Why do so many right-wing (especially lolbert/ancap) arguments revolve around absurd parables?
I'm trying to talk about the greater socio-economic order, but they can only seem to analyze society through the lens of being stranded on a desert island, being a farmer in the middle of buttfuck nowhere or the trials of some rinkydink hotdog stand owner.
Just the other day, I was talking with a right-winger about the oppressive nature of capitalism and it turned into some bizarre shit about a man walking to the woods to commit suicide when some guy randomly offers him a job.
What's the deal with this?
because they have no argument otherwise
Right wing people are stupid. The more right wing you are, the more stupid you get.
I've noticed this too and I think it has to do with them being positivists. You can critique capitalism all you want but the always say that you're critiquing corparitism and that capitalism is actually supposed to work like this.
Laissez-faire weenies are just the most vulgar, explicit defenders of the existing social relations. Relations that today justify themselves by totally ignoring the labor process and focusing purely on exchange. Naturally, they have a tendency to abstract away from the reality of the system when defending it.
The plot of an unreleased Any Rand novel.
I don't necessarily think they're stupid I just think they're spooked. polite sage
I got that impression too.
I was also thinking that they might be trying to establish some kind of "natural law", since the analogies seem to be set in decidedly more primitive situations than modern reality.
Why do I generalize everything? kys after you've despooked yourself
Capitalism has turned into the major organizing force of society and its supporters are lazily reapplying the same rhetoric that was used to prop up feudalism via religion. It's exactly the same shit as how people would tell parables about how awesome God/Jesus are. In actuality it's sucking up to the powerful institutions that run things, but it's played off as venerating some powerful entity or cosmic force like the Market.
what the fuck, my comment disappeared for no reason. reposting below…
oh wait, nvm, wrong thread
Those parables also reinforced morals, comrade.
So do cappie parables. They're just cappie morals instead of feudie morals.
I don't know, why do you generalize everything?
While proudly proclaiming that they're the only ones being "scientific"
trolley problem memes are funny though, i don't think anybody disagrees there
Because autists need super condensed analogies to make sense of the world
Be a good fucking goy and take the 5 hundo my g.
Because they think their core demographics is retarded.
Also because economics is generally hard to understand and real life examples have always been used.
Pull the lever The victim's death is unavoidable. The only moral action is thus to act in such a way as to maximize your subsequent capacity to make moral decisions, by taking the money.
You just need to add in a 60 page lecture on why giving him this job isn't charity and you're good to go
He was being ironic, I think.
Has to be a monologue too
A lot of economic writing came out of fiction, in fact aside from Marx the beginnings of economics is the one subject I can say almost had nothing to do with philosophy other than tangentially at it's inception. Adam Smith relied more on ideas about the "solitary man on an island or a man in complete isolation" and Ricardo and Malthus continued on with metaphors like that. Even if they may not explicitly state it their ideas are based around ideal scenarios and metaphors rather than reality or quantitative knowledge.
A lot of economics relying on metaphors of the world in an ideal state or man individually at his purest point of consumption means that the views very rarely touched ground with reality. Austrian economics takes these early romanticist strains and goes full on autism with them. To the point they wont even accept scientific analysis. Partly because proto-keynsianism developed along side it and insisted on constant updating of it's formulas and through contemporary philosophy and science. Keynes was good friends with Bertrand Russell and Wittgenstein. Mises attended one or two meetings of the Vienna Circle and assumed he knew enough to have a basis for his economic theories. He also hated science in economics because Marxism assumed a scientific stance.
Through opposition you can see why he wanted so desperately to formulate a view of economics free from quantification and science. He wanted easy idealistic models that couldn't be refuted by mere "reality." He also believed logic was ironcald like the positivists but more understated and that through deduction we could attain all necessary knowledge. This turned out to be very false shortly after.
You'll find a lot of libertarian philosophy is logical positivism rebranded as Aristotelian philosophy. Rand does this shit, Rothbard does it but adds in deontology and sho on.
ITT: People who don't know what positivism is and like to use that word anyway.
How do you mean?
they understand philosophy as LogicTM which means using formulaic arguments that they themselves not even understand.
My favorite example is the central ancap argument; we make arguments, we therefor own ourselves or these wouldn't be our arguments, if we don't have this self-ownership people could logically do anything they want to us, we therefor need to have ancappery because that is the only thing that fits in with full self-ownership.
they prove that madness is not irrationality, but over-rationality.
Clearly pulling the lever is not a violation of the NAP.
But you're violating muh private property rights, clearly a direct infraction against the NAP
So it's easier for you to understand. Doesn't seem to be working, though.
The only way to understand something is through some absurd allegory?
I'm the only one who used the word, show me how I'm wrong.
The Vienna circle was the precursor to the logical positivists of which Mises was a member for a short while. His ideas show a clear preference for deduction and naive realism.
Rand outlines in her book about epistemology an emphasis on naive realism and an abandoning of metaphysical questions in the same way the positivists did but with less math and science involved and more Aristotelian fuckery. Ironically she would talk shit about "modern philosophy" all the time even though her contemporaries advocated a lot of the same things but with more intellectual rigor and with stronger ideas. (They still failed though)
Wittgenstein Tractatus talks about a world untainted by the friction of induction and relying on the purity of mathematical forms. Wittgenstein did not see himself as a logical positivist but this idea became the cornerstone of their philosophy and was basically the dream of most philosophy since Pythagoras. A world and a language governed by reason through pure logic without doubt and uncertainty.
This same dream is clearly held by the majority of ancaps who act like the last century of assaults against pure mathematics and logic free from paradoxes didn't happen. Rothbardian and Hoppean philosophy both act like a world where logic is still 100% bullet proof exists. Godel, Barber's paradox, late Wittgenstein, Heidegger etc. I was an ancap for four years and phil major for longer, I'm willing to hear where I'm wrong but I think I know the basic outline of most of these ideas.
The one area where there isn't an overlap is ethics and morality. Ancaps and lolberts generally insist on objective morality where as most of the positivists did not.
This has been the reason that every Adam Smith fanboy has given when asked why economics matter. It's the only answer that "legitimizes" economics as a science, because when you actually start looking at the relationships people have with money and one another, you quickly realize that the entire field of economics is basically voodoo science. You know how a history major will pretty much only go on to teach history? The same thing applies to economics, except history actually has practical usage.
Clearly me sleeping in your couch is not a violation of the NAP.
Excuse me, that is a clear violation against my private property and thus a heinous violation of the NAP
Its something called wisdom, empty lefty kids like you wouldn't understand. Call me back after you grow up and mature beyond "muh anarcho-gommunism"
As if Socialist and (LOLZ BUT NOT MY BLEND OF COMMUNISUM!) don't do the same thing.