Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Domains

Domain: mises.org

Stories and comments across the archive that link to mises.org.

Comments · 1,424

  1. Re:Soros the rich commie by dh003i · · Score: 1 · on George Soros Speaks Politics

    The Lew Rockwell Column (LewRockwell.com) is widely read, an enormous site. And it is libertarian, not conservative (although Rockwell has conservative personal values, that hardly means he thinks the State should prevent non-coercive transactions, like Republicans do [e.g., drugs]).

    The solution to terrorism is not to invade nations. Terrorists are not national armies. We've killed many many more innocent civilians in our attack on Afghanistan than terrorists. Our entire foreign policy has made us a target for terrorism -- militarily intervening in matters world-wide. On the topic, I suggest these articles:

    Counterterrorism (by Government) is Impossible
    Terrorism and the Moral Hazart
    Free Markets Would be OPEC's Undoing
    What Is Terror?
    A History of Terror
    Defending the Homeland
    The Security Leviathan

  2. Re:Soros the rich commie by dh003i · · Score: 1 · on George Soros Speaks Politics

    The Lew Rockwell Column (LewRockwell.com) is widely read, an enormous site. And it is libertarian, not conservative (although Rockwell has conservative personal values, that hardly means he thinks the State should prevent non-coercive transactions, like Republicans do [e.g., drugs]).

    The solution to terrorism is not to invade nations. Terrorists are not national armies. We've killed many many more innocent civilians in our attack on Afghanistan than terrorists. Our entire foreign policy has made us a target for terrorism -- militarily intervening in matters world-wide. On the topic, I suggest these articles:

    Counterterrorism (by Government) is Impossible
    Terrorism and the Moral Hazart
    Free Markets Would be OPEC's Undoing
    What Is Terror?
    A History of Terror
    Defending the Homeland
    The Security Leviathan

  3. Re:Soros the rich commie by dh003i · · Score: 1 · on George Soros Speaks Politics

    The Lew Rockwell Column (LewRockwell.com) is widely read, an enormous site. And it is libertarian, not conservative (although Rockwell has conservative personal values, that hardly means he thinks the State should prevent non-coercive transactions, like Republicans do [e.g., drugs]).

    The solution to terrorism is not to invade nations. Terrorists are not national armies. We've killed many many more innocent civilians in our attack on Afghanistan than terrorists. Our entire foreign policy has made us a target for terrorism -- militarily intervening in matters world-wide. On the topic, I suggest these articles:

    Counterterrorism (by Government) is Impossible
    Terrorism and the Moral Hazart
    Free Markets Would be OPEC's Undoing
    What Is Terror?
    A History of Terror
    Defending the Homeland
    The Security Leviathan

  4. Re:Soros the rich commie by dh003i · · Score: 1 · on George Soros Speaks Politics

    The Lew Rockwell Column (LewRockwell.com) is widely read, an enormous site. And it is libertarian, not conservative (although Rockwell has conservative personal values, that hardly means he thinks the State should prevent non-coercive transactions, like Republicans do [e.g., drugs]).

    The solution to terrorism is not to invade nations. Terrorists are not national armies. We've killed many many more innocent civilians in our attack on Afghanistan than terrorists. Our entire foreign policy has made us a target for terrorism -- militarily intervening in matters world-wide. On the topic, I suggest these articles:

    Counterterrorism (by Government) is Impossible
    Terrorism and the Moral Hazart
    Free Markets Would be OPEC's Undoing
    What Is Terror?
    A History of Terror
    Defending the Homeland
    The Security Leviathan

  5. wrong wrong wrong by dh003i · · Score: 1, Informative · on George Soros Speaks Politics

    Soros is not a libertarian. He's a fascist. For State Corporatism. He wants States to loot their taxpayers to pay for the risks he takes. See Inside Soros. Please, let's not conflate "free-market rhetoric" with free-market action. Free market action is simply this: allowing any non-coercive interaction to occur. Gee, Soros wants taxpayers to bail him out to the tune of $2-billion? Doesn't sound very libertarian to me. Sounds like a thief.

  6. How about some Libertarian opinion? by dh003i · · Score: 2, Informative · on George Soros Speaks Politics

    How about some opinion from people who think that individual's should be allowed to run their own lives, not States? Unlike the fascists on the Right and the socialists on the Left. How about some opinion from people who actually are Liberals in the traditional (classical, correct) usage of the word (ala Liberalism ).

  7. Soros the rich commie by dh003i · · Score: 4, Interesting · on George Soros Speaks Politics
    See Inside Sorros.Rockwell, Llewellyn H., Jr. .
    Desperate for hard currency and facing a fiscal crisis, the Russian government guaranteed wildly high returns on its debt instruments. Believing that Russia would never be allowed to fail, Soros took huge positions in its bonds.

    His conversion to the cause of financial socialism began as Congress refused to bailout Russia, and Soros's fund started bearing the weight of margin calls. Eventually, the losses would total $2 billion. His new book admits that he burned up the phonelines calling for governments to loot their taxpayers on his behalf, with additional panicked calls to central bankers and finance officials to pressure them into doing so.

    Soros made the wrong bet, lost one of his shirts, and turned against capitalism. He believed himself to be the most powerful man in the world. It turned out that there is something more powerful, which is the market itself.

    So Soros, the new poster child of the left, turns out to be nothing more than a disgruntled rich guy tired of the risks that made him wealthy.

    Soros makes a few good points: we shouldn't have invaded Iraq. However, he concedes too much: we shouldn't have invaded Afghanistan either. I'd suggest anyone who wants to take a serious look at our history of internation interventionism read: A History of Folly. Young, Adam.
  8. Soros the rich commie by dh003i · · Score: 4, Interesting · on George Soros Speaks Politics
    See Inside Sorros.Rockwell, Llewellyn H., Jr. .
    Desperate for hard currency and facing a fiscal crisis, the Russian government guaranteed wildly high returns on its debt instruments. Believing that Russia would never be allowed to fail, Soros took huge positions in its bonds.

    His conversion to the cause of financial socialism began as Congress refused to bailout Russia, and Soros's fund started bearing the weight of margin calls. Eventually, the losses would total $2 billion. His new book admits that he burned up the phonelines calling for governments to loot their taxpayers on his behalf, with additional panicked calls to central bankers and finance officials to pressure them into doing so.

    Soros made the wrong bet, lost one of his shirts, and turned against capitalism. He believed himself to be the most powerful man in the world. It turned out that there is something more powerful, which is the market itself.

    So Soros, the new poster child of the left, turns out to be nothing more than a disgruntled rich guy tired of the risks that made him wealthy.

    Soros makes a few good points: we shouldn't have invaded Iraq. However, he concedes too much: we shouldn't have invaded Afghanistan either. I'd suggest anyone who wants to take a serious look at our history of internation interventionism read: A History of Folly. Young, Adam.
  9. Re:Related maybe interesting link by Sivaram_Velauthapill · · Score: 1 · on Libertarian Presidential Candidate Michael Badnarik Answers

    "Where does this perpetual fracturing of control end in its pursuit of maximized individual happiness? It would seem that we're unavoidably led to anarchism. However, I'm skeptical that it would ultimately end in that. At some point I would hope the valuing and fostering of a community would begin to outweigh the anarchic, hording hermit for which you envision at the end of the line." American Libertarians are inherently conservatives (many in the Libertarian Party aren't even libertarians--you'll see this when you look at the bogus "war" on terrorism or individual rights due to security). I'm on the left and I"ll tell you how the left wing generall perceives libertarianism.

