u/-vexy-

One of my problems with a lot of ancaps I talk with when it comes to economic discussions is that they seem to discuss economics purely on a theoretical/hypothetical level and are dismissive of any empirical evidence that may contradict their views, such as the evidence that we have for the efficacy of many government interventions such as various effective tax and redistribution schemes that many wealthy governments run that we know from the evidence is effective at alleviating societal ills such as poverty.

From my understanding, ancaps draw from Austrian Economics for their economic views which relies on praxeology, which to my understanding attempts to derive economic prescriptions from logic. The problem with this is that logic alone can never lead to us any kind of proofs for human action on its own, because all logic does is give us a system of rules to formalise arguments. As long as an argument does not violate the three known laws of logic, you can make pretty much any claim and it would be logically valid.

For example, consider these two propositions: "Government welfare reduces poverty" vs "Government welfare does not reduce poverty". Neither of these propositions are logically contradictory on their own, nor do they violate the law of identity, nor do they violate the law of the excluded middle. Hence neither claim violates the laws of logic, so you necessarily need to use something OTHER than pure logic to demonstrate that either claim is true or false.

I'm interested to know what I'm missing here, as I'm a utilitarian so I don't find ancap ethics to be very persuasive at all but I could be convinced to becoming an ancap if there is a good argument for why an ancap economic framework would be superior.

Hi everyone, so Im a south Indian that recently have moved to Pune to pursue a master's in economics at MIT Kothrud (I know the college doesn't have the best reputation but I wanted to come to Pune and had some difficulties with admission at other colleges I wanted. It's a long story lol).

Anyways I'm living in a hostel near the campus in Kothrud, trying to make some friends but everyone in my hostel are first year undergrads so they're all a lot younger than me 😅. I'd like to meet people more within my age group, doesn't have to be from the same college or anything. Also I don't know Marathi and my Hindi is OK at best as I'm trying to learn both the languages, so ideally someone comfortable speaking in english would be great.

I have a lot of different hobbies and fun stories to share, and would love to meet people to explore the city and just chill with.

Any first year post-grad/masters students wanna make a WhatsApp or insta group or something? I've recently reached Pune and joined the college, socialised with a few ppl around here but most of whom I've met are doing BBA or BTech and a lot younger than me so would be cool to meet people more in my age group lol.

Hey guys so I applied and got my offer to study msc economics at this college. I'm born from a south Indian (Tamil) family but born abroad so I am OCI holder and did my undergrad abroad. I am thinking of accepting the offer as I've visited Pune before and liked the city but just wondering how diverse the crowd is in this college and if I'll be able to find people from similar backgrounds like myself.

I got msc econ offer, haven't accepted yet but planning to confirm my seat tomorrow. Anyone else in same course and wanna connect?

Hey all, so I'm not an ancap but as a philosophy grad that's obsessed with topics relating to political and moral philosophy, I do find ancap philosophy interesting because some of the philosophy does a decent job of constructing moral rules that tend to correspond with widely held moral intuitions and I find engaging with ancaps to be a fun way to challenge my own beliefs and intuitions in upholding the existence of the state even though I'm still yet to be convinced that abolishing the state is at all desirable or preferable to the status quo.

​

Now one thing that I've observed that I think makes ancaps stand out compared to other political philosophies is it seems that a large portion of ancaps tend to be moral realists, meaning that a lot of you believe that there are moral propositions that are stance independently true. Now I could be wrong about this but just based on my anecdotal experience of engaging with ancap content and interacting with ancaps I have noticed a significant portion seem to uphold that meta ethical view.

​

As a staunch moral anti-realist that tends to be where a lot of the disagreement I have with ancap philosophy comes from. I view the attempts to ground the NAP as "objective" similar to a religious proponent trying to argue that their God and the moral rules proclaimed by their God to be "objectively true". I just find that whole line of reasoning to be incoherent because I don't even understand what it would mean for a moral claim to be objectively true, like if someone rejects the NAP as a moral principle I don't see anything in reality that could actually prove them wrong in the same way that we can't really prove the existence of God. It seems necessarily that to accept any moral propositions as objectively true, we need to presupposes that there is some magical force in the universe called "morality" that we can't actually perceive beyond our minds, but even then we can trivially observe that people disagree on morality all the time.

​

So, to the objectivists out there, what am I missing? How is the justification for the NAP any more "objective" than the justification for religious morality? Or any other moral realist view?

​

So I recently got into the ninja Gaiden series via the master collection on steam. As someone who has never played the franchise before this, I was expecting to like NG2 and NG3 more than 1 because I'm also a fan of other hack and slash games like Bayonetta, MGRR, Darksiders, DMC, etc and I heard NG2/3 were more fast-paced and combat focused and similar to those games. However, after playing through all 3 games I actually ended up adoring NG1 the most as I actually found myself preferring the more focused and methodical combat and the level design and exploration were so much more enjoyable that it ended up being the only game in the franchise that I find myself playing multiple times and even going to higher difficulties.

That's not to say that I think NG2 and 3 are bad by any means, I still had fun with both of them but I felt the combat in those titles just overall too much more button-mashy and less strategic than NG1. I even tried playing NG2 with the black mod on PC as I'm aware the sigma versions are generally considered worse than the originals, and the mod improved things noticeably but not as much as I was expecting given the hype around NG2. I can definitely see why many people would love them as the combat in those games definitely feel more brutal and savage than 1, if I'm ever in the mood to play a game where I just want to brutally tear through loads of enemies for hours then I'll definitely be booting up NG2 or 3 again.

That all being said, I'm now eyeing NG4 especially since the DLC has also been released, but I've been seeing mixed reception from the NG community. I did watch some gameplay and it seems to retain the more fast paced style of NG2 and 3 but doesn't seem to throw as many enemies at you so I'm wondering if the combat has a bit more of the tactical feel of NG1 and how the exploration and level design compare. What do you all think? Any NG1 fans out there like me who are considering or have picked up NG4 and have any thoughts?