As subject.
Maybe you guys can save me some time.
Thanks.
Adam Smith was for IP… he considered patents a “real right” to the inventor in his “Lectures on Jurisprudence”
Mises did not have a clear stance on IP… "“Mises expressed no opinion on the issue, merely drawing the economic implications from the presence or absence of such laws.”- S.Kinsella
.. and here are the the implications that Mises concluded…http://www.againstmonopoly.org/index.php?perm=593056000000000616
Here,http://www.lewrockwell.com/tucker/tucker153.html, Jeff Tucker says this: “Hayek himself was an opponent of all “intellectual property.”” and here are Hayek sources posted by Tucker : http://blog.mises.org/9247/hayek-on-patents-and-copyrights/
Friedman did.
Adam Smith used to have an obsession with being “plagiarized”.
Thanks.
Alfa write-up:
11.4 Economists
There are a number of economists and other figures in history that were associated (by themselves or by others) with the ideology of capitalism. Among these are Adam Smith (1723-1790), Ludwig von Mises (1881-1973), Friedrich Hayek (1899-1992), Ayn Rand (1905-1982) and Milton Friedman (1912-2006).
However, all five were not for individual sovereignty and a voluntary order where security, arbitration and reputation are goods traded on the market. Instead, they advocated a rulership of some over others in the name of peace; a glaring contradiction incompatible with capitalism.
Besides this, Smith was also for the monopolistic state to produce roads, bridges, canals, harbours, coinage, a postal service, hallmarking of gold and silver, quality regulation of wool- and linnen cloth, regulation of paper money notes, regulation of bank trades, public and compulsary education, publicly funded religious instruction, protection of intellectual property, and probably more.
Friedman was for the state production of roads, city parks and the protection of intellectual property, and if a state had a central bank (which he did finally end up being against) he advocated it steadily inflate and intervene heavily during a depression.
Rand was for the protection of intellectual property.
Mises and Hayek did not advocate state intervention in markets outside of security, arbitration and reputation.
http://www.vforvoluntary.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=40&pid=185#pid185
On the last statement… “Mises and Hayek did not advocate state intervention in markets outside of security, arbitration and reputation.” I would say it is inaccurate… Hayek definitely was for some state intervention in markets( he was for anti trust.( his definition of "monopoly is not the Austrian version, ( whether it is free of barriers), it is in fact the mainstream definition of being one supplier) on page 110 of the Road to Serfdom, he says that the state should make competition as effective as possible, and to supplement it where it is not effective. In other words, he believed the myth that the market needed to be “saved” at times. He believed in rent controls, guaranteed minimum income for all, and maximum working hours.
Are you basing that all on the road to serfdom? Because I searched through his later works and therein he is firmly against intervention.
[quote=“Isaac “Izzy” Marmolejo”]
on page 110 of the Road to Serfdom, he says that the state should make competition as effective as possible, and to supplement it where it is not effective. In other words, he believed the myth that the market needed to be “saved” at times. He believed in rent controls, guaranteed minimum income for all, and maximum working hours.
[/quote]
As far as I remember, by saying “make competition as effective as possible” he meant setting up effective institutions to ensure competition but not interventionism for sure.
@ Nielsio
Yes.The book was more about his views on the role of government than how State intervention is bad… He believed there was a very strong role for government that went further than the typical minarchist view on government (which is to protect citizens by having defense, local police, courts). Walter Block wrote a critique on the Road to Serfdom that puts forth Hayek’s non-market policies. On a side note, Milton Friedman actually replied to Walter Block’s criticisms towards Hayek, which is a pretty interesting read.
So you are justifying Hayek’s claim by saying that he supported the State setting up effective institutions to ensure competition? How is that not intervening the market? Nevertheless, even if I didnt consider that intervention, you would still have to address Hayek’s views on:
rent controls:
Hayek was opposed to rent controls to a certain degree because he believed that since some in society highly depended on rent controls, completely abolishing rent controls would a disaster. But in theory he was against rent controls. ( I cant find a good quote on it right now… I know the Walter Block article has a quote regarding this topic)
guaranteed minimum income for all:
“I have always said that I am in favor of a minimum income for every person in the country.” - Hayek, Hayek on Hayek
"There is no reason why, in a society which has reached the
general level of wealth ours has, the first kind of security should
not be guaranteed to all without endangering general freedom;
that is: some minimum of food, shelter and clothing, sufficient to
preserve health. Nor is there any reason why the state should not
help to organize a comprehensive system of social insurance in
providing for those common hazards of life against which few can
make adequate provision." -Hayek, Road to Serfdom, Page 66-67
maximum working hours:
“The successful use of competition does not preclude some types
of government interference. For instance, to limit working hours,
to require certain sanitary arrangements, to provide an extensive
system of social services is fully compatible with the preservation
of competition.” - Hayek, Road to Serfdom page 46
or his view on government planning:
“Planning and competition can be combined only by planning
for competition, not by planning against competition. The
planning against which all our criticism is directed is solely the
planning against competition” - Hayek, Road to Serfdom page 46
Which all of those policies are intervening the market.