    From a left wing point of view, there is little difference between anarchism and libertarianism. In fact, the Anarchist Party of USA considers itself as libertarian socialist. The right wing libertarians (Libertarian Party of USA is a right wing party) look at things differently. They view anarchism as seperate from Libertarianism. The key difference is that the right wing's key philosophy is capitalism. Anarchists would be against any govt (and more) but the (right-leaning) Libertarians are in favour of a govt (albeit a much smaller one). Right wing favours a govt because they need a govt to proect property rights--basically to have a legal system. Leftist libertarians don't see any difference because they don't care about the govt either way (they know that govt has done more harm and protects rights only when it suits it).

    In the end, I have no idea what is going to happen. I don't think the US Libertarian Party will ever gain any foothold because very few on the left (including libertarians) vote for them. This is why the Green Party has more support than the Libertarian Party. Left-leaning libertarians parties may gain some influence in more liberal countries (say in Europe or something) but it will take a while. It's kind of hard for any libertarian party (whether left-leaning or right-leaning) to win when most of the population still won't support legalization of drugs or prostitution or things like that.

    " Another issue I find myself uncomfortable with is the seeming dogmatic idea that if "propertizing" increases the conservation and efficiency of some consumable, and that's a good, than it must follow that the "propertizing" of any and all consumables must be much better. Rarely have I seen a reasonably thorough investigation of this issue. Perhaps someone on this board will point me to one. " This is largely due to capitalism. Pure capitalists believe everything should be privatizied, including rivers, roads, schools, etc. Most of the reasons use to justify privatization are capitalist in nature (eg. govt inefficient; property managed better by private owners rather than by public; skews property in favour of the lower classes rather than letting the wealthy own more; etc). Check out the answers on a site like capitalism.org to get an idea. Here is a brief explanation of why environment should be privatized. A popular Libertarian site is mises.org. This is a pure capitalist site (basically Austrian economics) and they'll explain why they want to privatize everything or why the Federal Reserve needs to be eliminated, or stuff like that. I'm a leftist so I don't support these views but they may be more up your alley--don't know...BTW, you CAN justify privatizing everything but it all depends on what you support (You can justify anything including killing people is good (fascists can PROVE how country can be better by killing off the blind, deaf, disabled people, poor immigrants, drug addicts, etc)).

  10. a lot of misunderstandings here by dh003i · · Score: 3, Informative · on Libertarian Presidential Candidate Michael Badnarik Answers
    For one thing, child labor is a great thing in the places where it exists. It allows children to escape what would be their other options -- begging, starvation, stealing, or prostitution -- in those circumstances in which they'd engage in child labor.

    "Wage slavery" is marxist crap. For something relating to this, see this set of notes.

    A strong respect for property rights is the only thing that makes living standards rise. That is what allows people to save up capital, causing cime-preferences to be lowered, and eventually time-preference schedules -- this leads to the process of civilization. But when you start engaging in systematic thievery (taxes, inflation, wealth-redistribution), this systematically lowers time-preferences, causing de-civilization.

    You understanding of the USSR is also flawed. It is not just that the USSR wasn't socialism -- it is that socialism, as defined and understood by Marx, Engels, and the other socialists of the time, is impossible. The USSR's worst disasters, however, occured when they tried to implement socialism as fully as possible (by eliminating money). The socialist system is impossible because of the calculation and information problem. (Hence, to say it is "impractical" because of the "incentive problem", also a problem, is not correct). For another analysis of the problems of socialism (in this case, "anarchist" socialism), see The Anarcho-Statists of Spain.

  11. a lot of misunderstandings here by dh003i · · Score: 3, Informative · on Libertarian Presidential Candidate Michael Badnarik Answers
    For one thing, child labor is a great thing in the places where it exists. It allows children to escape what would be their other options -- begging, starvation, stealing, or prostitution -- in those circumstances in which they'd engage in child labor.

    "Wage slavery" is marxist crap. For something relating to this, see this set of notes.

    A strong respect for property rights is the only thing that makes living standards rise. That is what allows people to save up capital, causing cime-preferences to be lowered, and eventually time-preference schedules -- this leads to the process of civilization. But when you start engaging in systematic thievery (taxes, inflation, wealth-redistribution), this systematically lowers time-preferences, causing de-civilization.

    You understanding of the USSR is also flawed. It is not just that the USSR wasn't socialism -- it is that socialism, as defined and understood by Marx, Engels, and the other socialists of the time, is impossible. The USSR's worst disasters, however, occured when they tried to implement socialism as fully as possible (by eliminating money). The socialist system is impossible because of the calculation and information problem. (Hence, to say it is "impractical" because of the "incentive problem", also a problem, is not correct). For another analysis of the problems of socialism (in this case, "anarchist" socialism), see The Anarcho-Statists of Spain.

  12. Libertarian blogs by I'm+Spartacus! · · Score: 1 · on Your Favorite Political Weblogs?

    To keep abreast of liberty, I read the following:

    Mises Blog
    Lew Rockwell's Blog

    To find out what the enemies of liberty are up to, I also read:

    Daily Kos
    Atrios
    InstaPundit
    Andrew Sullivan

  13. Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0 · on Libertarian Presidential Candidate Michael Badnarik Answers

    As an example, the libertarian view on pollution (in a nutshell) is that government should not be involved. The marketplace will triumph because people collectively will boycott companies that pollute, and individually sue companies that pollute their specific air or land.

    Please read Murry Rothbard: Law, Property Rights, and Air Pollution.

  14. what it means to act by dh003i · · Score: 1 · on Wikipedia != Authoritative?
    To act is necessarily to be rational. Whenever acting, a man has ends that he wants to achieve, and is utilizing means he believes will achieve them). This is necessarily rational, for he must understand causality in order to engage in such. Now, a man may be mistaken in his means, but that doesn't show that he's irrational -- only that men are not infallible. And to call an "ends" irrational is non-sense, as ends are simply givens, like the fact that the sun exists (it wouldn't make sense to say that the sun's existence is "irrational").

    Now, mainstream economists have committed many fallacies here, among them assuming that only actions pursuing profit-maximization are rational. This is such worthless non-sense that I won't discuss it any further.

    On the necessarily rational nature of action, see Ludwig von Mises:

  15. what it means to act by dh003i · · Score: 1 · on Wikipedia != Authoritative?
    To act is necessarily to be rational. Whenever acting, a man has ends that he wants to achieve, and is utilizing means he believes will achieve them). This is necessarily rational, for he must understand causality in order to engage in such. Now, a man may be mistaken in his means, but that doesn't show that he's irrational -- only that men are not infallible. And to call an "ends" irrational is non-sense, as ends are simply givens, like the fact that the sun exists (it wouldn't make sense to say that the sun's existence is "irrational").

    Now, mainstream economists have committed many fallacies here, among them assuming that only actions pursuing profit-maximization are rational. This is such worthless non-sense that I won't discuss it any further.

    On the necessarily rational nature of action, see Ludwig von Mises:

  16. what it means to act by dh003i · · Score: 1 · on Wikipedia != Authoritative?
    To act is necessarily to be rational. Whenever acting, a man has ends that he wants to achieve, and is utilizing means he believes will achieve them). This is necessarily rational, for he must understand causality in order to engage in such. Now, a man may be mistaken in his means, but that doesn't show that he's irrational -- only that men are not infallible. And to call an "ends" irrational is non-sense, as ends are simply givens, like the fact that the sun exists (it wouldn't make sense to say that the sun's existence is "irrational").

    Now, mainstream economists have committed many fallacies here, among them assuming that only actions pursuing profit-maximization are rational. This is such worthless non-sense that I won't discuss it any further.

    On the necessarily rational nature of action, see Ludwig von Mises:

  17. what it means to act by dh003i · · Score: 1 · on Wikipedia != Authoritative?
    To act is necessarily to be rational. Whenever acting, a man has ends that he wants to achieve, and is utilizing means he believes will achieve them). This is necessarily rational, for he must understand causality in order to engage in such. Now, a man may be mistaken in his means, but that doesn't show that he's irrational -- only that men are not infallible. And to call an "ends" irrational is non-sense, as ends are simply givens, like the fact that the sun exists (it wouldn't make sense to say that the sun's existence is "irrational").

