Conza

Praxeology says that all economic propositions which claim to be true must be shown to be deducible by means of formal logic from the incontestably true material knowledge regarding the meaning of action. Specifically, all economic reasoning consists of the following:

1.     an understanding of the categories of action and the meaning of a change occurring in such things as values, preferences, knowledge, means, costs, etc;
2.     a description of a world in which the categories of action assume concrete meaning, where definite people are identified as actors with definite objects specified as their means of action, with some definite goals identified as values and definite things specified as costs. Such description could be one of a Robinson Crusoe world, or a world with more than one actor in which interpersonal relationships are possible; of a world of barter exchange or of money and exchanges that make use of money as a common medium of exchange; of a world of only land, labor, and time as factors of production, or a world with capital products; of a world with perfectly divisible or indivisible, specific or unspecific factors of production; or of a world with diverse social institutions, treating diverse actions as aggression and threatening them with physical punishment, etc; and
3.     a logical deduction of the consequences which result from the performance of some specified action within this world, or of the consequences which result for a specific actor if this situation is changed in a specified way.

Provided there is no flaw in the process of deduction, the conclusions that such reasoning yield must be valid a priori because their validity would ultimately go back to nothing but the indisputable axiom of action. If the situation and the changes introduced into it are fictional or assumptional (a Robinson Crusoe world, or a world with only indivisible or only completely specific factors of production), then the conclusions are, of course, a priori true only of such a “possible world.” If, on the other hand, the situation and changes can be identified as real, perceived and conceptualized as such by real actors, then the conclusions are a priori true propositions about the world as it really is. [19]

Such is the idea of economics as praxeology. And such then is the ultimate disagreement that Austrians have with their colleagues: Their pronouncements cannot be deduced from the axiom of action or even stand in clear-cut contradiction to propositions that can be deduced from the axiom of action.

~ Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Economic Science and the Austrian Method, pg 25.

lepus:

“I’ve noticed this in some of the younger libertarian folks online. Unless you have every box checked on this imagined “libertarian” checklist, you are labeled a “statist” or a “closet republican”. Honestly, a group that prides itself on freedom and individual rights SHOULD (in my view) have a broader sense of what being a “libertarian” is, since there are left and right leaning libertarians. Thoughts?”

If you are attempting to apply the principle of non-aggression, sure - it should be a big tent, no matter the philosophical foundation. Issues of contention within the movement (abortion, immigration, fractional-reserve banking etc) need not exclude one from the movement. War however is a disqualifier… as there is no real attempt to apply the non-aggression principle, and to put it simply “war is the health of the state”.

There is no legitimate form of “left” or “right” wing libertarianism. These concepts are the remnants of the false left / right paradigm and fallaciously try to apply an adjective (eg. left or thick) to a noun (libertarianism), in an effort to influence what it means… except the attempt is bogus & violates what libertarianism actually is. When a person speaks of things (outside the realm of political philosophy) they do not do so as a libertarian.

Hence, libertarian qua libertarian has nothing to say on those matters. It is left over baggage people still possess. Their earlier positions failed under scruitiny, so the individual undertook an investigation into libertarianism but has not yet succeeded in ridding themselves of a tainted ideology. Libertarianism is unique, it is neither left nor right.

Remaining a ‘statist’ isn’t the key issue either. Hating the state (loving liberty) & being a radical (abolitionist) is.

Murray Rothbard:

“…Furthermore, in contrast to what seems to be true nowadays,you don’t have to be an anarchist to be radical in our sense, just as you can be an anarchist while missing the radical spark. I can think of hardly a single limited governmentalist of the present day who is radical – a truly amazing phenomenon, when we think of our classical liberal forbears who were genuinely radical, who hated statism and the States of their day with a beautifully integrated passion: the Levellers, Patrick Henry, Tom Paine, Joseph Priestley, the Jacksonians, Richard Cobden, and on and on, a veritable roll call of the greats of the past. Tom Paine’s radical hatred of the State and statism was and is far more important to the cause of liberty than the fact that he nevercrossed the divide between laissez-faire and anarchism.

