How I Found the Austrian School
Economics is a little-understood branch of knowledge, and despite its ongoing relevance to our everyday lives, it is still regarded as a subject that must be left to specialists. FULL ARTICLE by Abhinandan Mallick
Salamanca Live Blog
LvMI on Facebook
Comments (50)
Mike
Welcome to reality, friend. :-)
Published: October 9, 2009 9:13 AM
Abhilash Nambiar
Ron Paul more than anyone else helped me find the Austrian school. Before that I knew of only Milton Friedman's Chicago School. Friedrich von Hayek's Road to Serfdom was my stepping stone book. But I took a long time to take the next step, because I did not know that the Austrian School existed!!
I hope people feel free to comment on how they found the Austrian School. I am sure, it will be very interesting.
Published: October 9, 2009 10:13 AM
Pravin Varma
From famed economist/investor: Marc Faber.He mentioned Schumpeter, however. Then followed financialsense.com and its sound money proponents (Peter schiff used to be a regular feature).
I found the Mises site too verbose.But by 2007 with Ron Paul's campaign,it became clear that there are living proponents of this thought in public life.It was easy after that.
I was enrolled for the CFA and FRM exams and thought what these courses teach is completely contracited by free market economics which I learnt here,I nevertheless went ahead and finished these exams.Seems like sunk cost to me.
Published: October 9, 2009 10:21 AM
Mike
With me it started in high school when I, raised by a father who is a Limbaugh Republican, read Harry Browne's "Why Government Doesn't Work" and "The Great Libertarian Offer". I then started exploring via the Internet at a website which doesn't seem to exist anymore, free-market.net.
For several years I stopped caring about politics and focused on school. Finally, when Obama-mania hit, I began again to search for a breath of fresh air. Found Mises.org, from its recommendations read Economics in One Lesson and End the Fed, and purchased Human Action (have not yet read). The rest is the future.
Published: October 9, 2009 11:27 AM
Mike
I should add that the blog Fred on Everything (http://www.fredoneverything.net) and the Danimal Archive (http://myrsky.net/faust3/danimal-archive), while both flawed, performed the necessary deprogramming from public education that allowed be to, for the first time in my life, see things as they are and call a spade a spade.
Published: October 9, 2009 11:31 AM
Stephen Grossman
>competition between bureaucrats could lower the price of bribes
Does Obama know this?
Published: October 9, 2009 11:37 AM
O S
My first exposure to free markets was from listening to my brother in law. That was when I was probably 16 or 17. I was involved in Amway for a brief while and they used to talk about "free enterprise" all the time. I really seriously started getting more exposure because of my interest in the housing bubble. Back in late 2004, I concluded that there was a bubble in Bay area housing market. Because of which, I used to visit websites like patrick.net and housebubble.com, which lead me to Bill Bonner's DailyReckoning.com, where I was exposed to mises.org in 2005.
It is interesting that I picked up on the Austrian explanation of the bubble, because it made sense to me. housebubble.com and patrick.net used to link to other sites with a Minksyite explanation of bubbles, but I didn't find them very convincing.
Published: October 9, 2009 12:30 PM
Raymond T. Walter
Well, it usually starts with Rand . . .
Published: October 9, 2009 12:49 PM
Eric
My introduction to the Austrian School was when I found a reference in Harry Browne's book, "Why government doesn't work" to Murray Rothbard's "What has government done to our money".
Before that, I too, only knew of Milton Friedman, who wrote well, in Capitalism and Freedom and Free to Choose, but never quite satisfied me on the Federal Reserve. Rothbard's book, was a true eye opener. I then got everything of Rothbard's I could find, including 2 other books that he wrote on the FED and Banking. His Ethics of Liberty is a true classic (and the audio book found here for free is superb!).
One of the early articles I found on mises.org was "When will the Bubble Burst" http://mises.org/daily/284 which saved me probably 50% of my pension funds by alerting me to what was causing the dot-com craze and what was likely to happen (which proved correct). Well worth reading even today. Maybe, especially today.
And of course the current real estate bubble was predicted here too, saving me once again another 50% of my funds.
I'm sure whatever is coming next will be revealed here long before it happens, so I will stay tuned.
Published: October 9, 2009 2:34 PM
Marcus
I found the austrian school via lrc and i found lrc via antiwar.com
sometimes live is stranger then fiction
Published: October 9, 2009 2:41 PM
Robert Brager
I discovered the Austrian School in 1998. I lived in Indianapolis at the time and there was this little book store in the Broad Ripple area that would leave several books on the patio next to a slot in the door (or window, I don't completely recall) where you could slide some money in. The honor system, in other words. Well, all I had on me was fifty cents and I took two books, both of which had alluring titles for a young, punk rock anarchist type such as I was in those days. One of these books was called "The Warmongers" and it was written by one Howard Katz, who proceeded to present an Austrian-style critique of the welfare-warfare state. He provided a bibliography. I didn't follow up at that point, but that was a quarter well-invested as it got the gears going.
