[Duffyside]

Yes, he absolutely is repudiating her economic philosophy here. See the bolded regarding the reduction of human interactions to "mere contracts."

No, he's not. See the previously bolded word where he actually says what he's rejecting, and that the "mere contracts" are referring to "human interactions," which don't only involve what happens in the marketplace.

[Dies Iræ]

I'm not worried about that so much as I am worried about how the government itself happens to function as an inefficient and corrupt monopoly. And of course politicians are to blame long with corporate interests.

Honestly, the roles and functions of government are so varied that these kinds of generalizations aren't credible. Your claim that government is an inefficient and corrupt monopoly lacks context and evidence.

For instance, the most powerful countries in the world today, with the fastest growing economies and fastest expanding middle classes also happen to have large, insular, often non-democratic and highly bureaucratic governments. I'm thinking of Singapore, China, etc.

This, alone, discredits your initial claim. We can also look at modern day examples of decentralization to evaluate its utility. One example is India's federated system, which is often contrasted with China. It's a regulatory mess with a lot of corruption (and this corruption is aided, not abetted, by its decentralized nature).

We can also look at Venezuela's Bolivarian Revolution, which is easily the largest-scale attempt to decentralize a modern economy, with mixed results. In fact, its best successes have been due to, not in spite of, large-scale government action, such as the reduction of income inequality via conventional redistributive mechanisms (taxation).


Edit: To clarify, I'm not arguing in favour of larger or smaller government, or a particular variety of capitalism. To the contrary, I think the entire debate is wrong-headed and over-simplistic: we cannot explain outcomes based on one variable, certainly not one as amorphous as "scale." I am, though, sympathetic to libertarian ideals, when they're advocated intelligently (E.F. Schumacher is a great example).

[Opiate]

You can't seriously be saying that the Austrian school didn't contribute anything at all to modern economic theory.

He's saying that it rejects the scientific process, which it explicitly does. Their method is, as described by Mises, "Praxeology." It is a psuedoscience.

[Mgoblue201]

I don't know why this is so hard to understand. Hey, I really like Christopher Hitchens's views on many things, like his thoughts on the pro-life movement (though he didn't go quite far enough for my liking), free speech, evils of circumcision, and more. All of that is also based on atheism (and I'm not an atheist) and on... hm, I'm going to say socialism, but I'm not exactly sure. I think he called himself a Trotsky-socialist. Definitely a Marxist. Those are pretty undeniably his two founding principles of all of his philosophy, pretty contrary to mine, and yet I will often reference his arguments when talking about the things I did agree with him on.

I'm pressing the issue because you're ignoring the fact that Ryan has clearly stated that Ayn Rand acted as a source of inspiration for his beliefs and values. If you were merely referencing Hitchens's arguments, as in your analogy, then you would not praise his value system, as Ryan does with Rand. I have no doubt that he does reject her atheism (many people who embrace Rand are actually Christians), and he may not call himself an objectivist, but he is being disingenuous here, in that his claims are true only because they're technically factual. But their worldviews converge to a large degree, and he is simply being misleading to claim that it is merely about economics. Just as with Rand, his ideas are motivated by fundamental beliefs about the individual in relation to the state. Their philosophies coincide, in other words, and not merely some of their arguments.

[Duffyside]

There are, at a minimum, two kinds of freedom: negative and positive. The image of a free society that you portray is a narrow one characterized by negative freedoms (freedoms "from" harm). It does not include the broader array of positive freedoms that most people consider to be the defining features of modern society, like freedom "to" health, education, and a decent quality of life. You're entitled to your negative and narrow view of freedom, but history shows that people want - and will fight for - a broader, positive view of freedom. In fact, if humanity shares anything in common, I believe it is this common quest for a life of positive freedoms.

What about my positive freedom to an awesome sports car? I think it would be neat if you violated some people's "negative" freedoms (an amazing marketing/spin job on that term) to get me these things that I want. No argument from me that lots of people want stuff.

