Fractional reserve vs. ZERO reserve banking

[Optatron]

Saying property exists, when it doesn't. Does. Proceeding on that fact regardless. Does.

Not if two people know what they're talking about.
That shows how much respect you have for voluntary trade.

Yes, absolutely. That's my point. What makes it FIAT paper is a whole new kettle of fish. Force / coercion / fraud...

Nope, paper is just paper, force and coercion don't need to follow. Fraud isn't inherent unless somebody lied.

False analogy. Ideas are not property, they are a non-scarce resource. Nothing wrong with printing anything that you want, if it doesn't break a binding contract EULA.

But "this bill is worth one ounce of gold" is a sentence owned by somebody that I can't reprint?

Obviously' its not as simple as reproducing the words, it's MISREPRESENTING ONE THING AS ANOTHER.

Money is representative of property, i.e it stores value. (Talking REAL money here, not FIAT currency bs) i.e Gold, or other commodities. Money is a medium of exchange. Nothing wrong with printing paper, and not using it to exchange goods under the guise it is backed by something (FRB).

Ok good. So SO LONG AS ,paper money doesn't get used, taken , traded as what it isn't (simply paper for what 2 people agree on) ,there's not fraud!

When did I ever say I was going to disguise a pink Monopoly paper as a $5 silver certificate? If I told an idiot to take a pink Mono paper and give me half ounce silver, and he agreed, who's frauding who?

See... below, by none other than Walter Block lulz..

! The (non government) Counterfeiter... Chpter 14


If it is just a piece of paper, and somebody agreed to accept this piece of paper worth nothing. If they knew it was worth nothing, and you presented it as such. Then it is an isolated incident and they are idiots.

Took you THIS FUCKING LONG????​

Idiots do stupid things, that doesn't make it FRAUD.

By your logic if you pay $1 for a candy bar that costs 20 cents to produce (no matter what costs you add), you're an idiot?

What happened to "value is subjective"?

But that is NOT FRB. FRB is institutional and it is representing property,

Wrong, not unless they say so, and are authorized to do so. You assume all FRB are representing property without consent, justification, and authorization.

which does not exist. Fraud. More pseudo receipts, than they are backed up with. Non-property. Backed by nothing. Fraud.

Makes about as much as sense as "I never agreed to the law, so I'm not subject to it"

I don't need a follow up question. You've made you position absurd. Please, go get a camera and go to 100 shops.. there is nothing stopping you from doing this now. Go get your pieces of paper and try get some goods for it. NO? Why not? Scared of the results? lol.

Not scared of the results, I know it's a waste of time.

You don't know the difference between "it's not likely going to happen" with "it's immoral and not allowed, and fraud?"

But more to the point - that isn't FRB. a piece of paper doesn't translate into money. You could be bartering.... lulz.

Exactly, which is why you can't say voluntary trade is anything wrong.

When you are just presenting it as a piece of paper, just as if you were using a piece of string, NOT as money, not a warehouse receipt or anything.. then you're engaged in a trade.

WOW FINALLY!

YouTube - fat lady yelling at skaters

 

[Optatron]

LIAR.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Optatron View Post
after knowing that you don't believe in rights,

I apologize, I meant, after finding that you don't believe in certain rights, I realized it's a semantics game and rights, positive, negative, privileges...etc are just a matter of level, respect and recognition.

I decided to word it simply, that I don't believe in privacy rights nor property rights, they're ALL privileges no matter how many people take it for granted.

Sorry that you can't violate people and property like you want to... libertinism fails.

That's what I mean by "you don't allow people to disagree".

Define science then. Define natural law. Define natural rights. Define praxeology! Again, you've done your absolute best (which is pretty shameful tbh) to avoid answering the question.
Ohhh so you don't agree with empiricism / positivism / scientific method? What do you think is the correct epistemology in economics then? HMM?

If you asked me earlier I'd have probably started, but no point now. I didn't think you were capable of strawman yourself.

Because I disagree KEYNES is SM, emp, pos, therefore I disagree with SM, emp, pos??? WTF?

Definition of science : the logic of explaining things via observation, testing , repeatability.

You have an inalienable right.

Sure, they can shoot me any time.. and they forfeit their rights to the extent that they violated them.

Say that to the violator, that'll really protect you. They really care what you believe about who's right or wrong.

I'll respond to the rest of your rants about NS, SS, NL as time permits, but I think I made my point here. Fractional reserve is not fraud.

 

[Optatron]

Nope, I didn't. You misunderstood, or you know and are acting a fool. Tbh, I thought the latter, but now I'm beginning to think it's not deliberate... lol, you really are lost.

You were painting every school of thought within the social sciences, with ONE brush. Which is idiotic, fallacious and WRONG. Basically the entire corpus of social sciences these days and in the past, are attempting to apply the scientific method to their branch. But when humans are dealt with, praxeology must be used. The science of HUMAN ACTION.

So praxeology is not based on SM, is that correct?

As opposed to no justice at all.

No other justice than natural justice?

Oh so you are LEARNING? Or was this.. You have no RIGHT to privacy

No, it's a matter of semantics.

