Ron Paul recommended author: Fallacies of the Public Goods Theory and the Production of Security
Ron Paul recommended author: Fallacies of the Public Goods Theory and the Production of Security
What if courts or PDAs become corrupt,criminal, etc?
Answering the Warring Defense Agencies Objection
Tom Woods Says Limited Government is an Oxymoron
The most important attempt in this century to rebut anarchism and to justify the State fails totally and in each of its parts.
Voluntaryism Explained in One Video
Anarcho-Capitalist Reference/FAQ List
*The Political Importance of Murray N. Rothbard, by Ron Paul*
Ignored: Xerographica+Travlyr.
For everybody who doesn't have me on their ignore list... here are the steps...Originally Posted by Wesker1982
1. Read the essay Wesker shared.
2. Pick out the "treasures"...for example...
3. Decide which Wikipedia entries this is relevant to.If there is one well-established truth in political economy, it is this: That in all cases, for all commodities that serve to provide for the tangible or intangible need of the consumer, it is in the consumer's best interest that labor and trade remain free, because the freedom of labor and trade have as their necessary and permanent result the maximum reduction of price. And this: That the interests of the consumer of any commodity whatsoever should always prevail over the interests of the producer. Now, in pursuing these principles, one arrives at this rigorous conclusion: That the production of security should in the interest of consumers of this intangible commodity, remain subject to the law of free competition. Whence it follows: That no government should have the right to prevent another government from going into competition with it, or require consumers of security to come exclusively to it for this commodity. - Gustave de Molinari
4. Determine if it's already been integrated into the relevant entries
5. If it hasn't, then determine the best way to integrate it
6. The easiest way is to just copy and paste the entire passage into an entry.
I think the first time that I just copy and pasted an entire passage was for the Wikipedia entry on foot voting. I added the passages by Friedman and Ebenstein (on Hayek)
Wikipedia was inspired by Hayek's essay on decentralized knowledge. I found and added every single one of the passages in that entry...and I've done the same thing for numerous other entries.
How many "treasures" are out there? How many "treasures" can one person find on their own? We all really love liberty...therefore we all really love arguments for liberty...therefore...everyday we should be as enthusiastic to find these treasures as kids are hunting for Easter Eggs. We should all have "gold fever". Let's find all the "treasures" that support the liberty argument and figure out how to get them into Wikipedia.
Are all treasures created equal? Obviously not. When it comes to actual economics...Buchanan is far more "precious" than Hoppe... Why markets do not fail. Buchanan on voluntary cooperation and externalities
Last edited by Xerographica; 01-01-2013 at 02:11 PM.
+rep
My music/art page is here"government is the enemy of liberty"-RPThat which doesn't kill me has made a grave tactical error
The problem does exist, you can't disprove it. One could come up with countless examples of free rider problems. In fact, most products and services are not completely excludable or rival.
The "libertarian" position would be that while it's true that the additional costs required to exclude non-payers from specific products or services can result in a "non-optimal" supply of these goods (aka free rider problem), it is in no way guaranteed that the government is able to reach the pareto-optimal level. Typically "market-failures" are put in contrast with benevolent, omnipotent and omniscent entities who could reach "Pareto optimas" by force if they wanted to. This is of course absolutely not applicable for practical political uses (for a wide number of socio-economic reasons governments are neither all-knowing nor benevolent and they themselves create costs).
It's also important to realize that there is no "libertarian economics". There is only economics. Real economics, understood as a the study of human action in regards with scarce resources, is a positive science and does not make any normative value judgements. It just describes what is. Therefore there cannot be several economics that are equally true, there is just real economics and the rest. And the free rider problem evidently does exist and does lead to economic inefficiency. The economic counter-argument is that the alternative, real-life government, is just as inefficient, if not more.
The political, normative counter-argument would be, that economic inefficiency doesn't give any government the right to intervene. But that has nothing to do with the fact that those inefficiencies do exist.
The very concept of economic "inefficiency" (however defined) is necessarily pregnant with normative implications. Those implications will be rife with positive considerations - considerations which will, in their own turn, bear further normative implications, and so forth. While the separation of the positive from the normative can be achieved to some degree (and economists are well-advised to attempt to maximize the degree of separation), when it comes to human action, the simple fact is that, ultimately, the two cannot be entirely disentangled. It just isn't possible, any more than it is possible to wholly separate considerations of "ends" from considerations of "means" - each necessarily implies and involves the other. To put it another way, it can be useful & productive (for theoretical purposes) to conceptually separate the yolk from the white when studying an omelet - but omelets as they actually exist cannot be unscrambled ...
Frederic Bastiat
When law and morality are in contradiction to each other, the citizen finds himself in the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense, or of losing his respect for the law. - The Law Government is that great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else. - Government
Anyone can edit wiki. Doesn't mean the person editing is correct in their own perception about what they write there. Is almost a full time job coming behind those who make a hobby of it. Which reminds me. I've been meaning to check on a few specific pages.
Last edited by Natural Citizen; 01-01-2013 at 05:41 PM.
It's not like I'm just trying to win and get elected. I'm trying to change the course of history. - Ron Paul
But can we all agree that your economics are libertarian economics? That would be the rub.
I can't say I've seen any of your economics that I considered particularly libertarian. If nothing else, libertarians generally pride themselves on arguing stuff that is proven, well thought out, and liable to actually work.
Your argument would have been a lot stronger if you had actually been able to specify exactly which economic concepts are absent from my own. Feel free to try again.
There are market (libertarian) economics and non sequitur (planned/command) economics. The first one works because your preferences do matter and the second one fails because your preferences do not matter.
Read read read the debate between Samuelson and Buchanan...
Why markets do not fail. Buchanan on voluntary cooperation and externalities
The government would work just fine if taxpayers were given the freedom to demonstrate their preferences with their tax dollars.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
