Dakryn's Batshit Theory of the Week

[Jimmy... Dead.]

btw, this is what I do as I read this thread

 

[Dak]

Politics, in and of itself, is merely the social infrastructure that allows for interaction and debate among its individuals, the ability to work things out as a group, beyond merely the immediate gratification of needs fulfilled by market transactions.

I'm sorry, but lol. Work things out with a gun, about things having to do with the market - because the market isn't providing the prospective gun wielder's choice outcome.

Perfect example: So today I'm asking a coworker about the city council workings and whatnot in my town. Guy has been living here his whole life (close to retirement age) and knows a thing or two. The previous group in the city council passed some ordinances restricting different aspects of rental property (market!). So guess what happened? Rentlords have now gotten in and are undoing the ordinances and whatnot that were limiting their market activities.

Fighting over the gun. Don't like market outcomes? Get control of the thugs in green and blue, and wreak havoc upon thine enemies. Because we're civilized and shit.

You and I are engaging in politics right now, as were Murray Rothbard and Friedrich Hayek when they wrote their books. They may have argued for the eminence of the market, but they did so by participating in politics.

I think I am being generous when I say that it is pretty questionable to equivocate/lump together discussion and book writing with the above.

 

[Einherjar86]

I'm sorry, but lol. Work things out with a gun, about things having to do with the market - because the market isn't providing the prospective gun wielder's choice outcome.

Fighting over the gun. Don't like market outcomes? Get control of the thugs in green and blue, and wreak havoc upon thine enemies. Because we're civilized and shit.

This is always the conclusion you jump to. "Politics is guns in the hands of the inept, forcefully taking from the adept!"

This is cynicism with no room for productive thought. It isn't a position to be taken seriously.

 

[Dak]

This is always the conclusion you jump to. "Politics is guns in the hands of the inept, forcefully taking from the adept!"

This is cynicism with no room for productive thought. It isn't a position to be taken seriously.

It's not "jumped to", and violent reality should be taken pretty seriously. Give me just about any news-source and I could probably pull a half dozen current headlines of just the sort of thing I describe in the previous post.

Here's one that popped up on my FB when I got off this evening:

http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/business/2014/02/10/new-effort-begins-to-outlaw-tesla-retail-model.html

Ohio lawmakers are making a fresh attempt to outlaw Tesla Motors’ retail model — company-owned dealerships — after an unsuccessful try in December.

The proposal, Senate Bill 260, was introduced at the request of the Ohio Automobile Dealers Association, whose members see Tesla as a threat to a system in which nearly all dealerships are independently owned franchises.

Polite discussion, the amicable working out of disagreement, vigorous debate - for the purpose of mutually voluntary transactions, cooperations etc.: These have absolutely no relation to any legislative, executive, or bureaucratic body. These bodies exist so that when people suck so bad no one wants their products, services, or advice, there's a "civilized" way to point a gun at others and make them buy those products, services, or don't get abortions, or don't gay marry, etc.

 

[Einherjar86]

It's not "jumped to", and violent reality should be taken pretty seriously. Give me just about any news-source and I could probably pull a half dozen current headlines of just the sort of thing I describe in the previous post.

Here's one that popped up on my FB when I got off this evening:

http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/business/2014/02/10/new-effort-begins-to-outlaw-tesla-retail-model.html

Polite discussion, the amicable working out of disagreement, vigorous debate - for the purpose of mutually voluntary transactions, cooperations etc.: These have absolutely no relation to any legislative, executive, or bureaucratic body. These bodies exist so that when people suck so bad no one wants their products, services, or advice, there's a "civilized" way to point a gun at others and make them buy those products, services, or don't get abortions, or don't gay marry, etc.

There's no reasoning with you because you refuse to conceive of politics in any way other than how it manifests in our contemporary legislative processes. Furthermore, no one wants to force shitty products down anyone's throats, and that's not what politics at its core is about. Your head is in an ideological gutter.

Politics extends beyond legislation; it extends to popular action, to interactive discussion, to social critique, etc. There must be room for consideration of cultural consequences beyond me buying a tool from you, and politics provides this.

 

[Dak]

There's no reasoning with you because you refuse to conceive of politics in any way other than how it manifests in our contemporary legislative processes. Furthermore, no one wants to force shitty products down anyone's throats, and that's not what politics at its core is about. Your head is in an ideological gutter.

Well I can conceive of Politics in another way - it's called label changing. So let's call what we are engaging in politics. That precludes anything surrounding the making of laws from being considered politics. That is not some sort of idealistic appeal, this is a functional reality. Entirely different dynamics, practices, means, etc require different treatment and labeling.

Politics extends beyond legislation; it extends to popular action, to interactive discussion, to social critique, etc. There must be room for consideration of cultural consequences beyond me buying a tool from you, and politics provides this.

Sure we can have room for this consideration: Just don't call anything surrounding legislation "room for consideration", or roll discussion in the same dough as any sort of law and enforcement body. It isn't. It either acts to force me to buy a tool from you, or prevents me from buying a tool from you....usually dependent on whether it's you/your guy in the legislature or your opponent/competition. Again, this isn't some sort of idealistic critique, it's purely taxonomic.

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

 

[Dak]

I knew FB sucked, but I didn't realize how bad.

 

[Dak]

http://aeon.co/magazine/living-together/can-nyc-be-completely-self-reliant/

While the thought of living in NYC under any regime would be a personal nightmare, the move towards citystate autarky in general is amusing, predicted, and welcome.