    Now, mainstream economists have committed many fallacies here, among them assuming that only actions pursuing profit-maximization are rational. This is such worthless non-sense that I won't discuss it any further.

    On the necessarily rational nature of action, see Ludwig von Mises:

  18. what it means to act by dh003i · · Score: 1 · on Wikipedia != Authoritative?
    To act is necessarily to be rational. Whenever acting, a man has ends that he wants to achieve, and is utilizing means he believes will achieve them). This is necessarily rational, for he must understand causality in order to engage in such. Now, a man may be mistaken in his means, but that doesn't show that he's irrational -- only that men are not infallible. And to call an "ends" irrational is non-sense, as ends are simply givens, like the fact that the sun exists (it wouldn't make sense to say that the sun's existence is "irrational").

    Now, mainstream economists have committed many fallacies here, among them assuming that only actions pursuing profit-maximization are rational. This is such worthless non-sense that I won't discuss it any further.

    On the necessarily rational nature of action, see Ludwig von Mises:

  19. what it means to act by dh003i · · Score: 1 · on Wikipedia != Authoritative?
    To act is necessarily to be rational. Whenever acting, a man has ends that he wants to achieve, and is utilizing means he believes will achieve them). This is necessarily rational, for he must understand causality in order to engage in such. Now, a man may be mistaken in his means, but that doesn't show that he's irrational -- only that men are not infallible. And to call an "ends" irrational is non-sense, as ends are simply givens, like the fact that the sun exists (it wouldn't make sense to say that the sun's existence is "irrational").

    Now, mainstream economists have committed many fallacies here, among them assuming that only actions pursuing profit-maximization are rational. This is such worthless non-sense that I won't discuss it any further.

    On the necessarily rational nature of action, see Ludwig von Mises:

  20. Re:Social Security, etc... by Silmaril · · Score: 1 · on US Candidates Ignore Looming Debt Crisis
    The fact that he will beat you up if you refuse is the immoral part, not the offer.

    Yet the government will beat up tax resistors (who haven't left the country). Does that make its offer immoral?

    How is the Mafia example any different than the police?

    Couldn't have said it better myself. :)

    The point that the quote addressed was whether or not taking money from everyone (taxes) and redistributing it to the poor could be moral... of course it is.

    "If someone can recognize an act of unjust aggression when it is perpetrated by one individual against another, but not when the same act is perpetrated by an organized group of individuals, such a person must be confused about right and wrong." -- Lao Tzu

  21. Re:globalized economy / Austrian Economics. by libertyguy · · Score: 1 · on Paul Samuelson Challenges Outsourcing

    The Austrians believe that the business cycle is caused primarily by fractional reserve banking, period. Until this is refuted, by neoclassical economists or anyone else, there isn't much theory to discuss. More importantly, the Austrian School is the only branch of economic study that admits that human action makes economies inherently unpredictable. People as individuals or in groups simply are not consistently rational in their economic thinking or actions. Therefore models will only ever be useful in explaining what has happened in the past, and will always be insufficient to explain what will happen in the future. Austrian School Economics Articles and Discussion; http://www.mises.org/ Austrian and Libertarian Political and Economic Articles: http://www.lewrockwell.com/

  22. Re:globalized economy. by libertyguy · · Score: 1 · on Paul Samuelson Challenges Outsourcing

    You have a point about the relative freedom of movement of capital versus the relative lack of freedom of movement of labor. Both should be totally free to flow wherever they peacefully may. That would result in the highest utility for all. The current system's constraints inhibit equal benefits across the economies involved. But aren't anti-globalists against workers moving across borders, i.e.; millions of Mexicans crossing into the US to work? And how can one say this doesn't happen now, immigration policy to the contrary? As someone who has actually worked internationally (in a Caribbean country), I find the assumption that globalization of labor (outsourcing or offshoring) works only in one direction (jobs flow to lower-cost economies) to be ridiculous. In my case, I worked with thousands of highly-skilled, highly-paid US workers for several years in that country to complete a large project worth billions of dollars, the larger portion of which flowed directly back into the US economy. This is far from a unique situation. If you looked at the total number of wage dollars in the labor trade, you would likely find that the number of wage dollars flowing into the US economy (through professionals and technical experts from here working abroad) is probably, if anything, higher than the number of wage dollars flowing offshore to Indian call centers and the like. Until someone does an honest accounting of all of the flows of value in and out of the economy, one cannot say that outsourcing or offshoring are even the least bit bad on balance for the economy, unless one is a demagogic politician playing on the ignorance and fear of American workers. To view this discussion from an Austrian School perspective; http://www.mises.org/ http://www.libertyguys.org/

  23. economic ignorance by dh003i · · Score: 1 · on Paul Samuelson Challenges Outsourcing
    For an economically valid analysis of outsourcing, I suggest searching Mises.org. Also, see my lecture notes on outsourcing, most noteably symbolic proof that free trade helps "us" out:
    • Lets say that evil capitalist/shareholder pigs outsource jobs.

    • Obviously, capitalists/shareholders are better off.

    • The workers laid off are worse off.

    • Let:
      • W = aveage original wage of workers laid off
      • w = average wage of laid off workers in 2nd best job
      • N = number of outsourced workers
      • f = average foreign wage

    • Thus:
      • Total cost to US labor:
        (w - W)N
      • Total gain to shareholders:
        (W - f)N
      • What does the US gain overall? Capitalists only outsource if:
        (W - f)N > (W - w)N
        W - f > W - w
        -f > -w
      • thus, f (average foreign wage) is less than w (average wage of laid off worker in 2nd best job)
      • This must be true, because if the 2nd best wage wasn't better than the foreign wage, companies would just offer to reduce their employees salaries.
  24. Re: So? by dh003i · · Score: 1 · on Michael Moore Seeks TV Airing of Fahrenheit 9/11
    As I said, bias is fine, and unavoidable. It is blatantly obvious that Moore went out of his way to make it look like things were one way, when in reality they were another. The reason I'm so critical is this reflects badly on opponents of war. It is intellectually dishonest and deceiving.

    Consider if I say the following:

    "I am opposed to hatred. There are those who hate Jews, African Americans, and homosexuals; I think that being of such a mind is a punishment in and of itself."

    Someone can come along and quote me as follows:

    "I...hate...Jews, African Americans, and homosexuals."

    While technically not a lie, due to the ..., someone who quoted me in such a manner has taken the words out of context with the clear intent of making it sound like I was saying that I hated Jews, African Americans, and homosexuals, when in reality I was arguing against that position. If you can't see how this is wrong and dishonest, then there's really nothing more I can say. It is amazing to me the lengths that people will go to to defend shit.

    A historian who does something similar is a fraud and a worthless historian. Marx did not do this. He interpretted history incorrectly (that is, his class analysis is wrong), but taking as a base the same historical events that he describes, Austrians can interpret it correctly (see Marxist and Austrian Class Analysis). Now, Marx' incorrect theory may have prevented him from searching for some other relevant historical data, but he did not (for example) give the reader completely wrong impressions about historical happenings of fact.

    This is not to say that full quotations with ample context are always required. I'm sure that Hitler had a lot of long-winded rambled statements, with parnethetical interruptions which would be appropriate to clip out, but the punchline being that the Jews were the cause of all of Germany's problems.

    Elipsing out various parts of a sentence or paragraph is appropriate to do if you maintain the original meaning. It is not appropriate to do this when you modify the meaning, or make it appear as if the author/speaker said something that is the opposite of what they actually said.

    From my perception, all I can conclude from this is that you are fucking intellectually dishonest, since you go to such great lengths to defend a work which is dishonest (and the word "dishonest" does not mean only flat-out lying).

