Palavras de 1967. De um conservador americano sobre outro conservador americano. Outros tempos (mas no meio do vietname).
"Even though war might be inevitable in the last resort, men must not expect large benefits to result from victory. From the Second World War, as from the First, no increase of liberty and democracy would come: on the contrary, in most of the world a host of squalid oligarchs must be the principal beneficiaries, whatever side might win. For the United States, then, war was preferable to conquest or to economic ruin; but if those calamities were not in prospect, America should remain aloof. The blood of man should be shed only to redeem the blood of man, Taft might have said with Burke: “the rest is vanity; the rest is crime.”
Taft’s prejudice in favor of peace was equaled in strength by his prejudice against empire. Quite as the Romans had acquired an empire in a fit of absence of mind, he feared that America might make herself an imperial power with the best of intentions – and the worst of results.
He foresaw the grim possibility of American garrisons in distant corners of the world, a vast permanent military establishment, an intolerant “democratism” imposed in the name of the American way of life, neglect of America’s domestic concerns in the pursuit of transoceanic power, squandering of American resources upon amorphous international designs, the decay of liberty at home in proportion as America presumed to govern the world: that is, the “garrison state,” a term he employed more than once. The record of the United States as administrator of territories overseas had not been heartening, and the American constitution made no provision for a widespread and enduring imperial government. Aspiring to redeem the world from all the ills to which flesh is heir, Americans might descend, instead, into a leaden imperial domination and corruption.
The Political Principles of Robert A. Taft, by Russell Kirk and James McClellan (1967):
quinta-feira, 30 de novembro de 2006
quarta-feira, 29 de novembro de 2006
Debate Walter Block - Milton Friedman publicado
... sobre a estratégia para o Liberalismo, gradualismo versus radicalismo, etc.
No último número do" Journal of Libertarian Studies" (só acessível online mais tarde):
"Some nine years ago Walter Block and the late Milton Friedman exchanged a number of letters debating the roles of moderation and gradualism versus radical extremism in making the case for liberty, with Friedman, often a free-market extremist in the eyes of the economic profession generally, playing the moderate relative to Block’s more radical libertarianism. A few months ago Dr. Friedman graciously granted permission for this exchange to be published in the JLS; as this issue went to press, we could not have known that its publication would coincide with Friedman’s death, but the unexpected timing gives the journal a fitting opportunity to pay tribute to a great champion of liberty. “Fanatical, Not Reasonable: A Short Correspondence Between Walter Block and Milton Friedman” may thus be said to represent both, excitingly, Friedman’s first publication in the JLS, and, sadly, his last publication during his lifetime. "
Destaque: "O Preço da Transparência (II) "
Uma lição de economia imperdível por jcd no blasfémias:
"(...) Como o que é transparente para uns não é para os outros, há uma solução melhor. O consumidor escolhe qual das soluções prefere e o vendedor estabelece os custos da garantia/formação/informação à parte. O cliente ignorante pagaria mais do que o cliente esclarecido. Esta opção já é posta em prática por muitas empresas quando oferecem 'extensões de garantia'.
O mesmo se passa com os créditos bancários. Para quem passa a vida a negociar com bancos, as normas rígidas e as limitações legais à liberdade contratual só prejudicam os clientes esclarecidos. As regras em excesso são prejudiciais. A liberdade contratual é que dá mais vantagens, tanto aos consumidores como aos vendedores.
Um caso bem mais complexo relaciona-se com a prática médica. Poucos clientes dos médicos estarão em condições de avaliar o que lhes está a ser vendido. A lógica apontaria para 'caveat venditor'. Mas se os médicos tivessem que garantir o resultado dos tratamentos e indemnizar as vítimas ou os familiares em caso de insucesso, o preço dos tratamentos de doenças de difícil cura seria inacessível para grande parte da população. Poucos médicos estariam dispostos a arriscar uma operação complexa, com alto risco de vida.
Mas apesar de tudo, prefiro um médico a quem possa pagar do que um médico que me fique com a casa e com o carro em troca de um seguro milionário para os meus filhos. Será desejável que o estado legisle no sentido de 'caveat venditor' na prática médica, para lá dos casos óbvios de negligência? Parece óbvio que não...
Em Portugal, a moda actual é sempre 'caveat venditor'. E em todos os casos, o povo aplaude a medida, muitas vezes sem perceber que o preço da transparência e da responsabilidade do vendedor pode ser superior ao ganho de garantia."
"(...) Como o que é transparente para uns não é para os outros, há uma solução melhor. O consumidor escolhe qual das soluções prefere e o vendedor estabelece os custos da garantia/formação/informação à parte. O cliente ignorante pagaria mais do que o cliente esclarecido. Esta opção já é posta em prática por muitas empresas quando oferecem 'extensões de garantia'.
O mesmo se passa com os créditos bancários. Para quem passa a vida a negociar com bancos, as normas rígidas e as limitações legais à liberdade contratual só prejudicam os clientes esclarecidos. As regras em excesso são prejudiciais. A liberdade contratual é que dá mais vantagens, tanto aos consumidores como aos vendedores.
Um caso bem mais complexo relaciona-se com a prática médica. Poucos clientes dos médicos estarão em condições de avaliar o que lhes está a ser vendido. A lógica apontaria para 'caveat venditor'. Mas se os médicos tivessem que garantir o resultado dos tratamentos e indemnizar as vítimas ou os familiares em caso de insucesso, o preço dos tratamentos de doenças de difícil cura seria inacessível para grande parte da população. Poucos médicos estariam dispostos a arriscar uma operação complexa, com alto risco de vida.
Mas apesar de tudo, prefiro um médico a quem possa pagar do que um médico que me fique com a casa e com o carro em troca de um seguro milionário para os meus filhos. Será desejável que o estado legisle no sentido de 'caveat venditor' na prática médica, para lá dos casos óbvios de negligência? Parece óbvio que não...
Em Portugal, a moda actual é sempre 'caveat venditor'. E em todos os casos, o povo aplaude a medida, muitas vezes sem perceber que o preço da transparência e da responsabilidade do vendedor pode ser superior ao ganho de garantia."
terça-feira, 28 de novembro de 2006
Erros Liberais
Via O Amigo do Povo: "o erro fundamental do liberalismo português como de quase todo o liberalismo latino: não haver nascido do povo para o Poder, mas do Poder para o Povo (...) "
Francisco Sousa Tavares, Combate Desigual, Lisboa, Edição de Autor, 1960, pág. 33
Burke, eu chamei-lhe Liberal, outros de Esquerda
...definitivamente não é Conservador...
O Amigo do Povo: Clássicos para o Povo: Edmund Burke in Love
"A propósito do filme de Sofia Copolla, Marie Antoinette - aliás, estranhamente lido pela maioria da crítica apenas como um conto de adolescente perdida quando tem muitas pistas políticas para bom entendedor - ocorreu-me, esta bela declaração de amor do seriamente filosófico Edmund Burke. Houve quem na época explicasse toda a crítica à Revolução Francesa deste velho e perigoso esquerdista - que, apesar de britânico, tinha apoiado os revolucionários norte-americanos e denunciado abusos imperialistas na Índia - pela devoção platónica de Burke pela jovem rainha francesa que ele tinha contemplado embevecido algumas dezenas de anos antes(...)"
PS: Quanto a Sofia Copolla, qualquer filme sobre uma austriaca com música dos Joy Division só pode ser bom. A recordar:
- A cerimónia de transição na fronteira entre deixar de ser austriaca e passar a ser francesa.
- O apoio aos rebeldes americanos como ums das causas para os problemas do Rei (e dos franceses).
- O "disparate" com que Marie Antoinette classifica o mito do "comam bolos".
- A decisão do Rei e Marie Antoinette em não abandonar Versailles, perante o perigo eminente da multidão e Revolução.
Nota:
Será especulação dizer que a aliança entre a Aústria e a França - Católicas - fazia todo o sentido? É que a alternativa foi a aproximação à Alemanha ("dominada" pela Prússia - Protestante). O casamento punha fim à memória da rivalidade com Carlos V, é que os ingleses é que têm a fama, mas a França é que sempre pagou o preço pelo combate às tentativas de hegemonia continental. Napoleão e a Revolução uma excepção que ficou cara.
Versailles permanece como a maldição da Europa na Revolução, marcando o fim da monarquia frances. Mais tarde marcando o fim das Monarquias Europeias em 1919. Uma maldição que abriu as portas do inferno.
O Amigo do Povo: Clássicos para o Povo: Edmund Burke in Love
"A propósito do filme de Sofia Copolla, Marie Antoinette - aliás, estranhamente lido pela maioria da crítica apenas como um conto de adolescente perdida quando tem muitas pistas políticas para bom entendedor - ocorreu-me, esta bela declaração de amor do seriamente filosófico Edmund Burke. Houve quem na época explicasse toda a crítica à Revolução Francesa deste velho e perigoso esquerdista - que, apesar de britânico, tinha apoiado os revolucionários norte-americanos e denunciado abusos imperialistas na Índia - pela devoção platónica de Burke pela jovem rainha francesa que ele tinha contemplado embevecido algumas dezenas de anos antes(...)"
PS: Quanto a Sofia Copolla, qualquer filme sobre uma austriaca com música dos Joy Division só pode ser bom. A recordar:
- A cerimónia de transição na fronteira entre deixar de ser austriaca e passar a ser francesa.
- O apoio aos rebeldes americanos como ums das causas para os problemas do Rei (e dos franceses).
- O "disparate" com que Marie Antoinette classifica o mito do "comam bolos".
- A decisão do Rei e Marie Antoinette em não abandonar Versailles, perante o perigo eminente da multidão e Revolução.
Nota:
Será especulação dizer que a aliança entre a Aústria e a França - Católicas - fazia todo o sentido? É que a alternativa foi a aproximação à Alemanha ("dominada" pela Prússia - Protestante). O casamento punha fim à memória da rivalidade com Carlos V, é que os ingleses é que têm a fama, mas a França é que sempre pagou o preço pelo combate às tentativas de hegemonia continental. Napoleão e a Revolução uma excepção que ficou cara.
Versailles permanece como a maldição da Europa na Revolução, marcando o fim da monarquia frances. Mais tarde marcando o fim das Monarquias Europeias em 1919. Uma maldição que abriu as portas do inferno.
Hard-Realism
"GIVE SADDAM A CHANCE!", via "O Futuro Presente"
PS: É desta que João Pereira Coutinho tem um colapso ...
PS2: Henrique Raposo diz com verdade e alguma coragem: "O terrorismo, o tal islamo-fascismo, não são os grandes desafios do nosso tempo. A Guerra ao Terrorismo não é uma Estratégia. É uma simplificação brutal da realidade. Será, no mínimo, uma táctica dentro de uma Estratégia."
PS3: Entretanto a luta Realismo versus NeoCon aquece
* This Washington Post article on the inner workings of the bizarrely revered Baker-Hamilton Commission is notable for several reasons, the first of which is that neoconservatives are stomping their feet and whining loudly because they feel that their Great Wisdom and Expertise are being unfairly ignored:
Neoconservatives, who supported and crafted much of the original Iraq strategy, say the panel was stacked against them. Michael Rubin, political adviser to the Coalition Provisional Authority, resigned because he said he was a token.
"Many appointees appeared to be selected less for expertise than for their hostility to President Bush's war on terrorism and emphasis on democracy," Rubin wrote in the Weekly Standard.
* Shall we turn to Rubin’s piece in the Standard, and take a look at it in more detail?
Rubin: POLICYMAKERS ARE ABUZZ with the explosive recommendations for U.S. policy toward Iraq soon to be released by the Baker-Hamilton Commission: Abandon democracy, seek political compromise with the Sunni insurgents, and engage Tehran and Damascus as partners to secure stability in their neighbor. While former secretary of state James Baker and former representative Lee Hamilton said they would withhold their report until after the elections on November 7 to avoid its politicization, they have discussed their findings with the press..."
PS: É desta que João Pereira Coutinho tem um colapso ...
PS2: Henrique Raposo diz com verdade e alguma coragem: "O terrorismo, o tal islamo-fascismo, não são os grandes desafios do nosso tempo. A Guerra ao Terrorismo não é uma Estratégia. É uma simplificação brutal da realidade. Será, no mínimo, uma táctica dentro de uma Estratégia."
PS3: Entretanto a luta Realismo versus NeoCon aquece
* This Washington Post article on the inner workings of the bizarrely revered Baker-Hamilton Commission is notable for several reasons, the first of which is that neoconservatives are stomping their feet and whining loudly because they feel that their Great Wisdom and Expertise are being unfairly ignored:
Neoconservatives, who supported and crafted much of the original Iraq strategy, say the panel was stacked against them. Michael Rubin, political adviser to the Coalition Provisional Authority, resigned because he said he was a token.
"Many appointees appeared to be selected less for expertise than for their hostility to President Bush's war on terrorism and emphasis on democracy," Rubin wrote in the Weekly Standard.
* Shall we turn to Rubin’s piece in the Standard, and take a look at it in more detail?
Rubin: POLICYMAKERS ARE ABUZZ with the explosive recommendations for U.S. policy toward Iraq soon to be released by the Baker-Hamilton Commission: Abandon democracy, seek political compromise with the Sunni insurgents, and engage Tehran and Damascus as partners to secure stability in their neighbor. While former secretary of state James Baker and former representative Lee Hamilton said they would withhold their report until after the elections on November 7 to avoid its politicization, they have discussed their findings with the press..."
segunda-feira, 27 de novembro de 2006
A face do totalitarismo do centralismo democrático
"Um contrato social entre o Governo e os cidadãos, que estipule ao pormenor o que cada indivíduo deverá fazer em troca de serviços básicos de qualidade, como assistência hospitalar, educação ou protecção policial, por exemplo. Esta é a recente proposta do primeiro-ministro britânico, Tony Blair, que apresentou uma revisão das políticas do Governo para ospróximos dez anos."
Exemplos dados:
- "antes de levar a cabo uma operação de colocação de banda gástrica, um hospital público poderá obrigar o paciente a assinar um documento no qual se compomete a não voltar ganhar peso sob pena de deixar de usufruir dos serviços de saúde no futuro."
Explicações:
- "As razões para esta medida são também explicadas no mesmo documento: no Reino Unido, os encargos com os cidadãos não para de aumentar e o Estado começa a sentir a necessidade de se proteger e tornar as pessoas mais responsáveis"
Exemplos dados:
- "antes de levar a cabo uma operação de colocação de banda gástrica, um hospital público poderá obrigar o paciente a assinar um documento no qual se compomete a não voltar ganhar peso sob pena de deixar de usufruir dos serviços de saúde no futuro."
Explicações:
- "As razões para esta medida são também explicadas no mesmo documento: no Reino Unido, os encargos com os cidadãos não para de aumentar e o Estado começa a sentir a necessidade de se proteger e tornar as pessoas mais responsáveis"
Problemas das patentes
(para além dos expectáveis com qualquer monopólio legislativo. Via Misesblog.)
How Gene Patents Are Putting Your Health at Risk
A fifth of your genes belong to someone else. That’s because the U.S. Patent Office has given various labs, companies and universities the rights to 20% of the genes found in everyone’s DNA— with some disturbing results. Many U.S. labs won’t perform certain genetic tests because of patent restrictions or fees. One company that holds a license for a gene connected with Alzheimer’s has refused to let other labs work on its gene. The company that “owns” a genetic mutation for breast cancer charges up to $3,000 for a breast-cancer gene test. These alarming facts provided the background for Michael Crichton’s latest novel, Next, in bookstores this week.
