Austrian economics lacks a formalized, self-conscious theory of environmental economics. But in fact all of the major elements of such a theory already exist and in that sense what is needed is to piece together the relevant aspects of Austrian economics in order to draw out and focus a theory that is already there.
If you want a boost, read through the 1,200 signatures on the Hoppe Blog. It certainly impresses you with its internationalism (Poland, Russia, China, Brazil, Spain, Lithuania, and on and on) and its interdisciplinary appeal (economics but also history, philosophy, natural sciences, engineering, and more).
This recent comment jumps out:
This article published in the Monthly Review, March 2005, meaning this year, not a century ago:
This is worth several readings: Justin Raimondo at his best defends Thomas Woods on American history.
From and to the Chronicle of Higher Education for a published article:
Dear Professor Hoppe, here are some of the questions I’d like to pursue.
1) What do you think of the standard defined by the provost -- that you must “cease mischaracterizing opinion as objective fact in the educational environment”?
I recall years back pointing out to a liberal how absurd it was that some federal agencies have lobbyists on staff to promote their agenda and funding.... to Congress. It’s bad enough that we pay taxes to fund the agencies, and Congress, said I, but do we have to fork over additional taxes to pay shills of the federal agencies to try to persuade the federal legislature to pass laws that expand said agency and thus take even more of our taxes? Talk about adding injury to injury.
As I’ve noted previously, utilitarian proponents of patent laws favor IP because it “promotes” innovation. But they have no principled reason to oppose setting up a tax funded government commission to “reward” innovators. Intellectual property and its discontents, by Tom Giovanetti, points out that certain
