Ah, the above was directed at Aristippus. Thanks also to Clayton, I'll check that out as well. The good news is that he's predisposed to look approvingly on the idea of private security contractors. We're long time practical shooting competitors, and live close to Blackwater (now Academi) where we help run a 3-gun competition once a month. He's friendly with some of the contractors who work out of there, as some compete with us and some own MINI Coopers so they come to him for service.
Mises' The Ultimate Foundations of Economic Science. Based on my own recent experience, I'd argue that this is the best possible introductory work for a person like me (which your friend may or may not be in this respect). I'm a complete beginner, with zero formal background in economics, and this was the first work I was able to finish. Prior to that, I had given up both on Lessons for the Young Economist and Economics in One Lesson. I had difficulties sustaining my attention on these two works that are usually recommended for beginners, Hazlitt in particular. I found Hazlitt a bit perplexing, as if I didn't really understand things after reading, while Murphy was very clear to me, but for some reason it didn't really capture my interest. Mises completely blew my mind. Such a rare clarity of thought, yet written in a very plain and accessible language, and with some background in philosophy I could appreciate the way he builds the system, touching on so many interesting arguments in various fields. As I finished The Ultimate Foundations, I went straight on to Human Action (incidentally, today I finished the first part), aided by Murphy's excellent study guide. Such was the effect of The Ultimate Foundations on me, that I wanted more of that man, I couldn't believe I would actually attempt to read something of the size of Human Action, but that's where it led me for now, I'm taking it nice and slowly and thoroughly enjoying it. I'm probably still in the phase of initial excitement over having discovered Mises, so I haven't read extensively (yet!), so take my advice for what it's worth, but I think The Ultimate Foundations is a really great turn-on. I started reading it out of general curiosity, and ended up with a whole bunch of ideas I wanted to delve into deeper and learn more about.
Yeah, Ultimate Foundations owns. I need to order Murphy's study guide and restart HA from the beginning to make sure I'm getting its true value.
Clayton -
Having at least an A or B level knowledge in basic Micro and Macro economics. In other words, enroll and use your hard earned cash and time to understand the main groundwork and context of the discussion before even "entering" it.
So:
Micro 101
Macro 101
If she is fine with those:
Econ in 1 Lesson is a pretty good little book
"As in a kaleidoscope, the constellation of forces operating in the system as a whole is ever changing." - Ludwig Lachmann
"When A Man Dies A World Goes Out of Existence" - GLS Shackle
I want to give a dissenting voice on the Econ classes. I took econ in college and just felt snowed. I did benefit from learning about annuitization, the discounted value of cash flows, and so on, but the rest was just confusing, unclear, and left more questions than answers. While I can see why anyone who wants to debate mainstream economists should take such a course, I don't think the individual who is simply "seeking answers" will benefit.
As someone who doesn't really understand economics, I can say that it isn't necessary to understanding the value of the philosophy. To understanding the whole of the philosophy, yes. I approach things purely from an ethical standpoint, and I'm sure there are other entrees to libertarianism also. If she's like me, wave an economics book at her and she'll lose interest.
Now, I'm learning it a bit because I've become interested-I've explored the ethical side to an extent, and I want to be better informed. So even if econimics isn't her "thing", if a good general intro text or series of articles catches her understanding then she'll probably get to it eventually.
As someone who just finished his first full economics course, principles of micro, an hour ago I can tell you that the course material is very confusing, mathematical, and "modular" in the sense that you're looking a lot at models without really understanding the behavior behind those models. If I didn't have a very good grasp of AE, from whence a lot of this stuff derives (at very least grew along side in the neo-classical synthesis), I can tell you that I would have absolutely no idea what this stuff really means, nor how these things would actually apply to the real world. I can't possibly see how such a class would really make one... Understand economics, rather understand graphs.
I think that macro, although tending to be more fallacious, tends to be more coherent because it's a lot easier to see the basic problems of growth and unemployment than a lot of stuff that micro focuses on like costs, at least in terms of how this builds itself up to price.
Yeah, I'm really not there. If I comfortably get through Lessons for the Young Economist and the associated manual, I betcha that's as far as I ever go.
I hear this a lot, that to understand libertarianism you have to understand economics. Maybe I don't, and won't "understand" in that way then-
The way I tend to look at is this. My personal ethics rely on NAP. I feel strongly that a philosophy of right living must agree with NAP in order to be ethically consistent. It doesn't enter into my way of thinking that it is, or is not, the most beneficial way of living or any such thing. Study of economics would probably give me a language to express why I think this is likely, but it is peripheral. The central idea is the ethic.
The Law by Bastiat.
That Which is Seen, and That Which is Not Seen by Bastiat.
These two works cover the best principles of freedom, both in a practical sense and in an economic sense, and both are brief; plus, you can tell your friend that a French classical theorist wrote them, and she'll eat it up.
The Law, as its basic thesis, proves that rights are not issued by governments but by God (or, in essence, the rights of life, liberty and ability to produce property are granted by birth alone).
That Which is Seen, and That Which is Not Seen applies the Broken Window Fallacy in a number of different way, showing people that destroying or stealing property does not create prosperity but artificially redistributes money, thereby forcing the victim to use his capital for maintenance costs in order to replace lost goods.
I get intimidated by math (graphs, formulas, etc.). Are those truly necessary for economic understanding?
