I'm interested in this. Where would I find a reliable summary of this discourse.

As you say.

jdg are you here to learn about objectivism or undermine it with your anti-reason arguments?

I'm sorry, but I fail to find Objectivism defining how I should 'feel' about anything. A=A.

The point is simply that statements about taste (for example, "Spinach is horrible" or "Adultery is evil") don't tell us anything about the objective outside world, at least unless we are willing to re-cast the statement as being about the person ("jdg doesn't like spinach" or "Fred doesn't approve of people who commit adultery").

Objectivism's key problem is that it attempts to conflate tastes with reality, by defining pseudo-objectively how we "should" feel about things. True reasoning thought means knowing better than to make the attempt.

Yes. Thank you. It does help. It helps me to clear up why I haven't run into these problems to a degree that troubled me.. My exposure has been from the books almost exclusively. I would suggest then to those interested, that some of the books may still be of value, but to beware of additional sources where they say things that they did not, shall we say feel comfortable to print in their books... where they may have let their hair down...for lack of better words.

I ran into the problem head on when I found out that all these free market think tanks were pushing anti-patent propaganda. My research started at least back in 2007 on this issue. I would say papers are the biggest source of information, but actually on some points there are some good youtubes. Looking into Austrians was not my major goal, but I kept running into more and more irrational statements by the Austrians.

I do not think you will find these details in the major books by the Austrians, although I do know of a person who is dissecting the problems with The Road to Serfdom. I think most people, including many who would call themselves Austrians, would ignore these issues or rationalize them away - Hayek is really just talking about omniscience of central planners. In fact, I am sure that is what I did when I read The Road to Serfdom.

I think these points are universal to the hard core Austrians, but not to many people who otherwise associate with the Austrians.

I don't know if this helps on not.

Interesting points. Do you find them universal among all Austrians, or are these beliefs spread around among various representatives? What books have you gleaned these deficiencies from?

I am going to post a book review on "Socialism:..." this afternoon. I did find a few problems but not to the level you have alluded... Of course that book was not written with a focus on capitalism so it may not have wandered into areas of contention.

HI O.A.

You bring up a lot of points that I can only touch on.

1) Austrians are not arguing that no one is omniscient. They are arguing that reason cannot tell us about ethics or any human interaction in the case of Hayek.

2) Why my interest in this subject?
The Austrians are seen as "free market" but they are making numerous mistakes with huge consequences
a) Wrong basis for Property Rights
Note this means they are not defending capitalism according to Rand, Locke, and the founders all of whom thought property rights were the most important rights for Capitalism and freedom.
b) Against Intellectual Property Rights
This stems from their misunderstanding of property rights. Austrians are not for property rights, they are for unrestrained competition, which includes eliminating many property rights.
c) Fractional Reserve Banking
The Austrians' attack on FRB shows a fundamental misunderstanding of finance and if they had their way would cause untold damage to the economy and shows that they are not for property rights
d) Austrian Business Cycle Theory
They are just wrong that savings is the key to economic growth. I even have an academic paper from an Austrian economist who admits this does not fit the empirical evidence. They are also wrong that the Fed (central bank) is responsible for all recessions.
e) Natural Rights
The Austrians are fundamentally opposed to Natural Rights, which are the basis of the US and Capitalism. This stems from their rejection of ethics as based in reason.
e) Support of Tradition, Faith and Religion over Reason.

I needed to dig deeper to understand why the Austrians are making all these errors. This is why I am investigating the fundamental assumptions of the Austrians and libertarian movements. These are not minor errors, they go directly to whether the Austrians are really friends or foes of capitalism and liberty.

3) All schools of economics are making fundamental errors, because they have not looked at the cause of economic growth or why the industrial revolution occurred. Economics has become driven by a desire to make short term profits in the market (stock, bond, commodities) and by political hacks. As result, it has become a game with little connection to the reality of most people's lives.

This idea of the value of humility and tolerance does nothing except give credence to those that don't deserve it.

Taste, IMHO, is more an emotional response than a reasoned response, therefor Reason seldom penetrates with those that choose to decide based on feelings.

