Libertarian Discussion Thread

[Taihei Tengoku]

FTFY

No you proved my point far better than I could myself.

Incidentally though, Cockshott notwithstanding (I don't know any people who use TANS as a bible, which is definitely something you shouldn't do) there is a whole school of socialist economics based around neoclassical price theory. While Mises did a good critique of non-price planning in Planning in the Socialist Commonwealth, Lange did make a good reply to this based around a mix of neoclassical and marxian economics which Misesians don't usually recognise when critiquing socialist economics.

That would make it non-Marxian by definition. Lange's model fundamentally concedes to Austrianism, but has to centrally broadcast price controls because it's gotta be socialist somehow

[Nulla Bellum]

Are you ever going to get around to addressing my argument? You keep telling me to read a book that I already have read and presented my objections to, which you obviously can't answer. Is there some dosiometrics involved in your line of attack, that say I read that stupid book 3 times a day and I'll fall prey to the stupidity therein? Maybe you overdosed?

Mises' economic calculation problem destroyed Marxist socialism. Other socialists have abandoned Marxism because of the same problem. Even Trotsky demolished Marxism with an economic calculation problem argument of his own. Why do we need a "new" Marxist socialism? Because the "old" Marxist socialism was thoroughly routed and vanquished. Destroyed.

Even Cockshott conceded this, which is why he proposes technology that does not exist today nor back when Marx was in a drunken stupor and forcing his abused children to live in vomit and filth. Cockshott concedes the need for a subjective value market mechanism to determine price, even after his theoretical privacy-violating omniscient data computing science fiction is somehow realized by Marxists that can't do basic math.

Nope, dope. Favomancy is bunk. Cockshott has obviously wasted a lot of your time just to prove Mises was right. He's a cheeky computer nerd prankster, with the easiest marks at the carnival.

Sorry he played you.

1) I answered your objections by explaining sections of the book you haven't read and telling you to go read them.
2) The economic calculation problem doesn't even make any sense in the first place. If a planned economy cannot determine prices, then how can a Capitalist economy be any more rational?
3) I said this at least twice before:

Cockshott proves that a mid range supercomputer, at the time of the writing of TANS, could handle an economy the size of Ukraine. He explains how a computer system can do this very clearly. There are no subjective market systems involved because they don't exist. There is only labor, supply, and demand involved in the pricing mechanism. If you could stop being so damn smug, you might understand this. Mises got proven wrong, especially in our modern economy where large capitalist firms function as small command economies.

Yet if this is so, that everything is a micro command economy, you still seem stymied that you have what you want at said micro level? Why do you keep refuting yourself? Don't get me wrong, it's cartoon hilarious, but seriously, who else here isn't convinced you're an idiot? You're overkilling it, bro.

If you aren't interested in debate, why are you here?

You certainly don't need my help making a fool of yourself. This is, afterall, the Libertarian Discussion thread, and you didn't bring any libertarian or discussion witcha. You lost, little fella?

[Taihei Tengoku]

Firms aren't economies--they are the animal not the biome.

[Nulla Bellum]

Firms aren't economies--they are the animal not the biome.

But but Orostan has to concede that to keep blustering...

lolz

[Reikoku]

America: We won't ban the beef industry.
India:

Joking aside, I wish more people would take his commitment to vegetarianism to heart.

I'd be a vegetarian, but I like eating chicken and beef too much.

Regardless, I think we're going to need to transition away from the meat industry because of the environmental damage it causes.

[Questers]

No you proved my point far better than I could myself.

Incidentally though, Cockshott notwithstanding (I don't know any people who use TANS as a bible, which is definitely something you shouldn't do) there is a whole school of socialist economics based around neoclassical price theory. While Mises did a good critique of non-price planning in Planning in the Socialist Commonwealth, Lange did make a good reply to this based around a mix of neoclassical and marxian economics which Misesians don't usually recognise when critiquing socialist economics.

