Business Ethics and the Austrian Tradition in Economics
Time spent as a growing libertarian activist took nothing away from my deepening academic studies. When I returned in the Fall of , the beginning of my junior year at NYU, I had already taken courses with some of the finest historians that the Department of History had to offer, including Richard Hull and colonial historians Patricia Bonomi and Gloria Main. Simultaneously, my acquaintance with Murray Rothbard had developed into a collegial friendship; Murray's work had an enormous impact on my growing libertarian perspective and he never hesitated, in countless phone conversations, to provide me with insightful guidance and advice on the development of my professional course of study see " How I Became a Libertarian ".
This work culminated with my first professional article published in The Historian the NYU undergraduate history journal in on " Government and the Railroads in World War I " [pdf] and in my undergraduate senior honors thesis, directed by labor historian Daniel Walkowitz, " The Implications of Interventionism: An Analysis of the Pullman Strike " [pdf]. In fairness, many years later, I criticized aspects of Rothbard's work in a full scholarly exegesis of its scope, as a segment of my doctoral dissertation, from which I derived Part II of my book, Total Freedom: Toward a Dialectical Libertarianism , the culminating work of my "Dialectics and Liberty Trilogy" which began with Marx, Hayek, and Utopia and Ayn Rand: The Russian Radical.
That critique, however, is itself evidence of the impact that Rothbard had made on my libertarian studiessince it was simultaneously my attempt to make visible, and to grapple with, his many contributions, something that too many contemporary scholars had simply ignored. It was in part my commitment to making those contributions visible that I approached Professor Richard Hull in the fall semester of At the time, Professor Hull was the amiable advisor for both undergraduate students of history and The Historian. I told him that there was, indeed, considerable interest among the members of the Undergraduate History Society in Rothbard's iconoclastic approach and I urged him to extend a departmental invitation to Murray to speak before students and faculty of the Department of History.
The result of that invitation was Murray's talk on "Libertarian Paradigms in American History," a lecture that he gave on December 4, at 4 pm in room of the Main Building. Professor Hull encouraged me to introduce Murray to a standing-room only crowd of well over people. I highlighted virtually all of Rothbard's historical works, in particular, while cautioning the crowd that it would not be easy to pigeonhole him as a New Right or New Left historian; clearly, I suggested, Murray Rothbard was forging a unique interpretive approach to the study of history.
Virtually all of the department's historians were in attendance that afternoon; Murray knew many of them personally, and after the lecture, he exchanged some warm words with Gloria Main, since he had referred in his talk to Jackson Turner Main, her husband, whose work on the Antifederalists he recommended highly. The central theme of Rothbard's lecture was the conflict between "Liberty" and "Power" throughout history.
He did not deny the complexities of historical events and did not disapprove of alternative approaches to the understanding of history. Drawing from Albert Jay Nock, however, he believed that the contest between "social power" embodied in voluntary institutions and trade and "state power" in which certain interests used the coercive instruments of government to expropriate others for their own benefit was central to understanding the ebb and flow of historical events.
Social power, which reached its apex in the eighteenth and nineteenth century, breeds prosperity, civilization, and culture; state power, which came to dominate the twentieth century, produced the most regressive period in human history—as government expanded its powers through warfare and a maze of regulatory agencies, central banking, and welfare-state bureaucracies.
Throughout his talk, he drew on the pioneering scholarship of Bernard Bailyn on the ideological origins of the American Revolution; Jackson Turner Main on the role of the Antifederalists in restraining, through the Bill of Rights, the "nationalist" forces that forged the counter-revolutionary Constitution; Paul Kleppner, who provides an enlightening take on the struggle between "liturgical" and "pietist" cultural forces, the latter viewed as a key element in the emergence of the Progressive Era and the growth of government intervention; and Gabriel Kolko, whose revisionist work on the role of big business in the move toward the regulatory state explains much about the rise of corporatist statism in the twentieth century and beyond.
The entire minute talk, which included a brief question-and-answer session, is peppered with that edgy Rothbardian wit, which entertained as much as it informed. By the end of the lecture, Rothbard was given a standing ovation. So enthralled was I by the success of that December lecture that in September , I extended an invitation to Murray to be among the speakers featured in a nearly week-long "Libertython" sponsored by the NYU chapter of Students for a Libertarian Societydedicated to exploring the politics, economics, and philosophy of freedom.
