Libertarians and Communists share the same fatal flaw

[TinCanToNA]

Not really. Conza made some great points andt he original poster ignored all of it.

I disagree. Conza failed to refute most of the points, instead choosing to make vague references to entire books and liberally apply ad hominem attacks; Conza did what most failed rhetoricians do.
I wish Conza had made better arguments, but that is just not the case.

Regarding human action, he will act upon what he values highest. It is always rational. He will choose ends, and use means to achieve them. In hindsight, he can say he was wrong, or it didn't work. But it is not for you to use your personal subjectivity when it comes to values, and criticise his for being "irrational".

(Emphasis is mine.)
On one hand, it can be plainly seen how wrong that statement is. It is demonstrably false. Some, even most human action is rational; to say that no human action is irrational is to defy history. Alternatively, I can make an ad hominem attack against Conza by saying that the quoted statement is true, and therefore Conza does not value his/her philosophical advocacy more than his/her ego. Concern for ego is itself not entirely rational, as narcissism tends to involve other emotions.


Meanwhile, the OP's concern that the same fatal flaw of assuming an uncontrolled condition to be a certain way was demonstrated in the defense of libertarianism in subsequent posts. That is why I said that it is not important that the argument is academically correct if it is demonstrated to be true by those supposedly in opposition to it. Words have meaning because we agree on them. If the common perception among supporters of libertarianism is that it presupposes a condition of humans to have some innate decency, then does it really matter if the academic supporters of it do not see it as such? If the academics of libertarianism do not see it in this way, then they have failed in their argument and the philosophy has been "hijacked" like, say, every single other philosophy in history.

 

[Bucjason]

I don't give a shit about Utopia ...I just want to be free....

so, as eloquent and well thought out as your take on libertariansim is , the premise is completely wrong.

 

[MGreen]

On one hand, it can be plainly seen how wrong that statement is. It is demonstrably false. Some, even most human action is rational; to say that no human action is irrational is to defy history

Examples?

 

[Conza88]

I disagree. Conza failed to refute most of the points, instead choosing to make vague references to entire books and liberally apply ad hominem attacks; Conza did what most failed rhetoricians do.
I wish Conza had made better arguments, but that is just not the case.
(Emphasis is mine.)

What arguments? I'm not seeing any. If you actually read something on the subject, it'd help your understanding. Sorry, I can only show you the door. You have to be the one to walk through it.

On one hand, it can be plainly seen how wrong that statement is. It is demonstrably false. Some, even most human action is rational; to say that no human action is irrational is to defy history. Alternatively, I can make an ad hominem attack against Conza by saying that the quoted statement is true, and therefore Conza does not value his/her philosophical advocacy more than his/her ego. Concern for ego is itself not entirely rational, as narcissism tends to involve other emotions.

"The assertion that there is irrational action is always rooted in an evaluation of a scale of values different from our own. Whoever says that irrationality plays a role in human action is merely saying, that his fellow men behave in a way that he does not consider correct. If we do not wish to pass judgment on the ends and the scales of value of other people and to claim omniscience for ourselves, the statement, "He acts irrationally," is meaningless, because it is not compatible with the concept of action. The "seeking to attain an end" and the "striving after a goal" cannot be eliminated from the concept of action. Whatever does not strive after goals or seek the attainment of ends reacts with absolute passivity to an external stimulus and is without a will of its own, like an automaton or a stone.

To be sure, man too is as far outside the effective range of his action as a reed in the wind. But in so far as he is able to do anything, he always acts: even negligence and passivity are action if another course of conduct could have been chosen. And the conduct that is determined by the unconscious, in the Freudian sense, or by the subconscious, is also action in so far as conscious behavior could prevent it but neglects to do so. Even in the unconscious and apparently senseless behavior of the neurotic and the psychopath there is meaning, i.e., there is striving after ends and goals."[8]"​

http://mises.org/epofe/c1p2sec4.asp

4. Rationality and Irrationality; Subjectivism and Objectivity of Praxeological Research
http://mises.org/humanaction/chap1sec4.asp

You've got a lot to learn. Pity you don't seem to know it.