I'm pressing the issue because you're ignoring the fact that Ryan has clearly stated that Ayn Rand acted as a source of inspiration for his beliefs and values. If you were merely referencing Hitchens's arguments, as in your analogy, then you would not praise his value system, as Ryan does with Rand. I have no doubt that he does reject her atheism (many people who embrace Rand are actually Christians), and he may not call himself an objectivist, but he is being disingenuous here, in that his claims are true only because they're technically factual. But their worldviews converge to a large degree, and he is simply being misleading to claim that it is merely about economics. Just as with Rand, his ideas are motivated by fundamental beliefs about the individual in relation to the state. Their philosophies coincide, in other words, and not merely some of their arguments.

A well reasoned response. What you may be missing, or I may not have made clear, is that there are things that would involve a "value system" that he would agree with without abandoning his Christianity (modified as it may be, as all religious people are). Such as the values present in their beliefs in individualism, or the values present in the idea of a free market, her thoughts on so many other things. It's not as simple as "he only agrees with her economic theory, and there are no values in economic theory," because he probably doesn't ONLY agree with her on that (since she blabs about EVERYTHING), and there are values present in economic philosophies."

[Kad5]

Honestly, the roles and functions of government are so varied that these kinds of generalizations aren't credible. Your claim that government is an inefficient and corrupt monopoly lacks context and evidence. For instance, the most powerful countries in the world today, with the fastest growing economies and fastest expanding middle classes also happen to have large, insular, often non-democratic and highly bureaucratic governments. I'm thinking of Singapore, China, etc. This, alone, discredits your initial claim. We can also look at modern day examples of decentralization to evaluate its utility. One example is India's federated system, which is often contrasted with China. It's a regulatory mess with a lot of corruption (and this corruption is aided, not abetted, by its decentralized nature). We can also look at Venezuela's Bolivarian Revolution, which is easily the largest-scale attempt to decentralize a modern economy, with mixed results. In fact, its best successes have been due to, not in spite of, large-scale government action, such as the reduction of income inequality via conventional redistributive mechanisms (taxation). Edit: To clarify, I'm not arguing in favour of larger or smaller government, or a particular variety of capitalism. To the contrary, I think the entire debate is wrong-headed and over-simplistic: we cannot explain outcomes based on one variable, certainly not one as amorphous as "scale." I am, though, sympathetic to libertarian ideals, when they're advocated intelligently (E.F. Schumacher is a great example).

China is a country that has had a unified culture for thousands of years. As of right now their system of government seems to be working for them. Culturally homogenous countries tend to have less corrupt governments. But it's hard to say where china will be in another 1000 years. In the next 100 I can see them doing amazing though.

America on the other hand has a pretty corrupt system and i'm sure not many people will argue with me on that. But hey at least it's not Russia.

[pigeon]

He's saying that it rejects the scientific process, which it explicitly does. Their method is, as described by Mises, "Praxeology." It is a psuedoscience.

Wow. After reading Wikipedia on that, I'm not even sure it rises to the level of pseudoscience. Philosophy, maybe.

[Dude Abides]

What about my positive freedom to an awesome sports car? I think it would be neat if you violated some people's "negative" freedoms (an amazing marketing/spin job on that term) to get me these things that I want. No argument from me that lots of people want stuff.

Positive and negative freedom (or rights) is fairly standard terminology in political philosophy, not a spin job by collectivist monsters out to take your Xbox.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/li...tive-negative/

[Kad5]

He's saying that it rejects the scientific process, which it explicitly does. Their method is, as described by Mises, "Praxeology." It is a psuedoscience.

Is psychology or sociology a pseudoscience?

[jaxword]

Is psychology or sociology a pseudoscience?

Yes, depending on which religion you belong to.

[Duffyside]

Positive and negative freedom (or rights) is fairly standard terminology in political philosophy, not a spin job by collectivist monsters out to take your Xbox. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/li...tive-negative/

I'm aware. I remember hearing Obama speak of them at least four years ago. I still believe it is terminology originally crafted by collectivist monsters out to take my PS3. Er... back when it was originated... my PS(-)8?

[ClassyPenguin]

Is psychology or sociology a pseudoscience?

Those all rely on empiricism and the scientific method. try again.