On September 23, , he gave the second of six scheduled lectures that day. His lecture focused on "The Crisis of American Foreign Policy," wherein I introduced him to a slightly smaller audience than the event sponsored by the History Department. The size of the audience didn't matter; for Rothbard, there was nothing more important than the issue of war and peace.
As he put it, libertarians were usually quite good in opposing the regulations of OSHA or criticizing the destructive effects of price controls. But when faced with the role of the warfare state as the single most important factor in the expansion of government power: "Blank out"a turn of phrase he used, giving credit to Ayn Randwas the typical response he'd witnessed from far too many libertarians.
By not focusing enough attention on the role of "war and peace," all the other issues concerning price control, free will versus determinism, and so forth, become "pointless With a bit of gallows humor, he couldn't resist criticizing the U. As the antidote to war, he cited W. Fields, who, when asked by the Saturday Evening Post how to end World War II, remarked: "Take the leaders of both sides or all sides, in the Hollywood Bowl, and let them fight it out with sackfuls of guns.
Some will have difficulty accepting Rothbard's argument that in any clash between "democratic" and "dictatorial" countries, the latter is not necessarily the source of contemporary conflict. In fact, Rothbard argues, the foreign policy of the "democratic" United States has been at the root of many of the global conflicts in the post-World War II era. Included here as well are several self-acknowledged "digs" that Rothbard takes at the Libertarian Party's Presidential candidate, Ed Clark, with some surprising comments on subjects such as immigration policy. Except for those who were present at these two events, these two lectures have not been heard by anyone since I had been the only person with recorded copies of these Rothbard lectures and it is remarkable that these recordings survived.
Indeed, an apartment fire in October nearly consumed my library—and my family. Fortunately, we survived, as did most of my books, audio and video cassettes, and other recordings. The "lost" Rothbard lectures were found under two feet of ash and sheetrock. I later digitized them for the sake of posterity and have donated these materials to the Mises Institute , which has become a repository of so much of Rothbard's corpus. I am delighted that they will now be heard for the first time in nearly four decades. My friend, Ryan Neugebauer, often puts up some wonderfully inspiring posts that provide us with the opportunity to truly contemplate not just the state of our outer world, but the state of our inner world.
The quote resonated with mefor obvious reasons. Having lived a life battling a congenital medical condition, and having recently posted on the theme, " Grant That I May Not Criticize My Neighbor Until I've Walked a Mile in His Moccasins ," it does upset me when folks say, "I've had this surgery and that surgery, but look who I'm talking to: Given all you've gone through, I shouldn't even complain.
I wrote on this very issue in a postscript to the Folks interview, published back in January , which focused on my medical woes:. The point is methodological, epistemological, psychological, and ethical. My evidence is only anecdotal, but I have found that those who drop context in their evaluation of anything or anybody show neither wisdom about the complexities of social conditionsnor empathy toward other people in the human community.
I didn't want to hijack Ryan's thread, but as always, his posts give me pause, and offer an opportunity to think a little bit more clearly about issues that touch upon what it means to be human. Theroux of the Independent Institute. I very rarely review books for Notablog, but this sure did look like an interesting work. And it is, in fact, a challenging volume worthy of attention. Consisting of seven chapters written by a diverse group of authors, it is edited by Robert M.
Whaples and includes a foreword by Michael Novak. The book engages in a dialogue of sorts with Pope Francis specifically on matters of political economy and social justice. Novak states upfront that "the book shares [the Pope's] commitment to Judeo-Christian teachings and institutions. In the process, the book's authors are seeking constructively to engage and educate civic and business leaders and the general public to understand the legacy and meaning of the natural law, moral and economic principles of liberty, personal responsibility, enterprise, civic virtue, family and community, and the rule of law" xix.
But editor Whaples makes it clear in his Introduction that this book is designed "to advance the dialogue at a critical juncture" in Pope Francis's papal reign 2. It seeks to educate the papacy on the virtues of free markets in resolving many of the problems that the Pope has blamed on "capitalism"whatever that term means. Indeed, referring to Pope John Paul II, Novak suggests that "capitalism" means different things to different folks: for some, it is about the liberating force of free trade and open markets; for others, it is about special privileges vested in the wealthy by a state that bolsters their power at the expense of the poor xxv.