That doesn't imply a limit on Objectivism's utility, only on the individual's internal priority systems.

Oh, you people with keen insight!

Hello dwlievert,
Thank you for your kind words and commentary,
Respectfully,
O.A.

Hello DB,

Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I prepared some additional comments/thoughts before reading your reply, with which I agree. I hope you will not see them as beating a dead horse. I have included them here following this paragraph for your appraisal and that of others. I would second your admonition to not accept as “gospel” the Austrians every precept. I look forward to your next book. I am sure I will find it of interest and value.

I know that man is not omniscient. I know this by virtue of reason. Implicit in such a statement is acknowledgement that man can know something. To deny this would be to violate the law of non-contradiction and to employ the stolen concept.
I know what I know and what I do not know. I know that hydrogen is combustible and that oxygen is necessary for combustion, but I do not know why the molecule H2O is a retardant. I know that elements contract when their temperature is lowered except H20 which expands. I do not know why. Others may employ reason to explain these things. Reason is my means of knowing... of understanding. I know many things, but I know that I may never know or understand what Einstein knew, but I know that the League of Nations was folly though Einstein thought it otherwise. Each person has limits to their knowledge. Such is the nature of man. From: The Ayn Rand Letter Vol. II, No. 17 May 21, 1973 The Missing Link--Part II "I am not a student of the theory of evolution and, therefore, I am neither its supporter nor its opponent."
I know that the Austrian economists were champions of capitalism though their arguments left a vulnerability which Rand filled. This does not in my mind invalidate their arguments. Would Rand having made the moral argument for capitalism and correcting this omission suggest that all of the Austrian arguments were invalid? Would she suggest that we ignore all of the supporting arguments in favor of capitalism offered by the Austrians?

I have been quite intrigued by your recent offerings and inquiries into these matters. I have given them a great deal of thought. But I cannot advise others to discard wholesale the Austrian’s arguments. They are generally supplementary, not contradictory. I would definitely stress to all readers of the Austrians the importance of emphasizing Rand’s moral argument, because it is the most important argument and without it there is opening for attack. One should not defend capitalism without Rand and only on the words of the Austrians.
Could it be that we are simply over-thinking… over-analyzing this? I trust and hope our readers will separate the chaff from the grain. I hope my trust is not misplaced.

Respectfully and with great regard,
O.A.

It reminds me of a story that may apply here:

As an experiment, a math teacher and a football coach made a wager about which of their respective groups were smarter. The math teacher was so confident in his students' abilities that he told the football coach to design the test.

So the football coach took ten math students, ten football players, and ten cheerleaders out to a football field. He put the math students on one goal line, the football players on the other, and the cheerleaders on the 50-yard line. The football coach then told them that while the cheerleaders would remain stationary, the math students and the football players were allowed to only move halfway in increments towards the cheerleaders and whomever got to them first would be declared the winners.

The math players immediately complained and walked off, knowing that one can never reach a point if one is only allowed to close the gap 1/2-way at a time. The football players on the other hand immediately ran forward to the 25-yard line, then to the 37, etc., and soon were close enough to get down to business.


Rand is a football player. Realistically, you can get close enough to get down to business. Friedman is a math student, but is also correct. We can only come to a conclusion supported by a preponderance of evidence. That conclusion will never be 100% because we are limited in our capabilities and understanding. We can be 99.99999% correct, but that last particle will always be beyond our reach. We can predict and say that since the sun has come up for millions of days in a row that it will continue to come up tomorrow, but until it does, we can not be sure. We can predict that if we mix two moles of hydrogen with one mole of oxygen and add a tiny spark that the two will combine to form water and give off energy, but until we actually perform the deed, we don't know for certain. Any time we are dealing with future events, we can never know for sure because we are incapable of taking in and considering all of the possible variables involved - all we can do is evaluate the simplistic ones and use rational inference based on established experience.

dbhalling & OA: Reason's endless bounty has not been better represented than by your exchange(s). I do so often enjoy this forum.

My specific relevant comment is, as Rand was always so quick to point out, "Reason is Man's only absolute." This establishes that all knowledge is contextual - it exists "conditionally," i.e., if-then.

