Sell the Roads!

[hayekianxyz]

@liberty student

But he’s not really private because his future revenue stream is created by protectionism and subsidy.

And? That’s quite besides the point, the fact is that provided he has a future revenue stream, and expects he will he will not engage in capital consu mption because it won’t be profitable for him to do so. The extent to which he does engage in capital consumption is determined by his time preference, which will always be lower than that of a public monopolist who cannot expect a future revenue stream and whose length of planning will therefore be reduced, whose opportunity cost of not using the capital will be higher.

@liberty student

I cannot understand how you and Stranger, admittedly people who have a high regard for Hoppe’s work, can’t see the contradiction arising from your positions.

Hoppe makes this very point in A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism it’s just the same argument between the socialist means of production and the capital means of production, and would hold true if both were exposed to competition.

@liberty student

I think you know this already.

What do I know? That essentially besides a slight increase in efficiency a private monopolist is the same a public monopoly? Yes, I do know that. I’m not advocating either, I’m just saying Stranger was correct in that a private monopoly is at all times superior to a public one.

[hayekianxyz]

@nirgrahamUK

im confused what relevance has utilitarianism (an ethical/moral theory) has to understanding economics qua our being economists? are we using a different meaning of ‘utilitarian concern’ than the one I am familiar with?

Economics is inherently utilitarian, it is concerned with the production of wealth.

[hayekianxyz]

@wombatron

Sure, but is handing out equal shares to every taxpayer viable? Who gets what? What’s more, who decides who gets what, in non-clear-cut situations?

Whoever has paid most, presumably. Now, I’ll agree, it’s impractical, but so is every other alternative besides accepting that the state will sell the roads to the highest bidder.

@wombatron

Because the state is a criminal organization.

And so are those that work for it, the one I suppose would be said to homestead the roads.

[hayekianxyz]

@Juan

ot sure what you mean. “Competing ends” are not competing providers. If I have to choose between buying bread or buying beer I may be facing “competing ends” - is that what you mean ?

Nobody was talking about competing providers, for the consumer that’s not even relevant. All that matters is that the consumer maximizes their utility, and as such there will be competition between ends and as such the road producer will face competition between ends. Or if you want to put it another way, the provider of roads will face competition from other goods.

@Juan

] I still miss the point. I don’t know what you mean and I doubt it refutes what I said. Also, proofread it because "not exploiting the of the means of production " looks like missing words.

All I’ve said is that a private owner of a good will take better care of it that a part owner of a good will. Tradegy of the commons and all that stuff.

[nirgrahamUK]

@GilesStratton

Economics is inherently utilitarian, it is concerned with the production of wealth.

sorry Giles I dont buy it. as i explained before if you are using utilitarian in the tradition of its ethical context, you are abusing the term, and also picking a losing horse. If you are using a peculiuar interpretation of the word utilitarian which does not involve a moral theory, then you best find me the context in which you mean it, or its just an empty slogan.

If economics is inherently utilitarian ,(in the way i understand the word utilitarian) then it would concern judging actions as morally right or wrong by how they affect and distribute happiness utils amongst the population. as economics is not ethical philosophy , im suprised to hear the statement that economics is inherently a particular ethical theory (utilitarianism)

[hayekianxyz]

@nirgrahamUK

If economics is inherently utilitarian ,(in the way i understand the word utilitarian) then it would concern judging actions as morally right or wrong by how they affect and distribute happiness utils amongst the population. as economics is not ethical philosophy , im suprised to hear the statement that economics is inherently a particular ethical theory (utilitarianism)

Economics is concerned with the production of wealth, as such it is utilitarian.

[nirgrahamUK]

nice mantra. but if you think utilitarian means concerns production of wealth you are wrong.

[nirgrahamUK]

@Rothbard

while praxeological economic theory is extremely useful for providing data and knowledge for framing economic policy, it cannot be sufficient by itself to enable the economist to make any value pronouncements or to advocate any public policy whatsoever. More specifically, Ludwig von Mises to the contrary notwithstanding, neither praxeological economics nor Mises’s utilitarian liberalism is sufficient to make the case for laissez-faire and the free market. To make such a case, one must go beyond economics and utilitarianism to establish an objective ethics….

this, i agree with.

[hayekianxyz]

@nirgrahamUK

this, i agree with.

Likewise, but that doesn’t contradict any of what I’ve said.

[hayekianxyz]

@nirgrahamUK

nice mantra. but if you think utilitarian means concerns production of wealth you are wrong.

Of course it does. To provide a somewhat incomplete definition wealth could be seen as that which allows humans to acheive their ends, the most wealth their is the easier it is for humans to acheive their ends. That it utilitarianism.

[nirgrahamUK]

you are using utilitarian in the sense of ‘usefulism’ rather than ‘moral ethical theory of happiness’, is that what you are doing?

[hayekianxyz]

@nirgrahamUK

you are using utilitarian in the sense of ‘usefulism’ rather than ‘moral ethical theory of happiness’, is that what you are doing?

No, I’m using it in the sense that economics is aimed at maximising utility.