And nothing could be more un-Christian than embracing a system that is designed to exploit the least-advantaged people in a society.
September 08, 12222
One of the most important contributions of this book is that it places Pope Francis's views of capitalism in an understandable context. This is a man who came from Argentinawith its history of Peronist corporatism, which enriched its business clients. And if this is what Pope Francis views as "a model of capitalism," one "that friends of free markets rightly reject as capitalism at its worst," not reflective of how markets work under different institutional and cultural contexts 3 , then it certainly helps to explain the Pope's "much lower opinion of capitalism and market economies than most economists" This is a crucially important point in any exploration of the Pope's economic perspective.
As one who has embraced dialectical method , the supreme "art of context-keeping," I have grown wary of using the very term "capitalism"despite Ayn Rand's own projection of the "unknown ideal" that such a social system would embody. Her concept of "capitalism" is almost a Weberian "ideal type," organically connected to the notion of individual rights, in which all property is privately owned.
But even she argues that such a system has never existed in its purest form. In many ways, her ahistorical re-conceptualization of terms such as "capitalism" and even "government" ideally viewed as a voluntarily funded institution strictly limited to the protection of individual rights differs fundamentally from " the known reality. Given this reality, I found Andrew M. Yuengert argues that, as a "citizen of Argentinaa country that is without political institutions capable of putting the economy at the service of the common good and that instead uses and is used by business and political interests to increase the power of business and political elites," the Pope witnessed "a prime example of how crony capitalism and statist control of the economy can wreck a country that deserves better" Nevertheless, it is also true that the Pope's analysis of the market economy has been in keeping with an emerging tradition of "Catholic social teaching" that is increasingly at odds with the very idea of a market society He argues correctly that the Pope's views of the market economy "did not emerge in a vacuum" Likewise, Gabriel X.
Martinez focuses on the oligarchic nature of Argentinian economic nationalism, pointing out that even attempts to "liberalize" the economy have benefited entrenched interests. All of this is the prism through which the Pope views market societies; is it any wonder that he is at odds with those who offer market solutions to government-created problems? Instead, he has adopted a state-centered approach of massive government redistribution as the means to alleviate poverty. Lawrence J. McQuillan and Hayeon Carol Park take on this issue with vigor.
The authors point out the obvious: A market economy generates the wealth that makes possible charitable giving on a scale hitherto unknown. Government "redistribution" does not generate wealth; it can only "coercively" take money from one group and give it to another They argue that "[f]orced government transfers actually destroy genuine charity within society.
They serve primarily to make people more accepting of the use of force to achieve ends they consider worthy and produce resentment and division among those forced to give to 'charitable' endeavors they do not choose to support. Freedom of choice and the exercise of conscience are better suited to making people more compassionate citizens" 90 something that should resonate with the Church's teachings.
The authors also analyze Pope Francis's early writings under his given name, Jorge Bergoglio, archbishop of Buenos Aires , in which he focused on "the limits of capitalism"which accepted many of the premises of the Marxist-hued liberation theology that bloomed in Latin America in the s and s The authors make fine use of the Hayekian argument on "the knowledge problem" that permeates nonmarket societies, and why governmental intervention is not the best way to achieve the equality that the Pope seeks.
My favorite quote in this chapter comes from none other than President Franklin Delano Roosevelt , who gave us the corporatist New Deal as an answer to the government-induced Stock Market Crash and the Great Depression of the s that followed. FDR saw the dangers of fostering a "culture of dependency" in the welfare state he himself was building: "Continued dependence upon relief induces a spiritual and moral disintegration fundamentally destructive to the national fiber.
To dole out relief in this way is to administer a narcotic, a subtle destroyer of the human spirit" For the same reason, these authors argue, Papal support for increased governmental redistributive efforts will only undermine the ability of entrepreneurs to produce the wealth that can support private charity. They warn that "[t]he road to hell and to poverty is paved with good intentions" While this book does not address this Pope's views on non-economic topics e.