.. All a game to you? You got schooled didn't you. (Or will you take back what you just said - and say you believe in rights?

No, I won't take back what I said, I don't believe in rights. Preference and belief they exist are not the same.

As for Ron Paul saying "a priori", he's just saying he has no better way to justify it, and he's right, HE CAN'T AND YOU CAN'T. You have nothing to say to somebody who doesn't want to listen and holds a gun to your face.

Of COURSE you don't have a right to just because I SAY so... You have a right to it, because you OWN your BODY. It is your property... your free will is inalienable.. you cannot get rid of it.. even if you want too! Philosophy of self ownership...

But I can kill myself and give my life if I freely choose, I can also violate others if I wish, no matter what you say about "I can't".

Why is Ron Paul wrong? Hmmm?

Thanks for conceding... AGAIN
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=19712

How is that conceding? and whats that got to do with Iraq?
That's how you win an argument ? By telling somebody he conceded? As far as I know I got you to admit that as long as nobody's lying, there's no fraud in FRB or no fraud in trading paper as wealth regardless of how stupid it is.


EVERYBODY SEE HERE :

When you are just presenting it as a piece of paper, just as if you were using a piece of string, NOT as money, not a warehouse receipt or anything.. then you're engaged in a trade.

If it is just a piece of paper, and somebody agreed to accept this piece of paper worth nothing. If they knew it was worth nothing, and you presented it as such. Then it is an isolated incident and they are idiots.

But more to the point - that isn't FRB. a piece of paper doesn't translate into money. You could be bartering.... lulz.

Yeah, thanks for wasting your own time. What was I saying all along?

 

[Kade]

Again, saying I don't believe in rights is bullshit. I don't believe in POSITIVE RIGHTS, because I'm not a socialist... no-where here does.. besides Kade.

[It's easier to be an asshole to words, than to people.]

 

[tmosley]

[It's easier to be an asshole to words, than to people.]

Wow, I haven't seen Kade post in months. Where'ya been?

 

[Optatron]

Originally Posted by Conza88 View Post
Again, saying I don't believe in rights is bullshit. I don't believe in POSITIVE RIGHTS, because I'm not a socialist... no-where here does.. besides Kade.

You don't believe in rights you don't believe in, I get it.

Positive and negative rights are just what you find affordable to recognize, they're all rights and privileges that different people hold to different values.

I'm not a socialist either, which is why I don't believe in ANY rights.

 

[Kade]

Wow, I haven't seen Kade post in months. Where'ya been?

I've been posting lately...

I stopped posting when I thought the religious cult's and their matriarch were turning this into a den of beatles chewing their way through a growing pile of batshit.

Some rational discourse seems to have returned, and so have I.

 

[Conza88]

So praxeology is not based on SM, is that correct?

Praxeology is the science of Human Action. You know what praxeology is yet? If you did, you'd know the answer to that oh so obvious question.

Apriorism and Positivism in the Social Sciences

No other justice than natural justice?

Not true justice in the libertarian sense, nope.

Yeah, thanks for wasting your own time. What was I saying all along?

Hahaha, did you see the part where I said, what you proposed wasn't FRB?

 

[Kade]

Praxeology is the science of Human Action. You know what praxeology is yet? If you did, you'd know the answer to that oh so obvious question.

Apriorism and Positivism in the Social Sciences



Not true justice in the libertarian sense, nope.



Hahaha, did you see the part where I said, what you proposed wasn't FRB?

Praxeology is an affront to psychology, and a great flaw in Mises economic theories... in my humble opinion. Figures you would be promoting it.

 

[Optatron]

Hahaha, did you see the part where I said, what you proposed wasn't FRB?

We disagree on definitions, ouch!

 

[Conza88]

Praxeology is an affront to psychology, and a great flaw in Mises economic theories... in my humble opinion. Figures you would be promoting it.

Why in the world do you think praxeology is an affront to psychology? And how is it?

And what would you propose is the correct epistemology when dealing with human action in the social sciences? Eh?

Why is Ron Paul, Mises and the entire Austrian School of Economics wrong?

 

[Optatron]

Why in the world do you think praxeology is an affront to psychology? And how is it?

And what would you propose is the correct epistemology when dealing with human action in the social sciences? Eh?

Why is Ron Paul, Mises and the entire Austrian School of Economics wrong?

Ever heard of burden of proof?

You claim NL holds up, it's up to you to prove it.

You claim you have the correct epistemology, you support it.

You claim you are reason and others are not, then prove it.

Why do we have to disprove or challenge every idea you claim isn't pulled out of your ass?

 

[Conza88]

Ever heard of burden of proof?

You claim NL holds up, it's up to you to prove it.

You claim you have the correct epistemology, you support it.

You claim you are reason and others are not, then prove it.

Why do we have to disprove or challenge every idea you claim isn't pulled out of your ass?

Yes, I have. And you have the burden.

Who Has the Burden of Proof?

