Welcome to INTJ Forum

This is a community where INTJs can meet others with similar personalities and discuss a wide variety of both serious and casual topics. If you aren't an INTJ, you're welcome to join anyway if you would like to learn more about this personality type or participate in our discussions. Registration is free and will allow you to post messages, see hidden subforums, customize your account and use other features only available to our members.

Traverser

Veteran Member
  • Content count

    2,542
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Traverser

  • Rank
    Veteran Member

Personality

  • MBTI
    intj
  • Brain Dominance
    4

Converted

  • Personal Text
    This is not a new world. It is simply an extension of what began in the old one.
  1. Coming around to bitcoin yet?

  2. Ya, that's what I figured too. Pre-recession it was easy to make money off homes.

  3. When you can't win an argument, manipulate the record.
  4. Well, in Man, Economy, and State, he alluded to his thoughts about ethics, but kept the text completely value-free since it was just a treatise on economics. I'll have to find the exact quote sometime.

  5. Hmmm...perhaps Rothbard meant to say that Libertarianism, in its strict moral prohibition of aggression, naturally creates an environment that fosters positive ethical relationships between individuals? Otherwise, since Austrian Economics makes a clear distinction between hegemonic relationships and cooperative ones, I would agree that he would be mistaken by drawing upon the science to make a value judgement.

    Funny, because throughout all of his Man Economy and State, he made it a point to avoid doing just that! I guess Rothbard was just being human. Thanks sharing that with me.

  6. Hey sorry for the late response, I've been busy the last few days. Anyway, Rothbard does indeed say that Austrian Economics is a pure science, that is to say, it does not render value judgments. However, he does have an ethical theory of natural rights that he claims he derived purely from reason. He says in The Ethics of Liberty: "The natural law ethic decrees that for all living things, 'goodness' is the fulfillment of what is best for that type of creature; 'goodness' is therefore relative to the nature of the creature concerned . . . In the case of man, the natural-law ethic states that goodness or badness can be determined by what fulfills or thwarts what is best for man's nature." He then draws upon the science of Austrian Economics to illustrate that a society that respects property rights and the non-aggression principle allows humanity to flourish, this being due to his nature as a rational animal. However, he just decrees (when he says in the above quote, "The natural law ethic decrees . . . ") that what is good is what allows a thing to flourish or be fully actualized, according to the nature of the thing in question. I just don't feel that he provided any rational justification for establishing that as the primary premise upon which a system of ethics is based. In the end, it comes down to a value judgment.

  7. I'm going to assume the OP is referring to incompetent and stubborn people. Incompetence alone is quite natural. After all, every one of us has been incompetent at some point, so I try to be understanding on that. Being stubborn, however...well...it's just not worth pushing it unless it's critical to a job or some other important goal. I have to remind myself that I don't have a right to their agreement, nor to their improved performance. Forcing the issue just amounts to an ego trip, and that never got me anywhere (no pun intended).
  8. Oye...so that led you to think I'm connecting that to a "conspiracy". Fine...I'll play along. It's a damn conspiracy, I tell yas! And the aliens are in on it! Bigfoot too! What technical problems? I've never heard of a browser posing a potential threat to anyone's website before. Considering that the user-agent switchers are VERY effective at getting around these blocks, I'm quite skeptical about this claim. Well duh.
  9. I have encountered lots of job apps that require IE, and I read about how some online retail sites will price-discriminate between different OS users...so you could be right. If that's the case, wow...I don't want to think about it too much lest I get depressed.
  10. I never said it was a conspiracy. Btw, you can have a trend without a conspiracy. Big difference! Anyway, I understand the problems with development...but to prohibit me from going in when they detect my system? My user-agent switcher gets around it, so what gives?
  11. Okay, this is getting ridiculous. I remarked in a different thread how in some cases, online job applications would prevent me from filling them out or completing their assessments because they would detect my browser or operating system as being "incompatible". Mind you, I am using Chrome on Linux, and if it wasn't for Chrome's user-agent switcher to fool these kinds of silly requirements...my job search would be all that much harder. Why these job apps are designed the way they are is beyond me, but I'm getting a sneaking suspicion that it's not an accident. I've already had three in the past week lock out on me citing the same reasons, yet the good ol user-agent switcher came to the rescue every time. What I'm wondering is, is it just me or does this seem to be a trend? I never had a problem like this three or four years ago, and if I did...it would be a rare event. Now it appears to be getting a lot more common. Anyone here an expert on the subject that can comment?
  12. Hmmmm...I'm not sure if I've read anything from Rothbard like that. Man Economy and State,etc, all have strict adherence to Austrian Economics as a science...and not a political philosophy. Rothbard explicitly says this in MES, thats for sure. I do recall, however, that Rothbard later subscribed to Intellectual Property...although I'm not that far along in his literature. Mostly, I'm tuned into his Economic analysis. Care to share a quote?

    Otherwise, I agree with Mises. I've even mentioned to others that there are probably Austrian Economists who still subscribe to authoritarianism. It's funny when to see the expressions on their faces.

  13. Oh, Rothbard is great, to be sure. I just don't think his derivation of natural rights is sound. He says that in order for man to flourish, certain conditions must be met, namely private property must be respected and the non-aggression principle must prevail; he says this is based on man's nature. So far, everything he's said is true, if you subscribe to Austrian economics. Then he comes in from left field and out of nowhere says that it is good for man to flourish, just so he can call his theory an ethical theory. He doesn't support this premise.

    Mises just says that free markets/private property/adherence to the non-aggression principle will indeed allow humanity to flourish, and that those who prefer an environment in which humanity flourishes should promote liberty if they want to attain it. End of story . . . no ethical theory. Just a statement of fact.

    I like them both, and especially like Rothbard's economics and political commentary, as it is usually very erudite and cuts to the heart of the matter.