It was Austrian economics and its proponents who raised eyebrows when they first explored the writings of what is here referred to as “standard Law & Economics,” i.e., mainly the thought of Judge Richard Posner. FULL ARTICLE by Martin Fronek
Source link: http://archive.mises.org/11273/contra-law-and-economics/
Contra Law and Economics
Previous post: For Civilization, It Is Mises or Bust
{ 2 comments }
The L&E movement wouldn’t be so horribly lost if it realized (1) value is subjective, and (2) this means that the costs of enforcing any law should be borne explicitly by those who support it, in order to observe the efficiency and effectiveness of such a solution.
There is valuable insight to some problems considered by that school of thought, but only when there is no clear property-rights solution and all actors are using market monetary values to fully represent their desires.
In all the problem is that L&E has really been “Law and Chicago School Economics”, if instead it were “Law and Misesian Economics” there wouldn’t be any contentions between theory and real justice.
“It should be clear now how crucially important it is to contrast an ethically-based approach to property (such as self-ownership and its extension) to the efficiency theory of rights. Whereas the former approach (built upon by Hoppe as a leading exponent of the Austrian approach and other prominent philosophers) gives us clear guidance, a Posnerian judge cannot perform the task assigned to him.”
Well let’s see.
Who do you think has stated the following positivist assumption, Posner or Hoppe? Paraphrasing a little.
“Property rights are assigned to resolve conflicts regarding scarce resources”
Comments on this entry are closed.