiential" and "experiential." They both derive from experience. A priori knowledge merely derives from experience as such, while a posteriori knowledge depends on some particular experience.

"The manner in which we experience" must be determined by something other than experience itself - otherwise, it would be contingent on particular experiences, precisely what you have argued a priori knowledge must not be.I'm not sure what you mean by how it is "determined." If you mean "how we know it" (an epistemological question), then we can only know it through experience. If you mean something else, then that is for another discussion.

Kant does, after all, explicitly say that these are subjective conditions of experience, and should not be taken to imply anything about objects as they actually are.Right. That's why it's been so hard for me to understand why you seem to keep asking questions about things as they actually are, anterior to experience. We can't know that. We can only know how things are for us, through our kind of experience.

Indeed, I am having trouble understanding how you can can possibly say that the conditions themselves, as they are manifest in experience, are experientially based. That seems simply self-contradictory.Only if you're talking about the conditions themselves, and not merely our knowledge of them.

The problem is that the only necessary sort of separation is not spatial, but rather that of identity. I can consider something to not be me without considering it to be in some other place than me.Yes, but in order to ponder such things, you need to invent some mode of experience that simply is not human. As entertaining as such arm-chair philosophy may be, it does nothing to advance the grounds of human knowledge.

This was the historical problem facing Kant. He was attempting to resolve the seemingly intractable conflict between unreflective empiricism and a rationalism whose endless litany of "could be" worlds had devolved into pure skepticism: since we can always imagine that the world could be other than what it is, we can never establish any sure footing on which to think about the world as it is. Kant's great epistemological contribution was to establish the grounding for idealism based purely on the sense-datum assumptions of modern empiricism. He showed that just because our knowledge starts from sensory input, it doesn't have to end there.

Only by considering space to be something other than an object. I referenced this at the beginning of this argument.Yes, and I still don't understand what you could mean by treating space as an "object." It would be an object that fits no definition of the term I've ever encountered.

It seems that you are contradicting yourself here, though I may simply be misunderstanding you.Like Kant, "contingency" only means anything for me within the framework of the world as it appears to humans. While certain aspects of our experience may be "contingent" in some broader sense--that is, we could experience things differently, but we don't. A priori truth for us derives from the most general aspects of our experience, not some "logical" concepts about what experience "might" be like for some other creatures.

You are only pointing out that space is necessary for certain kinds of experience, which I have always granted.Yes. A certain kind of experience which is inherent to the human experience. And that's all we really have to go on.

Yes. And if you want its epistemological "origin," then you should only care how we know about it, not "where it comes from." And we know about it through experience (as we know everything else).

Yes. We "know about it through experience" - but this is not exactly what I was getting at, either.

I can only identify specific a priori truths (and even the existence of a priori truth itself) after experience. But in some sense they are in my mind beforehand; that is the only way they can be "necessary conditions" of experience. It is in this sense that their origin is innate.

If space is in fact a subjective condition of experience, then while my knowledge of space may be derived from experience, I nevertheless possess an innate mental framework of perception that includes space. If I did not, in what sense would space be a subjective condition of experience?

If that is the case, it follows that, as I said earlier, the origin of the basic manifestations of a priori truths, the manifestations from which we derive knowledge of them, is innate and not experiential.

Right. That's why it's been so hard for me to understand why you seem to keep asking questions about things as they actually are, anterior to experience.

Where?

Only if you're talking about the conditions themselves, and not merely our knowledge of them.

Yes. But the "conditions themselves," being subjective, must in some sense exist innately within our minds. (If they do not, how else do they become relevant?)

Yes, but in order to ponder such things, you need to invent some mode of experience that simply is not human.

No. You merely need to consider the possibilities of human experience.

In order to sense something, even keeping to human experience (which is the only kind of experience about which I can say anything at all) I need not conceive of it as spatially away from me. This doesn't seem to make any sense to you, but honestly I'm not sure why.

Yes, and I still don't understand what you could mean by treating space as an "object." It would be an object that fits no definition of the term I've ever encountered.

Merely as a particular experience rather than an a priori truth.

Like Kant, "contingency" only means anything for me within the framework of the world as it appears to humans. While certain aspects of our experience may be "contingent" in some broader sense--that is, we could experience things differently, but we don't. A priori truth for us derives from the most general aspects of our experience, not some "logical" concepts about what experience "might" be like for some other creatures.

If we can experience things differently, but we don't, is that not a particular experience, as opposed to "experience as such"?

Yes. A certain kind of experience which is inherent to the human experience. And that's all we really have to go on.

To experience as a member of the human species, maybe (because we all have bodies), but not necessarily to the experience of the human mind - which is really the more important question in terms of a priori and a posteriori knowledge.

It already does.
Not all the time. You are claiming it would be the case all the time. Ergo...


Why
You're the one making the claim--you tell me why it's correct.


Since lots of people would want them.
That doesn't mean that there would be a lot of cheap firearms, though.


Typically if you pay less money you get worse service.
Only for AOL.


If you get cheaper insurence you won't get as good judges.
You're really not bright. If you get cheaper insurance, you just won't get as many benefits. However, the quality of the judges remain the same, lest the consumer go elsewhere. Look: you can go to McDonalds and get a Double Quarter Pounder with Cheese (tm) or you can get a Double Cheeseburger (tm). The DQPC costs more than the DC, but they are the same quality.



Not good enough. You can't just let violent agressive people walk the streets they're a threat to everyone.
Why. Would. They. Walk. The. Streets?


Typically criminals are poor.
Only if you think that all jews are greedy and that the french are cheese-eating surrender monkeys.


Who pays for the cost of calling out an ambulence or a police car then.
For someone else? The person upon whom it was called.


What if the victem didn't have insurence or didn't want to use the service, it'd be wrong to charge them without concent.
Then the police or ambulance would leave, if the person didn't want to use the service. If they didn't have insurance but did want the service, a payment arrangement could be worked out.

Are you really so stupid that you can't conceive of these things on your own? It's really quite simple, and I'm amazed at your lack of intellectual ability.



I'm not trying to alleviate all the problems in the world.
Yes you are. You're also trying to blame all of the problems on the "rich" because they have a lot of money. And money somehow means opportunity (which it doesn't).


I just want people with tallent and motive to succeed to have a realistic chance of doing so. When you look at the consequences of each policy you'll see why most people arn't too keen on Austrian economics.
Yeah: Austrian economics means people have to take responsibility for their own actions and not cry to the state to bail them out.


We've established that no one will protect you for free or enforce your rights for free.
1. It could be the case that protection would be granted for free in some cases.
2. Can't you protect yourself?


Whats so magical about laissez faire then that stops this trend.
No. Government. To. Grant. Special. Favors.

Not all the time. You are claiming it would be the case all the time. Ergo...
.

It would be the case more often.


You're the one making the claim--you tell me why it's correct.
.

If I have no police insurence how will I make sure justice is done to a criminal who steals my property or attacks me. By saying false you're implying he will have his property rights protected without police insurence, care to back up this claim.


Only for AOL.

You're really not bright. If you get cheaper insurance, you just won't get as many benefits. However, the quality of the judges remain the same, lest the consumer go elsewhere. Look: you can go to McDonalds and get a Double Quarter Pounder with Cheese (tm) or you can get a Double Cheeseburger (tm). The DQPC costs more than the DC, but they are the same quality.
.

Isn't getting a more qualified judge an extra benefit? If I join a better car breakdown company they will send more qualified people to look at my car if it breaks down and be more likely to help me out.



Why. Would. They. Walk. The. Streets?
.

Anti social behaviour.


Only if you think that all jews are greedy and that the french are cheese-eating surrender monkeys.
.

Did I say all poor people were criminals? And there's a strong correlation between poverty and increased crime
http://www.ucs.louisiana.edu/~mjh6817/2-Table%20and%20Chart%20(cr).doc


For someone else? The person upon whom it was called.
Then the police or ambulance would leave, if the person didn't want to use the service. If they didn't have insurance but did want the service, a payment arrangement could be worked out.
.

