ASuijuris

@MrExaminer Yes, it presupposes a standard, and that standard is the actor's own internal value scale at the exact moment of action.

@ASuijuris To say "next best thing" is to presuppose a standard with which you choose what is best or worst among the available options.

For Austrian economics to be compatible with Objectivism there is a huge gap in epistemology that must be accounted for. Peikoff said that a theory of value rests on one's theory of concepts (and I agree). As you can see here, there is no bridge between these two views.

@liquid2ulu @Ungovernab1e You aren't trapped by a logical fallacy; you're just trapped by your own contradiction. But since you're more interested in weaponizing debate-club jargon than actually defending your views, I'll leave you to it. Take care.

@liquid2ulu @Ungovernab1e It isn't a negative. It is a positive causal relationship: Action A (voting) reinforces System B (the electoral framework). When you cast a ballot, you are actively utilizing the mechanism the state provides to select its leaders. You are agreeing to play by its rules.

Trust us guys; if we just run the exact same gambit again, but this time knock on doors to talk to boomers about anarcho-capitalism, then we will win.

@liquid2ulu @Ungovernab1e Asking you to explain how an anarchist participating in a statist election isn't a contradiction is not 'asking you to prove a negative.' You are taking a positive action (voting) that directly conflicts with your positive stance (anarchism).

@ASuijuris @Ungovernab1e You are asking me to prove a negative. You are the one who made the positive claim: that I am endorsing the mechanism of tyranny by voting. Your sheep/wolf example is an assertion of that thesis, not a validation of it.

@liquid2ulu @Ungovernab1e I already did, via sheep/wolves analogy; which you've dodged. Since you're refusing to address my critique, let's hear your affirmative case: walk me through specific mechanism that makes an 'anarchist' canvassing for political campaign logically consistent. Go ahead, I'll wait.

@ASuijuris @Ungovernab1e If it is such a basic libertarian concept that voting means endorsing the mechanism of tyranny, then why can't you validate that?

@liquid2ulu @Ungovernab1e Socrates asked questions to expose contradictions, not to play dumb about what "validating" means. You don't need to "read my mind" to grasp basic libertarian concepts. Why are you, a anarchist, acting as a hype man for wolves? Address wolves/sheep analogy or walk away.

Right, so the very reason that I was engaging in the socratic method was because I didn't want to assume things about your position. When you get pissed at me for that, I assume things about your position and now you accuse me of strawman. You should consider whether or not I actually have the ability to read your mind, and decide how you want to proceed.

@liquid2ulu @Ungovernab1e Nice strawman. Consenting to a process doesn’t mean you like outcome. If two wolves and one sheep vote on dinner, sheep is a victim—but if sheep canvases for election, it legitimizes slaughter. You're actively endorsing mechanism of tyranny. Stop playing dumb.

@ASuijuris @Ungovernab1e How precisely does voting legitimise the state? Does it show that I consent to state action? Does that mean that no voter has ever been the victim of the state?

@MrExaminer You don't need to rank thousands of things; you only rank the thing you chose against the next best thing you gave up. That "standard of evaluation" is just human subjective preference.

@ASuijuris An actor cannot possibly rank thousands of possible alternatives before acting. He needs a standard of evaluation.

@liquid2ulu @Ungovernab1e Drop thesaurus act. You writing a whole paragraph playing dumb Look up "praxeology" since you love definitions. Your actions reveal your preferences. You say you hate the state, but your actions (voting) legitimize its electoral framework.

Oh, so you mean that I have demonstrated that the system is true? That sounds odd, the system isn't a proposition, so cannot be true or false. Maybe you meant validation in the computer science sense, thus I have ensured that the system consists of data that can be processed by the program at hand! Hm, that doesn't quite sound right either. Perhaps it could be the case that that word has different meanings in different contexts and I just want you to tell me straight up whatever the fuck you are saying.

@MrExaminer You’re smuggling in a false distinction. Opportunity cost is value of foregone alternative as ranked by actor. If you choose A, you necessarily exclude B, C, and everything else you could have done with same scarce time and means. That exclusion is exactly what ‘cost’ means.

The "incurred opportunity cost" is just a vague term that substitutes "evaluated the situation according to some standard." In your case, the Austrian doctrine. You don't literally "incur" the infinite possibilities of that which you can write in a tweet. You operate within the conceptual framework (Austrianism) that you chose to adopt.

@MrExaminer Calling it 'ritual' doesn't refute point. If you think the action axiom is wrong, then name the exact claim you reject: that you acted toward an end, used scarce means, and incurred opportunity cost.

@ASuijuris Now you're just reciting Austrian economics like it's a ritual.

@MrExaminer You did not consult an objective standard of value before typing your reply. Your own action refutes your thesis.

@MrExaminer Every time you acted in this conversation — chose words, allocated time, pursued the goal of winning the argument — you demonstrated the action axiom. You ranked ends, employed scarce means, and bore opportunity costs.

@liquid2ulu @Ungovernab1e Stop playing fake Socratic games and feigning ignorance; you're starting to sound exactly like leftists. You know what 'validating' means.

@ASuijuris @Ungovernab1e In what way am I "validating" the system? What does that mean?

@MrExaminer Elon Musk doesn't hold Teslas to drive them all at once; he holds them as means to generate future revenue. That is capital accumulation directed toward a purposeful end. Value doesn't float inside the physical atoms of a Tesla; it exists in minds of people who want them.

@ASuijuris A surplus is a good that is owned in excess requirement to one's needs. As in, you can literally not use it personally. Can Elon Musk use all his Teslas? I don't think so. Hence: surplus. What's funny/crazy is that you subjectivists kinda deny the existence of goods.

@MrExaminer A 'surplus' isn't some magical, objective physical state. A good is only a surplus because the owner values it less than what they can get in trade. This is just 19th-century Labor Theory of Value wearing an Objectivist trench coat.

Nope. Trade happens because both traders produce a surplus of goods that they don't need/want personally. In a market context, there is an abundance of goods of similar or close substitutes that can service one's personal goals, which is why one requires a standard to know how to judge the alternatives.

@liquid2ulu @Ungovernab1e Because you’re still validating the system you claim to want to destroy. Knocking on doors for votes is just high-effort statism; voting is low-effort statism.

@Ungovernab1e How precisely does voting contradict anything I have said?

@MrExaminer Trade only happens because of a double inequality of value—I value your apples more than my $5, and you value my $5 more than your apples. If value were objective, we'd both see same value. You're confusing psychology with economics.

Economics is a science that deals with individual choices about material value in a market context. You're saying that econ is about means-ends but fail to address the fact that for every sought end the market offers many alternatives. Individuals evaluate these altenatives via a *standard of value*. The market necessitates an objective standard which the subjective school evades, making its entire system a pseudoscience.

@NeoRothbardian Rothbard’s realist instinct was absolutely right, but 'collating facts' leaves door cracked for empiricists.

Thomas Aquinas + Murray Rothbard = ❤️