----- Original Message -----

From: jeremyr

To: ex-Libertarian@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Monday, September 21, 2009 11:39 AM

Subject: [ex-Libertarian] Re: A Few Words on Ludwig Von Mises' "Liberalism"

 

> No, von Mises points-out that "science" requires "controlled
> experiments" to come to "scientific" conclusions. He
> points-out that looking at reams of data is not equivalent to
> a controlled experiment and, therefore, does not have the
> same authority as a scientific experiment.

Looking at "reams of data" is how theories are formed, the things that can then be tested via "scientific experiment." When, instead, you just make things up--the Mises method--then doggedly hold to the "theory" you made up, even when all experience suggest exactly the opposite conclusion--also the Mises method--you are operating entirely counter to science, just like Mises, and no one will or should take you
seriously.

> Obama himself said Grandma should probably get a
> pain pill rather than a pacemaker.

Yet another lie. Here's the actual comment that was misrepresented in
that manner by the goons at Fox News (among other right-wing sources):

"[W]hat we can do is make sure that at least some of the waste that
exists in the system that's not making anybody's mom better, that is
loading up on additional tests or additional drugs that the evidence
shows is not necessarily going to improve care, that at least we can let
doctors know and your mom know that, you know what? Maybe this isn't
going to help. Maybe you're better off not having the surgery but taking
the painkiller. And those kinds of decisions between doctors and
patients, and making sure that our incentives are not preventing those
good decision, and that--that doctors and hospitals all are aligned for
patient care, that's something we can achieve."

> When they say effective, they don�t necessarily mean for
> the INDIVIDUAL.  THEY CAN MEAN FOR THE
> SYSTEM!

Do let us know when the shuttle lands, won't you?

> YOU FAILED TO DEAL WITH DASCHLE AND ZEKE
> EMANUEL WHO CLAIM OLD PEOPLE MUST BE
> SACRIFICED FOR THE YOUNG. . .

Because that's just more bullshit from--you guessed it--the SAME
crackpot, Betsy McCaughey, writing in Murdoch's New York Post. FactCheck
disposed of this more than a month ago:
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/08/deadly-doctor/

> SOCIALIZED MEDICINE MUST MEAN
> GOVERNMENT RATIONING.

Setting aside all the other problems with such an assertion, it's still
necessary to point out that neither Obama nor the Democrats have
proposed "socialized medicine." Idiot.

> JOHN STEWART?  WHO CARES WHAT HE SAYS.
> HE�S A COMMEDIAN.

He didn't have to "say" anything. He gave her some rope, and she
publicly hanged herself in rather spectacular fashion.

>  WHO FIRED HER?

Cantel Medical Corporation, her employer.

> There is plenty of backup for what I said.

There's no backup whatsoever for what you said. You parroted a lie that
was circulated by the nut right when the stimulus bill was being
assembled. They took a portion aimed at digitizing medical records as a
means of reducing physical paperwork and another one that established a
council to better disseminate research on the relative effectiveness of
various medical treatment regimens and turned it into their first
version of "Obama death panels."

And what was the source of this bullshit? A Bloomberg commentary by none
other than Betsy McCaughey, the same charlatan who was more recently
advancing the "death panels" lie about the health care reform bill.
She's been totally discredited in the print media, but it fell to Jon
Stewart put her on the air and completely destroy her before a
nationwide television audience. She was fired from her job the next day.

What a surprise that the clown who Spams about "the tyranny that the
Obama Democrats and the Rockefeller/Islaimic cabal behind them is trying
to impose" also carries her sewage water.

> Maybe the real problem is that government panels (call them
> death or not, they will decide when people die) were set-up
> in the stimulus bill.

A far bigger problem are congenital liars who poison the public debate by
pimping patent misinformation. Like what you've just done, there.

> Please wake-up. . .   because you are an "ex" libertarian
> does not mean you have to be an "ex" thinker!

Yes, clearly I fall far short of great thinkers like you who circulate SPAM
about "the tyranny that the Obama Democrats and the Rockefeller/Islamic cabal
behind them is trying to impose."

> No, von Mises points-out that "science" requires "controlled
> experiments" to come to "scientific" conclusions.  He
> points-out that looking at reams of data is not equivalent to
> a controlled experiment and, therefore, does not have the
> same authority as a scientific experiment.

Looking at "reams of data" is how theories are formed, the things that can then
be tested via "scientific experiment." When, instead, you just make things
up--the Mises method--then doggedly hold to the "theory" you made up, even when
all experience suggest exactly the opposite conclusion--also the Mises
method--you are operating entirely counter to science, just like Mises, and no
one will or should take you
seriously.

