Austrian Economics and Libertarianism | Walter Block

[JohnMichaelMatta]

Where can I find this in mp3 format?

[LibertyInOurTime]

@JohnMichaelMatta

I don't know where an mp3 version is available. You can make one though by going to the website audio.online-convert(dot)com Just copy the link for this video on Youtube and paste at the website. It is a no bull and safe site to use.

[JohnMichaelMatta]

@LibertyInOurTime I will check that out thank you

[dolittleskippy]

I'm a little confused by the phrase "anarcho-libertarian" What does that mean exactly?

[ohedd]

@dolittleskippy The anarcho-libertarian sees the abolishment of the state as a necessity, not just a goal.

[PoppinSean]

I just lurb this guy!

Thanks for the upload.

[tekproxy]

I totally agree with what this guy is saying. Until I learn more, I would consider my views ultra libertarian. However, it seems like he's straw-maning some of his opposition's arguments and I think it's not necessary. I'd like to see Keynesian economics portrayed in its full 'might' and refuted, but I know he was in a hurry and only had an hour. Just wishful thinking.

[TheBullionBull]

@tekproxy sorry, 2 months delayed response, but for more refutations of Keynes, try the channel "misesmedia".

[PanzerDivisionBOM]

@tekproxy

If you're still interested five months after your initial comment, I suggest you pick up Henry Hazlitt's Failure of the New Economics. For a broader consideration of its historical context and especially an understanding of those historical doctrines which Keynes ended up mimicking, see Murray Rothbard's History of Economic Thought.

I think if people read those books, then they would be much less disposed to calling the Austrian dismissal of Keynesianism cultish.

[FRSFreeStateNow]

I see as libertarianism as a different Political Ideology from what's been called Classical Liberalism and Classical Conservatism. Even though they have plenty in common with both ideology's. They all believe in Maximize Freedom and Responsibility for the Individual. As long as they are not hurting anyone else with their freedom. But all have different views on the Role of Government especially the Federal Government.

[drewmandan]

Good talk.

[roger767]

haha he talks about stagflation, that's where were going to now.

[zuiprax]

there are a few white nationalists who are into austrian economics

[idontgiveashit0930]

Im no mathematician but lol at his maths. I think milton friedman changed his mind on the fed in his later times. Also, the solution for inflation friedman proposes has to do with the velocity of monetary expansion, not the money supply itself. Anyways i enjoyed this. Walter Block is my current favorite austrian.

[utubehayter]

@idontgiveashit0930

Thats not correct. Friedman changed to a non-fed steady 3% inflation in money supply advocate towards end of his life. Which means he was a "price stability" monetarist thru and thru.

[idontgiveashit0930]

@utubehayter What do you mean im incorrect? I stated that friedman changed to non-fed in later life in my comment responding to block.

[dannidandannikins]

@utubehayter This guy is very wrong about libertarianism. Libertarianism doesn't concern itself with 'the good'. Libertarianism is exclusively a political movement coalesced around the non-aggression principle (a political, not moral, principle). Libertarians say that it doesn't matter by what moral theory you reach the non-aggression principle (e.g. Rothbard declares that you could get there equally well from Kantian apriorism or from Lockean natural law). If you want ethics, study Objectivism.

[KSTCBH23]

@dannidandannikins In the particular sentence that you are referring to Walter was merely stating that as a moral philosophy, libertarianism is striving for what is subjectively seen as good and virtuous. He wasn't getting into the axioms by which this is realized, though he does so later in this speech. Walter more clearly describes the libertarian axioms, non-aggression and private property rights, in this video watch?v=-4kPsaxuM5Y He is one of the founders of American Austro-Libertarianism

[dannidandannikins]

@KSTCBH23 That's precisely my point... Libertarians regard non-aggression as an axiom, which it clearly isn't, and regard ethics as subjective, which it clearly isn't.

[KSTCBH23]

@dannidandannikins Ethics, being a set of moral principles, are determined by the feelings or opinions of individuals, which form cultures and societies. There are no set standard of morals, they change all of the time due to changes in opinions and feelings on any particular issue. Also, what evidence can you suggest that proves non-aggression is not a libertarian axiom? Of course, this axiom means nothing without private property, which is why these are the two axioms of libertarianism.

[dannidandannikins]

@KSTCBH23 "Ethics, being a set of moral principles, are determined by the feelings or opinions of individuals, which form cultures and societies." Wrong. Ethics is the branch of philosophy that studies how a human being should live. The proper ethical system is one that is consonant with reality and man's relation to it. How you 'feel' about it is irrelevant. I strongly recommend that you read 'The Virtue of Selfishness' for a proper philosophical treatment of ethics.

