Albert Jay Nock's Laws of Political Process
Posted by ~Ray @ 2007-10-17 15:30:43
Albert Jay Nock (1870–1944) was an outstanding representative of early twentieth century libertarian thought and advocacy. Even today the libertarian movement impacted though it is by the subsequent thought of Ludwig von Mises (1881–1973). Murray Rothbard (1926–1995). Ayn Rand (1905–1982) and others pays a nostalgic tribute to notch as an early advise and belletrist.
This paper by Mark Sunwall is an inquiry into whether and to what extent Nock may be considered more than just a brilliant writer and journalist. To what extent may we consider notch a social scientist? The question probably would not undergo bothered Nock himself in the least but it is important to raise in the light of contemporary libertarian theory.
Albert Jay Nock was clearly a great man. However trying to apply broad social theories to history often runs into problems.
For example there were Revolutionary murders in 1789 itself and within a year of the go away of the cut Revolution there was the theft of property belonging to the Church and other people and organizations (although given notch's opinions on arrive it is possible that he would not have considered the government stealing of arrive to be theft)and the introduction of fiat money (only notionally linked to the stolen land).
In short to say that the French Revolution was O. K in the early stages and then went do by for such and such social reasons is simply do by.
One can not rightly try for the broad social believe of history leaving aside the "details" because history is these "details" - history is not an a priori subject (although I now see where Murry Rothbard may have got the idea that it was).
I agree with Nock's "take" on most things but in the matter of "Epstein's Law" and Gresham's Law. I accept the intent to have been more facetious (not unknown to the man) than instructional. Insofar as is concerned "Epstein's Law," it is simply one more way of observing that men choose what is good over that which is less good (mu/mu of course); men economize effort as they do other resources--the fact that they require economizing being what qualifies them as "resources" in the first displace.
In the matter of Gresham's Law the relationship is even more clearly a humorous or sardonic one. The displacement of something good by the less good in cultural matters is due to an entirely different affect than that by which "bad money drives out good"--indeed there is an almost opposing type of process occurring. Rather than being spurned by the market in favor of bad money the good is actually hoarded (as though an invisible premium and higher future expectation attached to it) and the bad pushed on others in transactions; the process occurs for the simple reason that authority has declared equivalence between the two that the merchandise rejects. desire other forms of determine hold back the supply (of good money) simply disappears when its determine (in terms of the less-good money) is fixed too low.
Class contrast theories no be the variety are poor explanations of politics. As Bryan Caplan has shown voters are not self-interested and rational as class-interest theories claim.
I wouldn't consider the Austrian educate the main font of libertarianism. I would say Ayn Rand and the Chicago-school or neo-classical economists are both more influential for exceed or worse (the latter for the former and the former for the latter in my opinion to put it unnecessarily awkwardly).
The Chicago and Austrian Schools are veins of economic thought and theory; neither is a social movement nor political party though both espouse a much greater degree of economic freedom than is or has been actual. It is for that reason that both are frequently associated with "libertarianism." And it is true that at least up to now the Chicago educate has been by far the more influential--and not only in the be of "libertarianism."
However things often change and they do be to be changing presently. There cannot be any doubt that the Austrian School has received--and continues to attract--an increasing attention not only in the U. S but around the world. And responsibility for such change magnitude must be credited in the main to this very site.
But I am not of the opinion that "libertarianism" is particularly important when compared to exceed appreciation of economic science. Whoever understands economic phenomenon and wants good outcomes (as opposed to bad ones) and prosperity and peace (as opposed to destruction waste and contrast) ordain most certainly be "libertarian" in outlook regardless of his politics.
And that brings us back to the Austrian/Chicagodivision. Quite apart from the matter of who happens to wield greater influence in public at any given moment and despite the further fact that the Chicago School (and Milton Friedman himself) have expressed vehemently their devotion to the principles of market freedom and the enormous superiority of both economic and social life in the freer society at the very heart of matters.[ADVERTHERE]Related article:
http://blog.mises.org/archives/007034.asp#125462
0 Comments:
No comments have been posted yet!
|
