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
It's not a praxeological claim, so it can be measured to see how accurate it is at the present time, though it suffers from the problem of finding a way to accurately measure it. You could hold a survey for open homosexuals or follow their lives for 50 years from their teens, and you could have a sample size of 10,000 homosexuals and 10,000 heterosexuals easily in a country as large as America. The major problem, in my opinion, would be in determining what constitutes low time preference versus high time preference and all the variations within them. For instance, does someone have small amounts of wealth in their 70s because he had high time preference or because of bad investments? And if the investments were bad, was it because he didn't take the time to research or because of some factors that just couldn't be accounted for?
Hoppe makes these grand thymological claims (the most well known is probably the claim about monarchs having a lower time preference than democratically elected officials), and since they are thymological they do not necessarily apply to all or even most of the particular class he is generalizing about. Hoppe has some interesting insights, but when they are not praxeological, it's best to just take them as interesting insights into how to view the world, but they don't necessarily apply.
I don't think that the ceteris paribus condition is at all applicable condition in this instance, since the only variable here would have to be the sex of one's spouse (if one has one), rather than the possibility of obtaining children. The assumption here is that because homosexuals cannot produce children on their own that they will therefore not care as much about the state of society in the future. Now this would only be true if
1. The person could not/would not adopt a child
2. The person would not/could not have someone else inseminated/be inseminated/would not inseminate or be inseminated by anone who wasn't their partner
3. Would not care about an offspring that was not biologically theirs
And on the other hand that the heterosexual version would have to either
4. Be capable of inseminating/be inseminated
5. Not have their values relevantly changed by the way society then viewed them (you could argue that this is implied within the condition)
And both would have to
6. Want children
7.Care about the child's wellbeing in the future
Therefore for Hoppes' claim ARE NOT praxeologically true in an apriori manner because not one of these things can be determined to be true from the condition. The claim will only apply to a very exact sequence of preferences that this person holds, and none can be assumed from the conditions given.
Neodoxy,
I can't tell if you are disagreeing with me or reinforcing what I said.
both of you gentlemen appear to be in accord.
Student:Like I said, I just wanted to post this quote and leave it at that. If that is "careless", I'm fine with that.
It's not careless, it's trolling. If you're as well-read on Hoppe as you claim then you would've known how disingenuous your quote was in advance. Here's the full paragraph from which that statement comes:
As soon as mature members of society habitually express acceptance or even advocate egalitarian sentiments, whether in the form of democracy (majority rule) or of communism, it becomes essential that other members, and in particular the natural social elites, be prepared to act decisively and, in the case of continued nonconformity, exclude and ultimately expel these members from society. In a covenant concluded among proprietor and community tenants for the purpose of protecting their private property, no such thing as a right to free (unlimited) speech exists, not even to unlimited speech on one's own tenant-property. One may say innumerable things and promote almost any idea under the sun, but naturally no one is permitted to advocate ideas contrary to the very purpose of the covenant of preserving and protecting private property, such as democracy and communism. There can be no tolerance toward democrats and communists in a libertarian social order. They will have to be physically separated and expelled from society. Likewise, in a covenant founded for the purpose of protecting family and kin, there·can be no tolerance toward those habitually promoting lifestyles incompatible with this goal. They-the advocates of alternative, non-family and kin-centered lifestyles such as, for instance, individual hedonism, parasitism, nature-environment worship, homosexuality, or communism-will have to be physically removed from society, too, if one is to maintain a libertarian order.
His point is about convenants that can be made in a libertarian order, and the extent to which those in the convenants would have to protect them to maintain their intended order. He's not even making a blanket statement about homosexuals, only those who participate in the countercultural homosexual lifestyle and who live under a covenant established for purposes to which that lifestyle runs counter, which is why he classified as lifestyles ahead of time and lumped it with hedonism.
im glad you posted the complete quote *****from the article I linked to*****.
of course, i don't see how any of the added text changes my (or walter block's) interpretation. i wanted to avoid getting into this, since these kinds of arguments never change anyone's minds, but let me spell out my opposition to Hoppe in detail.
#1 he is talking about expelling people that disagree within a particular covenant-based community (i agree with block that this is hardly a libertarian notion)
#2 he is still explicitly saying that advocating homosexuality is opposed to the family centered lifestyle (untrue) and on par with parasitism and hedonism in its opposition to that lifestyle (insane).
#3 if we combine 1 and 2 the result is a terrifying prospect. he is openly suggesting that a libertarian order cannot be maintained in this community unless everyone is in agreement with the goals of the community (that sounds like a pretty collectivist notion to me). since homosexuals (or their advocates whatever that means) can't get with the program, they SHOULD BE evicted. like i said before this is plain disgusting, even if you don't think it violates the NAP. let me explain further since apparently it isn't obvious.
saying people have the right to discriminate is one thing. you can say "i don't agree with them but i don't think the government has the right to stop them", fine. but Hoppe is saying something different. He is saying that this community cannot maintain a libertarian order UNLESS people discriminate!! discriminating against people that are not on board with the community's goals is a requirement for maintaining order. doesn't this strike anybody else as not only false (does order really break down when people disagree) but also repugnant? basically, hoppe is talking about people living in like-minded villages where they can't be too different from one another for fear of getting booted out. in other words, ending the cosmopolitan lifestyle we currently enjoy. how is what Hoppe is advocating considered a libertarian order at all except that it doesn't include a central government? i believe i am much more free now than i would be in the world hoppe describes.