That fact is the basis for Objectivist epistemology, and is, ultimately, the source of Austrian "conflict."

OA,

No you are not being obtuse. However, fundamentally the libertarian economic push has been based on a lack of reason. This is very explicit in the case of Hayek and Von Mises. As a result they reject the very foundation on which the United States and Capitalism was based. As a result, IMHO their economics has failed to grasp some of the most important questions in economics. They have taken us off into the land of trivia - or at best what I call the accountant mentality of economics. My full answer is provided in my next non-fiction book called Source of Economic Growth. However, I do not focus on their short comings, just my proof of a better system of economics.

IMHO it is important to understand this in order to understand why we are headed in the wrong direction. They have failed to provide the intellectual ammunition to win the intellectual war.

Foundational errors result in other errors and in the case of the Austrians I think there are many. Continuing to support the Austrians as gospel is likely to result in a correct charge of being Luddite.

Perhaps I misunderstood your point. Ultimately, people make choices about reality as I pointed out above. That does not mean the same decision is right for everyone. Airbags in cars may make perfect sense for someone who is wealthy, but not for someone who is less wealthy and whose children might die of something more immediate.

Hello dbhalling,
I quite agree that Mises and Friedman seem to share some blind spots in their epistemology and much prefer Rand for her consistency. Yet it is clear to me that no one knows everything or there would be no unknowns... no need to explore or experiment. Even Rand would admit of her lack of knowledge and expertise related to fields beyond her expertise. The postulate that we can't know everything, or that some things may presently be beyond our instrumentality to ascertain as fact does not mean that we are incapable of knowing anything. It should be obvious to any reasonable person that we can and must know some things. I believe there is no limit to the capacity of reason. There is however a limit to our faculties of sense. We cannot see the lunar landers on the moon with our naked eyes.

That reason is capable of ascertaining facts should not be in doubt provided enough data is available to our senses. When there is enough sensory data to know something is a fact, so be it. But when there is insufficient data to know something as fact but sufficient to develop a hypothesis or theory it remains in the realm of opinion. Thus opinions can vary based upon the same data sets when they are not yet sufficient to definitively call something a fact.
I do not see reason as the failure, so much as I see mortal man's knowledge or capacity to reason as the basis for stating the premise that there are limits to reason. To put it simply, it is not reason that is limited, but man. When I read these critiques, I can't help but wonder if there is more of a misunderstanding and clashing of egos than a well "reasoned" opinion that reason is incapable of providing man with absolute knowledge of any quantity. It flies in the face of the reason required for Friedman and Mises to come to any conclusions at all if that was what they truly believed and meant. How could they... why would they write a word or offer any conclusions at all?

It is clear to me that even if they said these things, they could not have thought it out to logical conclusion, or they did not mean it to the degree or way ascribed. It is too contrary to the complete context of what they wrote and obviously believed in. Were they here to consider and answer these criticisms I cannot say how they would respond today. Perhaps they would reconsider their premise or choice of words... Either way, these two men were right about far too many things to dismiss at large the bulk of their work in the field of economics even if the underpinnings of their philosophy are dubious.

For what it is worth, it is my humble opinion that one can prefer and follow Rand's philosophy and still find value in the economics and support of free markets and capitalism as expressed in Friedman's and Mises' writings, though we may find disagreement on some particulars. They espouse economic policies I agree with, but on these matters of epistemology, if they be true, I will side with Rand. All of their arguments are not wrong. They are not valueless. However, it may be incumbent upon us to do as you have done and express our convictions regarding the primacy and capacity of reason.

Does any of this make sense? Am I being obtuse?
Respectfully,
O.A.

Ok, but I was just answering Lucky's question, I didn't think it was about that.
I must be misunderstanding the question.

That is not what the subjective theory of values and prices is about

I actually think he is making a larger point - that being that we can never know anything for certain. this is a similar point to many of the Libertarian economists.

I don't see barter vs liquidity has anything to do with Capitalism.

The evidence does not support your position - as was clearly pointed out.

I think you are underestimating Friedman's attack on reason. And between reason and free markets, I will choose reason.