Meanwhile, the OP's concern that the same fatal flaw of assuming an uncontrolled condition to be a certain way was demonstrated in the defense of libertarianism in subsequent posts. That is why I said that it is not important that the argument is academically correct if it is demonstrated to be true by those supposedly in opposition to it. Words have meaning because we agree on them. If the common perception among supporters of libertarianism is that it presupposes a condition of humans to have some innate decency, then does it really matter if the academic supporters of it do not see it as such? If the academics of libertarianism do not see it in this way, then they have failed in their argument and the philosophy has been "hijacked" like, say, every single other philosophy in history.

One retarded fool who suddenly capitulated from truths he didn't quite understand, to start with, in no way follows that the philosophy has been "hijacked".

He has done nothing but erect strawmen. Still waiting on his definition of Libertarianism. OH wait, yeah, he's never given one. He supported the Libertarian PARTY, he went for PLATFORMS not PHILOSOPHY. Shame, shame shame.

 

[Kludge]

Examples?

Neighbor mows his two acres of property with a push mower, complains about it, has more than enough money, but says he's too lazy to go get a riding mower, even though he's wasting an hour every other week and exerting an unnecessary amount of effort. Maybe he's being dishonest with me about why he isn't purchasing a riding mower, or maybe he's being irrational. It's difficult to judge.

 

[NewEnd]

You've got a lot to learn. Pity you don't seem to know it.

Geeze, why don't people listen to you?

 

[SimpleName]

One main point I'd like to give a quick jab at is when you said man won't work in his best economic interest. Who and what determines his best interests? MAN does. Each individual makes those choices for himself. If someone wants to smoke, they can smoke and they will have to come to terms with that later on. It is their responsibility to know what they are getting themselves into. As I believe Rothbard would have replied, people in a free society working in their individual best interests most often benefit the interests of the whole.

Besides that, some great points. I too fall under a this darkness and want to just say the hell with it. It always seems like people are just too damn stupid to figure things out. When you tell them things with any level of complexity, they give up and ignore you. I have had a hard time getting out there and being productive towards the movement because of this. I become so discouraged by the reactions I get when I'm trying to explain libertarian viewpoints to them. It leads to me just coming to these forums and discussing with the like-minded, sharing in everyone's disgust and happiness. But deep down I still have hope and I think, although we'll never reach any sort of "utopia", we can surely compromise with a relatively free society and limited government. My two cents.

 

[Young Paleocon]

Neighbor mows his two acres of property with a push mower, complains about it, has more than enough money, but says he's too lazy to go get a riding mower, even though he's wasting an hour every other week and exerting an unnecessary amount of effort. Maybe he's being dishonest with me about why he isn't purchasing a riding mower, or maybe he's being irrational. It's difficult to judge.

Maybe he secretly does it because he feels like he's getting a bit of a workout and just complains about it before and after because he wants something to talk about.

 

[Bucjason]

Maybe he secretly does it because he feels like he's getting a bit of a workout and just complains about it before and after because he wants something to talk about.

maybe he is waiting for the "Cash 4 Mowers" legislation ??

 

[MGreen]

Neighbor mows his two acres of property with a push mower, complains about it, has more than enough money, but says he's too lazy to go get a riding mower, even though he's wasting an hour every other week and exerting an unnecessary amount of effort. Maybe he's being dishonest with me about why he isn't purchasing a riding mower, or maybe he's being irrational. It's difficult to judge.

Whoa, I didn't think it'd be this easy.

First, rationality is different from wisdom. A man may dance in hopes of making it rain. This action is rational, even though it's obvious to you and I that dancing will not result in rainfall. A man may mow his lawn with a push mower because he believes it the best way to do so (all else being equal, of course).