“Major hepatitis C and HIV genes and various diabetes genes are all owned,” Crichton, an M.D., tells us. “Researchers working on those diseases must worry about getting permission and paying high fees.” During the SARS epidemic, he says, some researchers hesitated to study the virus because three groups claimed to own its genome. “It’s OK to own a treatment or test for a disease, but no one should own a disease,” he insists
How Gene Patents Are Putting Your Health at Risk
A fifth of your genes belong to someone else. That’s because the U.S. Patent Office has given various labs, companies and universities the rights to 20% of the genes found in everyone’s DNA— with some disturbing results. Many U.S. labs won’t perform certain genetic tests because of patent restrictions or fees. One company that holds a license for a gene connected with Alzheimer’s has refused to let other labs work on its gene. The company that “owns” a genetic mutation for breast cancer charges up to $3,000 for a breast-cancer gene test. These alarming facts provided the background for Michael Crichton’s latest novel, Next, in bookstores this week.
“Major hepatitis C and HIV genes and various diabetes genes are all owned,” Crichton, an M.D., tells us. “Researchers working on those diseases must worry about getting permission and paying high fees.” During the SARS epidemic, he says, some researchers hesitated to study the virus because three groups claimed to own its genome. “It’s OK to own a treatment or test for a disease, but no one should own a disease,” he insists
Quando os industriais estão descontentes com o capitalismo...
... é porque os consumidores estão a beneficiar.
Negócios: "A China é uma verdadeira ameaça para todos os sectores", Numa entrevista única, Paulo de Oliveira , presidente e fundador do maior produtor de lanifícios da Europa , condena "esta globalização selvagem"
Negócios: "A China é uma verdadeira ameaça para todos os sectores", Numa entrevista única, Paulo de Oliveira , presidente e fundador do maior produtor de lanifícios da Europa , condena "esta globalização selvagem"
O melhor de Hayek
É a sua produção sobre economia, pela qual recebeu o prémio nobel, mas que permanece algo desconhecida, ao contrário das suas obras de filosofia política.
The Pure Theory of Capital (1941) by F.A. Hayek, Full text in PDF
The Pure Theory of Capital (1941) by F.A. Hayek, Full text in PDF
sábado, 25 de novembro de 2006
Nova Lei da TV institui censura em tempo real em Portugal
O espantoso circo Sócrates, por Rui Carmo n´O Insurgente.
Para não ser importunado cada um corta o que pode, por Helena Matos no Blasfémias.
Para não ser importunado cada um corta o que pode, por Helena Matos no Blasfémias.
Burke antes e agora (depois da queda do hifen)
Paulo Portas escreve "a queda do hífen" e faz uma espécie de enterro intelectual do neo-conservadorismo. Bem escrito e correcto.
O que mais me irritou nestes tempos foi ter que argumentar à direita sobre as ilusões ideológicas excessivas. Pessoalmente, é um espectáculo estranho ver assumidos anti-franceses e supostos críticos de Napoleão entusiasmados até à embriaguez pela possbilidade de a social-democracia ao terreno tribal, clãs, convivio com o deserto, ódios e rivalidades da origem dos tempos. E a isso tudo soma-se a direita contra o conservadorismo social, a religião, os hábitos familiares, óbviamente assumindo formas que nos parecem estranhas e primárias (sim, nestes tempos de glorioso amoralismo, ser moralista é apontar a falta de amoralismo dos outros...). Isso mais transformar os militares em educadores sociais e temos Napoleão.
Tudo o que é necessário é aprovar uma constituição no cimo de um qualquer vestígio de civilização, desenhar a separação de poderes, juntar água e aí temos. As lutas religiosas e problemas de fronteiras que demoraram centenas de anos a estabilizar na Europa e Ocidente, resolvem-se mágicamente porque... as democracias não fazem querras (quer a Alemanha quer a Àustria tinham voto universal para uma das Câmaras antes da Grande Guerra).
Portas, como é comum a outros, refere Burke como Conservador. Mas Burke foi o que "defendeu" a Irlanda, o separatismo da américa, apontava os defeitos da gestão do império na Índia. Parece que falava sobre os costumes dos outros não só com tolerância mas reconhecendo as múltiplas formas como a ordem social pode nascer. Conservador? Porque apontou contra a Revolução Francesa? Pois, mas também existe um caso contra a Revolução Neo-Con quase nos mesmos termos. Por outro, o seu primeiro livro é profundamento libertário. Tempo de trazer Burke para o Liberalismo Clássico.
O que mais me irritou nestes tempos foi ter que argumentar à direita sobre as ilusões ideológicas excessivas. Pessoalmente, é um espectáculo estranho ver assumidos anti-franceses e supostos críticos de Napoleão entusiasmados até à embriaguez pela possbilidade de a social-democracia ao terreno tribal, clãs, convivio com o deserto, ódios e rivalidades da origem dos tempos. E a isso tudo soma-se a direita contra o conservadorismo social, a religião, os hábitos familiares, óbviamente assumindo formas que nos parecem estranhas e primárias (sim, nestes tempos de glorioso amoralismo, ser moralista é apontar a falta de amoralismo dos outros...). Isso mais transformar os militares em educadores sociais e temos Napoleão.
Tudo o que é necessário é aprovar uma constituição no cimo de um qualquer vestígio de civilização, desenhar a separação de poderes, juntar água e aí temos. As lutas religiosas e problemas de fronteiras que demoraram centenas de anos a estabilizar na Europa e Ocidente, resolvem-se mágicamente porque... as democracias não fazem querras (quer a Alemanha quer a Àustria tinham voto universal para uma das Câmaras antes da Grande Guerra).
Portas, como é comum a outros, refere Burke como Conservador. Mas Burke foi o que "defendeu" a Irlanda, o separatismo da américa, apontava os defeitos da gestão do império na Índia. Parece que falava sobre os costumes dos outros não só com tolerância mas reconhecendo as múltiplas formas como a ordem social pode nascer. Conservador? Porque apontou contra a Revolução Francesa? Pois, mas também existe um caso contra a Revolução Neo-Con quase nos mesmos termos. Por outro, o seu primeiro livro é profundamento libertário. Tempo de trazer Burke para o Liberalismo Clássico.
sexta-feira, 24 de novembro de 2006
Actividades: Audio-Video Conferências I
Foram vistos :
* "Mozart Was a Red", a mini-peça (cómica) de teatro de Murray N. Rothbard que retrata a sua experiência no círculo de Ayn Rand
* "The Founding of The Federal Reserve (video) ", a história pormenorizada da criação da Reserva Federal em 1913, os seus actores e motivos, com uma introdução sobre o modus operandi de formação de qualquer Cartel.
* Edward Stringham fala sobre a resposta dada com "Anarchy, State and Public Choice" a
"Explorations in the Theory of Anarchy" and "Further Explorations in the Theory of Anarchy", published in 1972 and 1974 (Tullock, 1972 and 1974), contained contributions by economists who became extremely influential in the following decades: James Buchanan, Winston Bush, Thomas Hogarty, J. Patrick Gunning, Laurence Moss, Warren Samuels, William Craig Stubblebine and Gordon Tullock.
These authors decided to ask the big questions rather than debating small changes in public policy. In his autobiography, James Buchanan describes the project: Winston Bush galvanized our interests in the theory of anarchy, an organizational alternative that had never seriously been analyzed. What were the descriptive features of Hobbesian anarchy? Could something like an anarchistic equilibrium be defined?..."
Nota: Próxima sessão, data provável a 13 Dezembro, 20h00.
* "Mozart Was a Red", a mini-peça (cómica) de teatro de Murray N. Rothbard que retrata a sua experiência no círculo de Ayn Rand
* "The Founding of The Federal Reserve (video) ", a história pormenorizada da criação da Reserva Federal em 1913, os seus actores e motivos, com uma introdução sobre o modus operandi de formação de qualquer Cartel.
* Edward Stringham fala sobre a resposta dada com "Anarchy, State and Public Choice" a
"Explorations in the Theory of Anarchy" and "Further Explorations in the Theory of Anarchy", published in 1972 and 1974 (Tullock, 1972 and 1974), contained contributions by economists who became extremely influential in the following decades: James Buchanan, Winston Bush, Thomas Hogarty, J. Patrick Gunning, Laurence Moss, Warren Samuels, William Craig Stubblebine and Gordon Tullock.
These authors decided to ask the big questions rather than debating small changes in public policy. In his autobiography, James Buchanan describes the project: Winston Bush galvanized our interests in the theory of anarchy, an organizational alternative that had never seriously been analyzed. What were the descriptive features of Hobbesian anarchy? Could something like an anarchistic equilibrium be defined?..."
Nota: Próxima sessão, data provável a 13 Dezembro, 20h00.
"Reformas" da Segurança Social e a Democracia
Público: "A reforma da Segurança Social assenta na introdução de um factor de sustentabilidade para efeito do cálculo das pensões ligado ao aumento da esperança média de vida"
Parece claro que aquilo que chamamos de "reformas" apenas estabelecem alterações às "fórmulas" de cálculo de forma a que a despesa se adeque à receita.
Era muito mais honesto e efeciente simplesmente adoptarem o "princípio do déficit zero" na segurança social, no que respeita às pensões de reforma.
Só é necessário:
1) considerar a receita disponível em cada ano (ou período de orçamento)
2) calcular o peso relativo de cada beneficiário tendo em conta o valor das suas contribuições passadas dentro da totalidade (da valorização) das contribuições de todos os beneficiários correntes em cada ano (ou período de orçamento)
3) complementarmente, mas já é um pormenor, deve ser determinado um tecto para o que resultar de 1) e 2)
O que determina a receita?
Aquilo que for decidido pelo sistema democrático, actualmente nos cerca de 34,5% (!). Essa taxa pode ser aumentada como diminuida. As forças (democráticas) que concorrem para a aumentar são os eleitos beneficiários. Para baixar, os actuais contribuintes.
Temos assim a democracia no seu melhor. A capacidade dos eleitores disputarem o seu interesses cujos resultados recaiem nos outros. Este método apenas torna mais claro o processo democrático.
O que poderia levar à conclusão óbvia que os beneficiários directos do sistema deviam ser inibidos de votar nas eleições nacionais, apenas nas locais, freguesias, presidenciais, referendos, etc. Isto para eliminar o conflito de interesses e assim, aprofundar a democracia (para não dizer salvá-la).
Parece claro que aquilo que chamamos de "reformas" apenas estabelecem alterações às "fórmulas" de cálculo de forma a que a despesa se adeque à receita.
Era muito mais honesto e efeciente simplesmente adoptarem o "princípio do déficit zero" na segurança social, no que respeita às pensões de reforma.
Só é necessário:
1) considerar a receita disponível em cada ano (ou período de orçamento)
2) calcular o peso relativo de cada beneficiário tendo em conta o valor das suas contribuições passadas dentro da totalidade (da valorização) das contribuições de todos os beneficiários correntes em cada ano (ou período de orçamento)
3) complementarmente, mas já é um pormenor, deve ser determinado um tecto para o que resultar de 1) e 2)
O que determina a receita?
Aquilo que for decidido pelo sistema democrático, actualmente nos cerca de 34,5% (!). Essa taxa pode ser aumentada como diminuida. As forças (democráticas) que concorrem para a aumentar são os eleitos beneficiários. Para baixar, os actuais contribuintes.
Temos assim a democracia no seu melhor. A capacidade dos eleitores disputarem o seu interesses cujos resultados recaiem nos outros. Este método apenas torna mais claro o processo democrático.
O que poderia levar à conclusão óbvia que os beneficiários directos do sistema deviam ser inibidos de votar nas eleições nacionais, apenas nas locais, freguesias, presidenciais, referendos, etc. Isto para eliminar o conflito de interesses e assim, aprofundar a democracia (para não dizer salvá-la).
quinta-feira, 23 de novembro de 2006
História simplificada do sistema monetário estatista
Via DIÁRIO DA MINHA VIAGEM PARA FILADÉLFIA (1798-1799) por Hipólito da Costa
"20 de novembro de 1798
É tal a escassez do dinheiro e ouro nos Estados Unidos que o incômodo de levar os dólares nas viagens, etc. obriga a entregá-los a um banco que dá por eles um certificado em papel, bem aceito sim em toda a parte, e pelo mesmo banco sempre que se queira outra vez a prata."
História simplificada:
E depois? Depois os bancos descobriram que podiam fácilmente emitir certificados de papel (notas) falsos porque não correspondiam a nenhuma moeda de prata ou ouro efectivamente depositada e com isso conceder crédito sem captar poupança.
Depois o Estado descobriu que podia socorrer-se de crédito bancário para financiar os déficits orçamentais, crédito este concedido pela emissão de certificados (notas) falsos que acabam depois por circular na economia.
Depois, o depositante percebendo da falsidade do seu certificado (nota), reclama reaver as suas moedas, descobrindo então que estas não existem de todo.
Depois, perante as sucessivas crises bancárias que mais não significavam que a reposição da legalidade e o elevado montante de dívida pública, o Estado e os Bancos criam os Bancos Centrais, como forma de cartelizar a indústria e facilitar a emissão de certificados (notas) falsos diminuindo a probabilidade da legalidade ser reposta (falência bancária).
Mas como as "crises bancárias" não desapareceram e a dívida pública continuou a aumentar (essencialmente os eventos chave eram as guerras, em especial, a "Grande Guerra"), o Estado declara a nacionalização (extorsão) de todas as moedas de ouro e prata da população e declara por legislação imposta sobre o Direito Civil, nulo o contrato civil representado pelos certificados (notas) que titulam o depósito civil de um bem num armazém de confiança (Banco), e impondo que os certificados (mero papel) passam a ser a nova e única "moeda" em circulação.
Mais tarde, um espertinho chamado Keynes, convence toda a ciência económica que a resolução das depressões (elas próprias causadas pelo efeito da concessão de crédito sem captação de poupança) está na pura emissão de notas para financiar a despesa do governo e os déficits orçamentais.
O misticismo conquista a ciência, os economistas carreiras nos bancos centrais, os professores de economia acedem à corte de intelectuais que sustenta o sistema, os bancos a moeda "elástica". (revisto)
"20 de novembro de 1798
É tal a escassez do dinheiro e ouro nos Estados Unidos que o incômodo de levar os dólares nas viagens, etc. obriga a entregá-los a um banco que dá por eles um certificado em papel, bem aceito sim em toda a parte, e pelo mesmo banco sempre que se queira outra vez a prata."
História simplificada:
E depois? Depois os bancos descobriram que podiam fácilmente emitir certificados de papel (notas) falsos porque não correspondiam a nenhuma moeda de prata ou ouro efectivamente depositada e com isso conceder crédito sem captar poupança.
Depois o Estado descobriu que podia socorrer-se de crédito bancário para financiar os déficits orçamentais, crédito este concedido pela emissão de certificados (notas) falsos que acabam depois por circular na economia.
Depois, o depositante percebendo da falsidade do seu certificado (nota), reclama reaver as suas moedas, descobrindo então que estas não existem de todo.
Depois, perante as sucessivas crises bancárias que mais não significavam que a reposição da legalidade e o elevado montante de dívida pública, o Estado e os Bancos criam os Bancos Centrais, como forma de cartelizar a indústria e facilitar a emissão de certificados (notas) falsos diminuindo a probabilidade da legalidade ser reposta (falência bancária).
Mas como as "crises bancárias" não desapareceram e a dívida pública continuou a aumentar (essencialmente os eventos chave eram as guerras, em especial, a "Grande Guerra"), o Estado declara a nacionalização (extorsão) de todas as moedas de ouro e prata da população e declara por legislação imposta sobre o Direito Civil, nulo o contrato civil representado pelos certificados (notas) que titulam o depósito civil de um bem num armazém de confiança (Banco), e impondo que os certificados (mero papel) passam a ser a nova e única "moeda" em circulação.
Mais tarde, um espertinho chamado Keynes, convence toda a ciência económica que a resolução das depressões (elas próprias causadas pelo efeito da concessão de crédito sem captação de poupança) está na pura emissão de notas para financiar a despesa do governo e os déficits orçamentais.