And closer to our own day, such early influences on me as Albert Jay Nock, H. L. Mencken, and Frank Chodorov were magnificently and superbly radical. Hatred of “Our Enemy, the State” (Nock’s title) and all of its works shone through all of their writings like a beacon star. So what if they never quite made it all the way to explicit anarchism? Far better one Albert Nock than a hundred anarcho-capitalists who are all too comfortable with the existing status quo.

Where are the Paines and Cobdens and Nocks of today? Why are almost all of our laissez-faire limited governmentalists plonky conservatives and patriots? If the opposite of “radical” is “conservative,” where are our radical laissez-fairists? If our limited statists were truly radical, there would be virtually no splits between us. What divides the movement now, the true division, is not anarchist vs. minarchist, but radical vs. conservative. Lord, give us radicals, be they anarchists or no.

To carry our analysis further, radical anti-statists are extremely valuable even if they could scarcely be considered libertarians in any comprehensive sense. Thus, many people admire the work of columnists Mike Royko and Nick von Hoffman because they consider these men libertarian sympathizers and fellow-travelers. That they are, but this does not begin to comprehend their true importance. For throughout the writings of Royko and von Hoffman, as inconsistent as they undoubtedly are, there runs an all-pervasive hatred of the State, of all politicians, bureaucrats, and their clients which, in its genuine radicalism, is far truer to the underlying spirit of liberty than someone who will coolly go along with the letter of every syllogism and every lemma down to the “model” of competing courts.

Taking the concept of radical vs. conservative in our new sense, let us analyze the now famous “abolitionism” vs. “gradualism” debate. The latter jab comes in the August issue of Reason (a magazine every fiber of whose being exudes “conservatism”), in which editor Bob Poole asks Milton Friedman where he stands on this debate. Freidman takes the opportunity of denouncing the “intellectual cowardice” of failing to set forth “feasible” methods of getting “from here to there.” Poole and Friedman have between them managed to obfuscate the true issues. There is not a single abolitionist who would not grab a feasible method, or a gradual gain, if it came his way. The difference is that the abolitionist always holds high the banner of his ultimate goal, never hides his basic principles, and wishes to get to his goal as fast as humanly possible. Hence, while the abolitionist will accept a gradual step in the right direction if that is all that he can achieve, he always accepts it grudgingly, as merely a first step toward a goal which he always keeps blazingly clear. The abolitionist is a “button pusher” who would blister his thumb pushing a button that would abolish the State immediately, if such a button existed. But the abolitionist also knows that alas, such a button does not exist, and that he will take a bit of the loaf if necessary – while always preferring the whole loaf if he can achieve it.

Ron Paul is a voluntarist*, however to many he is considered a supporter of limited government (and yet would fulfill Rothbard’s criteria of a radical regardless). This indicates precisely why he gets so much support from some areas and so little, even negative from others.

I wanted to send some sort of holiday greeting to my friends and colleagues, but it is difficult these days to know exactly what to say without offending someone. So I met with my solicitor and crisis counselor yesterday, and on that advice I wish to say the following:

Please accept with no obligation, implied or implicit, my best wishes for an environmentally conscious, socially responsible, low stress, non addictive, gender neutral celebration of the summer solstice holiday practiced with the most enjoyable traditions of religious persuasion or secular practices of your choice with respect for the religious / secular persuasions and / or traditions of others, or their choice not to practice religious or secular traditions at all.

I also wish you a fiscally successful, personally fulfilling and medically uncomplicated recognition of the onset of the generally accepted calendar year 2012, but not without due respect for the calendar of choice of other cultures whose contributions to society have helped make our country great (not to imply that Australia is necessarily greater than any other country) and without regard to the race, creed, color, age, physical ability, religious faith or sexual preference of the wishee.

By accepting this greeting, you are accepting these terms:

This greeting is subject to clarification or withdrawal. It is freely transferable with no alteration to the original greeting. It implies no promise by the wisher to actually implement any of the wishes for her/ him or others and is void where prohibited by law, and is revocable at the sole discretion of the wisher. The wish is warranted to perform as expected within the usual application of good tidings for a period of one year or until the issuance of a new wish at the sole discretion of the wisher.

