The Internet

[hayekianxyz]

I while back I discussed the success of Molyneux and his use of the internet in comparison to Professors Hoppe, Rothbard and Mises. A few comments to qualify what I am about so say. To begin with I do not think Molyneux is a thinker in anywhere near the capability of those just mentioned. I also think that Molyneux holds some dangerous, misguided (perhaps purposefully) views and I strongly dislike the guy. This said given that he is on the fringe of the fringe of a fringe movement he is relatively successful, and has utilized the internet very successfully. An example that I prefer would be Ron Paul, who was shunned by the establishment and had a huge success on the internet.

However in regards to teaching at universities I recently read a piece by Mr North in regards to aiming to teach at universities and I believe many libertarians, specificially Austrians to be putting to much emphasis on teaching at universities. I do believe that it is important that Austrian Economics is represented on a scholarly level.

This said, very few people read scholarly journals. If one wishes to spread the work of libertarianism or to elaborate on Austrian theory I do not think it is necessary for one to teach at a university given that we now have the internet. To begin with professors are very limited in what they can teach, even if they have very strong Austrian views they are most likely going to be forced to teach neoclassical economics. The same applies for scholarly journals, if one wishes to be published in them the Austrian message will have to be very watered down.

To get the message across now one merely needs a website and the ability to write something that people wish to read, it is by no means necessary to teach at a university. A great example of this would be Kinsella who is of the most important libertarian thinkers now. In fact, out of the three most important austro libertarians: Ron Paul, Lew Rockwell and Peter Schiff none of them teach at university.

In addition to this I really do not think it is wise for libertarians to take an economics degree. I myself am taking one and the amount of nonsense that is fed to the students is ridiculous. The fallacious thinking is exceedingly dogmatic. Not to be questioned. For those who wish to go into academia I would advise a philosophy, sociology or politics.

For those who wish to get a job with their degree I think it is more advisible to go for a degree like finance, business or accounting.

[fezwhatley]

Hoppe has already said that it is not a good idea to believe we can have an infiltration of Academian, with any success. Any infiltration of academia, and journals would only act to legitimize state control of education. All scholarly work should be kept in the private sector, ideally non-professionalized.

[Thedesolateone]

I’m going for a Philosophy, Politics and Economics degree.

I want to be an entrepreneur, but not because I’ll be a good one - just because it would be an affirmation of my political/economic ideals.

At the same time, I could so imagine being a lecturer/professor.

[sirmontius]

I agree with the consensus on not trying to focus too much on infiltrating academia given the current climate. I do think getting a degree in economics can be of use to austro libertarians, though. Afterall, Block, Hoppe, etc are all professors and they have done great things for the movement. Plus, it never hurts to thoroughly understand your enemy’s position.

Currently, I am just starting an economics course required for my degree (it is online). The teacher works/worked for the RAND corporation, and I can tell there is going to be loads of Keynesian garbage involved. Afterall, one of topics for one of the weeks is “Predicting and Managing the Dynamic Economy”…

I have thought about how I should approach this class and decided I should probably just quietly do the work and pass the class. I think introducing Austrian economics into the class discussion and whatnot may just create problems for me.

[nirgrahamUK]

that sounds like a good plant sirmonty. keep your headown, get your grades. ; then you could flier the class with austrian pamphletts on your last day. shock and awe !

[Sage]

I think we need to distinguish between progress in economic science and progress in the libertarian movement.

In terms of economic science, there are different views on strategy. For example, Hoppe favors converting the young, rather than established academics. Pete Boettke, on the other hand, argues that economic science can only progress within academia:

We will not advance as a school of economic ideas unless we have people occupying positions in the top academic institutions, publishing in the top journals, editing the top journals, publishing books with the top university presses, editing book series with the top presses, pushing graduate students to top position so they can pursue the same path.

Blogs aren’t going to work, alternative presses aren’t going to work, etc. It is still about teaching at Harvard, Chicago, Stanford, et. al., publishing in the AER, JPE, QJE, and with Oxford, Cambridge, Princeton and Chicago. And there is a pecking order starting from that and working out.

Now how can I hold such an extreme view? Because I honestly believe that economic science only advances within the academic discussion.

But progress in the libertarian movement will be more effective outside of academia: blogs, popular books, etc. Here, circumventing academia and reaching out to the public is the best way to encourage a bottom up revolution.