Waterman , Philip Booth , and Allan C. Booth is especially good on the "tragedy of the commons" in generating environmental decay and industrial pollution. Robert P. Murphy provides a bold conclusion to the volume: "Historically, there has been an undeniable tension, if not outright conflict, between religion and economics" He laments the "impasse" and hopes that the current work can contribute to "a foundation of mutual respect" as each side engages the other So I've gotten lots of sweet feedback about the really cool cover design that was put together for us with the use of Getty images and templates, but a lot of very nice input from lots of people Roger found the best image, IMHO , and especially, Suzanne Hausman.
- Assessing the nation’s earthquakes : the health and future of regional seismograph networks?
- Stay Connected.
- Citations per year.
- Economics & Sociology.
- VLSI: Systems on a Chip: IFIP TC10 WG10.5 Tenth International Conference on Very Large Scale Integration (VLSI’99) December 1–4, 1999, Lisboa, Portugal.
But take a look at that image. On the surface, it looks like it might be a person whose chains are broken, and who is liberated The Dialectics of Liberty providing the antidote to the corruption of enslavement as manifested on many levels of generality. And the job of its contributors exhibits their commitment to exploring the context that would both nourish and sustain such liberation even though few of them agree on the precise nature of that context! Take a look at that image a little bit more closely though.
The chain links are going up into the sky But wait! It's not a bird! It's not a plane! It's not even Superman. The links look like they are in the shape of the letter "M". Could it be that the image itself captures the liberation of dialectical method from drumroll please : Its conventional connection to M arxism. Who knows!? Who knows what you get out of the cover design!? What matters most is what you'll get when you open the book, and find that there are essays you'll fall in love with, and other essays that will provoke you to throw the book or your e-book device against the nearest wall!
Any book that can inspire such diametrically opposed reactions with each passing chapter can't be all that bad! Lots more to come on the book and its contents; the official release date is still four days away: June 15, It has been delightful seeing the flow of pics from contributors to The Dialectics of Liberty upon receipt of the book, which officially goes on sale tomorrow. We do have 19 contributors, so I hope the flow of happy pics will continue. I'm glad I had the ba But the " Ben-Hur" T-shirt did help to hype the epic character of the new book!
And we encourage interested readers to make requests to their local public or private , business, not-for-profit, university and research libraries to stock up on the book. Yes, a much more affordable paperback will be issued in early , just in time for our planned "Authors-Meet-Readers" moderated discussion which is likely to take place right here on Facebook.
But this is one book worth having, if I may say so myself, given the diversity of perspectives that it encompasses. Indeed, I encourage these early celebrations, because the critical blowback should begin soon. After all, there are not many volumes that will inspire the reader to fall in love with one chapter, only to be tempted to throw the book or their equivalent e-book devices against the wall in disgust with the very next chapter.
Yet, that's the nature of the "Big Tent" approach of "dialectical libertarianism," which embraces no single party line; it spurs critical dialogue among its adherents indeed, "dialectic" is cognate with "dialogue". Postscript 19 June : In a lively discussion of the contents of the book, the contributors have all been admiring the fact that there is so much "disagreement" in the volume.
Some lamented the absence of essays from contributors who are no longer with us, like, for example, my dear friend, the late Don Lavoie. I added these further thoughts, which I share with Notablog readers:. I'd also like to share with Notablog readers the endorsements that appear on the back cover, from my long-time friends and colleagues Stephen Cox, Lester Hunt, and Mario Rizzo:.
Visit the Lexington Books website or Amazon. A softcover edition is sure to follow in early Stay tuned! Much more information will follow as we near our release date of June 15, Thanks to everyone who has made this trailblazing volume possible. The best is yet to come.
On Facebook, I shared a thread by a buddy of mine, Doug Henwood, with whom I used to regularly correspond on the group marxism-thaxis of which I was a co-founder. I reproduce here my comments on that thread:. I wanted to add one point of personal interest. Many years ago, I attended a talk by Radosh, and many talks by Rothbard, and I own a copy of the paperback inscribed by Radosh on one page and Rothbard on the next. I reproduce those inscriptions here for the sake of posterity; it's one of my cherished possessions:. There are a few additional issues that need to be addressed and I addressed them on various FB threads.