Would it still not take police resources and time to respond to a call. And why would they want to work out a payment service that they would not offer other customers. Also such a payment scheme could be anything (90% of your salery for the rest of your life) and if I would die without the help I'm forced to accept such an awful deal.




And money somehow means opportunity (which it doesn't).
.

If I go to Eaton or a good private school do I not have more opportunity to get into my prefered uni?


Yeah: Austrian economics means people have to take responsibility for their own actions and not cry to the state to bail them out.
.

As I've already pointed out, how can you hold a child responcible for the incompitancy of its parents.


1. It could be the case that protection would be granted for free in some cases.
2. Can't you protect yourself?
.

1. Why
2. Agains't someone breaking into your house with a gun? Goodluck.


No. Government. To. Grant. Special. Favors.

Sure. But what about welfare/progressive taxation. Do these favours increase the income gap.

OK FinalSigh, I'm getting the idea that you really haven't thought about this at all. Your entire argument is based on an emotive plea. To wit: BUT WHAT ABOUT THE POOR/CHILDREN/ETC.

Discussions like these are not about emotive pleas. Emotive pleas have no place here. Stop using them.

Also, please disabuse yourself of the emotive plea notion that businesspeople just want to kill the customer/take all of the customer's money/put out crappy products/etc. It doesn't work like that. In fact, the only places it does work like that are in the movies and in a socialist system.

Bluntly, I'm just a little tired of your lack of effort here. Knee-jerk emotive pleas get old very quickly.

Yes. We "know about it through experience" - but this is not exactly what I was getting at, either.

I can only identify specific a priori truths (and even the existence of a priori truth itself) after experience. But in some sense they are in my mind beforehand; that is the only way they can be "necessary conditions" of experience. It is in this sense that their origin is innate.Maybe, but that's simply not an epistemological question. Surely those conditions "affect" me (whethor or not that means they are "in my mind") insofar as I have experience at all--the very experience though which I acquire my knowledge of such conditions. But that's the point: I obtain my knowledge of them through experience.

If space is in fact a subjective condition of experience, then while my knowledge of space may be derived from experience, I nevertheless possess an innate mental framework of perception that includes space. If I did not, in what sense would space be a subjective condition of experience?But that's the problem: we have no way of knowing that it is subjective. Kant calls it "subjective" in the sense that it is necessary for our subjective experience, whether or not it is objectively true of things in-themselves. That we can never know.

Thus, we do not know whether space-time is merely an "innate mental framework" or whether it is an objective condition of the universe. We cannot make any claim to its innateness... we can only discuss how we establish knowledge of its necessity, and this is through an analysis of our experience.

If that is the case, it follows that, as I said earlier, the origin of the basic manifestations of a priori truths, the manifestations from which we derive knowledge of them, is innate and not experiential.Still a metaphysical question, and still beyond our means. Because space-time is necessary for our experience, we cannot answer questions about its ontological "origin." It may be innate, it may not be: we just don't know. What we do know is that our knowledge of it is derived from experience.

Yes. But the "conditions themselves," being subjective, must in some sense exist innately within our minds. (If they do not, how else do they become relevant?)Even if we suppose that they ARE "subjective" in the Kantian sense, this does not entail that they "exist innately within our minds." Rather, they may be a function of how our senses operate, thus structuring the information that our "minds" receive. In that way, the space-time "structure" is still external to "mind" in the same way that vision is "in" the eyes, the optic nerve, and the structure of the brain rather than some sort of innate "mental" function. Instead, mental functions (like knowledge) are posterior these.

In order to sense something, even keeping to human experience (which is the only kind of experience about which I can say anything at all) I need not conceive of it as spatially away from me. This doesn't seem to make any sense to you, but honestly I'm not sure why.It makes perfect sense. But it's not the kind of experience that human beings actually have. Even if it is (and what kinds of things fit the bill? feelings? to call them "things" seems to overly reify the experience) it answers no questions about objective experience, which is what interests us. Again, Kant's problem was to overcome skepticism about "the real world" while at the same time respecting the validity of contemporary empiricism and opening up the space for idealism. The result is our modern a priori/a posteriori distinction. You seem to be wrapped up in the pre-modern concept of "innate ideas."

If we can experience things differently, but we don't, is that not a particular experience, as opposed to "experience as such"?But we can't experience things differently without being very different creatures ourselves. If we were, we would worry ourselves about their epistemology. For the time being, we have enough problems with human epistemology.

(Kant, as you should know, often wondered about the experience of a "four-dimensional being," and he believed that this experience [hence their epistemology] would be very different than ours. But that experience could never speak to us, so that the grounds for human knowledge must always rest on actual human experience.)

To experience as a member of the human species, maybe (because we all have bodies), but not necessarily to the experience of the human mind - which is really the more important question in terms of a priori and a posteriori knowledge.Now you're reinventing the very dualism that Kant was attempting to overcome.

But that's the problem: we have no way of knowing that it is subjective. Kant calls it "subjective" in the sense that it is necessary for our subjective experience, whether or not it is objectively true of things in-themselves. That we can never know.

Thus, we do not know whether space-time is merely an "innate mental framework" or whether it is an objective condition of the universe. We cannot make any claim to its innateness... we can only discuss how we establish knowledge of its necessity, and this is through an analysis of our experience.

No, we cannot make any claim to its objectivity (or non-objectivity). We can make a claim to its innateness, if we accept Kant's argument, because such an innate framework is necessary for us to experience anything at all, even the objective condition of space (if it is such).

a. Space does not represent any quality of objects by themselves, or objects in their relation to one another; i.e. space does not represent any determination which is inherent in the objects themselves, and would remain, even if all subjective conditions of intuition were removed. For no determinations of objects, whether belonging to them absolutely or in relation to others, can enter into our intuition before the actual existence of the objects themselves, that is to say, they can never be intuitions a priori.

Even if we suppose that they ARE "subjective" in the Kantian sense, this does not entail that they "exist innately within our minds." Rather, they may be a function of how our senses operate, thus structuring the information that our "minds" receive. In that way, the space-time "structure" is still external to "mind" in the same way that vision is "in" the eyes, the optic nerve, and the structure of the brain rather than some sort of innate "mental" function. Instead, mental functions (like knowledge) are posterior these.

You can perhaps claim this for space. But how can you claim it for something like cause and effect?

It makes perfect sense. But it's not the kind of experience that human beings actually have.

A human being living permanently under water might "actually have" only experience of external objects under water. Would she thus be justified in calling water "a priori"?

But we can't experience things differently without being very different creatures ourselves.

It is this point with which I have trouble.

I don't see why human beings need be different to have non-spatial experience.

No, we cannot make any claim to its objectivity (or non-objectivity). We can make a claim to its innateness, if we accept Kant's argument, because such an innate framework is necessary for us to experience anything at all, even the objective condition of space (if it is such).Yes, but you're still missing the fundamental distinction.

X is NOT the same as "knowledge of X." It is the latter with which epistemology is concerned.

You can perhaps claim this for space. But how can you claim it for something like cause and effect?Claim what? That we need to experience causality before we can have an idea of it? That seems rather straightforward to me.

A human being living permanently under water might "actually have" only experience of external objects under water. Would she thus be justified in calling water "a priori"?Only if she concludes that water is necessary for experience as such. We grow up and spend most of our lives on a planet with an atmosphere. This does not mean that atmosphere is necessary a priori because we can go somewhere without an atmosphere.

We cannot, however, "go" somewhere without space. In fact, our entire experience of the objective world is premised on the existence of space.

You seem to be confused about the fact that Kant's a priori is still a logical leap... but it is a logical leap from experience itself. Judging the content of experience at the most abstract level, one must conclude that in order for us to have this kind of experience, certain conditions must hold.

