Also, I would like to add that despite my reference to Selgin and White, my view are far closer to that of Hülsmann. I was just trying to offer a “moderate” rather than correct suggestion.

And I am really saddened that no one caught on to my joke about a “promiscuous” step.

There’s a difference, though, in not being pragmatic in the milieu, or, perhaps in this case, even functionally coexistent in a world where the battle is uphill all the way home. Not all the forces of the enemy are evil is what I’m saying and David Horwitz’s comments are spot on. It’s homiletics vs. an actual conversation. So what’s it going to be? Because fundamentalist attitudes don’t change minds, persuasive arguments do. For me, there’s a difference between the fundamentalist sneering attitude and a belief in the fundamental libertarianism of men like Mises, Rothbard, Hoppe, Reisman, and all the others you know so well.

–Adam

My concern is that, because even moderate libertarianism is radical relative to the political monoculture, only referring to moderate libertarian arguments creates the impression that anything more extreme is simply insane, and not worth the bother of consideration.

Even while trying to argue against State-Interventionism, Prof. Miron makes numerous concessions (e.g,. regarding the oceans and the air). Even when stepping in the right direction, he’s also stepping in the wrong direction in a way. See how he talks about property rights, as something to be “defined” or “assigned” by the State. The State randomly assining property rights, ignoring homesteading, is not libertarianism, whether the State steps back afterwards or not.

Time and again, Miron seems to reinforce the assumptions — both economic and moral — of interventionism. Property rights are to be assigned by the state; he says it over and over again. In his lecture on the environment, not once did he mention the word “homestead”. Aside from the inherent moral dimension, having the State arbitrarily “assign property rights” has negative long-run consequences; namely, increasing time-preferences, as property rights become less stable.

Many of his arguments are good, albeit I think the entire framework is dangerous overall if absorbed by someone naive of libertarianism. Libertarianism is not about “assigning” property rights. Various forms of State-interventionism are about assigning property rights.

Would I teach that course differently? You betcha. Does that make what Jeff did a problem? Nope.

Why is it that some libertarians feel the need to kick their friends the hardest? Here’s a guy teaching a damn course on libertarianism at Harvard (yes, Harvard), and most everyone is complaining about it! I see this as a great thing. Am I nuts?

1. Maybe it exposes students to a mild form of libertarianism; but it also misrepresents libertarianism in many ways, with numerous caveots. It misrepresents libertarianism, in that it is focused on relatively moderate forms of libertarianism, ignoring more rigorous ones.

2. Empirical research cannot tell us correct economic theory. Rather, we can only apply economic theory to empirical data (generated by empirical research) in explaining it.

There are many Austrians doing solid empirical work, including DiLorenzo and Block, among others. To say that Austrians are ignored because they don’t do empirical work is wrong. Why they’re ignored has been discussed elsewhere, but it isn’t for any lacking either in the theoretical rigor or explanation of empirical phenomena.

Also, regarding Prof. Miron’s desire to make consequentialist arguments, Mises made numerous consequentialist arguments, as did Rothbard.

1. Condemning this course is the worst sort of narrow-minded, wagon-circling, Church of the True Believer behavior. Jeff has made a cogent argument for the choices he made, and the reality is that a group of students who might otherwise never have been exposed to libertarian ideas, have now been exposed. I say that as an Austrian economist who deeply wishes that he would have included more Austrian material on his reading list.

2. And perhaps the reason he did not is because almost every paper on there is both *contemporary* and *empirical.* I have my problems with econometrics, but until more Austrians start doing work that actually goes out and explains phenomena in the real world by making sophisticated (which doesn’t mean econometric) use of data and primary source material, we will continue to be ignored. Jeff’s point about making consequentialist arguments is right on, and until Austrians do a lot more that kind of work, we will continue be absent from reading lists like this.

Navel-gazing about praxeology is no substitute for going out and analyzing real world phenomena. (And I’m not exempting myself.)

That said, Pete C’s point about Selgin and White is well-taken, because at least their work is strongly informed by history (and perhaps Bob Higgs qualifies here as well). My disappointment with the reading list is that Jeff seems to equate “empirical” with “econometric,” which excludes well-done more qualitative history.

I’ve taught courses and classes on libertarian history in the past and, were I giving a current one, would make copies available (or make a recommended reading list of online sources) of a number of essays from JLS, Independent Review, The Freeman, as well as various other periodicals, many not well-known by the general public or by most libertarians. The material would necessarily be focused on specific topics covered in the class.

I don’t see that the reading list and information on the course site does any less.

Just a thought.
Just Ken
kgregglv@cox.net

http://mises.org/jlsdisplay.asp

The same with QJAE

http://mises.org/qjaedisplay.asp

JSTOR is a tremendous pain in the ass, and I thank god that most all of the journals I have used for recent research have been free online.

Until the JLS and related journals are indexed, it’s going to be the same 20 people writing them for the same 500 people reading them.

Prof. Miron, there can be no doubt that what you’re doing is “libertarianism of a sort” and a very promiscuous step in the right direction.

–Adam

As to the earlier point, the very least you could do is offer your students some information on free banking (Selgin and White). You give the very false impression that “libertarians” support monetary rules, and no other possibilities.

Further, the value free approach of the Austrian economists seems to square perfectly with your desire to avoid rights based arguments.

That having been said, it is correct that the course spends almost no time on the “classics.” The course is about economics: it presents the consequentialist arguments for libertarian policies rather than discussing libertarianism from a philosophical or rights based perspective.

My own view is that consequentialist arguments convince more people than philosophical or rights based arguments. But that is an empirical question, and reasonable people can disagree.

That aside, my job as an economist, teaching in an economics department, is to teach economics. In particular, I attempt to convince students that applying standard economic tools can and, in my assessment, usually does, lead one to the libertarian policy perspective even if markets are not perfect, even if there is market power, even if information is asymetric, even if there are public goods, etc.

This is no way disparages alternative approaches to, or perspectives on, libertarianism. I think it compliments them, and most of my students seem to agree.

Finally, I have never said we should legalize drugs to increase tax revenue. I have said that legalizing drugs and taxing them at a moderate rate (as w/ alcohol) would be far preferable to current policy.

Having said that, the course is badly misnamed and misguided. I think the professor could be called a “libertarian of a sort,” though much less one than even Friedman. In Lecture 17 (Medical Care), he starts off sounding liberal (“the presumption that markets do things better than governments is less compelling in [healthcare] than in many other arenas”), but he sounds vaguely libertarian in the next slide (“it is unlikely that any plausible
intervention improves matters overall”). Even worse, the professor assigns Thaler and Sunstein’s “Libertarian Paternalism,” which is a sleazy attempt to hijack libertarianism and run it into the ground, much like Michael Otsuka’s so-called “libertarianism without inequality.” This course is still far more libertarian than the average college class, though — is it not?

– Lowell R.

http://prohibitioncosts.org/