Walter Block is my favourite
I know I shouldnt have favourites…but i do
False.It is not collectivism and it ís not, by any means, something the ‘left’ libertarians invented.
Libertarianism is tied to ‘cultural’ issues such as ‘multiculturalism’, anti-theism, anti-racism, etc. The reason why liberals today are concerned with those issues is that they inherited them from classical liberals.
Two strawmen in one sentence. That is praiseworthy.
The reason why liberals today are concerned is because they have removed the concept of property rights, moving these issues out of the market place and into the political sphere.
I find things I like about almost everyone’s position. I’m not exactly a Hoppean, but he has a lot of great ideas. Same with Rothbard, Block and even Long.
I have to say, Block is one of the most heroic because he is out there engaging the world. He’s worked outside academia, and he’s always made himself available to media and debate. It is easy to tour the right wing lecture circuit or to preach within the blogosphere of the libertarian left. It takes courage to do what Dr. Block and Tom Woods do by carrying the argument to the statists on their turf.
Practice makes perfect. But I really don’t see any strawman.
No. Property rights are needed to address those issues but property rights alone are not the solution. Not to mention that property rights need a philosophical foundation.
I don’t find it appealing. I mean he makes libertarian arguments, there is no contesting that. I just think he could being saying it better. He isn’t going to change though and I will listen to his arguments but I will not find them as appealing as other lecturers. This argument is really just about personal preference.
I concede that his extremism is a necessary function of libertarianism because it does show how far individuals believe in libertarianism.
Asking him if he thinks libertarianism can help liberalize a people is not asking them to divert all their research to a singular issue. It is merely asking his viewpoint on a certain issue. Is not libertarianism the proponounce of individual freedom? Certainly we all concede that if the state were to be abolished then we would have more freedom, but does one have more freedom simply because we are not constantly being punched in the face or threatened to be punched in the face?
I think that is a mischaracterization.
[^o)] What happened to you during your absence? The only thing I actually talk about in this group in libertarian theory. I’m not an economist, I concede that. I am a historian and I have recenetly gotten into philosophy. By simply finding Block’s presentation of libertarian brutish, does not catergorize me as a ‘soft’ libertarian.
Sadly it is not. If you have any LL buddies, ask them what they think of Tom Woods and Meltdown.
I came to the conclusion that most libertarians are ideologues and that arguing with ideologues by and large was a poor use of my time.
My statement about going soft was somewhat tongue and cheek. I’m sorry you took it seriously. My bad.
Actually I have none. Why don’t you give me the reader’s digest. I like Tom Wood’s writings. They are very humorous
We are all individuals homie. We are all unique and I know it is difficult to remember that all the time.
I remain pure to the ideology. [:P] Just libertarian allows for all sorts of individuals, perhaps I am more of an idealist. It is just my nature.
AC, I don’t have time to reply to this right now. Already spent too much time posting today. [:(]
I will try to get back to you later.
Of course you can’t say for sure that the state hasn’t allocated resources in the way that the market would, this is the crux of the socialist calculation debate, after all. Here’s one interesting aspect of the argument, even if the state managed to allocate resources in line with the desires of consumers, there’s simply no way they could know for sure. This is exactly what Mises means when he says that socialist economic planning is “impossible”. It’s just not rational.
Clearly, there are public goods. Hoppe’s analysis in later works says as much. In Democracy: The God that Failed Hoppe presents institutions that may provide goods in a way that differs from the traditional market provision of such goods and services. Of course, this by no means implies that the state should provide them, but I don’t think that’s necessary for the public goods theory. All that one needs to demonstrate is that certain goods are harder to provide on the market that others and that certain institutional arrangements are necessary for the provision of such goods, one such institution is the state. But it is by no means the only, or the most efficient institution that can provide such services. Of course, a fair reading to various authors who have written on the subject would have prevented such confusion. Hoppe, however, would rather caricature such great economists as Tullock and Buchanan.
As for getting resources out of taxation, you have no way to prove that people would not have given their money to state without taxation, for the reasons I mentioned earlier. In any case, the sort of language you use, such as “parasites” runs counter to Austrian methodology. Perhaps you see them as parasites, I certainly do not. Absent some sort of value judgement you can’t say that for certain. So much for value free class analysis. In any case, Austrians reject interpersonal comparisons of utility, as such they simply can’t say that state employed academics represent a net loss.