One of the problems with a fully ethical libertarianism is that it can be shaky in that if you capture a person's morality, you'll capture their economic view. If someone believes that force is wrong and believes in private property, then another person could point out that private property is maintained by force, and that could make the person reject private property. Compare this to someone who supports private property for economic calculation.
That's not an effective argument against NAP. And I would argue that a person's dearly held values are much harder to shake than their convictions regarding economics.
To be a little more explicit, NAP is not pacifism. Someone who believes wrongly that it is, and who has espoused NAP on that basis, could be convinced that way. But since they were relying on a false assumption, it's not the morality that's shaky. It's the understanding.
I can't possibly see how such a class would really make one... Understand economics, rather understand graphs.
Maybe, but whats the point on comming in from a left field economics position as an autodidact and doing critiques on "mainstream economics" if you don't even know their fundamentals? I think that's going to send people's "crank" flags on high alert. I'm not being elitist, I'm just saying when people dont put their time and money where their mouth is to at least some degree, they should probably keep silent.
I actually found macro more confusing when I took it (I think I barely got a B in that class). But I remember thinking micro was more comprehehnsible. Of course this was before I knew anything about AE (other than maybe Shumpeter, if that counts) - but I know a lot of "naive" students (that is apolitical / aphilisophical types) end up falling in love with macro and micro courses when they take them - to me it is almost like a psych 101 class; something a lot of students can get into.
Don't ever be intimidated by a graph.
A graph is just two number-lines laid at right angles, with some "points" plotted on it:
Each point consists of two numbers because there are two number-lines. (4,5) is the point that is 4 along the horizontal axis (conventionally the "x-axis") to the right and 5 along the vertical axis (conventionally the "y-axis") up. The points themselves can either be a finite set of discrete values or they can be what is called a "function", which is just a way to map input numbers to output numbers. For example, the function f(x)=x just gives whatever number out that you put in. The x in parentheses represents the "input" x and the x on the right-hand side (RHS) states "this function puts out precisely what was given to it". So, f(4.4) = 4.4 or f(3.14159) = 3.14159.
We could define a function g(x)=7 if we wanted (a constant function). This means that for every value of x that you put in, you always get 7 out. This shows that x does not have to be on the RHS, even though it usually is. We could define another function h(x) = x+1. Now, if h(3.14159) = 4.14159. We could define k(x)=x+x =2*x and then k(3.14159) = 6.28318. We could define m(x)=x*x and then m(3.14159) = 3.14159 * 3.14159 = 9.869588...
The insight of "analytic geometry" (Descartes, et. al. ) was that these functions can be "plotted" geometrically in graphical form as shown above. Not only does this aid comprehension of the behavior of functions, it also provides the basis for the calculus of variations (study of the "rate of change" of a function). It can also be useful in providing a "gateway" between geometric and algebraic proofs.
If you are interested in exploring functions, check out this function grapher. Here are some sample things to type in:
3
x+1
x-1
x+x
x*3
x*4 - 1 (notice a pattern in the above functions yet?)
x*x (whoa, something changes here...)
1/x (whoa, this one's really different!)
To really comprehend the behavior of the function, try choosing a specific numeric value for x and then calculate the equation (e.g. if you choose x=-1 then x+1=0) and then check to see that when you go to that value of x on the graph, the function is actually at the predicted location. Also, try combining the above functions (add, subtract, multiply... even divide) and see what you get.
Clayton,
was that directed at me? If so, I really have no idea where you are comming from? If so the closest thing I can think of was the fact that I said I got a B- in Macro. If that's the case - it wasn't the graphs or math. I tend to like graphs.
Sorry, no, that was directed to Ark de Grande and any other lurkers who might feel intimidated by graphs. This is a pet peeve of mine as I feel the econ profession tries to snow people with graphs which is really the most absurd kind of wizardry because graphs are actually so easy to understand. The trouble starts in high school where most people are not given a truly intuitive grasp for what a graph is and there's just no good goddamn reason for this. The mathematicians also do their damnedest to mystify these things by focusing on things like poles and discontinuities which give the student the impression that graphs can be these very "dangerous" "mysteriuos" entities that only PhD inductees of the Holy Temple of Mathematics can use correctly with confidence. Nonsense. Everyone who can read and write can use a graph.
Some great responses. Thanks everyone. I ended up giving her Lessons for the Young Economist and For a New Liberty. I'll report back if she sees the light and becomes a libertarian.
I haven't read For a New Liberty myself, so I'm going to start on that next. Looks great.
Cheers
@ Aristippus
I have to tell you thank you for listing that book. Highly underrated, I'm really in to it right now.
I ended up giving her Lessons for the Young Economist and For a New Liberty. I'll report back if she sees the light and becomes a libertarian.
Those were my choices! What do I win?!
You win the Internet. But only for today.
Oh, and my thanks.
But in all seriousness, thanks to everyone. Its so SO nice to have a place where I can talk with other like minded people. Sometimes it is very lonely being an anarcho-capitalist.
^Make sure to sign up to a few of the new forums then. This once is closing down.
ag4apple: You win the Internet. But only for today. Oh, and my thanks. But in all seriousness, thanks to everyone. Its so SO nice to have a place where I can talk with other like minded people. Sometimes it is very lonely being an anarcho-capitalist.
Have you heard of this thing called Reddit...? :)
http://www.reddit.com/r/Anarcho_Capitalism/
http://www.reddit.com/r/libertarian/
and probably a dozen more subreddits you could find with similar themes and names.