[Kad5]

But Iceland is one of the best examples of the failures of the Austrian model.

Can you give me a citation for Iceland's use of austrian philosophy in the 80s was a failure? I forgot to ask for that.

[Greenhowse]

What about my positive freedom to an awesome sports car? I think it would be neat if you violated some people's "negative" freedoms (an amazing marketing/spin job on that term) to get me these things that I want. No argument from me that lots of people want stuff.

What does your posited freedom to an awesome sports car have to do with your concept of government? Besides, your suggestion that it would be neat to nullify some people's negative freedoms to get things you want seems counter-intuitive to your position anyway.

[Dies Iræ]

China is a country that has had a unified culture for thousands of years. As of right now their system of government seems to be working for them. Culturally homogenous countries tend to have less corrupt governments. But it's hard to say where china will be in another 1000 years. In the next 100 I can see them doing amazing though. America on the other hand has a pretty corrupt system and i'm sure not many people will argue with me on that. But hey at least it's not Russia.

There is a large and well-regarded literature on the rise of China and its successes that demonstrates the positive role of its large bureaucracy. This is part of a broader literature on "strong states" in East Asia. The first seminal contribution is from Chalmers Johnson's study of Japan, which I'm sure is available on his Wiki page.

Academic studies and a scientific mindset are important virtues that help us to understand the world in a reliable way. You may believe differently, but ignoring facts does not lend credence to your own views (for which, as I stated above, there is a poor record). On that note, could you explain to us (1) why smaller is always better, (2) what smaller looks like in practice, and (3) how you intend to scale smaller to govern an entire nation?

Edit: For those interested, here is the Wiki page introducing and summarizing the large literature on big governments in Asia. I should point out that this literature does not argue that big governments are inherently or always better than smaller governments. It does explain, however, why big governments have been successful in the context of East Asia between 1950-2000. It makes conditional claims, not dogmatic ones (like Kad5).

[Kad5]

Those all rely on empiricism and the scientific method. try again.

It depends on how one defines scientific, to Austrians it's more of a philosophical take on economics where Keynesian is more of a mathematical take. Each side believing their's to be more more correct. Both sides have good arguments about it too. So i'm not saying one side is inherently right or wrong. It's more like one side is skeptical whereas the other side believes something along the lines of social engineering.

There is a large and well-regarded literature on the rise of China and its successes that demonstrates the positive role of its large bureaucracy. This is part of a broader literature on "strong states" in East Asia. The first seminal contribution is from Chalmers Johnson's study of Japan, which I'm sure is available on his Wiki page. Academic studies and a scientific mindset are important virtues that help us to understand the world in a reliable way. You may believe differently, but ignoring facts does not lend credence to your own views (for which, as I stated above, there is a poor record). On that note, could you explain to us (1) why smaller is always better, (2) what smaller looks like in practice, and (3) how you intend to scale smaller to govern an entire nation?

I will say that I believe China is a huge bubble burst waiting to happen it's simply a matter of time. I give it 20 years. China also happens to punish unethical business practices more efficiently than America does. As for your other questions? I can't predict the future. I can only explain my philosophy of Voluntarism as best as I can.

If you agree with it thats fine but I honestly don't expect it because I agree it's pretty radical.

[Duffyside]

What does your posited freedom to an awesome sports car have to do with your concept of government? Besides, your suggestion that it would be neat to nullify some people's negative freedoms to get things you want seems counter-intuitive to your position anyway.

It sure does...

[Dies Iræ]

I will say that I believe China is a huge bubble burst waiting to happen it's simply a matter of time. As for your other questions? I can't predict the future. I can only explain my philosophy of Voluntarism as best as I can. If you agree with it thats fine but I honestly don't expect it because I agree it's pretty radical.

You can propose a vision of the future in which governments are smaller, but you cannot claim that it is superior to our contemporary system without providing evidence or, at a minimum, a logical explanation for why it might be superior. Without evidence or a logical claim, we have no reason to accept your alternative as desirable, and you have no reason (other than blind faith) to suggest that it is.

[Opiate]

Is psychology or sociology a pseudoscience?

