How libertarian leaning is this forum?
-
@Mulloch94 said in How libertarian leaning is this forum?:
@Norwegian-Mugabe Who is this god you speak of? You have a god given moral duty if you choose voluntarily to accept the word of god as valid. But the separation of church & state is the only thing that prevents our nation from devolving into another dark age.
Seperation of church and state refers to Jefferson's letter about how a certain majority denomination would treat a different minority denomination, by taxing them extra or silencing their voice in politics.
Mr. President
To messers Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.
Gentlemen
The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. [Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from prescribing even those occasional performances of devotion, practiced indeed by the Executive of another nation as the legal head of its church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect.] Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.
I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association assurances of my high respect & esteem.
(signed) Thomas Jefferson
Jan.1.1802.It does NOT mean that Christianity can not influence the government but rather that the government can't infringe on your religious freedom.
I wouldn't agree 100% of the doctrine of the men who founded this country but you can not deny the united states was founded upon Christian beliefs. The downturn of many areas of society reflect the population turning from God.
“For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:”
(Romans 1:20, KJV)
-
@Mulloch94 said in How libertarian leaning is this forum?:
To meet the demand of something with an adequate supply
From what I see, fentanyl is already being supplied so well that you will get a free fentanyl lacing to whatever illicit substance you buy. In order to become the best supplier, not only are you going to have to give it to people for free, you might actually have to pay people to take it from you. I do not support your freedom to ruin your personal finances like that. If you give your money to me instead your wealth will be well protected.
-
@Hando-Jin I go to work because I want to. I'm not a slave. That proves the point. I am not forced to work. I am forced to pay taxes which is a form of theft.
-
@Ecstatic_Hamster said in How libertarian leaning is this forum?:
@Hando-Jin I go to work because I want to.
Most people do not. A system that might work ok for you but holds the majority to ransom is not free.
-
@Hando-Jin who is holding the majority "to ransom"? It is a natural law that we all must make a living.
-
@Mulloch94 said in How libertarian leaning is this forum?:
That tweet doesn't even accurately described Misesian economic models. There are no assumption based models in Austrian economics. So that person is referring to post-keynesian schools of thought...or it may simply be they're too ignorant to have thoughtful discourse in the matter. Either way, acting individuals make society possible. Without them, society ceases to exist.
She is a professor of Cognitive Science and Applied Complexity Science.
These two disciplines invalidate the Austrian School in many parts...
Mises stated that praxeology could be used to deduce a priori theoretical economic truths and that deductive economic thought experiments could yield conclusions that follow irrefutably from the underlying assumptions. He wrote that conclusions could not be inferred from empirical observation or statistical analysis and argued against the use of probabilities in economic models.
In complex (mal)adaptive systems in which we are living "truths" cannot be simply "deduced". Thinking that someone can do this is a presumptuous narcissism or a lack of (ontological, epistemological, and phenomenological) knowledge...
Moreover, a complex system needs constraints and attractors to work properly. Therefore, a free (nonconstrained) market means chaos...
"Methodological individualism" is also a BS. People are social creatures prone to group dynamics and systemic influences.
Moreover,
Praxeology or praxiology is the theory of human action, based on the notion that humans engage in purposeful behavior, contrary to reflexive behavior and other unintentional behavior.
Wrong, because:
Humans have two modes of thought: "System 1" is fast, instinctive, and emotional; "System 2" is slower, more deliberative, and more logical.
And so on and on... quod erat demonstrandum.
-
Is anyone forcing you to live where you are, and not in a different country without taxes?
-
This post is deleted! -
@fiester there are no countries without taxes. Every country levies taxes. I live in a state that doesn't have an income tax.
-
@Ecstatic_Hamster said in How libertarian leaning is this forum?:
@Hando-Jin who is holding the majority "to ransom"?
The state and employers, obviously. It's either submit to labor or starve.
It is a natural law that we all must make a living.
