[Rothbardian]

And how to stop using violent hierarchies. Thought this was interesting, just wanted to share.

[Rei Murasame]

It is a pretty well-done video, I think, I can see how they come to their conclusions. However, it seems to be a very America-centric presentation, and it seems to me that they might be overlooking the fact that hierarchy from the state down - and across states internationally in conflicts - is not just a thing that they can get rid of by calling a 'myth'. It is shaped by actual material realities and the impulse for survival.

Watch this video on Saddam Hussein, he's a guy that I'd say I'm pretty sympathetic to, the part relevant to this thread is from the beginning up until 5mins 16secs: [Link]

Even if some people were going to be a pacifist, they will learn, from the experiences of being in the society that they are born into, that to defend yourself from others both personally and on the world stage, requires effective use of force, which in turn requires hierarchy. Otherwise you just get bullied by everyone. So you can't say that is a myth that can be shown to be ridiculous, when many people - including those who aspire to someday run the state themselves (and change the rules under which it operates) - have felt the bitterness of being harmed by other people who were more organised and more powerful.

[Eran]

Yes, Stefan Molyneux is a bit of a dreamer. He puts much emphasis on the harm caused by the state-run educational system, somewhat ignoring both people's innate tendency for selfish aggression and non-public-schools channels for indoctrinating/educating children in society's prevailing norms.

Having said that, I don't think he is a pacifist. Most an-caps certainly aren't. We do believe that a stable society requires effective mechanisms for enforcing laws, and at some point, the use of force may be required.

Nor is "hierarchy" as such problematic. Unlike some left-anarchists, we tend to support voluntarily-chosen hierarchies, such as those associated with the workplace, religious institutions and other voluntary organisations.


I think the similarity between the state and religion is more subtle. I see it at two levels.

First, much like God, governments enjoy, in common view, a special exception from the moral laws that bind the rest of us. God can do no evil, and government (albeit within certain broad limits) can do no evil either. You and I cannot legitimately rob the rich to pay the poor. Government, as long as it enjoys popular demand or, more precisely, adheres to constitutional processes, can. You and I cannot use force to punish those who harmed no others. Government (with the same caveat) may.

Second, much like God in past centuries, belief in the necessity and even desirability of government is taken as obvious by the vast majority of thinkers. It is rationalised by very intelligent intellectuals (just as God's existence was). And just as today, a large fraction of the population no longer believes in God (a state of affairs unthinkable a couple of hundred years ago), so in the future (hopefully) a large fraction of the population will no longer believe in either the legitimacy or necessity of government.

[ralfy]

Free market capitalism itself is a religion, based on the belief in unlimited resources guaranteeing continuous growth, leading to prosperity and, ironically, a utopia similar to that imagined by Communists.

[layman]

Free market capitalism itself is a religion

Not sure if I would call it that but it is certainly an ideology like any other. It is absurd when right-anarchists try to imply it is some natural law and that they dont have an ideology and that everyone elses idelogy is religion

[Eran]

Free market capitalism can be viewed as an ideology or a science.

As an ideology, it is based on the simple premise that people respecting each other must not initiate force against each other. The the prohibition on the use of force extends not just to the body of another, but also (necessarily) to any (peaceful) projects they are pursuing.

As a science, it follows the logical implications of human action, clearly distinguishing between the broadly positive implications of voluntary action (e.g. trade) and the generally negative consequences of coercion (either government or private).

[Rothbardian]

Not sure if I would call it that but it is certainly an ideology like any other. It is absurd when right-anarchists try to imply it is some natural law and that they dont have an ideology and that everyone elses idelogy is religion

For me, this is a conclusion I've drawn by reasoning a priori, which is as far from ideological reasoning as you can get.

[anticlimacus]

this is a conclusion I've drawn by reasoning a priori, which is as far from ideological reasoning as you can get.

Unfortunately, you can claim to be a priori all you want--that does not save you from being ideologically informed.

[Rothbardian]

Murasame, not sure where you get pacifism from.

There is a great deal of mythology involved with statism, such as social contracts and the idea that the state exists in the literal sense. He's talking about the breakdown between abstract concepts and reality. To a theist a stone chicken is the avatar of an all powerful god. To an empiricist its a piece of carved stone.