    PS: Claiming that income taxes are the equivalent of robbery (not theft) is not misleading people. It is a moral statement, no different than saying "abortion is wrong". Simply because a group of people write a document, declare themselves "the State", an then presume to go around "taxing" you for "the services they provide" doesn't mean that what they're doing isn't theft -- it's a protection racket on a grand scale. The only difference between these two actions is that while one is considered illegitimate by most people (and you are allowed to defend yourself against), the other is considered legitimate (and you are not allowed to defend yourself); this is merely a matter of normative force, and popular opinion, and has nothing at all to do with morality.

  25. Re: So? by dh003i · · Score: 1 · on Michael Moore Seeks TV Airing of Fahrenheit 9/11
    As I said, bias is fine, and unavoidable. It is blatantly obvious that Moore went out of his way to make it look like things were one way, when in reality they were another. The reason I'm so critical is this reflects badly on opponents of war. It is intellectually dishonest and deceiving.

    Consider if I say the following:

    "I am opposed to hatred. There are those who hate Jews, African Americans, and homosexuals; I think that being of such a mind is a punishment in and of itself."

    Someone can come along and quote me as follows:

    "I...hate...Jews, African Americans, and homosexuals."

    While technically not a lie, due to the ..., someone who quoted me in such a manner has taken the words out of context with the clear intent of making it sound like I was saying that I hated Jews, African Americans, and homosexuals, when in reality I was arguing against that position. If you can't see how this is wrong and dishonest, then there's really nothing more I can say. It is amazing to me the lengths that people will go to to defend shit.

    A historian who does something similar is a fraud and a worthless historian. Marx did not do this. He interpretted history incorrectly (that is, his class analysis is wrong), but taking as a base the same historical events that he describes, Austrians can interpret it correctly (see Marxist and Austrian Class Analysis). Now, Marx' incorrect theory may have prevented him from searching for some other relevant historical data, but he did not (for example) give the reader completely wrong impressions about historical happenings of fact.

    This is not to say that full quotations with ample context are always required. I'm sure that Hitler had a lot of long-winded rambled statements, with parnethetical interruptions which would be appropriate to clip out, but the punchline being that the Jews were the cause of all of Germany's problems.

    Elipsing out various parts of a sentence or paragraph is appropriate to do if you maintain the original meaning. It is not appropriate to do this when you modify the meaning, or make it appear as if the author/speaker said something that is the opposite of what they actually said.

    From my perception, all I can conclude from this is that you are fucking intellectually dishonest, since you go to such great lengths to defend a work which is dishonest (and the word "dishonest" does not mean only flat-out lying).

    PS: Claiming that income taxes are the equivalent of robbery (not theft) is not misleading people. It is a moral statement, no different than saying "abortion is wrong". Simply because a group of people write a document, declare themselves "the State", an then presume to go around "taxing" you for "the services they provide" doesn't mean that what they're doing isn't theft -- it's a protection racket on a grand scale. The only difference between these two actions is that while one is considered illegitimate by most people (and you are allowed to defend yourself against), the other is considered legitimate (and you are not allowed to defend yourself); this is merely a matter of normative force, and popular opinion, and has nothing at all to do with morality.

  26. you do not understand economics by dh003i · · Score: 1 · on Wikipedia != Authoritative?

    States encourage the tragedy of the commons. Because nobody owns the resource -- whatever it may be -- over-use is encouraged. The only way in which States can use prices is because there is a partial free-market elsewhere (this is what the USSR did). It is rather like "playing house". You clearly don't understand our current mess of a medical system, which is no-longer insurance but rather pre-payment, which encourages constantly escalating prices. I'd suggest you search Mises.org for "medicare". For a solution, to the current mess, see A Four-Step Health-Care Solution by Hans-Hermann Hoppe. As for your hogwash about the State being more far-sighted than the free-market, see what the USSR and other States with lots of intervention did to their environment. When resources are not privately owned, they are not preserved and are not put to their best use. Regarding your confusion on economic calculation, I would suggest you read THE SPHERE OF ECONOMIC CALCULATION by Ludwig von Mises, and the chapter after it (page-by-page viewing of each chapter-section).

  27. you do not understand economics by dh003i · · Score: 1 · on Wikipedia != Authoritative?

    States encourage the tragedy of the commons. Because nobody owns the resource -- whatever it may be -- over-use is encouraged. The only way in which States can use prices is because there is a partial free-market elsewhere (this is what the USSR did). It is rather like "playing house". You clearly don't understand our current mess of a medical system, which is no-longer insurance but rather pre-payment, which encourages constantly escalating prices. I'd suggest you search Mises.org for "medicare". For a solution, to the current mess, see A Four-Step Health-Care Solution by Hans-Hermann Hoppe. As for your hogwash about the State being more far-sighted than the free-market, see what the USSR and other States with lots of intervention did to their environment. When resources are not privately owned, they are not preserved and are not put to their best use. Regarding your confusion on economic calculation, I would suggest you read THE SPHERE OF ECONOMIC CALCULATION by Ludwig von Mises, and the chapter after it (page-by-page viewing of each chapter-section).

  28. Re:Gilligan's Island is a "hook", not the contents by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0 · on The Monetary Economics of Thurston Howell III

    This is so far from the truth you're "not even wrong". You might try reading chapter 10 of Man, Economy, and State

  29. how exactly is that relevant? by dh003i · · Score: 1 · on The Monetary Economics of Thurston Howell III
    We can't precisely determine who stole what, and it's likely that if you go back far enough, everyone's ancestor's stole from or killed everyone else' ancestors, etc etc. Why should we go through the legal nightmare of trying to unwind the long tangled history of thievery, rape, murder?

    Look, if someone has a proveable claim -- e.g., my great-grandfather stole land from their great-grandfather, so therefore the land which I inherited really doesn't belong to me -- then I'm all for courts returning the land to it's rightful owners. You can only legitimately pass on, give away, or trade away that which you have rightfully acquired.

    Your argument about the rich stealing from the poor is flatly wrong. Quite frankly, sounds like Marxist crap. Oftentime it is the other way around. There is no systematic relationship of thievery between the rich and the poor. There is a systematic relationship of thievery between those who are part of the State-apparatus and those who are not: the State-sector is everywhere and always parasitic.

  30. Re:Read Mises and Rothbard by Rotterdam · · Score: 1 · on The Monetary Economics of Thurston Howell III

    To these I would like to add:

    Wittgenstein, Austrian Economics, and the Logic of Action by Roderick T. Long

  31. no, but by dh003i · · Score: 1 · on The Monetary Economics of Thurston Howell III

    They cannot be used to pay taxes, and they cannot be used to pay off liabilities (courts will not recognize a liability paid off if it's paid off in gold). Furthermore, for a long period of time, The State criminalized the holding of gold for monetary purposes, and only allowed for its holding for personal (jewelery) uses. Rothbard wrote on this in What Has Government Done to Our Money?

  32. Re:Read Mises and Rothbard by I'm+Spartacus! · · Score: 1 · on The Monetary Economics of Thurston Howell III

    Depends on what you mean by action. I could claim that trees act. From an objective viewpoint men and trees both just minimize their free energy, an action by a tree is not fundamentally different from an action by a man. Therefore anything you derive from this action axiom must also hold for trees.

    I don't have time to get into a long discussion about Human Action. The work is simply too dense and voluminous to discuss on a bulletin board. However, Mises addresses almost all your arguments. In particular, what distinguishes human action from non-human action is the ability of man to override his impulses and logically deduce what is more important to him than something else.

