The Mises Community

Law in "practice" in an anarcho-capitalist society

Cortex — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 13:47:30 GMT

Hi, I have a couple of question regarding that subject. It is possible that I will make some mistakes about what the anarcho-capitalist stance on the legal system actually is. (And I quoted the word practice not because I doubt it, but because as far as I know there hasn't been any practice so far)

So,

1) The substantial civil law is lex contractus according to the non-agression principle. I can easily imagine that when buying/selling, renting, long story short the obligations are made for the NAP. No one enters an obligation without wanting it.

But how about rights in rem? Philosophically, the AC answer is the self-ownership, correct? But legally? In an AC society a person steals a thing on what grounds is his action illegal? He might reply:"Hey hey, I didn't agree with respecting your so-called property, I am convinced that property is a theft and that the thing is just as mine as yours and now you are pushing your political opinions on me." On what legal grounds is the right to private property applicable to all people?

2) The substantial criminal law. There is basically none or better there is no difference between the civil and the criminal law. Every action is harmful to a certain person, never to the society as whole thus rendering the term "criminal" meaningless. Fine, crystal clear so far. In a stateless society many crimes won't be crimes - typically vicitmless crime or treason which can actually be also considered a victimless crime depending on the definiton. But nevermind, sorry for the side-track. However some crimes as they are today are directed against an individual person. Evergreens like murders, theft or fraud. But those are already treated by the civil law. If you murder a person, you can be sued for damages by his relatives. So it seems to me that in a AC society, there is no such thing as a crime as we use the term today, either they are victimless and cannot be considered transgressions in an AC society or they merge with the civil law. Am i right?

3) The procedural law.

It would be better to cover in a simple hypothetical "case study" which will include the substantial law as well.

So, there is an anarcho-capitalist society. A and B are walking the street when A pick pockets B. B notices it and because he is a staunch pacifist he refuses to use violence to recover his wallet right here and rigt now. Instead this conversation ensues:

B: "Seriously, man, what's that supposed to mean?"

A: "Like what?"

B:"You stole my wallet"

A:"So?"

B:"Give it back to me."

A."No way, no how"

B:"Fine, as you like it, I will hire a private court and it will sentence you to return it."

A:"Yeah, good luck with that 'cause I ain't coming there."

A few days later a private court hired by B assembles and sentences A in absentia (because in their private lawbook there is nothing wrong with sentencing people in absentia) to return the wallet (or to give to B its monetary equivalent, whatever you like more) By that time A is sitting comfortably in his home and is enjoying what he consideres spoils of war when somebody kicks off the door and grabs the wallet from his hands. It turns out that it is a private company hired by B to execute the sentence. Consequently A hires a private court and a private company. He says that the wallet is his and that A is a liar. And so it goes on and on and the wallet changes its possessor until one of the gets tired of it, runs out of money or dies.

Where did I make a mistake? Or is anarcho-capitalism comfortable with this picture?

And let's imagine a scenarion beginng exactly the same with a slight change in B's behaviour. He fights back and recovers his wallet in a minute. Next thing he knows he is called to a private court hired by A who sues him for damages on his health. B refuses to pay stating that it was self-defence and hires another court that agrees with that it was righteous self-defence. Mean while a company hired by A takes his TV, because he refuses to pay. A thinks it is a closed case, but B refuses to accept it and hires a court that sentences A for theft. B hires a company to recover his television. A consideres this a theft and hire a court....

Do you think the Libertarian Party should try to become a viable third party?

bloomj31 — Sun, 29 Nov 2009 05:06:54 GMT

I've seen a lot of discussion of late about how the Republican party, in response mainly to the tea party activists, is trying to reaffirm itself as the party of conservatism. As a big believer in conservatism myself, I see this as a great thing. However, I recognize that there are a lot of libertarians who want to branch off into a new party and try to get elected on something resembling the Mises platform.

My question is if the people on this forum think this is a good idea or do you guys think the libertarians should try to go through the Republican party and try to run candidates (like Peter Schiff or Rand Paul) in general elections under a Republican banner?

I personally think that dividing the two parties will only weaken both. I would like to see the Republican party run more candidates with a limited government message that can appeal to both the libertarian base as well as what one might call the social conservative base. Thoughts?

