keithdixon77

keithdixon77

39p

15 comments posted · 0 followers · following 0

12 years ago @ Ludwig von Mises Insti... - Strigl\'s Capital and ... · 0 replies · +2 points

I'm not an economist so I'm quite choppy on this stuff. However, I think that it is clear that the positivist idea that the ability to measure is important is a stumbling block in economics. All economics is based on human action and no economic subject can be measured.

12 years ago @ Ludwig von Mises Insti... - Why Mises (and not Hay... · 0 replies · 0 points

As far as Hayek’s general belief in the protection of property, I’m on board. I generally agree with Hayek. I only differ when you get into the details. Specifically, his position on the government safety net (i.e. insurance) and his loose language that allows for government expansion as the idea of “necessary” expands.

Lastly, be careful using math and even simple mathematical analogies with economics. Human action drives the market and the use of mathematics can be misleading as it implies a science of precision.

I assume that I haven’t really sold you on the above. All the same, I hope that you’ve found it worthwhile and that it has helped fill out your vision of one opposing point of view.

12 years ago @ Ludwig von Mises Insti... - Why Mises (and not Hay... · 1 reply · +1 points

But this just highlights the “to the extent necessary” problem. Necessary for what? To protect my assets, my mansion on a forested bluff without my having to cover the full costs? And if not to protect my mansion, are we all to protect Billy-Bob’s shack? After all, Billy-Bob reaps the benefits of living off the land in the forest; why should he not have to deal with the down side of that also?

That’s the cold justification, but it always plays out much warmer in life. We do not let people die. There is something innate in our nature that helps us care about our fellow beings. If these people’s homes are destroyed they can turn to family, the Salvation Army, or other organizations – people who choose freely to help them. Using other people’s money via force is not the answer.

Aside from some Randian/social Darwinist/“if they are going to die let them do so and thus decrease the surplus population”-ists, classical liberal theory is emphatically not about just letting them die. It is about not forcing others to save them; if you want to help DO IT! There is nothing inconsistent with the writings of Ludwig von Mises and helping others.

12 years ago @ Ludwig von Mises Insti... - Why Mises (and not Hay... · 4 replies · 0 points

Thanks for the reply (and sorry for the double post).

I am not an anarchist. I would limit government to the protection of private property (including property of person) against the force or fraud committed by another human being. I’m fairly sure that this was Mises’s consistent belief also.

Thus, in the case of the fire an individual can choose to buy insurance or not. If the risk of fire is higher in some places, the people who choose to build there pay higher insurance fees or accept that risk. Federal insurance means that everyone else has to chip in to buy the luxury of living in a high-fire risk zone for other individuals. And note that a fire prevention program IS fire insurance.

To be more limiting than “to the extent necessary” I would not provide this insurance via the federal government at all. The smaller the governmental unit, the more reasonable such insurance (including prevention) may be, but it is not at all clear that any government agency even at the municipal level is necessary for the prevention of fire. I believe the insurance companies put fires out in early Boston for example.

More

12 years ago @ Ludwig von Mises Insti... - Why Mises (and not Hay... · 0 replies · +1 points

Ok. I probably deserved the thumbs down. That was a bit nastier than it needed to be.

12 years ago @ Ludwig von Mises Insti... - Why Mises (and not Hay... · 0 replies · 0 points

"to the extent necessary" when applied in time always translates as more and more. As much as I like Hayek, I have to admit that "necessary" is not limiting. On the other hand, Mises's use of government for the protection of private property does limit the government clearly, at least in scope.

12 years ago @ Ludwig von Mises Insti... - A Short History of US ... · 0 replies · 0 points

And again, and again, and again...

12 years ago @ Ludwig von Mises Insti... - The Flame of Oppressio... · 1 reply · +4 points

I don't think I was clear in my post. It is true that I am an allergy ridden wimp who does not like smoke. But I am NOT advocating any government anti-smoking regulation, and I have always voted against such regulation. I have no right to dictate how property owners run their businesses. My point is, that if it is possible, I will find a business that suits my needs/wants better. For example, when smoking was legal in MI bars and I lived in Kalamazoo MI, I loved to drink at Bell's Brewery. They have awesome beer, but they also had a smoke free bar.

As far as laws against smoking indoors go, they should all be tossed. The owners of those indoors should get to say if they will allow smoking or not. I have no right of coercion over those indoors owners to ban smoking as you should have no right to force them to let you smoke (not that you are advocating that).

I am sorry I was so unclear. I hope this makes more sense.

12 years ago @ Ludwig von Mises Insti... - The Flame of Oppressio... · 1 reply · +2 points

No, there will be a parking lot. Even if I am a fool for not wanting my kids to breath cigar smoke and not caring about auto, toxic spew my value scale is not based strictly on a desire to eliminate or even minimize pollutants my kids have to breathe. I'm simply not willing to bike three hours a day to replace my automobile. On the other hand, the school (with whom I would be contracting) also has a say. If I can only find no smoking schools with no parking lots and smoking schools with them, then I will have to make that decision.

I do not like tobacco smoke, but I would never advocate or vote for no-smoking regulation that interferes with private property rights. I have no right to have someone else’s bar run tailored exactly to my liking for example. My point is that there is a problem when it is the government that owns the property and therefore gets to call the shots as to how it is regulated.

12 years ago @ Ludwig von Mises Insti... - The Flame of Oppressio... · 5 replies · +7 points

I’ll be honest. I don’t want my kids breathing smoke at school. I want them to be in a school that bans smoking. I will accomplish this by voluntarily contracting with a private school that bans smoking on its property. Smoking at our kids’ school would not be a criminal violation, but a minor infringement on the schools property rights easily remedied with “Hey mate, no smoking here.”
If the state is in charge of education, they get to be in charge of all the little things that have such a huge impact on liberty. The remedy is to take the states “responsibility” for education and everything that accompanies it away and with it their ability to call the shots.
The issue is not smoking, cupcakes, or even sugar. The issue is public versus private education and with it, coercion of behavior versus private agreement and understanding.