The New York Times has offered a content-free article on Rand Paul and his association with the Von Mises Institute, the libertarian think tank in Alabama. I mention here and there that my economic thinking is "informed by" the Von Mises school of Austrian economics. The school of Austrian economics is not only the most systemized of any economic school of thought, it also best explains economics. Economics was boring until I begin reading Austrian economics.
Now having said that, Austrian school is also the liveliest, with great controversies within the bounds of the school of thought. It also has the most live wires working in economics, and the Times article cites one:
Further, it was when business was asked to join the equal rights movement that the laws were changed, and not until.
Woolworth wanted negro business, but Woolworth was forbidden to seek it, let alone accommodate it. The "negroes" enemy was the state, not Woolworth. As long as Dr. King et al were appealing to the state, whether courts or legislators, they got no where. When they appealed to business, they got progress. Read Dr. Abernathy on all of this.
The Civil Rights Act simply created a new set of interferences which are now showing up in the form of bakeries being sued for not baking "gay wedding" cakes. I regularly turn down business I do not want. My reason are my own, and to force me to something I don't want is unjust. It was unjust to force Woolworth to not serve "negroes." It was unnecessary to force them to serve "negroes." Those businesses, who refused service to anyone after being freed from Jim Crow laws would suffer to the extent their refusal offended the community. Progressives over-rate the amount of racism outside of state sponsorship, so they assume the South would be a "negro-free" zone absent the civil rights act. They simply do not understand the South. Racism is leveraged by state power, and is negligible without state power. The Tuskegee experiments, segregation, lynchings, etc, were all state sponsored.
And everyone celebrating the prosecution and demise of one baker's refusal to make a gay wedding cake, fails to note that the same state power can one day swing back the other way and make "gay" a capital offense.
My own disagreement with the Austrian school, also called "anarcho-capitalism" is that it allows for the charging of interest, and would tolerate enforcement of contracts to that end. There they lose me. But otherwise, they are the team to beat when arguing economics.
But here is Dr. Block on free market pollution protection:
Feel free to forward this by email to three of your friends.
Now having said that, Austrian school is also the liveliest, with great controversies within the bounds of the school of thought. It also has the most live wires working in economics, and the Times article cites one:
Walter Block, an economics professor at Loyola University in New Orleans who described slavery as “not so bad,” is also highly critical of the Civil Rights Act. “Woolworth’s had lunchroom counters, and no blacks were allowed,” he said in a telephone interview. “Did they have a right to do that? Yes, they did. No one is compelled to associate with people against their will.”I enjoy listening to Walter Block, he has personally helped me out tremendously on ideas and projects (a little of his help goes a long way) and ("but?") he can be a bit of a controversialist. Above he is making the point that free association is a better polity than enforced association. To my mind he misses the more important point that the "No negroes allowed at the counter" were Jm Crow laws, not Woolworth house rules. That is to say, the no negroes, segregation were laws put on the books by legislators, not the desire of Woolworth.
Further, it was when business was asked to join the equal rights movement that the laws were changed, and not until.
Woolworth wanted negro business, but Woolworth was forbidden to seek it, let alone accommodate it. The "negroes" enemy was the state, not Woolworth. As long as Dr. King et al were appealing to the state, whether courts or legislators, they got no where. When they appealed to business, they got progress. Read Dr. Abernathy on all of this.
The Civil Rights Act simply created a new set of interferences which are now showing up in the form of bakeries being sued for not baking "gay wedding" cakes. I regularly turn down business I do not want. My reason are my own, and to force me to something I don't want is unjust. It was unjust to force Woolworth to not serve "negroes." It was unnecessary to force them to serve "negroes." Those businesses, who refused service to anyone after being freed from Jim Crow laws would suffer to the extent their refusal offended the community. Progressives over-rate the amount of racism outside of state sponsorship, so they assume the South would be a "negro-free" zone absent the civil rights act. They simply do not understand the South. Racism is leveraged by state power, and is negligible without state power. The Tuskegee experiments, segregation, lynchings, etc, were all state sponsored.
And everyone celebrating the prosecution and demise of one baker's refusal to make a gay wedding cake, fails to note that the same state power can one day swing back the other way and make "gay" a capital offense.
My own disagreement with the Austrian school, also called "anarcho-capitalism" is that it allows for the charging of interest, and would tolerate enforcement of contracts to that end. There they lose me. But otherwise, they are the team to beat when arguing economics.
But here is Dr. Block on free market pollution protection:
Feel free to forward this by email to three of your friends.
0 comments:
Post a Comment