Those all rely on empiricism and the scientific method. try again.

Not always. Sometimes, it does not. Sometimes it does.

Saying psychology is a psuedoscience is like saying economics is a psuedosciene (although one can easily argue that economics is a "soft" science, which is different). Just as some branches of economics are a psuedoscience, some branches of psychology are as well, like Graphology.

The basic question is whether it follows the scientific method.

So to answer your question Kad: yes, some branches of pscyhology are psuedoscientific, but not all branches -- just as not all branches of economics are psuedoscientific, but Austrian economics is.

[speculawyer]

Is psychology or sociology a pseudoscience?

Psychology definitely has a long history of pseudo-science. The worlds most well-known psychologist, Sigmund Freud, most wrote a lot of pseudo-science shit and is largely ignored by modern psychologists.

Psychology today is still a very primitive science but at least know some things and are using better methodology.


Modern Sociology mostly seems like history. Just a bunch of facts. Of course some people read the facts and draw bad conclusions from it. I don't view it as science. And I do think it is a troubled field where a lot of inaccurate narratives have been created.

[ClassyPenguin]

It depends on how one defines scientific, to Austrians it's more of a philosophical take on economics where Keynesian is more of a mathematical take. Each side believing their's to be more more correct. Both sides have good arguments about it too. So i'm not saying one side is inherently right or wrong. It's more like one side is skeptical whereas the other side believes something along the lines of social engineering.

Except one side is supported by data and history while the other is just a bunch of philosophical arguments.

[Cartman86]

"Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's" - Jesus Christ.

People will interpret this to mean all sorts of things so it's inherently meaningless. I just wish people would base their worldview and political policies in a humanity focused rational basis that every single one of us could investigate using empirical data and logical reasoning...lol.

[Kad5]

You can propose a vision of the future in which governments are smaller, but you cannot claim that it is superior to our contemporary system without providing evidence or, at a minimum, a logical explanation for why it might be superior. Without evidence or a logical claim, we have no reason to accept your alternative as desirable, and you have no reason (other than blind faith) to suggest that it is.

Well centralized entities can work to an extent. But it tends to work in smaller nation-states. China is a nice exception though because of its history but it was still successful in creating a unified identity. In those sorts of societies collectivist institutions function better since for the most part everyone is somewhat like-minded. No issue with cultural differences and for the most part everyone gets along pretty decently.

Did you know that Sweden implemented a free market system for economic growth before shifting towards a more socialist system?

More socialist countries have slower growing economies. China recognized this and became State Capitalist but they seem to work it efficiently since the leaders in charge don't have to worry about getting elected. They get up every morning, look in the mirror, and ask themselves "How can I make this country better off in 50 years?" Long-term vs. short-term benefits so to speak. The short-term benefits I believe will harm the US in the long run.



You guys seem to really undervalue the Austrian school. It provided many important theories to economics. The boom-bust cycle being a prominent one.

[Dies Iræ]

The Austrian school takes the assumptions used in mainstream economics (rationality, value-max, etc.) and adopts them as axiomatic. In other words, Austrian models assume that the real world operates in this manner.

Doing so is a major fallacy. It is an error made by mainstream economists, as well. Paul Krugman often points this out on his blog and also makes skillful use of these assumptions, as he is well aware of their limits, strength, and relative utility.

For this reason, Austrian models are dogmatic / philosophical in their approach. The problem with nomological-deductive approaches (used in many fields) is that if you reject their initial assumptions (value-max, etc.), then the entire theory falls apart. A classic example is sociobiological literature.

[Duffyside]

You mentioned Jesus (see pigeons post, he didn't really contradict himself). That's all I'm talking about. Change to subject to the whole bible to wiggle out of the the fact your premise was silly and was refuted by the words of the man himself. Jesus was a collectivist and thought people should pay their taxes.

Oof, almost went to bed missing this one. Even though I'm really getting uncomfortable talking about Jesus so much...

