Ninja Economist reports that prominent Austrian economist Israel Kirzner will receive a Award from the Swedish Foundation for Small Business Research and NUTEK (Swedish government agency which claims to promote industrial development). The Award is given to someone who has contributed to the understanding of entrepreneurship and small firms. The Award is apparently going to be given by Thomas Östros, the Swedish Minister of Industry, Employment and Communications. While Kirzner is more of a Hayekian than Misesian, he is of course opposed to government interventions, including the interventions carried out by NUTEK. Which means that ironically, NUTEK and its boss Thomas Östros is in effect going to award someone for criticizing their policies!
Source link: http://archive.mises.org/4602/israel-kirzner-receives-award-from-swedish-government-agency/
Israel Kirzner Receives Award From Swedish Government Agency
Previous post: Presenting…Bastiat!
{ 22 comments }
Its good to see more recognition for the Austrian Economics genre…………..
On the NUTEK website, it ‘s said that Kizner will receive a prize of 450 000 swedish krone.
http://www.nutek.se/sb/d/198/a/3052
The change rate is around 7.5 kr = 1 USD
http://money.cnn.com/data/currencies/europe/
So, Kirzner will receive 60 000 USD from the hand of the Swedish Minister of Industry, Employment and Communications.
I’m not sure from where come the money. But as it is a governement agency, I can assume that the money come from the taxpayer.
In this, according to Rothbard “Ethic of Liberty”, can Kirzner legitimatly receive money from governement ? Can Kizner, a libertarian intellectual, get benefit from the robbery of taxation ?
I propose to Kizner to refuse the prize and to say to the Swedish Minister that he don’t want to get money from the robbery of taxation. And all libertarian should say the same thing to Kizner.
He can get the honnor, because it’s funny to see the governement giving honnor to an intellectual who criticizing their policies. BUT he cannot get the taxpayer’s money.
Vincent, you are arbitrarily supposing that Kirzner abides to rothbardian ethics, which may not be true.
Anyway, it is always good to know that Austrian Economics is receiving at least some – positive – recognition from mainstream institutions.
From a conversation I’ve had with Kirzner this past August– he told me that he is a Misesean, and never accepted Rothbard’s anti-state positions.
It is somewhat hard to accept that a throughgoing Misesean would not at least tend to be against the state, but I suppose there is some room for non-Rothbardians in Austrian economic theory.
I think that for Mises, the State is only legitimate in order to make protection of private property and contracts.
I don’t think that as a Misesean, one can get a prize from taxpayer’s money.
I don’t think that as a Misesean, one can get a prize from taxpayer’s money.
Does teaching geometry make the professor into a triangle?
If Kirzner doesn’t take the money, the Swedish government will spend it somewhere else. Which does the least harm?
Ok, so I can get public subsidies because if I don’t get it, the governement will give it to another one.
Or, I can be a manager of a governement agency because otherwise, another guy will have the job.
…
The following quote by Rothbard doesn’t really address the original topic, but it does address Vincent’s last post:
“How can we act, and act morally, in a State-controlled and dominated world? [A] fundamental error is to confuse accepting a situation none of your making, with actively making that situation worse. In short, there is nothing wrong with a libertarian living in a rent-controlled apartment, and therefore paying a rent below the market. It would be… foolish and martyrish for us to renounce such apartments if available, to refuse to eat any food grown under government regulation, to refuse to use the Post Office, etc. Our responsibility is to agitate and work to remove this statist situation; apart from that, that is all we can rationally do. What about working as a government employee? It is true that, other things being equal, it is far better, on libertarian as well as pragmatic grounds, to work for a private employer rather than government. But suppose that the government has monopolized, or virtually monopolized, your occupation, so that there is no practical alternative to working for the government? The United States, while scarcely as far gone as [Soviet] Russia, has had many occupations virtually monopolized by the government. [H]ere it is vital to distinguish between two kinds of State activities: (a) those actions that would be perfectly legitimate if performed by private firms on the market; and (b) those actions that are per se immoral and criminal, and that would be illicit in a libertarian society. The latter must not be performed by libertarians in any circumstances.”
(more here)
I can’t believe what I’m reading….
No self-respecting libertarian would argue that it’s OK to accept STOLEN property
and/or ‘honour’ (!!?) from a gang of socialist pirates.
I couldn’t care less what Mr. Rothbard said. He’s not God. He’s not ‘invented’ individualism, and
if his writings can be used to ‘justify’ Mr. Kirzner’s gaffe, then Mr. Rothbard is a fraud.
Angry
No self-respecting libertarian would argue that it’s OK to accept STOLEN property
and/or ‘honour’ (!!?) from a gang of socialist pirates.
Boy, I’d like to hear what your job is, Mr. Angry. But like I said, my quote doesn’t really apply to Kirzner.
I would take as much no-strings-attached money as the Swedish government would care to give me, without hesitation.
First, as someone else mentioned, better for the government to spend on me than on some program that is likely to do harm.
Second, is most Swedish tax money really stolen? Maybe not. Ask the typical Swede or other Scandinavian whether he likes the welfare state, and I suspect you will receive nothing but unabashed enthusiasm for the socialism under which he lives.
Roy’s quote is right on. Did Kirzner ever do anything to influence the existence of this award? Doubtful. If the state offered us a tax credit or discount on our house payments would we refuse it on the grounds that others paid more tax? Not me. And if they awarded me money for seeing through their lies and deceptions would i decline it? Ha! Now there’s a funny thought.