P.S. I used this pdf for the Road to Serfdom, since I am at work and I do not have the book on me at the moment.
[quote=“Isaac “Izzy” Marmolejo”]
So you are justifying Hayek’s claim by saying that he supported the State setting up effective institutions to ensure competition? How is that not intervening the market?
[/quote]
Well, since now my views on state are close to minarchism I do think that state should be responsible for some essential services (army, police, etc).
[quote=“Isaac “Izzy” Marmolejo”]
Nevertheless, even if I didnt consider that intervention, you would still have to address Hayek’s views on:
maximum working hours:
“The successful use of competition does not preclude some types
of government interference. For instance, to limit working hours,
to require certain sanitary arrangements, to provide an extensive
system of social services is fully compatible with the preservation
of competition.” - Hayek, Road to Serfdom page 46
[/quote]
Thanks for poining this out. After reading “Economics in one lesson” now I do realize the destructive role of working hours limitation.
“Well, since now my views on state are close to minarchism I do think that state should be responsible for some essential services (army, police, etc).”
Sure, I understand your view that governments role should be to have courts, police, and national defense… but my criticism towards Hayek is that he goes beyond that initial notion of government’s role. He calls for institutions to maximize working hours, to have a minimum income for all, etc. Those are all anti-market, even to minarchists like Mises or Hazlitt ( I think that is Walter Block’s criticism over Hayek as well). On a side note, I am not anti-Hayek at all, he is one of my favorite authors. I consider “Prices &Production” and “The Pure Theory of Capital” as some of my favorite books.
Isaac,
It’s better to consult his later works. The Road to Serfdom is from 1944, where Law, Legislation and Liberty was finished in 1979.
What someone says later supercedes what they said before; especially 3+ decades later.
I came across this, in the section The problem of anti-monopoly legislation (in Volume 3 - Chapter 4), where he favors reform but doesn’t come out against it in principle:
[..] Though I do believe
that it should be one of the aims of the development of law to
reduce private power over the market conduct of others, and that
some beneficial results would follow from this, it does not appear
to me that this compares in importance with what could be
achieved by government refraining from assisting monopoly by
discriminatory rules or measures of policy.
Section ‘Social justice’ and freedom under the law in Chapter 9 ‘Social’ or distributive justice in Volume 2:
There is no reason why in a free society government should not
assure to all protection against severe deprivation in the form of an
assured minimum income, or a floor below which nobody need to
descend. To enter into such an insurance against extreme mis-
fortune may well be in the interest of all; or it may be felt to be a
clear moral duty of all to assist, within the organized community,
those who cannot help themselves. So long as such a uniform
minimum income is provided outside the market to all those who,
for any reason, are unable to earn in therl1arket an adequate main-
tenance, this need not lead to a restriction of freedom, or conflict
with the Rule of Law.
Nielsio,
I still would say that Hayek had the same view ( or atleast similar view) on Government in the Road to Serfdom throughout his lifetime. The reason I say this is because in his interview with Prof.Krueger and Prof. Merriam (Hayek on Hayek), Hayek defends his views listed in the Road to Serfdom… A quick example is on maximum working hours:
"Mr. Krueger: “What about limitation of working hours—a maximum-hours act? Is that compatible with your notions of proper planning?”
Hayek: “Yes, if it is not carried too far. It is one of these regulations which creates equal conditions throughout the system.But, of course, if it does beyond the point where it accords with the general situation of the country, it may indeed interfere very much. . . ."
And I also agree with Walter Block when he says : Since when does a free enterpriser advocate “equal conditions throught the system?”
This is the only mention of working hours that I can find:
Appendix to Chapter 9 - Justice and individual rights
It apparently never occurred to the authors of the Declaration
that not everybody is an employed member of an organization
whose right 'to just and favourable remuneration, including reason-
able limitations of working hours and periodic holidays with pay’
(Art. 24) can be guaranteed. The conception of a ‘universal right’
which assures to the peasant, to the Eskimo, and presumably to the
Abominable Snowman, ‘periodic holidays with pay’ shows the
absurdity of the whole thing. Even the slightest amount of ordinary
common sense ought to have told the authors of the document that
what they decreed as universal rights were for the present and for
any foreseeable future utterly impossible of achievement, and that
solemnly to proclaim them as rights was to play an irresponsible
game with the concept of ‘right’ which could result only in destroy-
ing the respect for it.
(he’s talking about the Universal declaration of human rights, 1948).