As for the quotation you offer from Kant, its explication involves certain subtleties that we need not enter into here. To give the short version, he is arguing that space cannot be a property of objects in-themselves in the sense of space as "thereness"--that is, there is no "absolute position" for any object. In this he was arguing forcefully against Newton's conception of space as a reified three-dimensional array of "points." For a time thereafter, Kant actually argued that space itself (as extension and relative location) must be objective, to prove which he employed a famous thought experiment involving a severed hand in empty space: it would always be a left hand or a right hand, demonstrating that while space may not have absolute "position," it is orientable. (To realize why this should be so, you need to understand that left and right hands are identical geometrically. There is no mathematical difference between the two.) Kant later retracted this argument when he realized that in four dimensions you can "flip" a left hand so that it is a right hand. Of course, we don't know if the universe really has four dimensions (or more) or only three... so once again the metaphysical question turns into a "we just don't know." The epistemological question, however, remains one of knowledge a priori deduced from the general properties of experience.

I don't see why human beings need be different to have non-spatial experience.Again, we don't need to be different to have non-spatial experience. We would need to be very different indeed, however, to have non-spatial experience of objects.

On further reflection, I realized that the comment of Kant that you post makes my point perfectly:

For no determinations of objects, whether belonging to them absolutely or in relation to others, can enter into our intuition before the actual existence of the objects themselves, that is to say, they can never be intuitions a priori.

In other words, we perceive objects first, after which the "determinations of objects" (i.e. space)... "enter into our intuition."

Space and other relations, he says, "can never be intuitions a priori." That is, we do not have an "innate" concept of space that precedes our experience of objects in space. We do not have "space by itself" before we have objects.

Instead, we experience the objective world, and only then do we receive our intuition of space. It is NOT an intuition "a priori," which is what you want to argue. It does NOT "enter into" our minds before experience.

Yes, but you're still missing the fundamental distinction.

X is NOT the same as "knowledge of X." It is the latter with which epistemology is concerned.

But to go back to what I said in my last post, if we do have such an innate mental framework, doesn't that imply that the manifestations of a priori truth in our experience have an innate origin?

Claim what? That we need to experience causality before we can have an idea of it? That seems rather straightforward to me.

No, that causality is "a function of how our senses operate," as you claimed could be true of space in your last post.

Only if she concludes that water is necessary for experience as such. We grow up and spend most of our lives on a planet with an atmosphere. This does not mean that atmosphere is necessary a priori because we can go somewhere without an atmosphere.

We cannot, however, "go" somewhere without space.

This question of capability seems to me a weak distinction.

Let me change the example slightly - instead of merely living underwater in a world where she could conceivably emerge, she lives in a universe that for some reason is completely flooded with water.

Again, is water a priori for her?

In fact, our entire experience of the objective world is premised on the existence of space.

Again, we don't need to be different to have non-spatial experience. We would need to be very different indeed, however, to have non-spatial experience of objects.

I still can't accept this, however many times you repeat it. I have the impression that I am missing something that you find quite clear, and I would like to know what it is.

What is it, exactly, about objective experience that requires space?

You seem to be confused about the fact that Kant's a priori is still a logical leap... but it is a logical leap from experience itself. Judging the content of experience at the most abstract level, one must conclude that in order for us to have this kind of experience, certain conditions must hold.

I understand his method; my question concerns the basis for his conclusion, using that method.

In other words, we perceive objects first, after which the "determinations of objects" (i.e. space)... "enter into our intuition."

Space and other relations, he says, "can never be intuitions a priori." That is, we do not have an "innate" concept of space that precedes our experience of objects in space.

Really?

Space is not an empirical concept which has been derived from external experience.... Therefore, the representation of space cannot be borrowed through experience from relations of external phenomena, but, on the contrary, those external phenomena become possible only by means of the representation of space.

Indeed, Kant says elsewhere that space is an intuition a priori:

Geometry is a science which determines the properties of space synthetically, and yet a priori. What then must be the representation of space, to render such knowledge of it possible? It must be originally intuitive; for it is impossible from a mere concept to deduce propositions which go beyond that concept, as we do in geometry. That intuition, however, must be a priori, that is, it must exist within us before any perception of the object, and must therefore be pure, not empirical intuition.

We thus must conclude that his point is not that space isn't an intuition a priori, but rather, as an intuition a priori, it cannot be simply a "determination of objects." This also makes more sense in the context of his overall argument, and corresponds very well to his argument that a representation of space is a necessary condition of all phenomena.

We do not have "space by itself" before we have objects.

But we can.

It is impossible to imagine that there should be no space, though one might very well imagine that there should be space without objects to fill it.

BAAWAKnights, you've mentioned multiple times throughout the course of this---discussion?---that a free education amounts to "slavery". I'm not entirely sure I understand how a free education constitues slavery, nor do I comprehend exactly how taxation amounts to theft.

Slavery can probably be loosely defined as service performed unwillingly, but I do not understand how a free education necessarily implies servitude, unless we are forcing individuals to become teachers. As it is, teachers become teachers primarily because they want to become teachers---as you've stated, people act for ends---and, at least in my experience, they do not become teachers because of the pay, but because they want to teach. Therefore it seems to me that they clearly are deriving some benefit from teaching, even if it is not a monetary benefit.

With regard to taxation, if the money is given willingly for the sake of public benefit, how does it constitute theft? I understand, of course, that in practice often times money is not actually used for the public good, but that seems to me to require a reformation of the tax system, not necessarily a conclusion that tax itself is theft.

Finally, I must confess I'm a little lost with the talk of a priori-ness. Are you trying to say that economics is a priori?

But to go back to what I said in my last post, if we do have such an innate mental framework, doesn't that imply that the manifestations of a priori truth in our experience have an innate origin?I innately have the ability to see. It does not follow that I innately know how or why I see, nor that I innately know the metaphysical preconditions for sight--although these conditions must have been met for me to be able to see.

No, that causality is "a function of how our senses operate," as you claimed could be true of space in your last post.I don't make that claim with respect to causality. Causation is a few steps down the line, and we need time and space first in order to describe it. (That we need time should be obvious; that we need space less so, but as long as we're following Kant, he makes space primary and derives the sense of time from spatial relations. It would be a much different discussion if we were talking about Heidegger. For my part, I don't think it makes much difference either way, but I do think you need (at a minimum) time before causality.) Since we haven't even gotten that far, I don't think we have the tools necessary for an a priori discussion of causality.

This question of capability seems to me a weak distinction.The distinction isn't capability per se, it's just a simple way of communicating the fact of contingency--the idea that something just "happens" to be a certain way.

Let me change the example slightly - instead of merely living underwater in a world where she could conceivably emerge, she lives in a universe that for some reason is completely flooded with water.

Again, is water a priori for her?No, no more than air would be a priori for us if it happened to permeate the entire universe. For one thing, just as we can create a vacuum--and we could even if no natural vacuum exists--people in your imaginary world could create a container and then drain the water from it. Having thus demonstrated "waterlessness" empirically, they would have proven that water is not necessary, not a priori: it would be a contingent fact that water exists throughout the universe.

If we could similarly produce a "space-less" container, then we would have proven that space is a contingency rather than an a priori necessity.

I still can't accept this, however many times you repeat it. I have the impression that I am missing something that you find quite clear, and I would like to know what it is.

What is it, exactly, about objective experience that requires space?The fact that objective experience contains objects, and however you might like to mangle the definition of "object" you cannot change the fact that such things make up the human experience.

Indeed, Kant says elsewhere that space is an intuition a priori:Which only proves that by taking excerpts out of context one can make Kant appear incredibly inconsistent. (Of course, the problem is probably at least half the fault of the translator.)

The fact of the matter is that he is moving between descriptions of space as the condition for objective experience and our knowledge of space. The condition itself must precede experience, our knowledge of it cannot.