[KSTCBH23]

@dannidandannikins I am using the definition of ethics from Oxford, not that of the academic field of philosophy. I am of the opinion that any set of beliefs that is created by humans is necessarily subjective, with few exceptions. What is right or wrong are human creations, and are always subject to change. No morals are self-evident, rather they are creations of the human mind, and therefor are subject to the opinions and feelings of the individual (society is comprised of individuals).

[dannidandannikins]

@KSTCBH23 (1/3) "No morals are self-evident" I couldn't agree more, but one can't go from there to "necessarily subjective". That sound travels at 343m/s in dry air at 20C is not 'self-evident', it has to be discovered by a thought process... you wouldn't go from there to saying 'the speed of sound is necessarily subjective'. Now you come to ethics - the study of values - and say that they are subjective? What does that even mean?

[dannidandannikins]

@KSTCBH23 (2/3) You're human and your life requires objective values: food, water, etc. These values need to be created, nature doesn't just give you your lunch without you doing something to get it. This means that you need virtues to create those values, ie life requires a particular course of action. There is absolutely an objective standard for this: you won't live long if you choose to eat dog turds instead of vegetables; and you won't be able to build a house

[dannidandannikins]

@KSTCBH23 (3/3) unless you value reason enough to identify what materials are suitable. This takes you to politics: you need a non-aggression principle (not axiom!) or else you cannot practice those virtues because you will be constantly in danger of someone killing you or stealing from you.

[dannidandannikins]

@KSTCBH23 "What evidence can you suggest that proves non-aggression is not a libertarian axiom? " an axiom is a self-evident proposition that must be accepted even in the attempt to deny it. To be an axiom something must be irreducible, e.g. existence, identity, consciousness. Axioms can only pertain to metaphysics. The principle of non-aggression is not axiomatic since it is a principle describing how a person should interact with other people (or, more precisely, how one should not act).

[KSTCBH23]

@dannidandannikins Axiom in this instance is used as a universally accepted principle, rather than that of a self-evident truth. There is nothing wrong with that, as it fits the definition of the word. You are apparently looking at it from perspective of the Objectivist branch of philosophy, and are over-thinking an evident simpleness. All he is saying is that non-aggression and property rights are the principles by which libertarians deduce what is right or wrong in any given situation.

[dannidandannikins]

@KSTCBH23 Ok, well then you are surely conceding that libertarians misuse the word axiom? 'axiom' has a specific meaning - an irreducible concept - and to define the non-aggression principle as an axiom is clearly not correct.

To then say that it is obvious... well I'd agree, but there seem to be millions of people who don't and you're not gonna convince them by trying to pass it off as an axiom when its obviously not one! Even liberals know when you're trying to play a sly one.

[KSTCBH23]

@dannidandannikins As with many words in the English language, the word axiom has uses outside that of particular fields of study. While his use of the word would be incorrect if he were in the realm of logic, it is still correct for the use presented; that of an established rule or principle. Most dictionaries show this definition, as well as those with regard to logic and mathematics. You're nitpicking something that isn't really that important to the material presented IMO.

[dannidandannikins]

@KSTCBH23 Well if you want to discuss philosophy (of which politics is a subset) then you ought to use reason... which means you ought to use the proper meaning of axiom.

And this is NOT nitpicking as it goes to the essence of the libertarian position: that it is an irrational collective of people with an anti-philosophical mindset for the purpose of a narrow political expediency.

[KSTCBH23]

@dannidandannikins I'm not really into philosophy, I prefer economics, history and music (theory). But, to say that libertarianism is an irrational collective, anti-philosophical and narrow is just pointless. All that libertarianism is is a belief that the individual is sovereign over what is his, that he can make voluntary exchanges with others, and that he should be free of aggression upon what is his by others. Put simply, libertarianism is merely individualism. 

[utubehayter]

@dannidandannikins

So ethics are objective? Why, because Rand thought so? Sorry, but not going to waste time on Randian theory, as good as it maybe. There are far better things to study.

[utubehayter]

@dannidandannikins

Which guy is very wrong about libertarianism? I hope you are not suggesting Dr. Block is wrong about it.. that would be hilariously wrong.

[dannidandannikins]

@utubehayter I am saying that and it isn't wrong. If you are a libertarian then I am sure you are familiar with Rothbard who declares that one can reach the non-aggression axiom (yes, he calls it an axiom, believe it or not) from any ethical base. Therefore, since libertarianism doesn't require you to endorse any particular ethical theory, it clearly cannot be said to be a an ethical system... only a political approach.