Later that same year, I was living downtown in a high-rise called Riley Towers. There was a library/billiards room in this place and you could take books at will, so long as you traded out. I picked up two books, one of them was "The International Man" by Douglas Casey. This one changed my life. The bibliography was extensive. He recommended seminal works by Mises, Hayek, Rothbard, Hazlitt, and the Tannehill's "The Market for Liberty". By 2001, I had brought myself enough up to speed to consider myself well and truly an Austrian.
In my social set, I was pretty much alone, though. Until Ron Paul came along.
Published: October 9, 2009 3:46 PM
Old Hop
You'll get a kick out this: I first heard the name of Ludwig von Mises from my father, who found it in a book by Senator Jesse Helms called When Free Men Shall Stand. That was in then mid-70s.
In college I was taught neocalssical and Keynesian ideas, with the Chicago School getting occasional mention. In grad school it was all "rat-ex." I went into real estate appraisal and became a pre-licensing instructor, teaching marginal "utility" (rather than marginal value) from what amounted to a blend of Jevons' and Walras' perspectives. I vaguely remembered hearing of the Austrian School, but knew nothing about it.
Then, while doing Civil War research (around 2004), I stumbled upon articles by Joe Stromberg at LRC and Mises.org. I quickly became interested in the economics discussions, reading articles by Shostak, Murphy, Higgs, Polleit, and Hulsmann. Wanting to start at the beginning I downloaded Carl Menger's Principles and was hooked. Then came the first waves of the real estate collapse in 2007, and it seemed the Austrian business cycle theory was pretty much validated. I continue reading -- Man, Economy & State (the wonderfully affordable $10 edition purchased from the Mises bookstore); and just downloaded the PDF of Human Action for later. The recent festschrift for Hoppe is one of the most exciting books I've read of late.
As a Christian I especially appreciate the emphasis on the antecedents found in the School of Salamanca. My personal challenge is help my fellow believers understand economic issues from an Austrian perspective, especially with so many being lured into the hip socialism of Jim Wallis and his ilk.
Published: October 9, 2009 7:39 PM
Dale
After reading Atlas Shrugged, by Ayn Rand, I was interested in the gold standard and while doing some research I came across "Inflation and the Fall of the Roman Empire", by Joseph Peden. http://mises.org/daily/3663
I enjoyed listening to his lecture so much I began exploring this site more.
Published: October 9, 2009 8:45 PM
刘
我是在阅读《专业投机原理》（Principles of Professional Speculation）时经由Victor Sperandeo而了解奥派思想的。尤其喜欢她的ABCT理论。
若想进行成功的投资，奥派思想必不可少。
Very grateful to Mises, Hayek, Rothbard, Hazlitt, and the other Austrain School economists, of course, to Mises.org too.
Published: October 10, 2009 4:55 AM
Lucas M. Engelhardt
I found the Austrian school in college. One of the benefits of going to Grove City College (PA) as an economics major is that you're taught the Austrian school from the first class to the last.
Published: October 10, 2009 7:23 AM
Bruce Koerber
Education and Ethics
Saturday, October 10, 2009
Ludwig von Mises Was Not A Scientific Atheist.
As Mises notes in Human Action, "Observe the functioning of the market system … and you will discover in it … the finger of God."
This is not a platitude by Ludwig von Mises. This is a scientific and deep understanding of subjectivism and equilibrium by a virtuous man who was intellectually a genius, who was given the tools conferred by a rigorous education, and who was acquainted in his personal life with the qualities of nobility.
Published: October 10, 2009 9:02 AM
Abhinandan Mallick
Just to clarify, my quotation of Mises was changed during the editing process. I did not object to the edited version as I thought it came clearer.
However, despite how inspring Mises' statement of this phrase is, I feel it must be read in context.
On my blog you can find the original version of the article, where I stated:
As Mises notes in Human Action, the conclusion of the classical liberals; "Observe the functioning of the market system, they said, and you will discover in it the finger of God."
