Form: Reply

Ivan,

First, I want to thank you for an intelligent and lucid argument that demonstrates thorough knowledge of the Austro (misesian) libertarian (rothbardian) cosmopolitan reactionary wing’s arguments. Cogent arguments are unfortunately, rare. It was a joy to hear it.

We are just trying our first videos, and I suspect that we will stumble a bit, until we get more comfortable. But at least we will experiment and learn what works and doesn’t. Personally, I think despite roman’s attempts to control me, I still managed to put too much depth into the arguments, and not enough simplicity. But we will see. I tend to be able to compress complex ideas with time, and so it will take time.

Regarding your comments, I think there are two points that I want to get across:

1) That it is irrelevant what authors mean, or intend. We are not interpreting scripture and divining the mind of god. We are not trying to understand what those authors believe. Or what we should believe. That is the purpose of religions, not sciences. The question instead, is, if we desire a polity living a state of liberty, then what informal and formal institutions are necessary to form and perpetuate such a polity? What actions are necessary? And, as such, how successfully can an author’s ideas be implemented as informal and formal institutions? Intention and justification are not properties of consequence. Consequences are produced by actions independent of intention or justification.

2) That I am confident understand these authors quite clearly, and that the strategic purpose of the A-L program as cosmopolitan and continental reactionary literature is identical in proposition and structure to Marxism as a verbal pseudoscience, Freudianism as a verbal pseudoscience, Cantorial sets as a verbal pseudoscience, and Postmodern and Frankfurt school arguments as verbal pseudosciences. Just why these authors all created similar pseudosciences by the saturation of the intellectual economy with elaborate nonsense that is very time consuming to defeat, is hard to judge. However, it works, and the technique is the same in each case: loading and framing, purposeful misuse of terms terminology by casting it platonically, followed by overloading the argumentative ecology.

For example, operationalists never argue that we cannot know anything other than empirically and neither do empiricists. It is that we cannot tell the difference between the imaginary and observed content of a theory if it is not expressed operationally. In fact, don’t you find it kind of curious why a philosophy of human action would not be argued operationally, since after all, all human actions whether physically demonstrated or rationally cognitive are in fact, open to description, and reproduction? Furthermore, if you relay operational definitions of your actions and observations then I can reproduce them without the addition of external content (loading, or imagining, or error). Operationalism doesn’t tell me that that your theory is true. It tells me that your testimony regarding your actions and observations are true. It tells me you speak honestly and truthfully, and that you have not conducted deception of yourself or others.

Marx built an elaborate philosophy based upon the false attribution of value – the consequence of which was included in the assumption.Mises built an elaborate philosophical framework whose conclusions are contained in his assumptions of individual action rather than cooperation. It is a work of justification – persuasion, not a work of description. Rothbard built an elaborate philosophy against the use of violence – the consequence of which are included in the assumption – a justification of non violence and the license of deception. But value is not determined by contribution, and instead, is determined by exchange. Polities must first establish cooperation to evolve an economy, And human cooperation is not determined by violence but by a prohibition on free riding (or the imposition of costs) which is necessary for all species who cooperate. Morality – positive assertions – de facto, of necessity, independent of judgement, must and do, enumerate rules that perpetuate a prohibition on free riding – the negative given the family structure common in the polity. Adorno filtered his data to produce his preferred conclusions – he lied. Freud created an elaborate system of projection out of psychologizing, which itself originated in hermeneutic interpretation of scriptures. He wanted a conclusion and he justified it. Humans are easily victimized by Overloading – that is why religions ‘work’, and why the Flynn effect appears – environmental saturation. If you get enough people around you who say the same thing it becomes believable to the many, no matter how ridiculous it is. All of these authors created elaborate pseudosciences ‘lies’ to justify their preferred conclusions.

I don’t believe I misinterpret either Mises or Rothbard. Just the opposite. I see them not as honest proponents of facts, but as less than honest advocates desperately trying to produce ideological compositions to defeat their opponents on one hand and advance their interests the other. Mises attempts to destroy our ability to construct commons – which is the reason that the west has advanced more rapidly than competing civilizations. Socialism is in fact an approach to the commons, but it will not work for reasons Mises articulated. However, destroying the commons to destroy Socialism is merely suicidal. Rothbard attempts to destroy our emphasis on truth telling by advocating against violence – truth and trust are the reason that we can produce the complex commons that leave europa as a vast open air museum. Rothbard wants to preserve deception as reconcilable by market forces – by which it demonstrably is not reconcilable. So you may see these two authors as positive advocates, but they aren’t. They are no different from the socialists (or the neo-cons for that matter). “They try to do a little good by doing a great deal of bad.”

And I think I am more than gracious when I say that Mises merely failed to produce operationalism, and had he, much of his argument would have been morally persuasive. When I could just as easily make the case, that he was just another verbose proponent of another pseudoscience producing propaganda to overload vulnerable audiences. The reason being that economic science if we call it that, does in fact, require empirical measures because there are phenomenon we have discovered, that we can observe in the data that were not deducible from rational choice theory. However, once we identify that data, if we cannot explain that observation as the result of a sequence of human actions, we cannot claim to have determined its cause. The physical sciences are not bound by the same limits as economics, because we do not believe we can know (perhaps ever) first causes in physical science. However, in human actions, we can know first causes because we can understand each others marginally indifferent incentives. As such, while we can describe all economic phenomenon as human actions, we can also describe all physical science as the actions and instruments necessary to make truthful observations.

You seem like a bright fellow, so it may take a bit of work to grok all of this, but at some point it will become obvious that understanding Rothbard or Mises and their intentions is irrelevant. It is whether their statesmen are true or not, and whether they correspond with reality when expressed as human actions. And whether the EXTERNALITIES PRODUCED BY THEIR ARGUMENTS are beneficial or harmful. Because that is, after all, the question we are asking: how do we obtain liberty.

Instead, I think what you might find, as I was surprised to, that their intentions have little to do with their statements whatsoever. And instead, are merely elaborate empty verbal justifications to perpetuate existing preferences – just as the postmoderns have done. Nothing more. Pedantic in intent, if elaborate in execution.

Hayek was right. The 20th century will be remembered as a new era mysticism created by empty verbal pseudoscientists. And Mises and ROthbard, while adding a little good content to the argument, are members of the pseudoscientific movement.

Now, criticizing something is not the same as constructing an alternative.

And I have spent my time constructing the alternative – which it turns out, westerners have been doing for millennia. But that is another matter for another time.

Thanks again for your cogent thoughts.

Curt Doolittle

Kiev