The Myth of Scandinavian Socialism

krazy kaju — Sun, 04 Jan 2009 18:06:05 GMT

Many leftists often point to the "superiority" of Scandinavian "socialism." Leftists often use Denmark and Sweden as their examples, since they are the most successful Scandinavian nations. I already covered this issue in an earlier post, but I feel it is important to rehash this topic and to post a refutation of this leftist fallacy. For this post, we shall define Scandinavian countries as Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland, and Iceland. Some might dispute whether we should consider Finland and Iceland as Scandinavian, because of cultural differences (Finland) and geographical barriers (Iceland), though we the point of this post is not to argue whether or not these countries are Scandinavian, but to dispute the fact that they are indeed successful socialist states.

First of all, most leftists will use the USA as the measure of laissez faire capitalism. We all know that this is completely false, so I won't go into detail refuting this casuistry here but I'd like to point several things out: Hong Kong, Singapore, Ireland, and Australia were all rated as "more free," according to the Heritage Index of Economic Freedom. It would probably be better to compare these Scandinavian nations to Hong Kong or Ireland than to the United states.

Furthermore, Scandinavian nations are not nearly as socialist as leftists claim they are. Although the United States ranks higher than these nations on the Index of Economic Freedom, Scandinavian nations are more free in several decisive areas. Denmark has greater business freedom, monetary freedom, investment freedom, financial freedom, freedom from corruption, and labor freedom while having comparable property rights and trade freedom scores to the U.S. Sweden has greater business freedom and freedom from corruption, while having comparable trade freedom, monetary freedom, property rights enforcement, investment freedom, and financial freedom to the United States. Finland has greater business freedom, monetary freedom, and freedom from corruption than the United States, while having comparable property right enforcement, financial freedom, and trade freedom. Norway, the least successful Scandinavian nation, has greater freedom from corruption than the United States while having comparable business freedom, trade freedom, and property right enforcement. Iceland has greater business freedom, fiscal freedom, and freedom from corruption, while having comparable trade freedom and property right enforcement. In many ways, Scandinavian countries are more "laissez faire" than the United States.

To finish of this deal, here are some articles, excerpts, etc. about the failure of specific welfarist policies the Scandinavian countries follow, change occurring in these nations, and the like:

The Sweden Myth (LvMI)

How the Welfare State Corrupted Sweden (LvMI)

Sweden: Poorer Than You Think (LvMI)

Can the United States Learn from the Nordic Model? (Cato)

Sweden: From Capitalist Success to Welfare-State Sclerosis (Cato)

Should Scandinavia Be Our Model? Podcast (Cato)

Should the United States Be More Like Scandinavia? Policy Forum (Cato)

Johnny Munkhammar in Defense of Free Market Capitalism in Sweden Weeky Video (Cato)

Sweden Repeals Wealth Tax (Cato)

Sweden is a Tax Haven? (Cato)

The Welfare State Causes Sickness (Cato)

If the Swedish State is Socialist, What is Ours? (Cato)

New Challenge to the Nordic Welfare Model (Cato)

Introduction to Economics Review (Mackinac)

Free Enterprise in Action Review (Mackinac)

Institutions and Analysis (Mackinac)

Where Are the Omelettes? (Mackinac)

Scandinavian Irony (FEE)

Are High Taxes the Basis of Economic Growth? (FEE)

Sweden: Tightening the Screws (FEE)

Swedish Welfare (The New American)

Sweden after the Swedish model.

EU vs USA.

NORWAY: LOWER LIVING STANDARDS THAN THE US

Here is one more thing of interest to everyone interested in living standards in Scandinavian countries vs. the US. First, according to the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and the CIA World Factbook, the USA has a higher GDP per capita than any Scandinavian nation with the exception of Norway. Norway has one of the highest GDP per capita in the world, right after free market paradises such as Luxembourg and Liechtenstein, and oil rich nations such as Qatar and Kuwait.

Although Norway's GDP per capita seems to be boosted by huge oil and natural gas production, do Norwegians actually enjoy higher living standards than Americans? I dare say that they don't. A quick look around worldsalaries.org shows that:
1. Americans enjoy higher average disposable (after tax) AND gross (before tax) income than Norwegians do.
2. Americans enjoy a significantly lower cost of living than do Norwegians (1.00 vs. 1.487).