Yes, he said you should pay your taxes. So am I (mostly)! But that is not an argument that those taxes are fair, or right, or good. If they exist, fine, pay them, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't argue against their existence, or their implementation. And, in our case, we're luckily not ruled by Caesar, but by ourselves (sort of) and our representatives, like Paul Ryan. I'm hoping tax policies more like what he claims to believe will become "Caesar's," and being more fair and right-minded, I will pay them more happily.

[ClassyPenguin]

Not always. Sometimes, it does not. Sometimes it does. Saying psychology is a psuedoscience is like saying economics is a psuedosciene (although one can easily argue that economics is a "soft" science, which is different). Just as some branches of economics are a psuedoscience, some branches of psychology are as well, like Graphology. The basic question is whether it follows the scientific method. So to answer your question Kad: yes, some branches of pscyhology are psuedoscientific, but not all branches -- just as not all branches of economics are psuedoscientific, but Austrian economics is.

Psychology definitely has a long history of pseudo-science. The worlds most well-known psychologist, Sigmund Freud, most wrote a lot of pseudo-science shit and is largely ignored by modern psychologists. Psychology today is still a very primitive science but at least know some things and are using better methodology. Modern Sociology mostly seems like history. Just a bunch of facts. Of course some people read the facts and draw bad conclusions from it. I don't view it as science. And I do think it is a troubled field where a lot of inaccurate narratives have been created.

I was going for the basic definition and most modern of psychology and sociology that use hard data to base their arguments.

Another example would be in anthropology where many cultural anthropologists reject science as well.

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/20...ology-paral-1/

[Dies Iræ]

Well centralized entities can work to an extent. But it tends to work in smaller nation-states. China is a nice exception though because of its history but it was still successful in creating a unified identity. In those sorts of societies collectivist institutions function better since for the most part everyone is somewhat like-minded. No issue with cultural differences and for the most part everyone gets along pretty decently. Did you know that Sweden implemented a free market system for economic growth before shifting towards a more socialist system? More socialist countries have slower growing economies. China recognized this and became State Capitalist but they seem to work it efficiently since the leaders in charge don't have to worry about getting elected. They get up every morning, look in the mirror, and ask themselves "How can I make this country better off in 50 years?" Long-term vs. short-term benefits so to speak. The short-term benefits I believe will harm the US in the long run. You guys seem to really undervalue the Austrian school. It provided many important theories to economics. The boom-bust cycle being a prominent one.

Sweden is the classic case study cited in the IPE literature of a European "strong state" identical to China, Singapore, etc. It was ruled by one single party (called the Liberal Party, if I remember correctly) for something like 70 years and that party held total power. Your claims about Chinese culture exist, as well, but aren't taken very seriously. I recall Paul Krugman also wrote a famous article about these cultural arguments in the late 90s (?), but I can't remember the title right now.

Your claims about the internal cohesion of Chinese society and this idea that China's leaders "don't have to worry about getting elected" are so off-base and unsubstantiated that I'm unsure how to respond. China is witness to thousands of large-scale protests each and every year and the government's policies are virtually dictated by fear of revolution.

[Opiate]

It depends on how one defines scientific, to Austrians it's more of a philosophical take on economics where Keynesian is more of a mathematical take. Each side believing their's to be more more correct. Both sides have good arguments about it too. So i'm not saying one side is inherently right or wrong. It's more like one side is skeptical whereas the other side believes something along the lines of social engineering.

Whoa, whoa, whoa. Let's step back here a second, because you're going off the rails.

First, you don't get to define science how you want. It is not a vague word open to interpretation like some others; it has a very precise, very well understood definition.

The scientific process is an empirical one, where a hypothesis is created, the implications of that hypothesis are calculated, and those calculations are tested against empirical reality. If a hypothesis does not match the empirically expected results, then it is wrong. It does not matter how beautiful your guess is or who you are -- if your guess does not match with reality, it is wrong. The end.

That is science. Philosophical or ideological approaches, by definition, are not science; they are beliefs which supersede empirical reality. This is not science.

[speculawyer]

It depends on how one defines scientific, to Austrians it's more of a philosophical take on economics where Keynesian is more of a mathematical take. Each side believing their's to be more more correct. Both sides have good arguments about it too. So i'm not saying one side is inherently right or wrong. It's more like one side is skeptical whereas the other side believes something along the lines of social engineering.

