Latest about NASA AKA My Disgust with the GOP

Post Reply New Topic

I will give you that you can't get a much more accurate source than from mises.org; they are indeed the best.

If this was directed at me however, I will say it again: I never once said the guy was anywhere close to perfect. You can tell yourself again and again that I did, but it will get you nowhere.

I disagree, one of the most laughable things I have read from there is an argument that empiricism is totalitarian, but I would imagine I would respect Sheldon Richman as he is the editor of the Freeman and is associated with FEE, which is affiliated with more moderate Austrian groups such as the people at GMU and so on(although I heard that GMU had an econ blogger who made an absurd statement awhile back, but I don't think he was ever as respected as the others).

There's also the Heritage Foundation, and Capmag, if you're really looking for it.

One of my personal favorites though is Thomas Sowell. He and his student Walter Williams blow my mind at almost every turn.

Capmag is alright, but I find it ideological, so I almost never read it. I still have to send everybody Gary Hull's Objectivist interpretation of love on Valentine's day though. Who doesn't like Objectivists when they talk about love?

Generally though, I read bloggers rather than the kinds of sources you mention. I practically ignore Mises, only reading it on occasion or when I know that Bob Murphy is the author.

You're an Objectivist? My dad is also one...I take it you're a very big fan of Ayn Rand?

I do like Rand a lot myself.

My only problem with most of what I see on mises.org or Capmag is a lot of stuff saying "this or that would happen if the feds would get out of the way" to which I can only respond "no it wouldn't, because the people who's lives would improve don't want the feds out of the way"

Are you kidding? No, I find Gary Hull's writing on love hilarious! It is completely wrong, but it really attacks what people think, and I like attacking ideas.


Eh, I just find them too ideological.

I've never heard of Gary Hull, but I'll check it out...so I can't really say either way on that one.

Explain about "too ideological"; I'm listening.

Gary Hull is a modern Objectivist philosopher. The part that makes him intriguing is his rejection of our normal conventions towards love. Now, when I say "hilarious" I don't mean horribly wrong, it is just that I find myself deeply amused by the contrariness he espouses.


Let me put it this way:
There are some people who write more to assert their position loud and strong, and they are polemicists. There are some people who write more to explore ideas and defend hypotheses, and they are scholars. Now, the categories aren't such that polemicists can't be scholars and vice versa, but the issue is that polemicists write to give a defense of an ideology more than to talk about ideas. Mises.org and capitalism magazine both tend to be polemical and thus ideological. Other sources, such as blogs written by academics tend to shy away from polemics to attempt to explore ideas and thus play a scholarly role(however, this is not always the case, and Krugman has become known for his polemicism). Now, in the way I am using the term "ideological", an ideology isn't a matter of deviation from the norm but rather more like a position. So, even a moderate could be a polemicist(and thus an ideologue) and even a radical could be a scholar.

Does that make more sense? I don't really like being told often to support or oppose some other idea or even what ideas are "stupid", but rather I enjoy analysis that allows me to explore an issue and that opens up new possibilities, even if the analyzer has an opinion. I like explorations that are deeper rather than more cursory. Etc. I like an appearance of even handedness even if I can see some biases.

Here's the problem with this argument: you are using a No True Scotsman fallacy. There is absolutely nothing inherent in the capitalist system which prevents a corporation from seeking to make a "quick buck." In fact, in many cases that is a desirable outcome- money now is more valuable than money later, remember. If a company can make more money with dissatisfied customers (by selling crap for a huge profit) then they will do so. You are positing that all the people in a capitalist system must be a certain type of person in order the the system to work properly. To me, this sounds too much like the pipe dreams of the "New Communist Man" to be credible. People are lazy, greedy, and stupid, and any viable system has to have a way of working around that fact. I think capitalism does the best job of this, because it channels people's greed into a (usually) productive force and disincentivizes laziness.

I agree that the incentives of capitalism are such as to energize people into providing goods and services - both valid and defective, in large quantities with money as a goal. But humanity and industrial efficiency have reached a point in development such as to create huge powerful forces that are destroying Earth's capabilities to hold natural forces in relatively steady state for habitation. Capitalism, in its efficiency and eagerness to gain quick profit has become a force of no concern for the long term benefit of human life sustenance and this is of great concern for the future. Forces of capitalism have also gained great control of information to hide this huge danger and distort reality to the extent that normal political remedies are rendered ineffective.

One minor problem with what you're telling me: that may be overall the norm with businessmen--again choosing Pseuo-Capitalism over Capitalism--however, in the process of this, it's also punishing those companies who are choosing Capitalism over Pseudo-Capitalism. It's collectively punishing everybody, which is not only completely unfair, but entirely wrong.

I think I understand what you're saying; you don't want to follow a certain idea for the simple sake that you're told to...you like to find out if that idea is correct or not, is that it? Or am I still being a bit too simple in explanation about it?

It's likely good enough for now.

Um no...good sir. There's no "good enough for now"; either I'm correct or I'm not.

I'm curious..do you happen to have philosophical leanings towards Post Modernist Philosophy?

Usually that isn't true. Most language is in some sense ambiguous so you could be correct or incorrect as it stands based upon what you have said. Additionally, most of our time the language doesn't embody the entire construct, as often it is hard to really get to the root of disputes, despite verbalizations to attempt to do this. That being said, I am cynical towards direct introspective knowledge, so I believe that even *I* might not know whether you are correct. (To go further I am cynical to the idea that thoughts are encoded in actual sentences as well, but rather would attribute thoughts to some squishier mental representations, as if we just had logic diagrams in our minds, then false beliefs should never occur, but they do all of the time, even with direct contradictions)


Yes, I do have postmodern leanings. I would tend to consider myself more of a pragmatist than a postmodernist though.

I thought so.