Mises was not necessarily describing his own view, but the deist interpretation of the economic order many classical liberals took what they found. Strictly, what he actually said on pg 240 of the scholars edition, lest Mises not be taken out of context was:
"Theism and Deism of the Age of Enlightenment viewed the regularity of natural phenomena as an emanation of the decrees of Providence. When the philosophers of the Enlightenment discovered that there prevails a regularity of phenomena also in human action and in social evolution, they were prepared to interpret it likewise as evidence [p. 239] of the paternal care of the Creator of the universe. This was the true meaning of the doctrine of the predetermined harmony as expounded by some economists[4]. The social philosophy of paternal despotism laid stress upon the divine mission of kings and autocrats predestined to rule the peoples. The liberal retorted that the operation of an unhampered market, on which the consumer--i.e., every citizen--is sovereign, brings about more satisfactory results than the decrees of anointed rulers. Observe the functioning of the market system, they said, and you will discover in it too the finger of God."
Published: October 10, 2009 11:20 AM
XxWarmonkeyxX
It's so cool to see how everyone follows their own path to the same conclusion. I myself have always had this feeling that the things being told me somehow just didn't jive. Found punk rock and latched on. The whole "be yourself and don't tell me how to live" attitude was what worked for me. What I didn't know was there was a name for that: Libertarian.
Pretty much had my head buried in the sand through my 20's concerning politics and didn't even have a care for economics. Fast forward to the lastest presidential election. My older brother(who just got back from Iraq in the Marines) was constantly telling me about poitical ideas that were mainly mainstream Republican. Some of those ideas which were truly conservative struck a chord with me.
Then I heard him talk about Ron Paul. He kept talking about the Constitution and how our government completely ignores it. That struck a chord with me and I went searching youtube for clips of Ron Paul. I got excited hearing him speak. It made perfect sense. I bought his "Revolution: A Manifesto" book and was totally blown away. Used the Resources section and found Mises.org.
From there I started reading Rothbard and Gene Callahan. The words written were exactly how I felt, but I had never heard them expressed. I felt like I had truly found my voice. It was an amazing feeling to be able to express my feelings and make people understand.
It opened up a whole new world. Understanding why inflation happens, booms and busts occur, and how government pretty much ruins anything it decides to meddle in. I now feel like I have pulled the veil from off my face that hung there for most of my life.
Published: October 10, 2009 11:44 AM
Gene Berman
When young, I was always fascinated by the "old prospector" and even, at one point, considered a career in Geophysical Engineering and though events went otherwise in my life, have never lost a certain interest in the precious metals (and other extractable resources).
In late 1962, my interest was again piqued by a rise of 25 cents in the price of a Fenwal thermoregulator sold by the scientific apparatus house for which I wrote copy. Investigating, I found that Fenwal was merely hedging a bit on a marked rise in the usage of silver (esp. for photography), from which a contact was made. But further investigation of the disparity between consumption and production led me to believe the fixed price of $1.293 simply could not last and I quickly became a notorious "lunatic" among friends and co-workers by predicting the "reneg" on silver certificates, etc. Otherwise, I didn't "do" anything about the situation I saw--just watched as it developed as I had forecasted.
In 1971, a friend remarked that my ideas (all of my own development) sounded like a book he'd read:
Harry Browne's HOW YOU CAN PROFIT FROM THE COMING DEVALUATION (published, incidentally, by none other than Lew Rockwell). I read the book, found Mises in the bibliography, and the rest is history.
It's pretty well consumed my thinking ever since.
I was going to correct Mr. Ambiar on the nature of the Mises "quotation" but am glad to see that he's cleared up that source of confusion himself.
In 19
Published: October 10, 2009 1:44 PM
iamse7en
I chose to major in Economics, and I fell in love with the principles of freedom and capitalism. I chose to compliment my undergrad major with good books and blogs. I started reading Milton Friedman, who is most famous for his ferocious defense of free markets. I later learn that his monetary theories are not sound, but that does not diminish his superior thoughts on freedom and capitalism. His book and TV series, Free to Choose, has done more good to articulately capture the power of free markets than most media out there. I fell in love with the YouTube clips where he debates socialists about capitalism. I agree with everything he says, just perhaps not his views on the central bank.
The blogs I chose to read were mostly conservative, but with libertarian leanings. I appreciated the TRUE conservatives and their love of and belief in free markets. These eventually led me to reading more libertarian blogs, like Reason and The Cato Institute, and later, Mises.org. Many of the articles had emphasis on a relatively unknown, at least to me, school of economics. Not only did the Austrian School emphasize the power of the individual seeking his self-interest (like many conservative economists), but it eloquently explained the connection between the money supply and the business cycle. Rather than changing my beliefs, it further confirmed that only a free market can properly allocate resources toward productive activity in providing a nation with prosperity and freedom. Only this time, I learned how dangerous a central banking system is, and that our monetary system was not even close to a free market. I hope conservatives will embrace Austrian theory concerning the money supply.
