A Challenge for Moorobot

[Borodog]

I dare you to read this book. I <font color="red">triple dog dare</font> you.

Take as long as you like.

[moorobot]

Thanks for the book Borodog. One question first however, for any of you: why does Rothbard get no 'love'/attention from professional economists and political philosophers? Why aren't his views talked about in intros to econ or poli. philosophy/theory? Nozick stated a view that was equally far from the mainstream and he recieved a lot of attention. I had heard of Hayek, Gauthier and Narveson before reading a single post in this forume. Why not Rothbard?

[Borodog]

Rothbard gets plenty of attention from professional economists and political philosophers.

But, to understand why the concepts of the Austrian School are not in vogue amongst the majority of professional economists and political philosophers, one has only to answer these simple questions:

Who pays the majority of professional economists and political philosophers? Where does the money come from to pay them? What does the Austrian School have to say about such arrangements?

[moorobot]

[ QUOTE ]


Rothbard gets plenty of attention from professional economists and political philosophers.

But, to understand why the concepts of the Austrian School are not in vogue amongst the majority of professional economists and political philosophers, one has only to answer these simple questions:

Who pays the majority of professional economists and political philosophers? Where does the money come from to pay them? What does the Austrian School have to say about such arrangements?


[/ QUOTE ] The person who taught me most of what I know about the aims and methods of contemporary political philosophy was a self-described libertarian. Why didn't he introduce me to Rothbard?

The aims and methods of modern macroeconomics was taught to me by a right wing economist; he called me 'my liberal friend' in class. Why hasn't he mentioned him?

If everybody bases what they believe in on what benefits them, then we can never know when we have found the truth; each person;s writings have nothing more than biographical importance, and they tell us nothing about how the world works.

Nozick didn't believe in state-funded schools either; he got plenty of attention.

[The once and future king]

[ QUOTE ]
Who pays the majority of professional economists and political philosophers? Where does the money come from to pay them? What does the Austrian School have to say about such arrangements?

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps the ACs tiny academic community and extreme fringe lay community should consider this research.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


Rothbard gets plenty of attention from professional economists and political philosophers.

But, to understand why the concepts of the Austrian School are not in vogue amongst the majority of professional economists and political philosophers, one has only to answer these simple questions:

Who pays the majority of professional economists and political philosophers? Where does the money come from to pay them? What does the Austrian School have to say about such arrangements?


[/ QUOTE ] The person who taught me most of what I know about the aims and methods of contemporary political philosophy was a self-described libertarian. Why didn't he introduce me to Rothbard?

[/ QUOTE ]

And if he had, would you have asked, "Why haven't I heard of him before?" and used it as an excuse to dismiss him?

[ QUOTE ]
The aims and methods of modern macroeconomics was taught to me by a right wing economist; he called me 'my liberal friend' in class. Why hasn't he mentioned him?

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps because he's a right wing economist?

[ QUOTE ]
If everybody bases what they believe in on what benefits them, then we can never know when we have found the truth; each person;s writings have nothing more than biographical importance, and they tell us nothing about how the world works.

[/ QUOTE ]

Read Man, Economy, and State. It contains the truth.

[ QUOTE ]
Nozick didn't believe in state-funded schools either; he got plenty of attention.

[/ QUOTE ]

Who cares? Are you going to read the book or not? Are you skeered?

[BluffTHIS!]

Boro,

I skipped to the concluding chapter and read the majority of that. Below is a table showing the supposed differences between an AC economy and one in which there is significant governmental interevention, either of a partially or totally socialist variety:

Some Consequences of:

THE MARKET PRINCIPLE

individual freedom
general mutual benefit (maximized social utilitiy)
mutual harmony
peace
power of man over nature
most efficient satisfaction of consumer wants
economic calculation
incentives for production and advance in living standards


THE HEGEMONIC PRINCIPLE

coercion
exploitation (benefit of one group at the expense of another)
caste conflict: war of all against all
war
disruption of want satisfaction
calculational chaos
destruction of incentives: capital consumption and regression of living standards


Now I don't dispute that socialism and communism can lead to the economic ills given in the second group. But I do dispute that a totally unregulated captialism brings the utopian benefits of the first group. This is because precisely of what the author states interferes with such AC, which is the intervention of government and criminals. In this case the criminals are oligarchic interests who do not really have the incentive to invest capital in technology and provide higher living standards through better jobs and living conditions for those at the bottom of society who are willing to work, but instead take the easy route of cheap capital labor intensive industries, with oligarchical collusion when necessary to artifically set wages lower than what the market would dictate in a free economy. And since AC abhors governmental regulation, then there is nothing to stop such oligarchical interests.

If you dispute what I have said, then take the economy of Victorian Britain in the year 1830 before various reformist laws were passed, and show how that economy and the economic conditions of all levels of society were beneficial examples of AC, or how if they were not, that the economy of that year was hampered by what government regulations to a degree sufficient to keep it from providing those benefits.

What you will see in fact is that all the supposed ills of socialism were present in that hyper AC economy and political system.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
I skipped to the concluding chapter . . . [ QUOTE ]


How about you don't, and ask me again when you're done.

[BluffTHIS!]

Boro,

How about you answer the questions I put anyway and not use the copout that I didn't read the whole book? If you can provide a cogent answer that necessitates my reading more of the book in order to understand that answer, then I will selectively read more of it in an attempt to do so.

Of course this all presumes that you can remember enough of a book you've read to remember the reasons you support its conclusions. If not, then maybe you are the one who needs to read it again.

[madnak]

Why should Borodog have to explain it to you, when you have a book that does so explicitly and in depth?

You just looked at the conclusions drawn based on Rothbard's reasoning, but didn't look at the reasoning itself. And you think it's valid to criticize based on that? If you want to know why Rothbard believes in the benefits of a free market, you can find his reasons clearly outlined in the book.