Your use “Inefficient” contains implicit moralizing. Here’s the general thrust of arguments against subsidies: you subsidize something and you get more of it than the market would have demanded. Well, that’s true, but in the case of science, it doesn’t bother me in the slightest. As I said, I value science very highly, and the fact that there may be more of it, is all very good in that regard. Especially when I don’t really care whether economic science happens to be Austrian or not, only if it is good or bad economics.
As for the alleged lack of competition in academia, is that really so? It certainly doesn’t seem to square with the facts, namely that being a tenured professor at a top research university is a very difficult job to land.
No, I can’t say for sure, you’re quite correct. What I can say is this: Menger, Mises and Hayek all worked for the Austrian government and there’s a lot of evidence that those jobs were quite important in their intellectual development. If you want to say that the government artificially pushes up the demand for university educations, go for it. I think you’d be able to make quite a point. On the other hand, it also means that the jobs of Hoppe, Rothbard, Block, Salerno, Boettke, Klein, Mises, Hayek, Maltsev, Herbener, Huerta de Soto, Huelsmann, Kirzner, Rizzo and almost every other Austrian economist would be looking a lot less secure.
That’s an assertion, nothing more. I want some sort of proof that state academics (why not Austrians? Some of whom are paid by the state) are objectively parasites. Because as far as I can tell that’s merely your opinion, not mine. I value the work they do.
Are they propagandists because they’re paid by the state? Because if so, you’re going to have to somehow exempt Austrians from this charge or yours, many of whom receive state money in some way or another. Or are they propagandists because they defend the state? Because if you want to choose that route you’re left with the difficult implication that Mises was a state propagandist becuase he way a minarchist, at the same time he was one of the most ardent defenders of the free market, this is.
Yes, I’m pro state when the state provides services I value, you applying the “S” word to me, doesn’t bother me. Because I’m pretty much uninterested of all discussions concerning politics. I don’t think the state is illegitimate entirely no, and I’ve not seen one proof demonstrating so. Here’s the thing, I’d argue that everybody here would value the state far greater if they felt that it provided services they value. Which is why they do educate themselves about economics. You see, if it could be proven that without the state, society would descend in to chaos and poverty and crime would be very prevelant, few people would be so keen to call themselves anarchists.
No worries. I am always around.
you value food, you value clothing, you value housing, you value healthcare. according to your own fallacious arguments, if the state ‘subsidized’ these you would be for it.
but of course then you would be an idiot socialist of the kind Mises despaired of.
you used to be better at economics.
I get it, you’re going to be really pedantic to make it look like you “win”. Let me put it another way, I’m “pro-state” (whatever that means) when it provides services I value, where the free market couldn’t. Is that better?
You purist ancap types are seriously cool, I wish I could be like you.
You deserve this UK.
I know you do.[:P]
of course not… its like you didnt even understand my criticism. i pitched it at playschool level so you would have a chance to respond. I figured if I went all Austrian on you your brain would explode.
Well, it wasn’t quite at a playschool level, they already know that sentences begin with capital letters. As for Austrian economics, well, I would still consider myself something of an “Austrian” economist-in-training, so I’m not sure what you think you’re proving there. Your attempt to show that my argument proved too much failed.
I presume your argument was going to go something like this: he says he values the state when it provides goods he values, he values food, therefore the state should provide food, therefore he’s a bad “economist”. Now, I clarified my original argument to point out that actually I only value goods provided by the state when the market fails to provide them. Notice, I never said any particular goods or services fall into this category, just that if they did and the state were to provide them I would value the state. Secondly, I never said that state provision of such goods and services is “efficient”, I can trace the consequences of state provision of goods and services well enough.
Now the question is what can’t the free market provide that the magical state can?
well, the market has failed to provide MonarchyLand, a themepark celebrating royalty and feudalism through the mode of rollercoasters, as you value monarchy land and perhaps an infinite number of goods that you close your eyes and daydream about, robot hookers, rocketpowered shuttlecocks, submarine cars, Full set of books from the “GilesStratton is the cleverest Human of All Times” collection, that are not currently for sale on the market, but some of which could be achieved by the state diverting large resources.
your support for the state engaging in subsidy happens when? when they have hampered the market and the market doesnt have an outcome you like? when they have hampered the market and you imagine whether or not the unhampered market would provide? when the unhampered market doesnt provide?