O misticismo conquista a ciência, os economistas carreiras nos bancos centrais, os professores de economia acedem à corte de intelectuais que sustenta o sistema, os bancos a moeda "elástica". (revisto)
Justiça Privada II
Via Público (ass.):
"Advogados apostam na arbitragem fora dos tribunais
Os advogados portugueses e espanhóis reúnem-se hoje, em Lisboa, para debater em conjunto os problemas colocados pela crescente internacionalização das economias e a necessidade de promover a via da arbitragem como meio de resolução de conflitos. O encontro realiza-se no âmbito do Club Español del Arbitraje (CEA) e decorre durante a manhã na Associação Comercial de Lisboa, (...).
Um dos mais relevantes diz respeito à necessidade de nas grandes transacções transfronteiriças, envolvendo estados e empresas (mas também particulares), se encontrarem novas formas de compor os conflitos fora dos tribunais judiciais. Actualmente, os grandes contratos (em particular os que abrangem somas relevantes e são de natureza mais ou menos sigilosa) já estão sujeitos a cláusulas de arbitragem, que à partida, e por acordo das partes, definam o local e o moldes em que se dirimirão os problemas caso estes venham a ocorrer.
A finalidade é agilizar os processos. O CEA foi criado em 2005, após a promulgação da nova lei de arbitragem espanhola, e propõe-se juntar à sua volta juristas que se dedicam à arbitragem nos países ibero-americanos. (...)
Ao contrário dos tribunais judiciais, regulados pelos códigos de processo civil e de processo penal, os arbitrais só tratam de processos civis. As partes podem criar as suas próprias regras de acordo com os princípios fundamentais da ordem jurídica. Estes tribunais não tratam de questões criminais, fiscais ou administrativas. "
"Advogados apostam na arbitragem fora dos tribunais
Os advogados portugueses e espanhóis reúnem-se hoje, em Lisboa, para debater em conjunto os problemas colocados pela crescente internacionalização das economias e a necessidade de promover a via da arbitragem como meio de resolução de conflitos. O encontro realiza-se no âmbito do Club Español del Arbitraje (CEA) e decorre durante a manhã na Associação Comercial de Lisboa, (...).
Um dos mais relevantes diz respeito à necessidade de nas grandes transacções transfronteiriças, envolvendo estados e empresas (mas também particulares), se encontrarem novas formas de compor os conflitos fora dos tribunais judiciais. Actualmente, os grandes contratos (em particular os que abrangem somas relevantes e são de natureza mais ou menos sigilosa) já estão sujeitos a cláusulas de arbitragem, que à partida, e por acordo das partes, definam o local e o moldes em que se dirimirão os problemas caso estes venham a ocorrer.
A finalidade é agilizar os processos. O CEA foi criado em 2005, após a promulgação da nova lei de arbitragem espanhola, e propõe-se juntar à sua volta juristas que se dedicam à arbitragem nos países ibero-americanos. (...)
Ao contrário dos tribunais judiciais, regulados pelos códigos de processo civil e de processo penal, os arbitrais só tratam de processos civis. As partes podem criar as suas próprias regras de acordo com os princípios fundamentais da ordem jurídica. Estes tribunais não tratam de questões criminais, fiscais ou administrativas. "
Free Kareem
Abdelkareem Nabil Soliman, um blogger egípcio de 22 anos encontra-se preso pelas autoridades devido a opiniões publicadas no seu blog. Uma petição online pedindo a sua libertação pode ser assinada aqui. Mais informação disponível no site Free Kareem!
(via Tom G. Palmer)
quarta-feira, 22 de novembro de 2006
Milton Friedman IV
"The free man will ask neither what his country can do for him nor what he can do for his country." Via The Austrian Economics
Kirzner sobre a importância da Economia
"Yet, perhaps the most important lesson, which I have learned from Mises, was a lesson located outside economics itself. What Mises taught us in his writings, in his lectures, in his seminars, and in perhaps everything he said, was that economics—yes, and I mean sound economics, Austrian economics—is primordially, crucially important. Economics is not an intellectual game. Economics is deadly serious.
…Austrian economics is not simply a matter of intellectual problem solving, like a challenging crossword puzzle, but literally a matter of the life or death of the human race…" Via Lifetime Achievement Award to Professor Israel M. Kirzner
…Austrian economics is not simply a matter of intellectual problem solving, like a challenging crossword puzzle, but literally a matter of the life or death of the human race…" Via Lifetime Achievement Award to Professor Israel M. Kirzner
Escolásticos V - Em português
Uma referência obrigatória em português para quem esteja interessado no tema:
José Manuel Moreira, “Luis de Molina e as origens ibéricas da economia de mercado” in Actas do Encontro Ibérico sobre História do Pensamento Económico. Lisboa, CISEP, 1992, pp. 41-62.
José Manuel Moreira, “Luis de Molina e as origens ibéricas da economia de mercado” in Actas do Encontro Ibérico sobre História do Pensamento Económico. Lisboa, CISEP, 1992, pp. 41-62.
Escolásticos IV, notas várias
Retiradas de "JUAN DE MARIANA: THE INFLUENCE OF THE SPANISH SCHOLASTICS" By Jesus Huerta de Soto :
* JUAN DE MARIANA [antes de Milton Friedman]
- Mariana deduced that the king cannot demand tax without the consent of the people, since taxes are simply an appropriation of part of the subjects' wealth. In order for such an appropriation to be legitimate, the subjects must be in agreement. Neither may the king create state monopolies, since they would simply be a disguised means of collecting taxes.
- Father Mariana, when explaining the effects of inflation, listed the basic elements of the quantity theory of money, which had previously been explained in full detail by another notable scholastic, Martin Azpilcueta Navarro (also known as Dr. Navarro), who was born in Navarra (northeast Spain, near France) in 1493. Azpilcueta lived ninety-four years and is famous especially for explaining, in 1556, the quantity theory of money in his book Resolutory Commentary on Exchanges.
- Returning to Father Mariana, it is clear that his most important contribution was to see that inflation was a tax that "taxes those who had money before and, as a consequence thereof, are forced to buy things more dearly."
Furthermore, Mariana argues that the effects of inflation cannot be solved by fixing maximum rates or prices, since experience shows that these have always been ineffective. In addition, given that inflation is a tax, according to his theory of tyranny, the people's consent would, in any event, be required but, even if such consent existed, it would always be a very damaging tax that disorganized economic life: "this new levy or tax of the alloyed metal, which is illicit and bad if it is done without the agreement of the kingdom, and if it is done therewith, I take it as erroneous and harmful in many ways."
* Murray Rothbard stresses how another important contribution of the Spanish scholastics, especially of Azpilcueta, was to revive the vital concept of time preference, originally developed by one of the most brilliant pupils of Thomas Aquinas, Giles Lessines, who, as early as 1285, wrote "that future goods are not valued so highly as the same goods available at an immediate moment of time, nor do they allow their owners to achieve the same utility. For this reason, it must be considered that they have a more reduced value in accordance with justice."19
* 1. Murray N. Rothbard first developed this thesis in 1974, in the paper entitled "New Light on the Prehistory of the Austrian School," which he presented at the conference held in South Royalton, Vermont, and which marked the beginning of the notable re- emergence of the Austrian School.
* [Hayek sobre Rothbard]: I even have a letter from Hayek, dated January 7, 1979, in which he asked me to read Murray Rothbard's article on "The Prehistory of the Austrian School" because he and Grice-Hutchinson "demonstrate that the basic principles of the theory of the competitive market were worked out by the Spanish Scholastics of the sixteenth century and that economic liberalism was not designed by the Calvinists but by the Spanish Jesuits." Hayek concludes his letter saying that "I can assure you from my personal knowledge of the sources that Rothbard's case is extremely strong."
* Sobre Adam Smith: 21. See Leland B. Yeager, "Book Review," Review of Austrian Economics 9, no. 1 (1996): 183, where he says:"Adam Smith dropped earlier contributions about subjective value, entrepreneurship and emphasis on real-world markets and pricing and replaced it all with a labor theory of value and a dominant focus on the long run "natural price" equilibrium, a world where entrepreneurship was assumed out of existence. He mixed up Calvinism with economics, as in supporting usury prohibition and distinguishing between productive and unproductive occupations. He lapsed from the laissez-faire of several eighteenth-century French and Italian economists, introducing many waffles and qualifications. His work was unsystematic and plagued by contradictions."
* 22. ... Balmes also described the personality of Juan de Mariana with the following graphic words:
"The overall impression that Mariana offers is unique: an accomplished theologist, a perfect Latin scholar, a deep knowledge of Greek and the eastern languages, a brilliant man of letters, an estimable economist, a politician with great foresight; that is his head; add an irreproachable life, strict morality, a heart which does not know untruth, incapable of flattery, which beats strongly at the mere name of freedom, like that of the fierce republicans of Greece and Rome; a firm, intrepid voice, that is raised against all types of abuse, with no consideration for the great, without trembling when it addressed kings, and consider that all this has come together in a man who lives in a small cell of the Jesuits of Toledo, and you will certainly find a set of virtues and circumstances that seldom coincide in a single person."
* JUAN DE MARIANA [antes de Milton Friedman]
- Mariana deduced that the king cannot demand tax without the consent of the people, since taxes are simply an appropriation of part of the subjects' wealth. In order for such an appropriation to be legitimate, the subjects must be in agreement. Neither may the king create state monopolies, since they would simply be a disguised means of collecting taxes.
- Father Mariana, when explaining the effects of inflation, listed the basic elements of the quantity theory of money, which had previously been explained in full detail by another notable scholastic, Martin Azpilcueta Navarro (also known as Dr. Navarro), who was born in Navarra (northeast Spain, near France) in 1493. Azpilcueta lived ninety-four years and is famous especially for explaining, in 1556, the quantity theory of money in his book Resolutory Commentary on Exchanges.
- Returning to Father Mariana, it is clear that his most important contribution was to see that inflation was a tax that "taxes those who had money before and, as a consequence thereof, are forced to buy things more dearly."
Furthermore, Mariana argues that the effects of inflation cannot be solved by fixing maximum rates or prices, since experience shows that these have always been ineffective. In addition, given that inflation is a tax, according to his theory of tyranny, the people's consent would, in any event, be required but, even if such consent existed, it would always be a very damaging tax that disorganized economic life: "this new levy or tax of the alloyed metal, which is illicit and bad if it is done without the agreement of the kingdom, and if it is done therewith, I take it as erroneous and harmful in many ways."
* Murray Rothbard stresses how another important contribution of the Spanish scholastics, especially of Azpilcueta, was to revive the vital concept of time preference, originally developed by one of the most brilliant pupils of Thomas Aquinas, Giles Lessines, who, as early as 1285, wrote "that future goods are not valued so highly as the same goods available at an immediate moment of time, nor do they allow their owners to achieve the same utility. For this reason, it must be considered that they have a more reduced value in accordance with justice."19
* 1. Murray N. Rothbard first developed this thesis in 1974, in the paper entitled "New Light on the Prehistory of the Austrian School," which he presented at the conference held in South Royalton, Vermont, and which marked the beginning of the notable re- emergence of the Austrian School.
* [Hayek sobre Rothbard]: I even have a letter from Hayek, dated January 7, 1979, in which he asked me to read Murray Rothbard's article on "The Prehistory of the Austrian School" because he and Grice-Hutchinson "demonstrate that the basic principles of the theory of the competitive market were worked out by the Spanish Scholastics of the sixteenth century and that economic liberalism was not designed by the Calvinists but by the Spanish Jesuits." Hayek concludes his letter saying that "I can assure you from my personal knowledge of the sources that Rothbard's case is extremely strong."
* Sobre Adam Smith: 21. See Leland B. Yeager, "Book Review," Review of Austrian Economics 9, no. 1 (1996): 183, where he says:"Adam Smith dropped earlier contributions about subjective value, entrepreneurship and emphasis on real-world markets and pricing and replaced it all with a labor theory of value and a dominant focus on the long run "natural price" equilibrium, a world where entrepreneurship was assumed out of existence. He mixed up Calvinism with economics, as in supporting usury prohibition and distinguishing between productive and unproductive occupations. He lapsed from the laissez-faire of several eighteenth-century French and Italian economists, introducing many waffles and qualifications. His work was unsystematic and plagued by contradictions."
* 22. ... Balmes also described the personality of Juan de Mariana with the following graphic words:
"The overall impression that Mariana offers is unique: an accomplished theologist, a perfect Latin scholar, a deep knowledge of Greek and the eastern languages, a brilliant man of letters, an estimable economist, a politician with great foresight; that is his head; add an irreproachable life, strict morality, a heart which does not know untruth, incapable of flattery, which beats strongly at the mere name of freedom, like that of the fierce republicans of Greece and Rome; a firm, intrepid voice, that is raised against all types of abuse, with no consideration for the great, without trembling when it addressed kings, and consider that all this has come together in a man who lives in a small cell of the Jesuits of Toledo, and you will certainly find a set of virtues and circumstances that seldom coincide in a single person."
Escolásticos III (versus Adam Smith), Católicos versus ...
Murray N. Rothbard: "Why I Wrote My Histories of Thought "
"...It turns out that the Scholastics were not simply "medieval," but began in the thirteenth century and expanded and flourished through the sixteenth and into the seventeenth century. Far from being cost-of-production moralists, the Scholastics believed that the just price was whatever price was established on the "common estimate" of the free market Not only that: far from being naive labor or cost-of-production value theorists, the Scholastics may be considered "proto-Austrians," with a sophisticated subjective utility theory of value and price.
Furthermore, some of the Scholastics were far superior to current formalist microeconomics in developing a "proto-Austrian" dynamic theory of entrepreneurship. Moreover, in "macro," the Scholastics, beginning with Buridan and culminating in the sixteenth-century Spanish Scholastics, worked out an "Austrian" rather than monetarist supply and demand theory of money and prices, including interregional money flows, and even a purchasing-power parity theory of exchange rates.
It seems to be no accident that this dramatic revision of our knowledge of the Scholastics was brought to American economists, not generally esteemed for their depth of knowledge of Latin, by European-trained economists steeped in Latin, the language in which the Scholastics wrote. (...) One reason why continental economic thought has often exerted minimal, or at least delayed, influence in England and the United States is simply because these works had not been translated into English.[7]
For me, the impact of Scholastic revisionism was complemented and strengthened by the work, during the same decades, of the German-born "Austrian" historian, Emil Kauder. Kauder revealed that the dominant economic thought in France and Italy during the seventeenth and especially the eighteenth centuries was also "proto-Austrian," emphasizing subjective utility and relative scarcity as the determinants of value.
From this groundwork, Kauder proceeded to a startling insight into the role of Adam Smith that, however, follows directly from his own work and that of the Scholastic revisionists: that Smith, far from being the founder of economics, was virtually the reverse. On the contrary, Smith actually took the sound, and almost fully developed, proto-Austrian subjective value tradition, and tragically shunted economics on to a false path, a dead end from which the Austrians had to rescue economics a century later.
Instead of subjective value, entrepreneurship, and emphasis on real market pricing and market activity, Smith dropped all this and replaced it with a labor theory of value and a dominant focus on the unchanging long-run "natural price" equilibrium, a world where entrepreneurship was assumed out of existence. Under Ricardo, this unfortunate shift in focus was intensified and systematized.
If Smith was not the creator of economic theory, neither was he the founder of laissez faire in political economy. Not only were the Scholastics analysts of, and believers in, the free market and critics of government intervention, but the French and Italian economists of the eighteenth century were even more laissez-faire-oriented than Smith, who introduced numerous waffles and qualifications into what had been, in the hands of Turgot and others, an almost pure championing of laissez faire. It turns out that, rather than someone who should be venerated as creator of modern economics or of laissez faire, Smith was closer to the picture portrayed by Paul Douglas in the 1926 Chicago commemoration of the Wealth of Nations: a necessary precursor of Karl Marx.