In my Econ classes, I learned that Alan Greenspan was a great Fed Chairman, and that the Federal Reserve was instrumental to stabilizing the economy, and preventing deep recessions. Thankfully, through the Austrian School, I have learned the exact opposite. I never quite understood the central bank, because it never truly seemed rational to me that a small group of people should determine interest rates and thus influence the money supply. In other sectors, I learned how only the market can determine the correct prices. How is that any different than 'price' of lending? Austrian thought is clearly sound and rational.
These blogs also led me to Peter Schiff videos, after the 2008 financial crisis I should add, and other previous statements by Ron Paul. To be honest, I didn't like Ron Paul. My only experience with him was in the presidential elections, and I was put off by his "every time we kill one terrorist, we create 3 more" (or whatever) rhetoric. He sounded more like Obama to me. Unfortunately, the economy wasn't as big an issue yet, because the financial crisis was not yet public until September of 2008. I never knew how articulate and passionate Ron Paul was about free markets. I never knew that he was more committed to limited government than any of the other candidates. He seemed like a whiny old man who had more in common with the Left. I was so wrong. Since then, I have read more and more of his political beliefs, read his latest book (End the Fed), and have come to the conclusion that I agree with his fundamentals and philosophy more than any other candidate. This was AFTER Obama get elected. I was a Romney guy, because it seemed to me that it was either between McCain and Romney, and Romney was more pro-market than McCain (not including that awful health care plan!). I kind of like Ron Paul's non-interventionist philosophy, especially its ties to the constitution about entangling alliances, and if his policies will keep America safer, than I would embrace them. I'm open to be swayed one way or the other.
However, this is about the Austrian school. What really convinced me more than anything else, was that the statements of Austrian economists exactly predicted the 2008 financial crisis. They warned about the Fed lowering interest rates and the over-investment in housing, and the oligopoly rating agencies. Their statements were dead on and quite prophetic. It seems obvious to me that we shouldn't be listening to Greenspan or Bernanke anymore, and of course the Keynesians, who I ignored anyways.
My next book to read Meltdown, and I look forward to it. I have read many papers, articles, and lectures on the financial crisis, and I'm sure this book will comprehensively articulate them all.
Although this financial crisis is proving to ruin many lives, the silver lining is that a very valuable lesson has been taught. I fear many people are believing the leftist propaganda that this was a failure of free markets, and the solution is government regulation. It obviously is the exact opposite: a failure of government regulation, and the solution is free markets. However, many people are also learning about Austrian theory, and are being drawn to its principles because these economists proved to be prophetic.
Published: October 10, 2009 2:23 PM
Bruce Koerber
Classical Liberalism Protection
(Transition to a society envisioned in the philosophy of classical liberalism needs our attention. Atheism and interventionism are the two major distortions.)
Saturday, October 10, 2009
Austrian Economics Stems From Classical Liberalism.
The origins of Austrian economics is classical liberalism as recognized by Mises. The scientific conclusions more formally systematized - it just so happened - confirmed the discoveries of the earlier contributors to the science before it was made into an either/or proposition.
Those who need an either/or proposition will probably find it impossible to fully integrate ethics and economics. Not as great a travesty as adopting the empirical methodology for the social sciences; but nevertheless still requiring half-truths about human nature and human history and resulting in reliance on ego-driven interpretation, which predictably will result in injustices.
Atheism and interventionism are distortions that undermine classical liberalism
Published: October 10, 2009 3:43 PM
Abhinandan Mallick
Hello Bruce, given your above comment, I must say I respectfully disagree with your conclusion.
We must be careful to distinguish between what we can logically or empirically deduce as true, and what we would like to be true.
Many engineers would like the 2nd law of thermodynamics to be true, and design the perfect engines they wish, yet they and physicists would be foolhardy to ignore the laws of thermodynamics, and must cope and engineer machines in full light of this un-movable constraint.
A similiar thing could be said in the economic sphere with the impossibillity of calculation for an autistic economy.
Science has nothing to say about the existence of a God either in favour or not, this is outside the realm of science.
Some like Richard Dawkins would interpret the above statement in such a way, given the success of induction applied in the natural science and the way we have progressed knowledge in this field through the non-falsification of normative propositions that we should therefore not take the existence of a God as given, since it can be phrased as a normative proposition, like the speed of light is 3*10^8 meters per second.
There are flaws in his argument however, e.g. the fact that the application of such a methodology leads to paradoxes when it is applied to propositions not reasonably verifiable within a person's lifetime; like is there an afterlife?
