Wednesday, March 26, 2014

A "Humanitarian" Libertarian Considers the Hyper-Inflations of the Weimar Republic and Zimbabwe "Experiments"

By Robert Wenzel

"Humanitarian" libertarian Cathy Reisenwitz seems to consider no libertarian/Austrian school area of thought an area that doesn't need a good shaking up by her. In the short clip below, she manages, though I'm not sure she realizes it, to go directly after the methodological throat of the great Austrian school thinkers, Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich Hayek, Murray Rothbard and Hans-Hermann Hoppe.

A key tenet of the Austrian school is that economics is a science that is not empirical but one that begins with a few basic a priori propositions, e.g. man acts, from which the rest of economics is deduced.

SEE:

Epistemological Problems of Economic by Ludwig von Mises

The Ultimate Foundation of Economic Science: An Essay on Method by Ludwig von Mises

The Counter-Revolution of Science by Friedrich Hayek

Economic Science and the Austrian Method by Hans-Hermann Hoppe

Indeed, Mises early on in his great work, Human Action, writes that in the field of economics:
Its statements and propositions are not derived from experience. They are, like those of logic and mathematics, a priori. They are not subject to verification and falsification on the ground of experience and facts. They are both logically and temporally antecedent to any comprehension of historical facts. They are a necessary requirement of any intellectual grasp of historical events.
But  Reisenwitz will have none of this. In the clip below, she tells us:
Experiments are the only way to verify what we know about the world.
She then proceeds to tell us that the hyper-inflations of the Weimar Republic and  Zimbabwe were "experiments." Yes, in Reisenwitz's world. one could never discern from deduction that printing a hundred million mark notes or trillion dollar Zimbabwe notes might cause a bit of price inflation. Damn it, you have to test it out.

This is only a test.

This is only a test.




I'm not sure how much time Reisenwitz has spent studying Austrian methodology before deciding to turn it on its head, but, note well, in this clip she does make clear she is taking time to study how to fashion op-ed pieces and reach out to producers. Could this explain her "humanitarian" libertarian views?

27 comments:

  1. On the four types of science, by a scientist:

    http://youtu.be/cDbhSQaqYXM

    ReplyDelete
  2. Replies
    1. You beat me to it. :)

      This chick isn't a libertarian. Idiot would be more accurate. Shit, I hate pretenders.

      Delete
    2. Am i a brutalist when i say that Cathy Reisenwitz is a prime example of the reason why women are being paid less than men?

      She enters libertarianism, and then utterly SUCKS at saying anything libertarian.

      Delete
  3. It is a hard rule that any woman entering an area that is close to entirely male (anywhere upwards of 90%) is going to get a lot of attention, no matter what their particular merits. This applies as much to World of Warcraft (where men have taken to pretending to be women to get protection and free stuff) as it does to the largely male 'libertarian movement'.

    Therefore you get non-entities of the likes of the ladies in the present post being publicized on this blog and elsewhere. True, RW has taken some time out to denounce this lady, but really lightweights like this do not really merit it.

    Lets call a spade a spade (as long as we are still allowed to do that!). Reisenwitz rejects the NAP in areas where libertarianism conflicts with her cosmopolitan ideas. Since the NAP is non-negotiable, let us just make the point that Reisenwitz is not a libertarian. Lets encourage her to go over to the Neoconservatives.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Don't you mean "go back to neo-conservativism?"

      Delete
  4. "(where men have taken to pretending to be women to get protection and free stuff)"

    That's when you know who the white knights, manginas, and male beta orbiters are. It's pathetic.

    "..."let us just make the point that Reisenwitz is not a libertarian. Lets encourage her to go over to the Neoconservatives."

    I agree. There are enough pretenders in libertarianism these days anyway. Who wants a parasite invading their body? So why should anyone want libertarianism likewise infected?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. YAY! Another RoK reader, I thought I was the only one here.

      Delete
  5. Reisenwitz is a joke. She appeals only to those weak and thirsty libertarians who will genuflect in the direction of any pretty woman who agrees with them (and probably many who don't).

    It is weak approval seeking behavior. If the men in the liberty movement want to be taken seriously they need to judge the women by the same merits as the men and not be so eager to hire and promote pretty faces.

    Reisenwitz is not a serious thinker and she never has been. Who knows if she is serious about any sort of thinking - from all the evidence I would suggest that she is involved in libertarianism to win paychecks and attention from beaming middle-aged men in sexless marriages.

    I almost feel sorry for these women as they are inevitably promoted above their ability and they start to believe their own hype. They are forced to maintain the charade.

    Just look at Amanda Billyrock - can you imagine a sweaty nerd with her intellectual ability and lack of experience creating a website with an animated brand, and access to Ron Paul and Gary North for interviews?

    There is nothing wrong with being a cheerleader for a cause, and pretty faces have their role to play. What we have here, however, is the equivalent of an NFL cheerleader being promoted to offensive coordinator.

    ReplyDelete
  6. FYI, Max Borders has a new essay over at FEE in which he decides to call us "solipsists" rather than "brutalists".

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Someone should ask Max what we should call people that don't follow the NAP and/or don't respect property rights.

      Delete
  7. She tweeted duke porn star belle Knox and asked her to work together on pro sex feminism or some other nonsense a couple weeks ago. She is too busy tweeting porn stars and calling Hoppe a racist and a homophobe who will turn people away from libertarianism to bother studying actual libertarian or Austrian Econ.

    Agree with the above post. She is not a libertarian but claiming to be a left libertarian to get a bunch of beta male nerds to give her attention that she is not pretty enough or smart enough to get on her own merits.