(...) Also fascinating if more speculative was Kauder's estimate of the essential cause of a curious asymmetry in the course of economic thought in different countries.
Why is it, for example, that the subjective utility tradition flourished on the Continent, especially in France and Italy, and then revived particularly in Austria, whereas the labor and cost-of-production theories developed especially in Great Britain?
Kauder attributed the difference to the profound influence of religion: the Scholastics, and then France, Italy, and Austria were Catholic countries, and Catholicism emphasized consumption as the goal of production and consumer utility and enjoyment as, at least in moderation, valuable activities and goals.
The British tradition, on the contrary, beginning with Smith himself, was Calvinist, and reflected the Calvinist emphasis on hard work and labor toil as not only good but a great good in itself, whereas consumer enjoyment is at best a necessary evil, a mere requisite to continuing labor and production.
On reading Kauder, I considered this view a challenging insight, but essentially an unproven speculation. However, as I continued studying economic thought and embarked on writing these volumes, I concluded that Kauder was being confirmed many times over. Even though Smith was a 'moderate' Calvinist, he was a staunch one nevertheless, and I came to the conclusion that the Calvinist emphasis could account, for example, for Smith's otherwise puzzling championing of usury laws, as well as his shift in emphasis from the capricious, luxury-loving consumer as the determinant of value, to the virtuous laborer embedding his hours of toil into the value of his material product.
But if Smith could be accounted for by Calvinism, what of the Spanish-Portuguese Jew-turned-Quaker, David Ricardo, surely no Calvinist?
Here it seems to me that recent research into the dominant role of James Mill as mentor of Ricardo and major founder of the "Ricardian system" comes strongly into play. For Mill was a Scotsman ordained as a Presbyterian minister and steeped in Calvinism; the fact that, later in life, Mill moved to London and became an agnostic had no effect on the Calvinist nature of Mill's basic attitudes toward life and the world. Mill's enormous evangelical energy, his crusading for social betterment, and his devotion to labor toil (as well as the cognate Calvinist virtue of thrift) reflected his lifelong Calvinist world-outlook. John Stuart Mill's resurrection of Ricardianism may be interpreted as his filiopietist devotion to the memory of his dominant father, and Alfred Marshall's trivialization of Austrian insights into his own neo-Ricardian schema also came from a highly moralistic and evangelical neo-Calvinist.
Conversely, it is no accident that the Austrian School, the major challenge to the Smith-Ricardo vision, arose in a country that was not only solidly Catholic, but whose values and attitudes were still heavily influenced by Aristotelian and Thomist thought. The German precursors of the Austrian School flourished, not in Protestant and anti-Catholic Prussia, but in those German states that were either Catholic or were politically allied to Austria rather than Prussia."
"...It turns out that the Scholastics were not simply "medieval," but began in the thirteenth century and expanded and flourished through the sixteenth and into the seventeenth century. Far from being cost-of-production moralists, the Scholastics believed that the just price was whatever price was established on the "common estimate" of the free market Not only that: far from being naive labor or cost-of-production value theorists, the Scholastics may be considered "proto-Austrians," with a sophisticated subjective utility theory of value and price.
Furthermore, some of the Scholastics were far superior to current formalist microeconomics in developing a "proto-Austrian" dynamic theory of entrepreneurship. Moreover, in "macro," the Scholastics, beginning with Buridan and culminating in the sixteenth-century Spanish Scholastics, worked out an "Austrian" rather than monetarist supply and demand theory of money and prices, including interregional money flows, and even a purchasing-power parity theory of exchange rates.
It seems to be no accident that this dramatic revision of our knowledge of the Scholastics was brought to American economists, not generally esteemed for their depth of knowledge of Latin, by European-trained economists steeped in Latin, the language in which the Scholastics wrote. (...) One reason why continental economic thought has often exerted minimal, or at least delayed, influence in England and the United States is simply because these works had not been translated into English.[7]
For me, the impact of Scholastic revisionism was complemented and strengthened by the work, during the same decades, of the German-born "Austrian" historian, Emil Kauder. Kauder revealed that the dominant economic thought in France and Italy during the seventeenth and especially the eighteenth centuries was also "proto-Austrian," emphasizing subjective utility and relative scarcity as the determinants of value.
From this groundwork, Kauder proceeded to a startling insight into the role of Adam Smith that, however, follows directly from his own work and that of the Scholastic revisionists: that Smith, far from being the founder of economics, was virtually the reverse. On the contrary, Smith actually took the sound, and almost fully developed, proto-Austrian subjective value tradition, and tragically shunted economics on to a false path, a dead end from which the Austrians had to rescue economics a century later.
Instead of subjective value, entrepreneurship, and emphasis on real market pricing and market activity, Smith dropped all this and replaced it with a labor theory of value and a dominant focus on the unchanging long-run "natural price" equilibrium, a world where entrepreneurship was assumed out of existence. Under Ricardo, this unfortunate shift in focus was intensified and systematized.
If Smith was not the creator of economic theory, neither was he the founder of laissez faire in political economy. Not only were the Scholastics analysts of, and believers in, the free market and critics of government intervention, but the French and Italian economists of the eighteenth century were even more laissez-faire-oriented than Smith, who introduced numerous waffles and qualifications into what had been, in the hands of Turgot and others, an almost pure championing of laissez faire. It turns out that, rather than someone who should be venerated as creator of modern economics or of laissez faire, Smith was closer to the picture portrayed by Paul Douglas in the 1926 Chicago commemoration of the Wealth of Nations: a necessary precursor of Karl Marx.
(...) Also fascinating if more speculative was Kauder's estimate of the essential cause of a curious asymmetry in the course of economic thought in different countries.
Why is it, for example, that the subjective utility tradition flourished on the Continent, especially in France and Italy, and then revived particularly in Austria, whereas the labor and cost-of-production theories developed especially in Great Britain?
Kauder attributed the difference to the profound influence of religion: the Scholastics, and then France, Italy, and Austria were Catholic countries, and Catholicism emphasized consumption as the goal of production and consumer utility and enjoyment as, at least in moderation, valuable activities and goals.
The British tradition, on the contrary, beginning with Smith himself, was Calvinist, and reflected the Calvinist emphasis on hard work and labor toil as not only good but a great good in itself, whereas consumer enjoyment is at best a necessary evil, a mere requisite to continuing labor and production.
On reading Kauder, I considered this view a challenging insight, but essentially an unproven speculation. However, as I continued studying economic thought and embarked on writing these volumes, I concluded that Kauder was being confirmed many times over. Even though Smith was a 'moderate' Calvinist, he was a staunch one nevertheless, and I came to the conclusion that the Calvinist emphasis could account, for example, for Smith's otherwise puzzling championing of usury laws, as well as his shift in emphasis from the capricious, luxury-loving consumer as the determinant of value, to the virtuous laborer embedding his hours of toil into the value of his material product.
But if Smith could be accounted for by Calvinism, what of the Spanish-Portuguese Jew-turned-Quaker, David Ricardo, surely no Calvinist?
Here it seems to me that recent research into the dominant role of James Mill as mentor of Ricardo and major founder of the "Ricardian system" comes strongly into play. For Mill was a Scotsman ordained as a Presbyterian minister and steeped in Calvinism; the fact that, later in life, Mill moved to London and became an agnostic had no effect on the Calvinist nature of Mill's basic attitudes toward life and the world. Mill's enormous evangelical energy, his crusading for social betterment, and his devotion to labor toil (as well as the cognate Calvinist virtue of thrift) reflected his lifelong Calvinist world-outlook. John Stuart Mill's resurrection of Ricardianism may be interpreted as his filiopietist devotion to the memory of his dominant father, and Alfred Marshall's trivialization of Austrian insights into his own neo-Ricardian schema also came from a highly moralistic and evangelical neo-Calvinist.
Conversely, it is no accident that the Austrian School, the major challenge to the Smith-Ricardo vision, arose in a country that was not only solidly Catholic, but whose values and attitudes were still heavily influenced by Aristotelian and Thomist thought. The German precursors of the Austrian School flourished, not in Protestant and anti-Catholic Prussia, but in those German states that were either Catholic or were politically allied to Austria rather than Prussia."
Liberalismo à esquerda e direita
Sobre Friedman, por JMF, no Público
"Defendia a liberalização de drogas e fez mais pelos pobres do que muitos dos seus piedosos defensores. É inclassificável, como quase todos os espíritos livres.
(...) Era, na definição anglo-saxónica, um libertário: à "direita" na economia, à "esquerda" no domínio dos valores e dos costumes, sempre em nome da máxima liberdade (e responsabilidade) individual. "
Falta acrescentar:
* Contra o serviço militar obrigatório que apelidou de "escravatura"
* Não era só a droga, também a a prostituição, etc
* Contra os monopólios das Ordens Profissionais (médicos, advogados, etc) e regulação da indústria farmacêutica
* Muito céptico, quando não crítico aberto, do intervencionismo político-militar em política externa
Adenda: Esqueci-me também do "pró-posse-de-armas" (sei lá, pode ser atractivo para a esquerda (e anarquistas) revolucionária...afinal, os "pais fundadores" americanos falavam explicitamente na necessidade da população ter meios de defesa contra os abusos do poder...).
"Defendia a liberalização de drogas e fez mais pelos pobres do que muitos dos seus piedosos defensores. É inclassificável, como quase todos os espíritos livres.
(...) Era, na definição anglo-saxónica, um libertário: à "direita" na economia, à "esquerda" no domínio dos valores e dos costumes, sempre em nome da máxima liberdade (e responsabilidade) individual. "
Falta acrescentar:
* Contra o serviço militar obrigatório que apelidou de "escravatura"
* Não era só a droga, também a a prostituição, etc
* Contra os monopólios das Ordens Profissionais (médicos, advogados, etc) e regulação da indústria farmacêutica
* Muito céptico, quando não crítico aberto, do intervencionismo político-militar em política externa
Adenda: Esqueci-me também do "pró-posse-de-armas" (sei lá, pode ser atractivo para a esquerda (e anarquistas) revolucionária...afinal, os "pais fundadores" americanos falavam explicitamente na necessidade da população ter meios de defesa contra os abusos do poder...).
Escolásticos II
(Reposição de um "post" de Janeiro.)
Murray N. Rothbard: "New Light on the Prehistory of the Austrian School":
(...) Far from mystical dunderheads who should be skipped over to get to the mercantilists, the Scholastic philosophers were seen as remarkable and prescient economists, developing a system very close to the Austrian and subjective-utility approach. This was particularly true of the previously neglected Spanish and Italian Scholastics of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Virtually the only missing ingredient in their value theory was the marginal concept.
(...) One of the most important, and probably the most neglected, was The School of Salamanca by Marjorie Grice-Hutchinson, who suffered in the economics profession from being a professor of Spanish literature. Moreover, the book bore the burden of a misleadingly narrow subtitle: Readings in Spanish Monetary Theory.*58
In fact, the book was a brilliant discovery of the pre-Austrian subjective-value-and-utility views of the late sixteenth-century Spanish Scholastics. But first Grice-Hutchinson showed that the works of even earlier Scholastics as far back as Aristotle contained a subjective-value analysis based on consumer wants alongside the competing objective conception of the just price based on labor and costs. In the early Middle Ages, Saint Augustine (354-430) developed the concept of the subjective-value scales of each individual. By the High Middle Ages, the Scholastic philosophers had largely abandoned the cost-of-production theory to adopt the view that the market's reflection of consumer demand really sets the just price. This was particularly true of Jean Buridan (1300-58), Henry of Ghent (1217-93), and Richard of Middleton (1249-1306). As Grice-Hutchinson observed:
Medieval writers viewed the poor man as consumer rather than producer. A cost-of-production theory would have given merchants an excuse for over-charging on the pretext of covering their expenses, and it was thought fairer to rely on the impersonal forces of the market which reflected the judgment of the whole community, or, to use the medieval phrase, the "common estimation." At any rate, it would seem that the phenomena of exchange came increasingly to be explained in psychological terms.*59
Even Henry of Langenstein (1325-83), who of all the Scholastics was the most hostile to the free market and advocated government fixing of the just price on the basis of status and cost, developed the subjective factor of utility as well as scarcity in his analysis of price. But it was the sixteenth-century Spanish Scholastics who developed the purely subjective and profree-market theory of value.
Thus, Luis Saravia de la Calle (c. 1544) denied any role to cost in the determination of price; instead the market price, which is the just price, is determined by the forces of supply and demand, which in turn are the result of the common estimation of consumers on the market. Saravia wrote that, "excluding all deceit and malice, the just price of a thing is the price which it commonly fetches at the time and place of the deal." He went on to point out that the price of a thing will change in accordance with its abundance or scarcity. He proceeded to attack the cost-of-production theory of just price:
Those who measure the just price by the labour, costs, and risk incurred by the person who deals in the merchandise or produces it, or by the cost of transport or the expense of travelling...or by what he has to pay the factors for their industry, risk, and labour, are greatly in error, and still more so are those who allow a certain profit of a fifth or a tenth. For the just price arises from the abundance or scarcity of goods, merchants, and money...and not from costs, labour, and risk. (...) Prices are not commonly fixed on the basis of costs. Why should a bale of linen brought overland from Brittany at great expense be worth more than one which is transported cheaply by sea?...Why should a book written out by hand be worth more than one which is printed, when the latter is better though it costs less to produce?...The just price is found not by counting the cost but by the common estimation.*60
Similarly the Spanish Scholastic Diego de Covarrubias y Leiva (1512-77) a distinguished expert on Roman law and a theologian at the University of Salamanca, wrote that the "value of an article" depends "on the estimation of men, even if that estimation be foolish." (...)
The Spanish Scholastic Francisco Garcia (d. 1659) engaged in a remarkably sophisticated analysis of the determinants of value and utility. The valuation of goods, Garcia pointed out, depends on several factors. One is the abundance or scarcity of the supply of goods, the former causing a lower estimation and the latter an increase. A second is whether buyers or sellers are few or many. Another is whether "money is scarce or plentiful," the former causing a lower estimation of goods and the latter a higher. Another is whether "vendors are eager to sell their goods." (...)
The Spanish Scholastics also anticipated the Austrian school in applying value theory to money, thus beginning the integration of money into general value theory. It is generally believed, for example, that in 1568 Jean Bodin inaugurated what is unfortunately called "the quantity theory of money" but which would more accurately be called the application of supply-and-demand analysis to money.
Yet he was anticipated twelve years earlier by the Salamanca theologian the Dominican Martin de Azpilcueta Navarro (1493-1587), who was inspired to explain the inflation brought about by the importation of gold and silver by the Spaniards from the New World. Citing previous Scholastics, Azpilcueta declared that "money is worth more where it is scarce than where it is abundant." Why? Because "all merchandise becomes dearer when it is in great demand and short supply, and that money, in so far as it may be sold, bartered, or exchanged by some other form of contract, is merchandise and therefore also becomes dearer when it is in great demand and short supply." (...)
Furthermore, the Spanish Scholastics went on to anticipate the classical-Mises-Cassel purchasing-power parity theory of exchange rates by proceeding logically to apply the supply-and-demand theory to foreign exchanges, an institution that was highly developed by the early modern period.
The influx of specie into Spain depreciated the Spanish escudo in foreign exchange, as well as raised prices within Spain, and the Scholastics had to deal with this startling phenomenon. It was the eminent Salamanca theologian the Dominican Domingo de Soto (1495-1560) who in 1553 first fully applied the supply-and-demand analysis to foreign exchange rates. De Soto noted that "the more plentiful money is in Medina the more unfavourable are the terms of exchange, and the higher the price that must be paid by whoever wishes to send money from Spain to Flanders, since the demand for money is smaller in Spain than in Flanders. And the scarcer money is in Medina the less he need pay there, because more people want money in Medina than are sending it to Flanders."*64 (...)