anyways, people should feel free to read the book and make up their own mind. like i said, i dont think Hoppe is woth arguing over (and somehow nonAnti keeps wondering why i refuse to elaborate myself on a topic i don't think deserves discussion). a modified version of what bertrand russell says in a letter to oswald mosley sums up my feelings. "i feel obliged to say that the emotional univserses we inhabit are so distinct, and in deepest way opposed, that nothing fruitful or sincere could ever emerge from" such an argument.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BJJYwmICAAA_a--.jpg:large
Ambition is a dream with a V8 engine - Elvis Presley
"i feel obliged to say that the emotional univserses we inhabit are so distinct, and in deepest way opposed, that nothing fruitful or sincere could ever emerge from" such an argument.
in light of this can you see why it might not be a good idea for two given people to live in the same community and collectivize (to some extent) their decision processes? perhaps you dont agree with the particular characteristics hoppe identified, and thats fine, its puzzling to me as well, thats why the insistence on context and values.
I also think its odd that hoppe doesnt mention or envision a libertarian social order that caters to homosexuals.
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?
Therefore for Hoppes' claim ARE NOT praxeologically true in an apriori manner because not one of these things can be determined to be true from the condition.
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
thanks for the answers, Jon.
@gotlucky
yeah just yesterday I was thinking how to apply Locke's theory of....wait what?
@Student
I don't like Hoppe, and I am really not a big fan of defending him but...
if this is the only quote we are going off of, let's make the "nouns" irrelevant, and turn them to widgets - and look at this as a theory of social/antisocial behaviour and inclusion/exclusion dichotomies. All social theory is going to have them. Honestly, I'm a bit confused as to why homosexuals, hedonists or nature lovers are excluded: 3 of the terms are very vague, the other - homosexuals, just seems odd. As for commies, I guess in so much as they are active in certain methods, it could be seen as "illegal" by definition.
One of the bigger questions is by what means are these people excluded, and how would it differ from different theories.
Or perhaps it would be more sane to ask questions like: "how can we accept as many dissenting views and actions as possible while keeping a workable libertarian social order" - rather than risking comming off as some provincial secterian crank - i get that, I wonder if Hoppe just likes to be contrarian to get more action out of a dialogue some time, and really force someone to engage with thoughts.
Awww yeaah. I knew there was something that I missed about new members :)
Gotlucky,
I was just showing why Hoppe's claim isn't praxeological.
I knew there was something that I missed about new members :)
fuck, fuck, fuck, fuck, fuck
I hate moding all this spam
Haiku of How I Forgot How Annoying Spam Can Be - by William
Oh well, at least there will probably be an influx of really hot model looking women joining Mises now.
in light of this can you see why it might not be a good idea for two given people to live in the same community and collectivize (to some extent) their decision processes?
@Malachi not really, even though i disagree with hoppe, i don't think i need to expell him from the united states to keep from contaminating my fellow citizens. if there are groups of people that are simply so bigoted they can't stand to live next to people that are different from them, then i could see how they might want to live together in some small-minded covenant-based community. of course, that isn't what hoppe is saying. he is talkig about all of us living in our own covenants where we MUST discriminate people that disagree with us to maintain order. if you live in a covenant-based community that values property rights, hoppe explicitly says you can't allow democrats to live with you. if they somehow wind up in your midst, they must be expelled.
i honestly don't see how any libertarian would be on board with this. there is no central government ruling all the covenants, but the covenants sound more oppressive than any government i've lived under.
Hoppe has conditioned his rhetoric for a different audience. How much of it he personally believes and how much of it was intended for conversion, I do not know, nor does it really bother me.
@Jon I think this goes beyond just Hoppe marketing libertarianism to bigots (which i don't see how that is better but okay). he is explicitly saying that "a libertarian order" can't be maintained unless we are all bigots. if someone disputes the goals of the covenant community, they must be dispelled. how is that type of collectivist clap trap not morally questionable?
like i said before, it is one thing to say that people have that right to discriminate against others on their own property. it is a totally different ball game to say we MUST discriminate against others to maintain order. you say there is nothing wrong with that from a libertarian perspective, but i don't see how. the covenant community sounds like another word for a fascist informal government.
if this is the only quote we are going off of, let's make the "nouns" irrelevant, and turn them to widgets - and look at this as a theory of social/antisocial behaviour and inclusion/exclusion dichotomies.
@vive, i think you're right that part of what hoppe is doing is articulating a thoery of how society operates. but like i said before, his theory seems factually incorrect to me. i mean i think most of us on this board live in the u.s. or canada or england. so we all live in societies that accomodate people we disagree with AND maintain order.
if hoppe's world of covenant-based communities can't handle that, i think that sounds like an argument in favor of the world we currently live in. like i keep saying, i don't know how libertarians could be on board with it.
Hopefully that will clarify my position on the matter, though if Student would rather discuss Hoppe's position another time, that is fine, and we can get back to the main theme in the OP, which isn't Hoppe's ideological predispositions.
@Jon. Agreed. My stated goal all along was not to get into this type of conversation because it never EVER changes people's minds. the best you can do is post some information (like a link to a particuarly disturbing quote) and hope people figure things out for themselves.
all i have done is accidently derail the thread i apologize to the OP.
Oh yeah, I agree - I misread a little, You're right though, there seems to be so many ways one can pick apart these types of arguments the way they are presented, even based on their own supposed criterea.
What almost always alarms me is that they (mostly Hoppe and Block arguments I have come across) seem to fall into the same traps as people like Plato, Fourier, Marx, etc where people find these so-called" laws" that simply don't exist - and when implimented there are few who would seriously call the results "good". It just seems like two sides of the same coin to me.