This seems to me a rather silly point for you to dispute. Kant does not believe in innate ideas, and he would not have had much impact on modern thought if he had. Innate ideas were rather decisively laid to rest by Locke's Essay, and Kant had no intention to revive them. Instead, he wanted to explain how one could reach a priori certainty stemming directly from the sensory assumptions accepted by modern empiricists.

We do not have "space by itself" before we have objects.But we can.It is impossible to imagine that there should be no space, though one might very well imagine that there should be space without objects to fill it.
The fact that we can imagine space without objects but not objects without space is part of what it means for space to be a priori.

But I do not deny that. As I have bolded above, my claim is that we cannot know space before we know objects. Once we know it, we are perfectly capable of employing our imagination upon what we know.

I innately have the ability to see. It does not follow that I innately know how or why I see, nor that I innately know the metaphysical preconditions for sight--although these conditions must have been met for me to be able to see.

But the "preconditions" here are purely mental. They must be, because if they are not, they must somehow be an aspect of external objects, and we would never be able to reach them as a precondition for experiencing external objects.

No, no more than air would be a priori for us if it happened to permeate the entire universe. For one thing, just as we can create a vacuum--and we could even if no natural vacuum exists--people in your imaginary world could create a container and then drain the water from it. Having thus demonstrated "waterlessness" empirically, they would have proven that water is not necessary, not a priori: it would be a contingent fact that water exists throughout the universe.

If we could similarly produce a "space-less" container, then we would have proven that space is a contingency rather than an a priori necessity.

Certainly. But the fact that we cannot produce a space-less container does not prove non-contingency. The fact that our perception of our external world does contain space does not mean that it is necessary for it to contain space.

The fact that objective experience contains objects, and however you might like to mangle the definition of "object" you cannot change the fact that such things make up the human experience.

But while I can understand why extended objects need space, I do not see why objects in and of themselves do, at least insofar as "objects" are conceived of as the the matter of objective experience as such.

Which only proves that by taking excerpts out of context one can make Kant appear incredibly inconsistent. (Of course, the problem is probably at least half the fault of the translator.)

In this particular case, what's the relevance of the context?

Is he not saying that space is an intuition a priori, but rather something else?

Is he saying that space is an intuition a priori, but in a sense different from the way you meant it?

The fact of the matter is that he is moving between descriptions of space as the condition for objective experience and our knowledge of space. The condition itself must precede experience, our knowledge of it cannot.

In what sense does the "condition itself" precede experience?

This seems to me a rather silly point for you to dispute. Kant does not believe in innate ideas, and he would not have had much impact on modern thought if he had. Innate ideas were rather decisively laid to rest by Locke's Essay, and Kant had no intention to revive them. Instead, he wanted to explain how one could reach a priori certainty stemming directly from the sensory assumptions accepted by modern empiricists.

What does he mean, then, when he says that "[the intuition] must exist within us before any perception of the object"?

If the representation of space is a precondition for all external phenomena, we must have it before experience.

(I don't know if this qualifies as an "innate idea." I don't think it does, as long as our conscious recognition of it only arises post-experience.)

The fact that we can imagine space without objects but not objects without space is part of what it means for space to be a priori.

But I do not deny that. As I have bolded above, my claim is that we cannot know space before we know objects. Once we know it, we are perfectly capable of employing our imagination upon what we know.

Fair enough.

BAAWAKnights, you've mentioned multiple times throughout the course of this---discussion?---that a free education amounts to "slavery". I'm not entirely sure I understand how a free education constitues slavery, nor do I comprehend exactly how taxation amounts to theft.
Because if some non naturally-occuring service must be provided "for free", then people must be coerced into paying for it, i.e. paying for it either unwillingly or paying part of it unwillingly. This, of course, means some form of taxation. Taxation is the use of force by a government to separate you from your property in order to pay for the upkeep of government services. This is really no different than a mafia protection scheme.

Do you understand now?

And yes, I am saying that economics is a priori. For your edification, I refer you to Gene Callahan's essay What Is A Priori Science, and Why Does Economics Qualify As One (http://www.mises.org/story/2025)

But the "preconditions" here are purely mental.I don't know where you're getting that. You're insisting on a dualism that the Critique of Pure Reason was attempting to transcend.

They must be, because if they are not, they must somehow be an aspect of external objects,That does not follow.

But, for the last time, this is beside the point. Even if the preconditions for objective experience are "purely mental," knowledge of those preconditions is in no way "innate." It is discovered through the rational analysis of experience. You have a real problem distinguishing between "X" and "knowledge of X." If you can't get past that, I think we're at an impasse.

Certainly. But the fact that we cannot produce a space-less container does not prove non-contingency.Of course not; you can never prove an absolute negative empirically. What I was doing was empirically disproving the non-contingency of water in your hypothetical.

But while I can understand why extended objects need space, I do not see why objects in and of themselves do, at least insofar as "objects" are conceived of as the the matter of objective experience as such.There is no such thing as a "non-extended" object. Objective experience is, by definition, the experience of objects. Why don't you tell me what would be a "non-extended" "external" "object"? Then I'll understand what you mean, and I can explain more particularly why it doesn't make sense.

My guess is that the best you can come up with is a "feeling" or a "sensation" that does not confront us as an object, but which I might "feel" or "sense" and recognize as "not me." But these are inherently subjective experiences. I cannot conceive of an objective experience that does not contain objects. It makes no sense.

Is he not saying that space is an intuition a priori, but rather something else?He is, but you're getting confused by his (or his translator's) use of the term "intuition." Intuition here is closer to "sense" than "knowledge." Epistemologically, we are interested in how/why we count the results of this "intuition" as a priori certainties as opposed to the contingencies of empirical sense data per se. The intuition itself does not give us that certainty: reason applied to experience does.

What does he mean, then, when he says that "[the intuition] must exist within us before any perception of the object"?He means just that, but this conclusion is the result of his rational analysis of experiential data. He does not "know," innately and certainly, that spatial intuition must exist within us before any perception of the object. He figures it out after perceiving the damn object.

If the representation of space is a precondition for all external phenomena, we must have it before experience.Again, "X" does not equal "knowledge of X."

(I don't know if this qualifies as an "innate idea." I don't think it does, as long as our conscious recognition of it only arises post-experience.)That's all I've been trying to explain to you!!!

X /= knowledge of X. Epistemologically, the term "a priori" applies to knowledge of X. We may use the term "a priori" about lots of other things, but that does not change its epistemological meaning.

That does not follow.

The only exception I can see would be a "precondition" based on a faculty of perception.

But, for the last time, this is beside the point. Even if the preconditions for objective experience are "purely mental," knowledge of those preconditions is in no way "innate." It is discovered through the rational analysis of experience. You have a real problem distinguishing between "X" and "knowledge of X." If you can't get past that, I think we're at an impasse.

Yes, I actually granted this a long time ago.

All I have maintained is that the origin of such knowledge, since it arises from the manifestation of innate intuitions in our experience, is innate and not empirical.

Edit: Which, since in and of themselves such manifestations do not provide us with certainty, I suppose I cannot claim.

There is no such thing as a "non-extended" object. Objective experience is, by definition, the experience of objects. Why don't you tell me what would be a "non-extended" "external" "object"? Then I'll understand what you mean, and I can explain more particularly why it doesn't make sense.

My guess is that the best you can come up with is a "feeling" or a "sensation" that does not confront us as an object, but which I might "feel" or "sense" and recognize as "not me."

Yes, that's essentially what I was thinking of.

But these are inherently subjective experiences. I cannot conceive of an objective experience that does not contain objects. It makes no sense.

Rather than maintain what is looking like a losing argument, let me change course slightly.

Why is it, exactly, that we cannot experience space without first experiencing objects?

