A Beginner’s Guide to Austrian Economics
From the article:
The “Austrian School” of economics grew out of the work of the late 19th and 20th century Vienna economists Carl Menger, Eugen von Bohm-Bawerk, Ludwig von Mises, and Friedrich Hayek (though of course Austrian School economists need not hail from Austria). Austrians focus strongly on the analysis of individual human action. This is known as praxeology, the study of the logical implications of the fact that individuals act with purpose, from which all economic theory can be deduced. Austrians also note the correlation between greater economic freedom and greater political and moral freedom. This in part explains why Austrian economics is the intellectual foundation for libertarianism. Austrians rightly attribute the repeated implosions of mainstream Keynesian economics to the latter’s focus on empirical observations, mathematical models, and statistical analysis.
The “Austrian School” of economics grew out of the work of the late 19th and 20th century Vienna economists Carl Menger, Eugen von Bohm-Bawerk, Ludwig von Mises, and Friedrich Hayek (though of course Austrian School economists need not hail from Austria). Austrians focus strongly on the analysis of individual human action. This is known as praxeology, the study of the logical implications of the fact that individuals act with purpose, from which all economic theory can be deduced. Austrians also note the correlation between greater economic freedom and greater political and moral freedom. This in part explains why Austrian economics is the intellectual foundation for libertarianism. Austrians rightly attribute the repeated implosions of mainstream Keynesian economics to the latter’s focus on empirical observations, mathematical models, and statistical analysis.
Laws don't 'spring from the brow of Zeus.' They are written by humans to delineate acceptable versus unacceptable activities, and the acceptability or unacceptability of ANY such prescribed or proscribed activities ARE defined by consensus, whether any Logic (or lack of it) is involved!
A nice example is the historic War on Drugs. There's LOTS of 'logic' that shows that the laws on the books today are not only ineffective but counterproductive compared to alternatives.
BUT, the laws were enacted by people allowed to make such decisions based on who got elected to which position and what CONSENSUS the citizens they allegedly represented 'asked them to do.'
I claim that virtually everything in the world of Law IS based on consensus, whether there's any Logic involved or not.
Hell, if you look at the conspiracy theorists, the WTC buildings' collapses seem to be more frequently 'explained' by consensus reports than by strictly 'scientific' or 'engineering' logic at all!
And yes, "I ARE an 'enjunear'!"
:)
Thanks.
You (we) don't GET laws enacted until there IS a consensus of what IS "right or wrong" AND a majority (consensus) votes to enact and support the law/decision.
I'm really surprised you can't separate those causes and effects and influences, but continue to call the process one of "logic."
Whatever....
Thanks...
There was a "nanny" sometime in the past year who refused to perform her duties and refused to depart the premises. Same thing.
Ciao!
From MY personal, engineering, Socratic, atheistic and whatever-the-fuck other perspective, "Natural Rights" is a whole category which comes under the umbrella of my oft-stated "It's All By Agreement" Laws...
Natural Rights are 'rights' agreed-upon by a consensus/majority/whatever of a culture/society as to what 'natural rights' ARE!
They're not 'inscribed in stone' or scientifically researchable or analytically provable by anyone on Either Side of such a discussion, so, imnsho, to assert that they Exist Of, For or By Themselves is some kind of extreme act of hubris or illogic.
Sort of like "God Exists Because See, This Book Says So... "
Ditto, "Natural Rights."
Now, cut the name calling and down-voting each other because you're in hard disagreement!
I disagree that Robbie's "I've always had a problem with Natural Rights..." constitutes 'spam,' which, I understand to be one of the few criteria in The Gulch for down-voting a comment. I consider insults to be almost always spam unless they're accompanied with some kind of link, reference or reasoning behind the disagreement.
Happier New Year, guys... ?
I guess it would make sense in someplace like Detroit, if there are many owners abandoning their property.
There are some merits to the scarcity approach. The oceans were essentially "free" to all until navies became able to patrol and control them, at which time they began to be less and less that wasn't controlled - thus scarce. Similarly, the North American continent was "free" - non-homesteaded - at a time when all of Europe had already been totally homesteaded. There was no need for property rights/law in the earliest years of the westward movement since there was so much open land (let's not get into a discussion of whether the natives "owned" that land as at this point it is moot). Only after home-steading was applied did property rights begin to have meaning.
As for IP, it seems logical that an individual who creates an idea should retain the rights to that idea, and I would say that they retain such rights for their life-span. As such, they can license the ability to utilize the idea or even sell those rights outright (which then brings into question the timespan of such rights should be enforced). What I do not agree to is that the individual who first comes up with an idea can claim sole ownership over another individual who comes up with the same idea totally independently. Yes, that brings up the question of "how do you know it was totally independent?" but that seems immaterial to the basis of the issue. If one person who comes up with an idea owns the product of his mind, why shouldn't a second person with the same idea not own his product? Some here will say that rarely occurs, but I would say the rate of occurrence is immaterial. If it does occur at any frequency, then it is a real and fundamental flaw to "natural rights."
btw - that does not negate that those rights may be "God given." My view is that God did bestow those rights on mankind, but the free-will of man subverts those rights of their fellow man.
dbhaling might do well to look at how often and in what contexts the word 'arbitrary' keeps appearing in that link.
And though the concept might occur somewhere in the parts of the writeup that I hadn't gotten to, I think the author might agree with my position/belief that 'ownership' of tangible properties comes only with the ability to defend it from someone else taking it from you. Suing them after the fact of theft is a socially-agreed-upon remedy. Keeping 'your land' as your own, and particularly on a national level or scope, depends on the strength of your defensive forces being able to repel any and every invader that wants to take it from you... even if you've "won" it by force from someone else in the past.
Thanks, Robbie! Most of that argument thread skirts the issue of 'agreement' and 'social contract' that I kept trying to raise. I have problems with "Natural Laws" being used to justify things when even Natural Laws 'exist' based on "Agreement" between folks that believe in them!
I forget... is that a truism, tautology or just a Catch-22?
:)
Load more comments...