    From Human Action:

    But is different with man. Man is not a being who cannot help yielding to the impulse that most urgently asks for satisfaction. Man is a being capable of subduing his instincts, emotions, and impulses; he can rationalize his behavior. He renounces the satisfaction of a burning impulse in order to satisfy other desires. He is not a puppet of his appetites. A man does not ravish every female that stirs his senses; he does not devour every piece of food that entices him; he does not knock down every fellow he would like to kill. He arranges [p. 17] his wishes and desires into a scale, he chooses; in short, he acts. What distinguishes man from beasts is precisely that he adjusts his behavior deliberatively. Man is the being that has inhibitions, that can master his impulses and desires, that has the power to suppress instinctive desires and impulses.

    Go here for more detail on the subject. Be warned, however, Human Action will change your life!

  33. fallacies by dh003i · · Score: 2, Interesting · on The Monetary Economics of Thurston Howell III
    You don't know what you're talking about. Simply stating that we're better off now -- a time when we have fiat money -- than we were when we didn't have fiat money does not demonstrate that fiat money is superior to gold. The sheer idiocy of a such a statement makes me wonder how you could state it (obviously ignoring improving technology). Yes, we are better off now than we were a hundred years ago. But that doesn't demonstrate the superiority of fiat money.

    Are we better off (to the extent that we're better off) because of fiat money? That is, if not for fiat money, we would be worse off today.

    Are we better off (to the extent that we're better off) despite fiat money? That is, if not for fiat money, we would be better off today.

    Are we better off (to the exten that we're better off) neither because of nor despite fiat money? That is, whether or not there was fiat money, we would be the same as we are today.

    I would suggest you read Facts and Counterfacts in Economics. Hülsmann, Jörg Guido.

  34. wrong... by dh003i · · Score: 2, Insightful · on The Monetary Economics of Thurston Howell III
    Read The Case for a Genuine Gold Dollar. Rothbard, Murray. and What Has Government Done to Our Money? Rothbard, Murray. Alternatiely, perhaps the best way is to allow the free market to choose it's money. See The Determination of the Purchasing Power of Money. Mises, Ludwig von.

    1. There are substitutes for gold. Obviously, if gold were used as money, it would be uneconomical to use it as computer parts.

    2. As Rothbard explains, a "commodity basket" is extremely flawed and utopian in the worst sense: it simply cannot work.

    3. You do not understand the nature of money. Any given quantity of money is just as good as any other quantitity of money. The commodity chosen as the monetary unit will simply scale to the appropriate value. You also subscribe to typical fallicious beliefs about "deflation". Deflation is not falling prices (or rising purchasing power of the dollar). Deflation is a decrease in the monetary base; inflation is an increase in the monetary base. Printing out dollar bills is inflation. Burning them is deflation.

    4. No Austrian who favors eliminating fiat money and replacing it with a commodity-backed standard (gold) supports fractional reserve banking.

  35. wrong... by dh003i · · Score: 2, Insightful · on The Monetary Economics of Thurston Howell III
    Read The Case for a Genuine Gold Dollar. Rothbard, Murray. and What Has Government Done to Our Money? Rothbard, Murray. Alternatiely, perhaps the best way is to allow the free market to choose it's money. See The Determination of the Purchasing Power of Money. Mises, Ludwig von.

    1. There are substitutes for gold. Obviously, if gold were used as money, it would be uneconomical to use it as computer parts.

    2. As Rothbard explains, a "commodity basket" is extremely flawed and utopian in the worst sense: it simply cannot work.

    3. You do not understand the nature of money. Any given quantity of money is just as good as any other quantitity of money. The commodity chosen as the monetary unit will simply scale to the appropriate value. You also subscribe to typical fallicious beliefs about "deflation". Deflation is not falling prices (or rising purchasing power of the dollar). Deflation is a decrease in the monetary base; inflation is an increase in the monetary base. Printing out dollar bills is inflation. Burning them is deflation.

    4. No Austrian who favors eliminating fiat money and replacing it with a commodity-backed standard (gold) supports fractional reserve banking.

  36. wrong... by dh003i · · Score: 2, Insightful · on The Monetary Economics of Thurston Howell III
    Read The Case for a Genuine Gold Dollar. Rothbard, Murray. and What Has Government Done to Our Money? Rothbard, Murray. Alternatiely, perhaps the best way is to allow the free market to choose it's money. See The Determination of the Purchasing Power of Money. Mises, Ludwig von.

    1. There are substitutes for gold. Obviously, if gold were used as money, it would be uneconomical to use it as computer parts.

    2. As Rothbard explains, a "commodity basket" is extremely flawed and utopian in the worst sense: it simply cannot work.

    3. You do not understand the nature of money. Any given quantity of money is just as good as any other quantitity of money. The commodity chosen as the monetary unit will simply scale to the appropriate value. You also subscribe to typical fallicious beliefs about "deflation". Deflation is not falling prices (or rising purchasing power of the dollar). Deflation is a decrease in the monetary base; inflation is an increase in the monetary base. Printing out dollar bills is inflation. Burning them is deflation.

    4. No Austrian who favors eliminating fiat money and replacing it with a commodity-backed standard (gold) supports fractional reserve banking.

  37. wrong... by dh003i · · Score: 2, Insightful · on The Monetary Economics of Thurston Howell III
    Read The Case for a Genuine Gold Dollar. Rothbard, Murray. and What Has Government Done to Our Money? Rothbard, Murray. Alternatiely, perhaps the best way is to allow the free market to choose it's money. See The Determination of the Purchasing Power of Money. Mises, Ludwig von.

    1. There are substitutes for gold. Obviously, if gold were used as money, it would be uneconomical to use it as computer parts.

    2. As Rothbard explains, a "commodity basket" is extremely flawed and utopian in the worst sense: it simply cannot work.

    3. You do not understand the nature of money. Any given quantity of money is just as good as any other quantitity of money. The commodity chosen as the monetary unit will simply scale to the appropriate value. You also subscribe to typical fallicious beliefs about "deflation". Deflation is not falling prices (or rising purchasing power of the dollar). Deflation is a decrease in the monetary base; inflation is an increase in the monetary base. Printing out dollar bills is inflation. Burning them is deflation.

    4. No Austrian who favors eliminating fiat money and replacing it with a commodity-backed standard (gold) supports fractional reserve banking.

  38. that's very very bad by dh003i · · Score: 1 · on The Monetary Economics of Thurston Howell III
    Firstly, it is morally bad. It is thievery. Inflation involves theft from property owners, as crooks (the government) print out more than one title to the same property.

    Secondly, inflation isn't uniform, and could never be uniform. Inflation redirects wealth from productive voluntary private-sector activities, to anti-productive coercive State-activities, like war.

    Thirdly, inflation causes the business cycle.

  39. Read Mises and Rothbard by dh003i · · Score: 3, Informative · on The Monetary Economics of Thurston Howell III
    It is impossible to do experiments in the social sciences, because there are always numerous variables which you cannot control. You also don't understand the nature of reasoning from a priori axioms. We don't need empirical evidence to know that a priori axioms are true. Mises correctly states that all economics follows from the action axiom (and other axioms and postulates): The action axiom states that man acts. Expanding upon this, man acts using various ends to obtain various means, so as to ease and unease felt. You cannot dispute this axiom, for attempting to dispute it is in fact an action itself.

    Your reasoning is positivist, which is debunked junk. Positivism states that we can only know something is true if we have empirical verification, and that everything else is meaningless. This is inherently self-contradictory, for that very statement can only be taken as an a priori axiom. Except, according to positivists, a priori axioms are meaningless tautologies. So, the question is, how do we know that that positivist statement is in fact true? We haven't verified it by experiments, so according to its own declaration, it is a meaningless tautology.

    Austrian economists start from self-evident a priori axioms. These axioms do not need to be empirically verified. Indeed, they cannot be falsified empirically, and can only be illustrated. You cannot falsify the action axiom. You can only illustrate it (indeed, everything you do is an illustration of the action axiom).

