Re: News Coverage and bad economics
In a message dated 1/9/03 9:49:18 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hilarious! I'd already killfiled AdmrlLocke, so I hadn't read his first message. Love your answer though. Wow, I had no idea that people on the list held me in such contempt, or indeed in contempt at all. What sin or sins have I committed?I've learned a great deal form the list and had come to look forward to the intellectual challengs it poses, but given the contempt in which other list members apparently hold me, shall I just unsubscribe then? David Levenstam
Re: News Coverage and bad economics
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ...shall I just unsubscribe then? No. Although when you go on about statists you do sound a little like Marxists when they go on about captialists. :) -jsh __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
RE: going on about 'statists'
The english term statist derives from Mises's use of the words étatist/ism and statist/ism. Mises used the term roughly to describe the opponents of laissez faire. While I do not defend any unspecified go[ing] on about 'statists', I think the word statist is useful, describes something worthy of disapprobation, and I think it worthwhile to decry statist ideology at length when necessary. Of course, Jan Lester has pointed out that libertarian anarchists are actually probably the opposite of fascists, since one can invert Mussolini's definition of fascism to come up with a very clear statement of anarchism: Nothing in the state, everything against the state, everything outside the state. Gotta love it. Gil Guillory, P.E. Process Design and Project Engineering KBR, KT-3131B email [EMAIL PROTECTED] phone 713-753-2724(w) or 281-362-8061(h) or 281-620-6995(m) fax 713-753-3508 or 713-753-5353 -Original Message- From: john hull [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] No. Although when you go on about statists you do sound a little like Marxists when they go on about captialists. :) smime.p7s Description: application/pkcs7-signature
Re: News Coverage and bad economics
Please take these discussions of personalities off-list. Thanks! -- Prof. Bryan Caplan Department of Economics George Mason University http://www.bcaplan.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] He wrote a letter, but did not post it because he felt that no one would have understood what he wanted to say, and besides it was not necessary that anyone but himself should understand it. Leo Tolstoy, *The Cossacks*
Babynomics
Question: At what can humans engage in economic behavior? Are there studies showing when children learn to trade ? Fabio
Re: News Coverage and bad economics
In a message dated 1/10/03 1:53:07 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: when you go on about statists you do sound a little like Marxists when they go on about captialists. :) -jsh I used statist-liberal and statist media to distinguish the adherents of big government from classical liberals. While Marxists may go on about capitalists, Marx actually thought that capitalists were a progressive force, having brought about an unprecedented abundance of material goods (he may have been the first economist or at least among the first economists to notice not merely that some European countries were wealthier than the rest of the world but that they had achieved something fundamentally new, the miracle of modern economic growth) and key to bringing on the inevitable communist revolution and the resulting anarchist socialist utopia. Maybe Marxists should study their own history. Marx, on the other hand, studied history, and he barely got anything right, so perhaps studying history doesn't guarantee good economics. :) David Levenstam
Lester's extreme compatibility thesis
From: Pinczewski-Lee, Joe (LRC) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Nothing in the state, everything against the state, everything outside the state. Which is why neither Mises, Rothbard, OR Mussolini ought never have been allowed near the levers of power. A world with the all inclusive Corporatist State or NO state would all be equally horrific. So, we debate at the margins of the middle ground for the best mix of us and me that works best. This is surely odd. Firstly, Mises was not an anarchist. Secondly, the whole point of anarchism is for no one to be near or at the levers of power; so, Rothbard never pined for such a position. It is a bold conjecture, though popular, to claim that anarchy would be as horrific as thoroughgoing fascism. I deny it. Also, I would like your account of how far we are from thoroughgoing fascism today (to get you started, what in the modern US is outside or against the state?). If we are sufficiently close to ideal fascism, do you mean to say that a switch to anarchy would not greatly affect our aggregate collective welfare? If not, what would? Of particular interest to me lately is Jan Lester's book _Escape from Leviathan_ which argues at (book) length for what Lester calls the extreme compatibility thesis: in practice...and in the long term, there are no systematic clashes among interpersonal liberty, general welfare, and market-anarchy... This is the exact opposite of your conjecture, but put in a more analytical framework. If you'd like to advance criticisms of Lester's thesis, I think that would be both interesting and on-topic for the list. What puzzles me about your post also is what you mean by the best mix of 'us' and 'me' that works the best. What does that mean? smime.p7s Description: application/pkcs7-signature
Re: going on about 'statists'
In a message dated 1/10/03 3:31:26 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Of course, Jan Lester has pointed out that libertarian anarchists are actually probably the opposite of fascists, since one can invert Mussolini's definition of fascism to come up with a very clear statement of anarchism: Nothing in the state, everything against the state, everything outside the state. In practice the fascists' states still contained private organizations, not the least of which was the Catholic Church, while in practice most communist states have allowed nothing private, not even Boy Scouts or Red Cross. Thus I've always thought of libertarian anarchists as being the opposite of communists. David Levenstam
RE: going on about 'statists'
--- Pinczewski-Lee, Joe (LRC) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ... A world with the all inclusive Corporatist State or NO state would all be equally horrific. So, we debate at the margins of the middle ground for the best mix of us and me that works best. Two questions: 1) How was Medieval anarchic Icerland horrific? 2) It is possible to have a voluntary, non-state we, so there must be some other necessary distinction. Fred Foldvary = [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: News Coverage and bad economics
In a message dated 1/10/03 5:07:11 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Please take these discussions of personalities off-list. Thanks! Especially given that it's my personality people were discussing, I wholeheartedly concur. It's bad enough to have to live with my personality 24/7 without hearing others talk about it. Thank you. David Levenstam
Re: Babynomics
Question: At what can humans engage in economic behavior? Are there studies showing when children learn to trade ? Fabio Humans start to engage in economic behavior as soon as they are born. Trade is not a necessary characteristic of economic behavior. The issue is rather whether infants are consciously choosing their actions. It seems to me that the genetic basis for behavior is the same in an infant as in an adult. Fred Foldvary = [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Lester's extreme compatibility thesis
What prevents a particular private law enforcement agency from engaging in mob-style protection? For example, in Friedman's Anarchy and Efficient Law, he states that, The most obvious and least likely is direct violence-a mini-war between my agency, attempting to arrest the burglar, and his agency attempting to defend him from arrest. A somewhat more plausible scenario is negotiation. Since warfare is expensive, agencies might include in the contracts they offer their customers a provision under which they are not obliged to defend customers against legitimate punishment for their actual crimes. (http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academic/Anarchy_and_Eff_Law/Anarchy_and_Eff_Law.html) First, if war were so expensive relative to peace why does it exist? Maybe peace is more expensive, in terms of risk for example, than open warfare. Second, I might say that going to war isn't expensive, going to war against ME is expensive, because I'm going to recruit the demons who walk the earth. I won't put Charles Manson in jail, I'll put him on the payroll. This is an honest question, one that has been vexing me. __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
