Nietzsche, Austrians and Creative Destruction

[Xerographica]

Because you've given two choices as the answer to a question when there are clearly more options available.

There's plenty of opportunities for me to choose how to spend my resources.
There's also plenty of times where I don't have any say in how to allocate my resources, but nobody makes me do it, and no authority enforces it.
There are times when I'm required by an authority to allocate my resources should I want to pursue a specific action.  And there are times where I'm required to allocate resources in order to achieve an effect.
And there are times when an authority will demand that I allocate my resources to them regardless of whether I want to or not.  

Your argument is invalid because as I've pointed out, your assumptions are faulty.

You've made vague hand waving movements.  Try actually coming up with specific examples.  

Either a child allocates their own resources...or a parent allocates their resources for them.  Either a husband allocates his own resources...or a wife allocates his resources for him.  Either a taxpayer spends his own taxes...or a congressperson spends them for him.

How well does a parent know the preferences of their child?  How well does a wife know the preferences of her husband?  How well does a congressperson know your preferences?  

If you can't decide how you spend your own/time money...then somebody else decides for you.  The better that other person knows your preferences...the more efficient the allocation of resources.  Capitalism efficiently allocates resources because people can shop for themselves...or they can delegate shopping to people who truly know their preferences.  Socialism does not efficiently allocate resources because people cannot shop for themselves.  Right now you can't give all your taxes to Ron Paul or Elizabeth Warren.  You can't give your taxes to the EPA instead of the DoD.  As a result, the wrong quantities of public goods are supplied.  In other words, the supply of public goods does not meet the demand for public goods.  Why?  Because that's what happens in command economies.  

As we all know, sometimes children will demand the wrong things.  That's because they don't know any better.  And it's the parents responsibility to help them know better.  

If taxpayers could choose where their taxes go, would they demand the wrong things?  Sure, of course.  And it would be the responsibility of our society's intrepid leaders to help them know better.  And would they all give the same advice?  Would all the blind men agree that they were touching an elephant?  Obviously not, we all have limited perspectives.  So we hedge our bets and give people the freedom to choose which leaders they follow.  The more paths that people are allowed to take, the more paths we'll find that lead to prosperity.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Plu, if you wish to take a position on the OP then do, if you're just going to fling shit, go somewhere else and leave this thread alone.

Maybe consolidate all of the threads started by the OP which are carbon copies of one another into one?

I know they've all been put in the archive, but I predict that by this time next year there will be at least another 3 of them, all with the same topic, all with the same spiel.

[Xerographica]

Plu, if you wish to take a position on the OP then do, if you're just going to fling shit, go somewhere else and leave this thread alone.

Maybe consolidate all of the threads started by the OP which are carbon copies of one another into one?

I know they've all been put in the archive, but I predict that by this time next year there will be at least another 3 of them, all with the same topic, all with the same spiel.

I'm curious what the advantage would be of consolidating all the threads that I've started.  If somebody wants to read everything I've written then they can simply search Google for my username within this site... xerographica site:atheistforums.com.

But none of my threads are simply me talking to myself.  They are discussions between myself and other forum members.  If you don't wish to participate in the discussions...or read about the same topic...then please find other threads that better match your preferences.  

This is how and why forums work.  You don't have to participate in threads that don't match your preferences.  And if you don't find any threads that do match your preferences...then just do what I do and start your own.  The difference is, I've never posted in any of your threads complaining that the topic does not match my preferences.  Because doing so would be stupid.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Plu, if you wish to take a position on the OP then do, if you're just going to fling shit, go somewhere else and leave this thread alone.

Maybe consolidate all of the threads started by the OP which are carbon copies of one another into one?

I know they've all been put in the archive, but I predict that by this time next year there will be at least another 3 of them, all with the same topic, all with the same spiel.

I'm curious what the advantage would be of consolidating all the threads that I've started.  If somebody wants to read everything I've written then they can simply search Google for my username within this site... xerographica site:atheistforums.com.

But none of my threads are simply me talking to myself.  They are discussions between myself and other forum members.  If you don't wish to participate in the discussions...or read about the same topic...then please find other threads that better match your preferences.  

This is how and why forums work.  You don't have to participate in threads that don't match your preferences.  And if you don't find any threads that do match your preferences...then just do what I do and start your own.  The difference is, I've never posted in any of your threads complaining that the topic does not match my preferences.  Because doing so would be stupid.

Au contraire mon ami, au contraire.

These threads are precisely you just talking to yourself. You're not really a forum member here, you simply show up once in a blue moon, post a carbon copy of the same thread, then disappear until a couple of months later when you start another one. Oh but yes, in answer to your question, nobody's stopping you doing that. And yes, there aren't any rules [on this forum] about stopping hit and run posters.

But hey, far be it from me to try to patronise you on the same level to which you try [and fail] to patronise me. Like I said, 1 year, consolidation, same shit, different thread. I'll take you up on your offer and decide to leave others to talking to a brick wall (guess I failed in the previous proviso). Here's an otter in a bib, enjoy (...and again):

[FrankDK]

> Please quote me where I said that the government does not provide anything of value. I read through my posts and could not find anything even remotely close.