--- In ex-Libertarian@yahoogroups.com, jeremyr <jeremyr@...> wrote:
>
> from
> http://lefthooktheblog.blogspot.com/
>
> Tonight, the Obama went before a joint session of congress to try to
> sell his version of health care reform.>>>>>>

Lloyd Sez:

Maybe the real problem is that Obama tried to rush through a health care bill
without public hearings appropriate for a democratic society?

Maybe the real problem is that government panels (call them death or not, they
will decide when people die) were set-up in the stimulus bill.  They will decide
what medical procedures people can get at what age and will result in the death
of older people rationed out of the system because of age.  End of life
couseling is related, but not the main issue.

Daschle in his book and Zeke Emmanuel (Obama medical advisors) in his scholarly
writing have both endorsed rationing based on age by government edict.

Please wake-up. . .   because you are an "ex" libertarian does not mean you have
to be an "ex" thinker!

> Mises and the other "Austrian school" cultists don't believe in science.
>
> In what they label as "science," they reject the scientific method,
> which develops theories from observations, then tests them, rejecting or
modifying them if new data contradicting the theory presents itself. The
"Austrians Schoolers" place their faith, instead, in a priori
> "theories," which, they argue, should be developed without reference to
experience, and, if believed to be logically sound, maintained as
> correct, even if seemingly disproven by all experience. Rather than
> drawing their assumptions from data, Mises and the other "Austrian
> Schoolers" attempt to apply their preconceived notions to data,
> rendering their work no different--and no more valuable--than that of
> "creation science."[2]

Lloyd Responds:

No, von Mises points-out that "science" requires "controlled experiments" to
come to "scientific" conclusions.  He points-out that looking at reams of data
is not equivalent to a controlled experiment and, therefore, does not have the
same authority as a scientific experiment.  This is the reason von Mises says
economists and most "social scientists" have great difficulty getting beyond "a
priori theories."

from
http://lefthooktheblog.blogspot.com/

Tonight, the Obama went before a joint session of congress to try to
sell his version of health care reform. His speech had some good
moments, as speeches go, and if being President of the United States
required little more than giving speeches, I have no doubt the Obama
would be remembered as one of the greats.

Unfortunately for the Obama, the job requires something a great deal
more than words, and tonight's speech is primarily of interest as a
monument to how very little the Obama seems to have learned in his time
in office.

The thrust of the Obama's speech is, as usual, the same Rodney King-ism
ye humble editor spends so much time excoriating on this blog. Instead
of solidly embracing a liberal policy and fighting for it, the Obama is
once again stuck on "Can't we all just get along?" He's still trying to
find compromise with those who don't want any reform, cooperation with
those who have spent weeks accusing him of wanting to allow federal
bureaucrats to kill the elderly, the infirm, the "unproductive," still
looking for some mythical common ground, the warm-and-fuzzy concept so
beloved of the pundit class, "bipartisanship."[1]

The Obama was elected in a landslide that also brought a large majority
for his party in the House of Representatives and a fillibuster-proof
supermajority in the Senate. What part of that suggests to him a public
mandate for "bipartisanship" I can't even imagine. Time and time again,
though, that's where he goes, and it's where he went tonight, throwing
in a heaping helping of the vile triangulation of Bill Clinton, a tactic
which draws a false equivalence between the liberals and the
conservatives and rhetorically marginalizes both.

Given this, a few moments stood out. It was actually refreshing to see
the Obama finally take on the "death panels" charge that has been
leveled at health care reform for weeks. With a candor almost entirely
absent from politicians at such events, he skipped any euphemism and
called it exactly what it is: a lie. The Democratic members in the
chamber erupted into applause at that moment. The Republicans, who have
always known the charge was a lie, sat on their hands and looked as
disgusted as if they'd just been served a shit sandwich. Immediately
after that, when the Obama correctly pointed out that the health care
bill didn't, as so many of its opponents had alleged, cover illegal
aliens, Republicans, who knew what the Obama said was the truth, began
to bark objections, and Rep. Joe Wilson, Republican and first-rate
scumbag from South Carolina, loudly shouted "You lie!"

These moments made for quite a contrast. The Obama calls, at great
length, for cooperation and bipartisanship; those in the other party sit
on their hands looking disgusted when he calls a vicious lie what it is,
then call him a liar for telling what every one of them knew to be the
truth. It makes Republicans look bad. It makes the Obama look even
worse.