That would make it non-Marxian by definition. Lange's model fundamentally concedes to Austrianism, but has to centrally broadcast price controls because it's gotta be socialist somehow

I don’t think so - it doesn’t ‘concede’ anything unless you think Lange started as a marxian, debated with Mises, then moved off marxism, but that isn’t what happened. It agrees that prices need to exist, as opposed to a non-price model. Lange’s theory was that central planners could run the production lines and markets could allocate goods. This is a concession to Mises if you think Friedman believing there should be a government is a concession to Keynes.

[The Liberated Territories]

fools, stop borking the thread

[Orostan]

Firms aren't economies--they are the animal not the biome.

If you want to think of it like animal (which is actually a very good way of doing it), think of it like this:

Every animal has a central nervous system. They plan their operations with this system. Their brain tells their bodies what to do and how to do it, what to feel and how to feel it, what to see and how to see it, and so on. Without their brain, they cannot coordinate themselves. They die without their brain, just as a business fails without some sort of planning in place.

The difference between socialist planning and capitalist planning is that one is for capital, and the other is for the benefit of all involved.

I'd be a vegetarian, but I like eating chicken and beef too much.

Regardless, I think we're going to need to transition away from the meat industry because of the environmental damage it causes.

This would be trivial under a planned economy. Under a Capitalist economy, meat production will continue as long as it is profitable.

[Taihei Tengoku]

That would make it non-Marxian by definition. Lange's model fundamentally concedes to Austrianism, but has to centrally broadcast price controls because it's gotta be socialist somehow

I don’t think so - it doesn’t ‘concede’ anything unless you think Lange started as a marxian, debated with Mises, then moved off marxism, but that isn’t what happened. It agrees that prices need to exist, as opposed to a non-price model. Lange’s theory was that central planners could run the production lines and markets could allocate goods. This is a concession to Mises if you think Friedman believing there should be a government is a concession to Keynes.

The Langean model admits that prices are signals of opportunity cost, rather than mind tricks to fleece the workers. It concedes that a central planner cannot actually determine what the equilibrium looks like from in-kind calculation or from SNLT since it relies on trial and error. A Langean government could work by continually updating its price controls, sure, but in the end it is just another layer of permission for what happens naturally in a normal economy. The government running the factories doesn't really make a difference from a macro point of view, they are price takers from the social discovery processes of the market regardless.

Oskar Lange didn't set out to "debunk" Mises or anything. He wanted to synthesize neoclassical and Marxian economics but ended up with an almost entirely neoclassical model because it is by far the stronger predictive framework. The state ownership is basically an aesthetic choice, perhaps because he remained a True Believer despite his tendencies.

[Taihei Tengoku]

Economies are biomes, not animals. They aren't machines that eat input and poop output, but an emergent system of many actors.

[Orostan]

Economies are biomes, not animals. They aren't machines that eat input and poop output, but an emergent system of many actors.

While the economy as a whole might be a "biome" of sorts, individual capitalist firms are no doubt animals in this biome. Just as an animal has the power to change its environment, a capitalist firm can influence the economy.

[Taihei Tengoku]

That is the most anodyne statement you have ever written but also the truest.

[Orostan]

That is the most anodyne statement you have ever written but also the truest.

So we agree?

[Taihei Tengoku]

I know where that bait leads

[Nulla Bellum]

fools, stop borking the thread

But if we plan it right, Orostan will have a big wall of text post for page 501. It'll be awesome.

[VoVoDoCo]

International opinion formed against Britain whenever they beat peaceful protesters, which helped shift their attitudes accordingly.

While yes, a reason for Britain leaving was because they didn't have the man power to hold India captive, it wasn't through fear of revolt. It was just mass noncompliance.

1. There was also that mutiny during WWII.

You also haven't refuted anything. I've given you evidence that Ghandi's efforts only turned violent efforts into peaceful movements. You admit that the British could not hold India anymore with the manpower they had. I'm trying to tell you that if the British could have held on to India violence would've been inevitable.

And I refuted those sources SOUNDLY.

2. And I explained further why I disagreed with this statement in my earlier responses to it.

1. OH MY FUCKING GOD OROSTAN. An unsuccessful mutiny=/=Britain leaving India due to the fear of violent insurrection.

HAVEN'T REFUTED ANYTHING? Do you know what that word means?