He is, but you're getting confused by his (or his translator's) use of the term "intuition." Intuition here is closer to "sense" than "knowledge." Epistemologically, we are interested in how/why we count the results of this "intuition" as a priori certainties as opposed to the contingencies of empirical sense data per se. The intuition itself does not give us that certainty: reason applied to experience does.

He means just that, but this conclusion is the result of his rational analysis of experiential data. He does not "know," innately and certainly, that spatial intuition must exist within us before any perception of the object. He figures it out after perceiving the damn object.

Again, "X" does not equal "knowledge of X."

I see what you're saying now.

The intuition of space might precede experience in some sense, but knowledge of its certainty can only be reached through the analysis of experience.

I think we would have gotten this cleared up a long time ago if not for the semantic confusion, which I suppose is mostly my fault.

All I have maintained is that the origin of such knowledge, since it arises from the manifestation of innate intuitions in our experience, is innate and not empirical.Yes, but much the same can be said of "color." Sure, there are various frequencies of light out there, but the "origin" of color as a schema for processing light is a human intuition. I know the analogy is not exact, so there's no need to attack me on it... but I hope it communicates my general meaning: though the "origin" of an intuition is "in us," that does not make the knowledge that depends on that intuition/faculty "innate." (Which is why, though the spatial intuition and the sense of color both arise "in us," we can conclude through the rational investigation of experience that only one of them is necessary to the very existence of objective experience.)

Why is it, exactly, that we cannot experience space without first experiencing objects?This is precisely because space cannot be regarded as a property of things in themselves. Regardless of its "origin," its meaning is inherently relative--an object does not have a "property" of "position," such that its position would exist even if there were no objects to mark it. Rather, we always measure position with respect to something.

If you were "born" into "space" with no objects--including no body--you might be moving thousands of miles per second, or moving not at all. How would you tell the difference between the two? In fact, "movement" loses all meaning when we cannot measure it, so no matter whether you were moving (with respect to what?) or not, you would experience nothing. Nor could you accelerate (with what would you push yourself?), and even if you could (by thinking?) you would have no mass so you would not "feel" acceleration.

If location, velocity, and acceleration are meaningless in empty space, then there is no "experience" of space--because these are our modes of spatial experience. We could never come to "know" space without having objects to fill it.

We can, of course, imagine empty space by "removing" objects... but then our sense of "position," at least, is filled in by imaginary "points" in space. This is a reification of our ordinary experience of relative position.

Again, Kant was forcefully arguing against Newton's conception of space, which essentially held that there is an objective three-dimensional field of points underlying all phenomena in the universe. Interestingly, Einstein would later comment briefly on Kant's understanding as comparable to his own: space as a sort of "human interpretation" of mathematical relationships between matter and energy in the universe.

I guess if Ingsoc isn't going to take this, I will...

Because if some non naturally-occuring service must be provided "for free", then people must be coerced into paying for it, i.e. paying for it either unwillingly or paying part of it unwillingly. This, of course, means some form of taxation. Taxation is the use of force by a government to separate you from your property in order to pay for the upkeep of government services. This is really no different than a mafia protection scheme.

Do you understand now?

And yes, I am saying that economics is a priori. For your edification, I refer you to Gene Callahan's essay What Is A Priori Science, and Why Does Economics Qualify As One (http://www.mises.org/story/2025)

From the article:

"Unless we first postulate that people deliberately undertake previously planned activities with the goal of making their situations, as they subjectively see them, better than they otherwise would be, there would be no grounds for differentiating the exchange that takes place in human society from the exchange of molecules that occurs between two liquids separated by a permeable membrane."

Why should we assume that a particular activity was previously planned?

Oh, and taxation is a form of a utility fee.

I guess if Ingsoc isn't going to take this, I will...



From the article:

"Unless we first postulate that people deliberately undertake previously planned activities with the goal of making their situations, as they subjectively see them, better than they otherwise would be, there would be no grounds for differentiating the exchange that takes place in human society from the exchange of molecules that occurs between two liquids separated by a permeable membrane."

Why should we assume that a particular activity was previously planned?
Why shouldn't we? Tell me: when you post, do you not plan to post?


Oh, and taxation is a form of a utility fee.
No it isn't.

Remember that whole thing about unsupported assertions needing only to be gainsaid? You just made an assertion that was unsupported.

Why shouldn't we? Tell me: when you post, do you not plan to post?Sometimes yes, sometimes no. I couldn't tell you how many times I've gone through a thread for whatever reason and seen something to respond to that I didn't think would be there. I certainly didn't plan to post at that point, it just worked out that it was a good time.
The same could be said for an economic purchase made on a whim.

No it isn't.

Remember that whole thing about unsupported assertions needing only to be gainsaid? Like economics being a priori?

You just made an assertion that was unsupported.Then I suppose I shall support it further.
There are plenty of things that people gain from living together in a group, or a society. Some of these things are more obvious. Protection in numbers is a more obvious one. The ability to socialize with people is a less obvious one.
Why should anybody get any of these things for free?

Since the tangential discussion of knowledge a priori seems to be winding down, I'd like to throw something into the general mix, vaguely responding in the process to themes that jump out at me from the ongoing discussion.

In short, single-mindedly libertarian ideology fails to deal with the very real fact of market failure--that is, the undeniable fact that while free exchange generally facilitates the transfer of goods between sellers and those willing to buy, under certain circumstances free exchange is particularly bad at facilitating those purchases.

The most significant market failure with respect to the discussion of taxation is the undersupply of "public goods." Because everyone benefits (or can benefit) from the supply of a public good, no one is individually motivated to pay for it.

Now, this would not be a great problem if desirable public goods were few and far between--but most people would agree that this is not the case. For every public good that they do not enjoy, or which does not affect them, there are others that they do enjoy--though others may not, or which may not affect other people. Thus, rather than try to put together a specific general collection for every public good, it makes much more economic sense to appoint a (government) body to collect contributions toward public goods and to determine the allocation of those funds. (Naturally, we prefer democratic or republican government in this context, so that we each also get some "say" in the provision of public goods.)

This is so precisely because one of the goods listed in most of our preferences is "free time." If we did not all value free time, then perhaps we would be happy enough constantly organizing new collections for specific goods, or monitoring whether others have paid in, or otherwise managing our many investments in the public welfare. Such behavior might ensure that our money only goes to pay for things we truly support... but it would be absolutely exhausting. And giving up on that behavior, there would be many things we would like to see the public procure, but for which no organization exists.

Thus, taxation and government expenditure are a reasonable solution to the problem of public goods in a free market economy. Never mind the troubling but related problems of external costs and benefits.

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. I couldn't tell you how many times I've gone through a thread for whatever reason and seen something to respond to that I didn't think would be there. I certainly didn't plan to post at that point, it just worked out that it was a good time.
But when you saw it, you made a decision based on certain criteria. IOW: you had some sort of plan.


Like economics being a priori?
That was established. And there was an actual argument with it. You didn't provide anything remotely like an argument.


Then I suppose I shall support it further.
There are plenty of things that people gain from living together in a group, or a society. Some of these things are more obvious. Protection in numbers is a more obvious one. The ability to socialize with people is a less obvious one.
Why should anybody get any of these things for free?
Why should the ability to socialize require payment? And what if you do not directly use some of the services foisted upon us by whatever government one happens to live under? Should one be forced to pay for those services?

Since the tangential discussion of knowledge a priori seems to be winding down, I'd like to throw something into the general mix, vaguely responding in the process to themes that jump out at me from the ongoing discussion.

In short, single-mindedly libertarian ideology fails to deal with the very real fact of market failure
There's no such thing, and there's no way to draw a hard line between "public" and "private" goods.

The Market Failure Myth (http://www.mises.org/fullstory.aspx?control=1035), by D.W. MacKenzie

Why Externalities Are Not A Case Of Market Failure (http://www.mises.org/asc/2003/asc9simpson.pdf), by Brian Simpson

What Are You Calling Market Failure? (http://www.mises.org/story/1806), by Gil Guillory

Fallacies of the Public Goods Theory and the Production of Security (http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/9_1/9_1_2.pdf), by Hans-Hermann Hoppe.

