«12. . .3,5093,5103,5113,5123,5133,5143,515. . .3,6073,608»
not gonna lie "why can't i simulate a government that does nothing in this game which is about the government doing things" has always been one of my favourite complaints
What about ignoring issues?
Actually the Keynesian economics and statist politics taught in an Oxford PPE course is much the same as the Keynesian economics and statist politics taught at Scottish universities. There is only one non leftist university in the United Kingdom - the University of Buckingham (founded back in the late 1970s), and it caters mainly for overseas students who want two year (not three year - three year is standard in Britain) degrees, for financial reasons (Buckingham manages to do that by not having the long summer holidays). My old friend Norman Barry used to work at Buckingham - but since his death I have not really kept up to date with events there.
Would Britain be better if PPE did not exist? I doubt it - after all the "straight" economics and politics courses at other universities are just as bad. All that can be said in favour of British collectivist writers is that they tend to be less unreadable than continental writers - it is very hard for an ordinary person to even understand what (for example) Herbermas is even saying, so the temptation is to think "oh I can not understand this - it must be profound", it may just be bad writing.
As Harold Prichard and Sir William David Ross used to say (back when Oxford has decent philosophers) - if you do not use ordinary language (ordinary words, put into normal sentences) then you must have a good reason for why you are not talking (or writing) in a way that an ordinary person can understand - and, too often, continental writers have no good reason for the way they speak and write.
Antony Flew made the same point more recently. Of course Antony Flew (like Norman Barry) is dead now - a lot of the people I used to know are dead, that is one of the things about getting old.
It seems like Keynesian economics IS the only economics these days.
I for one, am awaiting the eventual collapse in society. Preppers ftw.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zl12dXYcUTo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yyF5tbN8iXw
http://reason.com/blog/2014/10/16/socialists-push-for-20-minimum-wage-but
Post by The gallifreyan translation unit suppressed by a moderator.
there are no women on the internet
Yes there ares
only you
Oh nose, I hases beens discoveres
Girl!! Gtfo no girls allowed.
But if there is just one girl, then there are no girls. Just girl
which means I'm right
Okay. Incoming sh!tstorm, putting on hazmat suit.
What does everyone think of this article: http://www.johnmccaskey.com/joomla/index.php/blog/71-new-libertarians
I've never been a hardline libertarian myself, and I've typically preferred the rule based consequentialism of Hayek and Friedman to Rand, much less Rothbard. I've justified the NAP, but never on solely natural rights. I've considered myself a (neo)classical liberal in many regards, but I still found the NAP and influences from Austrian economics to be a far stronger argument both morally and economically than anything left of Hayek, as I saw it as an eventual departure from what made Libertarianism justified - the NAP.
That being said, I both agree and disagree with this article. I agree that libertarianism, in order to adapt, should become more consequentalist and able to find good, market based solutions to current problems instead of go back to anarcho-capitalist "privatize errything" mantra. On the other hand, I bemoan what the consequentalism did to neoliberal parties like Germany's Free Democrats, or much more similar, Costa Rica's Libertarian Movement (which is basically liberal conservative now, despite having libertarian origins). If we continue to go down the path of "New" Libertarianism, it'll be the eventual death of Libertarianism and a repudiation of it's ethics. But if the broader Libertarian movement stagnates and doesn't accept anything but an anarcho-capitalist or hardline minarchist defense of itself, it'll never move outside the fringe of politics. Therefore I have become to believe that libertarians should focus on the medium in between those two points, adhering to the NAP, but as a principle and not an axiom, and never dogmatically. And be open to compromise, but not sacrifice individual liberties and non-aggression, or sacrifice the rule of the free market to corruption through utilitarian based intervention, like our liberal friends, and backtrack to statism and it's resulting problems.
Thoughts?
"but not sacrifice individual liberties and non-aggression, or sacrifice the rule of the free market to corruption through utilitarian based intervention, like our liberal friends, and backtrack to statism and it's resulting problems." So you're AnCap then?
I think there are strong consequentialist arguments for market anarchism and moral ones. Just look at David Friedman, consequentialist ancap.
The thing is, how do we know if 'New Libertarianism' isn't the best way? As it has just started out and the AnCap movement is just getting started, but new organizations and people popping up everywhere, people that are into philosophy and politics at the same time often goes to the extreme of their positions anyway. The Free Democrats were never libertarian, but rather classical liberals to some extent at least, but as they are fading away we also see more libertarian parties popping up or gaining ground(SSV - Czech Republic, KNP - Poland, SaS - Slovakia), particularly in Eastern Europe, even getting into the European parliament and the national parliaments. The youth party of the second largest Norwegian party in government, is libertarian too, for example.
Because it isn't, it's a "compromise" that seeks to socialize Libertarianism. AnCap movement has been around for fifty years in some form or another. Even more if you consider the nearly anarchistic liberal radicals of the 18th and 19th centuries to Nock. I always thought the FreeDems needed some sort of Ron Paul type character to gain some traction in the party, perhaps bring to light an anti-EU stance and support for hard money that the liberals wouldn't normally support. Basically introduce Austrian economics to a heavily monetarist party. Not only that, but the anti-euro populism could be beneficial for the FDP and leech more liberal voters away from the populist Alternative for Germany, which seems to be gaining traction. Otherwise I agree, I've always noticed that Eastern Europe seems to be a good place to cultivate libertarianism, as many young people seem to be liberal reactionaries against the former Soviet Union and other authoritarian regimes that had once characterized it. Case in point: Ayn Rand
Also, not an Ancap. Rule consequentialist minarchist.
Well one must start libertarianism somewhere, right? I don't mind compromising as long as it means the world because a freer place and less violent.
Are you German?(If yes you might know better than me) but AfD seems more economically liberal than the FDP, but populist on social policies so it's definitively not as liberal. Of course Germany also has the libertarian/AnCap/minarchist party, but they only got like 20.000 votes in the last election.
Also, the pro-eu anti-eu position is interesting in liberal circles, the more moderate classical parties are all in for the EU. As it in the short terms means more free trade and free movement. However the more hard line ones are against. And too be honest I think FDP quite frankly are too politically correct to have a Ron Paul character, which means to have very radical ideas and be very charismatic at the same time. Like Janúsz Korwin-Mikke, the libertarian monarchist leader of the polish party KNP, that wants to cut 99% of the state and are polling 5-11% right now. And indeed Eastern Europe has a lot more potential, the. Biggest party in Estonia for example, are arguably mainstream libertarian.
I have the best job and the best boss in the world.
And what would that job be, quality assurance tester at the Laphroaig distillery?
No. Still property management. Just at a different property with the same firm.
I am lucky to be there. It's a coincidence that I am there. But I am, and everyone likes me.
It is the old debate between pragmatism and principle.
The only solution (easy to say - but hard to hold on to) is to be pragmatic in one's tactics and principled in one's aims.
That is something I completely agree with, putting words to what I have been thinking, literally. It is however, notoriously hard to do.
«12. . .3,5093,5103,5113,5123,5133,5143,515. . .3,6073,608»
Advertisement