[utubehayter]

@dannidandannikins

Where did you get the idea that libertarians do not consider the "good"? (as opposed to "the good") Do you think libertarians are some sort of fetishists for the NAP and PP?

A person adheres to an ideology because he identifies the ideology with the "good".. not regardless of it. If he did not do so, why would he waste his energies to even understand, adhere and advocate it?

[dannidandannikins]

@utubehayter Obviously each libertarian thinks that libertarianism is good... he thinks that as a political stand point it is good. Why? each libertarian has a different answer (i.e. some will defend it from christianity, some from Kantianism, some from Locke, some will be subjectivists, especially dumb libertarians defend it from moral nihilism, etc), because it's not an ethical theory... like I said to start with.

[utubehayter]

@dannidandannikins

So you want to start (start what?) with an ethical theory. You think Block isn't doing that and hence he is wrong about libertarianism, a philosophy that he has adhered and advocated for decades?!

Do you see what the problem is?

[dannidandannikins]

@utubehayter When Block calls libertarianism a moral theory he is wrong: it is a politically expedient union of people who claim to advocate freedom, nothing more. However, since libertarians insist non-aggression can be reached from any ethical base (or even none) they don't really agree on what constitutes aggression.

In short, you can't just declare a political principle without having a rational understanding of it, you have to start from metaphysics and work up to politics, via ethics.

[KSTCBH23]

@dannidandannikins They do agree on what constitutes aggression by providing the second axiom of private property rights. Therefor, aggression is constituted as any action upon one's property that is not excepted voluntarily by the individual who owns such property.

[dannidandannikins]

@KSTCBH23 so are you claiming that property is an axiom? Christians declare that all men are the property of god. You could have a christian libertarian who would accept both the non-aggression principle and property rights but would say that since all life belongs to god anyone who doesn't hand over a tithe to the church is stealing god's property and thus initiating violence... do you see now why it is wrong to arbitrarily label ideas as axioms on the grounds that you consider it 'obvious'?

[KSTCBH23]

@dannidandannikins No, I was referring to private property rights (a natural right), not property. Rights are held by individuals, not groups or mythological beings. So, if such individuals agree that god is the owner of all things, then it is fine if they voluntarily give to god. However, since rights are held by individuals, they cannot force others to do the same.

[dannidandannikins]

@KSTCBH23 Ok, I agree with you that property rights only pertain to individuals, not to 'society' or 'god'. But now you are making a caveat to 'property rights' - that they only apply to a specific type of entity - when an axiom is something that has no caveats.

You should also be aware that there are Christians who purport to be libertarians and who do believe that they have the right to ban abortions on the grounds that a fetus has individual rights!

[dannidandannikins]

@KSTCBH23 Further, what if a pedophile convinces a minor to engage in a sex act with him/her... does that child not have the same rights as an adult to indulge in whatever non-violent act it likes?

I'm sure you can answer that easily by saying that children (like fetuses) are not yet developed individuals - they are not yet capable of exercising their rights and therefore you can't say they have the right to

[dannidandannikins]

@KSTCBH23 choose sex partners... but to do this requires you to properly define rights... you need a proper theory of ethics, not just a couple of so called axioms. i.e. you need to reject libertarianism.

[KSTCBH23]

@dannidandannikins The ethics behind libertarianism (classical liberalism) has been thoroughly investigated by many scholars dating back to the 18th century. Since the goal of Walter was to simply define libertarianism, it is not necessary for him to get into a philosophical presentation. For example, let's say I am teaching somebody a G7 chord. I will show the scale and what degrees make up the chord, but it is unnecessary for me to explain why such freqs were chosen for that diatonic scale.

[dannidandannikins]

@KSTCBH23 I'm about to go to bed and we could literally argue forever on this topic. I've written a short message for you but obviously can't send it because you have friend lock. If you accept my friend request then I'll send that one message to you and then leave it at that.

regards,

Dan

[KSTCBH23]

@dannidandannikins Go ahead and send it. However, I cannot promise that I will not respond.

[dannidandannikins]

@KSTCBH23 lol, fair enough.

[utubehayter]

@dannidandannikins

Do point out at what time does Block call libertarianism a moral theory? And on what basis do you claim that "you just can't".. For it is a totalitarian impulse to insist that everyone has to follow the path you think is appropriate. Are you a Randian, by any chance?

[dannidandannikins]

@utubehayter er.... 43 seconds in.