And yes, Britain didn't have the manpower to keep control. Lack of manpower=/=fear of insurrection, which in case you forgot, is what's being debated.

2. Oh, you mean when you gave this brilliant argument? "You're missing my point. I'm saying that these movements were indicative of rising violent currents in India. Ghandi only showed the British that a violent revolution was inevitable if they didn't accept his peaceful protests."
Exactly what did THAT "refute?" You're making claims, with no fucking evidence. Fucking provide it. Or stop fucking posting here.

[Orostan]

1. There was also that mutiny during WWII.

You also haven't refuted anything. I've given you evidence that Ghandi's efforts only turned violent efforts into peaceful movements. You admit that the British could not hold India anymore with the manpower they had. I'm trying to tell you that if the British could have held on to India violence would've been inevitable.


2. And I explained further why I disagreed with this statement in my earlier responses to it.

1. OH MY FUCKING GOD OROSTAN. An unsuccessful mutiny=/=Britain leaving India due to the fear of violent insurrection.

HAVEN'T REFUTED ANYTHING? Do you know what that word means?

And yes, Britain didn't have the manpower to keep control. Lack of manpower=/=fear of insurrection, which in case you forgot, is what's being debated.

2. Oh, you mean when you gave this brilliant argument? "You're missing my point. I'm saying that these movements were indicative of rising violent currents in India. Ghandi only showed the British that a violent revolution was inevitable if they didn't accept his peaceful protests."
Exactly what did THAT "refute?" You're making claims, with no fucking evidence. Fucking provide it. Or stop fucking posting here.

1. I've given you a number of examples for mutinies against the British. I've also proved that violent groups did exist in India before Ghandi. You haven't yet proved that the British government did not care about Indian soldiers revolting.
2. I did provide it. I showed you military mutinies and anti-british groups.

[Nulla Bellum]

Exactly what did THAT "refute?" You're making claims, with no fucking evidence. Fucking provide it. Or stop fucking posting here.

Whoa, Vovo. As libertarians, we should not be even contemplating shutting someone up or out, especially those hellbent on convincing us of their idiocy. Now Orostan came here uninvited to represent Marxism, so we already knew we were going to get the hackneyed historical analysis of a belligerent and boorish drunken ignoramus. He made that clear.

Don't scare him away. We're exploiting him to get to page 500.

Everybody knows Britain withdrew from India because most of the European colonial powers were war-damaged wrecks, destroyed cities of mostly rubble and smoking craters. Only France was left with most of its homeland infrastructure intact enough to maintain its colonial presence in Africa, and they couldn't even keep Algeria right across the Med for all that long after World War 2, much less Vietnam on the far end of southeast Asia.

No, Britain, recipient of over a quarter of the US Marshall Plan loans to rebuild, implicitly understood the anti-colonial bent of the source of that money supply. Britain left India because the US had no intent to finance their stay there. Period. It wasn't like Britain had never put down insurrections in India before. They just couldn't do it on their own dime anymore. That's reason #1. Follow the money. You are arguing reason #2, Ghandi's civil disobedience movement, with Orostan. Those are THE reasons Britain gave up on India. Financial and political. They couldn't very well demand Russia withdraw from Eastern Europe after WW2 while holding India underfoot. They didn't have the money to hold them underfoot anyway.

Orostan is arguing some disconnected-from-reality view, which is utterly unsurprising. Even hardcore Indian nationalists credit Hitler over Ghandhi for freeing India, which raises the point I made about the post-war capabilities of Britain. I don't subscribe to a view that diminishes Ghandhi's role, but neither you nor I nor Orostan are going to find evidence or subscription to Orostan's view of Indian independence, either within India or without. The many wars with the breakaway states of Pakistan and Bangladesh in which India has not reclaimed lands containing her peoples holiest sites puts the lie to any real nationalist movement in India, either as I have pointed at in the real world, or as Orostan has pulled out of his ass.

You're debating a historical illiterate. Don't let that frustrate you. You knew what you were getting into.

