Michael Otsuka endeavors to combine two fundamental principles of political philosophy, usually considered polar opposites. In my view, his ingenious attempt does not succeed; but his failure has much to teach us.
Ludwig von Mises devoted much attention to methodology. Many people interested in Austrian economics turn from his discussions of the a priori and verstehen in bafflement and boredom. "Enough of these philosophical abstractions," they say; "what we want is economics". No greater mistake can be imagined if one wishes to understand Mises's work.
On Labor Day, Americans honor the often incredible contributions of its working men and women.
The ACLU constantly files lawsuits against property owners who attempt to protect their property rights. Many of these lawsuits are supposedly to protect free speech rights. But can there be a right to freedom of speech unless that right is firmly based on property rights?
No one can deny the fact that public law enforcement falls short of being a success. However, many believe that the solution is giving more entitlement to the state to allocate funds for improvements, such as the installation of surveillance cameras. When individuals face tribulations or the status of the economy is in shambles, people see the state as the source of salvation instead of the source of the problem.
Since 9-11, many commentators have asked question: can the West can really ever be at peace with Islam? If the cooperative spirit of the market economy prevails, the answer is yes. An example is Malaysia, which defies the stereotype. It shows what peace is possible when governments permit market exchange and freedom of cultural contact, while avoiding imperial overreach and belligerence.
Sumner was referring to the seemingly endless attempts to harness the power of the State to further one's own ends at the expense of other people. All human types—generals, millionaires, priests, scholars and so on—have made these attempts. The disease is not confined by race, color or creed, by age or occupation, by democracy or dictatorship. The desire to live at the expense of other men is a constant theme that runs through all of human history.
Christopher Westley formulates his own law of economics, which highlights how consumers apply much lower standards to government output, no matter what it is, than they do to the output that results from private markets. How else to explain hysteria about market failure and corporate mis-behavior as compared with unending government government failure?
When today's clergymen expound on issues of political economy we are often given a stark choice. Will we allow companies to selfishly pursue profits or will they recognize a wider social mission? Will workers be paid the barely subsistent market wage or will they be paid a more Christian "living wage"? Even conservatives tell us we must choose between markets and compassion.
Those of us who know some economics are used to wincing when the typical clergyman makes a pronouncement on political economy. So it comes as a bit of a shock to read Late Medieval religious figures, avowedly concerned with justice and morality, and find that not only are they economically literate but that in many cases their economic theory was far more advanced than many professional economists who came after them.