But you said this man knows of the existence of a riding mower and has the means to purchase it. The fact that he doesn't, even though it causes him stress, does not mean he acts irrationally. Perhaps the uneasiness of using a push mower is less than the cost of buying a riding mower. Perhaps the man likes to use his situation to complain to others. By saying he's too lazy to get a riding mower, this suggests he would rather spend his time doing... whatever, rather than engaging in the disutility of finding, buying and maintaining a riding mower. To bring in time preference (as you point out, a riding mower can save him time to be lazy in the future), this man prefers to be lazy now at the cost of more work later (the next time he has to mow the lawn).

As Mises said and Conza just quoted: "The assertion that there is irrational action is always rooted in an evaluation of a scale of values different from our own. Whoever says that irrationality plays a role in human action is merely saying, that his fellow men behave in a way that he does not consider correct."

 

[TinCanToNA]

What arguments? I'm not seeing any. If you actually read something on the subject, it'd help your understanding. Sorry, I can only show you the door. You have to be the one to walk through it.

"The assertion that there is irrational action is always rooted in an evaluation of a scale of values different from our own. Whoever says that irrationality plays a role in human action is merely saying, that his fellow men behave in a way that he does not consider correct. If we do not wish to pass judgment on the ends and the scales of value of other people and to claim omniscience for ourselves, the statement, "He acts irrationally," is meaningless, because it is not compatible with the concept of action. The "seeking to attain an end" and the "striving after a goal" cannot be eliminated from the concept of action. Whatever does not strive after goals or seek the attainment of ends reacts with absolute passivity to an external stimulus and is without a will of its own, like an automaton or a stone.

To be sure, man too is as far outside the effective range of his action as a reed in the wind. But in so far as he is able to do anything, he always acts: even negligence and passivity are action if another course of conduct could have been chosen. And the conduct that is determined by the unconscious, in the Freudian sense, or by the subconscious, is also action in so far as conscious behavior could prevent it but neglects to do so. Even in the unconscious and apparently senseless behavior of the neurotic and the psychopath there is meaning, i.e., there is striving after ends and goals."[8]"​

http://mises.org/epofe/c1p2sec4.asp

4. Rationality and Irrationality; Subjectivism and Objectivity of Praxeological Research
http://mises.org/humanaction/chap1sec4.asp

You've got a lot to learn. Pity you don't seem to know it.

I'm not sure of the history of the word "irrational" but that quote is certainly not dealing with the modern definition of the word. What I consider "irrational" using the actual definition of the word has nothing to do with whether I think someone is acting "correctly" or not. The fact is that people often do commit acts without reason, without understanding or knowledge, or simply through emotion rather than logic. Perhaps your definition of the word is dated? Regardless, your monopoly on truth is bankrupt, and your advocacy is seriously flawed.

Just let me ask: is a violent outburst, a knuckle sandwich thrown by someone frustrated in a loud argument and with similar rhetorical skills as yourself, an example of a person acting rationally?

One retarded fool who suddenly capitulated from truths he didn't quite understand, to start with, in no way follows that the philosophy has been "hijacked".

He has done nothing but erect strawmen. Still waiting on his definition of Libertarianism. OH wait, yeah, he's never given one. He supported the Libertarian PARTY, he went for PLATFORMS not PHILOSOPHY. Shame, shame shame.

You completely misunderstood what I was saying. It was not the OP that is hijacking libertarianism. Using your own standards, your bankrupt monopoly on truth, it is the others who argued against the OP that have hijacked what libertarianism means.


You're right though, I do have a lot to learn. In my opinion, knowledge has an intrinsic positive value. Therefore, everyone has a lot to learn. Unfortunately, you appear to have a monopoly on the truth (even though you are bankrupt intellectually), so you think you can't learn. A sad event for someone so uncivil. :o

 

[Kludge]

Whoa, I didn't think it'd be this easy.

First, rationality is different from wisdom. A man may dance in hopes of making it rain. This action is rational, even though it's obvious to you and I that dancing will not result in rainfall. A man may mow his lawn with a push mower because he believes it the best way to do so (all else being equal, of course).

