Bob, my brand is pretty diluted around here anyway, having been cast into the “crude Rothbardbot Austrian ignorophobe” box by the Usual Suspects long ago. At this point it’s more fun to troll the trolls.
That being said, I thought this little jab was both:
a.) relevant to the story, which involved a broken calculator on the site
b.) funny (from a crude Austrian POV) because it plays to Mises’s argument that socialist systems can’t engage in rational economic calculation
So on both accounts, perhaps, I am leading Bob Roddis because he is often accused of being a.) irrelevant and b.) curmudgeonly.
While it should be clear by now after the “shutdown” that our opponents do not (and do not want to) understand the first thing about libertarian and/or Austrian concepts, I missed the memo which explained that for tactical reasons we should keep our basic concepts secret and/or unintelligible.
I think what you’re touching upon, in your own, crude little way, is that Austrians haven’t developed an internally consistent “epistemology of error” of our intellectual opponents. We just try to respond to their errors without first thinking about what the thought process was that led them to that error.
So, if, for example, they’re purposefully or unwittingly denying or ignoring basic concepts, as you purport, that invites one kind of response.
But if they’re aware of and acknowledging those basic concepts and have reasoned erroneously from them, that invites another kind of response.
Thanks for the input, VP. I agree that it’s a good idea the next time I’m trying to pick up chicks in a bar to explain to them the need to develop an internally consistent “epistemology of error” of our intellectual opponents.
Hey guys, I can’t tell if you’re fighting or just kidding each other… In any event Bob Roddis I meant it more like, you don’t sit in Norm’s seat at Cheers.
Since I am all about transparency I’ll lay my cards out on this one.
It’s more of a bait-and-switch. Think about the undercover cop who beats up a gangster to gain street cred with the other gangsters that he’s not an undercover cop, a la DiCaprio in “The Departed”.
Since Roddis is an obvious, villainous crude Austrian, by throwing him under the bus in a visible, public manner, I hope to gain street cred with the more reasonable people who follow your blog (Ken B, DK, LK, JCat, Edward, joe, joeftansey, Blackadder, unicorns, Santa Claus, etc…. am I forgetting anyone in this pantheon if superior reasoning and objective idea-mongering??) and infiltrate their ranks.
Then, when I am invited to their secret meetings I can learn how they do it (reason more honestly and self-reflectively than I am capable of) and maybe, just maybe, figure out a way to sabotage them and take them all down from the inside. That way, I could destroy what little good there is in the world rather than confront my own need to improve my limited self as it exists now.
Anyway, since you’re confused about what I’m up to I take it this ruse is working so I’ll likely keep it up to the extent I have interest in entertaining myself this way. Which, honestly, I have very little of right now.
With guaranteed insurance and no lifetime limit you have to have a death panel otherwise the system is guaranteed to bleed itself dry in just a short time.
Insurance companies have death panels in their own right. It just is structured differently than a government death panel.
How many times can you spend 5 million dollars saving 90 year olds?
Any such failure as you describe provides important information regarding firms, processes, individual managers, entrepreneurs Including answering the question “Do I want to do business with these folks?” etc….There is no competitive alternative to Obamacare and the competitive pricing process is not allowed to operate as to individual procedures or entry into the market to provide those procedures etc.. This is why it will be a monstrous failure.
ok, so you agree that private business can screw up, but you argue that a competitive market means that over time screw ups will probably lose money. But that in itself won’t eliminate screw ups; screw ups always happen.
Think of the market as the only way to allow competition to fix inevitable screw ups.
Don’t think of the market process as guaranteeing perfection. No serious free market theory has ever included that assumption. Attacking this belief is not even addressing the market process at all.
The market is a process of making profit…and incurring loss.
Losses are in some respects even more important than gains, because in a free market there tends to be more failed start ups than successful startups. I don’t have the numbers handy, but I believe the long run average for new start ups is something like five failures for every success.
Without brutally punishing bad investments, we’re all worse off in the long run, which eventually becomes the permanent short run.
Right now we’re living the long run effects of past preventions of failures by way of government intervention throughout the economy, for decades and decades. The persistent fear of bankruptcy, job loss, and, in general, making mistakes, has created this touchy feely, avoid all pain at all costs mentality that has become a cancer in our society.
markets and governments are different aspects of our society. You seem to want to eliminate the latter part altogether. I don’t; I think markets and government are a good combination in society. Of course the problem is getting it right, and there will always be screw ups.
