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.
nirgrahamUK: it means if there are a dozen firefighters in a town and one of them is riding a train that doesnt need him because thats where union influence put them, then the headcount for the fire service can be dropped without reducing cover. ergo. lower percentage of spending. He was telling you that the fireservice is bloated and could be scaled back.
it means if there are a dozen firefighters in a town and one of them is riding a train that doesnt need him because thats where union influence put them, then the headcount for the fire service can be dropped without reducing cover. ergo. lower percentage of spending. He was telling you that the fireservice is bloated and could be scaled back.
Well its a matter of degree. There's bloated and there's bloated. According to Daniel we've got to get from 1.1 million down to a *component* of the 150,000, say 30,000 ?. Thats a 36:1 ratio. Sounds like quite a stretch to me.
mickanomics: Well its a matter of degree. There's bloated and there's bloated. According to Daniel we've got to get from 1.1 million down to a *component* of the 150,000, say 30,000 ?. Thats a 36:1 ratio. Sounds like quite a stretch to me.
Tell me how this is not central planning?
wilderness: Tell me how this is not central planning?
I've noticed, from observing many of your postings on multiple threads, that your posts are very often non-sequiturs. And this is a fine example.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur
mickanomics: wilderness: Tell me how this is not central planning? I've noticed, from observing many of your postings on multiple threads, that your posts are very often non-sequiturs. And this is a fine example. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur
yes and I can think the same of you. that gets us nowhere. We're obviously not communicating affectively. So what are you talking about when you are asking how many firemen and police there will be in a free market? Why are you asking these questions?
liberty student: 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,
you answered the OP seemingly. i simply wanted to know why the OP is wondering about how many firemen, police, etc... there will be. I asked in response to his post. notice i didn't give an answer as to how many or what have you, i mean wouldn't that mean hijacking the thread? i asked why he is asking these questions - so - by default it's obvious the OP is veering from his own OP. a person could effectively argue that I am enabling the OP in veering from his initial post, but the whole general theme of this thread has basically veered by numerous posters away from the initial post - including the Oposter him or her self.
Dear "liberty student",
Thank you for that excellent answer, thats just the kind of thing I wanted to know.
mickanomics: non-sequiturs. And this is a fine example. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur
non-sequiturs. And this is a fine example.
it's only a non-sequitur if we are debating. you might think we are debating. I don't. I think I'm trying to ask you a question referring to what you are talking about. it's a discussion - i'm not trying to pin you down on some fallacy or something.
mickanomics: Dear "liberty student", Thank you for that excellent answer, thats just the kind of thing I wanted to know.
Sure, but that is not what you were asking. Oh wellz!
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."
wilderness: So what are you talking about when you are asking how many firemen and police there will be in a free market?
So what are you talking about when you are asking how many firemen and police there will be in a free market?
That wasn't my question!... Either concentrate and pay attention, or don't post.
mickanomics: 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)
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.
The problem is Macro theory. It gathers statistics (a record of reported information gathered by the state), then attempts to direct them. GDP is a perfect example.
Tell me this. Do you make your personal economic decisions based upon GDP, NDP, NX, GX, TR, TA, Y, I, or any of the other meaningless variables in macro theory? If you do, I would guess you are doing about as well as the government. i.e. you will never be able to get out of debt. Your question is pointless because it is based on a false fork in the road. The fork was never there, so discussing what lies down it is pure fantasy.
mickanomics: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.
This is an attempt to kill the messenger. Stupid tactic. It never solves the problem
Criminals, there ought to be a law.
Criminals there ought to be a whole lot more. Bon Scott.
if that's NOT what you are asking then what is this?
Daniel: Sure, but that is not what you were asking. Oh wellz!
True, but it was close enough. It answered the gist of my question.
mickanomics: Well I hadn't thought it though in any great detail, but I figured that if there are 1.1 million firefighters now then 150,000 for the total of *all* government workers seemed a little on the low side.
Well I hadn't thought it though in any great detail, but I figured that if there are 1.1 million firefighters now then 150,000 for the total of *all* government workers seemed a little on the low side.
or this?
mickanomics: In reply to several posts. This thread was never intended to be "what % of GDP should be spent on public service provision" merely "what % of GDP did the guys in the list think should be spent on public service provision".
In reply to several posts.
This thread was never intended to be "what % of GDP should be spent on public service provision" merely "what % of GDP did the guys in the list think should be spent on public service provision".