If you look at my comments on this thread I have already explained why libertarianism is not a moral theory. In short you can't just say non-aggression is an axiom because axioms can only apply to metaphysics - the study of what exists. Ethics however is the study of what to value and what course of action to pursue; it can't be asserted axiomatically, it has to be reasoned logically from metaphysics. Libertarianism meanwhile is a political movement pushed by

[utubehayter]

@dannidandannikins

No.. ethics don't have to be reasoned logically from metaphysics. Your opinion about it does not make this a necessity. One can take ethics as what he feels, or what he is dictated by "god" or "nature", even at random. You could argue that ethics arrived at thru metaphysics would be better, but there is no necessity to arrive at it thru your preferred way.

One fundamental thing it would help you, is to understand - what you consider "objective" is subjective.

[dannidandannikins]

@utubehayter "ethics don't have to be reasoned logically from metaphysics"

This can only mean that either 1) what exists has no bearing on what is good; or 2) you don't have to use logic when deciding on ethics.

Either way you are evicting yourself from reasoned debate by refusing to either recognize reality (by divorcing ethics from metaphysics) or logic (by claiming that logic has no bearing on ethics).

[dannidandannikins]

@utubehayter people who regard moral theory as an irrelevance when it comes to politics... I already cited Rothbard as saying that one can reach the non-aggression principle from utilitarianism, kantianism, or any other ethical theory. This idea suggests that one can agree on 'the good political system' without having a rational understanding of the standard by which something is judged to be good, which is ridiculous.

ie Libertarians invert philosophy.

I'm not a Randian; I'm an Objectivist.

[utubehayter]

@dannidandannikins

It is your own claim that libertarianism is a political movement and those people regard moral theory as irrelevant. Just because you claim it - does not make it true.

There are many theories of morality. They could just be regarding YOUR moral theory as irrelevant. Nor do libertarians have to agree on a theory of morality. That they consider the NAP as axiomatic for the rest of their doctrine is enough.

[dannidandannikins]

@utubehayter Do you even read your own posts?

"It is your own claim that libertarianism is a political movement and those people regard moral theory as irrelevant" - this is a claim that libertarians do regard ethics as important.

"Nor do libertarians have to agree on a theory of morality." This means that libertarians don't regard ethics as important, 'cos you can be a libertarian with any ethical system!

Can't argue with you while you don't even know what your own opinion is.

[utubehayter]

@dannidandannikins

I am not going to impose my opinion on you here. It is the kind of thing you Objectivists like to do, but really is a meaningless argument that assumes people need to see things their way. Nor do I have a very narrow understanding of reality to make claims like "This can only mean that either .." and then following up with "you are evicting yourself from .."

Why are objectivists obsessed with debates? Could it be that they want others to tell them how wrong they really are?

[utubehayter]

@dannidandannikins

Maybe there is a way to resolve your quandry. All you wanted to say is "Study Objectivism" (which has nothing to do with libertarianism and is a quite cultish cuckoo theory). Instead, you started claiming that Block does not know what libertarianism is!

It is like telling a rocket scientists he does not know what newton's third law of motion is and that the rocket is really a potato and hence cookbooks are important. It is funny and hilarious.

[dannidandannikins]

@utubehayter Here's the thing: you're saying that Block can't be wrong about his branch of philosophy because he's studied it a long time (if you want to talk about cultish attitudes then look in the mirror).

I'm pointing out a logical inconsistency in his statement that libertarianism is a moral theory - the point being that libertarians, from Rothbard to yourself, claim that ethics doesn't matter... and rather than attempting to refute the point you just say that I'm a cultist! You clown.

[utubehayter]

@dannidandannikins

Block can be wrong about his philosophy.. true, but it isn't an Objectivist's problem. So why does it bother you? The moment he starts advocating that the US govt attack Iran for protecting the "property rights" of American corporations, as an ethical action as Rand did .. will I have a problem with him. If only, I studied read objectivism, I would be so arrogant to tell a person that he is wrong about a philosophy that he believes and advocates, but I do not.

[dannidandannikins]

@utubehayter "Block can be wrong about his philosophy.. true, but it isn't an Objectivist's problem." Yes it is, or would you contend that a communist - who is wrong when he says that communism is the perfect system - is not your problem?

How about a christian who claims that god tells him that you should be killed for not accepting jesus (deutoronomy 13'6-9)... is his error not a threat to you?

Oh, and you think that Iran should not be attacked? Despite the fact that they 1) stole the wells...

[utubehayter]

@dannidandannikins

Just to be clear - you too are now supporting Rand's position?  IF you do, say so. Don't hide behind questions like "and you think..."