Why Externalities Are Not A Case Of Market Failure (http://www.mises.org/asc/2003/asc9simpson.pdf), by Brian Simpson


There are so many erroneous assertions and assumptions in this article that I do not even know where to begin.

I'll start with this assertion: "Human beings are not a collective. They are individual, independent, autonomous beings and ought to be treated as such." No ... no they are not. Human beings are social creatures. They survive as members of communities and societies. They are not hermits where "every man is an island" and each is his own enclave. By the time we reach maturity and are able to act somewhat independently and autonomously, we are so shaped by our society and community, and so entangled in it's web of rights and corresponding obligations, that to reject this is tantamount to rejecting your humanity.

He also uses examples of things that are not actually externalities (i.e. the cost of business failure due to normal competition) in order to bolster his argument that externalities should not be internalized.

And finally, he ignores science in relation to problems like pollution. It may be true that the individual amount of air pollution we emit is not in itself deadly, but it is impossible to ignore that the cumulative effect is that it is ... but that is exactly what he asks us to do ... ignore the problem.

I told some Austrians I would have a look at some of their literature ... and I am not impressed. Bad assumptions, and faulty logic which was not been empirically tested leads to faulty conclusions.

I'll stick with ecological economics. They don't get everything right, but they are at least barking up the right tree.

There's no such thing, and there's no way to draw a hard line between "public" and "private" goods.

And herein lies the problem. What modern economic theory cannot account for is externalities and their social costs. I think a quote from Chapter 3 of A Quiet Revolution in Welfare Economics (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1990) illustrates this quite well.

Hunt's argument is frighteningly direct. The implicit assumption underlying traditional welfare theory that "private goods" are the rule and "public goods" the exception is exactly backward. The presumption should be that a good has "social" aspects until proven otherwise. But the neoclassical assumption is seldom made explicit. And it rarely occurs to anyone to try to test it empirically, which only makes it more difficult to challenge. Hunt is brushed off as a Don Quixote tilting at windmills largely because the assumption is well hidden in the traditional paradigm. Accepting the "external effect exceptionality assumption" is part of the ideological leap of faith underlying acceptance of the whole traditional paradigm.

Hunt's first point concerning the relative prevalence of social aspects of economic actions is as simple as it is significant. His second observation is equally important but more subtle. Traditional welfare theory "simply takes the externalities, for which property rights and markets are to be established, as somehow metaphysically given and fixed. In ignoring the relational aspects of social life their theory ignores the fact that individuals can create externalities almost at will." 14 Hunt's explanation is as eloquent as it is penetrating and begs to be quoted in full:

If we assume the maximizing economic man of bourgeois economics, and if we assume the government establishes property rights and markets for these rights whenever an external diseconomy is discovered [the preferred "solution" of the conservative and increasingly dominant trend within the field of public finance], then each man will soon discover that through contrivance he can impose external diseconornies on other men, knowing that the bargaining within the new market that will be established will surely make him better off. The more significant the social cost imposed upon his neighbor, the greater will be his reward in the bargaining process. It follows from the orthodox assumption of maximizing man that each man will create a maximum of social costs which he can impose on others. D'Arge and I have labeled this process "the invisible foot" of the laissez faire ... market place. The "invisible foot" ensures us that in a free-market ... economy each person pursuing only his own good will automatically, and most efficiently, do his part in maximizing the general public misery.
{E. K. Hunt, "A Radical Critique of Welfare Economics," in Growth, Profits, and Property, Ed Nell, ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980), pp. 245.}

Regardless of ideological arguments surrounding the concept of "market failures," it is very clear that market systems are very good at one thing: passing off externalities to others in the process of production and exchange. Indeed, one can argue that the market "fails" because it is too successful at benefiting those who have the most stake in it, not because it somehow "fails" to deliver to property owners. Thus, the real issue is not whether or not the market fails property owners. What is the real issue is that market systems fail to deliver social justice to those who own little or no property.

There are so many erroneous assertions and assumptions in this article that I do not even know where to begin.

I'll start with this assertion: "Human beings are not a collective. They are individual, independent, autonomous beings and ought to be treated as such." No ... no they are not.
Yes, yes they are. Without the individual, a collection cannot exist. Period.

Care to prove me wrong? I don't think you'll be able to. In fact, I know that you won't be able to. In attempting to prove me wrong, i.e. prove that you're correct, you'll have to presuppose that you and I are individual, independent, autonomous beings.


Human beings are social creatures.
That in no way detracts from the fact that human beings are individuals, and independent, autonomous beings. That we socialize is both a personality trait and a recognition that while we are all individuals, trade (of anything) will lead to increased utility/happiness.


They survive as members of communities and societies. They are not hermits where "every man is an island"
If you think that human beings are individual, independent, autonomous beings also means that "every man is an island" and that they are "hermits", then you're creating a huge strawman.

And clearly, you do think that's what it means.

Ergo, I can stop right here, since you're just tilting at a windmill.

And herein lies the problem. What modern economic theory cannot account for is externalities and their social costs.
Externalities can be accounted for. Cost is quite difficult to pin down, since, as Rothbard noted, "psychic profit/loss" is subjective.

I've never understood the issue with "externalities". Causes have effects, and we can't know all of the effects. To say that "externalities" must be dealt with by a government assumes that those in government are omniscient/omnipotent. And to condemn externalities (whether positive or negative) is to condemn man for being fallible. But man, by nature, is fallible. It's nothing more than "original sin" in a different guise.

Yes, yes they are. Without the individual, a collection cannot exist. Period.

Care to prove me wrong? I don't think you'll be able to. In fact, I know that you won't be able to. In attempting to prove me wrong, i.e. prove that you're correct, you'll have to presuppose that you and I are individual, independent, autonomous beings.



Who is tilting at windmills? I didn't say that a society was not made up of a collection of individuals, I simply suggested that they weren't necessarily independent and autonomous.



That in no way detracts from the fact that human beings are individuals, and independent, autonomous beings.


See, you are inferring independence and autonomy from individuality. I am saying you need to prove that one necessarily derives from the other.


That we socialize is both a personality trait and a recognition that while we are all individuals, trade (of anything) will lead to increased utility/happiness.


Or a recognition that we cannot survive as independent autonomous individuals.

Externalities can be accounted for. Cost is quite difficult to pin down, since, as Rothbard noted, "psychic profit/loss" is subjective.
Not all externalities involve psychic profit and loss. Many, such as air pollution, involve very real and quantifiable costs.


I've never understood the issue with "externalities". Causes have effects, and we can't know all of the effects. To say that "externalities" must be dealt with by a government assumes that those in government are omniscient/omnipotent.

But in many cases, effects can be determined with a degree of certainty. Externalities do not necessarily have to be dealt with by a government. They can be determine using market-based mechanisms such as emissions trading. However, this generally requires some form of state intervention, as the producer and consumer are unlikley to voluntarily assume the cost of a negative externality, and the 3rd party who is harmed has no recourse except as a collective, which is generally (though not necessarily) through the state.


And to condemn externalities (whether positive or negative) is to condemn man for being fallible. But man, by nature, is fallible. It's nothing more than "original sin" in a different guise.

No it's not. It is to hold man responsible for the results of his actions.

Or a recognition that we cannot survive as independent autonomous individuals.
That of course does not invalidate that they are in fact independent, autonomous individuals to begin with. Only a fool would study economics from the point of view that trade takes place between "collectives" as opposed to individuals. Individuals thereafter become interdependent.

Most economic fallacies occur because individuals are not treated as such. For instance, an example is utility, which directly influences demand. This is highly subjective. It varies from individual to individual.

Not all externalities involve psychic profit and loss. Many, such as air pollution, involve very real and quantifiable costs.
How, pray tell, are they quantified?