I think the bold is accurate. However, I think one side is right and the other is "not even wrong". I think the philosphers that just sit around and think about things are wasting their time and accomplishing little compared to the scientists that got their hands dirty by collecting hard data and learning from that data.

Even in acknowledged hard science, there are these issues. Theoretical physics is used to mathematically deduce things and has been effective. But it is only ultimately effective when eventually proven by experiment. String theory in physics is a bizarre mathematical construct that may ultimately be a total waste of time if nothing is ever testable and tested.


So I have no problem with people sitting around and thinking about things and coming up with ideas and theories out of nothing. However, such ideas should only be put into practice in limited tests in order to determine their usefulness instead of assuming they actually are useful.

[Sblargh]

Wow. After reading Wikipedia on that, I'm not even sure it rises to the level of pseudoscience. Philosophy, maybe.

Son, are you trying to piss me off?
A remark like "economical science is a priori" would get you laughed at a philosophy department since... before economical science existed, actually.

Not that the guy would lose his job or anything, because we are good at keeping the crazies do whatever they want, but I can assure you that "praxeology" is not taken seriously even among the not-marxist wing of philosophy.

Whoa, whoa, whoa. Let's step back here a second, because you're going off the rails. First, you don't get to define science how you want. It is not a vague word open to interpretation like some others; it has a very precise, very well understood definition. The scientific process is an empirical one, where a hypothesis is created, the implications of that hypothesis are calculated, and those calculations are tested against empirical reality. If a hypothesis does not match the empirically expected results, then it is wrong. It does not matter how beautiful your guess is or who you are -- if your guess does not match with reality, it is wrong. The end. That is science. Philosophical or ideological approaches, by definition, are not science; they are beliefs which supersede empirical reality. This is not science.

Philosophy is not a belief (in the sense that the only requirement for a philosophical statement to be made is if you honestly think that is the case); actually, this is a debate far from being settled (as any philosophical debate - some would say that when a debate is over, then it becomes science, leaving philosophy always in the pre-science realm), but philosophy does not supersede empirical reality; at most it interprets it in a way that the facts alone couldn't take you there, but even if the hard fact doesn't go all the way, at least an argument that is logically sound is necessary.

[ClassyPenguin]

You guys seem to really undervalue the Austrian school. It provided many important theories to economics. The boom-bust cycle being a prominent one.

No one is denying or undervaluing that.

3.4. The Austrian Theory of the Business Cycle It is important to distinguish the correct and almost universally accepted aspects of the Austrian theory of the business cycle (henceforth ABC) from its incorrect and highly controversial components. Many discussions of the ABC derail because Austrians often fail to realize that part of their theory is now fully mainstream.

http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/bcaplan/whyaust.htm

[Opiate]

Philosophy is not a belief (in the sense that the only requirement for a philosophical statement to be made is if you honestly think that is the case); actually, this is a debate far from being settled (as any philosophical debate - some would say that when a debate is over, then it becomes science, leaving philosophy always in the pre-science realm), but philosophy does not supersede empirical reality; at most it interprets it in a way that the facts alone couldn't take you there, but even if the hard fact doesn't go all the way, at least an argument that is logically sound is necessary.

Definitely agree, which is why I put "ideology" as a second definition. Austrian economics fits this latter definition far more than the former.

[Sblargh]

Definitely agree, which is why I put "ideology" as a second definition. Austrian economics fits this latter definition far more than the former.

I used to be über-libertarian, during the first years of majoring philosphy in college actually; ironically it was reading Hume, one of their liberal super-heroes, that turned me off of this whole scene, precisely because of the empiricist issue.

So I get a little peeved by "bah, this is only philosophy" as I think that a little philosophy can go a long way in making a case against this theory and other problematic theories as well.

