-
[quote]That sentence makes absolutely no sense. I think you left some words out or something.[/quote] I'm not sure what people in Quiverfull-movement think about economics. But it seems that there is quite much of religious people in Austrian movement, which might be helpful with fundamental Christians. Does it make sense now? [quote]Apparently
-
[quote]Upcoming demographic change? 78.4% of Americans already identify as Christian. Sure that's down from times past, but even as late as 1990 it was as high as 86.4%....and the market was arguably in many ways free-er back then. Are you honestly trying to argue that we should be afraid of such an envrionment? That somehow 90 % or 95% Christian
-
I'm concerned how willing fundamentalists will be for free market. Mises was atheist, after all. If they are willing, how should we prepare for upcoming years? Main point of this thread is to get people aware of upcoming demographic change.
-
http://fora.tv/2010/09/05/Eric_Kaufmann_Shall_the_Religious_Inherit_the_Earth This video and Kaufmanns book tell us interesting things about our future in current century. Religious fundamentalists from Christianity, Islam and Judaism keep up with their very high fertility rates as secular families are under the 2.0, which is a rate that keeps population
-
Is there any coherent theory of ABCT, which takes rational expectations and consumption booms to account in theory and not after theory (unlike Rothbards one in Man, Economy and State ), when people answer to the critiques? I heard Garrisons Time and Money is something new and Huerta de Sotos too.
-
Ok, why are people posting to these old topics?
-
I think Rothbard was very clear. The free bankers accept a kind of David Friedmanite anarchism, where there is no law, only people engaging in exchange and buying people out . Many of Rothbards followers actually support polycentric law, because they say that property owners have right to choose 'wrong' law. But Rothbard was really hostile towards
-
I think I understand the point. I just don't understand why Rothbard himself was so hostile towards polycentric law, and I mean when refers Friedmanite anarcho-capitalism as a 'chaos'.
-
I took the "redhead"-quote because it was only one where I have seen Rothbard commenting Friedman's version of ancap. But what if 80 % of property owners allow circumcision, ban abortion and start to jail people who break contracts? I can't think that it would be unrealistic consequence if current monopoly of law breaks up and power
-
Yes, I saw it. When you say that property owners are never LEGALLY ALLOWED to do un-Rothbardian things, what does that mean? That Rothbardians are going to call him and say 'Dude, that's not right according to our NAP-theory' or something else? Does it just mean that it's not 'legal', but they can still do it? I belive that anarcho