[Orostan]

Exactly what did THAT "refute?" You're making claims, with no fucking evidence. Fucking provide it. Or stop fucking posting here.

Whoa, Vovo. As libertarians, we should not be even contemplating shutting someone up or out, especially those hellbent on convincing us of their idiocy. Now Orostan came here uninvited to represent Marxism, so we already knew we were going to get the hackneyed historical analysis of a belligerent and boorish drunken ignoramus. He made that clear.

Don't scare him away. We're exploiting him to get to page 500.

Everybody knows Britain withdrew from India because most of the European colonial powers were war-damaged wrecks, destroyed cities of mostly rubble and smoking craters. Only France was left with most of its homeland infrastructure intact enough to maintain its colonial presence in Africa, and they couldn't even keep Algeria right across the Med for all that long after World War 2, much less Vietnam on the far end of southeast Asia.

No, Britain, recipient of over a quarter of the US Marshall Plan loans to rebuild, implicitly understood the anti-colonial bent of the source of that money supply. Britain left India because the US had no intent to finance their stay there. Period. It wasn't like Britain had never put down insurrections in India before. They just couldn't do it on their own dime anymore. That's reason #1. Follow the money. You are arguing reason #2, Ghandi's civil disobedience movement, with Orostan. Those are THE reasons Britain gave up on India. Financial and political. They couldn't very well demand Russia withdraw from Eastern Europe after WW2 while holding India underfoot. They didn't have the money to hold them underfoot anyway.

Orostan is arguing some disconnected-from-reality view, which is utterly unsurprising. Even hardcore Indian nationalists credit Hitler over Ghandhi for freeing India, which raises the point I made about the post-war capabilities of Britain. I don't subscribe to a view that diminishes Ghandhi's role, but neither you nor I nor Orostan are going to find evidence or subscription to Orostan's view of Indian independence, either within India or without. The many wars with the breakaway states of Pakistan and Bangladesh in which India has not reclaimed lands containing her peoples holiest sites puts the lie to any real nationalist movement in India, either as I have pointed at in the real world, or as Orostan has pulled out of his ass.

You're debating a historical illiterate. Don't let that frustrate you. You knew what you were getting into.

Please, don't insult me. I am arguing that along with those other factors, Britain could no longer keep control of India with force I am also arguing that Ghandi's actions delayed further violent movements against the British Empire, and then when India gained independence those movements became irrelevant.

[Nulla Bellum]

Whoa, Vovo. As libertarians, we should not be even contemplating shutting someone up or out, especially those hellbent on convincing us of their idiocy. Now Orostan came here uninvited to represent Marxism, so we already knew we were going to get the hackneyed historical analysis of a belligerent and boorish drunken ignoramus. He made that clear.

Don't scare him away. We're exploiting him to get to page 500.

Everybody knows Britain withdrew from India because most of the European colonial powers were war-damaged wrecks, destroyed cities of mostly rubble and smoking craters. Only France was left with most of its homeland infrastructure intact enough to maintain its colonial presence in Africa, and they couldn't even keep Algeria right across the Med for all that long after World War 2, much less Vietnam on the far end of southeast Asia.

No, Britain, recipient of over a quarter of the US Marshall Plan loans to rebuild, implicitly understood the anti-colonial bent of the source of that money supply. Britain left India because the US had no intent to finance their stay there. Period. It wasn't like Britain had never put down insurrections in India before. They just couldn't do it on their own dime anymore. That's reason #1. Follow the money. You are arguing reason #2, Ghandi's civil disobedience movement, with Orostan. Those are THE reasons Britain gave up on India. Financial and political. They couldn't very well demand Russia withdraw from Eastern Europe after WW2 while holding India underfoot. They didn't have the money to hold them underfoot anyway.