Humans lived without this supposed law longer than they lived with it. The entire idea of an economy is generally mean spirited, benefits a minority at the expense of the majority and stands in the way of a healthier cooperation to get our material needs meet.
-
@Ecstatic_Hamster said in How libertarian leaning is this forum?:
It is a natural law that we all must make a living.
It is as much of a natural law that the strong overcome the weak, and that an unorganized mass of people must be governed by an organized minority. Your position basically boils to "coercion I don't like is evil, coercion I do like is natural law".
-
@Ecstatic_Hamster said in How libertarian leaning is this forum?:
@Kvirion that isn't anyone else's business. My contribution to society is my business and nobody else's. There is no such thing as "society". There are ONLY individuals. Society is just another concept used to justify coercion and compulsion.
What's interesting with people that don't understand the use of methodological individualism in the fields of politics, law or economics, is that they will all tell you in unison that humans are social creatures as their only argument to justify the use of methodological holism and collectivism, like if methodological individualism would prevent them from forming groups or was denying that this is a need for most humans (which of course is a strawman of methodological individualism).
They don't even understand that methodological holism and collectivism are irrelevant in the field of politics, by assuming that society is a tangible and homogeneous thing that has a will/consciousness acting on individuals, and that individuals should submit themselves to this will/consciousness, without ever proving any of it of course. Their position is in fact a metaphysical subjective one, pretty similar to that of Hegel, Marx, Nationalism/fascism. Isn't it funny that all of the totalitarian ideas are collectivist and using methodological holism?
On the contrary, methodological individualism in these field is consistent and demonstrated, as with praxeology or Natural Law which are only concerned with individual behaviors and actions. Imagine in a legal context judging a society (full of innocent individuals) for a crime, and not the specific individuals that did the action/took the decision. That's exactly what collectivism and methodological holism leads to in these fields, and none of the collectivists understand why this doesn't make any sense.
And the beautiful thing is that methodological individualism doesn't even deny cybernetic loops and feedback that flow from collective emergence back to individuals, such as cultures, markets or memes. Only collectivism and methodological holism try to restrict individuality by saying that the group is more important than the individual, methodological individualism doesn't claim any of that.
In summary, methodological holism in these fields is simply a fallacy of composition.
-
@Creuset said in How libertarian leaning is this forum?:
@Ecstatic_Hamster said in How libertarian leaning is this forum?:
@Kvirion that isn't anyone else's business. My contribution to society is my business and nobody else's. There is no such thing as "society". There are ONLY individuals. Society is just another concept used to justify coercion and compulsion.
What's interesting with people that don't understand the use of methodological individualism in the fields of politics, law or economics, is that they will all tell you in unison that humans are social creatures as their only argument to justify the use of methodological holism and collectivism, like if methodological individualism would prevent them from forming groups or was denying that this is a need for most humans (which of course is a strawman of methodological individualism).
They don't even understand that methodological holism and collectivism are irrelevant in the field of politics, by assuming that society is a tangible and homogeneous thing that has a will/consciousness acting on individuals, and that individuals should submit themselves to this will/consciousness, without ever proving any of it of course. Their position is in fact a metaphysical subjective one, pretty similar to that of Hegel, Marx, Nationalism/fascism. Isn't it funny that all of the totalitarian ideas are collectivist and using methodological holism?
On the contrary, methodological individualism in these field is consistent and demonstrated, as with praxeology or Natural Law which are only concerned with individual behaviors and actions. Imagine in a legal context judging a society (full of innocent individuals) for a crime, and not the specific individuals that did the action/took the decision. That's exactly what collectivism and methodological holism leads to in these fields, and none of the collectivists understand why this doesn't make any sense.
And the beautiful thing is that methodological individualism doesn't even deny cybernetic loops and feedback that flow from collective emergence back to individuals, such as cultures, markets or memes. Only collectivism and methodological holism try to restrict individuality by saying that the group is more important than the individual, methodological individualism doesn't claim any of that.
In summary, methodological holism in these fields is simply a fallacy of composition.
I don't understand any of your points. Can you simplify?