You might be right that people can get too soft when the world isn’t harsh enough to them. But the fact is that lots of people wanted a basic level of security and wellbeing, and fought for it. I don’t think there’s any reason why people shouldn’t be guaranteed some basic goods and services, even if it means people have to pay taxes.
“Markets and governments are different aspects of our society.”
They are both choices. Both of them have specific consequences when utilized to solve social problems.
“You seem to want to eliminate the latter part altogether. I don’t; I think markets and government are a good combination in society. Of course the problem is getting it right, and there will always be screw ups.”
I don’t accept your beliefs concerning government at face value. It is not enough to just say “I believe this” or “I believe that.”
“You might be right that people can get too soft when the world isn’t harsh enough to them. But the fact is that lots of people wanted a basic level of security and wellbeing, and fought for it.”
You make it sound like reality is a war itself. You say people “fought” for it? Fought for it against what? Who? How does one even “fight” for a better health or material standard of living?
What you really mean that “lots of people” fought against innocent people who did no wrong to them, because the war mongers wanted something they had, but didn’t want to offer anything of value to them in order to convince them to exchange.
What you really mean is that the “fighters” disrespected the choices of those who didn’t want to fight, but peacefully cooperate instead, e.g. trade.
“I don’t think there’s any reason why people shouldn’t be guaranteed some basic goods and services, even if it means people have to pay taxes.”
There are reasons, you just choose to either ignore them, or disrespect them.
One reason why people should not be guaranteed basic goods and services, is because food and services require the labor of others. If you say to A that you guarantee their food, but you don’t have food to give, then you must either seek out charity from others, enslave others and force them to provide food, or you must steal the food or money from others.
Are you willing to yourself do any of these? You must do at least one of them if your guarantee is motivated by true benevolence, and not cowardly hypocrisy of wanting others to do what you claim is the moral thing to do.
I don’t think you should consider any beating up and robbing to be acceptable, Bala. If this is happening to you at present, you should report it immediately to the police.
>In 1996, the Supreme Court Bennis v. Michigan upheld the seizure of a vehicle as contraband, despite the owner’s use of the innocent owner defense.
The innocent owner defense being the defense that states “I didn’t commit a crime”. So, as we can see, in 1996 the Supreme Court held that the police can take your shit REGARDLESS OF WHETHER YOU COMMITTED A CRIME. Because forget you, you little serf.
Oh, and to use that defense, according to the law: “claimant shall have the burden of proving that the claimant is an innocent owner by a preponderance of the evidence”.
So now the police can steal your stuff, you have to PROVE YOUR OWN INNOCENCE, and then they STILL may not be required to give it back!
Even the market is rigged these days. The timing of freezes and blackouts are way to kwinkidinki.
Fact is, algorithm trading has tried to divest from the market to near zero several times in the recent past. The computers know what global digital fiat really. POP.
And what gave you the impression that anyone out here, least of all Bob, is inferring that government can’t engage in rational calculation from the failure of healthcare.gov? The current failure is just an instance of what theory established ages ago.
They were making a joke because there was an actual calculator that didn’t work at healthcare DOT gov, according to the clip. Not sure if that matters…
Yesterday was my first day of jury selection, somehow they made it take 2 days. Not sure why we all had to go home for 5 hours and come back at 4 PM, but hey, they taxpayers is paying their wages and I am paying my own.
I laid in bed last night sleepless, thinking if government healthcare is anything like jury duty, we are all going to get sick and die…
What do you know, socialists fail at calculation once again.
No need to worry, they’ll definitely get it right next time.
I think you should have let Bob Roddis take that one…
Bob, my brand is pretty diluted around here anyway, having been cast into the “crude Rothbardbot Austrian ignorophobe” box by the Usual Suspects long ago. At this point it’s more fun to troll the trolls.
That being said, I thought this little jab was both:
a.) relevant to the story, which involved a broken calculator on the site
b.) funny (from a crude Austrian POV) because it plays to Mises’s argument that socialist systems can’t engage in rational economic calculation
So on both accounts, perhaps, I am leading Bob Roddis because he is often accused of being a.) irrelevant and b.) curmudgeonly.
While it should be clear by now after the “shutdown” that our opponents do not (and do not want to) understand the first thing about libertarian and/or Austrian concepts, I missed the memo which explained that for tactical reasons we should keep our basic concepts secret and/or unintelligible.
