"Do You Austrians Have a Better Idea?"
After a good Austrian bashing of the latest call to steal taxpayer money and waste it on something that will make a given problem worse, the stumped critics will often shout, "Oh yeah? Well do you guys have a better idea?" Even though "nothing" would be much, much better than all of the alleged remedies being bandied about, the Austrians actually do have concrete proposals for President Obama. FULL ARTICLE
Comments (74)
Inquisitor
Even more would be desirable, but yeah, this is not a bad start... of course, legal tender laws and the Fed should also go the way of the dodo. They're two of the biggest problems in the US.
Published: February 2, 2009 9:12 AM
I Hate Taxes
Yeah, I have a much better idea.
Eliminate all taxes, eliminate all spending.
End the war on drugs, end the war on terror.
Pull back all our troops from abroad: Iraq, Afghanistan, Korea, Japan, Germany, Georgia etc.
Cut our military to bare minimums. Allow private citizens and private firms to purchase military equipment and form their own security and militia services.
Stop sponsoring Israel and other nations, stop interfering with other nation's internal affairs.
SELL all government property and use that money to pay off the national debt and bring it down to zero.
Allow competing currencies, gold and other commodities as money.
When that is done: LAISSEZ-FAIRE !!!
Published: February 2, 2009 9:42 AM
bob
I think there should be either a call to congress to transparently regulate the FED (aka freeze its balance sheet) or abolish it. The article mentions undoing the Term Auction Credit and possibly some TARP swaps, which would allow the FED's balance sheet to shrink before price inflation goes nuts. But how do we get to market interest rates?
Published: February 2, 2009 9:47 AM
I Hate Taxes
"To make sure that individuals and corporations realize you are serious, blow up the IRS building. (Have everyone vacate the premises first, of course.) "
I have an even better idea, SELL the IRS building. Either as a whole or brick by brick on ebay.
Lots of money to be made to pay back the national debt.
And people will be more than happy to hang a brick of the IRS on their wall as a commemoration to the end of a tyrannical era and the beginning of a new era or liberty and prosperity.
Published: February 2, 2009 9:49 AM
I Hate Taxes
"To make sure that individuals and corporations realize you are serious, blow up the IRS building. (Have everyone vacate the premises first, of course.) "
Imagine explaining to your grand children.
You see this brick on the wall ? It was once part of the IRS building, an infamous tyrannical and dictatorial institution that robbed honest and hard working people.
Back then, you could give as much as 50% of your wages to the government, and then pay sales taxes etc.
And watch the disbelieving eyes of your grand child as you explain to him that back in the past people were slaves to the government.
So yeah, let's sell this building brick by brick to the highest bidders and let's pay back our national debt.
Published: February 2, 2009 9:53 AM
Joe Stoutenburg
One last caveat: I know there are many purists who read the Mises Daily, and will be aghast at my watered-down recommendations. Yes, yes, I agree that the best thing would be for Obama, Pelosi, Reid, and all my friends to say, "You know, if you look at the history of this company, it always ends up wasting money and getting innocent people killed. I think we should just quit and go volunteer at a church instead."
This was a nice cya, and with that caveat, I give you props for your article. As a purist, I'll provide my (non-watered down) recomendation.
We don't wait for Obama, Pelosi, Reid and friends to suddenly get a conscience and step down. I think that many of my fellow purists will share my suspicion that people susceptible to conscience are rare in high political offices. As you imply, it's not going to happen. But neither is the solution to be found in any proposal that these people will make. Nor are the likely to be open to any "serious" proposals that we may suggest.
I think that Dr. Murhpy knows this. I understand his desire to respond to the criticisms that Austrians provide a better idea. But I think that it is unwise to play into the fallacy that action can only be taken if it is proposed by political leaders.
I think that more likely solutions would be bottom-up approaches. Inquisitor makes a fine suggestion. But let's not wait for the leaders to mandate those concessions (nor grant them credit for the benefits that would derive). A first step to economic recovery would be a broad based repudiation of government money and its legal tender laws. We could do this ourselves at any time.
Our argument should not be with political leaders. They have shown their preference for achieving their economic goals. Given that demonstrated preference, it would be irrational for them to voluntarily cede their dominance over society. They aren't going to do it.
Rather, we should focus on the people at the bottom. Many people derive psychological benefit from identifying with political leaders. But according to Austrian theories, they derive little material benefit. In fact, political leaders (the heroin addicts in your analogy) are downright harmful to the interests of most people. I think that the path to long term economic prosperity and stability lie within convincing the common people of the world of the conclusions of these theories.
Headway is being made. I am one person who has been swayed only in the past several years. I believe that Austrian ideas are making progress in the minds of many people. This is a movement that is occuring despite any proposal are actions of any kind from political leaders.
Unfortunately, we may be quite a ways from having the critical mass necessary to make bottom-up action feasible. I can't guess what kinds of risk will be necessary to spark the revolution that I have in mind. I admit that I am (at present, at least) unwilling to place myself or my family at risk. So we are left for the time being limping along without political leaders likely to formulate good policies and without the popular will to take our own action.
I only insist that by petitioning political leaders, as Dr. Murphy does, lends them legitimacy. I know that there is not a strong consensus among Austrians regarding the ultimate role of government and that the spectrum from minarchy to anarchy may respond differently to this. But at the least, I think that all of us should consider that actions outside of political influence is possible. By implicitly admitting that a plan is our only hope, we ignore these possible actions.
Published: February 2, 2009 10:09 AM
Joe Stoutenburg
One last caveat: I know there are many purists who read the Mises Daily, and will be aghast at my watered-down recommendations. Yes, yes, I agree that the best thing would be for Obama, Pelosi, Reid, and all my friends to say, "You know, if you look at the history of this company, it always ends up wasting money and getting innocent people killed. I think we should just quit and go volunteer at a church instead."
This was a nice cya, and with that caveat, I give you props for your article. As a purist, I'll provide my (non-watered down) recomendation.
We don't wait for Obama, Pelosi, Reid and friends to suddenly get a conscience and step down. I think that many of my fellow purists will share my suspicion that people susceptible to conscience are rare in high political offices. As you imply, it's not going to happen. But neither is the solution to be found in any proposal that these people will make. Nor are the likely to be open to any "serious" proposals that we may suggest.
I think that Dr. Murhpy knows this. I understand his desire to respond to the criticisms that Austrians provide a better idea. But I think that it is unwise to play into the fallacy that action can only be taken if it is proposed by political leaders.
