Comments on: Misesifying the Wiki

By: Vanmind

Vanmind — Tue, 08 Mar 2011 15:59:06 +0000

How about using something superior to any wiki, such as DITA?

By: kc

kc — Thu, 24 Feb 2011 04:52:59 +0000

We can also take all items from Mises.org Books and create stubs for them, with links to http://mises.org/books/ and reviews on mises.org. (Some of these books already have Wikipedia entries.) Then we invite review-like expository writing on these books. That ought to be a big chunk of good work.

By: Joe

Joe — Wed, 23 Feb 2011 20:57:41 +0000

@David,
“According to God’s revelation to mankind, governments should be just.” If one reads the bible you will know not to take this out of context. First of all being a follower of God and Jesus means that your rewards are not on earth. The early Christians understood that they are to be rewarded in heaven and that this earth will pass away. Now obviously God would say governments should be just knowing that Christians will be persecuted based on their beliefs. They would be like sheep to slaughter. The Romans had a field day with Christians.
So when speaking about governments and utilities you must not confuse the Christian faith and their promise of Heaven with secular laws that apply to this earth. If you believe in God and Jesus Christ why would you care what the world does? Your reward is in Heaven.

By: Ricky James Moore II

Ricky James Moore II — Wed, 23 Feb 2011 13:01:19 +0000

No, they are legal concepts. What is called ‘morality’ is mostly bogus nonsense and rationalization; and what actually qualifies with moraity has to do with personal virtue; not boundry norms.
Liberty is not at all a ‘moral’ concept, it is a totally legal concept. It stems from the fact that it is irrational to ask a person to prove that there is no reason he should not be prevented from doing something; it’s a logical and not any kind of ‘moral’ issue.

Not only do you seem unable to tell the difference between law and morality you also conflate utilitarianism, consequentialism and virtue ethics. Each of these is different, all of which are superior to the ‘natural rights’ rubbish I imagine you promote.

By: Havvy

Havvy — Wed, 23 Feb 2011 04:27:32 +0000

Might I suggest installing the Semantic MediaWiki and Replace Text extensions. I’ve been making great usage of them on the wikis I trawl, and they save a lot of work. Though make sure you only use Replace Text on bot accounts, lest you bring the ire of those whom watch Recent Changes. >_>

By: Anon

Anon — Wed, 23 Feb 2011 03:23:24 +0000

Property and liberty are moral concepts. Not that bankrupt utilitarians are able to grasp that kind subtlety anyway…

By: Ricky James Moore II

Ricky James Moore II — Wed, 23 Feb 2011 01:58:27 +0000

Roemer, Mises was a kind of consequentialist and rule-utilitarian; which is different from a maximization utilitarian.

Property and liberty stem from the logic of law, not from ‘rights’, or morality or religion. Whatever these might have to say about property that is not what property is.

A great article, Sanchez. I am glad to see you are working on the Mises Wiki, I always enjoy your posts.

By: Jim P.

Jim P. — Wed, 23 Feb 2011 01:41:58 +0000

Great satire.

By: David Roemer

David Roemer — Tue, 22 Feb 2011 19:06:06 +0000

I would like to point out that Mises’s ideas about utility are just as irrational as the “holistic doctrines” that he criticizes. According to Mises, governments should maximize utilities, which means they should allow divorce, abortion, drug-taking, child abandonment, etc. How do libertarians know this won’t bring about a Sodom and Gomorrah? Where will property rights come from?

According to God’s revelation to mankind, governments should be just. This makes sense and has content. The idea that governments should maximize utilities is completely meaningless and arbitrary. It is like saying human beings have natural rights. It illustrates that people who don’t believe in God believe in anything.