To handle the Republican response, the Republicans chose Rep. Charles
Boustany of Louisiana. Boustany was appropriate for a number of reasons.
First, he is, like most Republicans now, a crackpot who dabbles in
"birther" conspiracy theories about the Obama not even being a U.S.
citizen. Next, he's an exceedingly stupid man, who had apparently
written his "response" before having read the Obama speech; what little
of his rambling that was comprehensible was nonsensical, and the
entirety of it was badly read, in a monotone, from a cue card the
congressman seemed barely able to read. Boustany rolled out the tired
Republican mantra of malpractice tort "reform," and that's the other
part of what made him a perfect messenger for the Republicans--before
coming to congress, Boustany had been a surgeon, and had been repeatedly
sued for malpractice. His patients/victims had won millions.

One expects this sort of thing from conservative Republicans.

One doesn't expect it from more responsible elected officials, though,
and that's why the Obama's can't-we-all-just-get-along call, in his own
speech, for allowing states to begin experimenting with malpractice tort
"reform"--measures aimed at preventing us from suing butchers like
Boustany--was particularly depressing.[2]

As all two or three of my regular readers have probably guessed, I'm
quite tired of this administration. I've been tired of it since before
it took office, actually. I really do think Obama had a spark within
him, a little glowing ember that could have flared up into his becoming
something akin to a great president, as such things are usually judged.
It has always been there. I even saw it in parts of his speech tonight.
He's wasted his chance, though. He wasted it before he was even sworn
in. Barring some horrendous catastrophe or scandal in the years ahead,
he's limited his place in the history books to being the first person
elected to the presidency who wasn't entirely white. A few centuries
from now, that won't be impressive enough to make him more than a
footnote. His complete failure to seize the opportunity open to him is a
genuine tragedy. Probably not one that should seem unexpected in this
day and age, but a tragedy no less.

---

[1] And his plan has gotten worse. Tonight, he pooh-poohs the importance
of the "public option," while embracing the idea of a legal mandate that
everyone carry health insurance (a notion he'd previously rejected).

[2] Malpractice suits account for only between 0.8% and 2% of total
health outlays--completely eliminating all malpractice suits serves the
conservative interest in creating an overclass that is impervious to any
public accountability, but does nothing to reduce health care costs.

From Classical Liberals:
http://classicliberals.blogspot.com/2009/06/few-words-on-ludwig-von-mises.html

Of all the fringe oddballs and pompous windbags waved around by today's
"Libertarians" as intellectual godfathers, Ludwig Von Mises wins the
grand prize as the windiest. Mises' protracted prose, rendered into
English, is a never-ending agony for those who naively wander into it in
the mistaken belief that the author may have had something of value to
say. The ugly truth about Mises is that, for all his wind, his work
amounts to an intellectual vacuum. It could be safely ignored in serious
intellectual circles in Mises' lifetime, as, indeed, it largely was,
and, left to stand on its own merits, would have been completely
forgotten decades ago, as, indeed, it largely was, outside of the
"Libertarian" community and its forerunners. His continuing popularity
among "Libertarians" rests solely on the fact that he peddled the
nonsense they want to hear; a crank speaking, down through the ages, to
his descendants.

In 1927, Mises wrote a massive tome (as was his habit) called
"Liberalism," which purported to explain and intended to advance ideas
Mises labeled "liberalism."

But what is this "liberalism"? Here, Mises has a problem. From his
introduction:

"If one wants to know what liberalism is and what it aims at, one cannot
simply turn to history for the information and inquire what the liberal
politicians stood for and what they accomplished. For liberalism nowhere
succeeded in carrying out its program as it had intended."

Okay, setting aside the questionable soundness of the rationale, scratch
that. Where are we to turn? By the time Mises was writing, liberal ideas
had a pretty long literary pedigree. Maybe to know what liberalism is,
one should read what the liberals wrote?

Nope:

"Nor does it any longer suffice today to form one's idea of liberalism
from a study of the writings of its great founders."

Having, then, just ruled out literally everything, insofar as history is
concerned, to what is one supposed to look for an understanding of
liberalism?

Why, to Mises himself, of course. He tells us:

"Liberalism is not a completed doctrine or a fixed dogma. On the
contrary: it is the application of the teachings of science to the
social life of man."

Speaking from an understanding of the history of liberal ideas--that
history the study of which Mises has disparaged--the first part of that
is quite correct. Liberalism has an underlying set of principles and
embraces the concept of utilitarianism with regard to artificial
institutions. It's always trying to bring those institutions more in
line with its principles, holding, as it does, that to do so better
serves the happiness and welfare of mankind.