But you said this man knows of the existence of a riding mower and has the means to purchase it. The fact that he doesn't, even though it causes him stress, does not mean he acts irrationally. Perhaps the uneasiness of using a push mower is less than the cost of buying a riding mower. Perhaps the man likes to use his situation to complain to others. By saying he's too lazy to get a riding mower, this suggests he would rather spend his time doing... whatever, rather than engaging in the disutility of finding, buying and maintaining a riding mower. To bring in time preference (as you point out, a riding mower can save him time to be lazy in the future), this man prefers to be lazy now at the cost of more work later (the next time he has to mow the lawn).

As Mises said and Conza just quoted: "The assertion that there is irrational action is always rooted in an evaluation of a scale of values different from our own. Whoever says that irrationality plays a role in human action is merely saying, that his fellow men behave in a way that he does not consider correct."

Sure. I'm not saying I have the means to judge him accurately. I don't know everything that goes into his decisions, and hopefully, I never will. If he is acting irrationally, I'd have to have absolute knowledge of how my neighbor should value. At best, I can guesstimate, like a bureaucrat, what a person should value something at. If I were required to judge him right now, I'd say he were acting irrationality without any hard evidence. Is he, in "reality"? Maybe not. Humans are capable of nothing but theories, though we generally accept that when something is beyond a certain likelihood, we can state it as a fact or a law.

How would you prove an action is rational?

 

[Conza88]

Neighbor mows his two acres of property with a push mower

Using praxeology, the science of human action, we can deduce he values mowing his two acre property with a push mower, more than leisure, or working, or anything else. We can only speculate as to the reasons for his actions, which is outside the purposes of praxeology entirely.

His end may be to get exercise, or stop his wife nagging him that the lawn needs mowing, or he likes the pleasure he gets from a clean cut freshly mowed grass which he has accomplished with his own labor.

... complains about it, has more than enough money, but says he's too lazy to go get a riding mower

What ever the case, he values mowing the lawn with his already owned push mower, more than going to the shops and buying a new one.

even though he's wasting an hour every other week and exerting an unnecessary amount of effort.

You say he is wasting it. Not him. You say it is unnecessary, not him.

Maybe he's being dishonest with me about why he isn't purchasing a riding mower, or maybe he's being irrational. It's difficult to judge.

No, he's being rational when he made the decision. He can later contend, that he did not employ the proper means, or his end goal should have been different. That doesn't change anything though.

Geeze, why don't people listen to you?

Because I used to belief the same fallacies as them, yet I managed to shed them. If they are open minded, there is no problem. When someone is closed minded though, there begins the problem of their ignorance.

maybe he is waiting for the "Cash 4 Mowers" legislation ??

Hahah, I lol'd

 

[Conza88]

I'm not sure of the history of the word "irrational" but that quote is certainly not dealing with the modern definition of the word. What I consider "irrational" using the actual definition of the word has nothing to do with whether I think someone is acting "correctly" or not. The fact is that people often do commit acts without reason, without understanding or knowledge, or simply through emotion rather than logic. Perhaps your definition of the word is dated? Regardless, your monopoly on truth is bankrupt, and your advocacy is seriously flawed.

Human action is an axiom. It is defined as purposeful behavior. Chosen ends, using chosen means. Individuals have different preferences, values etc. They are subjective. They must choose and their action correlates to their values. Which are ordinal.

All action involves an exchange, or a choice: the actor attempts to achieve a more satisfactory state of affairs than what would have occurred had the actor chosen differently. The benefit of an action is its psychic revenue, while its cost is the value the actor places on the next-best alternative. Each actor can arrange various possible ends on a scale of value. This is a purely ordinal ranking, that can only show which end is first-best, second-best, and so forth. There is no sense in saying that one end is eight percent better than another, because there is no cardinal unit of happiness.

Every action involves not only a value judgment concerning different ends, but also a belief on the part of the actor that he possesses adequate means to achieve his desired end. (A person may prefer sunshine to rain, but this preference alone will not lead to any action if the person does not believe he has the power to change the weather.)​

Just let me ask: is a violent outburst, a knuckle sandwich thrown by someone frustrated in a loud argument and with similar rhetorical skills as yourself, an example of a person acting rationally?

