“Logic and The Open Society : revising the place of Tarski’s theory of truth within Popper’s political philosophy”
http://www.springer.com/philosophy/epistemology+and+philosophy+of+science/book/978-1-4020-9337-1

(1) One reason to invoke Smith and Popper is to rebut the claims of strong apriorism. This position adds no value to Austrian economics but Hoppe et al insist on writing articles and giving lectures which (if the Smith/Popper case is robust) are a waste of time for Hoppe and his audience of listeners and readers.

(2) On making the Austrian case to other economists. First up, strong apriorism simply goes down like the proverbial lead balloon.

Second, even when Austrians don’t lead with their chins (strong ap) they still run into invisible railway lines of thought, presuppositions which make it really difficult to explain the Austrian angle on explanation and investigation.

To be concrete, for many years I tried to get a grip on economics through standard texts but only when I encountered the Austrians in a libertarian bookshop circa 1983 did the subject make sense. Within two years I wrote this piece http://www.the-rathouse.com/hayaustriankey.html to explain how the Austrian principles applied to the agenda of economic rationalism-deregulation in Australia. I think the key was to approach the Austrians wearing Popperian or CR “spectacles” rather than the kind of physics-based spectacles that Mirowski wrote about (at hugely excessive length and without coming to a hepful destination).

How hard is that to understand?

Some of Friedman’s economic policy advice to Pinochet was taken on board, with good outcomes for the people of Chile. Those policies have been substantially kept in place by later and more leftwing governments.

How does that reflect badly on Friedman and the Mont Pelerin Society?

You may have noticed that Pinochet allowed himself to be voted out in a democratic election. How many leftwing dictators have allowed that to happen?

Yes, do you have another way to account for Milton “I love Liberty” Friedman’s support for Pinochet?

I can attest to the truthfulness of this remark by Mirowski. From my own experience in trying to comment on a Wiki page about the painter Philip Guston, it was really impossible to make any changes, or if it was possible, I was not informed about how to do it. The page was controlled by some “artistic” Wiki group that had total editorial control over what was posted on the main page, the most important one.
So, score one for Phil!

This post is dated February 2, 2010 — but that is mostly relevant to when the blog was started here. This essay was actually written at least six or seven years ago, and there’s a lot of it I actually don’t like anymore.

However, as far as the point of there being no justification and criticism being the key, I still very much agree with this. I do think moral issues are especially difficult, but I don’t think they are impossible to deal with.

You remark strikes me as smarky because your trying to put words in my mouth.

But it is an important issue, because I think the 20th century was rife with political philosophies and ideologies that really did feel they could justify cold blooded murder. This ranges from the Nazi’s attempt to exterminate a large portion Jewish people to Stalin’s various political purges to the cultural revolution in China to the use of the atomic bomb in Japan to the fire bombing of Dresden … and on and on and on … even now, terrorists kill civilians wantonly, and the US periodically bombs targets with drones — the victims often civilians.

I think if we look back at Dostoevsky’s famous novel, _Crime and Punishment_ what’s so riveting about the novel is that the hero feels that he is rationally justified in committing murder and so he feels he simply must follow through — yet at the same time he’s deeply disturbed by the actions he feels he must take.

I think all of this is strongly related to the idea of justification — and how it leads us astray.

Popper’s philosophy on the other hand puts its *faith* — if we can use that word — in argument. The critical rationalism position doesn’t justify itself, instead it relentlessly criticizes those philosophies that think they’ve obtained justification. Indeed one criticism is to show us to what violent ends such justifications may lead us.

Now there are going to be those who resist argument. All we can do is talk with these people, we can put our position up along side theirs, and via mutual criticism see which one is left standing.

However, If a person is actually violent — that is not only not willing to listen to argument, but actually violent — then we have to stop them. If we don’t stop them, there would be serious consequences for this, right?

This position isn’t *justified* but we can certainly see the consequences of the converse and criticize it.

Popper discusses this quite a bit in _The Open Society and Its Enemies_. He argues we can’t tolerate the intolerant. This is a reasonable position, I think. I don’t have any criticisms of it.

But if you are arguing form the viewpoint we need justification, then you are *required* to justify any prohibition against murder. Are you saying you have such a justification? If so, then please present it.

Beyond all this, I think you are just being frivolous.