Mises' invocation of science, however, is a warning signal.

As a general rule, it's advisable to be very cautious when science is
invoked in this sort of work. Mises, advocating a doctrine, is about to
tell the reader, at staggering length, what "liberalism" is, and, as
Marx did with socialism, he's invoking the name of science to cover what
he's about to say. The invocation sets up the implication that liberals
(as Mises chooses to define them) are scientists, and, conversely, that
those who oppose liberalism (also as Mises chooses to define it) are
advocating things counter to science. The social Darwinists--Mises'
predecessors in trying to appropriate the word "liberalism" for
themselves--did the same thing, saying they were only following "the
iron laws of nature."[1] And, if it needs to be said, they weren't.

While caution about the invocation of science in such a work is
advisable, in general, it is particularly advisable when the invocation
comes from Mises and the "Austrian school" cult to which he belonged.

Mises and the other "Austrian school" cultists don't believe in science.

In what they label as "science," they reject the scientific method,
which develops theories from observations, then tests them, rejecting or
modifying them if new data contradicting the theory presents itself. The
"Austrians Schoolers" place their faith, instead, in a priori
"theories," which, they argue, should be developed without reference to
experience, and, if believed to be logically sound, maintained as
correct, even if seemingly disproven by all experience. Rather than
drawing their assumptions from data, Mises and the other "Austrian
Schoolers" attempt to apply their preconceived notions to data,
rendering their work no different--and no more valuable--than that of
"creation science."[2]

So when Mises invokes "science" in explaining "liberalism," the prudent
reader should begin to reach for his wallet. Mises is alerting his
readers that he's about to apply the "Austrian method" to liberalism,
which is exactly what he proceeds to do. Having ruled out, in the matter
of defining liberalism, both what liberals have advocated and what they
have written, the author delivers this final touch, a little later in
the book:

"We have already said that the program of present-day liberalism has
outgrown that of the older liberalism, that it is based on a deeper and
better insight into interrelationships, since it can reap the benefit of
the advances that science has made in the last decades."

So much for the entire historical record, when it comes to defining
liberalism. We're left with Mises alone. And that's all we get. That
this is a book about "liberalism" that openly disparages the study of
the history of liberalism would, alone, be rather damning, but those
brave enough (or crazy enough) to wade through this torturous tome will
inevitably notice what is still, even after the author's dismissals of
the value of the historical record, a rather glaring omission:

The liberals.

Despite the books' great length and breadth, one struggles in vain to
find quotes from any of them, references to them, even much in the way
of a passing mention. They really only turn up in an appendix,
"Literature of Liberalism," which appears to have been added in a
subsequent edition of the book many years after its initial publication.
And that appendix is rather telling. It isn't, the author says, meant to
be a comprehensive survey, just what he calls "the most important
literature." That assertion, along with the appendix itself, shows how
truly shallow his understanding of the tradition really is. John Stuart
Mill, easily the major liberal writer of the 19th century, is described
as important, but only because, Mises tells us, he represents the
descent of liberalism into socialism (and for Mises, as with so many of
his latter-day followers, calling someone a socialist is the highest
insult). Liberalism exploded in the 17th and 18th centuries
(particularly the 18th), but Mises lists nothing from the 17th--not a
single text--and virtually nothing from the 18th--while including only
four books from the whole of the 18th century, Mises lists, further
down, seven of *his own* books.[3] Outside of that appendix, the
liberals are almost completely absent. It's just a monologue, in the
strongest possible sense of that word. Mises' Liberalism by Mises.

What, then, is the conscientious reader to make of this strange text? A
large book that purports to be about "liberalism," but discourages the
study of the history of liberalism, doesn't quote the liberals, doesn't
really even refer to any liberals, except in an appendix, written by an
author who doesn't seem to know anything about liberalism, and who
invokes science to cover what he writes but doesn't believe in science.

Perhaps its time for "Libertarians" to let this one go.

---

[1] Mises goes rather far in his invocation of science, offering a
chapter that purports to negatively psychoanalyze advocates of
"antiliberalism," a move of breathtaking audacity for a "liberal" who,
only a few chapters later, praises fascism for saving civilization.

