Do you read the Review of Austrian Economics?

[Grozny]

No?

Then why not start today, with their current issue (http://www.springerlink.com/content/8x61780q84267gp7/?p=df615156f4bd45fbb4bc8978b4abe068&pi=9)?


Socialist objectives can be achieved in a market context with the rule of law if market socialism were to take the form of competitive worker-owned and self-managed enterprises, supplemented by universally available welfare redistributions, which could include a basic income, universal capital grants, or education and health insurance vouchers.

Does the communist revolution being promoted by Peter Boettke, the RAE editor, sound exciting?

Then don’t miss the conference being organized by Steve Horwitz (http://www.theihs.org/ConferenceDetails.aspx?id=651) on November 13th at George Mason University.


Burczak’s book, Socialism after Hayek, represents the first serious scholarly attempt to defend socialism using Hayekian principles. By pairing Burczak’s book with selections from Hayek’s own corpus, this program will offer participants the opportunity to assess the accuracy and effectiveness of this criticism of Hayekian liberalism.

[Grozny]

SDAE dinner in San Antonio at the SEA meetings. The cost this year will be the same as last year: $85 (with grad students at half price). That price includes two free drink tickets. The drinks and the graduate student subsidy are courtesy of a generous grant from the Reason Foundation.

This dinner is in honor of Theodore Burczak, the winner of the 2007 Smith Center Annual Prize in Austrian Economics (http://www.sbe.csuhayward.edu/~sbesc/prize.html), who has recently written: (http://www.springerlink.com/content/8x61780q84267gp7/?p=df615156f4bd45fbb4bc8978b4abe068&pi=9)


Socialist objectives can be achieved in a market context with the rule of law if market socialism were to take the form of competitive worker-owned and self-managed enterprises, supplemented by universally available welfare redistributions, which could include a basic income, universal capital grants, or education and health insurance vouchers.

Have you donated money to the Reason Foundation? Are you starting to regret it?

[tmosley]

That man advocates VOLUNTARY socialism, which is by no means antithetical to libertarianism.

IE if you want to give all your money to lazy good for nothings, feel free, but I will keep mine.

Also, 2 post troll has two troll posts. I'm pretty sure the exact same issue was brought up some months ago, by another (?) low post count troll.

[LibertyEagle]

That man advocates VOLUNTARY socialism, which is by no means antithetical to libertarianism.

IE if you want to give all your money to lazy good for nothings, feel free, but I will keep mine.

Also, 2 post troll has two troll posts. I'm pretty sure the exact same issue was brought up some months ago, by another (?) low post count troll.

Well, if you click on the link he gives to the abstract, you will see things like "post-Hayekian socialism".

I don't know about you, but I'm not in this movement to promote socialism.

I'd like to read the whole thing to get a better understanding of what exactly he is saying.

[LibertyEagle]

Austrian economics is not about socialism. Just the opposite, in fact.

I'd have to read the book to intelligently comment on what exactly is being promoted here. But, at first glance, it sure doesn't look good to have what appears to be socialist rhetoric being presented under the banner of Austrian economics.

[tmosley]

I don't care if people want to participate in voluntary communes, or to promote such a lifestyle. The only thing I care about is not having things forced on anyone.

It makes sense for Reason to fund this guy because he advocates a dissolution of government. That makes him ok in my book. Socialism is only evil due to the force it uses to coerce people into giving up their possessions and the theft of the fruits of their labor. Remove the force, and you've got no problem. Now, it's just a stupid pipe dream rather than crazy assholes with guns telling you to build a dam without engineers (a la Khmer Rouge).

[Petar]

Even if the crazy pipe dream is supposed to be "not forced by government", it's still a crazy pipe dream, isn't it?

And if it's a crazy pipe dream, then shouldn't we be calling it out as such?

Also, if there is "absolutely no government", then what is to stop a bunch of crazies from using "private security forces" to force their crazy ideas on non-crazies?

The way I see it, it's up to us to properly condemn this idiotic garbage, before it ever get's to that point.