But first let me make a point about the burden of proof. Most critics of Natural Law assume that the burden of proof lies with the proponent of Natural Law — presumably because they see Natural Law as something bizarre and implausible, something one couldn't sensibly believe unless there were a knock-down argument for it. But in fact, to believe in Natural Law is simply to believe that there are moral standards that transcend the practices and customs of any given community — that there are rational grounds for condemning the Nazi regime as immoral, that it is possible to be justified in so condemning it, even if we assume that what the Nazis did was perfectly in accordance with the values of Nazi culture. When we condemn Nazism, we don't ordinarily take ourselves to be expressing a purely personal, subjective preference, like the preference for chocolate over vanilla; rather, our ordinary practices of praising and condemning seem to implicitly assume that there are objective moral standards, i.e., that there is a Natural Law to which manmade laws are answerable.

Now of course the fact that ordinary practices implicitly assume something is no guarantee that what they assume is true. But such a fact does seem to shift the burden of proof.

Consider: the fact that it seems to me that I am sitting in front of my computer typing these words doesn't guarantee that I really am doing so; I might be dreaming, or hallucinating, or I might be trapped in an incredibly realistic virtual-reality program. Now a philosopher like Descartes would say that I have the burden of proving that I'm not dreaming, hallucinating, etc. — that I have to be able to rule those alternatives out before I can be justified in thinking I really am here, awake and typing.

But if Descartes were right — if we couldn't be justified in believing anything unless we first ruled out all possibility of error — then we would never be justified in believing anything, since whatever evidence we pointed to in order to prove our starting beliefs reliable would in turn have to be justified by appeal to further evidence and so on ad infinitum. And if that were so, then we couldn't be justified in holding the

belief that started us down this infinite regress in the first place — namely, the belief that in order to be justified in believing anything we must first rule out all possibility of error. So Cartesian skepticism ultimately undermines itself: if everything should be doubted, then the claim that everything should be doubted is itself one of the things that should be doubted — and once we go doubting that, we lose our original reason for doubting everything else.2

What that means is that we are, after all, justified in accepting the way things initially seem to us as a true picture of the world, despite the possibility that those beliefs are mistaken. Now that doesn't mean we're justified in clinging to our beliefs with blind faith, defying all evidence to the contrary. But it does mean that those who oppose these ordinary beliefs are the ones who have the burden of proof; we're justified in accepting our initial beliefs as true until we find convincing evidence that they're false. This must be so, because the contrary position, as we've seen, is rationally incoherent. So if our ordinary practice of moral judgment commits us to believing in Natural Law, then Natural Law is part of our picture of the world, and we're justified in accepting it until someone gives us good reason to reject it. The burden of proof thus rests with the opponents of Natural Law.

That is not to say that I think there is no positive case to be made for Natural Law. On the contrary, much of my own philosophical research is devoted to making such a case, relying on the insights of the Aristotelean tradition combined with the philosophical discoveries of the last thirty years. My point is simply that the justifiability of accepting Natural Law as part of one's picture of the universe does not require that the positive case for Natural Law be established first.

Now let's turn to some of those common objections to Natural Law theory.

 

[Optatron]

Yes, I have. And you have the burden.

Who Has the Burden of Proof?

But first let me make a point about the burden of proof. Most critics of Natural Law assume that the burden of proof lies with the proponent of Natural Law — presumably because they see Natural Law as something bizarre and implausible, something one couldn't sensibly believe unless there were a knock-down argument for it.

Typical denial common among religious apologists and a priori axiomists, saying you don't have the BoP doesn't make it so.

But in fact, to believe in Natural Law is simply to believe that there are moral standards that transcend the practices and customs of any given community — that there are rational grounds for condemning the Nazi regime as immoral, that it is possible to be justified in so condemning it, even if we assume that what the Nazis did was perfectly in accordance with the values of Nazi culture.

Good , then I don't believe there's a universal law that applies to every human being. To impose my culture and personal preferences on others would be socialist and disrespectful of individual liberty.

When we condemn Nazism, we don't ordinarily take ourselves to be expressing a purely personal, subjective preference, like the preference for chocolate over vanilla; rather, our ordinary practices of praising and condemning seem to implicitly assume that there are objective moral standards, i.e., that there is a Natural Law to which manmade laws are answerable.

No, you just don't want to admit you simply DON'T PREFER Nazism, you cannot force anybody to agree with you. Saying a million times "it's just wrong" doesn't make it so.

Now of course the fact that ordinary practices implicitly assume something is no guarantee that what they assume is true. But such a fact does seem to shift the burden of proof.

Sounds about right, but that's just as good an argument for the status quo.

Consider: the fact that it seems to me that I am sitting in front of my computer typing these words doesn't guarantee that I really am doing so; I might be dreaming, or hallucinating, or I might be trapped in an incredibly realistic virtual-reality program.

Don't confuse IS, with OUGHT.

Prescription doesn't follow from DESCRIPTION.

People DO believe they act, doesn't mean they SHOULD.

Now a philosopher like Descartes would say that I have the burden of proving that I'm not dreaming, hallucinating, etc. — that I have to be able to rule those alternatives out before I can be justified in thinking I really am here, awake and typing.

