He is OK. His critique of Sweden in the tape was excellent.
Let's get back to the invader though. When the Muslims take over Austria does anyone think they would let a modern day Joseph Schumpeter (never mind Von Mises) tool around Austria unmolested ?
The Europeans have incentivized leeching off of the productive. It attracts those who are not productive. The non-productive like taking. Ergo, they see no problem with taking / harassing the people they take from.
If they instead respected property rights, the people coming would be those who intend on being productive. There would still be Muslims coming to those lands, but it would be those who just want to work hard and make a better life for themselves and their children. So, you wouldn't see the types of problems that Europe is having now.
I take the position of private property when it comes to immigration, however, when listening to this I was curious how tourism would function a completely private property society. Any thoughts?
The current tourist attractions would still exist, but would be in private hands. The owners would have an interest in attracting tourists to their private attraction and would also have an interest in maintaining them. Hotel owners would still have an interest in attracting tourists as well. And the roads would be privatized, as would the airports. So, people could still come via private planes, go to their hotels via private roads, and then head to the private tourist attractions.
Although it's impossible to determine how exactly the market would look, it is likely that the private tourist attractions and hotels would partially subsidize travel (on the roads, in particular). Think of it like an outdoor shopping mall. There are still roads, but they are private. And there are still sidewalks, but they are private too. But the mall doesn't charge you for using these, because it would actually deter you from coming to their mall. In effect, the mall has subsidized your use of their roads / sidewalks through the revenue received in rents from their tenants. Similarly, having an interest in getting you to the attraction, the fee for getting you there may be subsidized (wholly or partially) through the fees you pay for visiting the attraction.
Bylund is much better here than in the 10 year old article on the same subject.
They are still treating Hoppe's statist positions with kid-gloves. Hoppe is not a libertarian at all. He should be treated the same way other false libertarians are treated (ie point out how statist his positions really are). Since he's an Austrian economist and has taken some libertarian positions, he gets a free pass, apparently (though Block has argued against him quite a bit ... which reflects well on him). This is very bad for libertarianism.
Because migrants have a positive right to migrate anywhere they like. For example, if any jurisdiction bans Somalis from migrating to their area, that is a violation of the NAP even if the Somali affected had never heard of that country. Right?
Of course hoppe is a libertarian. You might not agree with him on what the second best policy on immigration is but that is irrelevant. I think that the state should put people in jail for murder, you might say it is just giving power to the state and you might have a point. But all that would mean is that we disagree on what the second best solution is.
Anonymous at 1:13 ... read (or re-read if you've already read it once) Hoppe's "the Private Production of Defense". And then let me know if you still think Hoppe's a libertarian.
It's not just a dispute over immigration, it's a complaint about all of his supposed libertarian positions that I've read. In the essay I mentioned above he basically advocates a massive arms race between insurance companies (on the one hand) and foreign nations on the other. He assures us that the insurance companies would be far superior. Yet, why wouldn't these insurance companies then band together, and force people to pay for their product ... you know, like a state.
So, maybe you're right. Maybe he's a libertarian. He might just be one who's not very bright and can't logically think through any of the positions he advocates, and the natural outcome of them.
He is OK.
ReplyDeleteHis critique of Sweden in the tape was excellent.
Let's get back to the invader though.
When the Muslims take over Austria does anyone think they would let a modern day Joseph Schumpeter (never mind Von Mises) tool around Austria unmolested ?
Do you even know any Muslims?
DeleteThe Europeans have incentivized leeching off of the productive. It attracts those who are not productive. The non-productive like taking. Ergo, they see no problem with taking / harassing the people they take from.
If they instead respected property rights, the people coming would be those who intend on being productive. There would still be Muslims coming to those lands, but it would be those who just want to work hard and make a better life for themselves and their children. So, you wouldn't see the types of problems that Europe is having now.
I take the position of private property when it comes to immigration, however, when listening to this I was curious how tourism would function a completely private property society. Any thoughts?
ReplyDeleteThe current tourist attractions would still exist, but would be in private hands. The owners would have an interest in attracting tourists to their private attraction and would also have an interest in maintaining them. Hotel owners would still have an interest in attracting tourists as well. And the roads would be privatized, as would the airports. So, people could still come via private planes, go to their hotels via private roads, and then head to the private tourist attractions.
DeleteAlthough it's impossible to determine how exactly the market would look, it is likely that the private tourist attractions and hotels would partially subsidize travel (on the roads, in particular). Think of it like an outdoor shopping mall. There are still roads, but they are private. And there are still sidewalks, but they are private too. But the mall doesn't charge you for using these, because it would actually deter you from coming to their mall. In effect, the mall has subsidized your use of their roads / sidewalks through the revenue received in rents from their tenants. Similarly, having an interest in getting you to the attraction, the fee for getting you there may be subsidized (wholly or partially) through the fees you pay for visiting the attraction.
Bylund is much better here than in the 10 year old article on the same subject.
ReplyDeleteThey are still treating Hoppe's statist positions with kid-gloves. Hoppe is not a libertarian at all. He should be treated the same way other false libertarians are treated (ie point out how statist his positions really are). Since he's an Austrian economist and has taken some libertarian positions, he gets a free pass, apparently (though Block has argued against him quite a bit ... which reflects well on him). This is very bad for libertarianism.
Because migrants have a positive right to migrate anywhere they like. For example, if any jurisdiction bans Somalis from migrating to their area, that is a violation of the NAP even if the Somali affected had never heard of that country. Right?
DeleteOf course hoppe is a libertarian.
DeleteYou might not agree with him on what the second best policy on immigration is but that is irrelevant.
I think that the state should put people in jail for murder, you might say it is just giving power to the state and you might have a point.
But all that would mean is that we disagree on what the second best solution is.
Anonymous at 1:13 ... read (or re-read if you've already read it once) Hoppe's "the Private Production of Defense". And then let me know if you still think Hoppe's a libertarian.
DeleteIt's not just a dispute over immigration, it's a complaint about all of his supposed libertarian positions that I've read. In the essay I mentioned above he basically advocates a massive arms race between insurance companies (on the one hand) and foreign nations on the other. He assures us that the insurance companies would be far superior. Yet, why wouldn't these insurance companies then band together, and force people to pay for their product ... you know, like a state.
So, maybe you're right. Maybe he's a libertarian. He might just be one who's not very bright and can't logically think through any of the positions he advocates, and the natural outcome of them.
Matt, is that in response to something? Your comments always confuse me.
Delete