RE: On Why I Am Skeptical of the Austrian School

[fsvoorhies]

i love ow rationalization is thrown out, really, scientific method solves all problems? this guy is more 1 dimensioal then he leads on. lol?

[AdversusHaereses]

The only thing Austrian economists can do is predict things, well if that is the use of a theory, what is the point of predictions when the the solutions to the problems are all tried-and-tested things which have not worked? The Austrian methodology is also based on false assumptions hence why it will never reach the status of mainstream economics. The lack of any positivist data and research is also a great downside of the school.

[CytherLynx]

the universe is largely determined. but in the sense that it is determined that if you flip a coin a a trillion times, it will even out to almost exactly 50%. ... in that effect, it is determined, even if QM is exactly not determined. we don't live on the level of QMs and it is clear the universe follows a non random pattern.

that being said however, the human mind should be treated as an unpredictable entity.

consciousness exists BECAUSE the universe is determined, not in spite of.

[CytherLynx]

@CytherLynx Austrian economics FTW.

Please, if you want to understand it yourself.

watch Youtube videos if you're slack. eg Thomas woods, Peter Schiff, Joseph Salerno etc

but then read:

'The Law', by Frederick Bastiat. (50 pages)

'Economics in one lesson', by Henry Hazlitt (270 pages)

two short books and you'll be fairly well versed.

~

if you want more (you will), read 'Man economy and state' by Rothbard (900+ pages) and keep up to date with mises(dot)org

[TimothyBragan]

Deductive logic fails because some people have deduced stupid nonsense at some point in some way. Hurr durr derpidy herp DERP.

[LudditeRomantic]

Thank you for this well reasoned and thoughtful response; in due time (as I stand in need to read more into the Austrian School) I shall continue this discussion in video....again, thank you good sir.

[migkillertwo]

I noticed that too about the main austrian thinkers. writers like Rockwell and Woods are vastly more pro-religious, pro-family and pro-tradition than these youtube anarcho-capitalists.

[oiuoiu988]

this is no offense to ryan because i think he does great work but most youtube austrians seem to fall right in line with his other views... i think its because its the economics and or anarchy that they are interested in, things like morality and free will/determinism are somewhat irrelevant to whether or not youre interested in economics. i also think the guys at the mises institute are almost as clique-y as the youtube austrians.

[upabittoolate]

Why be skeptical? Hmm, there's a few reasons. 1) You have a soul & you understand that social order isn't maintained by money alone. 2) You know that unregulated free-marketeering isn't an economically healthy model. 3) You're not an idiot. 4) You undestand that not everyone is starting from the same place so the notion of access or the ability to get to the same place isn't a reality.

Just my opinion about refurbished Reaganomics.

[Caveman135]

@upabittoolate What does Reaganomics have to do with the Austrain School? Reaganomics is a unholy marriage of the Supply-siders, the Keynesians, and the Monetarists. Austrain theory was largely ignored in that mix.

[upabittoolate]

@Caveman135 Nah. They took the free-market philosophy & ran with it. And yes, it was a VERY unholy marriage. If you let neo-cons tell it, Reaganomics was the embodiment (not sure if that's proper spelling) of Austrian economics.

[Caveman135]

@upabittoolate Well, most neo-cons are either conservative Keynesians or Milton Friedman monetarists, not Austrians. Deficit spending, protectionism != Free-market philosophy. You should try reading up on the Austrian School before you make that mistake again.

[GuardofLiberty]

@upabittoolate Epic fail times infinity.

[tumbleweedjoe]

@upabittoolate Reaganomics? Look, learn your stuff man.

[bearing01]

Great photo.

[TotalAnomy]

yay for determinist moral-nihilist libertarianism!

[tumbleweedjoe]

@TotalAnomy yay self-contradiction. If determinism is correct, none of us has any choice about what he believes or chooses in which case it is useless to try and change anything, discover the truth about the state, etc. What ever happen, happens. That's it.

[soultorment27]

@tumbleweedjoe That's a strawman of determinism. Determinism, in and of itself, says nothing about free will. Determinism could only be a 'self-contradiction' IF incompatibilism is true...

