Comments (24)

• Bruce

  The person leaving the comment obviously needs to listen the Robert LeFevre lecture wherein he notes that all life necessarily must come at the expense of some other living thing; it's merely a matter what you are going to kill in order to continue living. If the critic had the same feelings towards poor, defenseless plants, (s)he'd probably starve to death.

  Published: April 28, 2006 12:14 PM

• George Gaskell

  Mmmmm ... leather ....

  I think I'm going to re-do not only my entire house in leather, but my cars, too.

  Maybe my wardrobe, I'm not sure.

  There's a funny parody ad campaign about vegetarians: Sponsor a Vegetarian: For every animal you don't eat, I'll eat three.

  Published: April 28, 2006 12:23 PM

• Norman

  Lemme guess, if we made it out of wood, an environmentalist would say we killed a poor helpless tree. If we made it out of plastics, a socialist would say we're catering to the oil industry. Everyone's a critic... I guess we need to make everything out of rock? Hmm, I suppose these people think we should move back to the stone age...

  Published: April 28, 2006 12:56 PM

• David Canning

  The person leaving the comment obviously needs to listen the Robert LeFevre lecture wherein he notes that all life necessarily must come at the expense of some other living thing; it's merely a matter what you are going to kill in order to continue living.
  
  
  
  Not true, plants don't kill anything.

  Published: April 28, 2006 12:58 PM

• ross williams

  responding to her original statement, I think Mises would be glad to hear someone woicing their opinion and choosing to be a vegan. We truely live in an advanced society if a person can live without the use of animal products. I for one am glad that we can offer such comforts to people that may not have been possible 50 or 100 years ago, and is still not possible for many people around the globe today.
  The comment speaks of the beauty of the free market and free expression of ideas, and is a wonderful contribution to this site.

  Published: April 28, 2006 1:22 PM

• Duodecimal

  Plants have killed before.

  They will kill again.

  Published: April 28, 2006 1:34 PM

• Francisco Torres

  Not true, plants don't kill anything.

  Try again. Some plants DO kill.

  Published: April 28, 2006 1:50 PM

• Tom

  Carnivorous plants eat ... animals! Oh the humanity!

  Published: April 28, 2006 1:57 PM

• Duodecimal

  It's a cookbook! A COOKBOOK!!

  Published: April 28, 2006 2:00 PM

• Roy W. Wright

  The existence of any plant comes at the expense of others, in many ways. While they do not actively kill, I would say that their very existence, like every other living being's, is selfish.

  Published: April 28, 2006 2:15 PM

• iceberg

  David Canning meet Venus Flytrap; Venus, David.

  Published: April 28, 2006 2:16 PM

• Stephen W. Carson

  I think the commitment of the Mises Institute to voluntarism and civilized behaviour has been underestimated by "Angry Vegan". "Margit" the cow, or as we called her "Margie" was treated as a fellow being all her long life and with the greatest of respect and given as much as she wanted to eat.

  Her final day approached as, alas, it approaches for all living things. We asked her, "Margie, may we use your hide, after you are gone, to honor Ludwig von Mises?" The moist eyed look and low moan of assent assured us that, even after she had passed, she wanted to continue being a valued member of the team.

  Drink from the tumbler with a clear conscience. Margie was a libertarian cow.

  Published: April 28, 2006 2:52 PM

• The Crawling Chaos

  Economics?
  

  Published: April 28, 2006 3:07 PM

• jeffrey

  Uh oh, an unseemly shouting match over leather is taking over the customer reviews!

  Published: April 28, 2006 3:21 PM

• Artisan

  The idea that a cow is killed for its skin is rather silly, true.

  But the question of ethics is important even though its expression was here somewhat weak. I had a similar remark about the new shiping contractor from Mises for instance, a subsidiary from Deutsche Post which makes shipment cheap in the US on the costs of German taxpayers literally, possibly driving other US company into bankrupcy, who knows. Still I'd buy any interesting book at Mises.

  But think about stocks... do you invest in them without any ethical thoughts? Just to keep your money from devaluating? Or do you perhaps avoid to buy those military device builders even you know Bush will give them a big budget? Do you avoid maybe a specific Bank that gives credits especially to governments? I'd sometimes like to know how a true libertarian acts here.

  Published: April 28, 2006 4:27 PM

• M E Hoffer

  "But think about stocks... do you invest in them without any ethical thoughts? Just to keep your money from devaluating? Or do you perhaps avoid to buy those military device builders even you know Bush will give them a big budget? Do you avoid maybe a specific Bank that gives credits especially to governments? I'd sometimes like to know how a true libertarian acts here."

  Artisan,

  A fine Query. More than likely it should serve, well, as its own thread for broader consideration.

  I think the von Mises Institute is missing a grand opportunity by not associating itself with/sponsoring/starting a Mutual Fund that would execute, as best it could, against the Foundations laid out by the Austrians.

  "Socially Conscious" investing is one of the fastest growing sub-categories of MutFund investing. That there would be uptake amongst the acolytes of the Austrian School is nearly a given.