[2] In "Epistemological Problems of Economics," Mises, advancing his
faith in a priori "theories," writes that "no kind of experience can
ever force us to discard or modify a priori theorems; they are logically
prior to it and cannot be either proved by corroborative experience or
disproved by experience to the contrary... [A] proposition of an
aprioristic theory can never be refuted by experience." That is, of
course, why real scientists don't use that approach. In "Human Action,"
Mises argues that experience "can never... prove or disprove any
particular theorem... The ultimate yardstick of an economic theorem's
correctness or incorrectness is solely reason unaided by experience." To
put a finer point on it, Mises, again from "Epistemological Problems":

"If a contradiction appears between a theory and experience, we always
have to assume that a condition presupposed by the theory was not
present, or else that there is some error in our observation... If the
facts do not confirm the theory, the cause perhaps may lie in the
imperfection of the theory. The disagreement between the theory and the
facts of experience consequently forces us to think through the problems
of the theory again. But so long as a re-examination of the theory
uncovers no errors in our thinking, we are not entitled to doubt its
truth."

[3] Perhaps the books' greatest example of its author's politics and his
*profound* lack of understanding of liberalism comes in a chapter
dedicated to praising fascism, which was just beginning to fill fill
mass graves in Europe:

"It cannot be denied that fascism and similar movements aiming at the
establishment of dictatorships are full of the best intentions and that
their intervention has, for the moment, saved European civilization. The
merit that fascism has thereby won for itself will live eternally in
history."

Rather than seeing fascism--one of the major counter-liberal movements
of the 20th century--as fundamentally wrongheaded, Mises only
disagreement with the fascists, in that chapter, was over a technical
question of tactics. Many years later, when his position became
politically untenable, he suddenly changed it, began portraying the
fascists as socialists (demonstrating that his understanding of politics
hadn't improved a bit), and trashed them with the same venom as he had
the Bolsheviks.

From Left Hook!
http://lefthooktheblog.blogspot.com/2009/07/new-york-times-reports-today-that-to\
p.html

A new tale from the Bush administration, as chilling as it is
unsurprising. The New York Times reports today that

"Top Bush administration officials in 2002 debated testing the
Constitution by sending American troops into the suburbs of Buffalo to
arrest a group of men suspected of plotting with al Qaeda, according to
former administration officials."

Such an operation would, of course, be completely illegal. Those who
worked on the report seemed to realize the significance of it:

"A decision to dispatch troops into the streets to make arrests has few
precedents in American history, as both the Constitution and subsequent
laws restrict the military from being used to conduct domestic raids and
seize property."

The debate inside the administration grew out of Bush's position that he
had the Stalinist ability to operate entirely outside of constitutional
and legal restraints, as documented in memos released earlier this year.

Among those urging Bush to use the military was Vice President Dick
Cheney. In the Times' reconstruction of the debate, the Justice
Department was concerned that it may have insufficient evidence to
successfully prosecute a legal case against the suspects, so Cheney
advocated sending in the military, on the grounds that "the
administration would need a lower threshold of evidence to declare them
enemy combatants and keep them in military custody." This is the Times
being intentionally obfuscatory; the "enemy combatant" designation
invented by the Bush administration required *no* evidence, and wasn't
subject to *any* oversight. As those in the administration asserted the
power, they could so designate anyone they wanted, and hold them
forever. That Cheney explicitly argued for this approach based on a
concern that there may not be enough evidence to show that the
individuals in question were guilty of anything points directly to why
this Stalinist "power" was explicitly banned by the Constitution and
U.S. law in the first place.

The plan to use the military never went forward; Bush opted to send in
the FBI, and all of the suspects in the case eventually pleaded guilty.
From the Times recounting of the debate, the decision to use the FBI was
made because, on the one hand, the Justice Department, considering such
matters their turf, resented and argued against encroachment into it,
and, on the other, some officials thought it would be bad public
relations to send tanks into an American suburb. There seems to have
been no concern at all with the matter of constitutionality or legality.
If it even came up, no one who described the debate to the Times seems
to have mentioned it.

These days, Cheney is the loudest voice crowing about how Obama's
abandonment of Bush policies would put the country at risk, but, as this
revelation demonstrates yet again, Cheney and his ilk are a far greater
threat to the U.S. than al Qaida could ever be.

Use mike@... if you need to contact me.

If you're still around here, your email address is returning mail as
"spam." You may want to look into that.

Hello,

Hey this is LloydMiller you should check out yuku!
Here is a link to my profile: http://LloydMiller.u.yuku.com?referredby=LloydMiller%40u.

See You There,
LloydMiller

If you do not want to receive emails from LloydMiller please click here:
http://www.yuku.com/registration/optout/c/4a8c86d7b9b67da343b4b6242ddce853/id/719408