-
No one has the right to free association, you just have 'free association' period. In other words it is a liberty not a right. Free association is an admissable act until it is made inadmissable by law or by coercion.
-
On the contrary, rights are always goods/services produced by the labor of others. The problem with 'healthcare as a right' is that it is meaningless to talk of a collective right, unless each and every individual member of that collective is party to a contract that specifies the provision of that good or service. If a man has private health
-
I decided to start reading some biographies, at the moment I'm tackling "Einstein, his Life and Universe" by Walter Isaacson. Interesting to note how heavily Einstein was influenced by Hume, also interesting that Einstein was a believer in the deductive method rather than inductive. It's also made me wonder if Austrian Econ wrongly
-
The question of rights seems to crop up periodically on this forum, and the confusion and misunderstanding never seems to get any better, I find it quite depressing. An accurate understanding of rights and liberties is fundamental to an understanding of libertarianism and politcal philosophy in general. Read Anthony de Jasay, pretty polly please with
-
If I understand your point correctly it would seem that it actually applies to individual words as well as statements. In the act of communication complex thoughts are compressed by the writer into a single symbol (that we call a word) and need to be unpackaged at the other end by the reader. So we can use the word 'chess' or 'game'
-
The reason not all statements of the form 'If you do X, Y will result' cannot be praxeological is because they can refer to particulars rather than universals. Praxeological statements always refer to categories, not instantiations of a category. So for example 'action' in Mises statement above is an umbrella under which an undenumerable
-
The flaws in other economic theories are often so obvious it almost beggars belief that any sane person would believe them. I suppose what AE has, uniquely, is a sound methodoloy. Other theories are no more than empiricism followed by wild guesswork, which absent a basic understanding of economic reality leads to all kinds of errors. More often than
-
As religion would appear to be a near universal activity/trait/belief within human society I have to assume that it is caused by another more basic human trait. As religion seems at its base to be an explanation of the unknown I have to assume that the cause of religion is fear of the unknown. Fear of the unknown is of course an extremely useful trait
-
The demand for money is _not_ the same as the demand for savings. 'Savings', 'liquidity holdings' and 'consumptions' are three different ways of using your money. You're absolutely right, my language was imprecise. I should have just said 'holding money' rather than 'saving'. I suppose another way to think
-
Demand for money is probably best thought of as the inverse of the demand for goods. If you increase your consumption you increase your demand for goods and decrease your demand for money. If you increase your saving you decrease your demand for goods and increase your demand for money. Do you wish to hold more of your wealth in goods or in money? Your