I summarize them here:. There are many reasons why the U. See here. Trump ignores this monumental change at his peril; if he thinks he can get back all those manufacturing jobs by adopting the policies of "protecting" U. One does not move toward freer markets by adopting economic nationalism as a public policy. Furthermore, no government action is neutral. Tariffs penalize the American consumer, who has to pay higher prices for goods imported from overseas, and pay higher prices for goods produced in the U. Increased costs have to be paid by somebody, and they are, by necessity, passed onto the consumer.
This isn't a case of turning the other cheek; it's a case of recognizing a changing global economy. If Trump is wedded to an "America First" ideology, then he needs to radically and fundamentally reform the U. He could start by seriously reducing U. It's not as if candidate Trump was unaware of this; it was about the only thing that I liked about his campaign : for example, his calls on U. Instead, it now seems as if the drums of war are being beaten by the same Establishment that brought us the war in Iraq. If in the coming election, the Democratic Party fully embraces "democratic socialism," the Left is in for a rude awakening, and Trump will be re-elected for another four years, especially if the economy doesn't experience another bubble-bust prior to the election.
But I don't object to Trump's policies because I am afraid of the Left. I oppose any increase in government intervention, whether it comes from the left or the right, for reasons that should be obvious. I agreed to disagree on this issue; time will tell. No, no, I haven't died just because I've not posted on Notablog since March 29th.
I've been working very hard with my co-editors, Roger E. Bissell and Edward W. I'll have lots more information to share about the book, our plans for an extended moderated discussion of its contents in the fall, and all the special marketing we have planned to spread the word with regard to this trailblazing volume that includes the contributions of nineteen wonderful scholars.
They are already advertising it on the Lexington Books site and on amazon. We have ways of bringing the volume to the masses; stay tuned. In the meanwhile, I wanted to extend my appreciation to both Stephen Cox and Mario Rizzo for their kind blurbs in support of the project. Stephen writes:.
I'm struck by the fact that both gentlemen use the word "lively"and if anything that's one word that definitely describes the book's contents. In fact, it's "Big Tent" approach, encompassing so many different perspectives, will lead some readers to smile with glee while reading one essay, only to be challenged not to throw the book against the nearest wall while reading the very next essay. Get ready, folks. We're in for a lively summer and an even livelier fall, when we intend to begin a more formal discussion of the book's contents.
On top of all this, I'm also in the midst of proofing the copyedited essays for the forthcoming July issue of The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies ; it too will be a lively issueand it will be announced with yet a new incarnation of our ever-growing website in the near future. If this isn't enough for you, then take a look at Anoop Verma's blog entry today, " On Ayn Rand's Clean Shaven Acolytes ," wherein Anoop quotes a passage from my book, Ayn Rand: The Russian Radical , explaining some of the deep divides within the Russian culture of Rand's youth that pitted the "beards" against the "non-beards.
Always young at heart, even if my body is hanging onto its youth by a hair, out came the razor So that's the update from your Notablog reporter; I'll be back as soon as I get all these important chores done! On deadline! It is my distinct honorand pleasureto formally announce a forthcoming book: The Dialectics of Liberty: Exploring the Context of Human Freedom , a trailblazing collection of essays by a diverse group of scholars, coming from a variety of disciplines and perspectives.
The anthology has been coedited by Roger E. It is slated for publication by Lexington Books in June and it is sure to be a provocative read for anyone interested in liberty and the contexts that nourishor undermineit. Readers can find the book's home page here which is redirected from both Dialectics of Liberty.
As we state on our abstracts page:. Abstracts for all the articles that are included in the anthology can be found here and contributor biographies can be found here. For those who just can't wait to read through those links, here is a glimpse of what to expect:. Anyone taking a look at the contributors to this book might be scratching their heads a bit, wondering how some of the authors associated with the volume may very well not associate themselves with the views of other authors herein represented.
Rather, it is a sign of the fruitful interplay of ideas and theories that might result when classical liberal and libertarian thinkers adopt a context-sensitive dialectical approach, making their political project a living research program that will necessarily generate a variety of perspectives, united only in their ideological commitment to freedom and their methodological commitment to a dialectical sensibility.