I think that more likely solutions would be bottom-up approaches. Inquisitor makes a fine suggestion. But let's not wait for the leaders to mandate those concessions (nor grant them credit for the benefits that would derive). A first step to economic recovery would be a broad based repudiation of government money and its legal tender laws. We could do this ourselves at any time.
Our argument should not be with political leaders. They have shown their preference for achieving their economic goals. Given that demonstrated preference, it would be irrational for them to voluntarily cede their dominance over society. They aren't going to do it.
Rather, we should focus on the people at the bottom. Many people derive psychological benefit from identifying with political leaders. But according to Austrian theories, they derive little material benefit. In fact, political leaders (the heroin addicts in your analogy) are downright harmful to the interests of most people. I think that the path to long term economic prosperity and stability lie within convincing the common people of the world of the conclusions of these theories.
Headway is being made. I am one person who has been swayed only in the past several years. I believe that Austrian ideas are making progress in the minds of many people. This is a movement that is occuring despite any proposal are actions of any kind from political leaders.
Unfortunately, we may be quite a ways from having the critical mass necessary to make bottom-up action feasible. I can't guess what kinds of risk will be necessary to spark the revolution that I have in mind. I admit that I am (at present, at least) unwilling to place myself or my family at risk. So we are left for the time being limping along without political leaders likely to formulate good policies and without the popular will to take our own action.
I only insist that by petitioning political leaders, as Dr. Murphy does, lends them legitimacy. I know that there is not a strong consensus among Austrians regarding the ultimate role of government and that the spectrum from minarchy to anarchy may respond differently to this. But at the least, I think that all of us should consider that actions outside of political influence is possible. By implicitly admitting that a plan is our only hope, we ignore these possible actions.
Published: February 2, 2009 10:10 AM
Joe Stoutenburg
Apologies for the double post. The site gave me an error after the first submit.
Published: February 2, 2009 10:14 AM
Maturin
Dr. Murphy,
As a medical practitioner, I wish to say that is a superb analogy, which is easy for non-medical folks to understand.
The analogy can be extended by considering the "injection of funny money" as putting in an IV and pouring many liters of saline into the circulatory system. This will cause massive edema all over the body, bloating the patient beyond recognition, and imparing the body's natural healing and regulatory mechanisms, without doing anything to improve circulation.
The patient will end up in the ICU, and will be lucky to survive the "treatment."
Published: February 2, 2009 10:15 AM
greg
These suggestions are the reason why you are not taken seriously, really hurts your credibility and hurts our economy because some really good ideas this economic approach are not even considered.
Published: February 2, 2009 10:15 AM
DixieFlatline
I think this line
Is meant to be country not company.
Published: February 2, 2009 10:17 AM
Deefburger
I thought of an interesting analogy this morning to illustrate regulation of free-markets.
If you place an obsticle in the center of a stream to speed it up where the obstacle is not blocking the flow, and the water flows to the sides, washing out the banks and collapsing the houses there, what went wrong?
Did you:
(a) Fail to build a large enough damn?
(b) Fail to refrain from building the obsticle in the first place.
The socialist/liberal/political answer is (a).
The Austrian answer is (b).
Published: February 2, 2009 11:00 AM
Lukus
Dr. Murphy,
Thank you for writing this article! I have this one "friend" who loves to point out the Austrian school is "unserious" and "idiosyncratic", and has been "rejected by the vast majority of conservative & liberal economists" (he is utterly devoted to consensus). I hope he eats his heart out on this article.
Published: February 2, 2009 11:03 AM
Eric
Can anyone name a time in history that an empire rolled itself back without their first being a catastrophe? And even with 10% unemployment, I don't see that as a qualification for catastrophe. I don't know how bad it has to get, but government is like a religion in this country. Until that faith is truly shaken, nothing will change. So, all this talk of ours (Austrians I assume) will likely do nothing until it gets really really bad.
What is really bad? Well, maybe the next super bowl is canceled because nobody can afford to go or too little advertising revenue is available. Maybe when there are no more cars to buy, no food to eat something could change.
But what we are seeing today isn't even close to being bad enough yet. Maybe if we really get hyperinflation, something could change. But until then, what we see now is that Austrians are simply ignored as those who always cry wolf and shout that the sky is falling.
Published: February 2, 2009 11:20 AM
Pat
I suspect that when some people ask if their detractors asked for a better idea, they usually do that for rhetorical purposes. They already made their mind on the issue and nothing short of miracle will change their mind. The problem is distinguishing these people from those who are simply mistaken.
Published: February 2, 2009 11:25 AM
greg
This economic analysis based on analogies cannot be serious. We need market answers to problems and the best we come up with a story about a dam and a river. Which by the way, answer b is not the free market approach.
In a free market, the person that owns that part of the river should be free to do what he wants as long as it does not impact the property rights of others. The economy may be better off if the dam is correctly built, property rights are protected or compensated and society expands production with the benefits of the dam.
We should be looking at market solutions. For example, lets take the problem of toxic assets on the books of banks which most believe is the main cause of our current problems. Why hasn't the market developed a solution to it. The answer is simple, the Government has stepped up and said they are going to buy these assets. So the market is sitting back and doing nothing as long as the government is going into this business and operate a monopoly.
The market is ready to buy, sell and modify these assets and make money at it! But the government is not giving them a chance. There is a company that for a fee, will negotiate with a bank to reduce your principle and interest rate to keep you in your home.
There are buyers for real estate out there, but none will move until the government comes up with their final plan. Basically freezing the current market. Everyone thinks that next week the rates will be lower, prices will be lower and there will be a tax credit. There will always be a next week!
Published: February 2, 2009 11:44 AM
Kurmudjin
@Taxes:
Can I open the bidding for a brick from the IRS bldg?
I pledge my 2008 Federal Taxes for this!
Published: February 2, 2009 12:12 PM
I Hate Taxes
Eric,
Too often, religous zealots will die for their faith in the face of contradicting and conflicting evidence. If Government is really religion in this country, then it will not change until all the religious zealots have died in the name of their faith. It's as stupid as that.
Try to debate faith with a religious zealot and you will se that he will prefer to die than to admit the fallacy of his religion.
Well, for the government zealots in our country, they would rather our whole country perishes than to admit the fallacy of their doctrine.
When we will see "change" it's because half the country is dead, LOL !
Published: February 2, 2009 12:12 PM
I Hate Taxes
Eric,
"What is really bad?"
When you have worked hard and saved your money all your life, when you have been responsible and never been a burden for others.
But all your savings are being destroyed by inflation.
