Your desire to no longer address this issue is on you, and I might be willing to venture a result of your faith.

Be aware that while most of these resources (above) are available at no charge, The Road To Serfdom is still under copyright and must either be purchased or borrowed from a library.

See previous posts, I have gone around in circles long enough.

Your are being slippery with the definition of faith, though perhaps unintentionally, changing between epistemological faith and "confidence."

To quote Leonard Peikoff, epistemological faith is: “...blind acceptance of a certain ideational content, acceptance induced by feeling in the absence of evidence or proof.

Furthermore:
"thinking it is true requires belief/faith. Without it there is no way to think something is true."

This statement contradicts the metaphysical and epistemological premises I stated above. Thinking is the opposite of faith. See Peikoff's definition above.

"If you know a thing you have no need to test against it, only if you believe a thing or have faith that a thing is true do you have need to test."

You test to see if the hypothesis is true because you think it MIGHT be true, not because you already believe it's true. (Once again though, saying "I believe this hypothesis is true" is saying "I have CONFIDENCE this hypothesis is true" NOT "I have (epistemological) faith this hypothesis is true.")

Yoour own word useage "What do you see? Why do you think that is true?" thinking it is true requires belief/faith. Without it there is no way to think something is true.

You are making some assumption based partially on experience, knowledge and faith. You can not separate them.

If you know a thing you have no need to test against it, only if you believe a thing or have faith that a thing is true do you have need to test. You can attempt to spin the words but this fact is unavoidable.

I found this link http://mises.org/books/bastiat1.pdf which is a PDF file that includes both of Bastiat's works mentioned as well as some others.

Greetings WWJD,
Pardon me for interjecting here, but I have been following this thread and in particular, your above discourse with some interest. I am a particular fan of Frederic Bastiat’s work, although it is along a different tack, one of my favorite short reads is “The Law” his last effort before death. It is a brilliant, concise examination of the rightful purpose, necessity of laws and what their limits should be for free men. For short economics reads, which are in my opinion enjoyable and entertaining as well as educational, I would recommend “Free to Choose” by Rose and Milton Friedmen, for a relatively modern perspective, and “The Road to Serfdom” by Friederich von Hayek for a prophetic perspective from seventy odd years ago.
Regards,
O.A.

A hypothesis is not formed on faith or a lack of proof. It's the result of observations about the world that you then test more rigorously to see if your observations were correct. The more hypotheses you test, the more knowledge you have (of what is and isn't true), which helps you make more hypotheses.

To put it another way, my middle school science teacher concretized the scientific method as "Look at your fish." What do you see? Why do you think that is true? Ok, now test it.

Philosophically these ideas are in line with the metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics of objectivism.
-Metaphysics - the universe exists independent of man
-Epistemology - man is capable of understanding the universe through reason (and his sense faculties are not faulty)
-Ethics - the purpose of man's own existence is his life

The more knowledge you have, the better you can survive. That is where curiosity comes from--self esteem and intelligence.

I would start with Bastiat. His seminal work is named That Which Is Seen, and That Which Is Not Seen and is freely available on the Internet. Find it with a search for its acronym: twisatwins

I think about 85% of everything we laymen need to know about economics is contained in that short volume. Once you understand the first chapter, you understand the rest of the book, and also understand why NOTHING that is coming out of Washington today, from either major party, will ever work.

Bastiat wasn't himself an Austrian; he preceded them. But their work is built almost entirely upon his.

WWJGD,

It sounds like you have read a bit of economic philosophy. I am a beginner in my reading on this subject and want to have a good starting point.

I have a good basic in fundamentals of economics (I run a small business so you have to in order to succeed) but would like to start reading a little more about it.

What book would you recommend from an Austrian economics expert to start off with?

In which case I would agree with you.

Let me ask you this then.

How do you find any truth without first having a desire to believe and second acting on that desire in search of truth?

I wish to qualify this question as not being blind faith; but simply as part of a scientific process. You form a hypothesis, you then test the hypothesis. If you have no proof of the hypothesis until after its tested you must believe, have faith, in your hypothesis or there is no reason to test it.

How do you separate faith from this process?

But there's just so much of it! ahhhhh!! :)

What you said.

When it comes to economics, there are ideas that make sense and ideas that do not. And then there are ideas that are flat-out insane until you realize that they actually WORK in the Real World, and work better than any other ideas...

Which is what fascinates me about economics.

That said, ideas are merely interesting playthings (well, the ones about economics are mostly just playthings!) until they meet the test of the Real World.