Or your brain isn't in a vat.

Even though you have no reason to believe you're dreaming, is not proof that you're not. This is NOT to say you should consider every idea possible, but an honest admission you cannot empirically prove you're not dreaming.

But if Descartes were right — if we couldn't be justified in believing anything unless we first ruled out all possibility of error — then we would never be justified in believing anything, since whatever evidence we pointed to in order to prove our starting beliefs reliable would in turn have to be justified by appeal to further evidence and so on ad infinitum. And if that were so, then we couldn't be justified in holding the
belief that started us down this infinite regress in the first place — namely, the belief that in order to be justified in believing anything we must first rule out all possibility of error. So Cartesian skepticism ultimately undermines itself: if everything should be doubted, then the claim that everything should be doubted is itself one of the things that should be doubted — and once we go doubting that, we lose our original reason for doubting everything else.2

Which is why we come to a stop, called AXIOMS.

You seem to think there's only 2 options
1. extreme skepticism of everything
2. acceptance of everything

Obviously most people are in between, you're just not admitting it.

What that means is that we are, after all, justified in accepting the way things initially seem to us as a true picture of the world, despite the possibility that those beliefs are mistaken. Now that doesn't mean we're justified in clinging to our beliefs with blind faith, defying all evidence to the contrary.

Ok, in which case, you should be open to evidence.

Such as, not all people act in their own self interest, and those who do don't always choose the best act.

You demand that I must prove "humans don't act" to convince you you're wrong.

But it does mean that those who oppose these ordinary beliefs are the ones who have the burden of proof; we're justified in accepting our initial beliefs as true until we find convincing evidence that they're false.

And you demand I must show "humans don't act" to convince you you're wrong?

This must be so, because the contrary position, as we've seen, is rationally incoherent.

No, it's justified by axioms.

So if our ordinary practice of moral judgment commits us to believing in Natural Law, then Natural Law is part of our picture of the world, and we're justified in accepting it until someone gives us good reason to reject it. The burden of proof thus rests with the opponents of Natural Law.

Opponents of NL can simply look at history to see that there's very few patterns of human behavior.

That is not to say that I think there is no positive case to be made for Natural Law. On the contrary, much of my own philosophical research is devoted to making such a case, relying on the insights of the Aristotelean tradition combined with the philosophical discoveries of the last thirty years. My point is simply that the justifiability of accepting Natural Law as part of one's picture of the universe does not require that the positive case for Natural Law be established first.

So let's hear your best case FOR NL, not asking us to disprove what you don't want to admit might be wrong.

Now let's turn to some of those common objections to Natural Law theory.

I think I answered them all.
Preference doesn't make prescription.
What I value doesn't make it right.
What YOU value doesn't make it right for me.
You can't argue with a gun.

 

[Conza88]

Typical denial common among religious apologists and a priori axiomists, saying you don't have the BoP doesn't make it so.

You are yet to make any kind of argument about why you believe in natural law, in the natural sciences and why you don't in the social sciences...

*yawn*

Good , then I don't believe there's a universal law that applies to every human being. To impose my culture and personal preferences on others would be socialist and disrespectful of individual liberty.

Culture and personal preferences have nothing to do with natural law. The fact you don't understand that, means you don't understand natural law AT ALL.

No, you just don't want to admit you simply DON'T PREFER Nazism, you cannot force anybody to agree with you. Saying a million times "it's just wrong" doesn't make it so.

Negative. It is wrong because it violates natural law, natural rights and thus natural justice. I say it's wrong, because it is - the coercion and violation of property rights is inherent within that system. You can agree with nazism all you want, you can dress up in swastika's and shave your head and talk about how you want to exterminate people, and whilst we have public property - that should be fine, or if those people did it on their own property... you are not violating anyones rights... but it is when you do, or make the threat there of - that you become immoral, unethical and violate them by the initiation of violence.

Sounds about right, but that's just as good an argument for the status quo.

No, it doesn't.

Don't confuse IS, with OUGHT.

Prescription doesn't follow from DESCRIPTION.

People DO believe they act, doesn't mean they SHOULD.

I'm not confusing anything, you are... which is typical.

Again, you have no understanding of what the Human action axiom is. You can believe you are NOT acting by lying down... But YOU ARE ACTING. Don't mistake "passiveness" as non-action. Again, get a clue.. all your rebuttals are off the top of your head like a 5 year old, who is throwing a tantrum. "I WANT THIS.. WHAAAHH"

Or your brain isn't in a vat.

Even though you have no reason to believe you're dreaming, is not proof that you're not. This is NOT to say you should consider every idea possible, but an honest admission you cannot empirically prove you're not dreaming.

You didn't actually say anything here that wasn't already said.

Which is why we come to a stop, called AXIOMS.

You seem to think there's only 2 options
1. extreme skepticism of everything
2. acceptance of everything

Obviously most people are in between, you're just not admitting it.

Axioms - self evident truths. Humans act. There are no married bachelor's. The shit is true. You seem to like strawmen and erect them as soon as you can. Obviously, you're a deadshit and don't understand axioms, nor the correct epistemology in the social sciences.