THIS is REALLY REALLY BAD AND UGLY !
And it's going to happen, when this happens, this will be the ultimate catastrophe that will bring both megadeath and "change" !!!
Published: February 2, 2009 12:15 PM
I Hate Taxes
Eric,
"But what we are seeing today isn't even close to being bad enough yet. Maybe if we really get hyperinflation, something could change."
You will be sorry you said that when you wake up one day in the United States of Zimbabwe !
Published: February 2, 2009 12:16 PM
I Hate Taxes
Kurmudjin,
"I pledge my 2008 Federal Taxes for this!"
See what I said ? Lots of money to be made by selling parts of the dismantled building. It's better to sell it than to blow it up. LOL !
Unless you did not earn enough to "owe" taxes in 2008.
Published: February 2, 2009 12:20 PM
pbergn
Good article from Mr. Murphy, overall, but with some reservations...
Author does a good job (as always) at taking some good jabs at the big and sluggish creature otherwise known as "the government"...
But...
Strongly disagree with points 7, 9, and 10:
The author contends that one does not need department of education, hoping apparently that local charities will take care of the problem of education... Well, look at Africa and other third world countries... Do you think that the uneducated populace will make Capitalism any better (if working as slaves, then maybe yes). I am not saying put everyone into college, but everyone has to have the opportunity to receive minimum high-school education, if we do not want to descend into the abyss of dark ages... And it is currently like that in the US - only relatively wealthy can afford college education, and those talented - will always get some grants or scholarships... So, no qualitative changes here - only quantitative are necessary!
Point 9 contends that immigrants should be allowed into the country freely for as long as they can buy a 100K house... Well do you know who only has 100K? Gangsters and drug dealers, Mr. Murphy. No good people will ever make it through your immigration policies, sir...
And finally, the point 10 contends that somehow abolishing already low $4.50/hr minimum wage will somehow buoy the ailing economy by some magic...
Look at the guys who work at Wal-Mart or McDonald's and generally get paid slightly above the minimum wage - their income is not enough to cover their living expenses... Are you kidding me? Remove this barrier, and you will see only the most desperate job hoppers contending for the jobs - to work for food basically... Now, I agree that the market will find its new minimum wage on its own. But what is the guarantee that it would not be even lower than the official one? What is the guarantee that the private enterprises will not simply keep the excess profits resulting from elimination of income tax, and pay some hefty bonuses to the top members, for example? Aren't we already poor as it is due to stupid government policies? I am not saying raise the minimum wage, but at least keep it for now until the things get so much better, that one doesn't need them anymore...
The three points mentioned above struck me as somewhat elitist and detached... Overall, the suggested alternative to the problem of fixing the economy is the best of its kind, so far...
Published: February 2, 2009 1:08 PM
Brad Reid
I remember a time when I was a child, that my mother took her three children to the doctor for innoculations, broken arms... you name it, then paid on the way out with a check. That was before the government's involvement in health insurance.
I'd like to see it phase out of health care altogether... prices for all sorts of procedures/medicines, etc. would plummet. You can't sell something for more than folks will pay for it.
I could well imagine the big dollar surgeries, bypass heart surgeries and the like, falling to a pricing that the market will bear. If such procedures were $10,000, most everyone could pay it, borrow it, or rely on the charity of friends or organizations for assistance.
Anyway, my 15 minute fix for healthcare --- just get the biggest "laydown" in history out of the business and watch pricing adjust accordingly.
I'd add this to your list.
Cheers! Brad
Published: February 2, 2009 1:08 PM
I Hate Taxes
pberng,
", hoping apparently that local charities will take care of the problem of education"
Charities ? LOL !
How about parents PAY for private education of their child ?
How about private companies sponsor college tuition in exchange for lower entry level salaries ?
In a world government by free-market capitalism, education would be tailored to the industries need, would be cheaper and more accessible and people could find a better job faster and easier.
If later in life they want a more fundamental education, they could do so with their own money.
In Mexico, poor villages get their education via internet and distance learning. They get high quality education for a fraction of the cost of US public schools.
I believe much more in the free market than government to address needs of the people.
Published: February 2, 2009 1:26 PM
I Hate Taxes
Brad,
Not to mention that 21st century innovation would make the medical applications cheaper and more efficient.
The reason medicine is so costly is because of government assessed medical monopolies, the wretched AMA and FDA etc.
In free-market capitalism, one would not even need insurance to pay for medical care. As most insurances are rip-offs anyways.
Published: February 2, 2009 1:28 PM
Morty
Lew Rockwell did something similar to this many years ago, about how we could return the government to something close to Constitutional-size. It's more extreme and thus "nonserious" but a good idea nonetheless.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/30-day-plan.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/next-30-days.html
Published: February 2, 2009 1:54 PM
fundamentalist
I Hate Taxes: “If Government is really religion in this country, then it will not change until all the religious zealots have died in the name of their faith.”
It’s more of a religion than you realize. To a large degree religions deal with the cause and cure of evil. They ask “how did evil enter the world and what can we do about it?” The left responds that people are born innocent and become evil because someone oppresses them. People become poor only because someone steals from them. The great evil causing such oppression and theft is private property. The cure for that evil is for the state to end the oppression and redistribute the wealth. By passing the right laws, the state can remove oppression and return humanity to its natural state of perfection.
Capitalism developed in Protestant countries, although its philosophic foundations developed under Catholic scholars. It taught that nothing causes man to do evil; the potential for evil is part of human nature. The state’s job was to provide justice when man committed crimes, but it could not change human nature. Private property was sacred; envy was evil. As the West abandoned Christianity it abandoned these truths about human nature and embraced those of the left. As a result, I think arguments based on utility (capitalism works better) will always fail to persuade the left. Their religion must be attacked at the root—its conception of human nature.
Published: February 2, 2009 1:59 PM
fundamentalist
Pbergn: “The author contends that one does not need department of education, hoping apparently that local charities will take care of the problem of education...”
The dept of education is a fairly recent department for the federal government. I think Jimmy Carter created it. We did just fine without it and its existence hasn’t coincided with any improvement in education. As for charity providing education, that is not as far fetched as you might think. Most of charity in the US goes to colleges. If the state quite financing public schools, the reduction in taxes would provide more wealth to citizens who would use a large part of it to finance K-12 education.
Pbergn: “…point 10 contends that somehow abolishing already low $4.50/hr minimum wage will somehow buoy the ailing economy by some magic...”