So, through the centuries, we've discovered that Bastiat was right. Marx was wrong. Mises was right. Keynes was wrong. Friedman was right. Hayek was right. And Krugman wants to save the world by having space aliens invade Planet Earth.

The one thing in common with all of the economists mentioned above is that we have a historical record of times and places where their ideas have been tried -- and by now we have a pretty good idea what works and what does not.

One thing I would like to see is a real-world example of where Rothbard's ideas have been tried. But I've never heard of a place that has no Government Post Office, police, courts, and no public roads.

It's easy for me to get on board with the mainstream Austrians (Mises, Hayek, Friedman, etc.) because there are numerous places where their ideas have been tried. And have worked every time (that I know of). But where have Rothbard's ideas been tested? Any Rothbardians here (HA!) who would care to throw me a bone?

Nah, the truth is. It's hard to get burnt out on existence. :)

They've set up the mechanics well so the awful trolls disappear pretty quickly.

Hey, thanks!

It is SO refreshing to find a discussion forum where Deep Things (sounds like something from a Lovecraft story, eh?) can be discussed and don't normally turn into a flame war.

Speaking of which, I'd like to compliment the designers of this site on their moderation system. It is truly keeping the trolls at bay.

I feel like I'm just plain burnt out on the truth. (And I'm usually a pretty big fan).

It can't. When anyone asks me why I don't believe in anarchism or anarcho-capitalism I simply reply, "because there are evil people in the world."

Truthfully, it's not only the evil people we have to worry about. People make mistakes. People have problems. That's why there is a need for government. The question is just where to draw the line.

Though I've only seen the first season and a bit of the second, I've found Sons of Anarchy to be good demonstrate of how anarchy leads to violence by favoring the evil.

Yeah, this is the big problem I have with Rothbard.

I'm still reserving judgement because I haven't yet read any of his works (still working my way through Hayek and Mises, won't start Rothbard until I finish the former) and I want to consider his ideas, in his own words, before choosing my position. But at this point I just don't see how anarcho-Capitalism can actually work in the real world.

It's ok. You bring great content here! For further context, I'm also burnt out on negativity right now.

Oh. Sorry I missed that point.

Jumping around from thread to thread, reading only the newer posts, can do that.

I'm sorry.

"My own religion would not be a religion either based on your friends definition because of the removal of reason. My religion teaches that you must use reason in order to identify truth, and to find out for yourself if it is true."

You said how why your religion uses faith within this explanation. Your religion "teaches" you to use reason to find the truth. You are accepting that statement on faith "use reason to find the truth." Buddhism is a religion in the same way. It accepts the statements of someone else as an unquestioned primary.

As for your critiques, let me respond to each definition:

"1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs."

The key word here is "set." For it to be a religion, everything must be integrated into a set: cause, nature, purpose, and morals. The idea that "the universe is" is not an integration into a set of cause, nature, morals, and purpose. It is a fact of existence. The rest is derived independently by the individual. (The other key clauses here are "especially...superhuman agency" and "devotional and ritual observances.")

"2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion."

The key clause here is "generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects." I do not know nor care if anyone agrees with me. The individual only seeks to prove truth to himself unless .

"3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions."

The key here is "body of persons" and "beliefs AND practices." Just because a group of people agree on one thing, say their favorite color of red, doesn't mean they're a "body of persons" unless they also share PRACTICES are that belief. Of course, it is also "beliefS and practiceS" so sharing one belief and one practice does not a religion make. For instance, I go to a bar every Sunday to watch my favorite football team play, so do a bunch of other people. That is not a religion because it is only ONE belief and ONE practice.

"4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion."

The key here is "to enter a religion." The focus on monks and nuns is they make a conscious choice to take a vow and accept the religion. It's a mode of life beyond the natural state of being.

"5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith."

The key word is RITUAL. You can have faith and not be religious if you aren't observing it RITUALISTICALLY.

Also, it does NOT take faith to not believe in god. Not believing is what? A lack of a belief. In the word's of Penn Jillete, "is there a god? I don't know." You either know something or don't. That's not faith.

I agree that the states are the best hope for combating this expansion of federal power. I swear if a state like Texas ever got traction on secession, not a few of us would consider migrating there.

Unfortunately I reside in a state which is one of the most left leaning in the nation, but I think the other tool we have is the internet. At least we can stay informed of what is almost never reported to us through regular media channels.

The internet is taking up the role of the broadsides in colonial America. Never underestimate the power of a motivated public.

Sigh, this was a post about philosophy and it became an attack on everyone else. No thanks.