So whether or not Giles is “pro-state” depends on whether market failure is possible?
He himself stated he valued the state according to that which they provide. Therefore it is now a question of how much the state provides and then deducing how ‘pro-state’ he is according to his own logic.
This goes to Anarchist_Cain and nirgrahamUK,
Well, first, let me qualify what I said. When I say the market what I mean is the market and the various other institutional arrangements that would support and complement the functioning of a free market. As for what services the market could provide to fail, I don’t know, nor do I necessarily think there are any. My point is, if there are, then I would value the state (or any other institution) for providing them.
Here’s the thing, I don’t think you understand what I’m saying, probably because you’ve taken what I said completely out of context. Presumably in order to prove that I am a state “apologist” or that I’m ideologically “impure”. The fact that I value the state for providing a service I value implies nothing else than that I appreciate the state for supplying a service that I value, it by no means that I believe the state is necessary, or desirable, or that absent a state I would think one is necessary.
Look, if the state was necessary to provide law and order, you people would almost certainly be more hesitant about adopting the name of “anarchists”, because no matter what you say, you do care about outcomes. Now, if you apply this to the case of education, which was the concern of the original discussion, all I’m saying is that I value the fact that state has subsidized such a great number of scientists that academia as we know it is possible. It’s impossible to know whether or not, if the state didn’t exist, there would be academia as we know it or not.
Well, market failure is definately possible. But, this doesn’t mean that state will necessarily do a very good job of providing the services that the market cannot. It may very well be, and likely it is, that other institutions will emerge that can do a better job. Institutions that are replaced by the state.
Well, seems we’re all in agreement here[;)]
you say, “only if there are goods that I value that the market could not provide then I would support the state in providing them.”
and that you “doubt there are any.” implying that your support for the state is doubtful. so far so plain.
wrong, based on your earlier statement it implies that that your support for them being the providers is that the free market could not be, and you even acknowledge doubt as to the likelihood of this.
so with your later statement you are either implying that the free-market would not provide the service you desire (that you desire to only pay for indirectly)
or if we hold constant that you truly are suspicious of the states superior ability to provide product and that you support the state in its provisionary role then you are either ignoring the question of market providability or your earlier forumula for when you would support the state was incorrect.
In ThisTopic: we post two quotations that say the exact same thing, by the same person, and pretend they don’t.
GJ.
no you want “i value the state”
to mean both:
'the market cant or doesnt provide X,
therefore I value the state (or any other institution) for providing X. <– note ambiguity over whether the market ‘cannot’ or ‘does not’
AND
‘the state has a hand in providing X, and i value X’
Yeah, and for me to value the state (in the situation that the market can’t provide a given good) it must have a hand in providing X, and I must value X. There’s no ambiguity, it’s a conditional statement. You’re pretty much hell bent on trying to find ways in which I deviate from the orthodoxy of Rothbardianism though, so I’m sure you’ll manage to find something sooner or later. Keep trying.
so now the issue of the possibility of market provision is ignored, and we are back to you supporting the state in other subsidies, as soon as it decides to subsidize food health clothes etc, and you notice that the state produces things that you tell yourself you value.
Are you playing dumb ?
Again, False - this has nothing to do with value judgments.
Your lies are irrelevant.
You just contradicted yourself in one sentence - they are subsidized by the state, you grant as much - they are paid using stolen funds - they don’t live off voluntary exchange - they are parasites.
False, but true with regards to mainstream economics. Thanks for admitting, again, that mainstream ‘economists’ exist because of the state, that is, they are parasites.
Indeed he was a state apologist as far as militarism was concerned.
He was a free marketeer only in certain areas. Nothing surprising about that. Now, do you think that invoking Mises mistakes proves anything ? Except that people are not consistent ?
you MUST value X. Maybe somebody has a gun to your head, I don’t know.
I don’t really understand what you’re getting at, yes, I value the state once it provides services. Just like I may value other things, but I also may feel that the opportunity cost of these other things is greater than the utility they provide. Why is it that this can’t be so with the state? I honestly think you’re just trying to prove that I’m sort of statist so you cant get your buddies to cheer for purging me. Perhaps not, but this really looks like some sort of “libertarian” litmus test.
And when, precisely, is that? Remember: “legally prevented from providing services” is not the same as “couldn’t”.
Now I expect an actual answer, not a strawman. Please don’t be like Max, ok?
Juan, I was trying to find some sort of criteria with which we could define who is and who is not a parasite. Now, it looks like you’re going with this “they are subsidized by the state, you grant as much - they are paid using stolen funds - they don’t live off voluntary exchange - they are parasites.”. First things first, this isn’t enough to prove that any individual is a parasite. It may well be that an individual scientist may receive more from voluntary exchange in a free market than he recieves from the state in subsidies. In which case he is a victim of the state, hardly a parasite. If you wish to contradict this go ahead, but it’s going to require some novel way to solve the whole socialist calculation issue. On the other hand, if we ignore this, then you’re left with the implication that many Austrian economists are “parasites”, this would include, to some extent or another Mises, Hayek, Menger and others, all of whom were employed directly by the state at one time or another. Let us not forget that there are countless other individuals who benefit from either state subsidies to universities or increased demand for higher education due to barriers of entry in industry. Are you willing to bite this bullet?
On Austrian economics, are you just going to make that assertion, or are you going to try and substantiate it? If not, please, let me know because I don’t have the patience for this. On the other hand, if you wish to provide some reasonable explanation for why AE would not exist without the state, whereas mainstream economics would, say it. Even if you can prove it would exist, I doubt you can prove it would be developed to the extent that it is now. As for Mises, you dodged the question, I wasn’t asking whether Mises was inconsistent or not. What I was asking was whether or not Mises was a state propagandist because he wasn’t an anarchist. The same applies for Menger, Hayek, Kirzner and others.
Define what you mean by “the market”? I’m not really sure whether or not there are services that voluntary individuals would fail to provide as well as the state. I don’t think the market, narrowly construed, can provide all services. But, fortunately there are other institutional arrangments that make such provision possible.
Like nirgrahamUK, I don’t see what you’re getting at. I was talking about my own personal preference and you challenge me on an issue that relates to economic theory.
What do you mean by “define”?
Yeah, try again, Giles. I’ll give you a do-over.
I was pretty much agreeing with you. But I noted that various goods may not be supplied in sufficient quantities by what is commonly meant by “the market”. That various other institutions may be necessary for their provision. I don’t see what you’re trying to prove.
The burden is on you to prove that you arent a socialist. you are doing pretty badly at the moment.
Which is no different from the idiotic notion of “market failure”. And I asked you when such things actually happen naturally, rather than by government fiat, e.g. a postal monopoly or some other such legal trickery.
It should be very easy for you to come up with examples, then, Giles. I’ll be waiting.