To a statist a badge or a flag enable a new set of moral standards and power or authority. To an empiricist its just a piece of worked metal or cloth.

Unfortunately, you can claim to be a priori all you want--that does not save you from being ideologically informed.

I've been "informed" by empiricism. If you have any further pearls of wisdom please do share, since you know me so much better than I do.

[anticlimacus]

I've been "informed" by empiricism.

Empiricism or a priori principles?

[ralfy]

Not sure if I would call it that but it is certainly an ideology like any other. It is absurd when right-anarchists try to imply it is some natural law and that they dont have an ideology and that everyone elses idelogy is religion

As Harold Bloom points out, it is the most formidable secular religion today, and has been for around a century. (Its competitor was Communism.)

It's a secular religion because it is based on faith that technology coupled with market forces will lead to an abundance of resources, thus guaranteeing increasing production, and with that increasing wealth across the board.

The way I see it, the goal of capitalism is the same as that of Communism: a classless utopia. In a way, that's similar to "heaven." The goal of the former, though, is brought about by an abundance of resources guaranteed by combinations of market forces and technology.

[Rothbardian]

Empiricism or a priori principles?

What?

Principles are derived from empirical observation. Conclusions are reached based on reasoning from those empirical principles. That's how you reason a priori. All it means is that my conclusions follow what I know to be true, rather than starting with a conclusion and finding validation for it, also known as cherry picking. It sounds simple and obvious but honestly we are psychologically prone to cherry picking at a subconscious level and it takes a lot of effort to break the habit.

Which is why things like logical consistency are so important, whether you like the conclusions it leads you to or not.

[anticlimacus]

Principles are derived from empirical observation.

Not a priori, which is prior to or before experience. An argument based off empirical evidence or experience is a posteriori. Kant reasons a priori from reason and reason alone. Kant makes a synthetic a posteriori claim by combining his pure reason with experience.

empirical principles.

And nothing empirical stands by itself. We organize our experience according to our theories and principles--thus our empirical observations are always theory laden; and, as I would argue, our principles and our theories are contextually relative.

[quetzalcoatl]

For me, this is a conclusion I've drawn by reasoning a priori, which is as far from ideological reasoning as you can get.

This is the reason the Austrian school has become such a joke.

A priori reasoning is not a valid means of reaching conclusions in the social sciences.

In the first place, the choice of axiom(s) is a political act (necessarily a reflection on your worldview, whether or not such axiom(s) are formulated in order to reach a particular conclusion). Secondly, even if one accepted your axiom as universally valid, it would make no difference; deduction is valid only within a mathematical/logical structure whose axioms and operations are unambiguously defined.

[Eran]

A priori reasoning is not a valid means of reaching conclusions in the social sciences.

Why?

In the first place, the choice of axiom(s) is a political act (necessarily a reflection on your worldview, whether or not such axiom(s) are formulated in order to reach a particular conclusion).

Are you prepared to dispute the Axiom of Action, at the basis of Austrian Economics?

To remind everybody, the axiom merely states that Humans Act, with Action being purposeful behaviour. So the claim is that humans behave in purposeful ways.

deduction is valid only within a mathematical/logical structure whose axioms and operations are unambiguously defined.

And why couldn't one build a logical structure as applied to the social sciences?

Does logic cease to apply in the context of human beings and their interactions?

[anticlimacus]

Why?

The social sciences are empirically based. They do not begin with abstract principles and then make logical deductions all the way down. They make hypotheses and then test these with observations. Of course, however, the social sciences--like any science--are guided by theory, even in their empirical endeavors. But this is quite different from claiming to understand social behavior and social interaction through a priori principles.

[Eran]

The social sciences are empirically based. They do not begin with abstract principles and then make logical deductions all the way down. They make hypotheses and then test these with observations. Of course, however, the social sciences--like any science--are guided by theory, even in their empirical endeavors. But this is quite different from claiming to understand social behavior and social interaction through a priori principles.

You restated in more detail the previous assertion, but gave no rational argument for why that must [i]categorically[i] be the case.

