October 2019

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
    1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31    
Blog powered by Typepad

« On Beating Dead Horses | Main | Dr. Jack Sleeper »


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

"He is the most original thinker in the economics of anarchism since Murray Rothbard and David Friedman wrote on the topic in the early 1970s"

Rothbard's 'economics of anarchism' consists of BS about protection agencies enforcing natural law (and their incentive to do that is ...?). Leeson makes real contributions (unlike Rothbard's hackery) so please stop underselling his talent.

Surely it is Hayek that the profession and journal editors are interested in? Rothbard!! Are you sh*****g us! Rothbard is a hack.

"So whether we want to call them Austrian or not, the reality is that we now have more people teaching at PhD programs that will use the works of Mises and Rothbard in their teachings at the graduate level than at anytime in the history of the tradition, and more people editing journals that are sympathetic to the research agenda of Mises and Rothbard than ever as well."

"BTW, a question was raised about Leeson's originality and I want to stress something to everyone --- Pete's work on social cooperation among heterogenous agents represents a major break-through in political economy."

In which of Peter Leeson's papers could I read about this?


Pete Leeson's paper, "Trading With Bandits," is in my humble opinion a ground-breaking work in this direction.


- Steve

""Rothbard's 'economics of anarchism' consists of BS about protection agencies enforcing natural law (and their incentive to do that is ...?).""

And the incentive for the all-knowing government is? Rothbard is quite clear the incentive is the same incentive for the production of all other goods and services. Consumer Demand.

As a student of all the great Austrians / causal-realists, Hayek and Rothbard included, I find it tiresome the way that *some* of the social democrats and apologists for the state ultimately resort to invective because they lack the courage to reject their psychological need for "mainstream" recognition (like a security blanket) or other accoutrement of the state.

There is always room for debate regarding claims to the legitimacy of the state and the enforcement (if you decide it is worth being enforced) of justice (if you decide there is such a concept), but the comment I quote is nothing more than the vomiting of an angst-ridden mind.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Our Books