You don’t “just” have to accept anything.
Thank God!
"And as Austrian School economists qua economists they have nothing to say about immigration, private law, nightwatchmen state etc. bar if you have this policy, this will be the result.
His second paragraph is clearly geared towards issues of political philosophy. I’m merely pointing out the distinction between the two."
I don’t see why one cannot economically analyze any of the above topics.
Esuric,
Page 148. Specifically, here is the quote I’m thinking of.
“Nor is there any reason why the state should not assist individuals in providing for those common hazards of life against which, because of their uncertainty, few individuals can make adequate provision. Where, as in the case of sickness and accident, neither the desire to avoid such calamities nor the efforts to overcome their consequences are as a rule weakened by the provision of assistance, where, in short, we deal with genuinely insurable risks, the case for the state helping to organise a comprehensive system of social insurance is very strong. There are many points of detail where those wishing to preserve the competitive system and those wishing to supersede it by something different will disagree on the details of such schemes; and it is possible under the name of social insurance to introduce measures which tend to make competition more or less ineffective. But there is no incompatibility in principle between the state providing greater security in this way and the preservation of individual freedom.”
Sorry for the long quote. The whole book is worth reading though. I recommend it to anyone interested. I think it contains much more important lessons than the cartoon version that was popularized in Life (or Look?) magazine.
In the Constitution of Liberty too, Hayek allows numerous government interventions. I didn’t know this was a mystery to some people?
Yes, well.. not to excuse the few illogical and inconsistent compromises that Hayek is known for. he is at least careful to mention that you must be dealing with “genuinely insurable risks”, which is nothing like anything the State attempts to provide. That at least makes him a half-quack and not a full one in this particular case.
That’s far from asserting that Hayek supported a State run health care system.
Yes, well.. not to excuse the few illogical and inconsistent compromises that Hayek is known for. he is careful to mention that you must be dealing with “genuinely insurable risks”, which is nothing like anything the State attempts to provide.
That’s far from asserting that Hayek supported a State run health care system.
so its a good thing i didnt say it.
not worth getting into with someone that considers hayek a quack (or half) because of political beliefs.
Hoppe, Rothbard, Koppl, Hayek, Lachman, Mises, Boettke, Leeson, Rosser, Rizzo, Salerno, Horwitz… can anybody find a single thread that unites all of these economists?
The Austrian label is useless.
Here is what you said: "hayek supported stated provided health care "
I said “in this particular case” which completely changes the meaning of that remark.
but i did not say “state run health care”, which sounds like socialized medicine to me and that is not what i meant. i meant a state supported health insurance system. i apologize for being unclear.
EconomistInTraining,
The Philosophical Concept you are looking for, is this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_resemblance
And yes: praxeology, causal-realism, capitalstructure and means-ends certainly do the trick.
"And as Austrian School economists qua economists they have nothing to say about immigration, private law, nightwatchmen state etc. bar if you have this policy, this will be the result.
His second paragraph is clearly geared towards issues of political philosophy. I’m merely pointing out the distinction between the two."
“I don’t see why one cannot economically analyze any of the above topics.”
Bolded.