The current minimum wages does little harm and little good. Congress is careful to set it just below the market wage so that it fools the public into thinking it’s doing something while actually doing nothing. If Congress really believed it could legislate wages without harm, it would set the min at $20/hr. Min wage jobs aren’t intended to support an individual. They are entry level jobs intended to give young people and immigrants an opportunity to improve their marketable skills so they can move on to better jobs. People who work at minimum wage jobs clearly need to share living expenses with others, such as family members. If you were to raise the min wage to say $20/hr., then young people and immigrants would be forced to pay for training to bring their skills up to the level expected of someone earning $20/hr.
Published: February 2, 2009 2:00 PM
Lester Hunt
I loved the transfusion analogy!
Published: February 2, 2009 2:01 PM
Bruce Koerber
Thanks for the movie recommendation!
Published: February 2, 2009 2:48 PM
Ned Netterville
I would say muzzle Krugman, but then I'm a pacifist, so I guess I'll have to wait until The NY Times wises up and drops his column, or goes out of business itself. Better yet, as its financial troubles worsen, maybe the Grey Lady will be forced to accept a bailout, low-ball bid for its assets from Rupert Murdock. Krugman wouldn't survive a week with Murdock in charge.
Published: February 2, 2009 3:05 PM
Taylor
Shame on you, Bob. You know better than to stoop to this level and play this game that only creates victims in the end.
An incredibly disappointing article to read, and even more so with your pen.
But you knew that already, didn't you?
I already have already become concerned with your pragmatic use of "(price) inflation/deflation," and now this? I honestly think you're spending too much time reading those pseudo-free market, neo-Keynesian "economist" guys like Tyler Cowen that you're always blogging about... seems like you're getting tired of calling attention to their hypocrisy and foolery and not getting any credit or thanks for being a great, esteemed economist yourself, so as a result you're choosing to go soft.
On this day, the Jedis lost a knight, and the Sith gained a lord :( Now, I fear, like Anakin you'll work to destroy us from within!
For shame Bob, for shame.
Published: February 2, 2009 3:37 PM
Francisco Torres
I don't know how bad it has to get, but government is like a religion in this country.
I am afraid this is correct. Too many Americans worship the State, or at least, are willing to accept it based on non sequiturs or platitudes: "Well, we NEED some sort of Government! It wouldn't be HERE if it wasn't a good idea! People would starve without it! People are brutes, they need Government [really, this absurd argument keeps appearing many times]!" Et cetera.
Published: February 2, 2009 3:45 PM
Ted Berthelote
You left out the most important one of all - Eliminate the FED.
Published: February 2, 2009 3:53 PM
Francisco Torres
And finally, the point 10 contends that somehow abolishing already low $4.50/hr minimum wage will somehow buoy the ailing economy by some magic...
The Federal Minimum Wage is actually $6.50 per hour, currently. And it would not buoy the economy by some magic, rather it will buoy the economy by the laws of economics. A Minimum Wage is just a price control, and like all price controls, that one creates shortages.
By the way, in America, people are educated because their parents and grandparents were educated, not because of the existence of the Dept. of Education. Many African countries actually have departments of that sort that receive funding from the UN and not for profit organizations based in developed nations, and the only thing these departments do is build fancy schools with no teachers and students and persecute or harass private schools that compete with them.
Published: February 2, 2009 3:54 PM
Francisco Torres
Allow unrestricted immigration so long as the incoming folks had a secure job in which the employer (a) paid three years in advance on any state and local taxes that would accrue from the employment and (b) bought at least a $100,000 house for the immigrant and his or her family. (Yes, yes, the last point is silly, but it will help sell the package.)
This one I did not understand. Why propose that the employer pays taxes for three years in advance, accrued from the expected employment (I mean, why three? Why not two, or four?). Why not let the employer simply employ whoever he wants, under an arrangement both parties agree to? Why buy them a home? Why not let the employee rent an apartment? Why not let freedom take over, is what I am asking?
(I know, I know, you already said it, Bob: To make the offer more palatable to anti-immigration xenophobes. But still, the proposal is not reasonable.)
Published: February 2, 2009 4:12 PM
Francisco Torres
You left out the most important one of all - Eliminate the FED.
Oh, man, that goes without saying! ;-)
Published: February 2, 2009 4:14 PM
DS
Eliminate the Fed and all of your other proposals will take care of themselves. No massive empire can sustain itself with a constant supply of fiat currency. Without the fed taxpayers would have to actually pay for the giant government they have allowed to exist. After the first tax bill it will be gone.
Published: February 2, 2009 6:24 PM
hayesy
drawing blood from his leg, in order to inject it into his arm and thus "stimulate his immune system," is a bad idea
And throwing in a few air bubbles to just make things interesting.
Published: February 2, 2009 6:28 PM
joebhed
central government planner here.
Incredibly disappointing.
Both the article and catching up on the comments.
WHY do you waste this great headline without taking a stab at answering the question?
Your analogy was totally unnecessary in that it never translated into policy or action.
Where there is broad agreement in the comments, and was only raised in the article within the analogy, is the lunacy of the debt-money system of the private federal reserve bank, which most folks here call the fiat money system of the government.
The cause of the financial implosion, the so-called credit-crunch, is the failed design of the debt money system; simply put, the failure to create the interest payments necessary to keep the system going, what this writer calls its "achilles heel".
http://www.financialsense.com/fsu/editorials/2005/1212b.html
How Debt Money Goes Broke.
We need to discuss that problem in light of today's debate about solutions.
The writer finds only two solutions, one being a new money system, the other being what I think would be free banking.
Published: February 2, 2009 7:35 PM
Franklin
"I don't know how bad it has to get, but government is like a religion in this country. Until that faith is truly shaken, nothing will change...."
Well said. One might have thought that Hurricane Katrina was enough. Or the Iraq war. Yet the opposite occurred. After these debacles, most Americans still do not want less government. They want better government. Prior to the hurricane, those that proactively managed their affairs survived and prospered for another day. And this group of people did not use the government to "save them." Yet when it was over, most of these same self-sufficient folks demanded that the government improve so that it can better manage the next catastrophe and save those kinds of folks who did not fare well during Katrina.
If this is the viewpoint of those who are self-sufficient, imagine the viewpoint of those who are not.
Both groups of people have faith in government that will never die.
And the two groups combined comprise nearly the entire population.
Pity.
Published: February 2, 2009 8:16 PM
Bennet Cecil
This crisis is an opportunity for more socialism, and that is what voters wanted. The Bush-Obama team has enlarged the size of government. Their intent is to make it control more than half of GDP. The Soviets actually did win the cold war. They exported socialism to the US to destroy our economy.