Yes. But not ethically. You violated my property rights and the non aggression axiom. (Principle)

You completely misunderstood what I was saying. It was not the OP that is hijacking libertarianism. Using your own standards, your bankrupt monopoly on truth, it is the others who argued against the OP that have hijacked what libertarianism means.

Lmao, no I completely understood what you were saying. And you are wrong. ORLY, what are my standards? Did you just present an argument as to why I was wrong? Nope. Has the OP even defined Libertarianism?

Nope. Have you? Nope.

Do you want me to? I can, it's pretty elementary... I actually understand the philosophy... he understands a political platform based on a political party. RON PAUL has more of a Libertarian platform, than the Libertarian Party does... lol

You're right though, I do have a lot to learn. In my opinion, knowledge has an intrinsic positive value. Therefore, everyone has a lot to learn. Unfortunately, you appear to have a monopoly on the truth (even though you are bankrupt intellectually), so you think you can't learn. A sad event for someone so uncivil. :o

A sad strawman you've just erected. The difference is I KNOW what I am ignorant on. And this ain't one of it. Since I actually held this guys retarded position for quite some time. Who said I have a monopoly on truth? Again, nice strawman.

Have you presented any kind of arguments, whilst "debating" me? Nope. Still waiting.

 

[Stary Hickory]

Well I believe that Anarchists are a bit out of touch. They expect a final victory and the end to the struggle for freedom. As long as this struggle persists there will always need to be organized force to oppose those who want to control others. This force is government.

The best we can hope for is the most minimal government possible. But don't be naive and believe the struggle for freedom will just end. The soviets thought socialism could work because they could creat the braindead and obedient "Socialist Man" and Amarchists think they can create the "Enlightened and principled man" neither is feasible. However that does not mean we stop fighting.

We can secure more freedom and hopefully get back to a minimal government. One that only defends our rights and nothing else. People like to be critical of the Founding Fathers, but Jefferson, Madison, and Franklin...etc, they all had the same thoughts Anarchists have these days. They wanted maximum freedom as well. But they needed an apparatus to oppose oppression, which means they created the US government, which was deemed a "necessary evil".

I don't see how anything has changed since then, we still need an organized force to oppose oppression. This is government, and we must control it. Which is why we are in trouble these days.

 

[Michigan11]

I have both a principled reason and "pragmatic" reason I find anything except a libertarian society to be unacceptable, but I think they are different from your own.

The only principle I've ever been able to stick with is pacifism. It isn't out of any supernatural morality I've found, but rational self-interest. I have no desire to piss my equals off, because angry people do stupid things. Sure, we're probably always going to have insane or stupidly materialistic "evil" men, but I'd rather focus on avoiding those conflicts rather than trying to fight government wars on drugs, crime, and terror.

As far as my "pragmatic" reasoning... I'm very lazy and don't require many luxuries to be happy. I don't use the vast majority of services government offers. Frankly, much of what government offers is offensively unnecessary. Cultural grants, USPS, public transportation, and national parks/museums come to mind. I'd like to work the least amount of time possible, exerting the least amount of effort possible to live comfortably, which certainly doesn't include any prints of government-subsidized artwork in my living room. I'd like to retire early and eventually become self-sufficient, likely outside of the US (or, at least, off their records away from "untrusted" civilization). I don't give a damn about the Common Good or increasing statistics like the GDP per capita or "standard of living".

As far as claiming people corrupt, I think that's more of people being delusional, often inconsistent, and perhaps dishonest in their stated belief of morality.

Nice.

 

[BoogerSnax]

check out the site: http://theobamaforum.com/
then get back with me on why you would do that.






and?







as ben franklin stated- "the government will reflect the virtues of its people"
I guess you have a lot of work ahead of you. get busy.