There definitely needs to be more debate on strategy in economic science and in the libertarian movement.

[Nerditarian]

@GilesStratton

In addition to this I really do not think it is wise for libertarians to take an economics degree. I myself am taking one and the amount of nonsense that is fed to the students is ridiculous. The fallacious thinking is exceedingly dogmatic. Not to be questioned. For those who wish to go into academia I would advise a philosophy, sociology or politics.

For those who wish to get a job with their degree I think it is more advisible to go for a degree like finance, business or accounting.

I don’t know about where your from, but around here sociology is a million times as dogmatic as economics. It is more or less a training ground for future statists ultra-left wing social workers. With couses like"

247a. Modern Social Theory: Marx, Durkheim, and Weber (1)### 264a. Social Welfare and Social Policy: Perceptions of Poverty (1)### [312b. Corporate Power] (1)These are hardly untypical.

I would probably double in Philo and Econ. Or if you can’t do that stick to Econ. Why? Economists (Mises, Rothbard) are IMHO much better at addressing the philosophy of the libertarian movement in fields such as Ethics and Epistemology while libertarians with philosophy degrees(Long) seem inept at addressing economics at all.

[wombatron]

@Nerditarian

Economists (Mises, Rothbard) are IMHO much better at addressing the philosophy of the libertarian movement in fields such as Ethics and Epistemology while libertarians with philosophy degrees(Long) seem inept at addressing economics at all.

Umm… have you actually read anything by Long? His Wittgenstein, Austrian Economics, and the Logic of Action is the best work I have read on the philosophical foundations of praxeology and economics. And Mises and Rothbard both made errors in ethics and epistemology, sometimes rather large ones (Mises’ utilitarianism, for example). Not that I mean any disrespect to either of them, but to make a blanket statement that “economists can do philosophy but philosophers can’t do economics” is false.

[Sage]

@wombatron

Umm… have you actually read anything by Long? His Wittgenstein, Austrian Economics, and the Logic of Action is the best work I have read on the philosophical foundations of praxeology and economics.

I second that. His resolution of the hermeneutics/rationalism debate was brilliant.

[Nerditarian]

@wombatron

@Nerditarian

Economists (Mises, Rothbard) are IMHO much better at addressing the philosophy of the libertarian movement in fields such as Ethics and Epistemology while libertarians with philosophy degrees(Long) seem inept at addressing economics at all.

Umm… have you actually read anything by Long? His Wittgenstein, Austrian Economics, and the Logic of Action is the best work I have read on the philosophical foundations of praxeology and economics. And Mises and Rothbard both made errors in ethics and epistemology, sometimes rather large ones (Mises’ utilitarianism, for example). Not that I mean any disrespect to either of them, but to make a blanket statement that “economists can do philosophy but philosophers can’t do economics” is false.

Fine maybe that was a little sweeping, yes. And maybe that did pwn me. But his contributions to AE, however great, are still nothing compared to Rothbard’s systemization of libertarian ehtics and poltical theory. Rothbard built the systemic framework of modern philosophic libertarianism in TEOL and FANL. Long’s work economics is simply not comparable to Rothbard’s work in philosophy.

[wombatron]

@Nerditarian

Fine maybe that was a little sweeping, yes. And maybe that did pwn me. But his contributions to AE, however great, are still nothing compared to Rothbard’s systemization of libertarian ehtics and poltical theory. Rothbard built the systemic framework of modern philosophic libertarianism in TEOL and FANL. Long’s work economics is simply not comparable to Rothbard’s work in philosophy.

I do see what you mean, but I don’t think that it has any implications for being an economist vs. being a philosopher. Rothbard’s contributions to economics and libertarian ethics were incredible because he was a genius and a polymath, not because he was an economist. The only other people in the history of the modern libertarian movement who are on that level are Mises and Hoppe, and maybe Hayek (not to say that those thinkers don’t have their errors; very smart people can fool themselves just as well, or better, as the rest of us [:)] ).

[Nerditarian]

@wombatron

@Nerditarian

Fine maybe that was a little sweeping, yes. And maybe that did pwn me. But his contributions to AE, however great, are still nothing compared to Rothbard’s systemization of libertarian ehtics and poltical theory. Rothbard built the systemic framework of modern philosophic libertarianism in TEOL and FANL. Long’s work economics is simply not comparable to Rothbard’s work in philosophy.