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

I've lived in nyc all my life and I couldn't agree with you more. Although I do like the diversity, the women, the old timers (a lot of wisdom, especially in brooklyn) and the chaotic atmosphere on a friday night (drugs, prostitution etc.), you can get away with almost anything if you're smart. It really is the worst of humanity and there's a part of me that loves it.

 

[Vimana]

I didn't see anywhere in the article what's saved in the long term from not having to import food. I think that's an important point to consider, especially with all of the wasted energy, space, and labor, and the pollution from having and using roads to transport food across great distances.

If all major cities in the US went by this model, we'd probably be saving a fuckload of money and time from the decreased demand for transportation alone.

 

[Dak]

Problem is, a lot of cities are currently anti-gardens. Easier to go after pieceful growers than gangbangers I guess.

 

[Einherjar86]

I don't know any city that prohibits gardens. I know there are cities that prohibit gardens in your front yard... but that doesn't strike me as an awful inconvenience since gardens are usually easier to maintain either in the backyard, or in a separate apparatus entirely.

 

[Vimana]

I don't know what his reasons are, but the way food gets into a city is more controlled by the sources that receive it (stores, restaurants, etc.) than by the personal preferences of the common populace. It's not so much anti-garden as pro-import and not-pro-garden.

 

[Funerary_Doom]

^ That is completely right. If there are no supermarkets, restaurants etc needing/selling things like kale, spinach or other healthy foods than it just won't get bought in certain neighborhoods...

Though this model is great and hopeful, the mentality of many New Yorkers (which was probably what Overwatch was alluding to) must change in order for something like this to work. I.E. things like parks and such are turned into complete dumps due to people trashing them. If we are actually taking the money and such to grow our own food within the vicinity of hectic NYC life, NYers must be mindful with how they're littering and the ways in which they treat the environment overall.

Also, i like how i mentioned NYC's dependency on other states and factories for food in the other thread and got jumped. Not that it matters, but being a waitress for 7 years you spend a lot of time dealing with food distributors.

Edit: Interesting, because I was born in Brooklyn but now live in the Bronx and taking only space into consideration, the Bronx should be one of the forerunners with producing gardens and such. There's a lot of space in the Bronx, more than what Brooklyn or Manhattan have, but the mentalities are way different and perhaps the crime rate higher.

 

[Dak]

I don't know any city that prohibits gardens. I know there are cities that prohibit gardens in your front yard... but that doesn't strike me as an awful inconvenience since gardens are usually easier to maintain either in the backyard, or in a separate apparatus entirely.

Depends on which direction you can get the most sunlight, and which side of the house you have much of a yard at all. I know I'd have to grow in my front yard if I were to start a garden, because the back yard/neighbor yards have tall tress. Inner city areas in large cities have buildings and fences instead of tress.

-

The current "agri-industrial complex" is terribly wasteful and earth depleting. Sure, with extensive use of a host of toxic chemicals you can coax a ton of stuff back out of the ground per acre, but much of it is wasted in harvesting, packing, transporting, sorting, and then finally whatever isn't bought.

 

[Dak]

Referencing comments in the Education thread, I agree that clarity (understood as using more lay terms) is necessary when writing for the general public. Currently, I believe the contributor with the clearest writing within the Austrian circle is Per Bylund. He is starting to contribute more to the Mises Institute and it's certainly welcome.

http://bastiat.mises.org/2014/02/reasonableness-in-minimum-wage-debate/

The academic minimum wage debate is really only a symptom of the real problem: economics as an empirical science. Since economics is a social science, the “data” it relies on are necessarily interpreted and selected before plugged into lacking equations the statistical results of which must then be interpreted again. But “data” somehow still gives the results an air of untainted, unquestionable objectivity.

Nevertheless, modern economists seem to have swallowed the “data” illusion hook, line, and sinker. And while at it, they throw out all the babies they can find with what little bathwater they’re already pushing out the window.

 

[Einherjar86]

Nice to see someone resist the traditional emphasis on empiricism in economics.

Really great article on Elaine Scarry and nuclear disarmament:

http://chronicle.com/article/A-Literary-Scholars-Voice-in/144733/

The other constitutional resource she draws upon may be more surprising for one generally thought of as a liberal: the Second Amendment. "The right to bear arms" tends to be understood in public today—and in the Supreme Court—in terms of an individual right to possess whatever guns one pleases. But Scarry, drawing on her assessment of the framers’ intent, argues that the real purpose of the amendment was to spread out across the population the power to wield military force. The amendment’s "well-regulated militia" isn’t a bunch of hobbyists with AR-15s; it is meant as another democratic brake on the presidential power for war-making, and an opportunity for popular refusal.

"I absolutely think you have to have gun laws," she explains. "Trying to understand the right to bear arms the way we usually talk about it is like trying to understand the First Amendment only through pornography." Two hundred years ago, maybe this meant a musket in every household. Today, under the aegis of nuclear weapons that depend on the authorization of very few, holding true to the original intent is no longer feasible.

 

[Dak]

The position in that article has a few flaws:

1. It assumes we have some sort of "real" democracy (we don't, and if we did it would be worse than what we do have).
2. The appeal to the "militia" angle has been repeatedly debunked, nevermind that she made quite the anti-feminist argument in doing a private-guns-is-to-2nd as porn-is-to-1st comparison.
3. Unfortunately, as someone quite familiar with all the rich meaning and allegory that escapes from Pandora's Box, the Pandora's Box of Nuclear Weaponization is open across the globe, and for an increasingly cheap price. Attempting to close it unilaterally by singular disarmament is quixotic.

Edit: Austrian Econ has been non-empiricist. That's the main criticism of mainstream econs against Austrian econ.

 

[Dak]

LinkedIn: The Myth of the Bell Curve