I should just add that this is purely an announcement: I'd like to save the debates for when the book is published and folks actually have a chance to read the essays, before passing judgments, either positive or negative on the contents of the volume. I know that our authors would greatly appreciate critical feedback; but nothing advances human knowledge when judgments are reached on the basis of reading short abstracts or brief biographies.
Suffice it to say: We are going to have plenty of time and many forums in which to debate the contents of this book. For now, I would simply like to extend my heartfelt appreciation to my hard-working fellow editors, and our remarkable group of superb scholars, whose commitment to the project has been a delight to behold. Postscript : This Notablog announcement was shared on Facebook by quite a few people, reaching potentially thousands of readers. I'm delighted by the response, and added a few points in several threads.
The most important point I made, however, was in response to some folks who criticized the inclusion of people whose views they oppose. Here was my response:. Postscript II : The debate over the contents and its contributors has continued, so I made the following observation on one of the Facebook threads:. In New York, our very own "Democratic Socialist," Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez , has been a vocal proponent of a so-called "Green" New Deal , aimed at solving the problem of "climate change" with massive government intervention.
I replied to a Facebook question on the issue, and will share what I said with Notablog readers:. I think there are two very real issues that need to be examined with this climate change question. Let us assume that every point by those who argue for the validity of climate change is correct. With regard to pollution issues, why assume that the government has any more "knowledge" in resolving the issues than actors in a competitive market system in which there are different players acting on their differential "know how" of the market for clean energy?
Central planning didn't work for any other issue, so why assume it will do anything but shift billions of dollars in taxpayer money to industries created or favored by a government-sanctioned scientific and technological elite? Typically, the only "products" that governments have been been good at "creating", in league with scientific and technological elites, are weapons of mass destruction.
And secondly, folks who advocate stronger government involvement in this area should focus on the so-called " tragedy of the commons " which has been a principal cause of much pollution and the need to allow courts to take on class action suits against corporate polluters many of them already politically-privileged monopoly energy utilities.
- Random Regret-based Discrete Choice Modeling: A Tutorial.
- Bread, Wine, Chocolate: The Slow Loss of Foods We Love!
- Notablog: Austrian Economics Archives?
- An Introduction To Business Ethics - 20 Textbooks | Jekkle.
- Featured channels.
- Nicolai J. Foss — Wikiberal.
To simply hand over billions of dollars of taxpayer money to favored industries allegedly committed to resolving the problems caused by climate change is to think that, somehow, government will change its stripes and not be what it has always been: a dispenser of privilege to those who are most adept at grabbing and using political power. That's what happened with the New Deal which was based on the corporativist model of "War Collectivism" from World War I and was praised by Benito Mussolini for its fascistic character ; why will it be any different with a "Green" New Deal?
With regard to the view that "government has only been good at 'creating' weapons of mass destruction," one reader asked: "What about the space program, interstate highway system, NIH. I responded:. It is very good at socializing the costs for building large projects that are typically related to 'national defense': typically, it takes market actors to take these projects and to develop them for the benefit of consumers.
And with regard to the issue of fossil fuels and oil, it has had a primary role in developing a foreign policy of war and interventionism to benefit Big Oil, whether it has been in propping up "friendly" autocratic regimes, like that in Saudi Arabia , or in benefiting ARAMCO, with which Exxon-Mobil has always been intimately involved. I added the following point when a reader proposed that a government, freed of corporate power, could act in the public interest:. But in my view, the government will always be captive to corporate power.
On this point, I think Hayek was right when he said that the more politics comes to dominate economic and social life, the more political power will be the only power worth havingwhich is why those most adept at using political power get the most privileges. Which is "why the worst get on top. Talk about an article of faith: Why would you put faith in a single institution the state to come up with the necessary knowledge which is not simply "data" but both articulated and tacit, and tied to differential contexts to introduce a whole "Green New Deal" that would cost trillions of dollars and benefit specific industries?
And if we are living in a state capitalist-corporatist system, how do we avoid the central problem of state-generated privileges being handed over to whole industries invested in "alternative" energies if you actually believe that the energy industry wouldn't just seek to cash-in on the newly generated expropriated funds to take advantage of the instituted changes? Throughout the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, for example, where the government subsidized the great expansion of "infrastructure" long before any private investment would have taken the risk, some of that expansion didn't really work out.