-
@DonkeyDude said in How libertarian leaning is this forum?:
@Ecstatic_Hamster said in How libertarian leaning is this forum?:
It is a natural law that we all must make a living.
It is as much of a natural law that the strong overcome the weak, and that an unorganized mass of people must be governed by an organized minority. Your position basically boils to "coercion I don't like is evil, coercion I do like is natural law".
everything is hard. Mises wrote Human Action and in the very first pages he shows that we always want to go from one state to a state of greater comfort and security, and this requires human action.
Coercion and compulsion come from government and private thugs. There is really no difference. Things being difficult and life requiring us to make a living is not coercion or compulsion. It is simply how things are.
Nothing comes to us easily. We aren't living in a land of make-believe where we can simply eat gingerbread from the nearest house.
-
@Ecstatic_Hamster said in How libertarian leaning is this forum?:
It is simply how things are.
People coercing each other is also "how things are". You can justify just about anything with this kind of weasel words.
-
@DonkeyDude no it isn't a justification. It's a state of nature that things are scarce and that we all have to earn a living somehow.
-
@Ecstatic_Hamster Everyone is interconnected. Even harming yourself harms everyone.
-
@dan-dominic Absolutely, modern societal man is far too immersed in the illusion of separation and individuality.
Moreover, even arguing on subjects such as the one in this thread leads nowhere, since everyone will keep a closed and restricted opinion.
The existence of one extreme also depends on the other.
-
@Ecstatic_Hamster said in How libertarian leaning is this forum?:
@Creuset said in How libertarian leaning is this forum?:
@Ecstatic_Hamster said in How libertarian leaning is this forum?:
@Kvirion that isn't anyone else's business. My contribution to society is my business and nobody else's. There is no such thing as "society". There are ONLY individuals. Society is just another concept used to justify coercion and compulsion.
What's interesting with people that don't understand the use of methodological individualism in the fields of politics, law or economics, is that they will all tell you in unison that humans are social creatures as their only argument to justify the use of methodological holism and collectivism, like if methodological individualism would prevent them from forming groups or was denying that this is a need for most humans (which of course is a strawman of methodological individualism).
They don't even understand that methodological holism and collectivism are irrelevant in the field of politics, by assuming that society is a tangible and homogeneous thing that has a will/consciousness acting on individuals, and that individuals should submit themselves to this will/consciousness, without ever proving any of it of course. Their position is in fact a metaphysical subjective one, pretty similar to that of Hegel, Marx, Nationalism/fascism. Isn't it funny that all of the totalitarian ideas are collectivist and using methodological holism?
On the contrary, methodological individualism in these field is consistent and demonstrated, as with praxeology or Natural Law which are only concerned with individual behaviors and actions. Imagine in a legal context judging a society (full of innocent individuals) for a crime, and not the specific individuals that did the action/took the decision. That's exactly what collectivism and methodological holism leads to in these fields, and none of the collectivists understand why this doesn't make any sense.
And the beautiful thing is that methodological individualism doesn't even deny cybernetic loops and feedback that flow from collective emergence back to individuals, such as cultures, markets or memes. Only collectivism and methodological holism try to restrict individuality by saying that the group is more important than the individual, methodological individualism doesn't claim any of that.
In summary, methodological holism in these fields is simply a fallacy of composition.
I don't understand any of your points. Can you simplify?
Sure, to make it simple, I was just explaining that collectivism or holism aren't consistent in law, politics and economics (although they can probably be in other contexts).
Here is a simple example to illustrate the point: imagine a group of 10 people, in a country of 1 million people, that made a crime. If you apply collectivist methods or holism, you would judge legally the group as a whole, so 1 million people judged for the crime, whereas the people responsible are only 10. This doesn't make sense, but most collectivists don't understand this point whenever we talk about using methodological individualism in these fields.
-
@Creuset you can make up the concept of collectivism, but there are only individuals. There is only me. I can be fairly certain of my own existence, but not of yours. There really is no "we."