The de Soto-Azpilcueta analysis was spread to the merchants of Spain by the Dominican friar Tomás de Mercado (d. 1585), who in 1569 wrote a handbook of commercial morality in Spanish, in contrast to the Scholastic theologians, who invariably wrote in Latin. It was followed by García and endorsed at the end of the sixteenth century by the Salamanca theologian the Dominican Domingo de Bañez (1527-1604) and by the great Portuguese Jesuit Luís de Molina (1535-1600). Writing near the turn of the century, Molina set forth the theory in an elegant and comprehensive manner:
There is another way in which money may be worth more in one place than in another; namely, because it is scarcer there than elsewhere. Other things being equal, wherever money is most abundant, there will it be least valuable for the purpose of buying goods and comparing things other than money.
Just as an abundance of goods causes prices to fall (the quantity of money and number of merchants being equal), so does an abundance of money cause them to rise (the quantity of goods and number of merchants being equal). The reason is that the money itself becomes less valuable for the purpose of buying and comparing goods. Thus we see that in Spain the purchasing-power of money is far lower, on account of its abundance, than it was eighty years ago. A thing that could be bought for two ducats at that time is nowadays worth 5, 6, or even more. Wages have risen in the same proportion, and so have dowries, the price of estates, the income from benefices, and other things.
We likewise see that money is far less valuable in the New World (especially in Peru, where it is most plentiful), than it is in Spain. But in places where it is scarcer than in Spain, there will it be more valuable. Nor will the value of money be the same in all other places, but will vary: and this will be because of variations in its quantity, other things being equal.... Even in Spain itself, the value of money varies: it is usually lowest of all in Seville, where the ships come in from the New World and where for that reason money is most abundant.
Wherever the demand for money is greatest, whether for buying or carrying goods,...or for any other reason, there its value will be highest. It is these things, too, which cause the value of money to vary in course of time in one and the same place.*652.3.9
The outstanding revisionist work on the economic thought of the medieval and later Scholastics is that of Raymond de Roover. Basing his work in part on the Grice-Hutchinson volume, de Roover published his first comprehensive discussion in 1955.*66 For the medieval period, de Roover particularly pointed to the early fourteenth-century French Ockhamite Scholastic Jean Buridan and to the famous early fifteenth-century Italian preacher San Bernardino of Siena (1380-1444). (...)
De Roover then discussed the sixteenth-century Spanish Scholastics, centered at the University of Salamanca, the queen of the Spanish universities of the period. From Salamanca the influence of this school of Scholastics spread to Portugal, Italy, and the Low Countries. In addition to summarizing Grice-Hutchinson's contribution and adding to her bibliography, de Roover noted that both de Soto and Molina denounced as "fallacious" the notion of the late thirteenth-century Scholastic John Duns Scotus (1266-1308) that the just price is the cost of production plus a reasonable profit; instead that price is the common estimation, the interaction of supply and demand, on the market. Molina further introduced the concept of competition by stating that competition among buyers will drive prices up, while a scarcity of purchasers will pull them down.*69
(...) de Roover demonstrated that Albertus Magnus (1193-1280) and his great pupil Thomas Aquinas (1226-74) held the just price to be the market price. In fact, Aquinas considered the case of a merchant who brings wheat to a country where there is a great scarcity; the merchant happens to know that more wheat is on the way. May he sell his wheat at the existing price, or must he announce to everyone the imminent arrival of new supplies and suffer a fall in price? Aquinas unequivocally answered that he may justly sell the wheat at the current market price, even though he added as an afterthought that it would be more virtuous of him to inform the buyers. Furthermore, de Roover pointed to the summary of Aquinas's position by his most distinguished commentator, the late fifteenth-century Scholastic Thomas de Vio, Cardinal Cajetan (1468-1534). Cajetan concluded that for Aquinas the just price is "the one, which at a given time, can be gotten from the buyers, assuming common knowledge and in the absence of all fraud and coercion."*70
The cost-of-production theory of just price held by the Scotists was trenchantly attacked by the later Scholastics. San Bernardino of Siena, de Roover pointed out, declared that the market price is fair regardless of whether the producer gains or loses, or whether it is above or below cost. The great early sixteenth-century jurist Francisco de Victoria (c. 1480-1546), founder of the school of Salamanca, as well as his followers insisted that the just price is set by supply and demand regardless of labor costs or expenses; inefficient producers or inept speculators must bear the consequences of their incompetence and poor forecasting. Furthermore, de Roover made clear that the general Scholastic emphasis on the justice of "common estimation" (communis aestimatio) is identical to "market valuation" (aestimatio fori), since the Scholastics used these two Latin expressions interchangeably.*71 (...)
In a comment on de Roover's paper, David Herlihy noted that, in the northern Italian city-states of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, the birthplace of modern commercial capitalism, the market price was generally considered just because it was "true" and "real," if it was "established or utilized without deceit or fraud." As Herlihy summed it up, the just price of an object is its "true value as determined by one of two ways: for objects that were unique, by honest negotiation between seller and purchaser; for staple commodities by the consensus of the market place established in the absence of fraud or conspiracy."*73 (...)
Several years later, de Roover turned to the views of the Scholastics on the broader issue of trade and exchange.*75
He conceded the partial validity of the older view that the medieval Church frowned on trade as endangering personal salvation; or rather that, while trade can be honest, it presents great temptation for sin. However, he pointed out that, as trade and commerce grew after the tenth century, the Church began to adapt to the idea of the merits of trade and exchange.
Thus, while it is true that the twelfth-century Scholastic Peter the Lombard (c. 1100-60) denounced trade and soldiering as sinful occupations per se, a far more benevolent view of trade was set forth during the thirteenth century by Albertus Magnus and his student Thomas Aquinas, as well as by Saint Bonaventure (1221-74) and Pope Innocent V (1225-76). While trade presents occasions for sin, it is not sinful per se; on the contrary, exchange and the division of labor are beneficent in satisfying the wants of the citizens. Moreover, the early fourteenth-century Scholastic Richard of Middleton developed the idea that both the buyer and the seller gain by exchange, since each demonstrates that he prefers what he receives in exchange to what he gives up. Middleton also applied this idea to international trade, pointing out that both countries benefit by exchanging their surplus products. Since the merchants and citizens of each country benefit, neither party is exploiting the other.(...)"
Murray N. Rothbard: "New Light on the Prehistory of the Austrian School":
(...) Far from mystical dunderheads who should be skipped over to get to the mercantilists, the Scholastic philosophers were seen as remarkable and prescient economists, developing a system very close to the Austrian and subjective-utility approach. This was particularly true of the previously neglected Spanish and Italian Scholastics of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Virtually the only missing ingredient in their value theory was the marginal concept.
(...) One of the most important, and probably the most neglected, was The School of Salamanca by Marjorie Grice-Hutchinson, who suffered in the economics profession from being a professor of Spanish literature. Moreover, the book bore the burden of a misleadingly narrow subtitle: Readings in Spanish Monetary Theory.*58
In fact, the book was a brilliant discovery of the pre-Austrian subjective-value-and-utility views of the late sixteenth-century Spanish Scholastics. But first Grice-Hutchinson showed that the works of even earlier Scholastics as far back as Aristotle contained a subjective-value analysis based on consumer wants alongside the competing objective conception of the just price based on labor and costs. In the early Middle Ages, Saint Augustine (354-430) developed the concept of the subjective-value scales of each individual. By the High Middle Ages, the Scholastic philosophers had largely abandoned the cost-of-production theory to adopt the view that the market's reflection of consumer demand really sets the just price. This was particularly true of Jean Buridan (1300-58), Henry of Ghent (1217-93), and Richard of Middleton (1249-1306). As Grice-Hutchinson observed:
Medieval writers viewed the poor man as consumer rather than producer. A cost-of-production theory would have given merchants an excuse for over-charging on the pretext of covering their expenses, and it was thought fairer to rely on the impersonal forces of the market which reflected the judgment of the whole community, or, to use the medieval phrase, the "common estimation." At any rate, it would seem that the phenomena of exchange came increasingly to be explained in psychological terms.*59
Even Henry of Langenstein (1325-83), who of all the Scholastics was the most hostile to the free market and advocated government fixing of the just price on the basis of status and cost, developed the subjective factor of utility as well as scarcity in his analysis of price. But it was the sixteenth-century Spanish Scholastics who developed the purely subjective and profree-market theory of value.
Thus, Luis Saravia de la Calle (c. 1544) denied any role to cost in the determination of price; instead the market price, which is the just price, is determined by the forces of supply and demand, which in turn are the result of the common estimation of consumers on the market. Saravia wrote that, "excluding all deceit and malice, the just price of a thing is the price which it commonly fetches at the time and place of the deal." He went on to point out that the price of a thing will change in accordance with its abundance or scarcity. He proceeded to attack the cost-of-production theory of just price:
Those who measure the just price by the labour, costs, and risk incurred by the person who deals in the merchandise or produces it, or by the cost of transport or the expense of travelling...or by what he has to pay the factors for their industry, risk, and labour, are greatly in error, and still more so are those who allow a certain profit of a fifth or a tenth. For the just price arises from the abundance or scarcity of goods, merchants, and money...and not from costs, labour, and risk. (...) Prices are not commonly fixed on the basis of costs. Why should a bale of linen brought overland from Brittany at great expense be worth more than one which is transported cheaply by sea?...Why should a book written out by hand be worth more than one which is printed, when the latter is better though it costs less to produce?...The just price is found not by counting the cost but by the common estimation.*60
Similarly the Spanish Scholastic Diego de Covarrubias y Leiva (1512-77) a distinguished expert on Roman law and a theologian at the University of Salamanca, wrote that the "value of an article" depends "on the estimation of men, even if that estimation be foolish." (...)
The Spanish Scholastic Francisco Garcia (d. 1659) engaged in a remarkably sophisticated analysis of the determinants of value and utility. The valuation of goods, Garcia pointed out, depends on several factors. One is the abundance or scarcity of the supply of goods, the former causing a lower estimation and the latter an increase. A second is whether buyers or sellers are few or many. Another is whether "money is scarce or plentiful," the former causing a lower estimation of goods and the latter a higher. Another is whether "vendors are eager to sell their goods." (...)
The Spanish Scholastics also anticipated the Austrian school in applying value theory to money, thus beginning the integration of money into general value theory. It is generally believed, for example, that in 1568 Jean Bodin inaugurated what is unfortunately called "the quantity theory of money" but which would more accurately be called the application of supply-and-demand analysis to money.
Yet he was anticipated twelve years earlier by the Salamanca theologian the Dominican Martin de Azpilcueta Navarro (1493-1587), who was inspired to explain the inflation brought about by the importation of gold and silver by the Spaniards from the New World. Citing previous Scholastics, Azpilcueta declared that "money is worth more where it is scarce than where it is abundant." Why? Because "all merchandise becomes dearer when it is in great demand and short supply, and that money, in so far as it may be sold, bartered, or exchanged by some other form of contract, is merchandise and therefore also becomes dearer when it is in great demand and short supply." (...)
Furthermore, the Spanish Scholastics went on to anticipate the classical-Mises-Cassel purchasing-power parity theory of exchange rates by proceeding logically to apply the supply-and-demand theory to foreign exchanges, an institution that was highly developed by the early modern period.
The influx of specie into Spain depreciated the Spanish escudo in foreign exchange, as well as raised prices within Spain, and the Scholastics had to deal with this startling phenomenon. It was the eminent Salamanca theologian the Dominican Domingo de Soto (1495-1560) who in 1553 first fully applied the supply-and-demand analysis to foreign exchange rates. De Soto noted that "the more plentiful money is in Medina the more unfavourable are the terms of exchange, and the higher the price that must be paid by whoever wishes to send money from Spain to Flanders, since the demand for money is smaller in Spain than in Flanders. And the scarcer money is in Medina the less he need pay there, because more people want money in Medina than are sending it to Flanders."*64 (...)
The de Soto-Azpilcueta analysis was spread to the merchants of Spain by the Dominican friar Tomás de Mercado (d. 1585), who in 1569 wrote a handbook of commercial morality in Spanish, in contrast to the Scholastic theologians, who invariably wrote in Latin. It was followed by García and endorsed at the end of the sixteenth century by the Salamanca theologian the Dominican Domingo de Bañez (1527-1604) and by the great Portuguese Jesuit Luís de Molina (1535-1600). Writing near the turn of the century, Molina set forth the theory in an elegant and comprehensive manner:
There is another way in which money may be worth more in one place than in another; namely, because it is scarcer there than elsewhere. Other things being equal, wherever money is most abundant, there will it be least valuable for the purpose of buying goods and comparing things other than money.
Just as an abundance of goods causes prices to fall (the quantity of money and number of merchants being equal), so does an abundance of money cause them to rise (the quantity of goods and number of merchants being equal). The reason is that the money itself becomes less valuable for the purpose of buying and comparing goods. Thus we see that in Spain the purchasing-power of money is far lower, on account of its abundance, than it was eighty years ago. A thing that could be bought for two ducats at that time is nowadays worth 5, 6, or even more. Wages have risen in the same proportion, and so have dowries, the price of estates, the income from benefices, and other things.
We likewise see that money is far less valuable in the New World (especially in Peru, where it is most plentiful), than it is in Spain. But in places where it is scarcer than in Spain, there will it be more valuable. Nor will the value of money be the same in all other places, but will vary: and this will be because of variations in its quantity, other things being equal.... Even in Spain itself, the value of money varies: it is usually lowest of all in Seville, where the ships come in from the New World and where for that reason money is most abundant.
Wherever the demand for money is greatest, whether for buying or carrying goods,...or for any other reason, there its value will be highest. It is these things, too, which cause the value of money to vary in course of time in one and the same place.*652.3.9
The outstanding revisionist work on the economic thought of the medieval and later Scholastics is that of Raymond de Roover. Basing his work in part on the Grice-Hutchinson volume, de Roover published his first comprehensive discussion in 1955.*66 For the medieval period, de Roover particularly pointed to the early fourteenth-century French Ockhamite Scholastic Jean Buridan and to the famous early fifteenth-century Italian preacher San Bernardino of Siena (1380-1444). (...)
De Roover then discussed the sixteenth-century Spanish Scholastics, centered at the University of Salamanca, the queen of the Spanish universities of the period. From Salamanca the influence of this school of Scholastics spread to Portugal, Italy, and the Low Countries. In addition to summarizing Grice-Hutchinson's contribution and adding to her bibliography, de Roover noted that both de Soto and Molina denounced as "fallacious" the notion of the late thirteenth-century Scholastic John Duns Scotus (1266-1308) that the just price is the cost of production plus a reasonable profit; instead that price is the common estimation, the interaction of supply and demand, on the market. Molina further introduced the concept of competition by stating that competition among buyers will drive prices up, while a scarcity of purchasers will pull them down.*69
(...) de Roover demonstrated that Albertus Magnus (1193-1280) and his great pupil Thomas Aquinas (1226-74) held the just price to be the market price. In fact, Aquinas considered the case of a merchant who brings wheat to a country where there is a great scarcity; the merchant happens to know that more wheat is on the way. May he sell his wheat at the existing price, or must he announce to everyone the imminent arrival of new supplies and suffer a fall in price? Aquinas unequivocally answered that he may justly sell the wheat at the current market price, even though he added as an afterthought that it would be more virtuous of him to inform the buyers. Furthermore, de Roover pointed to the summary of Aquinas's position by his most distinguished commentator, the late fifteenth-century Scholastic Thomas de Vio, Cardinal Cajetan (1468-1534). Cajetan concluded that for Aquinas the just price is "the one, which at a given time, can be gotten from the buyers, assuming common knowledge and in the absence of all fraud and coercion."*70
The cost-of-production theory of just price held by the Scotists was trenchantly attacked by the later Scholastics. San Bernardino of Siena, de Roover pointed out, declared that the market price is fair regardless of whether the producer gains or loses, or whether it is above or below cost. The great early sixteenth-century jurist Francisco de Victoria (c. 1480-1546), founder of the school of Salamanca, as well as his followers insisted that the just price is set by supply and demand regardless of labor costs or expenses; inefficient producers or inept speculators must bear the consequences of their incompetence and poor forecasting. Furthermore, de Roover made clear that the general Scholastic emphasis on the justice of "common estimation" (communis aestimatio) is identical to "market valuation" (aestimatio fori), since the Scholastics used these two Latin expressions interchangeably.*71 (...)
