How Libertarianism was created by big business lobbyists

[hashman]

Trade unions are still evil... It's one thing to require membership to work in a particular shop. Another thing entirely to require membership to work in a particular profession.

You mean some kind of mandatory state-endorsed trade unions, right?  Or are you saying workers which organize themselves are evil?  I doubt you're saying that    

[hashman]

How the heck is Milton Friedman supposed to be a libertarian? He advocated monetary intervention by a giant centralized state!

+1


It's amazing how many people just trust the language of corrupt hypocrites with their "free trade" regulations, and then blame free trade for the resulting catastrophes. 

[fergalish]

How the heck is Milton Friedman supposed to be a libertarian? He advocated monetary intervention by a giant centralized state!

+1
It's amazing how many people just trust the language of corrupt hypocrites with their "free trade" regulations, and then blame free trade for the resulting catastrophes. 

Though opposed to the existence of the Federal Reserve, Friedman argued that, given that it does exist, a steady, small expansion of the money supply was the only wise policy.
Friedman was an economic adviser to Republican U.S. President Ronald Reagan. His political philosophy extolled the virtues of a free market economic system with minimal intervention.

Does wikipedia need correcting?

[MoonShadow]

How the heck is Milton Friedman supposed to be a libertarian? He advocated monetary intervention by a giant centralized state!

+1
It's amazing how many people just trust the language of corrupt hypocrites with their "free trade" regulations, and then blame free trade for the resulting catastrophes. 

Though opposed to the existence of the Federal Reserve, Friedman argued that, given that it does exist, a steady, small expansion of the money supply was the only wise policy.
Friedman was an economic adviser to Republican U.S. President Ronald Reagan. His political philosophy extolled the virtues of a free market economic system with minimal intervention.

Does wikipedia need correcting?

Not at all.  While Friedman wasn't a libertarian in any absolute sense, very few absolutists exist.  I'm not one, either.  While I'd lobby for a complete libertarian state if that were within the realm of possibilities, it's not.  So I'd still favor softer chains if that choice were offered.  It's like the MJ legalization issue; medical MJ or reduction of penalties is not the ideal, but it's still a set of softer chains.

[myrkul]

Trade unions are still evil... It's one thing to require membership to work in a particular shop. Another thing entirely to require membership to work in a particular profession.

You mean some kind of mandatory state-endorsed trade unions, right?  Or are you saying workers which organize themselves are evil?  I doubt you're saying that  

See, there are two types of unions. I don't think these are the official definitions, but this is how I separate them:
Labor union: A group of workers who have organized so as to have better collective bargaining power. (What most people think of when they hear "union.")
Trade union: This is more like the old concept of the guild, where in order to work in a particular field, you must be a member. They are typically backed by state power, or have their own, state granted, enforcement power. They serve to limit the supply of a particular profession, thus increasing the price of their labor.

[fergalish]

How the heck is Milton Friedman supposed to be a libertarian? He advocated monetary intervention by a giant centralized state!

Does wikipedia [apparently describing Friedman as partly libertarian] need correcting?

Not at all.  While Friedman wasn't a libertarian in any absolute sense, very few absolutists exist.  I'm not one, either.  While I'd lobby for a complete libertarian state if that were within the realm of possibilities, it's not.  So I'd still favor softer chains if that choice were offered.  It's like the MJ legalization issue; medical MJ or reduction of penalties is not the ideal, but it's still a set of softer chains.

As an armchair wikipedia-surfing economist, I can see that Friedman was not the diehard libertarian I'd previously assumed. This quote here, again from wikipedia, suggests he promoted a Minimal State, and was certainly not advocating giant centralized states as suggested by Zanglebert above:

"you could re-establish a world in which government's budget accounted for 10 percent of the national income, in which laissez-faire reigned, in which governments did not interfere with economic activities and in which full employment policies had been relegated to the dustbin..."

In fact, the wikipedia article suggests he was predominantly liberal, but was unfortunate enough to be paid by Keynesians to decide policy in a Keynesian world, so he did the best he could:

[The] "difference between me and people like Murray Rothbard is that, though I want to know what my ideal is, I think I also have to be willing to discuss changes that are less than ideal so long as they point me in that direction." He said he actually would "like to abolish the Fed," and points out that when he has written about the Fed it is simply his recommendations of how it should be run given that it exists.

Today I learned something more about economics. Cheers, forum!

[FirstAscent]

There's ample evidence of big business supporting libertarianism. Just look at who funds the libertarian think tanks.

Learn about Frederick Seitz, founder of the George C. Marshall Institute. Which big business do you think paid him to be a 'scientist' and claim there is no relation between cancer and tobacco smoke? Which big business do you think paid him to lead the public to believe there is no consensus regarding global warming?

Who do you think funds the Heartland Institute, which employs James Taylor, legal analyst for property rights, to edit the rag Environment and Climate News? By the way, it sure is hilarious that the editor of such an officious sounding newsletter is actually an analyst for property rights, and not a climate scientist.