Well, I get a little peeved by "Bah, this is only philosophy" because it's my field too and I gotta make money to keep buying them videogames, but the above is the less ideological explanation. :p

[Opiate]

I used to be über-libertarian, during the first years of majoring philosphy in college actually; ironically it was reading Hume, one of their liberal super-heroes, that turned me off of this whole scene, precisely because of the empiricist issue. So I get a little peeved by "bah, this is only philosophy" as I think that a little philosophy can go a long way in making a case against this theory and other problematic theories as well. Well, I get a little peeved by "Bah, this is only philosophy" because it's my field too and I gotta make money to keep buying them videogames, but the above is the less ideological explanation. :p

Yes, I can understand this. My first "draft" of that post just said "philosophy," but I specifically went back and put "or ideology" because of this issue. I think it's fairly clear that Austrian economics fits that description better. I think that covers it rather fairly, and the discussion is already more than broad enough to get picky on this, in my opinion!

[Sblargh]

Yes, I can understand this. My first "draft" of that post just said "philosophy," but I specifically went back and put "or ideology" because of this issue. I think it's fairly clear that Austrian economics fits that description better. I think that covers it rather fairly, and the discussion is already more than broad enough to get picky on this, in my opinion!

I agree, sorry if I overreacted.

[vcassano1]

Modern Sociology mostly seems like history. Just a bunch of facts. Of course some people read the facts and draw bad conclusions from it. I don't view it as science. And I do think it is a troubled field where a lot of inaccurate narratives have been created.

History is not a 'bunch of facts'. It definitely isn't a science because so much of it requires interpretation, there are evidential gaps and it is not testable.

[strobogo]

Romney should have picked this Paul Ryan.

[itsgreen]

Romney should have picked this Paul Ryan.

I am kind of sad I understand this...

[Guileless]

The Prosperity Gospel is the worst thing that ever happened to America.

The Prosperity Gospel is just a form of heresy to accommodate Christianity to a culture where "growth" is the organizing principle of society. The Prosperity Gospel is a byproduct.

If you take one Bible quote and apply it across a range of complex social problems to reach sweeping conclusions, you're doing the same thing as fundamentalist preachers. I'm guessing that people who are openly contemptuous of Christianity aren't here to have a theological discussion beyond "Jesus was a librul" but remember: the mainline Protestant denominations that embraced conventional left wing dogma and reinterpreted 2,000 years of theology to do so are all rapidly dying. The reasons for that are complex and beyond the scope of a forum post, but even if you'll never spend even five minutes thinking about Christian theology, you should know that saying "Jesus was a librul who would agree with the Democratic party" is a less a serious explanation than a way to score debate points.

[Mgoblue201]

Some things in economics and human psychology are conceivably possible to test in theory but rather impractical or unethical to actually do so. For example, you cannot cause financial crises, controlling for specific factors, just to test which economic theory is correct. You have to rely upon "natural experiments", but they are rarely so decisive that a consensus develops.

A well reasoned response. What you may be missing, or I may not have made clear, is that there are things that would involve a "value system" that he would agree with without abandoning his Christianity (modified as it may be, as all religious people are). Such as the values present in their beliefs in individualism, or the values present in the idea of a free market, her thoughts on so many other things. It's not as simple as "he only agrees with her economic theory, and there are no values in economic theory," because he probably doesn't ONLY agree with her on that (since she blabs about EVERYTHING), and there are values present in economic philosophies."

You had made yourself clear up until now, but in your attempt to clarify, I'm not entirely sure what you're arguing in this post. In my opinion, the way in which Ryan attempts to pass off Rand as "just" another interesting thinker, rather than a source of personal inspiration as he did years before, represents a clear shift in how he is attempting to position his beliefs. Again, he doesn't have to be an atheist, or even an objectivist (a term so full of vanity that only someone who believes in its narcissistic precepts could take it seriously), but it appears to me that Rand's novels mean something more to him than books that he "enjoyed". The problem is that he is presenting a false dichotomy between merely enjoying the books and being a full blown objectivist. The truth is more likely something in between. To take up your Hitchens example again, it doesn't appear to me as if you would speak at something called the Christopher Hitchens Institute or the Hitchens Contrarian Society unless the man meant a lot to you. And yet Ryan did something precisely similar by speaking to the Atlas Society.