    " What makes these axioms self-evident?... They are self-evident because one cannot deny their truth without self-contradiction; that is, in attempting to deny them one would actually, implicitly, admit their truth." -- Hoppe, Hans-Herman
    I would suggest reading the following papers:

    If you want to read more on Austrian economics, the best introduction is Man, Economy, and State with Power and Market. Rothbard, Murray. (MES). Man, Economy, and State with Power and Market was Rothbard's treatise on economics, also intended to be a textbook for introducing students to Austrian economics. Mises, Rothbard's mentor, wrote the great treatise on economics simply called Human Action. Mises, Ludwig von. (HA). Human Action is an extremely important treatise, although it is not as easily understandable as Rothbard's treatise. Rothbard, in his treatise, assumes that readers have much of the knowledge in Human Action, so reading MES is not a substitute for reading Human Action; however, Rothbard corrects Mises on a couple of issues (like monopoly) and expands upon Mises' analysis, exploring new categories.
  40. Read Mises and Rothbard by dh003i · · Score: 3, Informative · on The Monetary Economics of Thurston Howell III
    It is impossible to do experiments in the social sciences, because there are always numerous variables which you cannot control. You also don't understand the nature of reasoning from a priori axioms. We don't need empirical evidence to know that a priori axioms are true. Mises correctly states that all economics follows from the action axiom (and other axioms and postulates): The action axiom states that man acts. Expanding upon this, man acts using various ends to obtain various means, so as to ease and unease felt. You cannot dispute this axiom, for attempting to dispute it is in fact an action itself.

    Your reasoning is positivist, which is debunked junk. Positivism states that we can only know something is true if we have empirical verification, and that everything else is meaningless. This is inherently self-contradictory, for that very statement can only be taken as an a priori axiom. Except, according to positivists, a priori axioms are meaningless tautologies. So, the question is, how do we know that that positivist statement is in fact true? We haven't verified it by experiments, so according to its own declaration, it is a meaningless tautology.

    Austrian economists start from self-evident a priori axioms. These axioms do not need to be empirically verified. Indeed, they cannot be falsified empirically, and can only be illustrated. You cannot falsify the action axiom. You can only illustrate it (indeed, everything you do is an illustration of the action axiom).

    " What makes these axioms self-evident?... They are self-evident because one cannot deny their truth without self-contradiction; that is, in attempting to deny them one would actually, implicitly, admit their truth." -- Hoppe, Hans-Herman
    I would suggest reading the following papers:

    If you want to read more on Austrian economics, the best introduction is Man, Economy, and State with Power and Market. Rothbard, Murray. (MES). Man, Economy, and State with Power and Market was Rothbard's treatise on economics, also intended to be a textbook for introducing students to Austrian economics. Mises, Rothbard's mentor, wrote the great treatise on economics simply called Human Action. Mises, Ludwig von. (HA). Human Action is an extremely important treatise, although it is not as easily understandable as Rothbard's treatise. Rothbard, in his treatise, assumes that readers have much of the knowledge in Human Action, so reading MES is not a substitute for reading Human Action; however, Rothbard corrects Mises on a couple of issues (like monopoly) and expands upon Mises' analysis, exploring new categories.
  41. Read Mises and Rothbard by dh003i · · Score: 3, Informative · on The Monetary Economics of Thurston Howell III
    It is impossible to do experiments in the social sciences, because there are always numerous variables which you cannot control. You also don't understand the nature of reasoning from a priori axioms. We don't need empirical evidence to know that a priori axioms are true. Mises correctly states that all economics follows from the action axiom (and other axioms and postulates): The action axiom states that man acts. Expanding upon this, man acts using various ends to obtain various means, so as to ease and unease felt. You cannot dispute this axiom, for attempting to dispute it is in fact an action itself.

    Your reasoning is positivist, which is debunked junk. Positivism states that we can only know something is true if we have empirical verification, and that everything else is meaningless. This is inherently self-contradictory, for that very statement can only be taken as an a priori axiom. Except, according to positivists, a priori axioms are meaningless tautologies. So, the question is, how do we know that that positivist statement is in fact true? We haven't verified it by experiments, so according to its own declaration, it is a meaningless tautology.

    Austrian economists start from self-evident a priori axioms. These axioms do not need to be empirically verified. Indeed, they cannot be falsified empirically, and can only be illustrated. You cannot falsify the action axiom. You can only illustrate it (indeed, everything you do is an illustration of the action axiom).

    " What makes these axioms self-evident?... They are self-evident because one cannot deny their truth without self-contradiction; that is, in attempting to deny them one would actually, implicitly, admit their truth." -- Hoppe, Hans-Herman
    I would suggest reading the following papers:

    If you want to read more on Austrian economics, the best introduction is Man, Economy, and State with Power and Market. Rothbard, Murray. (MES). Man, Economy, and State with Power and Market was Rothbard's treatise on economics, also intended to be a textbook for introducing students to Austrian economics. Mises, Rothbard's mentor, wrote the great treatise on economics simply called Human Action. Mises, Ludwig von. (HA). Human Action is an extremely important treatise, although it is not as easily understandable as Rothbard's treatise. Rothbard, in his treatise, assumes that readers have much of the knowledge in Human Action, so reading MES is not a substitute for reading Human Action; however, Rothbard corrects Mises on a couple of issues (like monopoly) and expands upon Mises' analysis, exploring new categories.
  42. Read Mises and Rothbard by dh003i · · Score: 3, Informative · on The Monetary Economics of Thurston Howell III
    It is impossible to do experiments in the social sciences, because there are always numerous variables which you cannot control. You also don't understand the nature of reasoning from a priori axioms. We don't need empirical evidence to know that a priori axioms are true. Mises correctly states that all economics follows from the action axiom (and other axioms and postulates): The action axiom states that man acts. Expanding upon this, man acts using various ends to obtain various means, so as to ease and unease felt. You cannot dispute this axiom, for attempting to dispute it is in fact an action itself.

    Your reasoning is positivist, which is debunked junk. Positivism states that we can only know something is true if we have empirical verification, and that everything else is meaningless. This is inherently self-contradictory, for that very statement can only be taken as an a priori axiom. Except, according to positivists, a priori axioms are meaningless tautologies. So, the question is, how do we know that that positivist statement is in fact true? We haven't verified it by experiments, so according to its own declaration, it is a meaningless tautology.

    Austrian economists start from self-evident a priori axioms. These axioms do not need to be empirically verified. Indeed, they cannot be falsified empirically, and can only be illustrated. You cannot falsify the action axiom. You can only illustrate it (indeed, everything you do is an illustration of the action axiom).

    " What makes these axioms self-evident?... They are self-evident because one cannot deny their truth without self-contradiction; that is, in attempting to deny them one would actually, implicitly, admit their truth." -- Hoppe, Hans-Herman
    I would suggest reading the following papers:

    If you want to read more on Austrian economics, the best introduction is Man, Economy, and State with Power and Market. Rothbard, Murray. (MES). Man, Economy, and State with Power and Market was Rothbard's treatise on economics, also intended to be a textbook for introducing students to Austrian economics. Mises, Rothbard's mentor, wrote the great treatise on economics simply called Human Action. Mises, Ludwig von. (HA). Human Action is an extremely important treatise, although it is not as easily understandable as Rothbard's treatise. Rothbard, in his treatise, assumes that readers have much of the knowledge in Human Action, so reading MES is not a substitute for reading Human Action; however, Rothbard corrects Mises on a couple of issues (like monopoly) and expands upon Mises' analysis, exploring new categories.
  43. Read Mises and Rothbard by dh003i · · Score: 3, Informative · on The Monetary Economics of Thurston Howell III
    It is impossible to do experiments in the social sciences, because there are always numerous variables which you cannot control. You also don't understand the nature of reasoning from a priori axioms. We don't need empirical evidence to know that a priori axioms are true. Mises correctly states that all economics follows from the action axiom (and other axioms and postulates): The action axiom states that man acts. Expanding upon this, man acts using various ends to obtain various means, so as to ease and unease felt. You cannot dispute this axiom, for attempting to dispute it is in fact an action itself.