[quote=“Isaac “Izzy” Marmolejo”]
Nielsio,
I still would say that Hayek had the same view ( or atleast similar view) on Government in the Road to Serfdom throughout his lifetime. The reason I say this is because in his interview with Prof.Krueger and Prof. Merriam (Hayek on Hayek), Hayek defends his views listed in the Road to Serfdom… A quick example is on maximum working hours:
"Mr. Krueger: “What about limitation of working hours—a maximum-hours act? Is that compatible with your notions of proper planning?”
Hayek: “Yes, if it is not carried too far. It is one of these regulations which creates equal conditions throughout the system.But, of course, if it does beyond the point where it accords with the general situation of the country, it may indeed interfere very much. . . ."
And I also agree with Walter Block when he says : Since when does a free enterpriser advocate “equal conditions throught the system?”
[/quote]
The Krueger-Merriam interview is from 1945..
That’s not evidence for something ‘throughout his lifetime’.
Chapter 14 - Collective goods
In some instances the conditions which the market requires in
order to perform its ordering function will be satisfied only with
respect to some of the results of activities of the individuals. These
will on the whole still be effectively guided by the price mechanism,
even though some of the effects of these activities will spill over on
others who either do not pay for the benefits they receive or are not
compensated for damage done to them. In these instances the
economists speak of (positive or negative) external effects. In
other instances, however, it is either technically impossible, or
would be prohibitively costly, to confine certain services to par-
ticular persons, so that these services can be provided only klr all (or
at least will be provided more cheaply and effectively if they are
provided for all). To this category belong not only such obvious
instances as the protection against violence, epidemics, or such
natural forces as floods or avalanches, but also many of the ameni-
ties which make life in modern cities tolerable, most roads (except
some long-distance highways where tolls can be charged), the
provision of standards of measure, and of many kinds of infor-
mation ranging from land registers, maps, and statistics to the
certification of the quality of some goods or services offered in the
market. In many instances the rendering of such services could
bring no gain to those who do so, and they will therefore not be
provided by the market. These are the collective or public goods
proper, for the provision of which it will be necessary to devise some
method other than that of sale to the individual users.
Chapter 14 - Information and education
With regard to education the primary argument in support of its
being assisted by government is that children are not yet responsible
citizens and cannot be assumed to know what they need, and do not
control resources which they can devote to the acquisition of know-
ledge; and that parents are not always able or prepared to invest in
the children’s education as much as would make the returns on this
intangible capital correspond to those on material capital. This
argument applies to children and minors only. But it is sup-
plemented by a further consideration which applies also to adults,
namely that education may awaken in those who receive it
capacities they did not know they possessed. Here, too, it may often
be the case that only if the individual is assisted during the first
stages will he be able to develop his potentialities further by his own
initiative.
The strong case for a government finance of at least general
education does not however imply that this education should also
be managed by government, and still less that government should
acquire a monopoly of it. At least so far as general education rather
than advanced training for the professions is concerned, Professor
Milton Friedmann’s proposal mentioned before 18
for giving the
parents vouchers with which they can pay for their children’s educa-
tion at schools of their own choosing seems to have great advan-
tages over the prevailing system. Though the choice of the parents
would have to be limited to a range of schools meeting certain
minimum standards, and the vouchers would cover fully the fees of
only some of these schools, the system would have the great advan-
tage over schools managed by authority that it would allow parents
to pay for the additional costs of a special preferred form of
education.
Hayek starts to look very similar to Friedman in the way he thinks. Is he really supposed to be a great Austrian?
Chapter 14 - Other critical issues
[..] One is that of the problem
of certification by government or others of the quality of some goods
and services which may include a kind of licensing of particular
activities by government. It can hardly be denied that the choice of
the consumer will be greatly facilitated, and the working of the
market improved, if the possession of certain qualities of things or
capacities by those who offer services is made recognizable for the
inexpert though it is by no means obvious that only the government
will command the confidence required. Building regulations, pure
food laws, the certification of certain professions, the restrictions on
the sale of certain dangerous goods (such as arms, explosives,
poisons and drugs), as well as some safety and health regulations
for the processes of production and the provision of such public
institutions as theatres, sports grounds, etc., certainly assists intel-
ligent choice and sometimes may be indispensable for it. That the
goods offered for human consumption satisfy certain minimum
standards of hygiene, as for example that pork is not trichinuous or
milk not tuberculous, or that somebody who describes himself by a
term generally understood to imply a certain competence, such as a
physician, really possesses that competence, will be most effectively
assured by some general rules applying to all who supply such
goods or services. It is probably merely a question of expediency
whether it will be sufficient to have a generally understood manner
in which such goods and services can be described, or whether to
permit the sale of such goods only if they are thus certified. All that
is required for the preservation of the rule of law and of a func-
tioning market order is that everybody who satisfies the prescribed
standards has a legal claim to the required certification, which
means that the control of admissions authorities must not be used to
regulate supply.
I’ll stop here. What a commie.