I also wouldn't go so far as to say that values have no place in economics. In some cases, values dictate economics, and in others, economics dictate values. In this case, Ryan clearly shares some of the values with Rand that dictate his economic ideas.

Fake edit: How he presents his beliefs are also important. The fact that Ryan basically says, "I enjoyed Rand's books, but I'm no atheist or objectivist" suggests to me that he is being defensive about it in an attempt to play down the influence that it had on him. He could've answered the questions by praising some of Rand's ideas, but he instead attempts to castigate the ones he disagrees with.

[Instigator]

I am kind of sad I understand this...

I'm cool enough for not understanding it.

[Souldriver]

Completely off topic, but I love Colbert's impersonation of Romney during the phone call segment in "Better Know a District".


Keith.. Hah Hah... Hah... Hah... Now then, Keith...

[captainnapalm]

Romney introduces this guy and at the most crucial moment just blurts out 'Here's your next president!', totally messing it up. Cue Armageddon-style Michael Bay backing music. In walks the guy who popped up on the radar last year as pushing some godawful tax plan that nails the vulnerable and gives more tax breaks to the filthy rich.

I know it's fashionable to hate on American politics, but damn.

[OneFiftyOne]

... As for calling income taxes theft, well, that's just silly.

Yeah, 'extortion' is a far more accurate term

[daycru]

Well, all right, it's probably an exaggeration. It might be more accurate to say that many of America's worst failings stem from the poisonous idea of manifest destiny, which I would argue is the root from which the prosperity gospel derives.

Prosperity gospel rules, my dipshit mother got into it when I was 9 or 10. You put 10% of your money, more if you're truly hardcore, into a MAGIC STOCK MARKET, and you'll get rich. Didn't work out for her, bet it did for the preacher though!

[Mgoblue201]

I've noticed that the anti-tax people never present their case as a natural tradeoff between more services vs. less government interference, but instead as an unalloyed good. Those on the left often do something similar, and it's always very convenient how one's philosophical beliefs about the role of the government, if one's arguments are true, provide almost universal practical benefits. No one ever seems to argue that their worldview has actual significant downsides that we should tolerate in pursuit of some greater good, such as individual liberty.

[Hitokage]

I've noticed that the anti-tax people never present their case as a natural tradeoff between more services vs. less government interference, but instead as an unalloyed good. Those on the left often do something similar, and it's always very convenient how one's philosophical beliefs about the role of the government, if one's arguments are true, provide almost universal practical benefits. No one ever seems to argue that their worldview has actual significant downsides that we should tolerate in pursuit of some greater good, such as individual liberty.

Liberal proposals often would restrict corporate liberty, but that isn't considered terribly important to begin as they are not considered synonymous with "the people" but rather another power player acting on them. As such, "the people" are protected from the power of business interests and receive more personal freedom as a result. Another factor is the increased contribution to the social contract in the form of taxes above zero, but the benefits of a funded government are supposed to make this worth it.

[The Technomancer]

It depends on how one defines scientific, to Austrians it's more of a philosophical take on economics where Keynesian is more of a mathematical take. Each side believing their's to be more more correct. Both sides have good arguments about it too. So i'm not saying one side is inherently right or wrong. It's more like one side is skeptical whereas the other side believes something along the lines of social engineering.

What? Sociology and psychology, to some extent today, still believe in the observation of reality and the collection of data. They may not always be effective or accurate but they are increasing their effectiveness and accuracy by embracing the scientific method. Austrian economics literally rejects the idea that observations of the world should be a basis for theory, instead taking the tack that philosophizing about how people "should" behave will be accurate and free of internal biases.

[Wazzim]

I've noticed that the anti-tax people never present their case as a natural tradeoff between more services vs. less government interference, but instead as an unalloyed good. Those on the left often do something similar, and it's always very convenient how one's philosophical beliefs about the role of the government, if one's arguments are true, provide almost universal practical benefits. No one ever seems to argue that their worldview has actual significant downsides that we should tolerate in pursuit of some greater good, such as individual liberty.

To quote a book about modern socialism: "The right starts with liberty while the left ends up with liberty."

[wildfire]

Almost immaculate. Someone bring a poet.