In a comment on de Roover's paper, David Herlihy noted that, in the northern Italian city-states of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, the birthplace of modern commercial capitalism, the market price was generally considered just because it was "true" and "real," if it was "established or utilized without deceit or fraud." As Herlihy summed it up, the just price of an object is its "true value as determined by one of two ways: for objects that were unique, by honest negotiation between seller and purchaser; for staple commodities by the consensus of the market place established in the absence of fraud or conspiracy."*73 (...)
Several years later, de Roover turned to the views of the Scholastics on the broader issue of trade and exchange.*75
He conceded the partial validity of the older view that the medieval Church frowned on trade as endangering personal salvation; or rather that, while trade can be honest, it presents great temptation for sin. However, he pointed out that, as trade and commerce grew after the tenth century, the Church began to adapt to the idea of the merits of trade and exchange.
Thus, while it is true that the twelfth-century Scholastic Peter the Lombard (c. 1100-60) denounced trade and soldiering as sinful occupations per se, a far more benevolent view of trade was set forth during the thirteenth century by Albertus Magnus and his student Thomas Aquinas, as well as by Saint Bonaventure (1221-74) and Pope Innocent V (1225-76). While trade presents occasions for sin, it is not sinful per se; on the contrary, exchange and the division of labor are beneficent in satisfying the wants of the citizens. Moreover, the early fourteenth-century Scholastic Richard of Middleton developed the idea that both the buyer and the seller gain by exchange, since each demonstrates that he prefers what he receives in exchange to what he gives up. Middleton also applied this idea to international trade, pointing out that both countries benefit by exchanging their surplus products. Since the merchants and citizens of each country benefit, neither party is exploiting the other.(...)"
terça-feira, 21 de novembro de 2006
The Scholastics
* On the issue of the “just wage,” which has been the source of so
much contention in Catholic circles over the past century, the Late
Scholastics contended that a wage rate mutually agreed upon had to
be just. According to Luis de Molina (1535–1600), an employer was
“only obliged to pay [the laborer] the just wage for his services considering
all the attendant circumstances, not what is sufficient for his
sustenance and much less for the maintenance of his children and
family.” Domingo de Soto (1494–1570) argued that “if they freely
accepted this salary for their job, it must be just,” and held that “no
injury is done to those who gave their consent.” His advice to
unhappy employees was simple: “[I]f you do not want to serve for
that salary, leave!”
* On the subject of free trade, for example, Chafuen quotes Leonardo Lessio (1554–1623) as saying,
“If, without cause, the magistrates exclude foreign sellers,
and for that reason the price of the good in question is increased,
they have to compensate the citizens for the damage caused by that
increase.”
* On inflation of the money supply, we have (for example)
Juan de Mariana (1536–1624):
The king has no domain over the goods of the people, and he can
not take them in whole or in part. We can see then: Would it be licit
for the king to go into a private barn taking for himself half of the
wheat and trying to satisfy the owner by saying that he can sell the
rest at twice the price? I do not think we can find a person with such
depraved judgment as to approve this, yet the same is done with
copper coins. (p. 66)
* Chafuen also shows that, contrary to those who would have the
Scholastics setting prices of goods according to their “objective
value,” the subjects of his study believed in subjective value theory.
This has been a difficult point for some Catholics, particularly those
with an antipathy toward the market, to grasp, since they insist on
interpreting the term “subjective value” as implying relativism or
nihilism. The view of Luis Saravía de la Calle, who is reasonably representative
of the Late Scholastics on this point, clarifies the matter:
Those who measure the just price by the labor, costs, and risk
incurred by the person who deals in the merchandise or produces
it, or by the cost of transport or the expense of traveling . . . or by
what he has to pay the factors for their industry, risk, and labor, are
greatly in error, and still more so are those who allow a certain
profit of a fifth or a tenth. For the just price arises from the abundance
or scarcity of goods, merchants, and money . . . and not from
costs, labor, and risk. If we had to consider labor and risk in order
to assess the just price, no merchant would ever suffer loss, nor
would abundance or scarcity of goods and money enter into the
question. Prices are not commonly fixed on the basis of costs. Why
should a bale of linen brought overland from Brittany at great
expense be worth more than one which is transported cheaply by
sea? . . . Why should a book written out by hand be worth more
than one which is printed, when the latter is better though it costs
less to produce? . . . The just price is found not by counting the cost
but by the common estimation. (p. 114)
* The Scholastics contended that incases of extreme need, as when a person (or his family) is on theverge of starvation, his appropriation of the property of the richwould not be considered theft. Addressing his largely classical-liberalaudience, Chafuen does a creditable job explaining this traditionof thought, all the while assuring skeptical readers that modern disparagementof property rights is not traceable to the “extreme need”allowance of the Scholastics. Moreover, some of the Scholastics(including St. Thomas Aquinas) insisted that someone who hadrecourse to the goods of another during a moment of extreme need would ultimately have to make restitution to the owner. Martin deAzpilcueta (1492–1586) wrote that he “who takes something inextreme need, is obliged to make restitution when he has a chance;independently if he has goods in another place or not, and even if hehad or had not consumed the goods.”Another point Chafuen might have made is that when theScholastics spoke of “extreme need,” they meant extreme. They meanta kind of poverty that is essentially nonexistent in a modern marketsociety. It would therefore be the height of dishonesty to try toemploy the Scholastic argument here in defense of modern welfarestates or any other form of wealth redistribution." JOURNAL OF LIBERTARIAN STUDIES, Thomas E. Woods, Jr.
much contention in Catholic circles over the past century, the Late
Scholastics contended that a wage rate mutually agreed upon had to
be just. According to Luis de Molina (1535–1600), an employer was
“only obliged to pay [the laborer] the just wage for his services considering
all the attendant circumstances, not what is sufficient for his
sustenance and much less for the maintenance of his children and
family.” Domingo de Soto (1494–1570) argued that “if they freely
accepted this salary for their job, it must be just,” and held that “no
injury is done to those who gave their consent.” His advice to
unhappy employees was simple: “[I]f you do not want to serve for
that salary, leave!”
* On the subject of free trade, for example, Chafuen quotes Leonardo Lessio (1554–1623) as saying,
“If, without cause, the magistrates exclude foreign sellers,
and for that reason the price of the good in question is increased,
they have to compensate the citizens for the damage caused by that
increase.”
* On inflation of the money supply, we have (for example)
Juan de Mariana (1536–1624):
The king has no domain over the goods of the people, and he can
not take them in whole or in part. We can see then: Would it be licit
for the king to go into a private barn taking for himself half of the
wheat and trying to satisfy the owner by saying that he can sell the
rest at twice the price? I do not think we can find a person with such
depraved judgment as to approve this, yet the same is done with
copper coins. (p. 66)
* Chafuen also shows that, contrary to those who would have the
Scholastics setting prices of goods according to their “objective
value,” the subjects of his study believed in subjective value theory.
This has been a difficult point for some Catholics, particularly those
with an antipathy toward the market, to grasp, since they insist on
interpreting the term “subjective value” as implying relativism or
nihilism. The view of Luis Saravía de la Calle, who is reasonably representative
of the Late Scholastics on this point, clarifies the matter:
Those who measure the just price by the labor, costs, and risk
incurred by the person who deals in the merchandise or produces
it, or by the cost of transport or the expense of traveling . . . or by
what he has to pay the factors for their industry, risk, and labor, are
greatly in error, and still more so are those who allow a certain
profit of a fifth or a tenth. For the just price arises from the abundance
or scarcity of goods, merchants, and money . . . and not from
costs, labor, and risk. If we had to consider labor and risk in order
to assess the just price, no merchant would ever suffer loss, nor
would abundance or scarcity of goods and money enter into the
question. Prices are not commonly fixed on the basis of costs. Why
should a bale of linen brought overland from Brittany at great
expense be worth more than one which is transported cheaply by
sea? . . . Why should a book written out by hand be worth more
than one which is printed, when the latter is better though it costs
less to produce? . . . The just price is found not by counting the cost
but by the common estimation. (p. 114)
* The Scholastics contended that incases of extreme need, as when a person (or his family) is on theverge of starvation, his appropriation of the property of the richwould not be considered theft. Addressing his largely classical-liberalaudience, Chafuen does a creditable job explaining this traditionof thought, all the while assuring skeptical readers that modern disparagementof property rights is not traceable to the “extreme need”allowance of the Scholastics. Moreover, some of the Scholastics(including St. Thomas Aquinas) insisted that someone who hadrecourse to the goods of another during a moment of extreme need would ultimately have to make restitution to the owner. Martin deAzpilcueta (1492–1586) wrote that he “who takes something inextreme need, is obliged to make restitution when he has a chance;independently if he has goods in another place or not, and even if hehad or had not consumed the goods.”Another point Chafuen might have made is that when theScholastics spoke of “extreme need,” they meant extreme. They meanta kind of poverty that is essentially nonexistent in a modern marketsociety. It would therefore be the height of dishonesty to try toemploy the Scholastic argument here in defense of modern welfarestates or any other form of wealth redistribution." JOURNAL OF LIBERTARIAN STUDIES, Thomas E. Woods, Jr.
A defesa do feto e a defesa dos consumidores
"Governo quer proibir televisões de alterar programação
O Governo quer acabar com a contra-programação nas televisões portuguesas. De acordo com o anteprojecto de proposta da lei da televisão, apresentado hoje pelo ministro dos Assuntos Parlamentares, os operadores de televisão devem informar o público, com razoável antecedência, sobre a sua programação."
O Estado acha por bem legislar sobre todos os aspectos da nossa vida na defesa dos palermas dos consumidores que não sabem recorrer aos tribunais civis para resolver abusos contratuais, intrometendo-se como um Estado absolutista, com o argumento falacioso da defesa da "parte fraca". Só o aborto é que se revela um assunto da estrita competência da mãe.
"devem informar o público, com razoável antecedência, sobre a sua programação"
Isto será como informar o público das alterações (na prática) dos programas eleitorais após passarem a governo?
O Governo quer acabar com a contra-programação nas televisões portuguesas. De acordo com o anteprojecto de proposta da lei da televisão, apresentado hoje pelo ministro dos Assuntos Parlamentares, os operadores de televisão devem informar o público, com razoável antecedência, sobre a sua programação."
O Estado acha por bem legislar sobre todos os aspectos da nossa vida na defesa dos palermas dos consumidores que não sabem recorrer aos tribunais civis para resolver abusos contratuais, intrometendo-se como um Estado absolutista, com o argumento falacioso da defesa da "parte fraca". Só o aborto é que se revela um assunto da estrita competência da mãe.
"devem informar o público, com razoável antecedência, sobre a sua programação"
Isto será como informar o público das alterações (na prática) dos programas eleitorais após passarem a governo?
segunda-feira, 20 de novembro de 2006
Justiça Privada
Via Blasfémias
"Para perceber como nos países do socialismo em forma legal o poder se mede pela capacidade de fugir àquilo que é oficialmente obrigatório para todos à excepção daqueles que têm meios e influência para lhe escapar ler no mesmo DN:
«Julgamentos milionários fogem dos tribunais comuns»
Em Portugal também se faz justiça privada. E é um sector em crescimento, em alternativa aos tribunais judiciais. Sem juízes nem procuradores e, na maioria das vezes, com negócios de muitos milhões em litígio. Para os economicamente poderosos, a morosidade da justiça é coisa de pobres.»Obs. Não deixa de ser curioso que o autor desta prosa do DN se mostre ainda mais indignado com o facto de haver quem escape à morosidade do sistema e ao estapafúrdio funcionamento da justiça em Portugal do que com a morosidade e mau funcionamento em si mesmos."
Nota: A indústria de tribunais arbitrais é já uma realidade a ter em conta em todo o mundo. É que não existe razão de princípio para que o Direito Civil e Comercial não possa ser exercido por Tribunais Privados (ou arbitrais) a que as partes contratuais voluntáriamente acordam "submeter-se" em caso de litígio.
Num cenário alargado, a disseminação de informação de rating para avaliar quer os tribunais (e a sua jurisprudência) quer a adesão das partes condenadas às sentenças e penas proferidas, cumpriria o seu papel de manutenção de ordem. A falta de crédito legal de uma entidade (pessoa ou empresa) conduzirá rápidamente à incapacidade de estabelecer relações contratuais, é este o papel do ostracismo.
Será previsível que os contratos passem a explicitar todo o modo processual, estabelecendo também possíveis limites de indemnização, etc. Também será de esperar que as Seguradoras desempenhem um importante papel oferecendo "seguros de litígio".
"Para perceber como nos países do socialismo em forma legal o poder se mede pela capacidade de fugir àquilo que é oficialmente obrigatório para todos à excepção daqueles que têm meios e influência para lhe escapar ler no mesmo DN:
«Julgamentos milionários fogem dos tribunais comuns»
Em Portugal também se faz justiça privada. E é um sector em crescimento, em alternativa aos tribunais judiciais. Sem juízes nem procuradores e, na maioria das vezes, com negócios de muitos milhões em litígio. Para os economicamente poderosos, a morosidade da justiça é coisa de pobres.»Obs. Não deixa de ser curioso que o autor desta prosa do DN se mostre ainda mais indignado com o facto de haver quem escape à morosidade do sistema e ao estapafúrdio funcionamento da justiça em Portugal do que com a morosidade e mau funcionamento em si mesmos."
Nota: A indústria de tribunais arbitrais é já uma realidade a ter em conta em todo o mundo. É que não existe razão de princípio para que o Direito Civil e Comercial não possa ser exercido por Tribunais Privados (ou arbitrais) a que as partes contratuais voluntáriamente acordam "submeter-se" em caso de litígio.
Num cenário alargado, a disseminação de informação de rating para avaliar quer os tribunais (e a sua jurisprudência) quer a adesão das partes condenadas às sentenças e penas proferidas, cumpriria o seu papel de manutenção de ordem. A falta de crédito legal de uma entidade (pessoa ou empresa) conduzirá rápidamente à incapacidade de estabelecer relações contratuais, é este o papel do ostracismo.
Será previsível que os contratos passem a explicitar todo o modo processual, estabelecendo também possíveis limites de indemnização, etc. Também será de esperar que as Seguradoras desempenhem um importante papel oferecendo "seguros de litígio".
domingo, 19 de novembro de 2006
O Indivíduo
O Indivíduo faz hoje 9 anos.
Estão de parabéns todos os colaboradores e em especial, como não podia deixar de ser, o Pedro Sette Câmara. O Indivíduo foi o primeiro site liberal em português que li regularmente e numa altura em que a internet estava ainda bem menos difundida (especialmente fora do contexto da língua inglesa) teve um notável papel pioneiro na divulgação e promoção do liberalismo clássico. 9 anos depois, a conduta lamentável dos tais maus elementos da PUC-Rio passou à história (mas não está - nem deve estar - esquecida) enquanto que muitas das ideias defendidas n'O Indivíduo, apesar das muitas dificuldades que infelizmente se continuam a colocar a quem defende a liberdade, estão mais fortes do que nunca.