Politicians do not care what happens to millions. They only care about getting reelected and exercising power. They will enact laws that help their constituents. Economics has little to do with it. Politics is everything. They will try to look like they are helping when they are making it all worse again. They are looking to the 2010 election in the House of Representatives. They hope to artificially stimulate the economy to be reelected.
America is not Utopia, there are many opportunities to prosper in spite of bad policies. For example, the real estate and stock market crashes have made it easier to purchase income producing assets. High unemployment makes it easier to find qualified and affordable workers. Economic contraction reduces inflation from fiat currencies so that smart investors are not hurt. Debtors, employees and the financially stressed are the ones in danger.
Americans can learn from this. Pay off your debts, invest and live below your income. Maybe, maybe one time in my lifetime, we will elect someone who will reduce the size and cost of government. I am not counting on that happening.
Published: February 2, 2009 9:45 PM
SweetLiberty
The suggested execution of the author’s points demonstrates just how far away some Austrians are from reality. Goals that may be sound theoretically require a practical implementation and downgrading. Immediately abolishing the IRS and blowing up the building, immediately cutting the military budget by half, and requiring employers pay advanced taxes and buy immigrants houses are all ludicrous proposals. I appreciate many of the free market principles espoused on this site, but come on guys! Immediate anarchy and the resulting bloodbath is not the means to bring about laissez-faire capitalism. I’m embarrassed to be on the Austrian’s side after this specious article promising real recommendations. Mr. Murphy has just provided his Keynesian opponents with another round of ammunition to dismiss free market ideas as they are clearly championed by impractical radicals. All I can say in defense is that a good idea is not responsible for those who believe in it. I would hope another Mises scholar would take a crack at offering PRACTICAL suggestions to the Obama administration, ones that won’t embarrass us all.
Published: February 2, 2009 10:50 PM
Daniel
How would the abolition of the income tax and the closing of US military bases overseas result in a bloodbath?
This is exactly the sort of "unserious" criticism that is exasperating in the mainstream press. Think through the conseqences and, failing that, look at the state of the nation before income taxes and a worldwide military presence.
Published: February 3, 2009 12:32 AM
crosson
De Joe Stoutenburg
Headway is being made. I am one person who has been swayed only in the past several years. I believe that Austrian ideas are making progress in the minds of many people. This is a movement that is occuring despite any proposal are actions of any kind from political leaders.
These are encouraging words. I enjoyed your post. I live in Seattle and it's a nightmare up here. The only way I can make friends is if I lie to them and tell them I am a classical liberal, because they are too ignorant to know what a classic liberal is.
Published: February 3, 2009 12:51 AM
Tim
I think what is happening right now is that the US basically strives to provide global security on the pretext of "keeping the status quo". However countries with US military presence such as Korea, Germany and Japan could, and in fact already do very well provide their own proximate defense. Here in Canada for example, our military spending amounts to a nil percentage of our GDP because we know that our neighbors in the south would take care any of our problems. Would it hurt the Canadian economy to actually maintain its own national defence? I don't know.
Another point of interest is public vs. private education. I for one am a strong proponent of the latter. My son finished his last year of high school in private home study courses which cost a 35 CDN per each set of books. I think that if there was a nationwide market of unrestricted education, then the price to send a child to school should be no higher than that of a cable TV subscription. On top of that, municipal education programs and services could be also provided for poorer families without the need for government spending. Here in Canada we have a strong tradition of keeping non-profit charity and volunteering organizations.
Unfortunately, if you think that statism may be approaching a religion in the United States, my country has embraced it to the point of unshakeable fanaticism.
Published: February 3, 2009 2:13 AM
Helmut Wild
I liked this comment:
Ted Berthelote
You left out the most important one of all - Eliminate the FED.
Those international banking dynasties that own the FED have the monopoly to supply dollars in response to demand. Demand means "lending". Supply means creating dollars out of thin air.
As long as these underlying preconditions remain in place Keyne's economic logic remains dominant. Is even by far superior. Of course the bailouts ruin the value of the dollar. So what? Is it our business to save the dollar? Let this interesting worldwide experience of fiat money creation play out and care for yourself, which means: buy gold
Published: February 3, 2009 7:36 AM
Joe Stoutenburg
SweetLiberty:
I've already had my take on the article. But now I'm curious. Just what PRACTICAL suggestions would you make? And how far would you have to sell out to statism to make your ideas practical to policy makers?
Published: February 3, 2009 8:04 AM
SweetLiberty
So much of the comments here are like drinking buddies getting together and saying after several beers… “Ya know what weshud do? Weshud getrid of everythin and blowitallup!” And many of you cheer them on and say, “Yeah, that’s exactly what we should do!” While it may feel good to emote this way, ideas like this have no practical way of ever happening short of all out riots. Over 90% of this country identifies with either Republican or Democrat, the Libertarians getting only about 1-2% of the vote in national elections. They aren’t taken seriously because of the “blowitallup!” anarchist mentality.
Even if the majority of people in this country after Obama is done with us decide a smaller government and greater fiscal responsibility is necessary, the country is far too dependant on government welfare to “blowitallup!” and not expect chaos to ensue. Just mandating a balanced budget and that legislature present bills which are pork-free would be an amazing start! Then push for the fair tax (or something similar to simplify taxation). Push to legalize marijuana for a start so our legal system can at least be free of that ridiculous burden. When the country realizes the world isn’t any more encumbered by potheads than before, begin pushing for other legalization of “victimless crimes”.
The Austrians are great at pointing out what doesn’t work in our present system, and I agree with many of their points. I personally do not have all the answers, but like the author’s initial point, you don’t have to have the answer to know what is NOT the answer. It would be great to hear from all the Austrian scholars on this topic – I imagine we would hear a variety of proposals, some of which might actually have a chance of surviving the political process. But like most utopians, when it comes to a practical way to get from here to there, many make ridiculous leaps that can’t possibly happen in our democratic society, giving the general public the impression that Austrians and Libertarians are all crackpots. I believe America will come crashing down over the next few years, and that collapse will present an opportunity for saner heads to prevail. But that opportunity will close quickly if we can’t get a rational voice of reason to lead the country, as opposed to an angry drunk shouting “blowitallup!” from a soapbox.
Published: February 3, 2009 9:28 AM
I Hate Fundamentalists
Fundamentalist,
"The left responds that people are born innocent and become evil because someone oppresses them."
I can relate to this one, har har har har....(sadistical laugh ) !!!