I think what you’re touching upon, in your own, crude little way, is that Austrians haven’t developed an internally consistent “epistemology of error” of our intellectual opponents. We just try to respond to their errors without first thinking about what the thought process was that led them to that error.
So, if, for example, they’re purposefully or unwittingly denying or ignoring basic concepts, as you purport, that invites one kind of response.
But if they’re aware of and acknowledging those basic concepts and have reasoned erroneously from them, that invites another kind of response.
Thanks for the input, VP. I agree that it’s a good idea the next time I’m trying to pick up chicks in a bar to explain to them the need to develop an internally consistent “epistemology of error” of our intellectual opponents.
“… for tactical reasons we should keep our basic concepts …unintelligible.”
Major_Freedom has been doing sterling service in this regard.
It’s not MF’s fault that you don’t understand him.
Hey guys, I can’t tell if you’re fighting or just kidding each other… In any event Bob Roddis I meant it more like, you don’t sit in Norm’s seat at Cheers.
VP and I have been blood enemies since the 1940s.
Bob,
Since I am all about transparency I’ll lay my cards out on this one.
It’s more of a bait-and-switch. Think about the undercover cop who beats up a gangster to gain street cred with the other gangsters that he’s not an undercover cop, a la DiCaprio in “The Departed”.
Since Roddis is an obvious, villainous crude Austrian, by throwing him under the bus in a visible, public manner, I hope to gain street cred with the more reasonable people who follow your blog (Ken B, DK, LK, JCat, Edward, joe, joeftansey, Blackadder, unicorns, Santa Claus, etc…. am I forgetting anyone in this pantheon if superior reasoning and objective idea-mongering??) and infiltrate their ranks.
Then, when I am invited to their secret meetings I can learn how they do it (reason more honestly and self-reflectively than I am capable of) and maybe, just maybe, figure out a way to sabotage them and take them all down from the inside. That way, I could destroy what little good there is in the world rather than confront my own need to improve my limited self as it exists now.
Anyway, since you’re confused about what I’m up to I take it this ruse is working so I’ll likely keep it up to the extent I have interest in entertaining myself this way. Which, honestly, I have very little of right now.
Roddis used to be a hippie so you’re hippie punching. I get it.
What do you mean by “used to be”?
On a serious note, Canada really does have death panels, and that’s a really good thing.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2013/10/canada_has_death_panels_and_that_s_a_good_thing.html?wpisrc=newsletter_jcr:content
With guaranteed insurance and no lifetime limit you have to have a death panel otherwise the system is guaranteed to bleed itself dry in just a short time.
Insurance companies have death panels in their own right. It just is structured differently than a government death panel.
How many times can you spend 5 million dollars saving 90 year olds?
according to you guys, the fact that Nasdaq screwed up the facebook IPO proves that private business “can’t engage in rational economic calculation”.
Private business doesn’t, on its own. The market does. The Facebook stock plummeting WAS rational economic calculation!
I was referring to the technical failings of the Nasdaq on the IPO, not the falling stock price.
Any such failure as you describe provides important information regarding firms, processes, individual managers, entrepreneurs Including answering the question “Do I want to do business with these folks?” etc….There is no competitive alternative to Obamacare and the competitive pricing process is not allowed to operate as to individual procedures or entry into the market to provide those procedures etc.. This is why it will be a monstrous failure.
ok, so you agree that private business can screw up, but you argue that a competitive market means that over time screw ups will probably lose money. But that in itself won’t eliminate screw ups; screw ups always happen.
Think of the market as the only way to allow competition to fix inevitable screw ups.
Don’t think of the market process as guaranteeing perfection. No serious free market theory has ever included that assumption. Attacking this belief is not even addressing the market process at all.
The market is a process of making profit…and incurring loss.
Losses are in some respects even more important than gains, because in a free market there tends to be more failed start ups than successful startups. I don’t have the numbers handy, but I believe the long run average for new start ups is something like five failures for every success.
Without brutally punishing bad investments, we’re all worse off in the long run, which eventually becomes the permanent short run.