    She is exhibit A on why I am a Hoppeian libertarian.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. " I realize that the visual of me with a facial at the end was nothing compared to the close-ups the site provided of my skin revealing scars from my most vulnerable past when I was a cutter. This is a fact that my haters have taunted me for, their words dripping in condescension and insensitivity.

      I've been clean from this self-harm for five years now, but like many young women grappling with depression, I used to take it out on myself. "- Belle Knox

      Sounds like a great champion for "feminism" to me!

      http://www.xojane.com/sex/belle-knox-duke-porn-star-rough-sex-feminism-kink

      Delete
    2. "She tweeted duke porn star belle Knox and asked her to work together on pro sex feminism or some other nonsense a couple weeks ago."

      This is Belle Knox's brand of feminism:

      https://encyclopediadramatica.es/File:NameMiriamWeeksOccupationWhore6.jpg

      Imagine how many females will feel empowered by her exploits!

      Delete
  8. I'm so freaking tired of this annoying, ignorant, infiltrant twit.
    And just as tired of those libertarians who actually take her seriously instead of ignoring her for the annoyance she is.
    You don't have to put "humanitarian" in quotation marks; she is probably that.
    You can put "libertarian" in quotation marks, because that is what she most certainly is not, if she thinks insensitive speech is coercive.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Economic freedom means doing what makes you "come alive" instead of what you have to do to "stay alive" and is "about having the time to find fulfillment, to find education, and to expand your mind"?

    That's not what economic freedom means. She seems to stop just short of explicitly assigning a positive right to the idea of economic freedom.

    ReplyDelete
  10. It is self-refuting for Reisenwitz to say, "Experiments are the only way to verify what we know about the world." It is a logical contradiction because the statement itself cannot be empirically proven.

    ReplyDelete
  11. She forgot to mention "freedom" from want and "freedom' from fear, two of FDR's four "freedoms".

    ReplyDelete
  12. 1. GENNADY STOLYAROV II has some interesting insights on the topic of "THE COMPATIBILITY OF HOPPE’S AND ROTHBARD’S VIEWS OF THE ACTION AXIOM"

    https://mises.org/journals/qjae/pdf/qjae10_2_4.pdf

    2. One simply CANNOT make general "do-gooder" exceptions to the NAP without completely eviscerating it. It is the same reason we cannot have "limited" economic interventionism which only does "good things". Any such intervention can ALWAYS be justified by the intervenor on a plausible "do-gooder" basis. Duh.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Most young people are just stupid parasites thanks to government schools and TV.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh, believe me, plenty of old people are too. They've been watching the Idiot Box for many more decades. That's why I always tell people to just turn the damn thing off and start studying. Do they listen? Of course not. Studying requires that they engage in that four letter word called w-o-r-k.

      Delete
  14. She is making the speaking rounds these days too:
    http://www.bitcoinbeltway.com/?pt_speakers=cathy-reisenwitz
    "Cathy ReisenwitzSex and the State Cathy Reisenwitz is a Young Voices Associate and a D.C.-based writer and political commentator. She is Editor-in-Chief of Sex and the State and her writing has appeared in Forbes, the Chicago Tribune, Reason magazine, Talking Points Memo, the Washington Examiner and the Daily Caller. She has spoken on topics of economic freedom, Bitcoin and feminism at Tea Party conferences, CryptoCurrency Conference, ISFLC, the Heritage Foundation and various other events. She has also appeared on Al Jazeera America."

    ReplyDelete
  15. I don't like Cathy Whatshertits saying she is a libertarian either. But if we throw her out, should we also throw out Hayek? For whom nagging is coercion.

    https://mises.org/daily/2649

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hahaha very hilarious comparison - a real scholar and a twit.

      Making fun of Reisenwitz shouldn't be a nerdy exercise where random internet commenters decide who should be in the libertarian club or not. It should be about mocking an idiot - regardless of the labels she wants to attach to herself.

      Hayek, whether a libertarian or not, was a serious scholar and accomplished thinker.

      No one cares if Reisenwitz is a libertarian or not - they care that she is an idiot and an unserious thinker promoted far beyond her ability. Not only that but she is also an annoying feminist who has imbibed from the very worst cup of current 13th wave feminist ideas - bullshit about privilege, sexism, classism, shame, etc.

      Delete
    2. Libertarianism is the NAP and private property rights. Is nagging aggression? Is insensitive speech aggression? Is using one's own voice aggression or the excercise of the most basic and important private property?

      Should we throw Reisenwitz out? Should we throw Hayek out?

      "We" are doing no such thing; what libertarianism stands for does. If the shoe fits...

      But i actually like what anonymous says. Does it really matter what someone calls themselves when they do such a good job showing that they're just a huge IDIOT?

      I mean, what serious libertarian insight has she ever brought, or even repeated? The only thing i can ever remember of her is her blatant attempt at trying to smuggle hoary old progressive bromides into libertarianism. How quaint.

      But can we really only blame her? This is what you get when you invite disillusioned former duopoly voters into a "big tent" where it doesn't matter why exactly you're disillusioned.

      Delete
  16. From a methodologicalpoint of view, Mises was wrong. Economy is a theory, that is, a deductive system from principles. Notwithstanding, such a system - if it wants to describe the objective reality - can fail and must be tested.
    Mises seems never to have understood this, but what's with Hayek? Hayek was friendly with Popper, and Popper - in spite of his economical education by Mises - proclaimed a completely different methodology. I suppose that the a-priori-approach of Mises was something his friends found embarassing and kept silent about.

    ReplyDelete