OK.  You posted

Post subject: Re: Nietzsche, Austrians and Creative Destruction
 Posted: Fri Jun 28, 2013 5:33 am

"Right, because my argument is that the government does not supply anything of value. That's why I'm an anarcho-capitalist. Except, I'm not an anarcho-capitalist. I'm a pragmatarian. If you don't want to waste your time, it might help to invest some time learning what my arguments actually are."

I bolded the relevant words because you apparently have a reading deficit.

?Again, if I argued that the government does not provide anything of value...then I would be an anarcho-capitalist. But I'm not an anarcho-capitalist...I'm a pragmatarian. Therefore, I do not believe that the government does not provide anything of value.

Then why did you write that that was your argument?  Make up your mind.

> Therefore, I wouldn't have said that the government does not provide anything of value. Therefore, your arguments are completely irrelevant as not a single person in this thread has argued that the government does not provide anything of value.

You mean, other than you.

I  can't figure out whether you're an idiot or a liar.  So far, I haven't seen anything to rule out the possibility of both.

In either event, further discussion would be pointless.  You seem to want me to research your positions for you and then argue against them.  Breath-takingly stupid.

Frank

[Rin Hato]

The thing you're forgetting is this:

The general populace has no idea where to spend their money. The reason that the government spends tax money is because the government generally knows what to do with it. As much as you want it to be, the "preference revelation problem" is just not practical. Like communism; nice idea, but it doesn't work.

[Xerographica]

FrankDK, here's what you posted...

Posted: Wed Jun 26, 2013 3:05 pm

Did you decide what the protocols should be for the Internet and browsers, or did someone decide that for you?  (Hint:  It's the latter.  I was the DoD's representative to several standards bodies when these protocols were being standardized.)

Here was my reply...

Posted: Fri Jun 28, 2013 5:33 am

Right, because my argument is that the government does not supply anything of value. That's why I'm an anarcho-capitalist. Except, I'm not an anarcho-capitalist. I'm a pragmatarian. If you don't want to waste your time, it might help to invest some time learning what my arguments actually are.

It was sarcasm.  I was being sarcastic because you were making a completely irrelevant argument.  You were arguing that the government supplies something of value when NOBODY had argued otherwise.  

Here's a super simple fictitious dialogue that would have made your point relevant

Xerographica: The government does not supply anything of value
FrankDK: Actually, the government supplies standardized internet protocols
Xerographica: I stand corrected.  

But that's not what happened.  Here's what actually happened...

Xerographica: "Given that the government cannot know your true preferences for public goods, it's a given that the government will supply the wrong quantities of public goods."
FrankDK: Actually, the government supplies standardized internet protocols
Xerographica: Uhhh...what?

In either event, further discussion would be pointless. You seem to want me to research your positions for you and then argue against them. Breath-takingly stupid.

Yeah, it would be breathtakingly stupid for you to actually understand your opponent's position.  Oops, maybe I should mention that I'm being sarcastic.

I've clarified my actual position several times now...but let me do it again.  The government doesn't know what the actual demand for public goods is.  Therefore, it doesn't supply the optimal quantities of public goods.  If we want the government to supply the optimal quantities of public goods, then we should allow taxpayers to shop for themselves in the public sector.  This will allow them to reveal the true demand for public goods.  Why?  Because actions speak louder than words.  

I'll completely understand if you're completely incapable of attacking my actual position.  You certainly wouldn't be the first to fail to grasp basic economics.

[Jmpty]

Because you've given two choices as the answer to a question when there are clearly more options available.

There's plenty of opportunities for me to choose how to spend my resources.
There's also plenty of times where I don't have any say in how to allocate my resources, but nobody makes me do it, and no authority enforces it.
There are times when I'm required by an authority to allocate my resources should I want to pursue a specific action.  And there are times where I'm required to allocate resources in order to achieve an effect.
And there are times when an authority will demand that I allocate my resources to them regardless of whether I want to or not.  

Your argument is invalid because as I've pointed out, your assumptions are faulty.

You've made vague hand waving movements.  Try actually coming up with specific examples.  

Either a child allocates their own resources...or a parent allocates their resources for them.  Either a husband allocates his own resources...or a wife allocates his resources for him.  Either a taxpayer spends his own taxes...or a congressperson spends them for him.

How well does a parent know the preferences of their child?  How well does a wife know the preferences of her husband?  How well does a congressperson know your preferences?  

If you can't decide how you spend your own/time money...then somebody else decides for you.  The better that other person knows your preferences...the more efficient the allocation of resources.  Capitalism efficiently allocates resources because people can shop for themselves...or they can delegate shopping to people who truly know their preferences.  Socialism does not efficiently allocate resources because people cannot shop for themselves.  Right now you can't give all your taxes to Ron Paul or Elizabeth Warren.  You can't give your taxes to the EPA instead of the DoD.  As a result, the wrong quantities of public goods are supplied.  In other words, the supply of public goods does not meet the demand for public goods.  Why?  Because that's what happens in command economies.  