I've merely stated the facts.
The Juggernaut of Gov't will keep on doing what it does, no matter how many Appleseeds or Tea-Baggers there are.
If I were in your position, I'd spend every minute and dollar available, reconstituting the family farm as a redoubt. Because it's coming, and there's no stopping it.

 

[Conza88]

Well I believe that Anarchists are a bit out of touch. They expect a final victory and the end to the struggle for freedom. As long as this struggle persists there will always need to be organized force to oppose those who want to control others.

They may be out of touch, which is why there are no traditional socialists (anarchists) here. Only nonarchists / anarcho-capitalists / anti-monopolists / voluntaryists / Libertarians and the market is self correcting. Private Defense Agencies would be an ultimate check against eachother. Also see Machiavelli on this point. And no, not him The Prince, his The Discourses... the book no-one knows about, but where he actually wrote about Liberty and how to maintain it.

This force is government.

That is a non sequitur. Also use methodological individualism please. "Government" does not exist in objective, physical reality. There are only people in buildings, who live of the backs of productive workers.

So essentially, what you are saying is... There are bad people out there with guns. So to protect us from bad people with guns, we need to take all the guns away from people and give them to one group only. And then pray the bad people, don't gravitate and join the group with the MONOPOLY ON THE USE OF VIOLENCE OVER A GIVEN TERRITORY?

That's the plan for freedom? Ahhhhh-mayyyyy-zinnnnnng.

The best we can hope for is the most minimal government possible.

Utopian. Name me a government that throughout the history of the world has remained limited... Hahaha!

But don't be naive and believe the struggle for freedom will just end.

No naivety here. With a freedom in television and the internet never before seen, and on the radio... with no point in being in Washington to cater to special interests... the fourth estate takes a blow. Citizen journalism reigns. Insurance companies check companies for risks, make reports. Long term investment because there is no inflation. Private defense agencies check eachother out constantly. You know who watches the watchmen paradox? Yeah, the market solves it.

Who watches you? Your competition. And who do you watch? The competition.

The soviets thought socialism could work because they could creat the braindead and obedient "Socialist Man" and Amarchists think they can create the "Enlightened and principled man" neither is feasible. However that does not mean we stop fighting.

Well anarchists are also traditional socialists. They think the state protects private property! LMFAO! As for the nonarchists / anarcho-capitalists / libertarians here... they all acknowledge there are good and bad people. That the nature of man is to follow his self interest. And that there would be criminals, you can't alleviate that. It's better than having an institution of criminals though. No?

We can secure more freedom and hopefully get back to a minimal government. One that only defends our rights and nothing else.

Utopian. And how can you say the state defends our rights, when it must violate them to exist?

People like to be critical of the Founding Fathers, but Jefferson, Madison, and Franklin...etc, they all had the same thoughts Anarchists have these days. They wanted maximum freedom as well. But they needed an apparatus to oppose oppression, which means they created the US government, which was deemed a "necessary evil".

No. They had the Articles of Confederation. And there was a general consensus it needed a few alterations, but it was NOT to be replaced. It was a coup d'etat. See: Albert Jay Nock for starters. The delegates were meant to amend, not create a new Constitution. Wonder why it happened when Thomas Jefferson was out of the country?

I don't see how anything has changed since then, we still need an organized force to oppose oppression. This is government, and we must control it. Which is why we are in trouble these days.

We the people are not the government. The proper class analysis is the RULERS vs the RULED. Parasites vs productive workers. Coercion vs freedom. Tyranny vs Liberty.

 

[torchbearer]

I've merely stated the facts.
The Juggernaut of Gov't will keep on doing what it does, no matter how many Appleseeds or Tea-Baggers there are.
If I were in your position, I'd spend every minute and dollar available, reconstituting the family farm as a redoubt. Because it's coming, and there's no stopping it.

oh, well I already know that.
I'm already prepared, now I'm just doing the things that in a long-shot hope may keep this country from going into civil war.

 

[acptulsa]

Utopian. Name me a government that throughout the history of the world has remained limited... Hahaha!

The remain limited far longer than they remain nothing. Since we're talking historical citations/practical applications here...