Tell me again, which is it? What is the correct epistemology in the social sciences and why?

Ok, in which case, you should be open to evidence.

Such as, not all people act in their own self interest, and those who do don't always choose the best act.

This doesn't disprove the human action axiom at all. People always choose ends, and they use means to try achieve them. You are doing that right now by reading this, and you will be doing it when you respond to it. The fact that they in hindsight find out they didn't choose such a good preference, doesn't change anything.

Again, if you read the first Chpter of MES about human action... you'd realise you're rebuttals are fundamentally retarded and childish. All your concerns you think are genuine are not, and have been answered already in the text.

You demand that I must prove "humans don't act" to convince you you're wrong.

Yes. Since my reasoning indicates it is an axiom, self evident. My views are based on solid ground. You want to prove I am wrong... you have to prove the axiom is wrong. That is my premise, as with the Austrian School of Economics.

The first step is understanding it. Which you clearly don't. I'd take steps towards fixing that.

No, it's justified by axioms.

ORLY? What is and how? Give us the logical deductive proofs.

Opponents of NL can simply look at history to see that there's very few patterns of human behavior.

Wrong. You don't even know what natural law is by the looks of it.

So tell me, what is natural law?

So let's hear your best case FOR NL, not asking us to disprove what you don't want to admit might be wrong.

I have given it to you before. But you ignored it. No, let's hear your rebuttal of it. The burden of proof is on you. That is as clear as day.

I think I answered them all.
Preference doesn't make prescription.
What I value doesn't make it right.
What YOU value doesn't make it right for me.
You can't argue with a gun.

Your amusing anecdotes you think contain wisdom, don't. They are irrelevant and strawmen. If you knew what praxeology was and understood it, it would be clear as day to you. But you don't... and probably never will.

You didn't answer these:

Why in the world do you think praxeology is an affront to psychology? And how is it?

And what would you propose is the correct epistemology when dealing with human action in the social sciences? Eh?

Why is Ron Paul, Mises and the entire Austrian School of Economics wrong?

 

[Optatron]

You are yet to make any kind of argument about why you believe in natural law, in the natural sciences and why you don't in the social sciences...

I never said I believe in natural law, especially not hearing your definition of it.

I DID tell you why I don't believe SS, but believe NS, NS uses and passes SM, SS doesn't always.

*yawn*

Culture and personal preferences have nothing to do with natural law. The fact you don't understand that, means you don't understand natural law AT ALL.

I never said I understand or agree with NL.

Just because you deny that your cultural, educational, and personal background leads you to NL, agreement with it, advocacy of it, in no way denies it's relative or supports it's absolute.
(saying it's irrelevant doesn't make it so).

Negative. It is wrong because it violates natural law, natural rights and thus natural justice.

Your version of it, if anything. You can keep saying all night it's based on reason, NAP, or a million people agree with you, I don't care.

I say it's wrong, because it is - the coercion and violation of property rights is inherent within that system.

So if I've not agreed to the system you can't force me to abide by it.

You can agree with nazism all you want, you can dress up in swastika's and shave your head and talk about how you want to exterminate people, and whilst we have public property - that should be fine, or if those people did it on their own property... you are not violating anyones rights... but it is when you do, or make the threat there of - that you become immoral, unethical and violate them by the initiation of violence.

Useless until we define whether we have certain rights.
Do Jews have a right to be treated equally such that being racist against them is "initiation of violence"?

No, it doesn't.

Oh, so you don't want to listen? Fine with me.

I'm not confusing anything, you are... which is typical.

Again, you have no understanding of what the Human action axiom is.

I know OF it, but don't hold it as an axiom for myself.

You can believe you are NOT acting by lying down... But YOU ARE ACTING.

You can beleive you're not acting by turning a blind eye rather than giving a helping hand, but you are.

Don't mistake "passiveness" as non-action. Again, get a clue.. all your rebuttals are off the top of your head like a 5 year old, who is throwing a tantrum. "I WANT THIS.. WHAAAHH"

Passiveness ISN'T non-action (it's not non-violence either), which is why I never said people don't act, I only said, people act in various ways.

You didn't actually say anything here that wasn't already said.

Doesn't mean you heard it.

Axioms - self evident truths. Humans act.

According to wikipedia:
In traditional logic, an axiom or postulate is a proposition that is not proved or demonstrated but considered to be either self-evident, or subject to necessary decision. Therefore, its truth is taken for granted, and serves as a starting point for deducing and inferring other (theory dependent) truths.

I NEVER ONCE DENIED HUMANS ACT! I deny humans act in a patterned predictable way!

There are no married bachelor's.

Yes there are, if you twist the definition to mean a person who just got his 4 year college degree.

The shit is true. You seem to like strawmen and erect them as soon as you can. Obviously, you're a deadshit and don't understand axioms, nor the correct epistemology in the social sciences.

You're the one who believes (or shamelessly insists) there's only one correct epistemology to SS, I'm going to waste time trying to convince you?

Tell me again, which is it? What is the correct epistemology in the social sciences and why?