Where do you think the money comes from to put out propaganda such as the Oregon Petition?

What institutes do you think appears on several Philip Morris lists of "national allies," including a 1999 "Federal Government Affairs Tobacco Allies Notebook?

[MoonShadow]

There's ample evidence of big business supporting libertarianism. Just look at who funds the libertarian think tanks.

Learn about Frederick Seitz, founder of the George C. Marshall Institute. Which big business do you think paid him to be a 'scientist' and claim there is no relation between cancer and tobacco smoke? Which big business do you think paid him to lead the public to believe there is no consensus regarding global warming?

Who do you think funds the Heartland Institute, which employs James Taylor, legal analyst for property rights, to edit the rag Environment and Climate News? By the way, it sure is hilarious that the editor of such an officious sounding newsletter is actually an analyst for property rights, and not a climate scientist.

Where do you think the money comes from to put out propaganda such as the Oregon Petition?

What institutes do you think appears on several Philip Morris lists of "national allies," including a 1999 "Federal Government Affairs Tobacco Allies Notebook?

George Soros?

[bb113]

There's ample evidence of big business supporting libertarianism. Just look at who funds the libertarian think tanks.

Learn about Frederick Seitz, founder of the George C. Marshall Institute. Which big business do you think paid him to be a 'scientist' and claim there is no relation between cancer and tobacco smoke? Which big business do you think paid him to lead the public to believe there is no consensus regarding global warming?

Who do you think funds the Heartland Institute, which employs James Taylor, legal analyst for property rights, to edit the rag Environment and Climate News? By the way, it sure is hilarious that the editor of such an officious sounding newsletter is actually an analyst for property rights, and not a climate scientist.

Where do you think the money comes from to put out propaganda such as the Oregon Petition?

What institutes do you think appears on several Philip Morris lists of "national allies," including a 1999 "Federal Government Affairs Tobacco Allies Notebook?

The original, and ultimate proponent of smoking !=cancer was Ronald Fisher, who's theories underlie 95% of all scientific reasoning used today. Personally, I call all science based on p values into question.

THE CURIOUS ASSOCIATIONS with lung cancer found in relation to smoking habits
do not, in the minds of some of us, lend themselves easily to the simple conclusion
that the products of combustion reaching the surface of the bronchus induce, though
after a long interval, the development of a cancer. If, for example, it were possible to
infer that inhaling cigarette smoke was a practice of considerable prophylactic value in
preventing the disease, for the practice of inhaling is rarer among patients with cancer
of the lung than with others.

http://www.york.ac.uk/depts/maths/histstat/fisher276.pdf

[cunicula]

The original, and ultimate proponent of smoking !=cancer was Ronald Fisher, who's theories underlie 95% of all scientific reasoning used today. Personally, I call all science based on p values into question.

THE CURIOUS ASSOCIATIONS with lung cancer found in relation to smoking habits
do not, in the minds of some of us, lend themselves easily to the simple conclusion
that the products of combustion reaching the surface of the bronchus induce, though
after a long interval, the development of a cancer. If, for example, it were possible to
infer that inhaling cigarette smoke was a practice of considerable prophylactic value in
preventing the disease, for the practice of inhaling is rarer among patients with cancer
of the lung than with others.

http://www.york.ac.uk/depts/maths/histstat/fisher276.pdf

Fisher is being careful. He is the one calling "all science based on p values into question." In particular, he is worried about correlation vs. causation. As he should be. All science should be called into question all the time. That is the whole idea of science.

It is quite silly of you to associate his statistical theories with his views on smoking. Perhaps the silliest part is that you are criticizing him for doing exactly what you recommend.

[bb113]

The original, and ultimate proponent of smoking !=cancer was Ronald Fisher, who's theories underlie 95% of all scientific reasoning used today. Personally, I call all science based on p values into question.

THE CURIOUS ASSOCIATIONS with lung cancer found in relation to smoking habits
do not, in the minds of some of us, lend themselves easily to the simple conclusion
that the products of combustion reaching the surface of the bronchus induce, though
after a long interval, the development of a cancer. If, for example, it were possible to
infer that inhaling cigarette smoke was a practice of considerable prophylactic value in
preventing the disease, for the practice of inhaling is rarer among patients with cancer
of the lung than with others.

http://www.york.ac.uk/depts/maths/histstat/fisher276.pdf

Fisher is being careful. He is the one calling "all science based on p values into question." In particular, he is worried about correlation vs. causation. As he should be. All science should be called into question all the time. That is the whole idea of science.

It is quite silly of you to associate his statistical theories with his views on smoking. Perhaps the silliest part is that you are criticizing him for doing exactly what you recommend.