Errors and Loading Time Issues

Libertarian_for_Life — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 02:14:39 GMT

I don't know if I'm the only one who encounters these, but I've gotten about 10 errors from the forum today and countless more times where the loading bar times out and I have to try again. It's not just today either, I've had these problems here ever since I joined.

Anyone else getting this?

Ayn Rand and Libertarianism

Democracy for Breakfast — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 05:36:35 GMT

I don't understand Ayn Rand. She pretty much defined modern libertarianism, with Objectivism. However, the Ayn Rand Institute favors a "dog eat dog" world and has been the basis for neo-conservatism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Satanic_Bible

She made contributions to Satanism.

Dubai Debt Default -

chloe732 — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 04:59:33 GMT

I have read some of the past Daily Mises articles regarding Dubai. Question: Will the Dubai debt default announced on 11/25/09 cascade into the next major credit system collapse, or will this blow over?

I am looking for perspectives from the Austrian point of view. It seems to me that there has been massive central bank intervention in Dubai that drove the real estate boom. Are malinvestments ready to be liquidated? My understanding is that European or Russian banks have more exposure than U.S. banks to Dubai's woes. Could Dubai be Europe's or the Middle East's "Lehman"? Is Dubai only the tip of iceberg of Middle East malinvestment?

Questioning Austrian Economists...

nitz — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 21:15:33 GMT

Hello! I am new here. I had a general question posed to me on another forum from a guy that didnt take to well to the Austrian school of thought..to say the least. I thought maybe some of y'all would like to take a stab at it. Thanks for the help in advance.

His question:

As a graduate student in economics, I am interested in learning about the various schools of thought and the differing aspects of each. Being an advocate of the Austrian School, I was wondering if you could shed any light on the lack of mathematical models and econometrics within Austrian Economics. Of particular interest is justifying both the Austrian's disregard and rejection of continuity (and thus differentiation) especially given their contributions regarding the economic concept of marginalism.

Really Ignorant people you've encountered on a political basis.

Libertyandlife — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 06:00:57 GMT

Just went to a party, swear I've never heard heard someone so outright say they didn't want to talk about Ron Paul, thought he was crazy and a joke, and the same to libertarianism. She said she was a liberal democrat who supports Hillary, I've never heard someone so closed minded towards libertarian politics EVER. I've talked to both socialists, real conservatives who like rush, and other non libertarians who were in between, and I've had agreeing points with all, and much friendlier responses except her.

She had no openness to legalization of marijuana. She kept bashing libertarians with no actual points. Seemed to be so elitist in her words that I think it made her sound ignorant. She was even talking about all the experience shes had as if this complete justification for a lack of logic. She held no actual argument, just bashing and thought we were just talking or debating on politics. Debate, really? She thought Obama was actually doing something and when I told her he held all the same stances as Bush, she was giving that first year in office excuse.

I'm shocked some republicans are more open. She couldn't even answer my arguments, but kept contentlessly bashing, with no backing up. Sure some republicans are bigots, but some democrats are really pissing me off.

Similar experiences?

Is the Austrian School a supply-side school?

Tobbog — Sun, 29 Nov 2009 09:55:54 GMT

It's easy to see that Austrians don't belong to the demand-siders. But how about the supply-side? ABCt, for example, focuses totally on the supply (malinvestments, production structure, etc). Is it fair to say that the Austrian School belongs to the supply-side?

An idea for a more stable monetary system

mickanomics — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 18:25:23 GMT

I was thinking about some of the problems of fractional reserve banking. The way that the money supply can blow up and shrink again by such a large factor causes all sorts of problems that I know you Austrians are very familiar with. Part of the problem is that when a bank lends money, and that money gets spent then the money comes back to the bank and can be used as reserves to be lent out again (well 90% anyway). It occurred to me that a very simple system could be used to ensure that money only ever gets lent out once once once only. Simply have two types of money, one type that can be lent out and another which cant. Both of which have equal value. Lets call them red money and green money for convenience. Just have one rule in the system as follows: If someone wants to borrow money from a bank, the bank is only allowed to give them red money, all other aspects of the system could operate as before. The maximum amount of lending that can be done is then controlled by the ratio of red to green money.

