Discussion
•Logically refutes and debunks socialism and interventionism.
•People keep asking 'source?? proof??'
•Logically refutes and debunks the very notion of asking 'source?? proof??' in social sciences.
•Gets labelled a kook, ignored and accused of not understanding reality.
•Keeps getting proven right over and over again, by reality.
Ludwig von Mises.
He is HIM.
What is the argument he uses against asking for a source? 😂
Highly anticipating answer to this. Think it's related to what am reading now but still struggling to understand
Nice! What are you reading?
Spontaneous Order (see pic), and just learned term "synthetic a priori proposition/axiom" and it's my new favorite term even though I still don't understand it fully (only couple hours into a pretty dense audiobook with the dryest reader...)
Axiom of action which is literally what it was talking about this morning felt closely connected to your post, or at least logic of it
Ahh I see. We're sort of on a similar learning path. Awesome!
It's taking time for me as well and I also haven't wrapped my head around it yet, so you're not alone.
'Synthetic a priori' is an idea from Kantian philosophy. Hoppe explains it pretty well. For reference, here are some lectures by him where he talks about this:
An LLM can be of great help. Try asking it the following key words
1. 'A priori' vs 'A posteriori'
2. 'Synthetic' vs 'Analytic'
3. 'Methodological dualism' vs 'Methodological monism'
4. Rationalism vs Empiricism
Bookmarked, thanks!!
Been feeling need to learn this more, as I think Mahdood has too based on convos. Got this book from a recent Jack post at the right time so figured why not.
So far it's a bit textbookish in density and style, and read by what I'm pretty sure is an AI British voice (though it claims to be a real person!). If I focus hard and listen, much learn, but struggle
Very dense audiobooks require to sit and focus. That kind of defeats the purpose of it being an audiobook for me. Half my audiobooks I couldn’t finish and needed to get a physical copy to actually read haha
Yeah, had the credits. May get physical still, we shall see. May also never finish it :/
I suggest you guys check out these lectures and talks I compiled if you don't have the time or patience to read books. It might be useful:
https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLaR3sy0CQTO5gfm4wM6BZqjdzQWKbX5uD
Sick. Will have to save on proper account.
Looking back on this now, and this playlist has got to be no less than 50 hours long!
Haha yeah, thought it might be a good idea to compile good lectures and talks for people looking to go down the libertarian rabbithole
Just had to do a double take when I saw that I. Context of your "if you don't have time to read" comment. Such a big rabbit hole, but seems rewarding
It's definitely rewarding. Great way to deprogram ourselves from propaganda and see things happening around us with more clarity.
I think it was Pierre's comment on a podcast recently, describing knowing this as "it was like having a cheat code," that pushed my interest over the edge. Shame it requires so much reading though lol
That's a great way to put it!
I don't necessarily think it needs a lot of reading for a basic understanding.
Economics in one lesson by Henry Hazlitt is a short book that is a great read to understand basic principles. It is as impactful as the Bitcoin Standard.
So that's the main single book entry point you recommend?
May have to pivot from current book to something like that... gonna push ahead a bit with current one, but will keep in back pocket this one. Thanks
Of course. For economics that's the one.
For politics, 'Anatomy of the State' by Rothbard is a very short and sweet one.
'For a New Liberty' by Rothbard incorporates ideas that come in AofS, with a more elaborate introduction to Libertarianism.
'Ethics of Liberty' by him would be for a deeper examination of the libertarian ethic. I'm currently reading this.
Man says that in social sciences, truth is derived through 'praxeological' reasoning, not empirical observation. i.e. you *deduce* and *reason out* truths rather than *calculate* or *observe* them.
Unlike natural sciences like physics, which rely on controlled experiments and isolated observation, social sciences like economics is about studying the laws of human action independent of data or sources.
Controlled experiments in human societies is not possible, as there are people who interact with each other and make hundreds of decisions based on hundreds of values and desires that are all unknowable.
Society is uncontrollable and unplannable. So one can't understand it using statistics, equations and math models.
I think I read that in human action or something similar to that. It’s one of the arguments I made against someone who claimed that the government runs all these simulations and tests to know exactly how much oppression they can create to control people. But a simulation cannot consistently predict human action because of those countless calculations we make.
Yes sir
I think these are things that people implicitly understand but their 'education' and 'critical thinking' confuses them
It was like that for me 😭
