[This article is excerpted from chapter 15 of Human Action.]
In nature there prevail irreconcilable conflicts of interests. The means of subsistence are scarce. Proliferation tends to outrun subsistence. Only the fittest plants and animals survive. The antagonism between an animal starving to death and another that snatches the food away from it is implacable.
As you may recall, I’m a libertarian and intensely interested in various normative theories regarding property rights, including justifications thereof, Lockean-type homesteading theories, and Austrian economics as related thereto. I have found your own formulations in this regard (e.g. in sec.
In a recent EconTalk podcast, Russell Roberts interviews Michele Boldrin about his intellectual property views. Though Boldrin is not an Austrian, the interview is fascinating and compelling. Roberts and Boldrin both have refreshingly libertarian views. I was by Boldrin’s comments about the “Good” versus the “Bad” Schumpeter; and by their extended discussion of the nature of competition, and why practically implementable ideas are not public goods.
Ever since I was in law school I’ve been irritated at various circular arguments used to justify various laws, policies, or legal rulings. A good example is the notion of “detrimental reliance,” which is sometimes used to justify enforcing a contract. The question arises: why should a promise be enforceable? The answer? Because the promisee reasonably relied on it to his detriment, so that if the promise is not enforced, then the promisee would suffer damage.
Despite all of the rhetoric we hear from mainstream economists and our government masters, the unprecedented printing of U.S. Dollars is taking its toll:
The U.S. dollar’s day of reckoning may be inching closer as its status as a safe-haven currency fades with every uptick in stocks and commodities and its potential risks – debt and inflation – are brought under a harsher spotlight.