Best Regards (without prejudice),
Name withheld (Privacy Act) and partner, and the offspring of said liaison, not meaning to imply offense at those same-sex relationships which may not yet have devised methodology to procreate .

good-gollymissmolly:

conza replied to your post: conza replied to your post: conza replied to your…

The structure remains the same. Shouldn’t the victim, or next of kin be the ones determining the level of punishment? (If ‘aggressor’ found guilty by the judge, jury etc.) Not the state, or yourself? youtube.com/watch?v… :)

What about victims who don’t have a next of kin?  Or a murderer with multiple victims whose next of kins don’t agree?

A very good question Molly. I actually had to stop and think about this (for those who might want to catch up on the exchange [1], [2], [3]). To address your first question..

If the victim had a will, which in a free society built on contracts would be more likely, they’d specify how to deal with such a situation if it were to arise - i.e issues relating to their death, organ donation etc. Dealing with their aggressor -if there is one- would be apart of that, and simply mean following through with their stated wishes. Either in relation to damages and the next of kin affected (children, dependents, spouse), or enacting the ultimate punishment: death. As pointed out in the Bob Murphy video linked above (which you didn’t watch ;p) I think more people would side with putting the ‘murderer’ to work, as opposed to removing their existence, though that is certainly an option.

If there isn’t a will to follow, is someone else able to step in and prosecute as an agent on behalf of the victim? First this needs to be broken down, it’s like there is a property conflict, but one side is missing and would be unable to bring the matter personally to court.  ‘Agents’ can certainly do it for you, but if you hadn’t organized such a thing prior to, then how has the issue come to attention?

Someone must suspect foul play, investigate, find the ‘murderer’ and bring them to trial to see if they are guilty. Who could that be? Who has an incentive to investigate? The insurance company for starters, or some other interested party. Also where did the person die, on whose property? If a renter, then that’s the landlord. If a home owner with a mortgage, then the bank. These institutions, including others in the local community have a direct interest in seeing the criminal be reprimanded so it doesn’t happen again, because it drives down local values and prices, whilst it would raise their insurance premiums given an increase in crime in the area.

The only reason the state is interested, is because it lost a tax payer, and you can’t have people going around killing more taxpayers. That’s the government’s job.

In a free society anyone would be able to take precautionary action against a dangerous person that they suspect for whatever reason. If a person feels there is a dangerous person out there that isn’t being dealt with, then the logical place to address would be any of the local security agencies, because they stand to lose by it (they offer safety as a good).

So the security agencies (or the insurance agencies), would investigate that person’s background, their standing in the community, people who support them, etc. But the point is that the whole community has an interest in dealing with dangerous people. It is today that we have no way of filtering out good from bad people; it’s made illegal through legislation.

For example, it’s illegal to disallow people from your business (egalitarian, anti-discrimination legislation). Illegal to store trade and crime information (‘privacy’ legislation). We want to do those things, it’s in our interest, but we can’t because we live under a monopoly.

People have a reputation, which can be tarnished through contract arbitration and ostracism, but can also be tarnished through publication of evidence. Which anyone is free to do (unless singing a NDA I suppose), and anyone would be free to act on. However, you are currently not free to protect yourself and your community. Dealing privately with criminals would be perceived very differently probably, in the public eye. Because we would know exactly who is dangerous, yet out there. Best we know now is sex offenders; which a lot of the time was consensual.

The importance of next of kins are only relevant in terms of damages, not so much in terms of reputation/danger.

Or a murderer with multiple victims whose next of kins don’t agree?

I think this would be settled in arbitration among the families after conviction. Prior to, we can only speculate what a private law society would look like. Would there be multiple individual cases brought by the separate dispute resolution agencies against the one individual, or would it essentially take the form of a ‘class action’ suit where the plaintiffs all line up as one against the defendant. Who knows?

Naturally though, the more folks involved the less chance of agreement. The point being though, in a free society, the tendency would be exceedingly towards murder sprees not happening - given proper competitive protection and insurance agencies, not the inefficient monopoly we have now.