In a few threads I have been on it seems like this forum is filled almost exclusively with anarchists with the odd minarchist thrown in. Maybe I'm wrong but I can't help feeling that perhaps some of the more famous Austrian economists are not quite so fundamentalist as they guys here. I thought I'd test this out with the following question. For each person in the list below, please append the percentage of GDP that you estimate that each person would ideally like to be spent on the public sector (police etc). I know this is very unscientific and you'll be guessing to a large degree, but I'm curious to see if everyone will insist its zero for all of them.
Ludwig von Mises ......?%
M Rothbard...................?%
Tom Woods.................?%
Peter Schiff...................?%
Ron Paul.......................?%
Henry Hazlitt ................?% (I know its not zero for him)
The list may seem strange to you - it simply corresponds to the ones I've heard of or have watched on youtube. Feel fee to add names.
What Went Wrong with Economics
It's been a problem on the forum lately. People have what they want to talk about, and instead of making new threads, they inject it into any current discussion.
@ the premise of the thread,
Hoppe is an anarchist. Block is an anarchist. I don't know if Doug French is an anarchist, but I know he was a student of Rothbard's, who was an anarchist. There are far more anarchists @ LvMI (GMU and other institutions may differ) than there are minarchists. There are minarchists, but in almost all cases, they are very radical, and firemen are not part of radical minarchism. A fireman has nothing to do with justice, he is merely a service provider, no different from pest control or flood restoration service.
There is a reason why many of us are anarchists. Two years ago, I was a Ron Paul minarchist. I'm also a Schiff fan, and he is very radical. Now whether he is or is not an anarchist, I don't really know. Obviously, with a potential campaign, he has to parse his words, so I don't think we could call his radio show and get a definitive answer.
As far as Mises and Hazlitt, they have passed. A lot has changed in the world since they were in the debate, and knowledge has continued to advance.
Ron Paul, definitely an anarchist at heart. No one who references Lysander Spooner and supports secession down to the individual level could be a minarchist. A minarchist is not for a minimal voluntary state, a minarchist is for a minimal involuntary state.
mickanomics: Daniel: Yes. Btw, 300,000,000 X 0.05% = 150,000 people. You fail again. I estimate there are currently over half a million *police* in the USA. And you're talking about 150,000 for all the services combined?
Daniel: Yes. Btw, 300,000,000 X 0.05% = 150,000 people. You fail again.
Yes. Btw, 300,000,000 X 0.05% = 150,000 people. You fail again.
I estimate there are currently over half a million *police* in the USA. And you're talking about 150,000 for all the services combined?
Yes.
To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process. Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!" Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."
Daniel: Yes.
There are currently 1.1 million firefighters in the US.
Pleeeeease could anyone other than Daniel please have a guess at some %of GDP figures for the Austrians.
mickanomics: Daniel: Yes. There are currently 1.1 million firefighters in the US. Pleeeeease could anyone other than Daniel please have a guess at some %of GDP figures for the Austrians.
Oh noes! If the government doesn't providez it, no onez will!
DD5: Attempting to calculate is therefore futile.
Attempting to calculate is therefore futile.
If the Austrian on the list is an anarchist then the "calculation" is easy. Its just 0.
If they support the idea of police and fire services etc then I think it is reasonable to ask "what if that Austrian was put in power (by decree from god if necessary)? What would they spend on these services?" Just a ball park figure, no need to get your calculator out.
if they have unlimited god given power maybe they would choose 100%. it could be fun being a pharaoh.
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
Daniel: Oh noes! If the government doesn't providez it, no onez will!
I did not intend for this thread to be about the merits of spending X% of GDP. I just want to know what Hazlett et al would spend, even if you think they were wrong in their choices.
mickanomics: Daniel: Oh noes! If the government doesn't providez it, no onez will! I did not intend for this thread to be about the merits of spending X% of GDP. I just want to know what Hazlett et al would spend, even if you think they were wrong in their choices.
Sometimes I wonder if even you know what you are talking about.
nirgrahamUK: if they have unlimited god given power maybe they would choose 100%. it could be fun being a pharaoh.
Hey, Nirgrahamuk, I've generally considered your posts to be far more intelligent than Daniel's, even when I disagree with you. Can I persuade you to have a guess at some percentages?
P.S. if you agree with Daniel I will slash my wrists.
I dont want your death on my conscience.
mickanomics: I did not intend for this thread to be about the merits of spending X% of GDP. I just want to know what Hazlett et al would spend, even if you think they were wrong in their choices.
I give up!
I just had an idea to make it easier for you all and save on the detailed calculations. Let us say that the cost of the things in Hazlitt's list as a percentage of GDP as it is in the USA today is "P%". Then feel free to express your answers in terms of P. Like 0.5 x P or 0.1 x P or whatever.
http://txpropertyrights.blogspot.com/2009/05/government-without-taxation-size-of.html
From 1789 to 1849, federal expenditures averaged 2.5% of the GDP. During the latter half of the nineteenth century, this figure averaged 3.8%,
http://chartingtheeconomy.com/?p=409
1929 government size 5%
if we reason that Hazlitt was for the small state as present in the early years of constitional usa we can check the record of the size of government as it was at the times that hazlitt looks back on fondly.
the above sources indicate between 2.5-5%
we cut cut down further because im sure that even the early government had departments and spending outside of the services you listed as hazlitts 'keepers'
so knock off whatever further percentage you feel that represents.
i dont see what the point of all this was really though.
Thank you for your well argued guess for Henry Hazlitt :-)
nirgrahamUK: i dont see what the point of all this was really though.
I'm trying to learn about economics. Peter Schiff is my favorite economic commentator that I've discovered so far. He says he bases his thinking on Austrian economics. So I thought I'd better learn some. I read some Austrian stuff (which I mostly liked) and then came to this forum. But that's when the trouble started. Everything I said seemed to be attacked by anarchists. This was a surprise to me, I had no idea the Austrians school would be so full of anarchists. I do not agree with anarchy and I never got the impression Austrians were anarchists from anything I read, so I began to suspect that perhaps the "famous" Austrians were not anarchists, but their followers tended to be. This thread is testing my theory.