[Grozny]

That man advocates VOLUNTARY socialism, which is by no means antithetical to libertarianism.


http://i596.photobucket.com/albums/tt42/Grozny/skulls.jpg

Burczak (2009, p. 112) writes, “Workers should not be permitted to cede to a capitalist both the legal responsibility for the firm’s output and the liability for their labor time.” I think we all know what “not permitted” means.

[axiomata]

I wish more socialists would read and take Hayek's critiques seriously. Socialists that don't can't even offer an intellectual challenge.

An interesting review of Theodore Burczak's work is here (http://austrianeconomists.typepad.com/weblog/2007/05/leftist_for_hay.html).

[hugolp]

http://i596.photobucket.com/albums/tt42/grozny/skulls.jpg

burczak (2009, p. 112) writes, “workers should not be permitted to cede to a capitalist both the legal responsibility for the firm’s output and the liability for their labor time.” i think we all know what “not permitted” means.

voluntary

[Grozny]

I wish more socialists would read and take Hayek's critiques seriously. Socialists that don't can't even offer an intellectual challenge.

An interesting review of Theodore Burczak's work is here (http://austrianeconomists.typepad.com/weblog/2007/05/leftist_for_hay.html).

Steve Horwitz' review IS interesting. Horwitz and Burczak are presenting a position quite distinct from that of Milton Friedman.


It is unjust for people to sell their labor time: not only do the people have a natural right to the product of their labor, they also have an inalienable right to their labor time, a right that should not be transferred even with consent.

Workers should not be permitted to cede to a capitalist both the legal responsibility for the firm’s output and the liability for their labor time.


Labor-managed firms themselves are not antagonistic to the market economy. Even if other forms of employment contract are not legally permitted, such firms still exist in a market context where competition and profit and loss determine their success or failure.

Not permitting people to work for whomever they choose is in sharp contrast to Milton Friedman's views.


An essential part of economic freedom is freedom to use the resources we possess in accordance with our own values – freedom to enter any occupation, engage in any business enterprise, buy from and sell to anyone else, so long as we do so on a strictly voluntary basis and do not resort to force in order to coerce others.

I agree with Friedman.

The classic example of property that people “own,” in the sense that their name is on the deed, but do not actually own, is rent-controlled apartment buildings. The “owner” cannot rent it at a fair price but, under penalty of law, he must maintain it lest he be fined for safety violations. Burczak would put common laborers in the same predicament. They would “own” their labor ability but, under penalty of law, they cannot hire themselves out to capitalists. Since they must maintain their labor ability (feed, clothe and house themselves), they are forced to work for one of Burczak’s labor-managed firms.

Basically, this is slavery.

[Grozny]

Socialist objectives can be achieved in a market context with the rule of law if market socialism were to take the form of competitive worker-owned and self-managed enterprises, supplemented by universally available welfare redistributions, which could include a basic income, universal capital grants, or education and health insurance vouchers.

Source: Review of Austrian Economics (http://www.springerlink.com/content/8x61780q84267gp7/?p=df615156f4bd45fbb4bc8978b4abe068&pi=9)

The Society for the Development of Austrian Economics (http://www.sbe.csuhayward.edu/~sbesc/prize.html) gave this communist $1000. This is money they collected $10 at a time from people just like you, who didn’t know that they were funding a communist.

Steve Horwitz is honoring this communist (http://www.theihs.org/ConferenceDetails.aspx?id=651) on November 13th at George Mason University.


Burczak’s book, Socialism after Hayek, represents the first serious scholarly attempt to defend socialism using Hayekian principles. By pairing Burczak’s book with selections from Hayek’s own corpus, this program will offer participants the opportunity to assess the accuracy and effectiveness of this criticism of Hayekian liberalism.

This perversion of Mises’ legacy turns my stomach.

If it turns your stomach too, then why not send the chairman of the GMU Economics Department an e-mail and give him a piece of your mind? dhouser@gmu.edu

[pdavis]

Many individualist anarchists who supported free markets were socialists. Murray Rothbard was influenced by many of them such as Benjamin Tucker.