P.S. I hate taxes
Published: February 3, 2009 9:29 AM
I Hate Fundamentalists
Fundamentalist,
Please explain to me how you will bring "justice" at gunpoint ?
How is it "just" to STEAL from hard working individuals through TAXES.
You have to force someone to give you money to redistribute it to someone else.
Your "justice" is true oppression and true evil, far worse than any private entity could ever imagine.
Your ideas and teachings spread much more evil than you can imagine.
Oh Yea, I HATE TAXES !
Published: February 3, 2009 9:34 AM
Lou Ohls
I am probably too simple to add much here, but there seems to be one basic flaw in economic theory. When a starving man and well fed man negotiate, the well fed man always has the advantage. But as soon as the starving man gets a few meals, he wants to re-negotiate, and the well fed man wants to keep the original contract. A truly open marketplace would allow them to re-negotiate. But to keep the old contract, the well fed man feels compelled to pay taxes to government and hire me, a cop, to protect a contract which is no longer voluntary. Thanks for a very nice living, and you can stop whining any time, nobody is listening.
Published: February 3, 2009 10:21 AM
Joe Stoutenburg
SweetLiberty:
Thank you for responding to my request. We need to sound more cogent than the drinking buddies that you described. The fact is, no matter what ideas we present, some people will find reason to criticize. If you water down your ideas to the point at which they are widely accepted, then you have probably abandoned your central principles.
In my opinion, the "serious" ideas that pass for policy are of the quality of the drinking buddies: "Ya know what weshud do?" "Le's prin' up a whole bunch o' money and dump it outta a helicopter!" Should we lower the quality of our ideas in order to gain wide acceptance?
I think that the mission of Austrian economists should be to raise the level of thinking. We should be ever focused on education. Expecting policy makers to do anything but marginalize us is probably naive. On the other hand, trying to push through more palatable policies opens us up to criticism. If the policies pass but the economy continues to go through turmoil (because we have only scratched the surface), our opponents may be able to discredit our policies.
Published: February 3, 2009 11:06 AM
Joe Stoutenburg
Lou Ohls:
Your analysis is based upon the supposition that the amount of wealth is fixed. However, both men may cooperate to produce new wealth. If the less fortunate man is able to be productive and save, he can better his position despite the less favorable contract. And surely there will be opportunities for future cooperation in which he may negotiate better contracts.
I do think that free market economists are sometimes a bit naive about the non-market means that the wealthy use to maintain their privilege. However, as long as market exchanges remain on voluntary, mutually beneficial basis, the problems that you describe are passing.
Published: February 3, 2009 11:14 AM
Enjoy Every Sandwich
Libertarians may be many things, but "utopian" is not one of them. Indeed, the very reason we are so disliked is that we refuse to buy into the "Government is Good" fairytale. We know that the State can't run the economy or eliminate poverty or end terrorism or (on and on and on...), and we say so. The State cannot create Better Humans and only causes trouble when it tries to.
Yeah, we say "blowitallup". Because it doesn't work, and it can't work, and we can either blow it up ourselves in a controlled blast, or somebody else will do it for us in a wild orgy of destruction. Granted, the latter may not happen in our lifetimes but that doesn't make it right.
Published: February 3, 2009 11:15 AM
Joe Stoutenburg
Enjoy Every Sandwich:
Good point. We should counter arguments that we utopian by reversing the charges. The idea is utopian that coercive institutions can solve all of our ills.
Published: February 3, 2009 11:18 AM
David Ch
Joe SOutenburg said:
'Headway is being made. I am one person who has been swayed only in the past several years. I believe that Austrian ideas are making progress in the minds of many people. This is a movement that is occuring despite any proposal are actions of any kind from political leaders.
Unfortunately, we may be quite a ways from having the critical mass necessary to make bottom-up action feasible....'
Response: you may be right about a subtle osmotic penetration, but it took your comment to bring that home to me.
ON th eone hand, I am most of the time despondent that the mainstream press ( including the Financial Times and The Economist which really should know better) gives hardly any space to the Austrian perspective except very rarely.
However, in my country, Trevor manuel , the Finance Minister (Himself from a very leftist revolutionary pedigree and representing a party that itself has far more left than right in its mishmash of policy ecelecticism), is on record just yesterday as saying that he does not agree with this worldwide race to drive interest rates down to zero, and he posed the question: 'If interest rates are forced down to nothing, where is the next wave of saving going to come from to fund investment?' Its not much, granted, but it is a comment that could have come from any bona fide aUSTRIAN. dare I hope that, deep in the heart of a former Marxist revolutionary and current Statist policymaker, a glimmer of enlightenment is in progress?
Published: February 3, 2009 11:20 AM
Joe Stoutenburg
David Ch:
You're right that powerful and influential people do not typically espouse Austrian thinking. Why would they? The Austrian ideals of individual, voluntary action would explode their positions of power and influence.
The actions and interests of policy makers may be analyzed using familiar economic principles. In a world of scarcity, they have chosen means to provide wealth to themselves. While some of them may be convinced that their methods are beneficial to the commonwealth, it must be recognized that they receive personal benefit - both in the satisfaction of weilding power and in accumulating personal wealth.
In the words of Upton Sinclair, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!"
It is thinking such as this that prompts me to be critical of attempts to influence policy makers. Rather, in the spirit of individual human action, I espouse the idea that we act without waiting for mandates from these people who have no rational reason to act.
In a sense, I envision (vainly, you might say - I hope not) a sort of proletarian uprising the like of which Marx envisioned. However, in deep contrast to Marx, we should rise up, not to abolish property, but to restore it.
My optimism that you quote is hardly substantiated. It is only from personal and anecdotal experience. All that we can do is to adopt correct principles in our lives and stand for them. Let the chips fall where they may.
Published: February 3, 2009 12:06 PM
fundamentalist
Hate: “Please explain to me how you will bring "justice" at gunpoint ?”
I realize that from an anarchist standpoint that is impossible. I was referring to the attitude that people had about the role of the state after the Protestant Reformation, an attitude that was necessary for the establishment of capitalism. Not being an anarchist, I think it is still possible for the state to bring about justice, possible, but not likely today.
Lou Ohls: “But as soon as the starving man gets a few meals, he wants to re-negotiate, and the well fed man wants to keep the original contract.”
I assume than in your illustration you intended that the contract is unfair to the starving man. Don’t let the left fool you into thinking that free markets are about lawlessness or a lack of charity. Free markets can only work in the context of the rule of law enforcing property rights, and common law would prohibit some types of contract, such as selling oneself into slavery. Charity would also exist so that starving people would not be at the mercy of unscrupulous people. Finally, in a free market job opportunities would be plentiful so that should a person find himself starving he would have opportunities other than signing a bad contract.
