Talk:Murray Rothbard/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 10 August 2023. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:  , (new)(back)

Feedback

For those enemies of the Birthland who are interested: [1]: "There was a time - before the Internet - when Skepticism/Rationalism wasn't just about total deference to received wisdom from scientific priesthoods. Sadly, that time is long past and it has become just another religion."--MonarchofascistС нами Бог! 20:28, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

There's nothing "received" about scientific wisdom. Anyone can look up the math that verifies it (and even understand it, given training), and scientists have this strange tendency to provide evidence, and always use falsifiable claims. If anything, it's the Austrian school followers who are deferring to "received wisdom", given that Von Mises declared that his theories were unfalsifiable (rather simple when you base your entire economic theory on a tautology, and reject several sciences out of hand). In short; Австрийская школа очень глупая.ChrisB (talk) 04:39, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Irrationality on rationalwiki?

Rothbard reminds us that reasoning completely from first principles and paying attention only to the means rather than the ends can lead to truly batshit heights of insanity, envisioning the wonders of a "free baby market"

From this I conclude that pure reasoning can lead to insane ends. So what... should we therefore be content with irrationality as a means to achieve a desirable end? Would that not beg the question of why that's desirable, or are we to function on dogmatic whims and emotion?

And what exactly is this batshit insane end? Was it that a "free baby market will bring such 'neglect' down to a minimum"? Or perhaps the insanity is giving child rights over themselves?

The whole criticism is on the same level of fundamentalist Christians wanting to outlaw abortion and recreational sex to protect unborn children.^{— Unsigned, by: ThomasTheIdealist / talk / contribs}

"But I thought this was supposed to be RATIONALWiki!" Drink! (Also, please sign your posts.) --ZooGuard (talk) 09:08, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

My comment has nothing to do with opinion. The excerpt I quoted is literally saying that something is "batshit insane" because it uses logic and reason as its means to conclusion (while disregarding the ends). That is, by definition, bashing rationality and consequently supporting irrationality because it provides a favorable end somehow. If you use reason to come to a conclusion, that conclusion must be rational. ThomasTheIdealist (talk) 23:25, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Uh, no. Well, if you're talking about rationalism in a strictly Cartesian sense, I suppose, but "reasoning completely from first principles" didn't do very much for Descartes either. I can reason that homeopathy is a working cure for cancer and therefore chemotherapy should be banned, but this conclusion is, basically, batshit. Blue (pester) 23:31, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

It's only batshit to the extent that it can be reasoned and demonstrated to be false. So if the point is that Rothbard had faults in his reasoning, that's understandable and likely true somewhere. But I don't understand the rationality of the dogmatic categorization to "batshit insane" without addressing the faults of his reasoning. Seems to me that "free baby market" is simply an example used to discredit Rothbard as having ideas contrary to stigma and preconceived notions that most people have. But there is nothing rational about stigmas or preconceived notions. ThomasTheIdealist (talk) 00:03, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

You're confusing the rationalism on rationalwiki with continental rationalism. Unlike Rothbard, we don't believe one can solve an entire social science through pure introspection. --Frybread (talk) 05:40, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Rothbard believed in human action, which is much more than introspection; quite a passive activity, at least in a physical sense. Burkean (talk) 19:16, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Argumentum ad lapidem

Rothbard reminds us that reasoning completely from first principles and paying attention only to the means rather than the ends can lead to truly batshit heights of insanity, envisioning the wonders of a "free baby market"

It seems like someone here is committing the ad lapidem fallacy, because Rothbard's arguments are being dismissed as absurd without any proof of their absurdity. ^{— Unsigned, by: 75.143.168.89 / talk / contribs}

The history of selling children and the resultant slave trade type abuses seem to form fairly self-evident proof of absurdity. We already have an adoption system; knowing Rothbards economic preferences as I do, his imagined market would be one with no regulatory oversight whatsoever. So essentially, an adoption system without any of the regulatory structures that prevent it from becoming a slave market.ChrisB (talk) 04:29, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

R U FUCKING SERIOUS?

Are you fucking serious? This is the worst article in a wiki I have ever read. So full of misinformation and lies. and just very unscientific!^{— Unsigned, by: ‎2.240.8.159 / talk / contribs}

"But I thought this was supposed to be RATIONALWiki!" Drink! ClothCoat (talk) 15:54, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Ridiculing your opposition? How very rational! --Norman (talk) 21:36, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

You... you do realize you're responding to a very old comment? And yes, low-effort complaining from drive-by BoN's deserves ridicule. Typhoon (talk) 21:49, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

So do irrational comments from a little over a year ago, at least when they are in accordance with the official policy of a site that has the word "rational" in its title. --Norman (talk) 00:16, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

"But I thought this was supposed to be RATIONALWiki!" Drink! (oh god, my liver) Typhoon (talk) 00:20, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

It was a stupid response a year ago and it's a stupid response now. --Norman (talk) 06:48, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Do you have any legitimate criticism, or just more of the general "This article sucks! I hate it! I hate you! You are all wrong!" ad hominems? Noisemobile (talk) 06:58, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Hey Norman: R U FUCKING SERIOUS? Are you fucking serious? This is the worst response to a response in a wiki I have ever read. So full of misinformation and lies. and just very unscientific! ALSO I WANT A COMPREHENSIVE RESPONSE TO MY RESPONSE or else you're being irratinal Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 07:12, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the OP was stupid, we can agree on that. However, your drinking game is even more stupid, simply because ridiculing your opposition is never a rational way to argue. --Norman (talk) 07:16, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree. So, with that in mind, do you have a particular criticism of the article in question? Noisemobile (talk) 07:23, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Thomastheidealist already did that. And both in the article and on the talk page, there's a lot of "we already know this and this is bad so we don't have to prove it because one time this happened." Burkean (talk) 07:31, 7 October 2015 (UTC)