As we all know, sometimes children will demand the wrong things.  That's because they don't know any better.  And it's the parents responsibility to help them know better.  

If taxpayers could choose where their taxes go, would they demand the wrong things?  Sure, of course.  And it would be the responsibility of our society's intrepid leaders to help them know better.  And would they all give the same advice?  Would all the blind men agree that they were touching an elephant?  Obviously not, we all have limited perspectives.  So we hedge our bets and give people the freedom to choose which leaders they follow.  The more paths that people are allowed to take, the more paths we'll find that lead to prosperity.

And yet you keep talking.

[Xerographica]

The thing you're forgetting is this:

The general populace has no idea where to spend their money.

So can I have your money?  If the answer is "no" then it's because you do have an idea where to spend your money.  

The reason that the government spends tax money is because the government generally knows what to do with it.

No, it's because people thought that kings had divine authority.  

As much as you want it to be, the "preference revelation problem" is just not practical. Like communism; nice idea, but it doesn't work.

Errr...you're using "practical" to describe a problem.  Problems are either real or imagined...they can be big or small...they can be easy to solve or nearly impossible to solve.

If you want to argue that the preference revelation problem isn't a real problem...then you're arguing that congress is omniscient.  But do you really believe that congress is omniscient?

Spend a bit more time researching whether the preference revelation problem is real or not.  If you decide that it's not a real problem, then please be ready to answer the question of who made this problem up.  Was it the pro-market advocates?  Or was it the pro-government advocates?

[FrankDK]

Zerographica wrote...

" "

Now I understand.  It was Opposite Day at the funny farm.

You're an idiot and a liar.

Frank

[Xerographica]

And yet you keep talking.

Really, it's not that difficult.  

Imagine you're at a train station.  A train pulls into the station.  It's got "CRAZY" written all over it.  

Capitalism: You have a choice whether you get on or off the crazy train
Socialism: You're a forced rider

As an atheist, I derive quite a bit of ironic utility from citing the Bible.  For example, Noah's Ark.  People had a choice whether they boarded his boat.  As the story goes, they obviously believed that Noah's Ark was the epitome of a crazy train.  So they choose not to board it.  As the story goes, it turned out that Noah and his family were the only sane ones.  

Life is such that prosperity depends on giving people the freedom to go in a direction that you are certain is the wrong way.  You know why?  Because as hard as it might be for you to imagine...there's a possibility that you're the one who is actually going the wrong way.  So it was a good thing you didn't force them to go with you.  

Capitalism allows us to hedge our bets, while socialism puts far too many eggs in one basket.  If somebody was omniscient, or even close to omniscient, then it would be desirable for us to put so many eggs in one basket.  But we all have extremely limited perspectives.  Therefore, massive amounts of resources are wasted when conceited leaders are allowed to gamble with massive amounts of society's limited resources.

Right now the government is your God.  As an atheist you don't believe in putting yourself in God's hands...but you feel like putting yourself in the government's hands.  There's no difference.  Neither are omniscient.  So you're just a latter day believer.  LDB.  

But I don't want to get rid of congress.  In a pragmatarian system, congress would still be there.  If you wanted to put your life in the hands of congress, if you saw evidence of their superiority, then you would certainly have the opportunity to give them all your taxes.  You could worship them and make your sacrifice to them!  No worries.  I'm just asking that you show just enough tolerance to respect my own disbelief.

[Xerographica]

Zerographica wrote...

" "

Now I understand.  It was Opposite Day at the funny farm.

You're an idiot and a liar.

Frank

Obviously you're incapable of attacking my actual argument, so all you can do is resort to attacking me.  Don't worry, eventually somebody will spoon feed you some relevant arguments to regurgitate.

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Bleeding Heart Libertarians - Robin and the Austrians Revisited: On "Elective Affinities," "Value," and Other Conceptual Disasters

Corey Robin has replied to (mostly my) criticisms of his piece in The Nation linking Hayek and the Austrians with Nietzsche. To prepare for this post, I reread the original piece, Robin's introduction to the piece on CT, my response, Corey's responses to my response, many of the other blog posts on Corey, and nearly all the comments on the original piece at BHL and comments on Corey's reply at CT. I have not watched the BloggingHeads. That is too much Robin. Seriously. I've given his work due diligence.

My conclusion: Robin's argument is still really bad. In fact, it's even worse than I thought, given Robin's poor defense. In his post, Corey commits three errors: (i) his idea of "elective affinities" is hopelessly vague, (ii) he refuses to be clear about what he (or anyone else) means by "value" and (iii) his reading of Hayek is culpably and embarrassingly wrong. (iii) is so serious and important that I'm going to devote an entire post to it. This post consists in rebutting (i) and (ii).