So my questions are:

1. Would it work? i.e. would it produce an economic system less prone to ABCT problems?

2. Has it been thought of before?

So, about that bust...

Alex M — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 01:25:19 GMT

Clearly we haven't fully dealt with the consequences of the housing boom. So my questions are:

What's postponing the bust?
What is the likely outcome?
When might such an outcome occur?

Here are my answers, and I'd love to hear yours:

The money supply has doubled, the effects of which haven't fully dispersed throughout the economy.
Great Depression 2 or hyperinflation
2012? (seems to be the doom year of choice)

Not that I enjoy watching people suffer, but I think the Austrians are due for some vindication. So, what's taking so long?

Help finding a book

Fred Furash — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 00:11:58 GMT

Hi guys,

I've been having trouble remembering a book or its author. I've never actually read it, but remember it mentioned somewhere. The book concerned science and how the public often thought about new ideas as necessarily better than the old ones because of confusion as to the methodology involved, or something of the sort.

Any help suggesting titles please, I would probably recognize it.

Thanks,

Fred

Rand Paul turns out to be a neo-con

Sukrit Sabhlok — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 07:05:34 GMT

What good is it to win if you don't stand for anything? This is very disappointing.

BOWLING GREEN, KENTUCKY – Leading United States Senate candidate Rand Paul today criticized the Obama administration’s decision to close the Guantanamo Bay detention center and try terrorism suspects in United States Civil Courts.
“Foreign terrorists do not deserve the protections of our Constitution,” said Dr. Paul. “These thugs should stand before military tribunals and be kept off American soil. I will always fight to keep Kentucky safe and that starts with cracking down on our enemies.”

Lew Rockwell is right to stay away from the dirty business that is politics. Rand Paul deceived his supporters, and took money from them without telling them about his fundamental ideological differences with his more principled and honest father.

How to make the pin stand?

z1235 — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 22:48:51 GMT

I read that many here have gone the minarchy -> anarchy route . How exactly did you do the jump -- and preferably, without the crutches of objective morality and ethics? I have enjoyed reading many threads and participated in some -- experiences which I've found profoundly enjoyable and thought-provoking. Below are some thought's I've had after spending a month on this forum that are blocking any such leap for me right now:

Realization of NAP is Utopian:

NAP is really NIAP (No INITIAL Aggression Principle), as aggression in response to a perceived threat (or to aggresion) is presumably OK. The problem with implementation of this principle lays with the non-existence of an objectively-founded definition for a "threat" or "initiation of violence". By definition, a threat is in the eye of the threatened. If one FEELS threatened then, IN FACT, they are. Different agents perceive threats differently hence will react to them differently. Who is the "initial" aggressor if agent A felt that agent B looked at him "wrongly" (especially following the screaming contest they had the day before when B actually said: "I'll kill you!") making agent A feel threatened, thus justifying agent A smacking agent B in the face, upon which agent B felt perfectly justified to pull out his gun and shoot agent A in the face? Wasn't A's aggression justified as a response to a perceived threat? Wasn't B's aggression justified in response to A's aggresion? When a vicious feedback cycle like this develops, the damage done by repeated waves of "justified" aggression in response to equally "justified" aggression outshadows whatever minor factors contributed to the initiation of the whirlwind. With every new wave, the damage, thus the stakes, get higher making stronger aggression in response even more justified than the wave before. This makes NAP's implementation in reality extremely difficult (if not impossible), even in groups of sentient agents perfectly aware of the benefits of peace vs war. This "sensitivity to initial conditions" (from Complexity Theory) is what makes absolute freedom (liberty) under NAP utopian.