  Should We distangle the conflation, in the minds of many, of Finance and Economics? Here's voting: Aye!

  Such a Fund could, not only, provide a real-world proof of the economic superiority of Economics v. Finance, but, also provide a ready revenue stream and a practicable forum to augment the teaching of students of the Austrian school.
  

  Published: April 28, 2006 5:23 PM

• Paul Edwards

  Artisan,

  "I'd sometimes like to know how a true libertarian acts here."

  I'm not certain about how true libertarians feel about it, but as for me, i pay taxes to Washington and so my money supports all sorts of sordid things despite my objections. And since i haven't left the country yet on moral grounds, i can say i guess i'm just living with this fact.

  My view is the following: I advocate that one avoids participating in endeavors that would be ruled out in a free market. So: no making WMDs, no tax collecting, no legislating, no fraud, no theft, no coercion and no murder. That rules out any work that could be required only by the state.

  On the other hand, mail delivery, banking, teaching, road work, police work, courts, construction and weapons manufacturing are all valid enterprises under anarchy, given private justice. That the influence of the state perverts these pursuits and reduces them to a partnership in crime with the state is not in my view, criterion to necessarily abstain from participating in them today. This applies to work as well as investments. There are just so few activities that are not touched by the state these days.

  So the ethical consideration for me is this: in anarchy could i ethically pursue this line of activity? If yes, i will not let the existence of the state perturb my decision. If no, i hope at least, that when the time to decide arrives, i have the courage of my conviction and I don’t live to support the state that I despise.
  

  Published: April 28, 2006 5:52 PM

• Aakash

  That comment was way out of line...

  That being said, when I got my new car, I insisted (despite what some others recommended) on a cloth exterior.

  Aside from the practical aspects (heat surface and spill issues), I did not want to be sitting on dead animal parts, when using my vehicle.

  If you must have leather, use the man-made kind.

  Published: April 28, 2006 7:45 PM

• Roy W. Wright

  I don't think my hide would make for very good upholstery...

  Published: April 28, 2006 8:03 PM

• M E Hoffer

  "contractor from Mises for instance, a subsidiary from Deutsche Post"

  That the institute is using DHL, as opposed to FedEx, is truly a swing and a miss at a potentially very beautuful and poetic aphorism.

  Published: April 28, 2006 8:20 PM

• jeffrey

  Actually, I've been meaning to post on this. We stopped using DHL because they hid too many expenses in extra fees and were slow on their web-service integration. It wasn't saving customers money and it was causing enormous frustration. We have new options now that are all-round better.

  Published: April 28, 2006 8:46 PM

• Francisco Torres

  I'd sometimes like to know how a true libertarian acts here.

  He or she would act as any other stock buyer: by the subjective valuations each makes, no more, no less. In other words - libertarians would act as humans.

  Published: April 28, 2006 8:48 PM

• Ike Hall

  Jeffrey,

  I'm impressed you guys haven't deleted the original review (although I'd be proud if you did). Silly animal rights supporters. They make we want to start eating meat again.

  Anyway, the question I really want to ask is, what would prompt the folks who run the store to decide a customer review is not helpful and should be stricken? Or, is your policy like Amazon's, you'll keep anything? I thought the "name in blood" review was a prime example of an unhelpful review: it's highly unlikely that the reviewer actually purchased the product or even picked it up to look at it. Likewise, many Amazon reviews of controversial works are made by people who obviously have not read the work in question, they've just got an axe to grind. So, seriously, where's the fine line?

  Published: April 28, 2006 10:44 PM

• TokyoTom

  The facile dismissals of the comment by "Angry Vegan" are a disappointing, knee-jerk reaction.

  Angry Vegan is trying to shake things up, and his/her has naturally elicited a partially-deserved smackdown with rather emotional language. The issues of course are not so simple.

  Humans are omnivores, and personally I love meat. But I am also disturbed by the increasing mechanization of animal production and its connection to alienation in mass society. A perceptive essay "A Carnivore's Credo" by British conservative philosopher Roger Scruton in the May Harper's discusses these issues, which underlie the reactions of vegans.

  It seems to me that this is one of those points on which there are a number of conservatives - recently called "crunchy cons" - who agree with their liberal/hippy friends. See
  http://rightreason.ektopos.com/archives/2006/04/post_4.html and http://crunchycon.nationalreview.com/.

  Those who prefer cheap cuts of meat without concern for taste or how the slaughtered animal was raised can of course continue their present habits. For others, there is a growing recognition that animals raised "organically", in natural environments with much less stress, no antibiotics and natural feeds, yield better-tasting meat that elicit a growing demand and higher prices on the market. (Scruton's essay is partnered with "Swine of the Times", an essay in the May Harper's that discusses some aspects of factory pig farming and the growing organic backlash.)

  In any case, there is a market at work that Miseans should celebrate, while turning a spotlight on the ways that the state has interfered with agricultural markets. One does not have to accept the "animal rights" arguments of some to realize that there is alot of common ground in the middle.
  

  Published: May 1, 2006 11:20 PM