0 sats \ 10 replies \ @Undisciplined OP 10h \ parent \ on: Wanted: Critics of Austrian Economics econ
I'm sick of rehashing the same points with you. That's not what the author is requesting. We're aware that most people are statists and I've told you before why I don't think your arguments are any good.
Here's the assignment: read Human Action, read Man, Economy, and State, read A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism, and then come back with arguments about where specifically Austrian theory makes mistakes.
You cannot refute my assertion...admittedly it is a broad one but deliberately so as it gives you ample scope to respond in a reasoned manner if you chose to...it covers almost the entire scope of Libertarian - Austrian dogma.
You claim you have previously responded - where?
I suggest you cannot point to any sequence of reasoned arguments where you have engaged in the issues raised rather than attacking the messenger or completely avoiding any direct, meaningful and actual contest of ideas/critique.
No, you like other Austrians are so sure you are right that you do not believe it necessary to provide a reasoned retort to a direct challenge - instead you seek to shoot the messenger...and then you wonder why there are no critics prepared to engage...it is because you are not capable.
reply
We've had this conversation over and over again. The fact that you don't remember makes it even more pointless to engage with you now.
reply
BTW your (mis)use of the word statist as an implied term of disrespect proves how broadly appropriate my initial challenge is.
You could help readers by defining how and why you see the term statist as a term of disrespect.
A contest of ideas being a logical sequenced dialogue which observers can follow using logic and reason to weigh the merits of the arguments.
reply
Here's the definition:
In political science, statism or etatism (from French état, "state") is the doctrine that the political authority of the state is legitimate to some degree.
Feel free to explain in what way I misused the term.
reply
You have called me a statist in a context strongly suggesting such name calling constitutes an argument credibility and substance.
You cannot see that the definition you provide is in no way justifies such name calling?
It is not a definition that even fits the context you have used it it. It is pure nonsense.
Yes I argue that the state is an important mechanism in economic functioning and therefore (conditionally) legitimate but unless you have demonstrated that you can refute my position on that you have provided no argument at all.
reply
This conversation is not a contest of ideas-this is you avoiding any fact based reasoned contest of ideas.
You cannot point to any example of where you have engaged in such a manner as would constitute a critical debate and contest of ideas.
I ask you again to point to an example.
Silence.
reply
Go reread our past exchanges if you're interested. I'm not doing this with you again, because you don't make any attempt to understand my position.
Or, go argue with someone else.
Or, like I said above, actually read some Austrian writing, so that you aren't coming from a place of complete ignorance, and come back with specific criticisms and we can dive into them.
reply
You cannot and will not when requested provide any evidence of the assertions you have made.
Instead they are now exposed as baseless claims, claims you cannot justify or demonstrate.
Critical debate and contest of ideas is actual proof of work - work you cannot perform.
Asking someone to go and read your dogma is not a contest of ideas.
You may be convinced of the dogma but you are unable to elucidate it convincingly when challenged.
reply
You have just as much access to our past exchanges as I do. If you're curious, go read them. Otherwise, fuck off and leave me alone. You're just being an obnoxious troll.
You can see in my exchanges with other commenters that I agree with some criticisms of the Austrians and I push back on some. I'm also clearly willing to explain my views. I'm just sick of interacting with you, because you're extremely tedious.
I won't reply again, unless you do what I've asked in the prior comments first.
reply
I have not claimed our previous exchanges constitute a reasoned debate- quite the opposite.
I recall them being exactly the same evasion of the issues and serial name calling that you are repeating again here.
That is why I called you out on your claim- and you have failed to link to any case where you have provided a logical and fact based response. Its not my job to prove your baseless claims- in a contest of ideas if you make an assertion you are bound to provide fact based reasoned support for it- or concede that you cannot...which you have done via serial default.
Get it yet?
Critical debate and contest of ideas is actual proof of work - work you cannot perform.
'I won't reply again, unless you do what I've asked in the prior comments first.'
Oh the petulance! You sound like a civil servant on a power trip!
Asking someone to go and read your dogma is not a contest of ideas.
You may be convinced of the dogma but you are unable to elucidate it convincingly when challenged.
All you have done is demonstrated that when invited to engage in a critical analysis, contest of ideas and debate over a very inclusive range of Libertarian-Austrian theory, you simply cannot or will not.
reply