I never claimed to know there IS ONE, or ONLY ONE, so why should I justify what I never said?

Ok, in which case, you should be open to evidence.

Yeah I am, doubtful you're good at presenting it to me though.

This doesn't disprove the human action axiom at all.

Never said it did, now YOU'RE putting words in my mouth.

People always choose ends, and they use means to try achieve them. You are doing that right now by reading this, and you will be doing it when you respond to it. The fact that they in hindsight find out they didn't choose such a good preference, doesn't change anything.

Ok, but it proves that you can't say what IS the moral or correct way to act. (prescription)

Again, if you read the first Chpter of MES about human action... you'd realise you're rebuttals are fundamentally retarded and childish. All your concerns you think are genuine are not, and have been answered already in the text.

Fundamentally retarded and childish? Backed by history and facts is more accurate, keep denying though!

Yes. Since my reasoning indicates it is an axiom, self evident.

No, your reasoning indicates over and over you're too lazy to justify your axioms so you take it AS IS and expect us all to just shut up and follow.

You bring up how and why we need to hate Nazism or else we have no morals...no different than Theocrat in terms of not considering you could be wrong.

My views are based on solid ground.

HA! COME AGAIN??

SOLID GROUND? Solid ground doesn't need axioms, solid ground is closer to something I can test and verify myself, not by quoting your favorite books.

You want to prove I am wrong... you have to prove the axiom is wrong. That is my premise, as with the Austrian School of Economics.

Axioms can't be proven wrong, they're not even proven RIGHT!
Axioms can be DENIED, DISMISSED, IGNORED.


I'll reply to the rest later.

Your amusing anecdotes you think contain wisdom, don't. They are irrelevant and strawmen. If you knew what praxeology was and understood it, it would be clear as day to you. But you don't... and probably never will.

You didn't answer these:
Why in the world do you think praxeology is an affront to psychology? And how is it?

Never claimed so.

And what would you propose is the correct epistemology when dealing with human action in the social sciences? Eh?

I don't propose anything for social sciences, or any type of society, to do so would be socialist, and considering others, I'm for freedom and individualism. I don't need to justify my beliefs to you or anybody else, I don't care if you don't like what I say or believe, or that you beleive it's wrong for me to use force on you or anybody else.

Why is Ron Paul, Mises and the entire Austrian School of Economics wrong?

Never said Ron Paul is wrong, Mises is wrong, or the entire anything is "wrong"
To say so would put the burden of proof on myself when I can be listening to you justify it in the first place.

 

[Conza88]

I never said I believe in natural law, especially not hearing your definition of it.

I DID tell you why I don't believe SS, but believe NS, NS uses and passes SM, SS doesn't always.

You DO believe in natural laws in the natural sciences. You have said so. Newton's laws etc.

So, again - why is the scientific method the only way of finding the truth?

Do you have any concept of logic? The formula for Pythagoras's theorem is inherent within a right triangle. It was not created, but discovered.

So you think the only truth can be found using the scientific method? Hmm? LMAO...

I never said I understand or agree with NL.

At least you admit you are full of shit and have no idea what you are talking about.

Just because you deny that your cultural, educational, and personal background leads you to NL, agreement with it, advocacy of it, in no way denies it's relative or supports it's absolute.
(saying it's irrelevant doesn't make it so).

No, it does make it so. Sorry champ. Your bs doesn't invalidate reason.

Your version of it, if anything. You can keep saying all night it's based on reason, NAP, or a million people agree with you, I don't care.

And your "denials" of it and nihilisms are full of fail. You can't even put forward any kind of coherent argument against it.

So if I've not agreed to the system you can't force me to abide by it.

Wrong. When you violate natural law, you violate someones natural rights. You can't force YOUR WILL AND COERCION ON SOMEONE. The point of natural law, is that it is negative.

Useless until we define whether we have certain rights.
Do Jews have a right to be treated equally such that being racist against them is "initiation of violence"?

Define violence! Being racist isn't an initiation of violence. Discrimination would be allowed in a free society, just as long as it doesn't violate natural law. You discriminate all the time, in terms of prices, personal preferences etc. You like that product, more than that one. etc.

You have a right to PROPERTY. You can do what you want with it, as long as you don't violate others natural rights.

I know OF it, but don't hold it as an axiom for myself.

Precisely. You have no idea what it is. And until you do, your rejections of it are retarded... cus you don't even know what you are rejecting... lmfao.

You can beleive you're not acting by turning a blind eye rather than giving a helping hand, but you are.

That is still action. Mannnnn you are an idiot.

Passiveness ISN'T non-action (it's not non-violence either), which is why I never said people don't act, I only said, people act in various ways.

Which is still action... and in no way invalidates the action axiom. LMFAO!

According to wikipedia:
In traditional logic, an axiom or postulate is a proposition that is not proved or demonstrated but considered to be either self-evident, or subject to necessary decision. Therefore, its truth is taken for granted, and serves as a starting point for deducing and inferring other (theory dependent) truths.

I NEVER ONCE DENIED HUMANS ACT! I deny humans act in a patterned predictable way!