Ironically you just committed correlation equal to causation. I worded my post poorly. I don't like p values for other reasons, mostly that almost noone understands what they actually mean or that they are not the correct tool for most of modern science. Fisher was alright, but his prophecy has come true with regards to his own work:

...
We are quite in danger of sending highly-trained and highly intelligent young men out into the world with tables of erroneous numbers under their arms, and with a dense fog in the place where their brains ought to be. In this century, of course, they will be working on guided missles and advising the medical profession on the control of disease, and there is no limit to the extent to which they could impede every sort of national effort.

http://www.york.ac.uk/depts/maths/histstat/fisher272.pdf

[FirstAscent]

Frederick Seitz, not Ronald Fisher. Discuss Seitz.

[bb113]

Frederick Seitz, not Ronald Fisher. Discuss Seitz.

What has he done to make me care about him? Plenty of people with big mouths and pieces of paper use it to advance their agendas, so that's not enough for me to care. The people who rely on argument from authority when there is time to reason are ultimately pawns anyway. They can be swayed to support whatever.

[cunicula]

I don't like p values for other reasons, mostly that almost noone understands what they actually mean or that they are not the correct tool for most of modern science. Fisher was alright, but his prophecy has come true with regards to his own work:

P-values seem necessary for any type of empirical investigation. What would you suggest instead?

[bb113]

I don't like p values for other reasons, mostly that almost noone understands what they actually mean or that they are not the correct tool for most of modern science. Fisher was alright, but his prophecy has come true with regards to his own work:

P-values seem necessary for any type of empirical investigation. What would you suggest instead?

If you have prior information use bayes' theorem, if you do not, use p-values. If the evidence is strong enough they converge on the same result. Even Fisher says to do this in that last paper I quoted.

Even Keyne's was a "bayesian", although I'm not sure if he recognized it (I haven't read all this, just found it today):

To this extent, therefore, probability may be called subjective.
But in the sense important to logic, probability is not
subjective. It is not, that is to say, subject to human caprice.
A proposition is not probable because we think it so. When once
the facts are given which determine our knowledge, what is
probable or improbable in these circumstances has been fixed
objectively, and is independent of our opinion. The Theory of
Probability is logical, therefore, because it is concerned with the
degree of belief which it is rational to entertain in given conditions,
and not merely with the actual beliefs of particular individuals,
which may or may not be rational.

http://ia600506.us.archive.org/19/items/treatiseonprobab007528mbp/treatiseonprobab007528mbp.pdf

[cunicula]

I don't like p values for other reasons, mostly that almost noone understands what they actually mean or that they are not the correct tool for most of modern science. Fisher was alright, but his prophecy has come true with regards to his own work:

P-values seem necessary for any type of empirical investigation. What would you suggest instead?

If you have prior information use bayes' theorem, if you do not, use p-values. If the evidence is strong enough they converge on the same result. Even Fisher says to do this in that last paper I quoted.

Oh okay, I thought you were going to propose something wacky. Sorry to have misjudged you.

[bb113]

I don't like p values for other reasons, mostly that almost noone understands what they actually mean or that they are not the correct tool for most of modern science. Fisher was alright, but his prophecy has come true with regards to his own work:

P-values seem necessary for any type of empirical investigation. What would you suggest instead?

If you have prior information use bayes' theorem, if you do not, use p-values. If the evidence is strong enough they converge on the same result. Even Fisher says to do this in that last paper I quoted.

Oh okay, I thought you were going to propose something wacky. Sorry to have misjudged you.

I think it's awesome you don't find this concept wacky. Many do for no real reason.

[FirstAscent]

Frederick Seitz, not Ronald Fisher. Discuss Seitz.

What has he done to make me care about him? Plenty of people with big mouths and pieces of paper use it to advance their agendas, so that's not enough for me to care. The people who rely on argument from authority when there is time to reason are ultimately pawns anyway. They can be swayed to support whatever.

Because of the title of the thread.

[bb113]

Much of climate science is based on faulty reasoning:

Significance Tests in Climate Science

Perhaps the big businesses are right. At the very least, academics cannot be trusted to analyze their data correctly. I dunno, we would have to look at the specific landmark papers.

[FirstAscent]

Much of climate science is based on faulty reasoning:

Significance Tests in Climate Science

Perhaps the big businesses are right. At the very least, academics cannot be trusted to analyze their data correctly. I dunno, we would have to look at the specific landmark papers.

In one ear and out the other. Stop filtering, and start keeping up with the news, as well as the scientific publications.

Or continue with applying credence to Exxon/Mobil and Richard Landzen. By the way, not only does Landzen speak for the Heartland Institute and Exxon/Mobil, but he was a sellout to the tobacco industry as well, saying there was no correlation between lung cancer and smoking.

He's just like Frederick Seitz. So tell me, is he an expert in both medicine and climate science? Or is he just a sellout?

And by the way, tell me again why documents like the Oregon Petition were created? Could it be that in the absence of real science, the deniers must create falsified documents which solicit the opinion of dentists, in which the document implies those dentists are climate scientists?

Yes, please show me that science doesn't work, but instead something else does.

Oh, and you better get right on reading the 100,000 plus science papers on the subject so that you can make your informed decision about the consensus. Get on it, man! The scientists are out to get you! It's a big conspiracy!