Right now we’re living the long run effects of past preventions of failures by way of government intervention throughout the economy, for decades and decades. The persistent fear of bankruptcy, job loss, and, in general, making mistakes, has created this touchy feely, avoid all pain at all costs mentality that has become a cancer in our society.
markets and governments are different aspects of our society. You seem to want to eliminate the latter part altogether. I don’t; I think markets and government are a good combination in society. Of course the problem is getting it right, and there will always be screw ups.
You might be right that people can get too soft when the world isn’t harsh enough to them. But the fact is that lots of people wanted a basic level of security and wellbeing, and fought for it. I don’t think there’s any reason why people shouldn’t be guaranteed some basic goods and services, even if it means people have to pay taxes.
OK. So how much beating up and robbing should I consider acceptable? I ask because that’s all government does.
James:
“Markets and governments are different aspects of our society.”
They are both choices. Both of them have specific consequences when utilized to solve social problems.
“You seem to want to eliminate the latter part altogether. I don’t; I think markets and government are a good combination in society. Of course the problem is getting it right, and there will always be screw ups.”
I don’t accept your beliefs concerning government at face value. It is not enough to just say “I believe this” or “I believe that.”
“You might be right that people can get too soft when the world isn’t harsh enough to them. But the fact is that lots of people wanted a basic level of security and wellbeing, and fought for it.”
You make it sound like reality is a war itself. You say people “fought” for it? Fought for it against what? Who? How does one even “fight” for a better health or material standard of living?
What you really mean that “lots of people” fought against innocent people who did no wrong to them, because the war mongers wanted something they had, but didn’t want to offer anything of value to them in order to convince them to exchange.
What you really mean is that the “fighters” disrespected the choices of those who didn’t want to fight, but peacefully cooperate instead, e.g. trade.
“I don’t think there’s any reason why people shouldn’t be guaranteed some basic goods and services, even if it means people have to pay taxes.”
There are reasons, you just choose to either ignore them, or disrespect them.
One reason why people should not be guaranteed basic goods and services, is because food and services require the labor of others. If you say to A that you guarantee their food, but you don’t have food to give, then you must either seek out charity from others, enslave others and force them to provide food, or you must steal the food or money from others.
Are you willing to yourself do any of these? You must do at least one of them if your guarantee is motivated by true benevolence, and not cowardly hypocrisy of wanting others to do what you claim is the moral thing to do.
I think you might have some mental problem, MF.
“But that in itself won’t eliminate screw ups; screw ups always happen.”
It will discourage screwing up, meaning serving oneself at the expense of others.
I don’t think you should consider any beating up and robbing to be acceptable, Bala. If this is happening to you at present, you should report it immediately to the police.
But then who am I to report it to given that Government and its agents are the ones beating and robbing me?
And when it’s the police that are doing it?
>In 1996, the Supreme Court Bennis v. Michigan upheld the seizure of a vehicle as contraband, despite the owner’s use of the innocent owner defense.
The innocent owner defense being the defense that states “I didn’t commit a crime”. So, as we can see, in 1996 the Supreme Court held that the police can take your shit REGARDLESS OF WHETHER YOU COMMITTED A CRIME. Because forget you, you little serf.
Oh, and to use that defense, according to the law: “claimant shall have the burden of proving that the claimant is an innocent owner by a preponderance of the evidence”.
So now the police can steal your stuff, you have to PROVE YOUR OWN INNOCENCE, and then they STILL may not be required to give it back!
“I don’t think you should consider any beating up and robbing to be acceptable”
Taxes are robbery.
R U sure it was technical?
Even the market is rigged these days. The timing of freezes and blackouts are way to kwinkidinki.
Fact is, algorithm trading has tried to divest from the market to near zero several times in the recent past. The computers know what global digital fiat really. POP.
And what gave you the impression that anyone out here, least of all Bob, is inferring that government can’t engage in rational calculation from the failure of healthcare.gov? The current failure is just an instance of what theory established ages ago.
just going by what they wrote in their comments.
They were making a joke because there was an actual calculator that didn’t work at healthcare DOT gov, according to the clip. Not sure if that matters…
Their comments are of the following structure.
I told you so!!
Maybe you should spend some time understanding why they said so and the theory based on which they told you so.
Yesterday was my first day of jury selection, somehow they made it take 2 days. Not sure why we all had to go home for 5 hours and come back at 4 PM, but hey, they taxpayers is paying their wages and I am paying my own.
I laid in bed last night sleepless, thinking if government healthcare is anything like jury duty, we are all going to get sick and die…