SweetLiberty: “But that opportunity will close quickly if we can’t get a rational voice of reason to lead the country, as opposed to an angry drunk shouting “blowitallup!” from a soapbox.”
You make some good points. Libertarians can be unrealistic at times which keeps them from getting a serious hearing. When Democrats and Republicans as for ideas, they mean ideas that fit within the existing paradigm. That’s hard for Libertarians to do since we oppose just about everything about the existing paradigm. You offer some sound suggestions for immediate steps, but I think you’ll find that even those small steps horrify the left and many people in the middle. The left is convinced that only the state has the power to defeat the hordes of capitalists who would enslave us all. With that attitude, it will be difficult to wrench any power from the state.
Published: February 3, 2009 12:06 PM
Matt
The below was written by Eric, he is on the right track.
"Can anyone name a time in history that an empire rolled itself back without their first being a catastrophe? And even with 10% unemployment, I don't see that as a qualification for catastrophe. I don't know how bad it has to get, but government is like a religion in this country. Until that faith is truly shaken, nothing will change. So, all this talk of ours (Austrians I assume) will likely do nothing until it gets really really bad.
What is really bad? Well, maybe the next super bowl is canceled because nobody can afford to go or too little advertising revenue is available. Maybe when there are no more cars to buy, no food to eat something could change."
In the mean time we will muddle along the same course of collectivism until it gets really really bad.
Published: February 3, 2009 12:29 PM
fundamentalist
Eric: "Can anyone name a time in history that an empire rolled itself back without their first being a catastrophe?”
If you take the long view of history, that is from earliest recorded history until today, you’ll see that Capitalism has been a flash in the pan. According to Douglass North of the New Institutional school, until modern times traditional states were organized with a king at the top who maintained power by giving a small group of nobility the right to plunder the rest of the population. The nobility couldn’t steal from each other, but they could steal all they wanted from the masses. That kept them loyal to the king.
Capitalism didn’t begin until at least the Republic of Venice, but more likely the Dutch Republic of the 16th century, and at that time it was limited to one small country. It spread to the US and England and by the end of the 19th century it encompassed just North America and Western Europe, both of which abandoned Capitalism in the early 20th century. A few Asian countries joined the ranks of as at least semi-capitalist nations in the last half of the 20th century, but the West continued its march toward socialism. Just as the 20th century reversed the progess made in the two centuries before it, the 21st century will probably see more regression to the traditional form of government.
Published: February 3, 2009 1:57 PM
I Hate Fundamentalists
Hey, Fundy,
Looks alot like this today, are you saying we are not into modern times yet ? Replace the king by the president and the nobles by the bureaucrats and you get the same result.
"According to Douglass North of the New Institutional school, until modern times traditional states were organized with a king at the top who maintained power by giving a small group of nobility the right to plunder the rest of the population. The nobility couldn’t steal from each other, but they could steal all they wanted from the masses. That kept them loyal to the king."
Published: February 3, 2009 2:41 PM
I Hate Taxes
Hey Fundy,
The opposite of oppression is not anarchy nor chaos. Don't try to belittle libertarians by calling them anarchist.
Listen, even from an archist standpoint, you can't rob people. We could still have a minimalist government without the need to rob Paul to pay Peter.
"I realize that from an anarchist standpoint that is impossible."
Published: February 3, 2009 2:43 PM
I Hate Taxes
Hey Fundy,
It's funny that you think that the state can bring justice, given that the state is the biggest criminal enterprise of all times, robbing people of their hard work through taxes, destroying their savings through inflation, waging savage wars, building nuclear weapons, confiscating real estate on drug charges, summary executions and arrests, behaving like thugs etc.
So, you really think that the wolf can gard the lamb herd ? LOL !
I don't want the government to "bring" justice, I just want it to stop committing all those crimes, that would be a very good start.
"Not being an anarchist, I think it is still possible for the state to bring about justice, possible, but not likely today. "
Published: February 3, 2009 2:47 PM
fundamentalist
Hate: "It's funny that you think that the state can bring justice, given that the state is the biggest criminal enterprise of all times..."
The state is a criminal only according to the Rothbard/Hoppe ethic. If one doesn't subscribe to that ethic, then the state isn't a criminal organization. I happen to subscribe to the original natural law ethic that makes room for the state as a provider of justice, as did Mises and Hayek.
Published: February 3, 2009 5:00 PM
"iprint" Inventor
If I woke up one day and found myself drowning in debt I think the best thing to do would be to engage in a serious and determined study of the art of counterfeiting.
Not wanting to be a hypocrite, I will therefore refrain from passing judgment on our government officials but I would like to make the suggestion that if Obama really wants to get the American public behind him, all he has to do is provide every American with his own printing machine, call it the "iprint".
I am pretty busy, but because I am such a patriotic American and desire to help every citizen of our 50 United States, I am considering offering the US Govt 305 million "iprint" machines at the sacrificial price of $29.95 (no tax).
If anyone would like to financially back this patriotic enterprise, please me a message and a small pot of gold.
Published: February 3, 2009 8:57 PM
Andrew
9. Allow unrestricted immigration so long as the incoming folks had a secure job in which the employer (a) paid three years in advance on any state and local taxes that would accrue from the employment and (b) bought at least a $100,000 house for the immigrant and his or her family. (Yes, yes, the last point is silly, but it will help sell the package.)
Absolutely insane with current entitlement programs, the current way infrastructure is paid for, current state funded schooling and laws requiring medical care at hospitals. Without changes to all of these BEFORE This idea was implemented, this would bankrupt hospitals, raise property taxes astronomically, destroy our infrastructure and worst of all get the absolute worst politicians elected all over the country. Yes, yes we have bad politicians but not all of them and they are all not the worst that comes out of desperately poor areas. This sort of idea would lead to politicians being elected that would impose massive statism to placate their base of uneducated voters. I don't understand how you cannot see this.
Published: February 3, 2009 11:23 PM
fundamentalist
Libertarians get upset when the left battles with a straw man of their own making and calls it Libertarian. In the same way, we are often guilty of fighting our own straw men we call socialism. Socialism and statism is far more than just a power grab by unscrupulous people. As Mises wrote, it is a religion. It is not like a religion in the sense that devotees of statism refuse to listen to reason, it is literally a religion in the sense that it has its own world view that selects what is reasonable and what is not. The essence of that world view is the socialist view of the nature of man, the cause of evil, and the role of the state in restoring the innocense of mankind. If one accepts that world view, then socialism make perfect sense and capitalism is the ultimate evil. Libertarians will never make any progress against socialism by ignoring this world view and attacking it as just another power grab.
