Forget circular vulgarities, let's look at the facts

Lots of fun going on here @EPJ currently. Robert Wenzel was out with a post called "The Tragedy of Gonzalo Lira" the other day, which caused a spasmic reaction from the other side of the blogosphere, with the entire EPJ crew being called " circle jerks at the EconomicPolicyJournal—a bunch of losers with hairy palms". Now, before we continue this laughing fest, I would like to set a few facts straight.

Firstly, I strongly suspect that the reason for the rather "strong" title of Roberts post is the fact that Mr. Lira has a way of randomly sneezing out claims that Austrian economics is "faith-based" every now and then in his posts. As far as I am aware (and I do read most of his writing), he has not yet come up with any real reason why this would be so. If he could inform those of us who happen to be decently well read in Austrian economics which books and/or articles that he finds to be "faith-based" and not have any real academic value, it would be much appreciated.

Secondly, I would like to go over a few errors in his "Democratic Paradox". Those of us who have read the works of (for instance) Hans-Hermann Hoppe knows that there is nothing paradoxical at all about the electorate of a publicly owned government voting in ways to destroy the foundation of their own well-being. It is in fact inevitable, as we are finding out in the Western world. So I would like to contend that the first mistake by Mr. Lira is to think that people overall, or in any way as a majority, are against the US government spending until they go bankrupt. It is easy to prove that people are in fact for it.

As has been shown over the last year with the Tea Party movement, they are all very much in favour of cutting back on government, as long as no one touches Social Security, Medicare or the Department of Defense. Well, then you are not actually in favour of cutting back on government spending are you? Aha - says mr. Lira - here is the paradox!

But it isn't a paradox at all. It is a simple case of whether or not you believe in logic (you cannot have your cake and eat it too) or in mysticism (I want to cut back except if I have to cut back on something). It is a simple case of whether or not you are in fact lying when you say you want to cut back on government. Let's take a look at what Mr. Lira describes in his "Discursive Dilemma". Quote :

Suppose there are three of us—you, me and Mary—standing around in the kitchen. Suppose that you and I believe that p is true, while Mary is sure down to her very bones that p is most definitely not true.

Mary is just one person—you and I are two. Therefore, a majority of this group believes p is true.

As I said, Mary doesn’t believe for a second that p is true—instead, she argues very convincingly that r is true. For the purposes of this example, p is completely incompatible with r; not contradictory—rather, incompatible: Symbolically, ¬(p ⋏ r).

Since Mary believes r is true, and p and r are incompatible, you therefore fervently argue with Mary about why r is most definitely not true—if r is true, then p cannot be the case. And you believe that p.

But as I listen to Mary, I come to the conclusion that r might well be true. I don’t believe that p and r are both true—because they are incompatible. I simply believe that r might be the case.

Therefore, a majority of this group believes r is true.

Which allows us to arrive at our paradox: A majority of the group believes p is true, a majority believe that r is true—but none of us as individuals believes that both p and r are true, because as I said before, p and r are incompatible.

However, as a democratic group, we believe that p and r are both true—which is incoherent.

I do not know the origins of this dilemma, but the paradox in this case is completely imaginary. While the narrator in the above case knows that p and r are incompatible, he logically denies this by claiming first that he believes that p is true, and later that r is true. And by the line

But as I listen to Mary, I come to the conclusion that r might well be true. I don’t believe that p and r are both true—because they are incompatible. I simply believe that r might be the case.

it is unclear if the narrator is either

a ) Changing his view of P, and deciding that instead R is true
b ) Changing his view of whether P and R can be true simultaneously, and thus questioning if they are incompatible
c ) Claiming that both P and R are true, and simultaneously incompatible, in which case he is an idiot

In none of the above cases will a majority believe that both P and R are true, except in the case where at least one person in the group is an idiot, and his views should be discounted. I suspect that what Mr. Lira is after is a situation where the narrator "believes that P is true, but also contends that R could be true, while simultaneously knowing that P an R are incompatible". As for the democratic result, the following quote will illustrate :

In fact, I did my civic duty: I listened to all the arguments, and I voted for all the bills. I think we should cut taxes—so when it came to a vote, I voted in favor of the Lower Taxes Bill, which passed. But I also want more government services—so when it came to a vote, I voted in favor of Mary’s More Government Service Bill, which also passed.

What this means is that the person in question, willingly and volountarily, voted for the country to go bankrupt. But the same person would not have voted yes to a bill that said "Should we take this and this measure so the United States goes bankrupt".

And it is exactly because of idiots who do not see the problem with the above that the US will go bankrupt, because in democracies even idiots get to vote, or more importantly be elected into office. And thus we find that the "democratic paradox" of Gonzalo Lira may very well be the reason that the US will go bankrupt, but not because it is a real paradox, rather because people - including Gonzalo Lira - will use any bad, illogical excuse for sticking their heads in the sand as the world is set on fire.

If Mr. Lira had any guts, he would come out straight as an anarcho-libertarian (a group of people very closely associated with Austrian economics) and admit that the problem is not a "democratic paradox", rather the problem is that we live in democracies where idiots get to both vote and be elected to office. I suspect however that this is a bit to strong for his stomach. And thus, mimicking the democratic sheep he just described, he will stick his head in the sand and not come out against democracy, rather claim that it is simply a paradox. And since enough people continue that kind of thinking, the United States will indeed go bankrupt.

And it is still not a paradox.