I do see what you mean, but I don’t think that it has any implications for being an economist vs. being a philosopher. Rothbard’s contributions to economics and libertarian ethics were incredible because he was a genius and a polymath, not because he was an economist. The only other people in the history of the modern libertarian movement who are on that level are Mises and Hoppe, and maybe Hayek (not to say that those thinkers don’t have their errors; very smart people can fool themselves just as well, or better, as the rest of us ).

But Mises & Hayek were on firmer ground in their philosophy then Long can be from time to time in his economics. Here, I am refering not to the aforementioned paper but more to his more recent work on the corporation. His anti-corporation stance is way to extreme to be warranted by AE. Or atleast the Mises-Hayek-Rothbard wing of AE. I don’t really know enough about the Lachmanites to include them.

This is of course all debatable. Of course, the opposite may be argued. But if I had to choose between philosophy and econ, all other things being equal (calculus ability, etc.) I would opt for the later. It seems to be easier to hop from econ to philo then vice versa.

[hayekianxyz]

@Nerditarian

This is of course all debatable. Of course, the opposite may be argued. But if I had to choose between philosophy and econ, all other things being equal (calculus ability, etc.) I would opt for the later. It seems to be easier to hop from econ to philo then vice versa.

I disagree, a lot of the incorrect economics we hear is the result of poor epistemological foundations. Hoppe says so himself. I would disagree with Wombatron and others in that I don’t think Rothbard was up to the standards of Mises and Hoppe in philosophy (or in economics for that matter). But I would agree that his contributions to libertarianism have been substantial, just nothing to do with the fact that he’s an economist.

[banned]

@sirmonty

I have thought about how I should approach this class and decided I should probably just quietly do the work and pass the class. I think introducing Austrian economics into the class discussion and whatnot may just create problems for me.

Ask questions that you know your teacher will answer rediculously, and get them to clarify their views so you can really understand how they understand economics. That’s what I did.

[sirmontius]

@banned

@sirmonty

I have thought about how I should approach this class and decided I should probably just quietly do the work and pass the class. I think introducing Austrian economics into the class discussion and whatnot may just create problems for me.

Ask questions that you know your teacher will answer rediculously, and get them to clarify their views so you can really understand how they understand economics. That’s what I did.

Got any good examples?

[Nerditarian]

@GilesStratton

@Nerditarian

This is of course all debatable. Of course, the opposite may be argued. But if I had to choose between philosophy and econ, all other things being equal (calculus ability, etc.) I would opt for the later. It seems to be easier to hop from econ to philo then vice versa.

I disagree, a lot of the incorrect economics we hear is the result of poor epistemological foundations. Hoppe says so himself. I would disagree with Wombatron and others in that I don’t think Rothbard was up to the standards of Mises and Hoppe in philosophy (or in economics for that matter). But I would agree that his contributions to libertarianism have been substantial, just nothing to do with the fact that he’s an economist.

I’m not saying philosophy’s not a good degree: considering my math skills when it comes time to declare a major I might go with that. All I’m saying is that no philosopher has contributed as much to AE as much as either Hoppe, Mises, or Rothbard individually contributed to libertarian thought. I really don’t know if a philsopher could be a first rate Austrian Economist, it seems iffy, but I know for certain that Austrian Economists can be first rate Philsophers. So if one is looking for the best way to advance AE/Libertarianism as a package and barring other factors (time, math skills, etc.) it’s best for them to get a degree in economics.

[hayekianxyz]

@Nerditarian

All I’m saying is that no philosopher has contributed as much to AE as much as either Hoppe, Mises, or Rothbard individually contributed to libertarian thought.

Hoppe’s PhD is in philosophy.

[tsmereka]

I asked my intermediate macro professor whether he thought neoclassical or keynesian (macroeconomic) theory was right

he said it was “all just opinion”

[Nerditarian]

@GilesStratton

@Nerditarian

All I’m saying is that no philosopher has contributed as much to AE as much as either Hoppe, Mises, or Rothbard individually contributed to libertarian thought.

Hoppe’s PhD is in philosophy.

Your right. I concede defeat. I was drawing my generalizations earlier because I thought Hoppe had both. Nevermind. I just made a donkey of myself.

[Stranger]

I found Mises, Rothbard and Hoppe through the Internet. But by then I was already wrapping up my economics degree, so there was no point in giving up.