The railroads "benefited" from this kind of subsidization but were, of course, eventually undermined by the lack of market support. The results were fairly typical: eventually these railroads went bankrupt and were 'nationalized'. Typically, "crony" state capitalists are at the forefront of getting the government to make the big "infrastructure" investments because it does socialize the costs of their expansion. But it doesn't always work out in the long run. The reader rejected my reasoning and argued that the state was the only institution available that could make the changes required to save the planet from climate catastrophe.
To which I replied:. Well, then all I can say is we'll have to agree to disagree. I don't see how effective it will be to institute the kind of massive shifts you envision in the current state-capitalist context, whose class character will be fundamentally the same. No change of the sort you envision comes to this country without a massive amount of under-the-table deal-making where the worst seem to always get on top and profit the most. I don't think of this as a libertarian article of faith; I think of it as a simple fact of reality. The discussion continued and I shared a link to a post by my dear friend and colleague, Steve Horwitz, on the timeline of the thread:.
Steve Horwitz['s post] These kinds of expansions amount to the militarization of the economy, and given what we have seen in other such militarizations from the War Collectivism of World War I to the original New Deal to the War Collectivism of World War II, and so forth , I do not see how a Green New Deal avoids the problems inherent in the proposed 'solution'.
As Steve puts it:. I should add that Don Lavoie's work, especially his Rivalry and Central Planning and his National Economic Planning: What is Left , is among the most radical and highly dialectical work in the Austrian tradition. His integration of hermeneutics, his use of Hayek's work on knowledge especially the Polanyi-Ryle 'tacit' dimension of knowledge , and a dialectical understanding of the interrelationships of politics, economics, and culture, make his contributions all the more significant and worthy of study.
He was a fine scholar and a dear friend, and Steve's quoting of him is "spot on" indeed! In a comment on a Facebook thread begun by my colleague Susan Love Brown, I made a stark political admission, not without a lot of consideration as to the damage that Donald Trump has created in his wake. As I stated on Facebook:. Now, for those who have claimed that Trump has reduced regulation and, to that extent, has freed up the economy, all I can say is: No action of the government is neutral and selective de-regulation benefits some interests at the expense of others.
My own family has felt the impact of the Trump Tax Plan up close and personal. As I state above, my opposition to Trump is not a vote of confidence in the alternative being presented by so-called "Progressives" in the Democratic Party, who favor "democratic socialism. If only "None of the Above" were a ballot choice, we might, at least, be able to de-legitimize the entire government. It would be a vote against the damage that government has done to human libertywhether in the name of corporatist nationalism or corporatist welfare statism.
Sorry to disappoint Trumpsters and Non-Trumpsters alike. Rockwell ed. Rothbard: Economics, Science, and Liberty". The Ludwig von Mises Institute. Prometheus Books, Publishers. Retrieved March 16, Rothbard , ; Full text reprint Quote from Rothbard: "The Volker Fund concept was to find and grant research funds to hosts of libertarian and right-wing scholars and to draw these scholars together via seminars, conferences, etc. Klein, Editor, F. American Conservatism: An Encyclopedia. Only after several decades of teaching at the Polytechnic Institute of New York did Rothbard obtain an endowed chair, and like that of Mises at NYU, his own at the University of Nevada at Las Vegas was established by an admiring benefactor.
Rothbard: Economics, Science, and Liberty. Rothbard — ". Retrieved August 13, Auburn, AL: von Mises Institute. Prometheus Books. In the same letter, he reiterates his atheism: "On the religion question, we paleolibertarians are not theocrats," he writes. Oxford Univ. Praxeology: The Methodology of Austrian Economics. Archived from the original on September 16, Retrieved August 28, The Making of Modern Economics M.
Economics & Sociology
Sharpe, , p. Skousen writes that Rothbard "refused to write for the academic journals. Part 5: Fractional Reserve Banking". New York: Praeger, , pp. Meadowcroft, John, ed. Milton Friedman. New York, NY: Bloomsbury. Murray N. Auburn, Alabama: Mises Institute. Rothbard Southern Economic Journal, January , pp. Mises Institute.
Retrieved June 17, American Economic Review. Journal of Austrian Economics. Nomos : 29ff. Retrieved November 17, New York: Oxford University Press. Liberty, Desert and the Market. Cambridge University Press. American Journal of Economics and Sociology. Rothbard: In Memoriam.