Why rule out the possibility that some aspects of social behaviour can be understood based on a-priori assumptions and logical deductions?

[anticlimacus]

Why rule out the possibility that some aspects of social behaviour can be understood based on a-priori assumptions and logical deductions?

I don't think there's any sense in ruling it out--anymore than there any sense ruling out that our behavior is governed by divine fiat. But until that conclusion yields results observable and understandable in an empirical fashion, and itself--since it is a priori--proves to be above social criticism and ahistorical, then there's no reason to operate on the assumption that there is such an a priori base from which we can deduce human behavior. To my knowledge, no such principle has been found, or at the very least, no such principle has been unambiguously found that passes the test of critical scrutiny--our first job as social scientists is to understand the position from which we speak, a critical reflexivity, and that tends to reveal the fact that our own principles are historically and socially produced, not a priori.

[Eran]

In mathematics, we routinely trust the process of starting with a-priori assumptions and proceeding using logical deductions. Often, reaching highly non-trivial, even counter-intuitive results.

Austrian Economics starts with the Action Axiom which cannot be effectively refuted. It merely states that humans behave purposefully.

From this very humble starting point, and making some empirical assumptions which are equally hard to refute (that most people value leisure over work, or that money exists), it proceeds to develop a body of conclusions.

To my knowledge, there is no serious attempt to refute Austrian Economics on its premises, i.e. by faulting either its starting assumptions or its logical derivations.

The main value of Austrian Economics isn't so much in achieving positive results - most of those have, by now, been incorporated into mainstream economics, and are rarely in dispute.

When they are disputed on empirical grounds, the a-priori basis of the Austrian derivation is a valuable anchor against obfuscation and confusion. For example, the effects of a small increase in an already fairly-low minimum wage might be difficult to measure empirically. Difficulty in measurement can translate to diverging conclusions when attempted using "sophisticated" and unstable econometrics techniques.

However, the effects of minimum wage need not be measured any more than the conservation of energy in a complex system. We know, from first principles, that demand for labour (like for all other commodities) will, other things being equal, decline as its cost increases.

The main value of Austrian Economics, however, is in clarifying the meaning and nature of commonly-used and commonly-misunderstood economic concepts such as capital and profit, prices, knowledge, coordination, money, interest, risk and the role of entrepreneurship and time.

[Rothbardian]

The social sciences are empirically based. They do not begin with abstract principles and then make logical deductions all the way down. They make hypotheses and then test these with observations. Of course, however, the social sciences--like any science--are guided by theory, even in their empirical endeavors. But this is quite different from claiming to understand social behavior and social interaction through a priori principles.

Empirically derived principles are not abstract. For example it is observable that humans cannot live without water. I can now use that as an empirical axiom to make a priori arguments.

For that matter, the rules of logic are empirically derived. People like to claim that logical axioms are somehow mushy and immaterial, but they are not. Logic itself is an empirically derived methodology for evaluating claims. This is why the true first step of the scientific method is to test a claim for logical consistency. If a claim is not logically consistent there's no reason to even bother with testing it's empirical consistency. To say that this first step cannot be applied to arguments made about human social interactions just communicates that you do not understand the purpose and implications for evaluating logical consistency, or the reason for its use.

Everything posted on the internet is false. You can believe this is absolutely true.

This is the reason the Austrian school has become such a joke.

A priori reasoning is not a valid means of reaching conclusions in the social sciences.

In the first place, the choice of axiom(s) is a political act (necessarily a reflection on your worldview, whether or not such axiom(s) are formulated in order to reach a particular conclusion). Secondly, even if one accepted your axiom as universally valid, it would make no difference; deduction is valid only within a mathematical/logical structure whose axioms and operations are unambiguously defined.

In other words you reject this form of reasoning because it doesn't take you to the conclusions you'd like it to. Which is, of course, the point. Trying to reason with someone that rejects reason is a waste of time. So why are you here at all? You may as well talk to yourself, because that's all you're really doing.

When discussing anything objective, meaning anything that you want to claim to be true about the world outside of yourself, you shouldn't be choosing axioms, you should be observing them.

It really is amazing how many atheist arguments literally transfer over to statism in their exact form.