Structures grow/exist/sustain by SOME limitation of constituent's degrees of freedom:

Our bodies are systems of atoms bound by physical forces into a dynamic structure that is able to function day after day. Atoms with smaller amounts of forces limiting their freedom build less complex and less functional structures -- atoms in a pot of water, or atoms in a baloon. Absolutely free atoms in space amount to a bunch of atoms in space and not much else. Buildings are erected by LIMITING the degrees of freedom that each atom, molecule, piece of wood/metal is allowed to have. Without these constraints to their freedom, the building simply falls apart and is a building no more. Sustainable marriages limit the freedoms of each spouse and provide a stable and predictable environment for children's prosperity. Sustainable corporations (as social structures) are hierarchies and not anarchies, for a very strong reason. There's a CEO, with people answering to him/her, who in return are above others that answer to them. Each agent in this hierarchy voluntarily agrees to suspension of some freedom for the sake of a functioning hierarchy that ultimately rewards everyone in the structure with profits after a good execution. A corporation in which everyone is allowed to do whatever they see fit (even while respecting NAP) is not going to last one week.

Homesteading is arbitrary:

In relation to the write-up above about NAP. Determination of "initiation" of aggression or a "threat" is also closely connected with claims to property. If every agent is justified in using violence to "protect" their property then conflicting claims to property inevitably lead to aggression that is "justified" by both sides of the argument. In the Life Boat thread I used an example where an invented Klingon-Sharia law of homesteading (spitting or urinating on items as DNA-based homesteading) competes with Rothbard's "mixing your labor" . There's nothing unique (or objective) about ANY approach to homesteading. So who rightfully owns a property with which agent A has "mixed his labor" and which agent B has "spat or urinated on"? Who is the "initial" aggressor if each applies violence to defend their fully justifiable claim to the same property?

Defense/enforcement:

Self-interest and free-market forces would inevitably lead to turf-wars between private defense agencies (PDAs) -- or goons with guns. One morning -- after a night of gunshots and explosions -- a person knocks on your door informing you that your PDA is now "gone" and offering you a new "protection" contract with the only game in town -- "an offer you can't refuse" (voluntarily, of course). If you refuse though, you see your window shattered by a rock tomorrow. I guess, I better sign.

Gates/Buffett/etc.:

Why don't most productive/successful/rich agents in society (that I know of and that I have met) prefer anarcho-capitalism? Could one honestly say that they are ignorant about human nature/action and about societal systems that encourage prosperity?

Mises vs. Rothbard:

I'm reading concurrently both Human Action and Ethics of Liberty. I am left with the impression that Mises is the mental giant in this comparison. While I admired Rothbard in his Case Against the Fed, I couldn't help concluding that he should have stuck to economics only. Why couldn't Mises go the full length to anarcho-capitalism?

Third-world examples:

Many examples have been given about (almost state-less) communities organizing beneficial structures on their own. How many of those people would NOT apply for a citizenship lottery slot offered by Sweden or USA?

To summarize my concerns about sustainabilty of (otherwise very admirable and desirable concept of) anarcho-capitalizm (vs minarchism) I will provide the following analogy:

Theoretically, balancing a pin vertically on the surface of a dinner table is fairly easy and logical: One only needs to place the pin EXACTLY parallel to the forces of gravity so that they pull the pin STRAIGHT down and without ANY sideways components. On paper it looks perfect, but I have yet to see a pin standing for longer than one second before falling flat on the table. This is the "sensitivity to initial conditions" that I refered to above. It characterizes every complex system of acting/moving agents. The more productive and vibrant the system, the closer it is to the chaotic edge of sustainability. The ONLY thing that would make this "standing needle" system sustainable is limiting the system's degrees of freedom in some way. For example, placing the pin in a pot of honey. At the minimum, in this "freedom-limited" system the pin would stand longer before it falls. I see anarchy as a needle trying to "stand" on the table unsupported -- sensitivity to initial conditions inevitably pulling it down on the table. Minarchy: needle standing in a pot of honey. Communism/fascism/dictatorship: needle in a block of ice/concrete.

The question being: Acknowledging the benefits of BOTH liberty AND sustainability/prosperity, what's the minimum freedom/liberty -- at this stage of human evolutionary development -- that each agent MUST give up for sustainability and prosperity of the social structures in which he/she participates? How much MINIMAL "goo" (limitation of liberty) does the pin need to stay straight?

Macroeconomics Paper Help

Kotyonok — Sun, 29 Nov 2009 20:20:06 GMT

First off, hello to the forums. I just created an account, but I've frequented Mises for a quite some time.

I've got to write a paper for my macroeconomics class about the last eight recessions, their causes, and how they were resolved. It's supposed to be about 2000 words.