Again, this is strictly outside the bounds of science.
I agree with you on interventionism, with regard to the unfortunate minarchist position eventually taken by the Classical Liberals and their encouragement of competition in the political sphere. It is perhaps a mystery why Molinari's influence faded to obscurity.
Published: October 10, 2009 4:44 PM
Mike C.
You sir are a truly introspective fellow and a gem. I personally found Mises thru Rand and I can't agree one hundred percent on your take, however, you are obviously a person on the correct path... Grow, Teach and Live a great life my friend.
Published: October 11, 2009 12:02 AM
Bruce Koerber
Economics and Religion
Saturday, October 10, 2009
It Is Deduction That Validates Both Science And Religion.
What could be more empirically true or more logically true than the appearance of Manifestations of God throughout the history of humankind and the resulting advancement of civilization either directly or indirectly attributable to the knowledge that They impart?
To selectively ignore this (even if it is because of the good reason of how religion has been corrupted over the years by the ego-driven interpreters) puts such a perspective into the precarious category of a half-truth.
Science is merely another powerful tool to be used to discover. But remember - the tool of science can easily be corrupted, take economic empiricism for example. In that form it is nothing but superstition (for example, Keynesianism). Or take for example environmentalism as it is twisted into various political schemes. Science is a powerful tool, but it too can be and has been corrupted. Yet those who are perceptive can discern and pursue the beauty and purity of science and thereby advance civilization.
Religion is likewise a powerful tool that has the same weaknesses as science. It can be and has been corrupted. But like science it has a beauty and purity - that can and has lead to the advancement of civilization.
To claim that one (in other words, only science or only religion) is the only true way is a blemish on the heart and mind of a seeker after truth. If that blemish is treated with atheism it will worsen.
Published: October 11, 2009 12:09 AM
Mike C.
Bruce Koerber
Economics and Religion
Saturday, October 10, 2009
It Is Deduction That Validates Both Science And Religion.
===
It is philosophy that relies on reason; religion could care less and only considers reason a sinner whore to be used like an unworthy half sensible cousin. When it is finally bothered enough it will, in the end, change its way.
Published: October 11, 2009 12:32 AM
Nate Y
Bruce Koerber,
It's strange. I'm an atheist and a Classical Liberal. I was an atheist before I was a classical liberal. In fact, my atheism was instrumental in guiding me to Classical Liberalism and the Austrian School. How do you reckon with this?
Published: October 11, 2009 2:17 AM
Bruce Koerber
Dear Nate,
The fact that you are searching after truth means that you have chosen an active entrepreneurial spirit over a latent one. I am not saying that science (classical liberalism is an example of science that uses the correct methodology for studying human action) does not lead to truth. On the contrary it is one of the most powerful tools of discovery. Science, if it is erroneous (empiricism in social sciences, for example), can also lead astray.
That is the same problem with religion.
When put on even ground, then, both science and religion have the same potentials - good and bad.
Now, how would you regard an individual who only used religion as the sole tool for the discovery of truth? In your mind you probably would regard that individual as imbalanced, I suspect.
Just because religion is a difficult path to traverse since it is plagued with the errors of ego-driven interpretation does not mean that religion is an invalid tool for the discovery of truth.
If someone says, "Look at the ridiculousness of Keynesianism; economics is a bunch of bunk!" and then they fall into a mode of a latent entrepreneurial spirit, does that do any good for anyone?
I merely suggest that we have the choice to use all the tools for discovery that are at our disposal. The easy way probably will not yield the best results.
Published: October 11, 2009 10:17 AM
fcdale
this is a great discussion. it is interesting to me to see how people from both left and right come to austro-libertarianism. i was a conservative in college and was a believer in free markets. i read milton friedman, then ayn rand, hayek, mises then rothbard. rothbard blew me away, i'll never look back. freedom really equals peace and it took me a while to internalize that concept. i can see somone on the left, thinking logically through an anti-war stance to come to austro-libertarianism and i can see someone coming from the right thinking logically about free markets coming to peace. i think however we get here the important part is that we are here. i thank guys like rockwell for putting this site up and making the works of some truly great minds available so we all can make our own, personal journey to liberty possible. my prayer is that enough young people can make this journey to make an impact in these scary times.
Published: October 11, 2009 8:29 PM
Russ
Bruce Koerber wrote:
"...classical liberalism is an example of science that uses the correct methodology for studying human action..."
"Atheism and interventionism are distortions that undermine classical liberalism."
I was going to leave this alone, then I saw the slam on atheists. Bruce, you are apparently *very* confused.