If you think Rand was right and the US govt should have attacked Iran.. do find the courage to say so.

[dannidandannikins]

@utubehayter It's inconceivable that anyone could possibly read my last two comments without realizing that I of course endorse Rand's position that attacking Iran was legitimate then and is legitimate now.

You claim to endorse property rights, yet you oppose the defense of those rights when the property of Americans is stolen from them by petty Islamic dictators... this is yet further proof that the libertarian position is philosophically bankrupt.

[utubehayter]

@dannidandannikins

Funny how the individualists become ultra collectivists as long as the collective is defined as "Americans". Does it matter which "Americans" should go fight and die for which "Americans" "property"? For you it shows bankruptcy of libertarians.. for me it shows the utter hypocrisy of some Objectivists..i.e. you and Ayn.

[dannidandannikins]

@utubehayter You fool. Which Americans should go and fight Iran? the ones who choose to be professional soldiers, obviously. i.e. the one's who choose to make their living by fighting to protect the rights of their countrymen and themselves. It's not like I'm advocating conscription of something so I really don't know why you think that I'm hypocritical; you make no sense whatsoever.

[utubehayter]

@dannidandannikins

Ah.. the double speak comes.. "protect the rights of their countrymen and themselves". Who are these professional soldiers who choose to make a living by "fight to protect...." - does the rest of the phrase even matter or pertain to reality? I note you shifted your collective name to "countrymen". Good attempt but not going to work.

[dannidandannikins]

@utubehayter ". Who are these professional soldiers who choose to make a living by "fight to protect...." "

Well, a few years ago, I was one of them, albeit for the British Armed Forces, and every soldier in a non-conscript army is, by definition, a professional soldier. so there.

[utubehayter]

@dannidandannikins

Is that so? So an army that is paid out of "if-you-don't-pay-I-will-impri­son-or-kill-you" fund ... is a professional army that "fights to protect (the same sheeple's) rights" after it has already violated them and continues to violate them year after year?

Great! Glad that Randians persist in their hypocrisy as long as they are. Socialism is really capitalism, "professional" and voluntary as long as it is military. Isn't it?

[dannidandannikins]

@utubehayter if you think that until we have a perfect, non-coercive tax code we should not have a military or defend the property of our citizens then you are too unremittingly irrational for further debate.

[utubehayter]

@dannidandannikins

Oh yes.. that is exactly my position.  Protect the property rights of your people in YOUR land before you try enforcing them in foreign lands at the point of tax funded gun. If you can't do that.. then shut the hell up about Iran - you and your prophet Ayn.

[utubehayter]

@dannidandannikins

While we are at it, lets also declare that according to Randian ethic, taxation is really voluntary so long as Rand agrees with the use of the tax fund. It matters not if there is a gun pointed at the tax-payer, that is just a triviality that really doesn't matter.

After what right thinking person would refuse to fund a "professional" army to protect "the rights" of the meek to whatever crumbs he is allowed out to keep by the "GREAT COLLECTIVE".. er.. i mean "Country"?

[dannidandannikins]

@utubehayter actually, tit, Objectivists also advocate non-coercive taxation, but we don't pretend that in the mean time we can all hope to just disband the entire state and hope that magically everything works out fine. You have to cut down the role of the state to its proper functions (military, police and law courts - without which the market cannot exist), and only once you are at or very near to that goal can you hope to rationalize the tax code.

[utubehayter]

@dannidandannikins

Non-coercive taxation..? And is that what you have in UK? Or the US? Kinda like non-violent murder.. huh?!

Hello.. I am from earth. I can think and do not pretend that I am living in utopia. But I do not pretend that an army that is funded by REAL world taxes is either professional or is capable of protecting anyone's rights. If they really were, they would have to attack the tax collection agency first! And clearly they haven't bitten the hand that feed them.

[PrimateDynasty]

@dannidandannikins I'm American, and I don't wanna go invade Iran under any circumstances! Should I be FORCED to pay for military service? Is it a crime against libertarian principals to refuse paying for a service I never asked for? What you're saying is we're gonna abolish taxation by forcing taxation.

[dannidandannikins]

that were built by americans 2) committed an act of war by kidnapping the US embassy staff 3) supported the communists who threatened us with nuclear weapons in the cold war 4) support the terrorists who kill our israeli allies 5) sponsored 9/11 6) sponsor the terrorists who kill our troops in iraq and afghanistan 7) are attempting to acquire nuclear weapons and have the oft stated intent of wiping out israel 8) is one of the world's formost human rights abusers...

you're a suicidal fool.