Who are the best writers among them? I don't mean the best economists or the best thinkers, just which ones' prose you most enjoy reading.
1. Rothbard
2. Hazlitt
3. Böhm-Bawerk
4. Sennholtz
Are my top 4.
2. Thomas Woods
3. Ralph Raico
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
Can we do a best speakers also? I only ever read specific chapters that I look up.
I've burst out laughing with some Hoppe works.
Reading Rothbard is like eating ice cream.
AnalyticalAnarchism.net - The Positive Political Economy of Anarchism
Sage: Reading Rothbard is like eating ice cream.
Exactly! Painless, enjoyable, and fun!
I don't have a problem with many of the present Austrians though.
Ludwig Von Mises can make my head spin at times, seriously.
I love reading Rothbard. His style and responses to various topics are great.
To Marx this phenomenon of the market and the division of labor was a radical evil, for it meant that no one consumed any of his own product. The steelworker thus became "alienated" from his steel, the shoemaker from his shoes, etc.
The proper response to this "problem," it seems to me, is: "So what?" Why should anyone care about this sort of "alienation?"
I don't know of any scholar who's going to respond to Marx's argument with "So what?" and make it seem legitimate and professional as Rothbard.
As far as who's the best that's a hard one to make.
I think it's even more so for best speakers. I think if it comes to that you would have to break it down more (length, subject, type of conference...).
To throw this out there I like listening/watching Walter Block. Seems like he's generally surrounded by a bunch of stiffs who can't stand the fact he's there. I think it would be hilarious to unleash him on a Fox news cast who have no clue who he is.
Hm. Looks like Hayek didn't make this thread.
Mises is best, for a perfect balance between Menger's fullness and Bastiat's concision.
I don't understand why so many people these days have such a hard time reading tight reasoning. I'm guessing it's the low quality of non-fiction prescribed in schools, packed as it is with loose and sloppy argumentation.
1. Ludwig von Mises
If I wrote it more than a few weeks ago, I probably hate it by now.
I need to get more books by him aside from the one he's most famous for, but I've always liked Joseph Schumpeter's style & find him to be pretty quotable. I think Rothbard is too wordy and/or self-righteous, found Hazlitt to be boring (I only got mid-way through The Conquest of Poverty before eventually forgetting about it), but that may due to the book relying on statistics. I can't really judge on too many Austrian School authors, however.
"Look at me, I'm quoting another user to show how wrong I think they are, out of arrogance of my own position. Wait, this is my own quote, oh shi-" ~ Nitroadict
1. Mises
2. Hayek
3. Rothbard
4. Bohm-Bawerk
"For the naive mind there is something miraculous in the issuance of fiat money. A magic word spoken by the government creates out of nothing a thing which can be exchanged against any merchandise a man would like to get. How pale is the art of sorcerers, witches, and conjurors when compared with that of the government's Treasury Department! " -Ludwig von Mises, Theory of Money and Credit.
"If we wish to preserve a free society, it is essential that we recognize that the desirability of a particular object is not sufficient justification for the use of coercion."
Good one, Esuric. I also particularly like...
Mises, Socialism:
“Society lives and acts only in individuals; it is nothing more than a certain attitude on their part. Everyone carries a part of society on his shoulders; no one is relieved of his share of responsibility by others. And no one can find a safe way out for himself if society is sweeping towards destruction. Therefore everyone, in his own interests, must thrust himself vigorously into the intellectual battle. None can stand aside with unconcern; the interests of everyone hang on the result. Whether he chooses or not, every man is drawn into the great historical struggle, the decisive battle into which our epoch has plunged us.“
Mises, Theory and History:
But Marxists, anxious to avoid dealing with the economic problems of a socialist commonwealth, did nothing to demonstrate the superiority of socialism over capitalism apart from the circular reasoning that runs: Socialism is bound to come as the next stage of historical evolution. Being a later stage of history than capitalism, it is necessarily higher and better than capitalism. Why is it bound to come? Because the laborers, doomed to progressive impoverishment under capitalism, will rebel and establish socialism. But what other motive could impel them to aim at the establishment of socialism than the conviction that socialism is better than capitalism? And this preeminence of socialism is deduced by Marx from the fact that the coming of socialism is inevitable. The circle is closed.
Pre-Austrians:
Austrians:
Non Austrians:
Mises and Rothbard are my favorite Austrian writers.
My personal Anarcho-Capitalist flag. The symbol in the center stands for "harmony" and "protection"-- I'm hoping to illustrate the bond between order/justice and anarchy.
I'm half way through In Defense of Women. One of the best reads ever, so far.
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."
Beefheart.....this is the best AC flag
At least he wasn't a Keynesian!
I wonder what sort of face Rothbard had on while writing this.
Rothbard:It is small comfort that Friedman himself would confine this neighborhood-effects argument to a few instances, such as education andurban parks. In reality, this argument could be used to justify almostany intervention, and subsidy and tax scheme. I, for example, readMises’s Human Action; I therefore imbibe more wisdom and becomea better person; by becoming a better person, I benefit my fellow man;yet, hang it, they are not being forced to pay for those benefits! Shouldn’tthe government tax these people and subsidize me for being so worthyas to read Human Action? Or, to take another example, whether Women’s Libbers like itor not, many men obtain a great deal of enjoyment from watchinggirls in mini-skirts; yet, these men are not paying for this enjoyment.Here is another neighborhood effect remaining uncorrected! Shouldn’tthe men of this country be taxed in order to subsidize girls to wearmini-skirts?
Or, to take another example, whether Women’s Libbers like itor not, many men obtain a great deal of enjoyment from watchinggirls in mini-skirts; yet, these men are not paying for this enjoyment.Here is another neighborhood effect remaining uncorrected! Shouldn’tthe men of this country be taxed in order to subsidize girls to wearmini-skirts?
Michelangelo: I wonder what sort of face Rothbard had on while writing this. Rothbard:It is small comfort that Friedman himself would confine this neighborhood-effects argument to a few instances, such as education andurban parks. In reality, this argument could be used to justify almostany intervention, and subsidy and tax scheme. I, for example, readMises’s Human Action; I therefore imbibe more wisdom and becomea better person; by becoming a better person, I benefit my fellow man;yet, hang it, they are not being forced to pay for those benefits! Shouldn’tthe government tax these people and subsidize me for being so worthyas to read Human Action? Or, to take another example, whether Women’s Libbers like itor not, many men obtain a great deal of enjoyment from watchinggirls in mini-skirts; yet, these men are not paying for this enjoyment.Here is another neighborhood effect remaining uncorrected! Shouldn’tthe men of this country be taxed in order to subsidize girls to wearmini-skirts?
Getting smacked by your girlfriend is tax enough for staring at another girl.
von Vodka: Who are the best writers among them? I don't mean the best economists or the best thinkers, just which ones' prose you most enjoy reading. 1. Rothbard 2. Hazlitt 3. Böhm-Bawerk 4. Sennholtz Are my top 4.
The questions of "writing ability" and "favorite authors" are, to me, COMPLETELY DISTINCT. While I appreciate the works of Mises and Hayek, I hate their writing style. It's dry.
Rothbard and Tom Woods are polemic and fun.
Latest Projects
"Even when leftists talk about discrimination and sexism, they're damn well talking about the results of the economic system" ~Neodoxy
I like Mises, he used to remind me of old fashioned concise and methodical physics textbooks, though with much more finesse. It's ironic, I don't think I'd ever notice it if he ever lectured me, given how he sounds in the audioclips!
"When the King is far the people are happy." Chinese proverb
For Alexander Zinoviev and the free market there is a shared delight:
"Where there are problems there is life."
Nitroadict: I need to get more books by him aside from the one he's most famous for, but I've always liked Joseph Schumpeter's style & find him to be pretty quotable.
I need to get more books by him aside from the one he's most famous for, but I've always liked Joseph Schumpeter's style & find him to be pretty quotable.
Ah! You've got to be kidding me. I just finished reading "Can Capitalism Survive" this past weekend and I find his writing to be roundabout and atrocious. Sure, he can make big sentences that are grammatically correct, but isn't the point of writing to communicate ideas? I had no problem understanding his arguments or what he was saying as soon as I figured out how the words were related to one another in the sentences.
He also doesn't know how to use paragraphs. Every one starts with a sentence requiring you to have read the previous sentence. The paragraphs would start with "It is not so." or "We will see why this is false" and other statements like that. Ugh. I found it very hard to concentrate while reading his writing.
As for the others, I've only read Mises, Rothbard, Murphy and Woods, and I have to say that Rothbard is my favorite of those to read. I still find them all very good communicators in writing, and I find it very easy to understand what they're saying. In Mises works, I find myself contemplating the ideas instead of deciphering what he was trying to say. Schrumpeter just confused me by using too many words in a strange way to say too little. Honestly, if people are going to author books they should write to communicate and not to show off their command of grammar.
Bert:To throw this out there I like listening/watching Walter Block. Seems like he's generally surrounded by a bunch of stiffs who can't stand the fact he's there.
Ha ha. So true.
My humble blog
It's easy to refute an argument if you first misrepresent it. William Keizer
seriously, block has a extremely sloppy talking style. a noob can get many, many wrong impressions by his points. i like david gordon, because he meticulously words his statements instead of talking before thinking. blocks style is enjoyable though he also contributed a lot to libertarian theory.