|
|
humanities.philosophy.objectivism |
>But you find no difficulty in speculating about what detailed policies the Gordon Sollars wrote: This is more polite than Friedman characterizing Rothbard's work as a
>I enjoy reading Rothbard in high dudgeon as much as the next libertarian, but
>I would suggest that it is a mistake to confuse this aspect of his writing
>with good scholarship.
hatchet job, but it suffers from the same problem - unsupported attacks
against Rothbard do not add up to a refutation of his analysis.
>> As for the "what if" scenario in your second question, it is I think it is easier to work out the logical implications of a theory
>> impossible to speculate intelligently about the outcome. For all we
>> know, both men might have pursued some completely different interest
>> than writing about economics.
>Physiocrats would have supported, based upon some knowledge of their theory?
and to investigate how committed a theorist was in acting
on their ideas than it is to invent facts that are contrary to
history and use that as the basis for judging people.
>Is there more than one economist who hangs out here? :-) Perhaps you mean Well, I'm not that fussy about academic titles and positions, so I
>"students of Economics". ;-)
sometimes treat people as experts in a field even when they don't
have a state-approved degree declaring them as such. I can think of
at least a couple of other h.p.o. regulars who have a strong
background in economics (though not necessarily the Austrian theories
I am interested in) and are in jobs that require the use of their
economics training. And who knows - maybe somebody like Greenspan
happens to have gone under very deep cover and secretly lurks
hereabouts.
--
Vincent Cook <xyzepicu...@xyzcreative.net> Remove the xyz's
Epicurus & Epicurean Philosophy Page - http://www.creative.net/~epicurus/
PGP Key - http://pgp5.ai.mit.edu/pks-commands.html
Key fingerprint = 6C AC 39 33 4C F1 72 13 38 89 45 B2 34 D0 69 27
.