Published: February 4, 2009 8:08 AM
Michael A. Clem
Without changes to all of these BEFORE This idea was implemented, this would bankrupt hospitals, raise property taxes astronomically, destroy our infrastructure and worst of all get the absolute worst politicians elected all over the country.
The old "keep immigration restrictions until after welfare is removed" argument? Has it occurred to you that welfare will not be ended wilingly by our politicians, and that "bankrupting" the system might be the only way to end it?
Published: February 4, 2009 10:40 AM
I Hate Taxes
Fundamentalist:
"The state is a criminal only according to the Rothbard/Hoppe ethic. If one doesn't subscribe to that ethic, then the state isn't a criminal organization."
So, as long as I think robbing others is okay, I can rob them of their hard earned money and call it justice ?
I find your ethics quite slack to say the least. It's funny how people think taxes are fine but don't want to get robbed my a mugger on the street. That's pure hypocrisy.
If it's a crime to invade someone's property and take his money by force, it's a crime to tax.
No matter what your "ethics" are, a crime is a crime.
But if you think stealing is okay then please leave me your address and I will happily take away your belongings.
Published: February 4, 2009 12:32 PM
fundamentalist
Hate: "No matter what your "ethics" are, a crime is a crime."
Neither Mises nor Hayek considered the state to be criminal or taxation to be theft. In fact, Mises wrote that the state was necessary and good for civilization because it limited criminal activity.
You don't have the authority to decide that the state is criminal and taxation is theft. You can use Rothbard's ethical reasoning to demonstrate it, but I am under no obligation to accept it. I don't accept it because 1) it begins with the arbitrary choice of property as the guiding principle, whereas traditional natural law began with the right to life and 2) it makes property an absolute, for which there is no reasonable justification.
Natural law considered the state a legit institution with the right to tax for centuries. Mises and Hayek agreed with it. I see no reason to disagree with them.
Published: February 4, 2009 5:07 PM
Sally C.
As long as kids in American schools have to pledge allegiance to the flag there is no chance that the majority of American adults will ever question the actions of the government enough to stand up to it. In theory, you have created the ideal conditions for the nightmare world of '1984'! The only saving grace is the two term limit for U.S. Presidents.
Published: February 5, 2009 4:28 AM
Leon Haller
I am a long-time follower of Mises, Rothbard, and the rest of the Austrians, and believe their economics is correct, even if 'radical' by conventional standards. Their politics is quite another matter. There is nothing philosophically dispositive about libertarianism, however persuasive Misesian praxeology. One can be an Austrian without worshipping the Market God (as so many on this site do), or exalting homo economicus to some privileged position above all other human types and aspirational categories.
These truths are always brought home to me whenever libertarians idiotically start pontificating on areas about which they so often either are clearly ignorant, or otherwise blinded by ideology. Foreign policy is one such area. While I share much of the libertarian critique of imperialism and the threat it has historically posed to domestic liberty and tranquility, a nation's security interests can hardly be satisfied simply with endless reiterations of "do nothing". If many libertarians had their way, national defense would be reduced to civilian militias, desperately hoping that a non-interventionist foreign policy of peace and free trade with all, entangling alliances with none, would somehow so charm the rest of the planet that no hostile powers, coveting the immense wealth of our desired retro-capitalist system, would emerge to threaten us. The naivete of this view, in a world of predatory states and nuclear weaponry, is mind-boggling, evincing the complete triumph of obsessional ideology over any awareness of history and the really existing world order.
Immigration is another area of libertarian utopianism and flight from reality. I've enjoyed many of Robert Murphy's articles, but if he is serious that we should allow UNRESTRICTED immigration (his usage @#9 above), then I must call into question the value of all of his earlier work that I had thought was enlightening. Throwing open America's already hemmoraghing borders, an act of world-historically pathological stupidity, would result in the virtual overnight extirpation of the United States, the literal foreign conquest of America. Does Murphy have ANY understanding of: 1) evolutionary biology; 2) the history of interethnic relations; 3) global demographics; 4) international wealth disparities; 5) infectious disease epidemiology; 6) the American welfare state structure; 7) American anti-discrimination law; 8) geopolitical relations; 9) military security issues; or 10) American ethnographic electoral patterns, and political realities? In a word, outside of some tiny specialty in Austrian economics, does Murphy have any knowledge of any discipline relevant to formulating immigration policy? In advocating "open borders" the answer is, embarrassingly not.
Immigration is the great disaster of our time, not just for traditional Americans, who are losing their country to this peaceful invasion, but for liberty, too. Immigration strengthens the hand of government in dozens of ways, but I will emphasize just one. 99% of immigrants are racial 'minorities'. Here is the racial minority vote for Obama in 2008 (admittedly, I wrote-in Ron Paul, but third party voting is still rare; the vast bulk of pro-private property voters are registered Republicans): blacks 95%, Hispanics about 70%, Asians 62% (and Jews, incidentally, voted 81% for Obama). These electoral demographic imbalances have been remarkably stable over the past four decades. Why would we want to increase the numbers of minority voters ten-fold virtually overnight?
Open immigration would spell the immediate end of private property and the free market in America, and usher in an era of total wealth confiscations for old-stock Americans. Advocating such destruction is not funny or "tongue-in-cheek"; it is treasonous (and per Hoppe, it is not even libertarian, at least not necessarily so).
If Mr. Murphy and other libertarians indeed wish to emerge from their little ideological ghetto, and have their views (at least the correct ones, those dealing with the economy) taken seriously by sober men, they need to jettison their non-economic nonsense. Note that the one libertarian doing something in the real world, Rep. Ron Paul (Republican), is staunchly opposed to the immigration invasion, and wants are borders sealed, not cast aside.
Published: February 6, 2009 9:08 PM
TokyoTom
Bob, you and others fail to give any serious attention to the underlying cause of the plague of irresponsibility that lies at the core of our capitialist system - the state grant of limited liability to shareholders. Glassman and Nolan in the WSJ recently, Joe Nocera in the Time Magazine and Michael Lewis all get close to this, in the context of risk-taking by Wall Street.
My take on it at the post linked at my name above [linked deleted here to get past spam filter]
Published: March 5, 2009 9:45 AM