[nirgrahamUK]

i see, the idea that economics has a teleolegy, and that the function is to maximise utility seems like a seductive idea. but its false.

the science of levers does not aim at moving moving mountains. the science of optics is not aimed at maximising the seeing of things.

i could go on but hopefully you get the picture.

[hayekianxyz]

@nirgrahamUK

the science of levers does not aim at moving moving mountains. the science of optics is not aimed at maximising the seeing of things.

i could go on but hopefully you get the picture

False analogy.

@nirgrahamUK

i see, the idea that economics has a teleolegy, and that the function is to maximise utility seems like a seductive idea. but its false.

That’s exactly what economics concern, the alleviation of scarcity, or to put it another way, to create wealth.

[nirgrahamUK]

knowledge of economics can be put to use to alleviate scarcity, or to increase scarcity. but you know this giles?

doesnt this demonstrate that economics concerns scarcity, but does not concern alleviating it, or increasing it. those ends are subjective ends, economics is value free.

[hayekianxyz]

@nirgrahamUK

knowledge of economics can be put to use to alleviate scarcity, or to increase scarcity. but you know this giles?

And? That’s like saying the study of ethics can be used to live a bad life therefore ethics is value free, which isn’t true.

@nirgrahamUK

doesnt this demonstrate that economics concerns scarcity, but does not concern alleviating it, or increasing it. those ends are subjective ends, economics is value free.

No, praxeology is value free. Economics, the most developed branch of praxeology is utilitarian, it is aimed at maximising wealth/ alleviating scarcity.

[nirgrahamUK]

well, that sentance about the study of ethics is a little self referential since the ‘bad life’ only has meaning given a particular ethical standpoint.

perhaps your example would be superior if you pick a particular ethical theory.

i.e. That’s like saying the study of 'natural rights ethics" can be used to live a bad life therefore “natural rights ethics” is value free, which isn’t true.

but this is true, natural rights ethics is value free. it is not imbued with magical value virtues. natural rights ethics itself supposes that its only ‘actions’ and not ‘bodies of knowledge’ that are candidates for assesment into categories of right and wrong, permissible and impermissable, moral and immoral. and its only ‘agents’ that have values, whereas ‘systems of thought’ dont, they have otehr qualities, like say ‘consistency’ . (consistency is one of the good things about natural rights ethics, from my perspective as someone that values consistency in ethical theories. hence natural rights ethics by its own standard is value free.

@GilesStratton

No, praxeology is value free. Economics, the most developed branch of praxeology is utilitarian, it is aimed at maximising wealth/ alleviating scarcity.

economics is ‘understanding’ its not ‘doing’ it might explain how to maximise wealth (though this is clumsy terminology) but it doesnt require the understander to do anything in particular. its just information. information can be useful or not useful, can provide utility or not, but this is determined by the agent. so maybe economics is utilitarian for people who find it useful, but then trivially, its not utilitarian for those people that dont find it useful.

[Spideynw]

@Juan

@Spideynw

As if there is only one road to get somewhere or new roads cannot be built. I am surprised Juan, that you would make this argument.

I don’t think new roads can be built in the same place where the roads controlled by the state or its cronnies lie.

The consumers would definitely gain, immensely.

By having roads controlled by the ‘private’ friends of the gov’t instead of the by gov’t employees directly ? How ?

Again : a nominally ‘private’ monopolist has no incentive to provide better goods than a state monopolist has.

I think I get what you are getting at. Of course, all monopolies only exist because of the government. So if it is truly a monopoly, then no, it probably will not benefit the consumer.

[hayekianxyz]

@nirgrahamUK

but this is true, natural rights ethics is value free.

No, it is not.

@nirgrahamUK

economics is ‘understanding’ its not ‘doing’ it might explain how to maximise wealth (though this is clumsy terminology) but it doesnt require the understander to do anything in particular.

Nor have I said otherwise.

@nirgrahamUK

so maybe economics is utilitarian for people who find it useful, but then trivially, its not utilitarian for those people that dont find it useful.

No, whether or not people find it useful is not relevant, what matters is that economics is aimed at the maximization of wealth, hence, it is utilitarian.

[nirgrahamUK]

well, perhaps you arent being convincing because of the brevity of your responses. perhaps you have in mind an article or an extract from a book to refer me to that illustrates your point at a greater length than you are willing to write yourself?. i would be game to read it and consider it.

perhaps the confusion is in your use of the word. aim. i fail to see how economics is aimed at the maximization of anything. economics is not a thing with aims. saying it has aim is either attributing a function to it. function which a givern person may or may not find useful, or that it is an agent itself with aims of its own. its clearly not the latter, and in the sense in which its the former economics does not ‘aim’ at the maximization of wealth any more than any science is ‘aimed’ at the maximization of anything. i have thus far failed to find an appropriate alternative to the above meaning of aim that may be appropriate.

i find it odd that you choose not to put questions to me and investigate our disagreement. you seem satisfied just to make short blunt statements, and stand back to wait to see if I concede, or whether i will prompt you to perform another round of the same.

we have had more fruitful conversations than this in the past !