Ludwig von Mises was quite possibly the most uncompromising, consistent, and principled defender of classical liberalism and the free-market economy in the 20th century. FULL ARTICLE by Richard M. Ebeling
Source link: http://archive.mises.org/12308/the-other-ludwig-von-mises-economic-policy-advocate-in-an-interventionist-world/
The “Other” Ludwig von Mises: Economic-Policy Advocate in an Interventionist World
Previous post: The Entitlement Mentality in Academia
Next post: The West’s Available Capital Goods
{ 16 comments }
Very interesting post. What will the Mario Rizzo devotees say when they see this volume of Mises’s writings? It will be fun to see.
Great article.
“So what can we learn from Mises’s extensive and detailed policy analyses on a wide variety of issues from those earlier decades of the 20th century?”
We learn that… “freedom is not ‘public policy’” – Lew Rockwell (http://mises.org/daily/979)
And they said the “LvMI” types would hate this…
Everyone has to start somewhere in their political education, even someone as great as Mises. He gained a lot of first-hand experience in problems with government intervention.
He sounds awfully practical. This must be disconcerting for all the purists who deem the likes of Friedman et al to be statists… and hence dismissed and ostracized.
Çan you imagine policy wonk Mises on the Charlie Rose Show, interviewed by O’Reilly or doing a NYT OpEd? The mind boggles…
Great article, I think many in Austrian camp have never taken the time to actually read the writings of Mises or Hayek. I am nearly done reading “The Road To Serfdom” and can say that Hayek is far more reasonable than many Hyper-Austrians.
For example, in chapter 9 on Security and Freedom, Hayek makes the distinction between two types of social security. He states, “There is no reason why in a society which has reached the general level of wealth which ours has attained the first kind of security should not be guaranteed to all without endangering general freedom.” (p148, The Definitive Edition, by Bruce Caldwell) By the first kind of security he means a minimal level of sustenance for all, while the second kind is the security of a certain standard of life.
He goes on to state that determining the level of security is debatable and questions weather those who receive the community support should enjoy the same liberties. I found these thoughts from Hayek quite refreshing from the narrow minded political ideology that abounds in Austrian circles.
I know this ruffle the feathers of my brothers to the south, but the current health care debate in the U.S. is an application of the aforementioned quote. I know many will write me off a second rate but as a Canadian the security offered by our universal health care also has another benefit. The peace of mind of knowing that you will receive the good medical care no matter what your circumstances removes a huge burden from the entire society. I know many of you think that our medical system is “second rate” or “rationed” and if you do, you have been instructed by the media not reality. While our system is not perfect, I would not trade it for your system. Surely the U.S. has reached a level of wealth that it can afford a basic level of health to all citizens without endangering general freedom?
I look forward to reading some of Mises works after I am finished with The Road To Serfdom.
I appreciated Dr. Ebeling’s analysis of the works of von Mises, because it shows the difference between the science of Wertfrei economics and the practicalities of economic policy. As he notes “much of Mises’s conception of the general economic order…did not arise from a pure, a priori, deductive spinning out of implications from the “action axiom.” Similarly, it is one thing to teach the “action axiom” and another to engage in economic policy. It is striking that von Mises dealt with financing “war expenditures through taxation versus borrowing by the issuance of war bonds” in a war that should never have occurred in the first place. So in practice “there are certain institutional “givens” that must be taken for granted, and in the context of which policy options and decisions must be worked out.” Similarly “he did not propose immediate abolition of trade barriers in Mexico…instead, he advocated “incrementalism,” i.e., a gradual reduction of the tariff barriers over several years.” Dr. Ebeling concludes that “we can gain an insight into the interaction between “theory” and “practice” at work in the mind of Ludwig von Mises.” I might only add that when it comes to practice it is necessary to include the moral dimension.
At the same time, with regard to influencing the public, it is not helpful to get into esoteric practical issues, but to clarify basic principles. Here we can point out the flaws in the principles of Milton Friedman, and those of the Canadian health care system.
Paraphrasing Ben Franklin, “Those who would trade their liberties for a sense of security deserve neither”.
…and get neither!
That’s funny, Hayek would disagree with you both. This is the unreasonableness that give Austrians a bad name.
Keep up the good work!
Having spent some time in Canada (4 years), I’d rather NOT endure that healthcare system in America. I found the treatment of many of my friends superficial and atrocious, bordering on malpractice. Say whatever you want Kevin Graham – it’s just my lyin’ eyes, eh?
Why can’t Americans debate without the personal attacks, eh?
I’ve spent some time in the U.S. too, big talker, in fact I have family in Texas. Don’t worry about health care, American’s are fat enough to take care of themselves. Just go to any mall and see all the fat people living off the rest of the world (read Canadians). We’ll keep selling (our energy, and the Chinese their junk) to you until we own the land your standing on.
Americans are oblivious because their too busy eating.
Hayek would not disagree with them both, since he quotes that very line from Franklin on p. 133 of The Road to Serfdom.
You don’t know what Hayek would think. Did you even know he changed his mind and ended up agreeing with Friedman about the failure of the Fed during the Great Depression? The Fed should’ve created more money, according to Hayek.
Comments on this entry are closed.