I can haz proof of too little control?
That’s not really true, and there’s nothing wrong with econometrics in any case. I hate to bring this up, but Hayek, Menger, Mises, Bohm Bawerk et al were all pretty certain that the state needed to exist and I don’t think any of them really questioned this premise. I just see a lot of evasion here by both you and Jon, to say that certain economists aren’t economists is an unfair assessment.
lets say you were writing a priority list…
…an ordered list,
1 to however-many.
The subject of the list happens to be: ‘things that you would need to have in order to be a good economist.’
where would having the appropriate methodology come on that list?
Not particularly high, to be honest. On the other hand, if the question were “things that you would need in order to do correct economics” then it might come relatively high.
When I see evidence that his “friends” are economists, I’ll believe it.
I’m not interested in appeals to authority. You should know that, because I rarely if ever make them myself.
I realize you value them, and that is how subjective value works. You may call it unfair, but only because you insist they have an objective value. We all know, that there is no such thing as an objective reputation.
please explain the gulf that exists between good economists and correct ones. surely you dont mean that they are morally good guffaw
Just say that the GMU economists are the best economists in the world, so that Giles will be satisfied and go away. lol
Which may be exactly why they failed to justify the state on logical grounds. Mises (according to a lecture by Hoppe) did say that the right to opt out of a governemet is a fundamental criterion for a government that is to be compatible with a free society. I haven’t found the source for this (yet), but if this is true, then Mises was closer to Anarchism then many give him credit for.
Well, Austrian economics shows that any State intervention is counter-productive. If we believe what we preach, then those economists that do not recognize this or at least come close are, therefore, pseudo-economists.
Here are some quotes from Mises’ Liberalism.
The state is the apparatus of compulsion and coercion. This holds not only for the
“night-watchman” state, but just as much for every other, and most of all for the
socialist state. Everything that the state is capable of doing it does by compulsion
and the application of force. To suppress conduct dangerous to the existence of the
social order is the sum and substance of state activity; to this is added, in a socialist
community, control over the means of production.
The state is neither cold nor warm, for it is an abstract concept in whose
name living men—the organs of the state, the government—act. All state activity is
human action, an evil inflicted by men on men. The goal—the preservation of
society—justifies the action of the organs of the state, but the evils inflicted are not
felt as any less evil by those who suffer under them.
The evil that a man inflicts on his fellow man injures both—not only the one to
whom it is done, but also the one who does it. Nothing corrupts a man so much as
being an arm of the law and making men suffer.
However, the right of self-determination of which we speak is not the right of
self-determination of nations, but rather the right of self-determination of the inhabitants of
every territory large enough to form an independent administrative unit. If it were in any way
possible to grant this right of self-determination to every individual person, it would
have to be done. This is impracticable only because of compelling technical considerations,
which make it necessary that a region be governed as a single administrative unit and that
the right of self-determination be restricted to the will of the majority of the inhabitants
of areaslarge enough to count as territorial units in the administration of the country.
Should no taxes be forced? We need police, military, infrastructure etc.
That can be done through voluntary means, without any monopoly.
Who has the moral authority to force anything from anyone else? Libertarians don’t believe that the use of force is valid as a means to an end.
Why do we need these things? I agree, but I want to know what your perception of our reasons are.
Yes.
I challange you to prove it.
Speculation is also a trade.
Sure…just observe how thriving is the economy in the States after the bail outs…
Your friends are statists.
To protect our rights. But the anarchists will probably disagree, so is it right to force them to pay for it? No. But is it right to let them benefit from what we pay for?
So you want to protect rights by violating them to begin with?
Yes. Or should no one benefit from externalities? Babies don’t pay for their protection, so should they receive protection?
You don’t believe there are rights. Maybe you mean to protect our lives and property?
Anarchists also want their life and property protected. But they don’t like anyone forcing anyone to do anything. Forcing to protect, or forcing to pay.
Anarchists are not free riders. It’s generally understood that if you don’t pay, you have no entitlement.
The anarchist position, isn’t to free ride, or to “fight the man”. It is to only engage in voluntary exchange. I want to be able to hire my own defender (if I want/need one) and I want to fire him if he sucks. I want to only pay him to protect me, not to go to Afghanistan for 9 years and blow up villages. I don’t want to subsidize his workers if they get killed fighting foreign wars, or providing unpaid defense of banks, churches and politicians. I want to be able to defend myself if I choose. That’s anarchy. We have an austro-libertarian, Gil Guillory who has been researching private defense services. We refer to them here as PDAs or DROs. Fascinating topic.
Lol. How about to protect their safety? It’s better to be plundered than to be killed.