I can see why a theory that touts its own correctness, but has no predictive power and isn’t subject to correction, would appeal to a politician.
Mm. Rothbard was a crackpot, but von Mises was serious enough; his ideas simply didn’t stand up with time. And that’s a fairly libelous characterization of Hayek, who was not only scientifically literate but close friends with Kar Popper of all folks.
That out of the way: what Austrians tend to claim is not that you must take their ideas on faith, but that they can axiomatically prove broad truths about human behavior in the style of geometry. Humanity is (they hold) too unpredictable to admit of analysis via mathematical models which drive specific predictions for a given situation. But they believe they have an airtight logical framework that gives insight into human behavior, even if they don’t believe it possible to, eg, predict change in income due to some policy.
It’s nonsense, but it’s more sophisticated nonsense than “take this on faith”.
“I Was a Teenage Libertarian” and all that. Luckily I grew out of it …
Maybe if Rothbard could have done some math, he wouldn’t have regarded child rearing as a form of chattel slavery. I don’t see a direct line of logic between the two matters, but something has got to explain this bizarre psychopathy.
It seems like the whole thread, other than OP and his subsequent posts, consists of “Hey, let’s shit on all of libertarianism because this guy is a pro wrestler and must be stupid.” This is no better than if Kane had been a Bernie Bro and a bunch of Fox News Trumpers came out to say they had never heard of Bernie or democratic socialism and that it must be really stupid because this big dumb guy got hit on the head.
Well, I’m not. Like I said, I don’t really know much about it but the one example of a self-declared libertarian anarcho-capitalist that I recently encountered was a pretty good guy.
I totally disagree. Notwithstanding my joke about CTE, I regard him as silly because of his political views, not his prior career.
If Glenn Jacobs has a philosophy of governance and a platform, and he’s persuaded the people of Knox County to let him implement it, good luck to them. I just think we should keep an eye on it to see if it lives up to the expectations of its proponents. Lots of things sound good in theory, but don’t work in practice.
As to the idea that “it’s not a model”, that just seems like handwaving, or that they’re preparing their excuses in advance.
Not me. I never even mentioned Jacobs’ sports career. I’m ridiculing him because he’s a libertarian not because he’s wrestler.
I’ve only discussed Rothbard. I’m beginning to think you haven’t actually read through this thread.
Dr.* Rothbard has been mentioned in this forum before.
(* - Yes, this oaf has a doctorate, though it comes with an interesting story: “The [11-year] delay in receiving his PhD was due in part to conflict with his advisor Joseph Dorfman and in part to Arthur Burns rejecting his doctoral dissertation. Burns was a longtime friend of the Rothbard family and their neighbor at their Manhattan apartment building. It was only after Burns went on leave from the Columbia faculty to head President Eisenhower’s Council of Economic Advisors that Rothbard’s thesis was accepted and he received his doctorate.”)
ThelmaLou quoted from an article relating Rothbard to Trumpism. Nested quotes don’t copy; I’ll just show the first and last of Thelma’s quote.
In a recent thread I asked Mr. Farnaby some questions about Rothbard’s views. In particular I was curious about the peculiar claim that he has a “solution” to the problem of external costs (e.g. tragedy of the commons). Here’s Farnaby’s answer, which I found confusing. Revive that thread if it puzzles you as well.
And jrodefeld, now banned, made a tedious thread about Rothbard eight years ago, but there was some comic relief.
lived in Knoxville for 2 years. It’s not like many sunbelt areas. Not growing fast and not many transplants from all over. The big place for transplants was Oak Ridge for nuke bomb research but most of that is gone now. That research started during WW 2 and was big for a while after that. The 3 big things there that people care about are:
Tenn FB
Tenn FB
Tenn FB
everything else is small compare to that . Town shuts down during those games , stadium holds over 100k.
Hey, all I know about Rothbard is what I’ve read in this thread. But it’s the OP himself who is telling us that Rothbardian economics can’t model reality and can’t make predictions, because apparently math is too hard.
Ok, thanks for that. I guess I’ll make the excuse that I missed previous discussions on the topic due to my chronic eye-glazing issues.
I read the first few posts by the OP and felt an instant migraine coming on. “Dismal Science” indeed, except it’s not even science. Ugh.
This sounds like the kind of thing college sophomores say after reading their first Ayn Rand novel.
So is he going to use pyro at all his political events?
In all seriousness though, pro wrestlers make really good politicians. Good at public speaking and the absurdities necessary to be a politician don’t bother them. Comedians too.
Yes I believe those were my exact words, “math is too hard”.
Sterling contribution as usual.
The Republican Party taxes hugely, spends infinitely, badgers the central bank for more inflation, levies protectionist tariffs, rabidly supports all forms of corporate welfare, commits atrocities across the globe, maintains garrisons on the outskirts of the empire for decades, institutes a domestic terror in the form of the war on drugs, spies on its citizens without limit, and in general violates personal liberty at every turn.
If someone is trying to link that with Rothbard, they are either working for the Kochs, or they seriously need to have their head examined.
What is Robert Reich’s solution for external costs? Maybe Econ Marvel Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, over whom you were fawning, has a solution.
Perhaps this would be a good time for you to finally summarize how Rothbard’s ideas solve the problem of the Tragedy of the Commons.
Pay particular attention to whether his solution could possibly apply in the real world. (I myself can sympathize with some hyperlibertarian views in the abstract, imagining them applied to some strange extraterrestrial culture. But political science is the study of real-world solutions for human society.)
I never submitted that Rothbard has a solution to external costs. Rather he would say pollution in a free society would not be an external cost due to the extension and adequate recognition of property rights.
So, when I develop emphysema from dirty air my heirs sue a specific company 200 miles away, if it still even exists, that polluted 10 years ago for the 0.07% pro-rated cost of my disease? And the evidence is adjudicated by … whom, again?
Got it, I guess.