But in many cases, effects can be determined with a degree of certainty. Externalities do not necessarily have to be dealt with by a government. They can be determine using market-based mechanisms such as emissions trading. However, this generally requires some form of state intervention, as the producer and consumer are unlikley to voluntarily assume the cost of a negative externality, and the 3rd party who is harmed has no recourse except as a collective, which is generally (though not necessarily) through the state.
The only way any anarchist society could deal with externalities is an extension of property rights so as to allow them to sue against violators (verily, an entire community could then sue for the violation of the property rights of those who make it up). If, however, we must have a state tradeable permits are an acceptable solution.

Who is tilting at windmills? I didn't say that a society was not made up of a collection of individuals, I simply suggested that they weren't necessarily independent and autonomous.
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/independent

Main Entry: 1in·de·pen·dent
Pronunciation: "in-d&-'pen-d&nt
Function: adjective
1 : not dependent: as a (1) : not subject to control by others : SELF-GOVERNING (2) : not affiliated with a larger controlling unit <an independent bookstore> b (1) : not requiring or relying on something else : not contingent <an independent conclusion> (2) : not looking to others for one's opinions or for guidance in conduct (3) : not bound by or committed to a political party c (1) : not requiring or relying on others (as for care or livelihood) <independent of her parents> (2) : being enough to free one from the necessity of working for a living <a person of independent means> d : showing a desire for freedom <an independent manner>

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/autonomous

Main Entry: au·ton·o·mous
Pronunciation: o-'tä-n&-m&s
Function: adjective
Etymology: Greek autonomos independent, from aut- + nomos law -- more at NIMBLE
1 : of, relating to, or marked by autonomy
2 a : having the right or power of self-government b : undertaken or carried on without outside control : SELF-CONTAINED <an autonomous school system>
3 a : existing or capable of existing independently <an autonomous zooid> b : responding, reacting, or developing independently of the whole <an autonomous growth>

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/autonomy

Main Entry: au·ton·o·my
Pronunciation: -mE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -mies
1 : the quality or state of being self-governing; especially : the right of self-government
2 : self-directing freedom and especially moral independence

Given that humans are self-governing (part of autonomy and independent) in that we each decide our actions, and do exist independently of a whole (that is we can go off by our individual selves if we like), I think it's quite clear that humans are independent and autonomous.

What do you think?



See, you are inferring independence and autonomy from individuality.
It's necessarily so.


Or a recognition that we cannot survive as independent autonomous individuals.
But we are. Hence, you're again equating indepenent and autonomous with "self-sufficient hermit". Don't do that. It's wrong.

Not all externalities involve psychic profit and loss. Many, such as air pollution, involve very real and quantifiable costs.
But what is the value of other losses within that?


But in many cases, effects can be determined with a degree of certainty.
Yes.


Externalities do not necessarily have to be dealt with by a government. They can be determine using market-based mechanisms such as emissions trading. However, this generally requires some form of state intervention, as the producer and consumer are unlikley to voluntarily assume the cost of a negative externality, and the 3rd party who is harmed has no recourse except as a collective, which is generally (though not necessarily) through the state.
By generally you must mean "historically". However, there's absolutely no reason to assume generally needs to mean "would happen anyway".


No it's not. It is to hold man responsible for the results of his actions.
Not when it's called "market failure". Then it is to condemn man for not knowing everything and for simply acting, because the solution is to prevent people from freely interacting.

But when you saw it, you made a decision based on certain criteria. IOW: you had some sort of plan.Not necessarily, the criteria I have for posting is usually fairly definite, but even when a response would fit the criteria I sometimes don't make one.

Why should the ability to socialize require payment? It doesn't require payment, but there is the right to ask for payment. Why should somebody get something for free?

And what if you do not directly use some of the services foisted upon us by whatever government one happens to live under? Should one be forced to pay for those services?It depends if those services come as part of a package deal or not. Since, with governments, the services do come as package deals, it's either all or nothing.

The only way any anarchist society could deal with externalities is an extension of property rights so as to allow them to sue against violators (verily, an entire community could then sue for the violation of the property rights of those who make it up). If, however, we must have a state tradeable permits are an acceptable solution.Or, make it so the violators are the victims of the violation, by having the factory socially-owned/controlled.

Not necessarily, the criteria I have for posting is usually fairly definite, but even when a response would fit the criteria I sometimes don't make one.
So you make a choice and perform some other action.


It doesn't require payment, but there is the right to ask for payment.
Is the mafia right to ask for payment for the protection services it foists upon people? Why should they get protection from the mafia for free?


It depends if those services come as part of a package deal or not. Since, with governments, the services do come as package deals, it's either all or nothing.
Just as with a mafia protection scheme.


Or, make it so the violators are the victims of the violation, by having the factory socially-owned/controlled.
Which would end up destroying the factory. Cutting off the head to spite the nose doesn't work well.

So you make a choice and perform some other action.Yes, but the action was not previously planned.

Is the mafia right to ask for payment for the protection services it foists upon people? Why should they get protection from the mafia for free?No. The protection services aren't chosen by people. Since (just about) everyone chooses to socialize with others, there is a right to ask payment for this.
Just as with any other service - if you choose the service, you should pay for it, if you don't choose the service, you shouldn't.

Just as with a mafia protection scheme.The difference here is that socialization is often facilitated by other services that government provides. Many people would be fearful and in hiding without police protection. It would be difficult to traverse great distances without a substantial network of roads.

Which would end up destroying the factory. Cutting off the head to spite the nose doesn't work well.<Cough.> Speaking of unsupported assertions...

Yes, but the action was not previously planned.
Planning can occur as you're typing. You're figuring out what you want to say.


No. The protection services aren't chosen by people.
I don't see how that matters, since not everyone chooses the government they are under.


Since (just about) everyone chooses to socialize with others, there is a right to ask payment for this.
Non sequitur.


Just as with any other service
Socializing with others is not a service.


The difference here is that socialization is often facilitated by other services that government provides.
By provides you means "foists upon the citizens".


<Cough.> Speaking of unsupported assertions...
It's quite well supported.

Or, make it so the violators are the victims of the violation, by having the factory socially-owned/controlled.
If certain firms in a free-market opt for colaborative ownership, fine. Even if they don't, lawsuits will do the trick.

If certain firms in a free-market opt for colaborative ownership, fine. Even if they don't, lawsuits will do the trick.

I'm not convinced. Collaborative ownership in a "free-market" system is never very pervasive because many traditional propertarian firms will use their market clout to crowd them out.

As for lawsuits, in any legal system, the extent of how well you can do in litigation is based on how good of counsel you can get, and how much assets you have to back up a prolonged struggle. Consumers will not be able to have access to the same caliber of lawyers or the same quantity of them as a major business will. Simply put, a business has the means to pay lawyers more that consumers do. And they will pay any amount for litigation so long as it is below the cost of an actual settlement.

Furthermore, it would be in the best lawyer's "self-interest" to work for the party that can offer more financial security. So in the end, we have a long drawn out legal battle between well funded excellent corporate lawyers, and very likely not as good and not as well funded civil lawyers fighting in a legal system that is inherently biased towards the rights of large property owners. It's at best a rare occurance that consumers would win such lawsuits (the chances of winning now are not much better), and more likely any settlement procured would offer monetary damages, but no guaruntees on the discontinuation of the activity that started in the first place.

All because of rational self interest.

I'm not convinced. Collaborative ownership in a "free-market" system is never very pervasive because many traditional propertarian firms will use their market clout to crowd them out.
They'd have to be more efficient than them then. If they're not, they will not succeed.

