Comments on: Outsourcing the Empire

By: MBH

MBH — Wed, 20 May 2009 07:25:32 +0000

Re Happiness in Austro-Athenian Perspective — I can’t help but think of this in terms of satyagraha and swaraj. Gandhi thought of satyagraha as a means to the end of swaraj, but in some sense, wherever satyagraha is present, so is a touch of swaraj.

In that way, the striving itself–done skillfully, consistently, morally, and towards something objectively valuable–is something like an end in itself.

By: Roderick

Roderick — Tue, 19 May 2009 07:40:03 +0000

The high-profit parts of the counter-economy tend to be dominated by mafias, but most of the counter-economy goes on peacefully and invisibly.

By: Neverfox

Neverfox — Tue, 19 May 2009 06:47:01 +0000

Thanks, martin. Re: Scheler, I came across this paper at LvMI comparing Mises and Scheler. Seems the latter was into anti-psychologism.

By: martin

martin — Tue, 19 May 2009 06:08:36 +0000

I should mention that I listened to them in double-speed and so I will forever struggle not to think of you as sounding like Alvin the Chipmunk (or maybe Simon is better).

Maybe you should check out Amazing Slowdowner:
http://www.ronimusic.com/amsldowin.htm

It can change the speed of mp3′s without changing pitch. (Upward as well as downward.)

By: Neverfox

Neverfox — Tue, 19 May 2009 05:20:50 +0000

Thanks for the plug. Channeling you is the right way to describe the post. I’ve been listening to your lectures so much to get certain points sorted out that I’ve nearly got them memorized. I should mention that I listened to them in double-speed and so I will forever struggle not to think of you as sounding like Alvin the Chipmunk (or maybe Simon is better).

Have you spent any time with the work of Max Scheler? I keep reading about his concepts of a priori values, value ranking (sounds vaguely Austrian), similar diagnosis of Kant’s “sternness”. Chap. 5 of his Formalism in Ethics discusses “Eudaemonism”. Could there be some synergy there? I don’t know enough to say myself.

By: Anon73

Anon73 — Tue, 19 May 2009 03:43:14 +0000

I haven’t but I should – it looks like a great book. I see what you’re saying, I just question the practicality of it – look at what happened to e-gold for example. The state violently attacks anything that it perceives as a threat, and barring some utopian technology like forcefields and such it’s just hard for me to see the practical hope in agorism.

By: John Higgins

John Higgins — Tue, 19 May 2009 02:07:18 +0000

Anon73 – have you read Alongside Night?

The idea isn’t to get the state to ignore the counter-economy. In fact, the ultimate goal is the direct conflict of the counter-economy and the state. The idea is to build, in advance, the institutions that will allow us to thrive without a government, and be prepared for the inevitable collapse of the state.

By: MBH

MBH — Tue, 19 May 2009 01:31:44 +0000

Re eudaimonia–agreed.

Re counter economics–fair enough.

Re my last year at Auburn–spring 2005. My last semester was the same as Zack’s. I finish undergraduate degree online in July. I look forward to reading the paper you linked. For now, I have to finish finance homework. Ugh.

By: Anon73

Anon73 — Tue, 19 May 2009 00:25:05 +0000

The main problem with counter-economics is it’s mostly dominated by states-in-training like cartels and mafias, and to some extent that makes sense because the state constantly wages violent, aggressive war on anything it perceives as a threat to its authority. The bittorrent thing only works because the state has chosen not to just take over the internet, preferring the economic advantages it currently brings in. However, no amount of economic advantages would ever persuade the state to ignore a direct threat to itself. So I’m not sure the bittorrent thing is a good model for getting started.

By: Roderick

Roderick — Tue, 19 May 2009 00:14:55 +0000

Re Charles — you and he may have overlapped at Auburn. What was your last year here?