Firstly, classical liberalism is *not* a science. It is a normative political philosophy. Science is not normative; we cannot derive values from it. Perhaps you are confusing classical liberalism with Austrian economics? Even then you are confused, because 1) economics is a science, and so it is not normative, and 2) one does not have to be a believer in the Austrian school to be a classical liberal.
Secondly, atheism does *not* undermine classical liberalism. Atheism only involves a lack of belief in God; it does not follow that an atheist has or does not have any given moral or political viewpoint. (For instance, I am an atheist, and yet I still believe that theft and murder are wrong. I don't have to be a Christian to believe that.) That is not to say that religion cannot inform a person's classical liberalism; it certainly can. And yes, socialists are mostly atheists. But their socialism does not follow logically from atheism. (I would say their atheism followed from their socialism, actually.)
In short, just because a person does not share all of your own prejudices, that doesn't mean he doesn't share some of them. *grin*
Published: October 12, 2009 1:29 AM
Abhilash Nambiar
I loved this article. I was a bit worried about the way it ended, with a quote mined out of its context and all that; but Abhinandan clarified it. And the comment thread was going so well. Then Bruce comes along and plays twisting games with words...all because of one lousy quote taken out of context and using it to slam on atheists. Oh bother.
‘If’ by Rudyard Kipling is my favorite poem. There is a verse in it:
I feel it is somewhat relevant here.
It is not a good idea to compromise on one’s message to attract more people to it, because if you do, you will attract the wrong kind of people.
Published: October 12, 2009 8:58 AM
Ned Netterville
Thanks for a fine article, Mr. Mallick, and for initiating a great discussion. Both go to prove that Austrians like to recall how they became Austrians. I'm certainly no exception.
The first good grades I ever received in any scholastic discipline were college econ courses, whereupon I took lots of econ and finance to compensate for lousy grades in French and other required courses. Unlike the unique Grove City College of Hans Sennholz, nothing Austrian was taught at Miami U. (Ohio) in the 1950s. I read and loved Ayn Rand's novels, but it wasn't until I came across a copy of Leonard Read's THE FREEMAN magazine that I met Ludwig von Mises. Like Mr. Mallick, HUMAN ACTION blew me away, but SOCIALISM, which I read first, made me a devoted Misian. I embraced the latter book because it provided irrefutable, logical ammunition to blow away the socialist propaganda emitting from Washington and academia and oft mimicked within my circle of friends and acquaintances.
I think one reason we may like to recall our introduction to Austrian economics is because it has been so effectively suppressed by Keynesian economists that we realize how fortunate we are to have found it. And upon grounding ourselves in its basic principles, we cannot help but feel that our understanding of the way the world works and the way things could and ought to be is made clearer than that of most others' by it. For myself, I also find my studies of Austrian economics and libertarian principles strengthen my faith in God,
Published: October 12, 2009 9:34 AM
Abhilash Nambiar
I need to clarify what I meant by 'wrong kind of people'. I was referring to people who compromise the integrity of sound economic, scientific or political theories (they usually start by twisting the meaning of words) to further an agenda that threatens or undermines one’s liberties. Both Christians and Atheists do fit that bill.
Published: October 12, 2009 11:12 AM
Nate Y
Russ,
Nice post. It seems Bruce backed off his "atheism undermines classical liberalism" position. Anyway, I find that plenty of socialists claim to be atheists but still worship one god. They call it the State.
Published: October 12, 2009 11:20 AM
(8?»
One day several years ago, an online friend asked me, "Do you ever go to LewRockwell.com?"
One of my first things I read was Butler Schaffer's The Wizards of Ozymandias
Suddenly, for the first time in my life, I discovered coherent people accurately portraying not only the problems in society, but their root causes. Better still, the solutions they offered were actually directed at these roots, instead of the visible symptoms such as those administered to by the political status quo, which causes ever more problems.
Needless to say, I was astounded that there really were coherent, educated people in the world, and that they understood the false dichotomy of political solutions.
It's not so much as how I found the Austrian School, but how The Remnant found me.
Now, if I can only get a refund for all that Keynesian crap in college that was passed off onto me as "Economics."
Anyone up for a class-action suit? ;-)
Published: October 12, 2009 1:38 PM
(8?»
Oops, misspelled Shaffer.
Speaking of the Keynesian fraud of economics, this laughable piece just hit the wires.
Survey: Most economists see recovery beginning
Meanwhile, I can look outside at night and see things that are millions of light-years away, yet they will not "arrive" any time soon, if ever. Of course, this analogy isn't really accurate, as their visions exist wholly in their heads. A better analogy would be me "seeing" roast pigeons magically flying into the mouths of workers, as these images are really just exercises in imagination.