"Identify 8 recent business cycles in the US economy, from peak to trough. Identify the number of months between them. Find the unemployment rate and the inflation rate at each trough and peak. Which recession was worse? Why? Were monetary and fiscal policies used to help stabilize the economy? What was done? Are we currently in a recession? How can we tell?"

I'm posting on here because I can't find any real solid Austrian material on this subject specifically and it's getting frustrating because I know it's there.

Any help is much appreciated.

Stuff we can do

liberty student — Sun, 22 Feb 2009 21:17:52 GMT

Here is some stuff we can do.

Promote Mises.org books and the bookstore.
Promote liberty oriented web sites.
Increase our own knowledge of Austrian Economics and liberty oriented philosophy
Present a positive image of libertarianism
Spread articles and flyers.
Spread ebooks, youtubes and audio
Raise money for libertarian causes, through fund raising or your own direct charity
Live as free as possible. Not confront the state necessarily, but given choices, choose libertarian oriented activities, including but not limited to,
- Entrepreneurship
- Education
- Charity
- provide and use services the state fails at (raw milk, natural medicine, home schooling,data security)

Without going into too much detail, the propaganda corps always needs help. People with money could help pay libertarian students during summers and between semesters to write content, to create analysis. To make appropriate edits to Wikipedia to keep Austrian Econ pages up to date and accurate. To comment daily on Paul Krugman's blog. To create YouTube videos, to hand out lit on campus.

Feel free to add on.

But the gist is, there is a lot you can do, with little or no money, with little or no free time, on your own, without waiting for a plan, orders from a leader or collaborators. The hardest thing is getting started. People are slow to take the initial step. Once you start walking, it's easier to break into a run.

Accounting for "Exploitation" in Laissez Faire America

Snowflake — Sun, 29 Nov 2009 00:47:09 GMT

I just finished reading Preacher.

One thing that really struck me was Cassidy's flashbacks to Ireland in the early 1900s and his immigration to America. Ireland was a warzone at that time, getting shot up and bombed by the british. It is no wonder so many of them chose to immigrate to the United States. It seems obvious that other ethnic groups like italians and chinese would immigrate for similar reasons.

When Cassidy steps off the boat, he says its "like getting a second chance at life".

This is very much a contrast to what we got told in high school about this era. We are taught to feel sorry for them in their poverty and that it is capitalism's fault they are not treated better.

But I ask: In history, what government has ever fed, clothed, and housed millions of refugees? Particularly ones of inferior race? In the modern era of government, our borders are closed to some 2 billion living in warfare and poverty who would come here seeking a better life.

The problem was never that capitalism is evil. The oversupply of workers and paucity of employers was not caused by free enterprise, but rather the lack of it. If more countries had been capitalist there could have been more employers and no need for emigration.

And yet in spite of the near monopsony of employers in America, it still created the highest quality of life for the common man on earth.

I feel this is a very important argument to make. So much of the free market's critics focus on this era when it should be our greatest triumph: The time when people had a choice between government and freedom, and when millions gambled their lives in our favor.

Cheers Mises people.

What Communists think Libertarianism is?

Ansury — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 06:43:01 GMT

So I'm on this terrible forum in a stupid "communist filled" thread, and some guy (not me) says this to one of them:

"I am Libertarian. So, yes I am capitalist. I support economics and personal freedoms."

The response to this made me laugh out loud... then it hit me and I thought about poking my eyes out so I couldn't read it ever again:

If you're a libertarian you're a pro-capitalist, but not necessarily a capitalist. And I fail to see the rationality in being a pro-capitalist as a non-capitalist.*

Libertarianism is opposite to personal and economic freedoms. Libertarianism is based on the formation of multiple private tyrannies, instead of a state you at least have some influence over.

* = Here I believe he's saying he doesn't think workers can be "capitalists", because they're working for the capitalists...
But I find the last sentence here to be the "best".

Should I bother trying to define libertarianism for this guy, or is it just stupid at this point?

I think radicals like this are more likely to respond and reform (in time, after planting the seeds of doubt and being led in the right direction) and become active supporters of libertarianism than a "lay person" simply because they've shown that they have an interest in the general topic(s). Someone without a strong opinion may be easier to convince, but they're also less likely to be very active and vocal about the topic IMO. (This is why I torture myself talking to these nutjobs, in case anyone was wondering.)