Lmfao, and that is a given within the action axiom. Again.. you haven't refuted shit.

Yes there are, if you twist the definition to mean a person who just got his 4 year college degree.

You can define your way out of anything, or into something. Just like you tried to re-define FRB. Which failed.

You're the one who believes (or shamelessly insists) there's only one correct epistemology to SS, I'm going to waste time trying to convince you?

You haven't given any reason why there isn't or shouldn't be. I have. I have asked you why, you have ignored it... ALWAYS... got no answer.

I never claimed to know there IS ONE, or ONLY ONE, so why should I justify what I never said?

What is the correct epistemology in the social sciences and why? (If more than one - LMFAO, state why all of those are correct) ... Hahaha

Never said it did, now YOU'RE putting words in my mouth.

Ok, great... you're not trying to disprove the action axiom? Ahaha... because you have no credible argument against it... just a lot of childish, juvenile concerns...

Ok, but it proves that you can't say what IS the moral or correct way to act. (prescription)

Wrong. Violate natural law -> natural rights, i.e property, then you are acting in an unethical and immoral way.

Fundamentally retarded and childish? Backed by history and facts is more accurate, keep denying though!

History and facts support natural law. The further a society moves away from it, the faster it destroys itself. There are natural laws in the social sciences, especially in economics. If you print money, i.e inflation, you are stealing value from other peoples savings by increasing the money supply and devaluing their money. You cannot outrun them.

No, your reasoning indicates over and over you're too lazy to justify your axioms so you take it AS IS and expect us all to just shut up and follow.

No, your reasoning indicates over and over you're too lazy to even learn or understanding the axioms so you take it AS IS.

You bring up how and why we need to hate Nazism or else we have no morals...no different than Theocrat in terms of not considering you could be wrong.

You can hate what you want... if you violate natural law though, you lose your rights to the extent you violate them. Action is what matters, not intent.

HA! COME AGAIN??

SOLID GROUND? Solid ground doesn't need axioms, solid ground is closer to something I can test and verify myself, not by quoting your favorite books.

In the social sciences, apriori is the SOLID GROUND. Scientific method fails in SS. You have the wrong epistemology. FAIL. Again,

Axioms can't be proven wrong, they're not even proven RIGHT!
Axioms can be DENIED, DISMISSED, IGNORED.

Negative. Humans exist? Yes? Humans act. Yes?

Proven right. Or do you deny both of those? Simple question, don't add in any qualifiers or try to re-define the question. Should you do so, you are moving the goal posts. FALLACY. I await the response to the actual questions asked.

Never claimed so.

What you are you claiming? Nothing? Then why did you respond to the post? You claimed the burden of proof rests on me. It DOESN'T. Your claim is wrong.

"Why in the world do you think praxeology is an affront to psychology? And how is it?"

I don't propose anything for social sciences, or any type of society, to do so would be socialist, and considering others, I'm for freedom and individualism. I don't need to justify my beliefs to you or anybody else, I don't care if you don't like what I say or believe, or that you believe it's wrong for me to use force on you or anybody else.

You have no idea what the social sciences is by the looks of it. So the Austrian School of Economics is socialist? IDIOT.

Never said Ron Paul is wrong, Mises is wrong, or the entire anything is "wrong"
To say so would put the burden of proof on myself when I can be listening to you justify it in the first place.

Wrong. Burden of proof is on you regardless. It has already been justified, you just refuse to read the logical proofs, preferring ignorance to truth.

 

[Optatron]

You DO believe in natural laws in the natural sciences. You have said so. Newton's laws etc.

Newton's laws is what you call natural law?

How do you get from whether gravity and Newton's laws are true (DESCRIPTION), to whether a person should respect private property and sanctity of life (PRESCRIPTION)?

 

[Optatron]

So, again - why is the scientific method the only way of finding the truth?

Never said it was.

But that doesn't mean I must accept all other methods you come up with.

Do you have any concept of logic? The formula for Pythagoras's theorem is inherent within a right triangle. It was not created, but discovered.

Yes I have a concept of logic, or else I couldn't be a scientist.

Mathematics is dependent on axioms, at least the expression and usage is, a language. A triangle is what it is (and not what it is not).

So you think the only truth can be found using the scientific method? Hmm? LMAO...

Nope, depends on what truth means to you too.

I can't stop you from claiming because gravity is true, therefore Jesus died for our sins and we're all going to heaven if we stop lying.

At least you admit you are full of shit and have no idea what you are talking about.


No, it does make it so. Sorry champ. Your bs doesn't invalidate reason.

I wasn't trying to invalidate reason, I was pointing out you don't get to represent reason just because you claim you are. Theocrat doesn't get to speak for God just because he claims he is.

And your "denials" of it and nihilisms are full of fail. You can't even put forward any kind of coherent argument against it.

denials full of fail? What's succeed for denials????

Wrong. When you violate natural law, you violate someones natural rights. You can't force YOUR WILL AND COERCION ON SOMEONE. The point of natural law, is that it is negative.

