1. Skip to navigation
  2. Skip to content
  3. Skip to sidebar
Source link: http://archive.mises.org/17090/the-world-according-to-de-jasay/

The World According to de Jasay

May 25, 2011 by

In any given context, the state is either unnecessary or impossible. FULL ARTICLE by Roderick T. Long


Nielsio May 25, 2011 at 8:22 am

A Conversation with Anthony de Jasay (2000)

Trent Fowler May 25, 2011 at 9:31 am

>”Is protection against the state, then, one good that markets have trouble supplying? One would like to hear more from de Jasay about this apparent instance of market failure.”

Yes, I’ve wondered the same thing myself lots of times.

Jordan Viray May 25, 2011 at 2:53 pm

It isn’t just “protection against the state” that is poorly provided for in the market; but rather, any good or service given a monopoly by the state is an instance of market failure.

It just happens that such a niche is the one service that all states claim monopoly over, i.e., if someone has a grievance against some form of state aggression, then they must by pain of violence use mechanisms provided by the state to try to rectify the situation.

If the government were to declare otherwise (and essentially cease being a state) and compete without taxpayer money in the force provision industry, I have no doubt that free-market alternatives would prevail as they have done in every battle between state-run and private enterprise.

Ricardo Rodriguez May 25, 2011 at 11:20 am

I love Jasay. He’s becoming more and more popular as I’ve seen, and his arguments are the best I’ve ever seen. No emotion, no care for natural rights or anything – just pure logic, cold and hard, and it smacks you across the face.

Michael J. Green May 26, 2011 at 2:32 am

Agreed. I’m reading Social Contract, Free Ride at the moment, and it really is beautiful. I’m not at all qualified to make this declaration, but I see de Jasay as Mises’s contemporary equivalent: his writing is rigorous, straight-forward and clear but methodical, and he has a dry yet unappreciated wit. Both men are great at brushing aside all the nonsense of their respective disciplines and working through their arguments carefully and intelligently.

Inquisitor May 27, 2011 at 8:05 am

Lack of emotion isn’t in and of itself a virtue; it’s only appeals to emotions that are fallacious. However, de Jasay reminds me of Hoppe in how he handles arguments – he takes an epistemological route, and I think that is why his and Hoppe’s arguments tend to be pretty powerful and well grounded.

R.J. Moore II May 25, 2011 at 8:26 pm

de Jasay is a better political philosopher than anyone at Mises. He’s also right about morality – morality is a psychological tendency within the species, not a ‘fact’; all manner of butchering Aristotle will not change this despite Long’s quasi-religious hopes to prove the leftist gestalt.

And he’s right that we are screwed, though more for reasons that Jeffrey Friedman gives than de Jasay’s own: people believe things they have no business believing. The leftist gestalt Long is so fond of is one of the primary stumbling blocks to a rational understanding of social order; dumbass plebs form opinions when they should sit down and shut up.

Inquisitor May 27, 2011 at 8:10 am

Then by all means, provide arguments – rather than insults/assertions – against Long’s position. Long is merely engaging in a brief book overview here. From what I’ve read of their respective works, Hoppe, Long, Gordon and Barry Smith are all comparable to de Jasay in philosophical sharpness.

The strongest arguments for libertarian natural rights I’ve seen come from Rasmussen and den Uyl, anyway. Not so much Long.

Andrew Cain May 27, 2011 at 8:26 am

Provide arguments? No no Inquisitor, you are missing the point.
You need to “sit down and shut up.”

angurse May 25, 2011 at 9:08 pm

I think de Jasay is wrong when he says Hayek completed Mises’ socialist critique.

R.J. Moore II May 26, 2011 at 6:38 pm

I agree with this. I think Hayek is vastly overrated.

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: