Re: Don't Forget Mises -- and Dump the Third Way!
From: michael price (nini_pad_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 10/25/04
- Next message: Mason A. Clark: "Re: Econ Prof's letter to Pres. G.W.Bush"
- Previous message: BELANGER: "Re: Amphibians threatened worldwide"
- In reply to: Ron Allen: "Re: Don't Forget Mises -- and Dump the Third Way!"
- Next in thread: royls_at_telus.net: "Re: Don't Forget Mises -- and Dump the Third Way!"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 24 Oct 2004 23:37:23 -0700
Ron Allen <rallen2@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:<LHyed.31658$mn5.15240@bignews5.bellsouth.net>...
> Ron Allen wrote:
> > There is a will to believe, a wish to believe,
> > just as there is an urge to know, and a desire
> > to learn. I see the world, reality, through
> > clashing perspectives. I have my very own
> > consciousness of reality, and I also encounter
> > various versions of reality when I read and
> > listen to the opinions of writers and speakers.
>
> > From multiple perspectives I make a decision
> > about what I believe best and most expresses
> > what is real and true.
>
> > My volition does play an important part, I'm
> > sure. I like to believe that I'm on the side of
> > goodness and liberty, on the side of truth and
> > beauty. There are exterior facts, and there is
> > interior desire. These come together in every
> > knowing self.
>
> > Knowing is largely solitary. Knowledge is
> > autonomy, individuality. Knowledge is a private
> > gnosis, a personal gnosis, even a poetic gnosis,
> > true only for the individual knower.
>
>
> Michael Price wrote:
> > Then it is not true at all, . . .
>
>
> Ron Allen wrote:
> > What is true to me may not be true to you; . . .
>
>
> Michael Price wrote:
> > But some things are true for all.
>
>
> Ron Allen answers:
> We both know some facts as true; but there are
> some/many differences of opinion about those facts
> which have some clear ideological or philosophical
> consequences. There are some/many descriptive
> statements we can both agree with; and there are
> some/many prescriptive statements we do not agree
> on.
That does not mean that some things are "true only for
the individual knower".
>
> I know, for example, that those who risk wealth
> will sometimes make wealth. But knowing this is
> not enough. There is the question of what wealth
> is, and how wealth is created. By risk? No! By
> labor? Yes! The notion that risking wealth will
> make wealth is compact and cursory statement, a
> condensed truism involving a lot of assumptions
> about what is and what should be.
I never said that risking wealth will make wealth, merely
that it could. It's not a "condensed truism" it's a simple
fact. Without economic risk there is no wealth creation.
If you think me wrong then I would like to offer you $100,000
for any method of real wealth creation without economic risk.
I don't have $100,000 but I'm sure that my fellow ideological
capitalists will gladly fork out that much and more for your
method, if it works.
> There are a lot
> of old habits, bad habits, which truisms all too
> often take for granted, or take as granted. What
> we need to do is look in a new way at our old
> habits, like the struggle for power, and at our
> old institutions, like the balance of power.
>
> Some things are true for all? Perhaps.
No, not perhaps, yes! If nothing was true for all
then nothing would be true. If nothing was true for
all then it would mean that the statement "Nothing
is true for all." would not be true for some people.
For those people some things would be true for all.
That is obviously impossible.
> It is a likely possibility. Or, maybe what is true for
> all of us is a useful fiction, a kind of practical
> invention, or a convenient convention, a sort of
> common denominator, or collective designation,
> or average evaluation, or general category we need
> in order to believe that we all do have the same
> truth. Even when we believe that we share the
> same truths, maybe all that we really share are
> the same words.
If you really think that's true why bother communicating
(or rather failing to do so) at all? If you don't think
it's true why bring it up?
> What is a "tree" to someone who
> lives in the Sahara,
A rarity, but still an accurate description of something
that is real.
> or in the Arctic Archipelago
> compared to someone who lives in the equatorial
> tropics, the Torrid Zone. The word is the same;
> but the image is not, the meaning is not.
>
The image is exactly the same. The meaning is exactly
the same. Only the examples the person would typically
think of are different.
>
>
> Ron Allen wrote:
> > . . . but you are not the final, ultimate, or
> > unappealable judge and jury, determining and
> > deciding what is the true truth.
>
>
> Michael Price wrote:
> > No logic is and logic is not your friend.
>
> Ron Allen answers:
> Logic is? Logic is an invention. Logic is no
> person's friend.
>
Some of us invite him in and entertain him, others
banish him.
>
>
> Ron Allen wrote:
> > No truth us true for all people, nor for every
> > place, nor for all time.
>
>
> Michael Price wrote:
> > Is that statement true for all people or for
> > all time?
>
>
> Ron Allen answers:
> Again, logic is no one's friend. Logic is not
> even truth's friend.
>
ATFQ. Is the statement "No truth us true for all
people, nor for every place, nor for all time." true for
all people or for all time?
>
> Ron Allen wrote:
> > This may be a very hard and difficult truth for
> > us to handle and manage; but it is a truth which
> > accords with the facts.
>
>
> Michael Price wrote:
> > What facts would those be if there is no eternal
> > truth?
>
>
> Ron Allen answers:
> There are no eternal facts, just as there are no
> eternal truths. Language fails us; and this is
> what is shown when we say such things as: What
> facts would there be if there are no eternal
> truths? Language lets us down; and so we find
> ourselves stymied whenever someone says to us,
> "There is no true statement." We are stumped.
> We are mystified. But it is language that baffles
> us.
No it's stupidity. Clearly there are true statements,
such as "The statement that there are no true statements
is false", "perceptions of phemonina exist", "every thing
has a nature that consists of the set of ways it can act"
etc..
>
> Ron Allen wrote:
> > You can believe that those with a truth
> > different from your truth are liars or dunces;
> > but that judgment of the facts, that people have
> > different truths, is only your judgment of the
> > facts, but not the facts per se, not the brute
> > facts.
>
>
> Michael Price wrote:
> > . . . for how can you know anything that is not
> > true . . .
>
>
> Ron Allen wrote:
> > How can we know if anything is true? Even the
> > words "true" and "truth" are problematic and
> > enigmatic words. People have known with
> > certainty many truths which people no longer
> > believe to be the truth. This is empirical
> > fact. This is a significant truth.
>
>
> Michael Price wrote:
> > Indeed it is but how can you say you "know"
> > that which is false?
>
>
> Ron Allen answers:
> If you do not know it is false, and if you believe
> it to be true.
>
But believing isn't knowing.
>
> Ron Allen wrote:
> > The question is: If there is a truth to be
> > known, how can we come to know this truth, or if
> > what we believe to be true is truly true? What
> > we believe to be true corresponds just enough to
> > what may be true that we can function in the
> > real world with some degree of certainty and
> > finesse. What we believe to be true may
> > approximate what is true, but we do not know how
> > carefully or correctly our truths approach the
> > truth.
>
> > When talking about truth, it must always be kept
> > in mind that there is natural reality, and there
> > is societal reality. Gravity is an unalterable
> > truth about what we observe in natural reality;
> > but private property rights are an alterable
> > truth about what has been instituted and
> > established as a societal reality.
>
>
> Michael Price wrote:
> > No it isn't.
>
>
> Ron Allen answers:
> Yes; I believe it is. Private property is not a
> natural reality, not a natural truth, like what we
> call "gravity". Property is a societal reality, a
> social truth. Property is a fictional truth.
>
There is no such thing as a fiction truth by definition.
Property is a truth because the presence or absence of
property rights have real effects on people that prove the
existance of property.
>
> Michael Price wrote:
> > It is a consequence of the nature of man and the
> > universe. Man cannot use the same resources as
> > another man at the same time, therefore
> > exclusive use must be apportioned and the needs
> > of justice mean that it is apportioned according
> > to certain strictures called "rights".
>
>
> Ron Allen answers:
> If there are enough resources, people can make use
> of these at the same time, even if in different
> places.
No, each resource can only be used a limited number of
ways at a time and logically each resource can only be
in one place at a time.
> If all these resources are declared the
> private property of one person, then that does
> make it difficult for many people to make free use
> of all those privately possessed resources. You
> seem to be confusing the use of resources with the
> ownership of resources. I can own something and
> never use it; just as I can use something and
> never own it.
>
> If there is a right to property, then every person
> ought to have that right equally,
So they should. That doesn't mean they have a right
to equal property, merely the equal protection of that
which is their property.
> and thus every person would own the property they need.
Non sequitur.
> If there were people who owned more property than they
> need, then there will not be enough property for
> all the people to rightfully possess and rightly
> enjoy.
>
Non sequitur again. The amount of property existing
need not be equal to or less than the amount people
"need".
>
> <><><><><><><><><><>
>
> "All philosophies, if you ride them home, are
> nonsense."
> -- Samuel Butler, Jr.
Spoken like someone who never bothered to philosophise.
- Next message: Mason A. Clark: "Re: Econ Prof's letter to Pres. G.W.Bush"
- Previous message: BELANGER: "Re: Amphibians threatened worldwide"
- In reply to: Ron Allen: "Re: Don't Forget Mises -- and Dump the Third Way!"
- Next in thread: royls_at_telus.net: "Re: Don't Forget Mises -- and Dump the Third Way!"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
