What is the Austrian economic thought on changing marriage laws to include homosexual marriaga?
Austrian Economics has no say on homosexual marriage. The only branches of "economics" that would have anything to say on such a matter would be crankish schools of thought with some ideological ax to grind.
If you are talking about libertarianism, the views can be diverse and varying perspectives on how to look at social customs in relation to the state/ "natural law / etc. There is no single unified answer.
"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'm glad someone caught the joke.
No clue what just happened
vive la insurrection is about as far from a moral absolutist as you can get. he will tell you that absolutism is relative to something youve never heard of and give you two dozen authors to read. thats right, William assigns homework.
Oh, alright thanks!
it isn't someone else's phrasing, it is a direct quote of hoppe from his book "democracy: the god that failed".
Phrasing wasn't the right word. I just meant that's it's not a full quote, and you have to rely on Block's interpretation of it. But I know from experience that a pdf of that book is nowhere to be found, so I understand why you linked to Block's paper now.
i'm not looking to go off on a tangent discussing Hoppe in this thread--it isn't worth it. [...] i personally think the more people read of hoppe the less impressed they will be.
I'm not at all here to defend Hoppe's writing, I just think it's necessary to include some more context or cite the original source when you bring up a statement like that. With that quote alone, it's not at all clear what Hoppe means. I mean, is he making an exception to the NAP? You (who apparently holds a bias (not necessarily a bad thing) against Hoppe in the first place) throwing out a quote as controversial as that, and then linking to some Block paper is just kinda.. careless. But maybe you can explain what he means more exactly? Is he advocating violating the NAP? This is my honest inquiry.
No, you may physically remove people from your own property who don't abide by your terms. That is all Hoppe is referring to, with respect to properties governed by restrictive covenants.
hoppe's writings are like plutonium. the more you're exposed to them, the more you will want to throw up.</hyperbole>
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
state marraige for anyone is not good
if homosexual's want to have a private marraige, they are free to do so.
indeed they are, in fact I am aware of some who have.
NonAnti,
Is the NAP really your biggest concern here? If Hoppe was saying that private property owners should remove advocates of homosexulity from their land to protect the libertarian order, you would be perfectly fine with that?
Oddly enough, I would find even that "watered down" statement disgusting. Though whether that is what he actually meant is questionable.In any case, if you need more context, I would suggest reading the book, if you are interested. Like I said, I just wanted to post this quote and leave it at that. If that is "careless", I'm fine with that.
Ambition is a dream with a V8 engine - Elvis Presley
Student,
Is the NAP really your biggest concern here?
It is a very important concern. I see a big difference in advocating something like ostracism compared to aggressive violence. Do you?
If Hoppe was saying that private property owners should remove advocates of homosexulity from their land to protect the libertarian order, you would be perfectly fine with that?
I don't know. It would depend on his reasoning. If you noticed, the quote was not specifically about homosexuals, but of those with particular sets of values. I see value in maintaining a stable, moderate culture based on what I beleive to be 'good' practices.
But more to the point, why is this a relavant question? Would you be asking me this if you actually knew and could explain what Hoppe meant? Because at this point you're asking me to make judgements on incomplete information and hypotheticals, it seems, to save face from the actual point: you posted a quote out of context which you admittedly do not fully understand, and acted like it was something important to take note of.
Like I said, I just wanted to post this quote and leave it at that. If that is "careless", I'm fine with that.
I'd give you the benefit of the doubt and say you were earnestly trying to make others aware of something imporant that Hoppe said, but since you can't even explain what the quote means, provided no context, and expressed obvious bias, I'd say your actions are more in line with trolling.
@Jon Irenicus,
what is your opinion on HHH's proposition that, ceteris paribus, homosexuals have higher time preference than heterosexuals?
It is a thymological claim, and I have no idea how Hoppe would try to prove or test it. Does he intend on polling homosexuals from different cultures and classes and age groups?
Where does Hoppe say that, Malachi? I'd be interested in a source to see exactly what he says.
I believe it is in D:TGTF and it is a conclusion based on a rational actor who has no genetic offspring, and thus less primal motivation to leave wealth behind.
@gotlucky, its not testable because an individual's homosexuality cannot be controlled for in a survey, as far as I can tell. I agree it needs to be examined in context, especially considering the statement could be applied to hets who have no legitimate offspring.