apples and grapes

In Objectivist Epistemology, which to my knowledge is on par with Molyneux's approach, this distinction is already made. The concept of a tree would be one that identifies perceptual concretes, from which we can abstract towards "wider integrations" as Rand put it (Rand, Ayn, pg 19, Abstraction from Abstractions, "Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology"). From the existing concept of a tree, we can abstract to the concept of a forest, which exists as a mental entity to be used as a single unit of thought. So we need not divide the concepts into different groups, as they are already divided into the perceptual concrete and the abstraction within O'ist epistemology. Understanding that, I'm not sure how dividing "Perceptual Concrete Concepts" and "Abstracted Concept", would help us out too much. If the person you were speaking with understood what you meant by these terms, they'd probably understand you if you just used the term "Concept". If they did not understand, then you'd need to explain this aspect of O'ist epistemology, after which they'd understand what you meant by the term "Concept" anyway. I hope this helps

The difference would be measurement or standards. In the IRS takes peoples' money (bad), but gives it to the needy (supposed good) example, the standard for "good" and "bad" is left undetermined by statists. With cost-benefit analyses, the standard is money.You can measure the costs and the benefits with money, leading to the ability to determine nifty things like ROI You produce a good for $500, and plan to sell it for $2000. These dollar values reflect the various cost of production (determined by prices) and the determined market price. You can continue to determine your net revenues, ROI (300%), etc. Of course when things like positive/negative externalities are brought into the analysis, then the criticism stands because there is no objective standard for determining such externalities and so any attempt for measurement is arbitrary at best. Were measurement of these externalities to be possible, we'd just call them costs and add them to the costs the analysis. For example we can determine the cost of property damage as a result of pollution and compare it to the cost of installing preventative, anti-pollution measures. What if I'm your employee and I tell you that the production of the good makes me unhappy? If part of your costs lack the measurement of money, then you rely on guesstimate as the new cost must be translated to a price denomination. You can't say in your Investment proposition that it'll cost $500 and 2 units of Happiness to built, you'd have to translate 2 units of Happiness to $80 per unit or something. But there are no units by which we can measure Happiness and so definitely no manner to convert these non-existent units to money. So the now $660 costs is incorrect and any subsequent determination of CBA must be incorrect, rendering those CBAs largely useless.

The more free-market a statist system is, the wealthier it can be. The wealthier it can be, the greater the amount of parasitism from the statists. The greater the parasitism of the statists, the greater growth rate of the state. The state is the opposite of freedom, therefore the greater the growth of the state, the greater the reduction of freedom. So more free-market Statism is, the greater the long-term reduction of freedom. Or something like that

Timur, the story behind my username is long and dark... Nah not really, I was watching this when I was making the account, and couldn't think of anything else . But yeah, if there was a meetup group in Perth, I'd surely be interested in it. Thanks Kev, I've be staking around the boards for quite a while now, but hadn't really gotten involved. I'm a finance student, who went through the pretty standard path to Libertarianism. I got switched out of a media course in year 11 into an economics one while at the time not even knowing what economics meant. I got into economics really quickly but almost as quickly became disillusioned by it (the first half was micro, so we learnt the standard "Opportunity Coast" stuff, which I found suspiciously ignored in the second macro half of the textbook when we learnt about "Fiscal/Monetary Policy"). I retained a respect for the free-market though which led me to learning the name Ayn Rand in my final year. I first read The Fountainhead, which set me on course to reading nearly all Rand's work. So by midway through my final year of high-school, I was a pretty fervent O'ist. For one reason or another, I discovered Austrianism and got back into economics. I read Mises, Menger, Hayek etc (I had resistance to reading Rothbard because he was a silly ancap, I know I know the maturity was strong in 16 year old me). O'ism and Austrianism quickly became my hobby and I would frequently watch economic stuff, mostly by the mises.org peeps, on the youtubes. It was while I was watching something economicsy that I came across a video by some Stefan Molyneux guy which was a reading of "Great Myths of the Great Depression". I then checked out the youtube page and briefly thought Stef was a Christian due to some of the titles of his videos that were up back then in late 2013. To make a long story short, I began watching his stuff and then reading his books. It's been a year now, and I've changed quite a lot. I'm now a UPB Anarchist (I was initially resistant, but a brief rebuttal Stef made to the accusation made by Rand in VoS in podcast 2496 went a long way alongside reading everyday/practical anarchy, UPB and Rothbardian works). I've been pushing, ever so gently, on friends and family the philosophy of freedom and recently have started trying to apply RTR to my life. So yeah, that's pretty much me (soz if too longzz). I'm the guy all the ladies at the club want to discuss Mises' Regression Thearum with

Hey, been meaning to do this for a while. I'm apples and grapes from Perth, Australia