[tumbleweedjoe]

@soultorment27 I'm not strawmanning determinism. I've already dealt with this at length in my 3 part video on the series, but there is simply no way that determinism can really allow for good will if by determinism you mean that every human action is neccesitated by some previous physical state of affairs by which man is bound. Now if by determinism you mean some situation that permits man to be the originator of his own choices, then I would say you are not really a determinist. It's just...

[soultorment27]

@tumbleweedjoe

You're conflating determinism & incompatibilism. Strictly speaking determinism is silent on the issue of free will. Perhaps you believe incompatibilism is true, that's fine but just remember that determinism & incompatibilism come apart. Determinism ONLY rules out free will IF determinism is incompatible with free will. Many determinists believe incompatibilism is based on a misunderstanding & that free will is possible even if we arent the "ultimate source" of such...

[tumbleweedjoe]

@soultorment27 ... misusing language to say you're a determinist who believes in free will. The WHOLE POINT of determinism is that we do not have free will. Soft determinism and physicalist compatibilism (as tried to show in my series) are simply internally inconsistent, since physicalists must either affirm true randomness (which is inconsistent with free will) or affirm neccesitarianism (which is also incompatible with free will). There's no room for freedom, or persons in physicalism.

[soultorment27]

@tumbleweedjoe

It's a common mistake to conflate determinism & incompatibilism. But why are you so dismissive?

It seems that if actions are uncaused there's very little room for any freedom. If some agent performs an action x, and x is not caused by anything (whether it be internal or external to the agent) then x is completely random & therefore x is merely arbitrary. In what sense is a 100% random and uncaused action "free"?

You said yourself that complete randomness is not free...

[tumbleweedjoe]

@soultorment27 "It seems that if actions are uncaused there's very little room for any freedom. "

Yes, but nobody who is in my camp argues that chosen actions are uncaused! Free will means that I am the originator, the causual locus, of my own choices. I am a substance which (unlike other substances such as rocks, grashoppers and chimpanzees) has the unique power of intellect by virtue of which I can select a choice without bodily coercion. I determine chosen actions. But that is quite...

[soultorment27]

@tumbleweedjoe You say actions are caused by agents & that agents are the originator of their choices. But how does this sidestep the problem of randomness? Even if actions are caused by the will, if the will is itself uncaused then it's still random. We all recognize that the will is caused. We condition the behavior of others everyday. The will is caused by beliefs and desires. Beliefs and desires dont pop out of thin air they're shaped by factors. If the will wasnt caused it'd be irrational!

[tumbleweedjoe]

@soultorment27 I don't have to act on beliefs or desires, so no, those don't cause my will. My will is the causer, or else I simply have no will. Also, you cannot precede to infinity with causes, so eventually (in the case of the world) you must terminate in some kind of a prime mover, or basic fact which acts without being acted upon. But if there's at least on of these movers, why can't be other cause-originators with powers similar or analogous to the first? Not everything *can* be determined

[soultorment27]

@tumbleweedjoe "My will is the causer, or else I simply have no will" The will is caused. It would be meaningless to say that an agent is free to will freely as he will. The way we use the word "free" in ordinary language is consistent with compatibilism.

There was at least one uncaused cause but if the will was itself uncaused, it wouldnt be free. An uncaused cause is merely arbitrary and therefore random. This is why I'm having trouble conceiving the will as both uncaused and rational.

[tumbleweedjoe]

@soultorment27 ...different from saying that my actions are "determined" in the sense that determinists use that phrase. Because what they mean by it is that my agency is only one link in a casual series which is external to me an forces me to choose whatever it is I chose. Again, if all you mean by determinism is that all of my choices are caused and not random, then to that extent we agree. But the point is that I am the cause of my actions. This whole "cause" vs "randomness" dichotomy is a...

[tumbleweedjoe]

@soultorment27 ...red herring. That's not when the historical debate has been about! The determinists (historically) have been those who said that some external entity (either God (in the case of Calvinists) or Nature (in the case of materialists) makes me do what I do. The proponents of free will have argued that neither God or nature forces me to choose one way or the other, but rather because I'm a man, I have a specific special nature which allows me to originate my own actions.

[tumbleweedjoe]

@tumbleweedjoe *not what the historical debate has been about*

[ZullGostnu2]

Thanks for the links, I like a channel that promotes searching for answers.

[Ilikenuman]

Yeah Spawk is a determinist. But RaymondDundas isnt.