So, more than 80% of economists believe growth is returning, yet the article itself also gives every reason why it won't, or better yet, can't. Then there is the flawed idea that scientific consensus has value outside of merely increasing the size of the consensus.
Actually, I'm surprised the number they report isn't higher than 80%. Perhaps the other 20% have discovered Mises.org?
Published: October 12, 2009 1:58 PM
Ned Netterville
NATE Y said, "I find that plenty of socialists claim to be atheists but still worship one god. They call it the State."
So true, but on the other hand plenty of Christians, Jews and Muslims profess monotheism, but worship two gods: the God of A,M&J, and the god who at no cost to them miraculously provides them with SSI, Medicare, Pell grants, etc., and like the God of Genesis even "creates" things like "green jobs" by "creating" money or "investing" OPM (sounds like opium, is equally addicting, stands for other people's money).
Published: October 12, 2009 3:37 PM
Bruce Koerber
So not to be misunderstood this is the context of the statement that ruffled some feathers:
"Transition to a society envisioned in the philosophy of classical liberalism needs our attention. Atheism and interventionism are the two major distortions."
Who can seriously say that the society envisioned in the philosophy of classical liberalism can either have interventionism or atheism? To say that or to think that is a distortion of that 'ideal' society.
An atheist can adopt classical liberalism as a meritorious philosophy and then choose to personalize it. However the roots of classical liberalism do not change simply because an individual has selectively deleted those things that are considered abrasive.
Again the easy way out is to pretend that science is flawless and that religion is flawed.
In truth, science can be flawed and religion can be flawed. In truth, both science and religion are valuable tools for the discovery of that which you are seeking. Some use only one tool while others choose to use both.
It is because interventionism and atheism are major distortions of classical liberalism that they undermine classical liberalism.
Published: October 12, 2009 3:48 PM
Nate Y
Bruce,
You still haven't at all demonstrated that atheism is a major distortion of classical liberalism. You're really just repeating your already stated circular arguments. You have provided no reasons in support. This does not shock me because there is absolutely nothing about the lack of a god belief that undermines classical liberalism. Yes, interventionism is a distortion of classical liberalism because interventionism is, at bottom, a form of coercion and classical liberalism rejects the use of force. But there is nothing in classical liberalism that rejects atheism and embraces theism/deism.
But I am curious to learn why you think this way. Is it because you find natural laws or "god-given laws" at the bottom of classical liberalism?
Also, you seem to be arguing two different points. Your point about "neither science nor religion being the sole path to truth" falls on deaf ears here. I seriously doubt any classical liberal (even we atheist classical liberals) would make such a foolish claim as "science is the only way to the truth".
So I can quite honestly say that the society envisioned in classical liberalism can have atheism. But you state "To say that or to think that is a distortion of that 'ideal' society." Well then one of us is mistaken abou this "ideal" society. I was under the impression that (in a nutshell) the "ideal" society of classical liberalism is one in which people form voluntary associations with one another and they are free to do/say/think/believe whatever they want as long as they do not violate the equal rights of others. Not believing in a god fits quite nicely in such an "ideal" society. Does it not?
Published: October 12, 2009 5:37 PM
David
I found the Austrian School through Ron Paul as well. Like others here, I was a great fan of Milton Friedman, but as soon as I learned about Austrian Business Cycle Theory, I quickly realized Friedman's error. That was a bit sad, but it never takes away from what I think of Milton's brilliance.
One of my joys has been introducing friends and coworkers to Ron Paul and mises.org. My work partner is actually reading End the Fed right now. I bought Man, Economy, and State for a close friend last christmas and he devoured it. Another coworker is now reading Atlas Shrugged. I got another hooked on Garet Garrett. Pretty much everyone in my office is either sympathetic to or wholeheartedly endorses the Austrian School. We have some great conversations.
Published: October 12, 2009 6:22 PM
Bruce Koerber
Nate,
The 'ideal' classical liberalism society that you describe as 'nicely fitting' is atheistic by your own definition. Of course that could only be its equilibrium state if most people shared that perspective.
Although I am certain that the majority of human beings will never adopt atheism nevertheless if such a thing did happen it would then be possible that a classical liberal society could be atheistic in nature. There is nothing within the classical liberalism philosophy that would interfere with that choice.
But it would not be 'ideal' since it would be like a bird with only one wing. It's still a bird, but if it cannot fly is it really a bird (it cannot attain its potential)?