Mises on Information and Interest Rates?

Lilburne — Sun, 29 Nov 2009 19:33:57 GMT

Can anyone point me to a passage in which Mises argues that central banks cannot have sufficient information to appropriately set interest rates?

"Trustee-ownership" of children

Libertarian_for_Life — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 04:27:31 GMT

I read this chapter or maybe part of a chapter from the Ethics of Liberty by Murray Rothbard

I'm very confused as to what Rothbard thinks a "trustee-ownership" of a child is. This is a quote where he explains what it is:

"The mother, then, becomes at the birth of her child its "trustee-owner," legally obliged only not to aggress against the child's person, since the child possesses the potential for self-ownership."

So a mother has ownership of child, except she can't aggress against him/her at all, so that would mean everything the child would be doing is of his free will. So what exactly does she have the ownership to?

As Rothbard says, the only thing a parent can legally force their children to do is follow established rules within their property or else the child can be kicked out. But this is also true for any person that comes into their house, so how does a parent own a child anymore than a neighbor coming to visit?

Isn't a child just technically a visitor that the parent's allow to stay with them for a long period of time?

Keynesian Comic Relief

Daniel — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 06:27:41 GMT

Highlights: Keynes discovered that people tend to consume less than they produce, which equals baad evulniz.

(Please visit the site to view this media)

Robert Vienneau

ZeroPoint — Sun, 29 Nov 2009 11:30:14 GMT

He seems to be one of the leading advocates against Austrian economics. Has anyone challenged him and if so where can I find it? Sraffa is his inspiration. http://robertvienneau.blogspot.com/

Book recommendation for Vietnam War

prr — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 04:46:19 GMT

I'd like to read a 200-500 page book on the Vietnam War this winter and have no real idea where to start. I'm open to reading a book from any perspective, although in addition to a recommendation I'd like to hear why you think your book is the best one to read. I have pretty much no background in this part of American history, although I do have a Master's so I can handle heavy reading.

Can't communal property work within a free market system?

SilentXtarian — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 20:16:14 GMT

I don't think that there's anything really wrong with communal property. As long as it's completely voluntary... and it's not owned by the state I don't see what's wrong with it. Communal property- collective property in a market society... it would be like joint ownership. It would take joint action... I mean I just think that for like some things like roads... if a group of city industrialists want to get together and build a road they can have communal property that way... we can have group ownership (completely voluntary ownership too).

I'm not suggesting that everything be owned by the state... but this would be without the state ownership of it. I know that most people are against it if it's public property owned by the state- but if we could have communal property owned by a group of individuals... who make the choice to do it themselves and have some sort of framework for how they would have a joint committees to deal with the property that wouldn't be wrong would it? I just want to know what other people think of my idea... because like I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with communal property as long as it's voluntary and not coercive and people want to do it. Is there anything wrong and contradictory with that? A lot of criticisms from the left on libertarianism comes on this front but I've thought of this as a solution to it... and... like this would be okay right? Unless I'm misunderstanding something I don't see why this wouldn't be consistent with austrian economics- and just again- I'm not advocating for state coercion... but a voluntary partnership by a group of individuals.

A Close Look at The Theory of Inflation.

tomozope — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 18:58:28 GMT

The following article by Byron Dale nails the cause of Price Inflation smack dead with the hammer of logic.

A Close Look at The Theory of Inflation

By Byron Dale

Webster’s New World College Dictionary states: Inflation – (a) an increase in the amount of money and credit in relation to the supply of goods and services. (b) an increase in the general price level, resulting from this, specif., an excessive or persistent increase, causing a decline in purchasing power.

Let’s assume for the moment that Webster’s definition is correct. If it is we need to address the issue of how and on what basis did the amount of money and credit increase without there being an increase in the goods and services. This increase in money and credit could not arise due to the need to pay for any existing goods or due to the need for more money or credit to purchase any increase in goods or services.

Black’s Law Dictionary defines Credit as “Time allowed to the buy of goods by the seller, in which to make payment for them.” –“The right granted by a creditor to a debtor to defer payment of debt or to incur debt and defer its payment.