    Your reasoning is positivist, which is debunked junk. Positivism states that we can only know something is true if we have empirical verification, and that everything else is meaningless. This is inherently self-contradictory, for that very statement can only be taken as an a priori axiom. Except, according to positivists, a priori axioms are meaningless tautologies. So, the question is, how do we know that that positivist statement is in fact true? We haven't verified it by experiments, so according to its own declaration, it is a meaningless tautology.

    Austrian economists start from self-evident a priori axioms. These axioms do not need to be empirically verified. Indeed, they cannot be falsified empirically, and can only be illustrated. You cannot falsify the action axiom. You can only illustrate it (indeed, everything you do is an illustration of the action axiom).

    " What makes these axioms self-evident?... They are self-evident because one cannot deny their truth without self-contradiction; that is, in attempting to deny them one would actually, implicitly, admit their truth." -- Hoppe, Hans-Herman
    I would suggest reading the following papers:

    If you want to read more on Austrian economics, the best introduction is Man, Economy, and State with Power and Market. Rothbard, Murray. (MES). Man, Economy, and State with Power and Market was Rothbard's treatise on economics, also intended to be a textbook for introducing students to Austrian economics. Mises, Rothbard's mentor, wrote the great treatise on economics simply called Human Action. Mises, Ludwig von. (HA). Human Action is an extremely important treatise, although it is not as easily understandable as Rothbard's treatise. Rothbard, in his treatise, assumes that readers have much of the knowledge in Human Action, so reading MES is not a substitute for reading Human Action; however, Rothbard corrects Mises on a couple of issues (like monopoly) and expands upon Mises' analysis, exploring new categories.
  44. Read Mises and Rothbard by dh003i · · Score: 3, Informative · on The Monetary Economics of Thurston Howell III
    It is impossible to do experiments in the social sciences, because there are always numerous variables which you cannot control. You also don't understand the nature of reasoning from a priori axioms. We don't need empirical evidence to know that a priori axioms are true. Mises correctly states that all economics follows from the action axiom (and other axioms and postulates): The action axiom states that man acts. Expanding upon this, man acts using various ends to obtain various means, so as to ease and unease felt. You cannot dispute this axiom, for attempting to dispute it is in fact an action itself.

    Your reasoning is positivist, which is debunked junk. Positivism states that we can only know something is true if we have empirical verification, and that everything else is meaningless. This is inherently self-contradictory, for that very statement can only be taken as an a priori axiom. Except, according to positivists, a priori axioms are meaningless tautologies. So, the question is, how do we know that that positivist statement is in fact true? We haven't verified it by experiments, so according to its own declaration, it is a meaningless tautology.

    Austrian economists start from self-evident a priori axioms. These axioms do not need to be empirically verified. Indeed, they cannot be falsified empirically, and can only be illustrated. You cannot falsify the action axiom. You can only illustrate it (indeed, everything you do is an illustration of the action axiom).

    " What makes these axioms self-evident?... They are self-evident because one cannot deny their truth without self-contradiction; that is, in attempting to deny them one would actually, implicitly, admit their truth." -- Hoppe, Hans-Herman
    I would suggest reading the following papers:

    If you want to read more on Austrian economics, the best introduction is Man, Economy, and State with Power and Market. Rothbard, Murray. (MES). Man, Economy, and State with Power and Market was Rothbard's treatise on economics, also intended to be a textbook for introducing students to Austrian economics. Mises, Rothbard's mentor, wrote the great treatise on economics simply called Human Action. Mises, Ludwig von. (HA). Human Action is an extremely important treatise, although it is not as easily understandable as Rothbard's treatise. Rothbard, in his treatise, assumes that readers have much of the knowledge in Human Action, so reading MES is not a substitute for reading Human Action; however, Rothbard corrects Mises on a couple of issues (like monopoly) and expands upon Mises' analysis, exploring new categories.
  45. Read Mises and Rothbard by dh003i · · Score: 3, Informative · on The Monetary Economics of Thurston Howell III
    It is impossible to do experiments in the social sciences, because there are always numerous variables which you cannot control. You also don't understand the nature of reasoning from a priori axioms. We don't need empirical evidence to know that a priori axioms are true. Mises correctly states that all economics follows from the action axiom (and other axioms and postulates): The action axiom states that man acts. Expanding upon this, man acts using various ends to obtain various means, so as to ease and unease felt. You cannot dispute this axiom, for attempting to dispute it is in fact an action itself.

    Your reasoning is positivist, which is debunked junk. Positivism states that we can only know something is true if we have empirical verification, and that everything else is meaningless. This is inherently self-contradictory, for that very statement can only be taken as an a priori axiom. Except, according to positivists, a priori axioms are meaningless tautologies. So, the question is, how do we know that that positivist statement is in fact true? We haven't verified it by experiments, so according to its own declaration, it is a meaningless tautology.

    Austrian economists start from self-evident a priori axioms. These axioms do not need to be empirically verified. Indeed, they cannot be falsified empirically, and can only be illustrated. You cannot falsify the action axiom. You can only illustrate it (indeed, everything you do is an illustration of the action axiom).

    " What makes these axioms self-evident?... They are self-evident because one cannot deny their truth without self-contradiction; that is, in attempting to deny them one would actually, implicitly, admit their truth." -- Hoppe, Hans-Herman
    I would suggest reading the following papers:

    If you want to read more on Austrian economics, the best introduction is Man, Economy, and State with Power and Market. Rothbard, Murray. (MES). Man, Economy, and State with Power and Market was Rothbard's treatise on economics, also intended to be a textbook for introducing students to Austrian economics. Mises, Rothbard's mentor, wrote the great treatise on economics simply called Human Action. Mises, Ludwig von. (HA). Human Action is an extremely important treatise, although it is not as easily understandable as Rothbard's treatise. Rothbard, in his treatise, assumes that readers have much of the knowledge in Human Action, so reading MES is not a substitute for reading Human Action; however, Rothbard corrects Mises on a couple of issues (like monopoly) and expands upon Mises' analysis, exploring new categories.
  46. Read Mises and Rothbard by dh003i · · Score: 3, Informative · on The Monetary Economics of Thurston Howell III
    It is impossible to do experiments in the social sciences, because there are always numerous variables which you cannot control. You also don't understand the nature of reasoning from a priori axioms. We don't need empirical evidence to know that a priori axioms are true. Mises correctly states that all economics follows from the action axiom (and other axioms and postulates): The action axiom states that man acts. Expanding upon this, man acts using various ends to obtain various means, so as to ease and unease felt. You cannot dispute this axiom, for attempting to dispute it is in fact an action itself.

    Your reasoning is positivist, which is debunked junk. Positivism states that we can only know something is true if we have empirical verification, and that everything else is meaningless. This is inherently self-contradictory, for that very statement can only be taken as an a priori axiom. Except, according to positivists, a priori axioms are meaningless tautologies. So, the question is, how do we know that that positivist statement is in fact true? We haven't verified it by experiments, so according to its own declaration, it is a meaningless tautology.

    Austrian economists start from self-evident a priori axioms. These axioms do not need to be empirically verified. Indeed, they cannot be falsified empirically, and can only be illustrated. You cannot falsify the action axiom. You can only illustrate it (indeed, everything you do is an illustration of the action axiom).

