Casual observation of the last thirty years or so indicates that the role government plays in the lives of individuals has been increasing. Within the internal structure of government itself there are a number of reasons for this, but perhaps the overriding factor that has given way to this state of affairs is the fact that a large part of the public looks to government as the ultimate “problem-solver.” Political entrepreneurs have been quick to respond.
Long before receiving his Nobel Prize, Friedrich von Hayek was well respected in the academic community. John Maynard Keynes had glowing praise for Hayek’s 1944 The Road to Serfdom. Milton Friedman and Paul Samuelson, antagonists on many issues, agree that Hayek’s 1945 “The Use of Knowledge in Society” was a major contribution to political-economic thought.
The theory of natural rights is often put forward as competition of moral relativism, most recently in an article in this journal by Loren Lomasky. I want to suggest, on the contrary, that the two positions are compatible and, indeed, that moral relativism provides the only plausible foundation for a theory of natural rights.
Professor Loren E. Lomasky gives his critique of Gilbert Harman’s “Moral Relativism as a Foundation for Natural Rights” published in The Journal of Libertarian Studies.
In this paper, Christopher W. Morris attempts to defend the natural right of freedom from the premise of human autonomy.
The point to be emphasized in this paper is that if one starts with a different view of efficiency and market optimality, an entirely different set of conclusions relative to government intervention can be reached. In particular we will examine the approach to economics taken by the Austrian School and detail how that approach is applied to arrive at the Austrian theory of efficiency. In addition, we will examine how Austrians view government interventions into the market and their ultimate conclusions on the role of government in society.
The Levellers were a group of politically active soldiers and civilians whose organized efforts during the English Civil War (1642–1649) were based on their beliefs in individual liberty. John Lilburne was their popularly recognized leader, but it is in the works of his associate, Richard Overton, that we find the most consistent expression of their incipient libertarianism.
In a Notebook “D” entry dated January 29, 1840, Josiah Warren gave the plan for his “New Social Arrangements” which would emphasize human freedom. Writing in New Harmony, Indiana, he claimed that his plan was intended to restore the natural liberty of mankind gradually — to render to labor its just reward — and to establish security, peace, and the means of enjoyment to all. His ideal society was to be conducted with a watchful and strict regard to the laws of human nature, particularly its individualities.
Collected together in this special issue of the Journal of Libertarian Studies is an apparently quite disparate group of articles on central economic planning, covering some theoretical disputes concerning it as well as some historical instances of attempts to put it into practice. These articles were written independently of one another, yet there runs throughout a single coherent theme: that the notion of planning an entire economy from the center is an utter sham both theoretically and practically.
For industry to be operated effectively, it is necessary that those in charge be able to perform “economic calculation.” It does not matter at all, for the purposes of this argument, whether “those in charge” are professional managers, acquisitive capitalists, workers’ councils or other democratically- elected assemblies, or holy men appointed by the gods. The problem of economic calculation which faces them is examined in more detail in some of the following essays, but the general idea can be explained very briefly and simply.