August 15, Rothbard, Murray N August 17, Mises Daily. A critical defense , Ludwig Von Mises Institute. Capitalism is the fullest expression of anarchism, and anarchism is the fullest expression of capitalism. Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago Press. Rothbard August 11, Archived from the original on April 18, Retrieved July 31, Archived from the original on May 24, Left and Right. February Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
January 10, [first published June 12, ]. Also see Part II , originally published June 20, Costs of War: America's Pyrrhic Victories. Transaction Publishers. LSU Press. Greenwood Publishing Group. Autumn Reprinted in Rothbard, Murray N. April The Rothbard-Rockwell Report. Retrieved November 5, Amherst, New York: Prometheus Books. Raimondo describes Rothbard as a "champion of Henry Elmer Barnes, the dean of world-war revisionism". January 23, Retrieved November 15, Libertarians for Life.
April 10, New York University Press. Comanducci Eds. Wiggins, eds. Princeton, N. Van Nostrand , , pp.
The American Conservative. June 9, Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Publishing Group. Soros: A Partial Backstory". Retrieved August 14, Retrieved August 18, Originally published in the January Rothbard-Rockwell Report. April 8, Los Angeles Times. Rockwell, Jr, published by Ludwig von Mises Institute, New Republic. Retrieved September 4, Murray Rothbard at Wikipedia's sister projects.
Austrian School economists. List of Austrian School economists. Books by Murray Rothbard. Anarcho-capitalism Autarchism Christian libertarianism Conservative libertarianism Consequentialist libertarianism Fusionism Libertarian transhumanism Minarchism Natural-rights libertarianism Paleolibertarianism Propertarianism Voluntaryism. Libertarianism portal Outline of libertarianism Politics portal. Social and political philosophy. Jurisprudence Philosophy and economics Philosophy of education Philosophy of history Philosophy of love Philosophy of sex Philosophy of social science Political ethics Social epistemology.
Namespaces Article Talk. Views Read Edit View history. In other projects Wikimedia Commons Wikiquote Wikisource.
Hardy Bouillon: Business Ethics and the Austrian Tradition in Economics
Our mind is itself a system that undergoes permanent changes as a result of our efforts to adapt to new situations. It is a sort of process of continuous and simultaneous classification, and constant reclassification, on many levels of impulses proceeding in it in any moment. This arrangement is applied in the first instance to all sensory perception but in principle to all the kinds of mental entities, such as emotions, concepts, images, drives, etc. It seems that the whole order of sensory qualities, all the differences in the effects of their occurrence, could be exhaustively accounted for by a complete explanation of all their effects in different combinations and circumstances.
However, the real question about the politically popular concept of social justice still remains to be investigated. Over the past years, it seems the concept of social justice has successfully replaced the clear meaning of distributive justice and has inspired generations of social policymakers. Although the model of distributive justice can easily be traced back to Aristotle, according to Hayek the synonymous use of distributive justice and social justice was introduced by John Stuart Mill; the usage has since avoided any serious discussion.
Society should treat all equally well who have deserved equally well of it, that is, who have deserved equally well absolutely. This is the highest abstract standard of social and distributive justice; towards which all institutions, and the efforts of all virtuous citizens, should be made in the utmost degree to converge. Very importantly, however, Bouillon points out that social justice differs from the Aristotelian use of distributive justice, insofar as it seems to intentionally discard the decisive aspects of individual success and accomplishment.
Among the most important reasons why the term is so popular, according to Bouillon, is that it appeals to those deeply rooted natural instincts that were appropriate in small tribal societies and equally small organizations. But over the span of hundreds of thousands of years, we have gradually developed into a modern mass society that is radically different from its forebears, and we function now on the principles of equal treatment and free cooperation.
And still, most arguments in favor of social justice assume that there is a certain set quantity of goods or services — like a cake that can be sliced and then distributed according to abstract moral principles such as need or merit, rather than according to the principles by which the goods or services were produced in the first place.
In markets, however, there is no such distinction. Income is distributed according to the anticipated marginal productivity of factors. It is thus inappropriate to assume that there is any merit in a moral sense in his or her actions.