Orostan is arguing some disconnected-from-reality view, which is utterly unsurprising. Even hardcore Indian nationalists credit Hitler over Ghandhi for freeing India, which raises the point I made about the post-war capabilities of Britain. I don't subscribe to a view that diminishes Ghandhi's role, but neither you nor I nor Orostan are going to find evidence or subscription to Orostan's view of Indian independence, either within India or without. The many wars with the breakaway states of Pakistan and Bangladesh in which India has not reclaimed lands containing her peoples holiest sites puts the lie to any real nationalist movement in India, either as I have pointed at in the real world, or as Orostan has pulled out of his ass.

You're debating a historical illiterate. Don't let that frustrate you. You knew what you were getting into.

Please, don't insult me. I am arguing that along with those other factors, Britain could no longer keep control of India with force I am also arguing that Ghandi's actions delayed further violent movements against the British Empire, and then when India gained independence those movements became irrelevant.

Gandhi was assassinated AFTER Britain granted independence to India, by a Hindu nationalist upset over the partitioning that created Pakistan atop Hinduism's holiest sites. There were no notable violent movements against British rule in India after 1920, save for a few attacks during the 1930s that killed no one, carried out by popularly insignificant socialist factions. Vovo is right, Gandhi's non-violence and Nehru's secular communalism approaches worked.

Because the British had used Muslim troops to augment their occupation of India for nearly 200 years, there was a lot of religious hatred between Muslim and Hindu that still lasts today. Partitioning out Pakistan was unpopular, but necessary, and probably saved millions of Muslim lives. That's all Gandhi, love him or hate him.

Wherever you are getting the idea that Britain feared a violent uprising against them thus granted independence needs to be returned to the fiction shelves of the library. You are obviously way out of your depth here. Marx may have given you a new way to look at history, but there's not a damned thing wrong with looking at history the correct way. Try that.

[Orostan]

Please, don't insult me. I am arguing that along with those other factors, Britain could no longer keep control of India with force I am also arguing that Ghandi's actions delayed further violent movements against the British Empire, and then when India gained independence those movements became irrelevant.

Gandhi was assassinated AFTER Britain granted independence to India, by a Hindu nationalist upset over the partitioning that created Pakistan atop Hinduism's holiest sites. There were no notable violent movements against British rule in India after 1920, save for a few attacks during the 1930s that killed no one, carried out by popularly insignificant socialist factions. Vovo is right, Gandhi's non-violence and Nehru's secular communalism approaches worked.

Because the British had used Muslim troops to augment their occupation of India for nearly 200 years, there was a lot of religious hatred between Muslim and Hindu that still lasts today. Partitioning out Pakistan was unpopular, but necessary, and probably saved millions of Muslim lives. That's all Gandhi, love him or hate him.

Wherever you are getting the idea that Britain feared a violent uprising against them thus granted independence needs to be returned to the fiction shelves of the library. You are obviously way out of your depth here. Marx may have given you a new way to look at history, but there's not a damned thing wrong with looking at history the correct way. Try that.

If Britain could maintain control over India and Pakistan with force, they would have. There would be no independent India without the British Empire being weaker after WWII, and Gahandi only redirected formerly violent protest to peaceful protest. That is the center of my argument.

[VoVoDoCo]

1. OH MY FUCKING GOD OROSTAN. An unsuccessful mutiny=/=Britain leaving India due to the fear of violent insurrection.

HAVEN'T REFUTED ANYTHING? Do you know what that word means?

And yes, Britain didn't have the manpower to keep control. Lack of manpower=/=fear of insurrection, which in case you forgot, is what's being debated.

2. Oh, you mean when you gave this brilliant argument? "You're missing my point. I'm saying that these movements were indicative of rising violent currents in India. Ghandi only showed the British that a violent revolution was inevitable if they didn't accept his peaceful protests."
Exactly what did THAT "refute?" You're making claims, with no fucking evidence. Fucking provide it. Or stop fucking posting here.

1. I've given you a number of examples for mutinies against the British. I've also proved that violent groups did exist in India before Ghandi. You haven't yet proved that the British government did not care about Indian soldiers revolting.
2. I did provide it. I showed you military mutinies and anti-british groups.

Burden of proof is on the AFFIRMATIVE, Orostan. I don't have to prove an action didn't really cause something, you have to prove an action really did cause something.

This is debate 101 stuff man.