[Joe3113]

Can you pleasssssseeee post this over at http://mises.org/Community/forums/ ? I would greatly be interested in the discussion it will no doubt create. Copy and paste is fine. :)

[tmosley]

Socialism is only bad when it is enforced by force of arms. The "communist" you express such vitriol towards (every single one of your posts here has been calling for the blood anyone who supports him) calls for voluntary socialism totally absent central government coercion. They are funding positive steps by socialists towards libertarianism.

[Joe3113]

Socialism is only bad when it is enforced by force of arms. The "communist" you express such vitriol towards (every single one of your posts here has been calling for the blood anyone who supports him) calls for voluntary socialism totally absent central government coercion. They are funding positive steps by socialists towards libertarianism.

That puts a new spin on things. lol

[Grozny]

Socialism is only bad when it is enforced by force of arms. The "communist" you express such vitriol towards (every single one of your posts here has been calling for the blood anyone who supports him) calls for voluntary socialism totally absent central government coercion. They are funding positive steps by socialists towards libertarianism.


That puts a new spin on things. lol

A "new spin" is certainly the right word!

The phrases "not be permitted" and "not legally permitted" that I have highlighted in the quotations below obviously refer to central government coercion.


It is unjust for people to sell their labor time: not only do the people have a natural right to the product of their labor, they also have an inalienable right to their labor time, a right that should not be transferred even with consent.

Workers should not be permitted to cede to a capitalist both the legal responsibility for the firm’s output and the liability for their labor time.


Labor-managed firms themselves are not antagonistic to the market economy. Even if other forms of employment contract are not legally permitted, such firms still exist in a market context where competition and profit and loss determine their success or failure.

Not permitting people to work for whomever they choose is in sharp contrast to Milton Friedman's views.


An essential part of economic freedom is freedom to use the resources we possess in accordance with our own values – freedom to enter any occupation, engage in any business enterprise, buy from and sell to anyone else, so long as we do so on a strictly voluntary basis and do not resort to force in order to coerce others.

I agree with Friedman.

The classic example of property that people “own,” in the sense that their name is on the deed, but do not actually own, is rent-controlled apartment buildings. The “owner” cannot rent it at a fair price but, under penalty of law, he must maintain it lest he be fined for safety violations. Burczak would put common laborers in the same predicament. They would “own” their labor ability but, under penalty of law, they cannot hire themselves out to capitalists. Since they must maintain their labor ability (feed, clothe and house themselves), they are forced to work for one of Burczak’s labor-managed firms.

Basically, this is slavery.

[hugolp]

Grozny its like the third or fourth thread you open about the same topic. Why? Why not discuss it in the same thread?

[Grozny]

Can you pleasssssseeee post this over at http://mises.org/Community/forums/ ? I would greatly be interested in the discussion it will no doubt create. Copy and paste is fine. :)

I am not a member, but I too would be interested in reading how Mises.org explains themselves.

[Joe3113]

I am not a member, but I too would be interested in reading how Mises.org explains themselves.

Then become one and make a thread. :rolleyes:

[malkusm]

I am not a member, but I too would be interested in reading how Mises.org explains themselves.

Uhh, simple: They aren't involved with it.

[Grozny]

Can you pleasssssseeee post this over at http://mises.org/Community/forums/ ? I would greatly be interested in the discussion it will no doubt create. Copy and paste is fine. :)


I am not a member, but I too would be interested in reading how Mises.org explains themselves.


Then become one and make a thread. :rolleyes:

You do it.

The Mises Institute has a reputation for banning people who do not toe the party line. But you, being a Senior Member with over 3000 posts, will probably not get banned and can create the discussion that you wish for.

[Joe3113]

You do it.

The Mises Institute has a reputation for banning people who do not toe the party line. But you, being a Senior Member with over 3000 posts, will probably not get banned and can create the discussion that you wish for.

No. The exercise was for you to go there and have to defend your bs. You would have been annihilated. :o