It's negative, so it doesn't prescribe proper behavior? Does it logically follow that one can prescribe morals based on NL?

Why should I care if you say "I violate" or "I can't violate" something?

Define violence! Being racist isn't an initiation of violence.

Agreed, racism isn't violence.

Discrimination would be allowed in a free society, just as long as it doesn't violate natural law. You discriminate all the time, in terms of prices, personal preferences etc. You like that product, more than that one. etc.

Yes I do, so a person has no right to be free from discrimination, good.
Why does a person have a right to be free from being beaten up?

You have a right to PROPERTY. You can do what you want with it, as long as you don't violate others natural rights.

I'm not sure I agree a person has natural rights.

Precisely. You have no idea what it is. And until you do, your rejections of it are retarded... cus you don't even know what you are rejecting... lmfao.

I didn't reject it, I doubted I hold them as truths and guidelines to live by.

That is still action. Mannnnn you are an idiot.

Which is still action... and in no way invalidates the action axiom. LMFAO!

You're lying or putting words in my mouth if you think I ONCE SAID that humans don't act.

Lmfao, and that is a given within the action axiom. Again.. you haven't refuted shit.

You can define your way out of anything, or into something. Just like you tried to re-define FRB. Which failed.

Failed according to you and your friend Block, based on different definitions, YOU failed to even show ONE person who was LIED TO, FRAUDED.

You haven't given any reason why there isn't or shouldn't be. I have. I have asked you why, you have ignored it... ALWAYS... got no answer.

There shouldn't be because I believe in respecting individual differences, so I don't believe in using social sciences, or epistemology to impose values on people who may disagree. I don't believe in forcin people who don't believe in property to respect property, you can only enforce that by violating a person's right to freely believe what he chooses (which I understand, you don't believe in).

What is the correct epistemology in the social sciences and why? (If more than one - LMFAO, state why all of those are correct) ... Hahaha

I will not state what is correct, as that'd make ME have to prove it, why should I when I never wanted one?

Ok, great... you're not trying to disprove the action axiom? Ahaha... because you have no credible argument against it... just a lot of childish, juvenile concerns...

Never said I was disproving action axiom, or any axiom. Never said it was possible either.

Wrong. Violate natural law -> natural rights, i.e property, then you are acting in an unethical and immoral way.

Ethical according to gravity or Newton's laws?

History and facts support natural law. The further a society moves away from it, the faster it destroys itself.

I'd add, history supports that force gets things accomplished, the more people move away from the realization that force and violence speak louder than words, the faster they are killed and hurt.

There are natural laws in the social sciences, especially in economics. If you print money, i.e inflation, you are stealing value from other peoples savings by increasing the money supply and devaluing their money. You cannot outrun them.

Fair enough ,that's supply and demand. That's different than saying it's immoral to devalue something, since a person can choose whether devaluing something is beneficial to himself, harming society is no reason to not do something from a personal view.

No, your reasoning indicates over and over you're too lazy to even learn or understanding the axioms so you take it AS IS.

Whoa? So you mean axioms CAN and ARE justified externally? I missed it?

You can hate what you want... if you violate natural law though, you lose your rights to the extent you violate them. Action is what matters, not intent.

WOW, thanks! Glad we agree on something, action is what matters/

In the social sciences, apriori is the SOLID GROUND. Scientific method fails in SS. You have the wrong epistemology. FAIL. Again,

A good reason why I don't buy SS. It's dependent on axioms.

Negative. Humans exist? Yes? Humans act. Yes?

YEs to both. I wont necessarily agree with the "...therefore" that follows.

Proven right. Or do you deny both of those? Simple question, don't add in any qualifiers or try to re-define the question. Should you do so, you are moving the goal posts. FALLACY. I await the response to the actual questions asked.

I answered you, I don't deny either of those, BUT , those are not the axioms I have problems with. Though you poisoned the well that didn't allow me to add qualifiers to answer more carefully and honestly, these happen to be easy Qs.

What you are you claiming? Nothing? Then why did you respond to the post? You claimed the burden of proof rests on me. It DOESN'T. Your claim is wrong.

I was responding to other parts of your post.

"Why in the world do you think praxeology is an affront to psychology? And how is it?"

Not going to answer what I cannot.

You have no idea what the social sciences is by the looks of it. So the Austrian School of Economics is socialist? IDIOT.

Socialist in the sense it imposes a moral system that all people must follow, or face punishment.

there's no disagreement about supply vs demand, but there is disagreement whether supply vs demand can adequately account for all of economics, or if there are other properties we can prescribe following economics to morality.

Wrong. Burden of proof is on you regardless. It has already been justified, you just refuse to read the logical proofs, preferring ignorance to truth.

I refuse to accept them, if you don't want to play, fine.

Preferring ignorance? No, skepticism and freedom.

 

[Conza88]

Newton's laws is what you call natural law?

In the natural sciences. And it has a different epistemology for that very reason.

How do you get from whether gravity and Newton's laws are true (DESCRIPTION), to whether a person should respect private property and sanctity of life (PRESCRIPTION)?

You have the correct epistemology for starters. Something you know nothing about.