[Irona]

Please, don't insult me. I am arguing that along with those other factors, Britain could no longer keep control of India with force I am also arguing that Ghandi's actions delayed further violent movements against the British Empire, and then when India gained independence those movements became irrelevant.

Gandhi was assassinated AFTER Britain granted independence to India, by a Hindu nationalist upset over the partitioning that created Pakistan atop Hinduism's holiest sites. There were no notable violent movements against British rule in India after 1920, save for a few attacks during the 1930s that killed no one, carried out by popularly insignificant socialist factions. Vovo is right, Gandhi's non-violence and Nehru's secular communalism approaches worked.

Because the British had used Muslim troops to augment their occupation of India for nearly 200 years, there was a lot of religious hatred between Muslim and Hindu that still lasts today. Partitioning out Pakistan was unpopular, but necessary, and probably saved millions of Muslim lives. That's all Gandhi, love him or hate him.

Wherever you are getting the idea that Britain feared a violent uprising against them thus granted independence needs to be returned to the fiction shelves of the library. You are obviously way out of your depth here. Marx may have given you a new way to look at history, but there's not a damned thing wrong with looking at history the correct way. Try that.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_National_Army

Boses Indian National Army was a serious rebellion. It’s very recent memory certainly factored into decisions about independence

[VoVoDoCo]

Gandhi was assassinated AFTER Britain granted independence to India, by a Hindu nationalist upset over the partitioning that created Pakistan atop Hinduism's holiest sites. There were no notable violent movements against British rule in India after 1920, save for a few attacks during the 1930s that killed no one, carried out by popularly insignificant socialist factions. Vovo is right, Gandhi's non-violence and Nehru's secular communalism approaches worked.

Because the British had used Muslim troops to augment their occupation of India for nearly 200 years, there was a lot of religious hatred between Muslim and Hindu that still lasts today. Partitioning out Pakistan was unpopular, but necessary, and probably saved millions of Muslim lives. That's all Gandhi, love him or hate him.

Wherever you are getting the idea that Britain feared a violent uprising against them thus granted independence needs to be returned to the fiction shelves of the library. You are obviously way out of your depth here. Marx may have given you a new way to look at history, but there's not a damned thing wrong with looking at history the correct way. Try that.

1. If Britain could maintain control over India and Pakistan with force, they would have. 2. There would be no independent India without the British Empire being weaker after WWII, and 3. Gahandi only redirected formerly violent protest to peaceful protest.

1. We agree. There's a difference between not enough force to stop an insurrection, and not enough force to stop the wave of non-violent non-compliance that Gandhi was famous for.
2. We agree. Too weak to force compliance=/=too weak to stop insurrection
3. Let's use Occam's razor here. Which is more likely?

• Violence committed by a group in the 20's freaked Britain out in the 40's to the point of getting out of India
• Those same groups joined a widespread non-violent non-compliance group that weakened Britain's international support and drained their resources coupled with Britain's domestic issues got Britain out of India.

I say we go with the second one.

[Irona]

1. If Britain could maintain control over India and Pakistan with force, they would have. 2. There would be no independent India without the British Empire being weaker after WWII, and 3. Gahandi only redirected formerly violent protest to peaceful protest.

1. We agree. There's a difference between not enough force to stop an insurrection, and not enough force to stop the wave of non-violent non-compliance that Gandhi was famous for.
2. We agree. Too weak to force compliance=/=too weak to stop insurrection
3. Let's use Occam's razor here. Which is more likely?

• Violence committed by a group in the 20's freaked Britain out in the 40's to the point of getting out of India
• Those same groups joined a widespread non-violent non-compliance group that weakened Britain's international support and drained their resources coupled with Britain's domestic issues got Britain out of India.

I say we go with the second one.

The Indian National Army was active in the 40's. It inspired 1946 rebellions like the Bombay Mutiny, and the Red Fort trails of it's members became a rallying symbol for Indian Independence. The Vice-Roy described 1946 India as 'The edge of a volcano'.

Fear of another armed uprising was certainly a major factor in Indian Independence.