Saúda-se por isso a republicação dos textos originais. Quando um dia se fizer a história do reavivamento do liberalismo clássico no mundo de língua portuguesa que teve lugar a partir de meados dos anos 1990, O Indivíduo e a notável coragem e integridade intelectual manifestada pelos seus autores será obrigatoriamente um marco de referência.
Post anteriormente publicado n'O Insurgente.
Lembre-se de que em 1997 não existiam blogs, o acesso era majoritariamente discado e o site só foi posto no ar porque o Sergio de Biasi era (e ainda é) um sujeito informático. Fizemos primeiro o jornal em papel e só porque os maus elementos da PUC-Rio nos catapultaram para o estrelato é que partimos para a versão digital.
Estão de parabéns todos os colaboradores e em especial, como não podia deixar de ser, o Pedro Sette Câmara. O Indivíduo foi o primeiro site liberal em português que li regularmente e numa altura em que a internet estava ainda bem menos difundida (especialmente fora do contexto da língua inglesa) teve um notável papel pioneiro na divulgação e promoção do liberalismo clássico. 9 anos depois, a conduta lamentável dos tais maus elementos da PUC-Rio passou à história (mas não está - nem deve estar - esquecida) enquanto que muitas das ideias defendidas n'O Indivíduo, apesar das muitas dificuldades que infelizmente se continuam a colocar a quem defende a liberdade, estão mais fortes do que nunca.
Saúda-se por isso a republicação dos textos originais. Quando um dia se fizer a história do reavivamento do liberalismo clássico no mundo de língua portuguesa que teve lugar a partir de meados dos anos 1990, O Indivíduo e a notável coragem e integridade intelectual manifestada pelos seus autores será obrigatoriamente um marco de referência.
Post anteriormente publicado n'O Insurgente.
sexta-feira, 17 de novembro de 2006
Milton Friedman RIP III
Claudio Tellez sobre Milton Friedman n'O Insurgente:
Sem Friedman, o Chile não seria o que é hoje. A China, de certa forma, também não. Mas não precisamos referir-nos somente aos frutos que estamos colhendo na atualidade. Ao lado de outros grandes homens, como Karol Wojtyla e Ronald Reagan, Friedman deixou o seu legado como um dos homens cuja contribuição foi essencial para pôr fim a um dos períodos mais negros da história da humanidade: a Guerra Fria.
Podemos não concordar inteiramente com as teses de Friedman. Hayek (outro grande homem!), por exemplo, não concordava. Mas não podemos negar o seu impacto e a sua importância, e devemos reconhecer a sua incansável defesa da liberdade diante de uma alternativa que nunca foi, de fato, uma alternativa.
Adeus, Milton Friedman! A sua morte nos deixa um desagradável sabor de orfandade. Espero que tenhamos suficiente maturidade para não voltarmos a cometer os erros magistralmente denunciados em sua obra. Porque inimigos da liberdade, há muitos. Defensores da liberdade, somos poucos. E raríssimos do calibre de um Milton Friedman.
Leituras sobre liberdade de educação
Já está disponível o Nº 2 do "Vale apena ler", publicado pelo Fórum para a Liberdade de Educação. A recolha de artigos inclui: "O que mudou desde as primeiras listas ordenadas" por Fernando Adão da Fonseca, " O Mal da Educação" por Vasco Pulido Valente, "A melhor chave para mudar a sociedade" por Rui Pedro Batista e excertos de uma entrevista de Marçal Grilo à RR. Vale mesmo a pena ler.
The Death of Milton Friedman
Gary North
"Yet when it came time to educate the public, no one did it better than Milton Friedman, at least when his wife Rose was behind the scenes. Their 1980 PBS TV series, Free to Choose, was a masterful defense of the free market. It remains the clearest, most effective case for the free market ever seen on national television. You can see the tenth installment on YouTube (at least today). "
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MYWahkEAfVE
"Yet when it came time to educate the public, no one did it better than Milton Friedman, at least when his wife Rose was behind the scenes. Their 1980 PBS TV series, Free to Choose, was a masterful defense of the free market. It remains the clearest, most effective case for the free market ever seen on national television. You can see the tenth installment on YouTube (at least today). "
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MYWahkEAfVE
Milton Friedman RIP II
By Walter Block
"...Instead, I wish to focus on the positive, and to relate a few personal experiences I have had with him. I shall end with a joke that gives a taste of the kind of embattled professional life he led.
Here's the positive. Milton was a beacon of light on issues such as the minimum wage law, free trade, and rent control. This might not seem like much to radical libertarians, but, what with the Democrats recently seizing more power, and promising to impose wage levels on those who can least afford them, the unskilled poor, and with hundreds of economists signing a petition in support of this truly vicious and pernicious legislation, Milton's valiant, witty, wise, eloquent and yes, I'll say it, inspirational analysis on this issue must stand out as an example to us all.
Another of the high points of his career, for me, was his "Open Letter" to then drug czar Bill Bennett" (Wall Street Journal, September 7, 1989) in which he alienated many of his conservative followers with his clarion call for drug legalization. The US government has truly unleashed the whirlwind on this matter. It is responsible for untold incarcerations of innocent people and tens of thousands of needless deaths around the world. When one day we as a society come to our senses and repeal drug prohibition as we previously did for alcohol prohibition, we will owe that happy day to Professor Friedman as much as to any man.
My favorite essay in his Capitalism and Freedom is chapter 9, where Milton rips into the AMA for its policies of restrictive entry into the field of medicine. With the Democrats taking over both houses of congress, and with that harridan Hillary the front runner for its presidential ticket in 2008, we will likely face some mighty battles against the imposition of fully socialized medicine. Thanks to this insightful analysis of Milton's, we will not be without intellectual ammunition in this regard.
Here's the personal. The honor once befell me in the 1980s to serve as Milton Friedman's chauffeur. I drove him around Vancouver, British Columbia during the day of one of his speaking engagements there that evening. The trip was part tourist and part business: pick up at the airport, lunch, a few radio and television interviews during the day, setting up the podium for his evening's speech, etc. I was amazed and delighted at his pugnaciousness in defense of liberty. He would engage seemingly everyone in debate on libertarian issues: waitresses, cameramen, the person placing the microphone on his lapel. He was tireless, humorous, enthusiastic.
Another vignette. He once made a statement at a meeting of the American Economic Association that made me very proud indeed to be an economist. He stated (this is a paraphrase from memory) as follows: "Thanks to economists, all of us, from the days of Adam Smith and before right down to the present, tariffs are perhaps one tenth of one percent lower than they otherwise would have been." Dramatic pause goes here. A very long pause. He then continued: "And because of our efforts, we have earned our salaries ten-thousand fold." What could put matters in better perspective?..."
"...Instead, I wish to focus on the positive, and to relate a few personal experiences I have had with him. I shall end with a joke that gives a taste of the kind of embattled professional life he led.
Here's the positive. Milton was a beacon of light on issues such as the minimum wage law, free trade, and rent control. This might not seem like much to radical libertarians, but, what with the Democrats recently seizing more power, and promising to impose wage levels on those who can least afford them, the unskilled poor, and with hundreds of economists signing a petition in support of this truly vicious and pernicious legislation, Milton's valiant, witty, wise, eloquent and yes, I'll say it, inspirational analysis on this issue must stand out as an example to us all.
Another of the high points of his career, for me, was his "Open Letter" to then drug czar Bill Bennett" (Wall Street Journal, September 7, 1989) in which he alienated many of his conservative followers with his clarion call for drug legalization. The US government has truly unleashed the whirlwind on this matter. It is responsible for untold incarcerations of innocent people and tens of thousands of needless deaths around the world. When one day we as a society come to our senses and repeal drug prohibition as we previously did for alcohol prohibition, we will owe that happy day to Professor Friedman as much as to any man.
My favorite essay in his Capitalism and Freedom is chapter 9, where Milton rips into the AMA for its policies of restrictive entry into the field of medicine. With the Democrats taking over both houses of congress, and with that harridan Hillary the front runner for its presidential ticket in 2008, we will likely face some mighty battles against the imposition of fully socialized medicine. Thanks to this insightful analysis of Milton's, we will not be without intellectual ammunition in this regard.
Here's the personal. The honor once befell me in the 1980s to serve as Milton Friedman's chauffeur. I drove him around Vancouver, British Columbia during the day of one of his speaking engagements there that evening. The trip was part tourist and part business: pick up at the airport, lunch, a few radio and television interviews during the day, setting up the podium for his evening's speech, etc. I was amazed and delighted at his pugnaciousness in defense of liberty. He would engage seemingly everyone in debate on libertarian issues: waitresses, cameramen, the person placing the microphone on his lapel. He was tireless, humorous, enthusiastic.
Another vignette. He once made a statement at a meeting of the American Economic Association that made me very proud indeed to be an economist. He stated (this is a paraphrase from memory) as follows: "Thanks to economists, all of us, from the days of Adam Smith and before right down to the present, tariffs are perhaps one tenth of one percent lower than they otherwise would have been." Dramatic pause goes here. A very long pause. He then continued: "And because of our efforts, we have earned our salaries ten-thousand fold." What could put matters in better perspective?..."
Os aspectos
...menores:
* "O maior dos princípios de Milton Friedman? Talvez: a inflação explica-se sempre por um aumento da quantidade de moeda em circulação."
* ."..os seus argumentos a favor da teoria do monetarismo - que seriam reconhecidos em 1976 com o Prémio Nobel da Economia.2
* "A ele e à sua teoria deve-se a mudança do paradigma keynesiano para uma nova epistemologia, que definiu na sua Methodology of Positive Economics"
* "É conhecido como o teórico que desenvolveu o campo da moeda, da teoria do valor, do mercado de trabalho, o estudo da função consumo, que são marcos na evolução da ciência económica."
...maiores:
* "Ele usou a sua inteligência brilhante para avançar uma visão moral: uma visão da sociedade em que os homens e as mulheres são livres para escolher e onde o governo não é livre de alterar as suas decisões."
* "Advogado do capitalismo, argumentava num ensaio intitulado É o Capitalismo Humano?, que as instituições sociais que promovem o indivíduo, a e a responsabilidade e liberdade individual conduzem a um "clima moral" mais elevado e justo."
* "Friedman publicou dezenas de livros, assinava uma coluna na revista Newsweek e até produziu um elogiado documentário sobre economia para a rede pública de televisão americana, intitulado Freedom to Choose), o economista sempre se destacou por uma defesa intransigente da liberdade individual"
* "...como notava ontem no FT on-line Samuel Brittan, "os que o queriam catalogar simplisticamente como um republicano de direita foram confundidos pela variedade de causas radicais que ele defendia"."
Nota: retirado dum artigo do Público, hoje.
* "O maior dos princípios de Milton Friedman? Talvez: a inflação explica-se sempre por um aumento da quantidade de moeda em circulação."
* ."..os seus argumentos a favor da teoria do monetarismo - que seriam reconhecidos em 1976 com o Prémio Nobel da Economia.2
* "A ele e à sua teoria deve-se a mudança do paradigma keynesiano para uma nova epistemologia, que definiu na sua Methodology of Positive Economics"
* "É conhecido como o teórico que desenvolveu o campo da moeda, da teoria do valor, do mercado de trabalho, o estudo da função consumo, que são marcos na evolução da ciência económica."
...maiores:
* "Ele usou a sua inteligência brilhante para avançar uma visão moral: uma visão da sociedade em que os homens e as mulheres são livres para escolher e onde o governo não é livre de alterar as suas decisões."
* "Advogado do capitalismo, argumentava num ensaio intitulado É o Capitalismo Humano?, que as instituições sociais que promovem o indivíduo, a e a responsabilidade e liberdade individual conduzem a um "clima moral" mais elevado e justo."
* "Friedman publicou dezenas de livros, assinava uma coluna na revista Newsweek e até produziu um elogiado documentário sobre economia para a rede pública de televisão americana, intitulado Freedom to Choose), o economista sempre se destacou por uma defesa intransigente da liberdade individual"
* "...como notava ontem no FT on-line Samuel Brittan, "os que o queriam catalogar simplisticamente como um republicano de direita foram confundidos pela variedade de causas radicais que ele defendia"."
Nota: retirado dum artigo do Público, hoje.
Milton Friedman , RIP
Nota. E para que pensa ser um representante do imperialismo-"neo-liberal":
Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman has died. He was 94.
I know our readers have a wide range of views regarding his economics, but Friedman deserves the thanks of everyone opposed to conscription. A long-time opponent of the draft, Friedman served on the presidential commission that finally abolished what he forthrightly called a form of slavery. At a conference on the War on Drugs, which he also opposed, Friedman recalled the anti-draft movement as a source of hope for anti-prohibitionists:
Back in the 1940s and 1950s we had a military draft. And I may say, I was just as opposed to the military draft as I now am to the prohibition of drugs. It looked as if you couldn’t get rid of it. It was politically unfeasible to get rid of the draft. We had a conference like this at the University of Chicago; I have forgotten the exact date – sometime in the fifties or early sixties. It was one of the few conferences in which opinions were changed. I hope this will be another. We took a poll at the beginning of the draft conference. We had, just as here, people in favor of the draft, people opposed to the draft-a much wider group than here, including politicians, academicians, and so on. At the beginning of that conference the vote was one-third in favor of the volunteer army and two-thirds in favor of the draft. After three days of the conference, the vote was precisely reversed. Two-thirds expressed themselves in favor of the volunteer army and one-third still in favor of the draft.
I believe that was a major factor in starting the ball rolling, which ultimately got rid of the draft in 1973. 1 believe that this is the same kind of an issue. The evidence is highly persuasive to those who are willing to look at it from the point of view not of one extreme or the other, but of the sensible middle that everybody is looking for. We must change the present policy. I am not without hope that something will happen. At least, the vigor of the attempt at enforcement will lessen.
When specifically asked about foreign policy in a 1995 interview, Friedman was somewhat ambivalent:
Reason: Do you consider yourself in the libertarian mainstream on foreign policy issues?
Friedman: I don’t believe that the libertarian philosophy dictates a foreign policy. In particular I don’t think you can derive isolationism from libertarianism. I’m anti-interventionist, but I’m not an isolationist. I don’t believe we ought to go without armaments. I’m sure we spend more money on armaments than we need to; that’s a different question.
I don’t believe that you can derive from libertarian views the notion that a nation has to bare itself to the outside without defense, or that a strong volunteer force would arise and defend the nation.
Reason: What did you think about the [First] Gulf War?
Friedman: I always had misgivings about the Gulf War, but I never came to a firm decision. It was more nearly justified than other recent foreign interventions, and yet I was persuaded that the major argument used to support it was fallacious.
After all, if Iraq took over the oil, it would have to do something with it. If they don’t want to eat it, they’d have to sell it. I don’t think the price of oil would have been much affected. The more important consideration was the balance of power with Iran and Iraq. I have mixed feelings about that war; I wouldn’t be willing to write a brief on either side.
Yet, as our own David Henderson noted earlier this year, Friedman’s economic insights, when applied to foreign policy, yield decidedly noninterventionist conclusions. And in a July conversation with the Wall Street Journal, the still spry gentleman was flatly opposed to the latest attack on Iraq:
“What’s really killed the Republican Party isn’t spending, it’s Iraq. As it happens, I was opposed to going into Iraq from the beginning. I think it was a mistake, for the simple reason that I do not believe the United States of America ought to be involved in aggression.” Mrs. Friedman – listening to her husband with an ear cocked – was now muttering darkly.
Milton: “Huh? What?” Rose: “This was not aggression!” Milton (exasperatedly): “It was aggression. Of course it was!”
Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman has died. He was 94.