According to this definition there would need to be an increase in the amount of goods and services coupled with a shortage of money needed to obtain those good or services before there would be any need for credit at all. All most every one has the lawful authority to create goods or provide a service. At this time only banks have the lawful authority to create money. As a general rule the goods are created and the services rendered before payment is made for the goods and services.

Therefore an increase in money needed only to gain a profit off of money in and of itself, without any ties to an increase in goods, is the only reason and the only way money could be created without there being an increase in goods or services.

The only way an increase in the money supply would increase prices would be if almost every thing was bought and sold at auctions where the price is determined by the bidding process. Personal observation and experience has shown me that ever few buyers offer to pay more than the seller’s asking price.

This fact in proven by the fact that so many things are now sold with the words on sale preceding the asking price, leading the buyers to believe they are buying the goods at less than the regular selling price. The fact that there is a shortage of money to buy all the goods that are for sale is proven by the fact that there is so many ads promising no money down and no interest for a certain length of time if one will only buy the goods right now.

Many writers use the example of the king taking the metal money he acquires through taxes and other means, then re-coining and debasing it by substituting less valuable metal for the more valuable metal. Therefore, the king is able to issue more coins with the same amount of the more valuable metals, thus inflating the money supply, resulting in increased prices. This only proves the king believed that he had a shortage of money.

There could only be truth to this line of thought if anyone was used to dealing in metal money where it would be possible to recognize that the new coins did not have the same metal composition as the old coins. The seller upon realizing that he was not receiving as much of the more valuable metal as he was expecting for his goods or services clearly might rise his prices to obtain the same amount of the more valuable metal as he was expecting.

Those facts are no longer in play today. We do not use metal money, if fact we don’t even use paper money. We only use bank generated numbers as our money. Everyone I know when given the amount of bank generated numbers that he was expecting is happy with his deal. No one can tell the difference in numbers like they can with metals.

Not one person in ten million truly understands how our money system works, the principle under which it functions and how it gets into circulation so the people can use it, and even fewer care. I doubt if one man in two million has any idea what the money supply is or whether it has increased or decreased, so why would people rise or lower there prices due to an increase or a decrease in the money supply when they didn’t even know that there had been one.

If we were using gold as money it is possible and in fact likely that in the area of a gold rush there could be a temporality rise in prices on the goods the gold miners needed. That rise in prices of goods would only last till people found out it is easier to get the gold by supplying the miners with more goods then it was trying to find more gold or when most of the new gold was mined out, harder to find or already owned by a few.

Webster’s Dictionary also states: Inflationary spiral - a continuous and accelerating rise in the prices of goods and services, primarily due to the interaction of increases in wages and costs.

A continuous and accelerating rise in the price of goods and services is clearing what we are experiencing. The question is why do costs keep increasing? To answer that question we have to truly understand how our money gets into circulation. Today all money goes into circulation as interest-bearing loans. When money is created as interest bearing debt, the debt owed goes up and the interest on that debt always drives up the cost of doing business. When governments borrow their interest cost increases follow by an increase in taxes. Interest always increases the cost of doing business. Interest also causes the debt increase but it does not increase the money supply nor does it increase goods or services. Interest on debt also increases the need for an increase in the money supply to pay added cost of the interest or someone must suffer a loss of money. Add to this when the principal of a loan is repaid the money is extinguished causing a decrease in the money supply until someone borrows more money. When money is loaned into circulation at interest, interest is the only cost that can’t be eliminated without stopping the increase in the money supply.

There are only three increases in the cost of doing business that courts will force you to pay, interest, taxes and rent. When one suffers from a rise in interest, taxes or rent they must raise their prices or cut your living standard. When your standard of living starts to suffer most people try to get an increase in wages.

Add greed and growing governmental regulations to interest and taxes and you have the true cause of price inflation. Do you really think that the price of gasoline went up to over $4 a gallon because there was a sudden increase in the money supply? If is clear that when the cost of gasoline went up over $4 a gallon the price of everything that was shipped had to go up or someone’s profit had to go down. The continuous increase in the nation’s interest bearing debt is the cause of our continuous and accelerating rise in prices.