    " What makes these axioms self-evident?... They are self-evident because one cannot deny their truth without self-contradiction; that is, in attempting to deny them one would actually, implicitly, admit their truth." -- Hoppe, Hans-Herman
    I would suggest reading the following papers:

    If you want to read more on Austrian economics, the best introduction is Man, Economy, and State with Power and Market. Rothbard, Murray. (MES). Man, Economy, and State with Power and Market was Rothbard's treatise on economics, also intended to be a textbook for introducing students to Austrian economics. Mises, Rothbard's mentor, wrote the great treatise on economics simply called Human Action. Mises, Ludwig von. (HA). Human Action is an extremely important treatise, although it is not as easily understandable as Rothbard's treatise. Rothbard, in his treatise, assumes that readers have much of the knowledge in Human Action, so reading MES is not a substitute for reading Human Action; however, Rothbard corrects Mises on a couple of issues (like monopoly) and expands upon Mises' analysis, exploring new categories.
  47. PS: regarding "price gouging" by dh003i · · Score: 1 · on Microsoft faces Monopoly Lawsuit (again)

    See Price Gouging Saves Lives, by David M. Brown.

  48. anti-trust is nonsense by dh003i · · Score: 2, Insightful · on Microsoft faces Monopoly Lawsuit (again)
    Firstly, MS is a company, and as such is the private property of it's shareholders, who should be able to sell their products on any terms they want. They aren't coercively forcing anyone to buy their products. If you don't like their stuff, dont' buy it. End of discussion.

    Secondly, the argument that there's no alternative is also bullshit. There are numerous vendors that offer to install GNU/Linux, and there are individuals who'll do that for money. E.g., RayServers. Furthermore, contracts between OEMs and MS to only sell their computers with MS Windows installed are voluntary private contracts that violate the rights of no-one. OEMs have the right to sell their PC's however they like to. No-one has the right to prevent them from only putting MS software on their PC's, or force them to put anythign on there that they don't want to. Doing such -- first and foremost -- is a violation of their property rights, which is also a violation of freedom of association (which really boils down to property rights).

    Thirdly, anti-trust laws are nonsense. See The Case Against All Antitrust Legislation and The Truth About Sherman by Thomas DiLorenzo:

    • If you raise prices, you're accused of "price-gouging".

    • If you leave prices the same, you're accused of "price-collusion".

    • If you cut prices, you're accused of "undercutting".

    I would also suggest Monopoly and Competition from Murray Rothbard's treatise on economics, Man, Economy, and State with Power and Market .

    Regarding "predatory pricing" in particular, it is the most ridiculous and idiotic idea that anyone's ever come up with. To make a law protecting us from "predatory pricing" is really no different than making a law protecting us against "unicorns" or "witches" -- things that simply don't exist. Of course, that doesn't stop the witch-hunt.

    What price-cutting refers to is cutting prices below the level of any competitors to drive them out of business, and then afterwards raising prices to extremely high levels. This, of course, is total humbug. If any of you think this is a good idea, try suggesting it to an executive at your company. You'll be laughed out of the company. Any company that tried doing such a thing would go bankrupt, because companies cannot operate on a loss for a sustained period of time (and it would take a sustained period of time to drive competitors out of business). Furthermore, the second part -- that they can then just raise prices to be very high -- is flatly wrong, since that would encourage competitors to enter the field, thus forcing them to lower their prices or go out of business. In reality, such a scheme has never been implemented in the real world, and never will, because it is impossible. See Monopoly and Competition.

  49. anti-trust is nonsense by dh003i · · Score: 2, Insightful · on Microsoft faces Monopoly Lawsuit (again)
    Firstly, MS is a company, and as such is the private property of it's shareholders, who should be able to sell their products on any terms they want. They aren't coercively forcing anyone to buy their products. If you don't like their stuff, dont' buy it. End of discussion.

    Secondly, the argument that there's no alternative is also bullshit. There are numerous vendors that offer to install GNU/Linux, and there are individuals who'll do that for money. E.g., RayServers. Furthermore, contracts between OEMs and MS to only sell their computers with MS Windows installed are voluntary private contracts that violate the rights of no-one. OEMs have the right to sell their PC's however they like to. No-one has the right to prevent them from only putting MS software on their PC's, or force them to put anythign on there that they don't want to. Doing such -- first and foremost -- is a violation of their property rights, which is also a violation of freedom of association (which really boils down to property rights).

    Thirdly, anti-trust laws are nonsense. See The Case Against All Antitrust Legislation and The Truth About Sherman by Thomas DiLorenzo:

    • If you raise prices, you're accused of "price-gouging".

    • If you leave prices the same, you're accused of "price-collusion".

    • If you cut prices, you're accused of "undercutting".

    I would also suggest Monopoly and Competition from Murray Rothbard's treatise on economics, Man, Economy, and State with Power and Market .

    Regarding "predatory pricing" in particular, it is the most ridiculous and idiotic idea that anyone's ever come up with. To make a law protecting us from "predatory pricing" is really no different than making a law protecting us against "unicorns" or "witches" -- things that simply don't exist. Of course, that doesn't stop the witch-hunt.

    What price-cutting refers to is cutting prices below the level of any competitors to drive them out of business, and then afterwards raising prices to extremely high levels. This, of course, is total humbug. If any of you think this is a good idea, try suggesting it to an executive at your company. You'll be laughed out of the company. Any company that tried doing such a thing would go bankrupt, because companies cannot operate on a loss for a sustained period of time (and it would take a sustained period of time to drive competitors out of business). Furthermore, the second part -- that they can then just raise prices to be very high -- is flatly wrong, since that would encourage competitors to enter the field, thus forcing them to lower their prices or go out of business. In reality, such a scheme has never been implemented in the real world, and never will, because it is impossible. See Monopoly and Competition.

  50. anti-trust is nonsense by dh003i · · Score: 2, Insightful · on Microsoft faces Monopoly Lawsuit (again)
    Firstly, MS is a company, and as such is the private property of it's shareholders, who should be able to sell their products on any terms they want. They aren't coercively forcing anyone to buy their products. If you don't like their stuff, dont' buy it. End of discussion.

    Secondly, the argument that there's no alternative is also bullshit. There are numerous vendors that offer to install GNU/Linux, and there are individuals who'll do that for money. E.g., RayServers. Furthermore, contracts between OEMs and MS to only sell their computers with MS Windows installed are voluntary private contracts that violate the rights of no-one. OEMs have the right to sell their PC's however they like to. No-one has the right to prevent them from only putting MS software on their PC's, or force them to put anythign on there that they don't want to. Doing such -- first and foremost -- is a violation of their property rights, which is also a violation of freedom of association (which really boils down to property rights).

    Thirdly, anti-trust laws are nonsense. See The Case Against All Antitrust Legislation and The Truth About Sherman by Thomas DiLorenzo:

    • If you raise prices, you're accused of "price-gouging".

    • If you leave prices the same, you're accused of "price-collusion".

    • If you cut prices, you're accused of "undercutting".

    I would also suggest Monopoly and Competition from Murray Rothbard's treatise on economics, Man, Economy, and State with Power and Market .

    Regarding "predatory pricing" in particular, it is the most ridiculous and idiotic idea that anyone's ever come up with. To make a law protecting us from "predatory pricing" is really no different than making a law protecting us against "unicorns" or "witches" -- things that simply don't exist. Of course, that doesn't stop the witch-hunt.

    What price-cutting refers to is cutting prices below the level of any competitors to drive them out of business, and then afterwards raising prices to extremely high levels. This, of course, is total humbug. If any of you think this is a good idea, try suggesting it to an executive at your company. You'll be laughed out of the company. Any company that tried doing such a thing would go bankrupt, because companies cannot operate on a loss for a sustained period of time (and it would take a sustained period of time to drive competitors out of business). Furthermore, the second part -- that they can then just raise prices to be very high -- is flatly wrong, since that would encourage competitors to enter the field, thus forcing them to lower their prices or go out of business. In reality, such a scheme has never been implemented in the real world, and never will, because it is impossible. See Monopoly and Competition.