Why isn't every economist an Austrian?

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
The argument for AC'ism on this board is mostly based on personal real life experience and the belief that "taxation is theft" not on sound economic analysis.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not really. I am no fan of the slogan "taxation is theft", but the fact of the matter is that simple one-liners like that are more effective in getting your point across to the status quo than saying something like "economic systems with internalized productive consequences are more conducive to productivity than economic systems with externalized productive consequences." Yeesh, what a mouthful. Unfortunately, those that actually are intelligent enough to understand what we are talking about look at this like dogmatic nonsense. It's as though we have a forum of many different grade levels; things directed at later grades are too confusing to those in earlier grades, and things directed at earlier grades look stupid to those in later grades.

I notice a lot of times that ACists here also try to say things so that they won't appear heartless, despite the fact that heartlessness is necessary to macroeconomic development (after all, the results of our economic decisions will make an impact on whether large groups of people prosper, fail, starve or die). I don't understand why there is an apologetic group claiming that private charities will help the homeless under anarchocapitalism; the whole point is that a capitalist system selects against unproductivity, thereby alleviating the problem of poverty. Worrying about how we subsidize the unproductive is like worrying about what's going to happen to the poor tapeworm living in my intestines after the surgery.

Personally, I could give a rat's ass whether taxation is "theft" or not. If socialism induced more productivity and happiness from purposefully acting human beings than capitalism, I'd support socialism.

[SNOWBALL]

[ QUOTE ]

Personally, I could give a rat's ass whether taxation is "theft" or not. If socialism induced more productivity and happiness from purposefully acting human beings than capitalism, I'd support socialism.


[/ QUOTE ]

yesssssssssssss
(it does btw)

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Personally, I could give a rat's ass whether taxation is "theft" or not. If socialism induced more productivity and happiness from purposefully acting human beings than capitalism, I'd support socialism.


[/ QUOTE ]

yesssssssssssss
(it does btw)

[/ QUOTE ]

Damn, I never thought about it that way before. I am convinced! [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
I notice a lot of times that ACists here also try to say things so that they won't appear heartless, despite the fact that heartlessness is necessary to macroeconomic development (after all, the results of our economic decisions will make an impact on whether large groups of people prosper, fail, starve or die). I don't understand why there is an apologetic group claiming that private charities will help the homeless under anarchocapitalism

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, given that you then said this:

[ QUOTE ]
the whole point is that a capitalist system selects against unproductivity, thereby alleviating the problem of poverty. Worrying about how we subsidize the unproductive is like worrying about what's going to happen to the poor tapeworm living in my intestines after the surgery.

[/ QUOTE ]

You might want to soften up this language a bit, if you're truly here to convert people. I understand you probably don't intend to sound this way, but the second quote above, if read the wrong way, sort of borders on "capitalizm will finish what Der Furher started". I understand part of embracing eugenics necessarily implies some form of forceful intervention, which I suspect you'll disavow, but saying what capitalism will 'select for' and then comparing unproductive people to parasites might not win you many followers (for obvious reasons), hence why ACist apologists may want to at least feign some level of care for the downtrodden.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
The title basically sums it up. People on this forum--some with little to no formal economic knowledge--are able to see with such clarity the economic obviousness of Austrian economics and, following that, the obviousness of AC. So, why then, is not every economist, who undoubtedly has more economic knowledge than any of us, an Austrian, at least in their private lives?

[/ QUOTE ]

The same could be said of just about any economic theory. If socialism is so great...why don't ALL of the experts agree? If xyz is so great...why don't ALL of the experts agree?

[TomCollins]

There are two main reasons:

1) Intelligent people disagree with each other over conclusions when they start with different assumptions or premises.

2) Those who have Austrian leanings are generally not interested in an acedemic lifestyle. I was certain I would never want to work in the acedemia.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]

You might want to soften up this language a bit, if you're truly here to convert people. I understand you probably don't intend to sound this way, but the second quote above, if read the wrong way, sort of borders on "capitalizm will finish what Der Furher started". I understand part of embracing eugenics necessarily implies some form of forceful intervention, which I suspect you'll disavow, but saying what capitalism will 'select for' and then comparing unproductive people to parasites might not win you many followers (for obvious reasons), hence why ACist apologists may want to at least feign some level of care for the downtrodden.

[/ QUOTE ]

My point exactly; an ACist can't speak frankly without a bunch of people misunderstanding it. Luckily, I don't really care about converting people here anymore, I'm just more interested in discussing economics with people and don't really care how it sounds to the uninformed.

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why isn't every scientist an atheist?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because science has nothing to do with religion.

[/ QUOTE ]


Religion is anti-knowledge:
"X exists but I have no concept/theory of X"

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why isn't every scientist an atheist?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because atheism does not follow from the observational evidence.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think he's using the false definition of atheism that includes agnosticism. Without proof for or against religion, any scientist would remain agnostic.

[/ QUOTE ]


Agnosticism is not a belief position. Religious concepts have no definitions. Evidence relates to scientific theories. Either you accept undefined concepts as true or you don't; there's no middle way.

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why isn't every scientist an atheist?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because science has nothing to do with religion.

[/ QUOTE ]


Religion is anti-knowledge:
"X exists but I have no concept/theory of X"

[/ QUOTE ]

Science, though, does not rule out that of which it has no knowledge. Science builds a base of theory (or of knowledge, subject to later revision) and proceeds from there. There is nothing in science that says: "What we know, exists; and that of which we do not know, does not exist."

Scientists or mathematicians might make some case that the existence of God appears unlikely. While arguable, that is essentially different from claiming certainty that God does not exist. Full atheism cannot be supported from the scientific viewpoint, although a low chance of the existence of God might be so argued.