As for lawsuits, in any legal system, the extent of how well you can do in litigation is based on how good of counsel you can get, and how much assets you have to back up a prolonged struggle. Consumers will not be able to have access to the same caliber of lawyers or the same quantity of them as a major business will. Simply put, a business has the means to pay lawyers more that consumers do. And they will pay any amount for litigation so long as it is below the cost of an actual settlement.
Which is why I made mention of a community sueing a corporation. In any community there will be the rich who will not take to living in pollution very well. A community could even make it conditional that if a business is to set up in it that it will abide by certain laws (for instance, pollution permits)...

They'd have to be more efficient than them then. If they're not, they will not succeed.

Its not inefficiency that is the problem in this case. It is the fact that public enterprise cooperatives are a tangible threat to the existence of the private firm. Companies will work together to force cooperative firms out of business because they are worker empowering. They create a base of power that is not beholden to traditional property rights, and many cases are a direct threat to the hegemony of large property owners.

Which is why I made mention of a community sueing a corporation. In any community there will be the rich who will not take to living in pollution very well. A community could even make it conditional that if a business is to set up in it that it will abide by certain laws...

But the wealthy also have the luxury of living somewhere else. Going back to rational self-interest, it would probably be more cost-effective for the wealthy in such a community to move to somewhere else. In many cases though, they've already chosen to segregate themselves from the lower classes.

Wouldn't a community requiring resident business to abide by certain laws be regulation? If such were to occur, more likely than not, the business would choose to move somewhere else, to a community less willing to restrict their ability to damage the community. In that case, it would be in the investors of the company's rational self interest just to move elsewhere. So it comes to a tug of war of how abuse much communities are williing to put up with in exchange for the economic benefit of jobs.

Its not inefficiency that is the problem in this case. It is the fact that public enterprise cooperatives are a tangible threat to the existence of the private firm. Companies will work together to force cooperative firms out of business because they are worker empowering. They create a base of power that is not beholden to traditional property rights, and many cases are a direct threat to the hegemony of large property owners.
And like I said, if private firms cannot compete, even by colluding, they will fail. As for natural monopolies, before any market anarchist society could form all these would have to be dissolved, and perhaps transformed into some form of syndicalist corporation, if indeed this form of corporate organization is efficient (if not, it is merely squandering already scarce resources).

But the wealthy also have the luxury of living somewhere else. Going back to rational self-interest, it would probably be more cost-effective for the wealthy in such a community to move to somewhere else. In many cases though, they've already chosen to segregate themselves from the lower classes.

Assuming they could escape the effects of pollution. If this means running to Antarctica to do so, I do not think they will opt for this.

Wouldn't a community requiring resident business to abide by certain laws be regulation? If such were to occur, more likely than not, the business would choose to move somewhere else, to a community less willing to restrict their ability to damage the community. In that case, it would be in the investors of the company's rational self interest just to move elsewhere. So it comes to a tug of war of how abuse much communities are williing to put up with in exchange for the economic benefit of jobs.
That is between the community (ie its courts and citizens) to negotiate with firms then.

And like I said, if private firms cannot compete, even by colluding, they will fail. As for natural monopolies, before any market anarchist society could form all these would have to be dissolved, and perhaps transformed into some form of syndicalist corporation, if indeed this form of corporate organization is efficient (if not, it is merely squandering already scarce resources).

That doesn't answer the problem. Public enterprise is public enemy number one to the large property owner, espescially if it is more efficient. Market collusion by large firms is a very likely possibility because of the ideological dangers surrounding cooperative enterprise. Syndicalism and Propertarianism cannot peacefully coexist absent some outside force interveneing. One will invevitably succeed in eliminating the other.

Assuming they could escape the effects of pollution. If this means running to Antarctica to do so, I do not think they will opt for this.

Pollution is usually very location specific, and tends to concentrate around large cities where much of the industry and commerce of life take place. It is indeed very easy for the wealthy to escape this to a considerable extent. Absent some global wide pollution catastrophe, they would be very likely to escape it. And in any such global case, I think most people would be seriously considering abolishing private enterprise without any thought of litigation.

That is between the community (ie its courts and citizens) to negotiate with firms then.[/QUOTE]

So, its an endless tug-'o-war then?

In answer to the original question, I like Austrian economics a lot. I read several of the bigger Hayek books.

I find some of the contentions (in particular, AnarcyeL's) about their positions on this board to be rather odd. Hayek's biggest economics points were that information is also an economic asset. You can't simply assume that it exists. The fact that information has a cost to acquire and disseminate means ultimately means, for Hayek, that any attempt by the government to dictate huge swaths of economic activity is doomed to massive inefficiency.

Hayek also fundamentally believed that people should be free from government -- but also qualified that by the idea that the rule of law is a needed institution.

The Austrian school had some contributions to the monetarist school (University of Chicago) and the public choice school (George Mason University, I think).

That doesn't answer the problem. Public enterprise is public enemy number one to the large property owner, espescially if it is more efficient. Market collusion by large firms is a very likely possibility because of the ideological dangers surrounding cooperative enterprise. Syndicalism and Propertarianism cannot peacefully coexist absent some outside force interveneing. One will invevitably succeed in eliminating the other.
Can you prove this via recourse to any actual society that has attempted such a market structure? Firms owned colaboratively are not against the notion of property -- in fact, the employees are in some ways the owners, and the shareholders. These firms will therefore see it in their interest to compete with traditionally modelled firms, and if they too collude, they may well oust them. If, that is, they are able of higher efficiency.

Pollution is usually very location specific, and tends to concentrate around large cities where much of the industry and commerce of life take place. It is indeed very easy for the wealthy to escape this to a considerable extent. Absent some global wide pollution catastrophe, they would be very likely to escape it. And in any such global case, I think most people would be seriously considering abolishing private enterprise without any thought of litigation.
Guess which community the court of the litigants lies in though... Judges still decide on the case in the end, and even with better lawyers (assuming a community cannot afford good representation, which may not be true), the corporation may still be found in the wrong.

So, its an endless tug-'o-war then?
Not really. If we assume that most people prefer being unemployed to choking from pollution, we can then assume that most firms will be left without labour. There will come a point of compromise. A degree of pollution is inevitable.

I think it's rather telling that it hasn't been adopted as official policy by its country of origin.

I think it's rather telling that it hasn't been adopted as official policy by its country of origin.
Remember when the EU wouldn't let Jörg Haider be President? Austria chose a far-right leader, and the EU interfered with their internal democracy.

I think it's rather telling that it hasn't been adopted as official policy by its country of origin.
Not really considering that all of the Austrian school economists were forced to leave the country during WW2 and have had to try to make an intellectual come back after the Keynesian revolution and the intellectual tide coming from that.

Remember when the EU wouldn't let Jörg Haider be President? Austria chose a far-right leader, and the EU interfered with their internal democracy.
Far-right in what sense though?

Far-right in what sense though?
Sure, he didn't like immigrants, but aren't European countries allowed to set their own immigration policy?

My point is that Europe didn't approve of Austria's attempt to move away from the widely held and political correct ideals of Europe. They couldn't adopt the Austrian school if they tried.

However, Montenegro appears to be trying it. That will be an interesting country to watch.

Sure, he didn't like immigrants, but aren't European countries allowed to set their own immigration policy?
The opposition party was actually voted in because electors believed it would be harsher on immigration. :D

My point is that Europe didn't approve of Austria's attempt to move away from the widely held and political correct ideals of Europe. They couldn't adopt the Austrian school if they tried.

However, Montenegro appears to be trying it. That will be an interesting country to watch.
Indeed. The EU seems oneminded in imposing its economic "orthodoxy".

I'm not convinced. Collaborative ownership in a "free-market" system is never very pervasive because many traditional propertarian firms will use their market clout to crowd them out.
How does this happen without governmental fiat?


As for lawsuits, in any legal system, the extent of how well you can do in litigation is based on how good of counsel you can get, and how much assets you have to back up a prolonged struggle.
That's currently. Think out of the box.

How does this happen without governmental fiat?
I think he's assuming restrictive practises such as collusion, the viability of which though I question.