The ideal classical liberalism society would have both wings - science and religion - in fullness. If you take the time to acquaint yourself with the history and the origins of classical liberalism and understand the context of its emergence as a body of thought you will recognize that both science and religion are perceived as valuable elements in its development and in the ideal that many of the contributors had in their vision.
To that end atheism is a major distortion as is interventionism.
Published: October 12, 2009 10:06 PM
Nate Y
Bruce,
No. The ideal society I describe is not atheistic by my own definition. It is free by the classical liberal definition. People are free to believe or not to believe.
You have a tendency to use the word "religion" to mean "god-believing" when this is far from the case. There are plenty of religions that do not worship a god or any type of creator. The Eastern religions of Buddhism, Jainism, Taoism, and Confucianism come to mind. Clearly, there is nothing about not believing in a god that prohibits "spiritual" inquiry.
The assumption that I haven't taken the time to acquaint myself properly with the origins of classical liberalism, implying that you have and, as a result, speak with authority on this little "atheism is a major distortion of classical liberalism" debate is simply unfair and arrogant.
The main concern of classical liberalism is not science or religion. The main concern is freedom.
I almost always enjoy your posts but on this largely irrelevant matter you're way off the mark. And it's actually a little sad to see you torturing words and arguments in this manner.
Published: October 12, 2009 11:34 PM
Nate Y
Bruce,
Anyway, I doubt one of us will convince the other. Respond if you want but it appears we'll just have to agree to disagree.
All the best
Published: October 12, 2009 11:48 PM
Russ
Bruce,
I think you're laboring under a sort of genetic fallacy. Assuming for sake of argument that classical liberalism was originally based on Christianity, that still doesn't mean that we have to keep the bathwater along with the baby. I'm not saying that Christianity is necessarily antithetical to libertarianism, but it's not necessarily friendly towards it either, as people like Jim Wallis and the Social Gospel crowd suggest.
Anyhoo... I originally found libertarianism through Rand and minarchists like Harry Browne and David Boaz. Then I heard about these two guys who had (two different versions of) a crazy anarchistic version of libertarianism. One of them was named Friedman, the other, Rothbard. So I first heard of the Austrian school through my reading on libertarian political philosophy, not through reading about economics.
Published: October 13, 2009 7:15 AM
Russ
Oh, yeah, I forgot Milton Friedman. I read his popular books before I knew he even had a son.
Published: October 13, 2009 7:18 AM
Bruce Koerber
Confusing the errors in religion (which most everyone recognizes have occurred) with the origins of classical liberalism is no different than confusing the errors in 'economics' (which most everyone recognizes have occurred) with its validity as a powerful science.
No one, and certainly not me, is saying Christianity (that has been burdened with ego-driven interpretation) is necessarily friendly towards classical liberalism.
In truth both science and religion have been perverted by ego-driven interpretation. It is our job to penetrate through all of this corruption to find the essence.
Published: October 13, 2009 7:39 AM
Russ
Bruce,
The problem, for me, is that I am an atheist, I believe in the dichotomy of fact and value, and I also consider classical liberalism to be a normative political philosophy (which tells us which political values we *should* have, not which political values we do have or why we have them). So, to me, religion has nothing of value to say about normative political philosophy that I can't get somewhere without the religious component, and science has nothing to say about normative political philosophy, *period*. "Ego-driven interpretation" has nothing to do with it.
Published: October 13, 2009 9:31 AM
Bruce Koerber
Russ,
I was not aiming 'ego-driven interpretation' in your direction. I was just identifying ego-driven interpretation as the source of corruption - sometimes in religion and sometimes in science.
And in that context it has everything to do with it. "It" being the corruption of science and religion.
Published: October 13, 2009 10:14 AM
Russ
Bruce,
I didn't think that your "'ego-driven interpretation" comment was directed at me (and if it were, I'm sure I am so ego-driven that I would not recognize that fact *grin*). I was just pointing out that, in my opinion, "ego-driven interpretation" is not the problem with science and religion as the twin fonts of classical liberalism; there are much more fundamental problems than that.
Published: October 13, 2009 2:16 PM
George
I found the Austrian School through Peter Schiff, Ron Paul and the tumultuous times that followed the crash of last September. Unfortunately, my assets had already taken a nosedive. I am continuing my exploration of liberty by reading Atlas Shrugged. While a difficult read in the beginning, and I think Rand misuses the world "selfish" and really should use another word, she does have rather interesting things to say, and a powerful way of saying them.
Published: October 13, 2009 3:57 PM
Russ
George,
To understand Rand's idea of selfishness, you should read "The Virtue of Selfishness". (BTW, some people (myself included) think Rand's non-fiction writing is better than her fiction.)
Published: October 13, 2009 4:11 PM