[maester_miller]

I believe Dr. Woods mentioned during the session that due to some complications with the Vokle platform, live sessions are unable to be recorded and cannot be viewed later until further notice.

[maester_miller]

Dr. Herbener,

What if the assumption of immigrants producing more than they consume is not true? For example, a poor immigrant working under the table making less than minimum wage might quite possibly be receiving (and likely consuming) welfare and other government entitlements well in excess of what they earn in their under the table job.

Whether or not this is the case for most immigrants, I believe this is what most anti-immigration critics have in mind. The very poor worker who utilizes the generous welfare programs of developed nations and ends up consuming more than they produce.

[maester_miller]

I would also like to point out that the assertion that “labor” “businesses” and “investors” are three mutually exclusive classes is absurd, in and of itself.

Every individual is a laborer. Bill Gates, Mitt Romney, and Warren Buffet all sell their labor to one extent or another. A “business” is nothing more than a mutual association of individual laborers. Why businesses have to pay taxes at all is beyond me. Furthermore, the success of businesses contribute directly to the quality of life of individuals. If Apple’s taxes are increased, your Iphone will cost more. The classification of “investor” is also silly. Almost all Americans are investors in one aspect or another. Anyone who has a pension plan, an IRA, or a 401k is almost certainly an investor and will see their retirement savings diminished as a result of increased capital gains taxes.

To pretend that labor, business, and investors are all completely separate and opposing interests is absurd. A large majority of Americans are a part of all three of these groups.

[maester_miller]

mmafan,

You seem fairly well read so perhaps you’ve seen these before, but in his AnCap course, Dr. Murphy provided various readings, some of which have covered historical instances in which anarchy has happened and has worked out fairly well.

The Not So Wild West
http://mises.org/journals/jls/3_1/3_1_2.pdf

Private Law in Iceland
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academic/Iceland/Iceland.html

Anarchy in the Aachen
http://mises.org/daily/6145/Anarchy-in-the-Aachen

[maester_miller]

mmafan,

I would recommend Chaos Theory by Bob Murphy (how does Murphy not have a course on this website yet?) for some of the trickier cases involving anarcho-capitalism.

In fact, he recently taught a course on Mises Academy about it which I took and found greatly informative. Needless to say, animal cruelty and other such acts could in fact be prevented in an AnCap society.

[maester_miller]

I believe that 1492 is the date that the Reconquista was finished, and Spain officially reclaimed the entire Iberian peninsula from the Moors. However, it is possible that individual Muslims living in Spain were not expelled until later.

[maester_miller]

Semi-related anecdote. I grew up fairly far out in the country on a hill that wasn’t even paved, we had a gravel road. The county was allegedly responsible for maintenance, but you rarely saw them, ESPECIALLY following a storm. It would take them weeks to get to us.

One year during a winter storm, a large tree near the road fell, completely blocking the path, basically trapping all of us on the hill. Can anyone guess what happened? Did we all freeze and starve to death? Absolutely not! All the neighbors got together, brought their chainsaws and other equipment, and we all spent a few hours clearing the tree from the road. Nobody was forced to show up and help, we all just did.

Amazing how that works.

[maester_miller]

RealMises – I know Tom Woods highlights this in his book Nullification. That nullification, rather than being “a tool to destroy the union” as folks seem to describe it these days, was rather a tool to help SAVE it. Nullification was the alternative to secession. Had the south been able to successfully nullify, we might have been spared the entire bloody and destructive civil war.

[maester_miller]

I seem to recall something about various states passing (or maybe just considering) legislation that was being referred to as “firearms freedom act” declaring that any firearms that are manufactured and sold solely within the borders of that particular state were not a part of interstate commerce and therefore not subject to any sort of federal regulation on them.

Does anyone know more about that?

[maester_miller]

To piggyback on Dr. Herbener’s point about inflation, I once listened to Peter Schiff describe two methods of “hidden inflation” on his radio show, changes in quantity and changes in quality.

Generally speaking, consumers are most sensitive to and more aware of the price of a product rather than the quality of parts or even (in the cases of grocery items) the amount of product in a container. If a company finds that its costs are rising, one might assume they will simply raise the sale price of their product. But the consumers would immediately notice this, and it would upset many. So many companies simply choose to use lower quality inputs, reduce the quality of customer service, or charge the same price for less product (the infamous “grocery shrink ray”).

[maester_miller]

I believe many states do (or at least did) have bills of rights, or at the very least, similar sounding articles in their own constitutions.

Keep in mind that prior to the civil war, the bill of rights was NOT interpreted as binding on the states. Many states, for example, established an official state religion, and the federal government never made a peep about it. Then of course we had the civil war, and the 14th amendment, which was interpreted as making the provisions of the U.S. constitution (and most federal laws and regulations as well) as completely binding on the states.

So I guess my point is that the BOR might have held up a little better, were it not for the civil war and the 14th amendment. At the very least, we wouldn’t have the Supreme Court ruling on school prayer or gun bans or any such things.

[maester_miller]

I once asked this question of Dr. Woods in an online chat and he referred me to some material written by Walter Block which I haven’t had the chance to read yet, so you may want to search that out for yourself.

In any case, it is important to remember that in an AnCap society, your reputation would be incredibly valuable, and “community standards” would still exist, despite not being legally enforceable in a way that we recognize today. In other words, most people find child abuse abhorrent and intolerable behavior, and it is entirely possible (and I would say quite likely) that most individuals in a community would refuse to do business with someone who is known to brutally beat their children. Such a person would likely pay a hefty penalty for their behavior, not in the current sense of “people will grab you and lock you in a cage” but in a more subtle sense of “it will be harder for you to get a job” or “you might not be able to purchase goods and services you desire.”

Also, let’s not pretend that “it protects children” is somehow an inherent quality of government. Throughout human history there have been many far more restrictive/oppressive/comprehensive governments that have done no such thing. In some places in the world, this is still the case.

[maester_miller]

Porphyrogenitus’ point about scarcity is an important one, it’s always good to keep the concept of scarcity front and center when dealing with economic issues.

Take your example of a tanning salon in a tropical environment. Such a place would not be TOTALLY useless. It would allow people to tan at night, or during monsoon season. The question isn’t “is this a productive use of resources” but rather “would there be MORE productive uses of resources than this?” The people living in a tropical climate quite likely have numerous more critical unmet needs than a tanning salon. That being said, I wouldn’t be surprised if there WERE in fact many tanning salons in tropical climates, catering exclusively to the wealthy or tourists or what have you. There are some people out there whose priorities are such and whose current level of wealth is such that for them, the best marginal use of funds would in fact be a tanning salon.

[maester_miller]

Sterling, I know John Lott mentions this in his book “More Guns, Less Crime” which is basically the definitive study on all of this stuff. Anyone interested in Gun Control HAS to read it. If you’re already pro-gun, you will be rabidly pro-gun by the time you’re through with it.

I can’t quite remember whether the study actually broke down the classes of victims. I want to say that the source he relied upon (the FBI crime report) did not say what gender the victim was, so it could not be a factor in his regression equations. But I do recall he mentions in the introduction that the availability of handguns generally speaking “levels the playing field” and that those who would presumably derive the MOST benefit are those who are physically weakest, meaning women and the elderly.

[maester_miller]

So basically, they COULD be buying treasuries with previously existing funds, it’s just very unlikely?

Is there any way we can tell/prove it one way or the other? If Ben Bernanke came out and insisted that he wasn’t buying treasuries with new funds, but rather with the profits the federal reserve has already made, could we prove this statement false?

[Author]

Posts