Source: Facebook

“Take comfort from the gasoline price. It indicates that the powerful aren’t really what they believe they are. In the long run, decentralized markets always outpace and outwit the ability of elites to dictate and manipulate them. Every penny by which the price drops signals to the world: freedom can prevail even in a world in which the powerful are conspiring to destroy it.” – Jeffrey Tucker

—“Once you reject the Hayekian insight of the spontaneous nature of the social order, everything looks like a consequence of deliberation and war. All social and economic effects have a powerful, volitional, intentional cause. It’s a fundamental error.” –Tucker

Well the first statement is a psychologism.

It is not necessary to reject spontaneous order.

It is always possible for asymmetries – particularly state asymmetries – to distort that order.

Ergo there is no incompatibility between the self organising market and asymmetric influence that distorts it.

As such, as far as I know, the current price is a reflection of intentional distortion of the price through sale at below necessary return rate in order to achieve aforementioned ends.

So the source of your error is the intentional use of the pretence of rule ethics outside of the discipline of rule of law, applying it to truth propositions.

This is the source of Rothbards and mises errors, the source of Hoppe’s error of argumentation, and the source of kinsella’s error.

That this is nothing but justificationary excuse making is logically obvious.

That does not mean that a generation or two of useful idiots didn’t fall for it. They did.

The reality of the current state of affairs is that your era’s gentlemen should stick to advocacy of Liberty and leave philosophy to those of us who practice social science.

It seems that molyneux has learned and therefore move to advocacy after failing at philosophy.

I defend you as a moral man. I know you well enough.

But the difference between your eras use of justificationary rationalism and my eras use of ratio-scientific testimonialism is as great a difference as that between accounting and calculus.

Better to learn from my work and ask questions than think ones self able to participate in philosophical discourse of this magnitude.

“Curt how did you come to that conclusion?” is a great way to start. 😉

Affections. Always.