/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.20499970]

Just finished Liberalism by Von Mises. I appreciated his description of liberal values but I found his critique of other economic systems lacking, particularly interventionism. What are /lit/‘s thoughts on Von Mises? Any suggestions on essential liberal literature? Human Action is in the mail.

[Anonymous No.20500098]

>>20499970
The only things I agree with classical liberals are spontaneous order and and I guess methodological dualism

However, I criticized "subjective theory of value* proposed by Menger and non-liberal Karl Marx in one of my essays

[Anonymous No.20500154]

>>20500098
I’d be interested in reading that if you have it posted somewhere.

[Anonymous No.20500202]

>>20500154
Here ya go

https://pastebin.com/nzqRGrbp

[Anonymous No.20500633]

I recommend the production of security by Molinari. He was the only classical liberal to see the contradiction in having a state as a private property protector.
This contradiction is why liberalism lasted so shortly, it just assumed that the state should have judicial and peacekeeping monopolies. If these monopolies are OK, then why not have the state intervene in other affairs.

[Anonymous No.20500648]

>liberal values
Into the trash he goes.

[Anonymous No.20500670]

>>20500633
I believe the thinking is that the judicial system and peacekeeping aren’t (or shouldn’t be) profit making enterprises. Which would prevent capitalists from developing an interest in either. I could see peacekeeping being realistically profit incurring but only if you treat it as little more than a modern band of brigands who want anything but peace. While this might represent a capitalist industry with great profit making capability its effect on other industries would far outweigh any benefit it poses (or so I think Mises would argue). Same would go for a dystopian judicial system that would incur profit.

[Anonymous No.20500699]

>>20500098
Let me guess, you wrote a prescriptive argument about value to counter Austrians, despite the fact their analysis is descriptive? I don't see how can it be any other way considering perception and value judgments being subjective is an undeniable reality.

[Anonymous No.20500706]

>>20500699
Yes that seems accurate. Anon posted the essay here
>>20500202

[Anonymous No.20500970]

>>20500670
Wars are absurdly costly enterprises and thus less likely to be engaged by an agent with less funds and whose funds are less guaranteed. States benefit from wars as well, or at least from the threat of war, in the sense that nothing justifies their existence more than national defense, except states can engage in them with less cost than a private company due to the aforementioned reasons.

If we were to imagine a situation in which defense is purely privatized It would probably work similar to insurance, in that for the company the less its services are used the better since that represents cost. The ideal profit model is people paying for the psychological comfort that if someone does attack the population is covered, but without anyone ever actually attacking. In the same way life insurance doesn't want anyone to die.
This model is not that different from how the state operates, they doesn't want wars all the time either since wars represent chaos. However, the state has the luxury of taking bolder risks due to less accountability. Therefore I'd say that they have much higher chance of engaging in wars for self-interest.

Now, whether a purely privatized defense company is possible or better at defending the borders is another story. I think the answer is no for both.

[Anonymous No.20501311]

>>20499970
Mises is a conservative. Liberalism is about individual freedom, negative rights/contracts/etc don't guarantee that and tend to work in the defense of established powers. 19th century liberalism wasn't reducible to just a defense of property, later conservativism was.

>Human Action is in the mail.
Besides being methodologically autistic (TOTALLY UNFALSIFIABLE) you should note that all modern lolberts have totally abandoned him on certain key issues. Crypto did most to make ideological lolberts drop the calls for enforcing a gold monopoly on money or enforcing full reserve banking, but if you drop that idea you're obviously abandoning all of Mises ideas on monetary policy when the aggregate "quantity" of money will be determined by private entrepreneurs creating/meeting an infinite demand.

>>20500970
Governments run their war industries on a cost maximization principle. Purely private business can't do that. Libtards and lolberts hate that but it makes it the most dynamic sector in many ways.

> we were to imagine a situation in which defense is purely privatized It would probably work similar to insurance
Which in most situations is a horribly inefficient model, look at healthcare.

>This model is not that different from how the state operates, they doesn't want wars all the time either since wars represent chaos. However, the state has the luxury of taking bolder risks due to less accountability. Therefore I'd say that they have much higher chance of engaging in wars for self-interest.
Military spending doesn't require wars per se. The point is deterrence. A situation like mutually assured destruction minimizes the risk of war. The problem is weak states in the state system. Super powers don't go to war with each other since 1945, just weaker states.

[Anonymous No.20501372]

>>20499970
economists are priests of moloch. Standing on their ziggurats, shouting down at the masses that the sacrifice their children so that the crops may grow, or the sun may rise another day
no reasonable person regards them as anything besides worthy of death

[Anonymous No.20501576]

>>20500699
I was making the claim that subjective value judgements applied to metaphysics and epistemology can be rocky ground and can lead to all sorts of ethical problems

[Anonymous No.20501942]

>>20501576
Any ethical claim necessarily lies on subjective value judgments to some extent. Ethics is about a group doing X to lead to Y because Y is good. If you don't consider Y good X stops being desirable and the whole ethical system not good.

[Anonymous No.20501999]

>>20501942
I guess it matters in terms of aesthetics but applied to moral questions there should be a generally agreed upon consensus on what is objectively "right". Just because killing off a bunch of people will make society better doesn't mean you "should" do it. Or that anyone "should" do it