Being a Swede and thus being someone who have been forced to contribute to this, I think Kirzner should take the money. Had the money been refunded to the Swedish taxpayers had Kirzner refused to take it then he should have refused. But in reality, if he refuses the money it will only be used by the Social Democratic government to buy favor with the voters, especially this year which is election year in Sweden.
The Social Democrats with their partners -the Communist Party and the Green Party- is trailing the centre-right opposition parties in the polls so it is a virtual certainty that they are going to try to bribe voters with more spending projects. And the stronger the government budget is -the Swedish government budget is in sharp contrast to America’s already in surplus-, the more are they likely to propose in spending in order to stay in power.
Mr W, Mr H, Mr E, Herr K,
Yours is a text-book collection of fallacies. I’ll highlight a couple…
1)
A tax break is not the same thing as actively accepting stolen property.
2)
Being a Swede and thus being someone who have been forced to contribute to this
If you agree to pay Kirzner, then you’re not being forced. However, I higly doubt that 9
millions swedes agree to give Kirzner a dime.
Worse. You seem to be saying that if taxes are used for something you like, then they are not robbery ?
Come on guys, you don’t have a leg to stand on…
Wait… Which fallacy refers to me?
Angry, had you bothered to read past the first sentence, you would have known that I do *not* agree to pay a single dime to Kirzner as I explicitly stated that had the money been refunded to the taxpayers then he should have turned it down. But as it will not be refunded if Kirzner refuses to accept it and is instead going to be used by the Social Democrats to bribe voters into voting for them, then I prefer it if Kirzner take it rather than some socialist Swedish voter.
Roy Wright asks :
Wait… Which fallacy refers to me?
Boy, I’d like to hear what your job is, Mr. Angry.
Half hinted ad-hominem ? For the record, I do not work for the state.
If I misread your rethorical question I apologize. However, see below…
—————
Stefan,
as it will not be refunded if Kirzner refuses to accept it and is instead going to be used by the Social Democrats…
That’s a fallacious ‘moral’ theory known as ‘utilitarism’. It was the foundation for socialism in Victorian England, if I recall correctly ?
Vincent Poncet rightly asks
Ok, so I can get public subsidies because if I don’t get it, the governement will give it to another one.
You Roy then qouted some Rothbard to apparently prove that it’s indeed OK to receive subsidies, for instance,
“there is nothing wrong with a libertarian living in a rent-controlled apartment, and therefore paying a rent below the market”
I thought Rothbard was a natural rights advocate…The above quotation cleraly shows he was not.
Roy, you didn’t address Vincent’s point. You quoted a suposed authority(Rothbard) endorsing an inmoral action.
That’s TWO fallacies in one sentence.
“A tax break is not the same thing as actively accepting stolen property.”
Really? That argument works conveniently for those accepting the tax break. How washes that argument with those not offered the tax break?
If i get tax breaks worth $10,000 over some period of time, or if i get an “award” for the same amount over that same period, the former is just me keeping my money, and the latter is me accepting stolen goods. I get the argument, but i don’t buy it.
I drive on public roads, visit public libraries, climb public mountains, and i’ve even made use of public soccer fields. Perhaps i should withdraw from life until libertarianism prevails and these things are no longer provided from the avails of theft and stolen property.
But i won’t. And i won’t be judging others who also choose not to.
For the record, I do not work for the state.
I’m fully aware that this is pretty ad-hominem, but I am curious to know where you work, to make my point in a way you’ll understand.
thought Rothbard was a natural rights advocate…The above quotation cleraly shows he was not.
Again, I know, this is ad-hominem, but are you honestly claiming that no product you buy is subsidized in any way? The point is that, in today’s state-run world, it is impossible to sustain anything approaching a modern standard of living without accepting subsidies in your everyday life. Now, of course, I think Kirzner went above and beyond a necessary involvement with the state, and I won’t argue with you on that.
“A tax break is not the same thing as actively accepting stolen property.”
Paul Edwards asks :
Really?
Yes, really. A tax break means you somehow manage to be exempt from taxation. Means you are not being robbed. That’s the natural and just state of things.
If, OTOH, you get some stolen property from the government and use it to pay your taxes,
then you are involved in criminal activities TWICE. One as a victim and the other as an accomplice.
Perhaps I should withdraw from life until libertarianism prevails
and these things are no longer provided from the avails of theft and stolen property.
But i won’t. And i won’t be judging others who also choose not to.
Your choice. However, don’t pretend that you hold the high moral ground in ‘no judging’ cause you don’t.
Tolerance does not apply to state crimes. It’s not the same thing as not judging sexual behaviour or religious beliefs.
Roy says :
Again, I know, this is ad-hominem, but are you honestly claiming that no product you buy is subsidized in any way?
Ah, I see your point now. Surely I get some subsidized things – say $10 in value. Surely I pay $15 in taxes, so still I’m a net looser.
However, I don’t claim it’s all right to use subsidized products, even though I’m actually paying for them.
I think Kirzner went above and beyond a necessary involvement with the state,
Yes, what really bothers me is that Mr. Kirzner’s action is very bad publicity, in my opinion. Even if no money was involved, how do you think
‘we the people’ see the affair ?
What I see is that somebody who supposedly is (very) critical of the government is being greeted by them. The logical conclusion is that he’s not critical at all.
Comments on this entry are closed.