I know our readers have a wide range of views regarding his economics, but Friedman deserves the thanks of everyone opposed to conscription. A long-time opponent of the draft, Friedman served on the presidential commission that finally abolished what he forthrightly called a form of slavery. At a conference on the War on Drugs, which he also opposed, Friedman recalled the anti-draft movement as a source of hope for anti-prohibitionists:
Back in the 1940s and 1950s we had a military draft. And I may say, I was just as opposed to the military draft as I now am to the prohibition of drugs. It looked as if you couldn’t get rid of it. It was politically unfeasible to get rid of the draft. We had a conference like this at the University of Chicago; I have forgotten the exact date – sometime in the fifties or early sixties. It was one of the few conferences in which opinions were changed. I hope this will be another. We took a poll at the beginning of the draft conference. We had, just as here, people in favor of the draft, people opposed to the draft-a much wider group than here, including politicians, academicians, and so on. At the beginning of that conference the vote was one-third in favor of the volunteer army and two-thirds in favor of the draft. After three days of the conference, the vote was precisely reversed. Two-thirds expressed themselves in favor of the volunteer army and one-third still in favor of the draft.
I believe that was a major factor in starting the ball rolling, which ultimately got rid of the draft in 1973. 1 believe that this is the same kind of an issue. The evidence is highly persuasive to those who are willing to look at it from the point of view not of one extreme or the other, but of the sensible middle that everybody is looking for. We must change the present policy. I am not without hope that something will happen. At least, the vigor of the attempt at enforcement will lessen.
When specifically asked about foreign policy in a 1995 interview, Friedman was somewhat ambivalent:
Reason: Do you consider yourself in the libertarian mainstream on foreign policy issues?
Friedman: I don’t believe that the libertarian philosophy dictates a foreign policy. In particular I don’t think you can derive isolationism from libertarianism. I’m anti-interventionist, but I’m not an isolationist. I don’t believe we ought to go without armaments. I’m sure we spend more money on armaments than we need to; that’s a different question.
I don’t believe that you can derive from libertarian views the notion that a nation has to bare itself to the outside without defense, or that a strong volunteer force would arise and defend the nation.
Reason: What did you think about the [First] Gulf War?
Friedman: I always had misgivings about the Gulf War, but I never came to a firm decision. It was more nearly justified than other recent foreign interventions, and yet I was persuaded that the major argument used to support it was fallacious.
After all, if Iraq took over the oil, it would have to do something with it. If they don’t want to eat it, they’d have to sell it. I don’t think the price of oil would have been much affected. The more important consideration was the balance of power with Iran and Iraq. I have mixed feelings about that war; I wouldn’t be willing to write a brief on either side.
Yet, as our own David Henderson noted earlier this year, Friedman’s economic insights, when applied to foreign policy, yield decidedly noninterventionist conclusions. And in a July conversation with the Wall Street Journal, the still spry gentleman was flatly opposed to the latest attack on Iraq:
“What’s really killed the Republican Party isn’t spending, it’s Iraq. As it happens, I was opposed to going into Iraq from the beginning. I think it was a mistake, for the simple reason that I do not believe the United States of America ought to be involved in aggression.” Mrs. Friedman – listening to her husband with an ear cocked – was now muttering darkly.
Milton: “Huh? What?” Rose: “This was not aggression!” Milton (exasperatedly): “It was aggression. Of course it was!”
Ayn Rand, Murray N. Rothbard e Milton Friedman
Provávelmente cada um terá a sua opinião. Para mim, a prova do tempo acabará por estabelecer Ayn Rand, Murray N. Rothbard e Milton Friedman como as três personalidades-chave no nascimento de uma nova feroz atitude anti-estatista, quando o mundo era e é dominado pelas ilusões económicas e filosóficas do socialismo antes e agora da social-democracia onde todo o domínio da nossa existência está sujeito à regulação colectiva e a propriedade passou a ser mais um licenciamento do que um direito humano. Rand e Rothbard completamente off-(quando não, anti)-mainstream e Friedman mais inserido mas tendo a particularidade que, exceptuando o seu monetarismo e confiança inicial no sistema monetário socialista em que vivemos (parece que, o seu pessimismo foi crescendo), apelar à não-criminalização da droga, à completa des-regulação das ordens profissionais (incluindo médicos e advogados), à privatização dos recursos (direitos de pesca, etc), etc.
Um dia triste
Provávelmente o mais "libertarian" de Chicago deixa-nos.
Morreu o economista americano Milton Friedman
Milton Friedman, um dos mais influentes teóricos do liberalismo económico, distinguido com o Prémio Nobel em 1976, morreu hoje, aos 94 anos de idade, anunciou a fundação a que deu o nome..
Morreu o economista americano Milton Friedman
Milton Friedman, um dos mais influentes teóricos do liberalismo económico, distinguido com o Prémio Nobel em 1976, morreu hoje, aos 94 anos de idade, anunciou a fundação a que deu o nome..
quinta-feira, 16 de novembro de 2006
The Free Lunch Project: Progresso, Justiça Social e Almoços Grátis
A resposta progressista ao Free State Project: The Free Lunch Project
The Free Lunch Project is an effort to recruit 20,000 dependence-loving people to move to Massachussetts or perhaps California, Venezuela, Illinois or Wisconsin. We are looking for progressive reformers, communitarian activists, and folks from all walks of life, of all ages, creeds, and colors who agree to the political philosophy expressed in our Statement of Intent, that government exists to provide jobs, and should punish those who interfere with the redistribution of wealth.Post anteriormente publicado n'O Insurgente.
Origens da Justiça
* Benson gives an excellent account of the development of law in Anglo-Saxon England. Custom gave birth to the law and sustained it. The state entered afier the legal system was developed, seizing control of it in order to gain power and money. His description of the history of English law from Anglo-Saxon times through the nine- teenth century shows mastery of a wide variety of sources; his presentation is a veritable tour de force.
* The author places great stress on the Law Merchant, which during the period 1000-1200 "evolved into a universal legal system through a process of natural selection" (p. 32). Trade among the nations of Europe took place principally in fairs and markets, and merchants traveled from one to another. They devised a system of courts and regulations to handle business disputes; to rely on the varying customs of each nation would have been grossly inconve- nient. This system, formed independently of the various states, be- came the basis of modern commercial law.
* Benson, drawing upon a wide array of data, describes many cases of law without the state, ranging from the Kapauku Papuans of Western New Guinea to the American West in the nineteenth century. Contrary to various Hollywood movies, the West was not a series of never-ending gunfights in which outlaws terrorized a cowed popu- lace. Quite the contrary, the West developed a considerable measure of home-grown law and order (pp. 312-21).
* David Landes and Richard Posner, for expample, maintain that written opinions by judges produce positive externali- ties, since people other than the parties to the case can use written decisions as guides (p. 279). Benson has a double line of defense to these criticisms of private law. First, he endeavors to show that the market can internalize the externalities in question. Neighborhood associations, e.g., can re- quire everyone who purchases property in an area to contribute to police protection. (Of course, this must be done not through compul- sion but contractually.)
* In a competitive situation, judges need to acquire a good reputation in order to attract customers; no one --can compel disputants to use them. To issue opinions that attain wide- spread respect is obviously one means of doing so. One might add to Benson's discussion that in the Roman Empire many legal scholars or jurisconsults gained recognition through their writing.
David Gordon ,Review: The Enterprise of Law. By Bruce k. Benson. San Francisco: Pacific Research Institute, 8996).
* The author places great stress on the Law Merchant, which during the period 1000-1200 "evolved into a universal legal system through a process of natural selection" (p. 32). Trade among the nations of Europe took place principally in fairs and markets, and merchants traveled from one to another. They devised a system of courts and regulations to handle business disputes; to rely on the varying customs of each nation would have been grossly inconve- nient. This system, formed independently of the various states, be- came the basis of modern commercial law.
* Benson, drawing upon a wide array of data, describes many cases of law without the state, ranging from the Kapauku Papuans of Western New Guinea to the American West in the nineteenth century. Contrary to various Hollywood movies, the West was not a series of never-ending gunfights in which outlaws terrorized a cowed popu- lace. Quite the contrary, the West developed a considerable measure of home-grown law and order (pp. 312-21).
* David Landes and Richard Posner, for expample, maintain that written opinions by judges produce positive externali- ties, since people other than the parties to the case can use written decisions as guides (p. 279). Benson has a double line of defense to these criticisms of private law. First, he endeavors to show that the market can internalize the externalities in question. Neighborhood associations, e.g., can re- quire everyone who purchases property in an area to contribute to police protection. (Of course, this must be done not through compul- sion but contractually.)
* In a competitive situation, judges need to acquire a good reputation in order to attract customers; no one --can compel disputants to use them. To issue opinions that attain wide- spread respect is obviously one means of doing so. One might add to Benson's discussion that in the Roman Empire many legal scholars or jurisconsults gained recognition through their writing.
David Gordon ,Review: The Enterprise of Law. By Bruce k. Benson. San Francisco: Pacific Research Institute, 8996).
quarta-feira, 15 de novembro de 2006
Marxism Unmasked: From Delusion to Destruction
AUTHOR: Mises, Ludwig von
This volume contains nine lectures delivered over one week, from June 23, to July 3, 1952, at the San Francisco Public Library. Mises was at his prime as a teacher and lecturer. He shares a lifetime of learning on topics that were (and remain) central to American public life.As the title indicates, his main focus is on Marxism. He discusses Marx and his place in the history of ideas, the destruction wrought by his dangerous ideology, the manner in which his followers have covered up his errors, and how the Marxists themselves have worked for so long to save Marxism from itself. He discusses Marxist claims about history and refutes the smear of the industrial revolution. The approach is systematic but casual. So the reader encounters wonderful insights in the form of short asides. For example: "The worst thing that can happen to a socialist is to have his country ruled by socialists who are not his friends."
The Libertarian Case Against Abortion
by Bill Barnwell (via LRC):
"(...) It’s about time that defenders of freedom and personal responsibility put more pressure on promiscuous or sexually irresponsible people to take proper measures to avoid a pregnancy. It is morally and intellectually unfair to make unwanted children bear the burden for the irresponsible actions of others. While libertarians would rightly say that the State has no business trying to correct the poor attitudes and behaviors of others, it also makes little sense for the State to sanction aggressive and anti-life laws which punish innocents for the mistakes of their parents. That is not libertarian; it is selective freedom which pushes aggression on defenseless unborn children.
This leads us to one final consideration in this essay; that abortion violates the principle of nonaggression. The mother (or parents), usually as a result of her (or their) own irresponsibility, makes a decision to end a life unilaterally. The child obviously has no say in the matter. The pro-abortion parents and the State make the decision for child, and prematurely end his or her life. Again, not a very libertarian concept.
Abortion supporters object. The government is telling a woman what to do with her body! I'm encouraged when left-leaning thinkers start talking like libertarians, but discouraged to see that it stops at giving mothers the "right of privacy" to get abortions. Back in his quasi pro-life days, Al Gore once said "abortion is arguably the taking of a human life." If those who argue that it is the taking of a human life are correct, then I think even the staunchest libertarian can agree that the state should not be in the business of sanctioning aggression and destructive anti-life policies. Unfortunately, the State seems mainly concerned with economic stagnation and the destruction of life and property through war, abortion, anti-capitalistic measures, etc. Abortion is another piece of that puzzle.
It must also be recognized that the process in which abortion became the law of the land was nothing short of statist aggression. The State, through the judicially abominable decision of Roe v. Wade, federalized the matter through convoluted constitutional reasoning. This was a pristine example of political and judicial aggression that denied the rights of individual states to decide the matter by federalizing it. All honest libertarians should see this as an assault on states’ rights regardless of their position on the moral, legal, or philosophical merits of the actual abortion itself.
Notice in this libertarian attack on abortion I have not sought to endorse all pro-life legislation that has been considered over the years. That is because some of the legislation has approached the matter in a big-government or statist approach and actually negates itself because of it. Yet all libertarians should agree that Roe v. Wade is a blow to libertarian philosophy, and the issue should be returned to the states. In the meantime, individual states, and personal consciences would do well to consider the real nature of abortion: an aggressive, irresponsible act which denies personal freedom, liberty and justice to a weaker and inconvenient class of people.
As a libertarian, I defend the pro-life cause not only on moral and spiritual grounds, but also philosophically on the nonaggression principle and upon the principles of freedom and personal liberty. As has been shown, a government that sanctions abortion sanctions aggression, and gives rights and privileges to some (mothers) while taking away rights and harming others (the unwanted children). This tradeoff of rights and State-sponsored aggression is not libertarian, as most "mainstream" libertarians would assume. It is the standard statist model of how society and government should function which is ultimately unfair, immoral and destructive.
Such a concept has much more in common with the philosophy of the Left than it does with the philosophy of freedom. And there’s nothing libertarian about that."
"(...) It’s about time that defenders of freedom and personal responsibility put more pressure on promiscuous or sexually irresponsible people to take proper measures to avoid a pregnancy. It is morally and intellectually unfair to make unwanted children bear the burden for the irresponsible actions of others. While libertarians would rightly say that the State has no business trying to correct the poor attitudes and behaviors of others, it also makes little sense for the State to sanction aggressive and anti-life laws which punish innocents for the mistakes of their parents. That is not libertarian; it is selective freedom which pushes aggression on defenseless unborn children.
This leads us to one final consideration in this essay; that abortion violates the principle of nonaggression. The mother (or parents), usually as a result of her (or their) own irresponsibility, makes a decision to end a life unilaterally. The child obviously has no say in the matter. The pro-abortion parents and the State make the decision for child, and prematurely end his or her life. Again, not a very libertarian concept.
Abortion supporters object. The government is telling a woman what to do with her body! I'm encouraged when left-leaning thinkers start talking like libertarians, but discouraged to see that it stops at giving mothers the "right of privacy" to get abortions. Back in his quasi pro-life days, Al Gore once said "abortion is arguably the taking of a human life." If those who argue that it is the taking of a human life are correct, then I think even the staunchest libertarian can agree that the state should not be in the business of sanctioning aggression and destructive anti-life policies. Unfortunately, the State seems mainly concerned with economic stagnation and the destruction of life and property through war, abortion, anti-capitalistic measures, etc. Abortion is another piece of that puzzle.
It must also be recognized that the process in which abortion became the law of the land was nothing short of statist aggression. The State, through the judicially abominable decision of Roe v. Wade, federalized the matter through convoluted constitutional reasoning. This was a pristine example of political and judicial aggression that denied the rights of individual states to decide the matter by federalizing it. All honest libertarians should see this as an assault on states’ rights regardless of their position on the moral, legal, or philosophical merits of the actual abortion itself.
Notice in this libertarian attack on abortion I have not sought to endorse all pro-life legislation that has been considered over the years. That is because some of the legislation has approached the matter in a big-government or statist approach and actually negates itself because of it. Yet all libertarians should agree that Roe v. Wade is a blow to libertarian philosophy, and the issue should be returned to the states. In the meantime, individual states, and personal consciences would do well to consider the real nature of abortion: an aggressive, irresponsible act which denies personal freedom, liberty and justice to a weaker and inconvenient class of people.
As a libertarian, I defend the pro-life cause not only on moral and spiritual grounds, but also philosophically on the nonaggression principle and upon the principles of freedom and personal liberty. As has been shown, a government that sanctions abortion sanctions aggression, and gives rights and privileges to some (mothers) while taking away rights and harming others (the unwanted children). This tradeoff of rights and State-sponsored aggression is not libertarian, as most "mainstream" libertarians would assume. It is the standard statist model of how society and government should function which is ultimately unfair, immoral and destructive.
Such a concept has much more in common with the philosophy of the Left than it does with the philosophy of freedom. And there’s nothing libertarian about that."
Subscrever:
Mensagens (Atom)