“Two Constructions of Libertarianism” de Chandran Kukathas (Libertarian Papers)

Abstract: The libertarian first principle–a belief in individual freedom–can lead to two different and not necessarily acceptable societies from the standpoint of liberty. One is the “Union of Liberty,” in which communities, associations, and intermediate bodies are held to rigorous standards of voluntariness (and thus face sharp limits on their internal associational freedom because of the knowledge that children will be born into them). In the other, the “Federation of Liberty,” they are not (thereby allowing children to be born into locally unfree environments).

While in any free society individuals may voluntarily join together and waive some of their rights (in institutions such as contract or marriage, for example), hard questions arise when nonconsenting children are born into restrictive environments that their parents may have voluntarily created. An adult who gives up all of his or her property to a communal religious body upon conversion has made a voluntary choice, but what about the child born into that religious community later on? Thus, the Federation of Liberty can, in theory, turn out to contain no communities that actually value or respect liberty; and even slavery might have a lawful place within it. The Union of Liberty, on the other hand, can, in principle turn out to be society ruled by a strong authority with little respect for dissenting moral traditions, including some self-styled libertarian moral traditions.

Libertarians face a stark choice between these “two constructions of libertarianism”; there is no third way, theoretically speaking. Libertarians must choose one of them. Given the necessity to choose one of these constructions, the Federation of Liberty is arguably preferable to the Union of Liberty.

Compilação de citações sobre Keynes nas obras de Hayek. Elaborado por Greg Ranson.

“Observations on Professor Hayek’s Plan” de Ludwig von Mises

Abstract: This memorandum was written at the request of Henry Hazlitt to provide Mises’s comments on and concerns about F.A. Hayek’s initial proposals for what became the Mont Pèlerin Society. Mises stresses that those who favor liberty and freedom and oppose totalitarianism must also oppose interventionism. The memo argues that those who fought and lost against the rising tide of totalitarianism at the turn of the 20th Century lost their battles because they settled for middle-of-the-road policies that conceded considerable ground to the socialists. The weak point in Professor Hayek’s plan is that it relies upon the cooperation of many men who are today’s middle-of-the-roaders. As interventionists, they may not be the hoped-for intellectual pioneers to inspire people to build a freer world.

No Vol 1 dos Libertarian Papers

Tradução para português do supracitado livro, “Competição E Atividade Empresarial” de Israel Kirzner

“The Meaning Of The Market Process” de Israel Kirzner

Tradução para português do cap 9 “Conhecimento e Planejamento Central” por Rafael Hotz

Tradução de uma entrada sobre a Escola Austrica de Peter Boettke por Rafael Hotz.

Aqui.

Pesquisa realizada a 13/01/09 no S-WoPEc

“The Alert and Creative Entrepreneur: A Clarification” de Israel Kirzner

Israel M. Kirzner is the 2006 winner of The International Award for Entrepreneurship and Small Business Research (the FSF-Nutek Award). In this Prize Lecture he argues that a number of those who have commented on his work have misunderstood certain aspects of his theoretical system, and as a result the common distinction in the literature between “Schumpeterian” and “Kirznerian” entrepreneurs is flawed. He also argues that his understanding of the market process (set in motion by entrepreneurial decisions) provides a theoretical underpinning for public policy vis-à-vis entrepreneurship. Professor Kirzner’s main contributions to the economics of entrepreneurship were also presented and evaluated by Douhan, Eliasson and Henrekson (2007).

“Choosing One’s Own Informal Institutions: On Hayek’s Critique of Keynes’s Immoralism” de Niclas Berggren

In the main, Hayek favored rules that apply equally to all and located such rules in tradition, beyond conscious construction. This led Hayek to attack Keynes’s immoralism, i.e. the position that one should be free to choose how to lead one’s life irrespective of the informal institutions in place. However, it is argued here that immoralism may be compatible with Hayek’s enterprise since Hayek misinterpreted Keynes, who did not advo-cate the dissolving of all informal rules for everybody. By avoiding this misinterpretation, immoralism can be seen as institutional experimentation at the margin, which Hayek himself favored.

“Liberty, Markets and Environmental Values: A Hayekian Defence of Free Market Environmentalism”
de Mark Pennington

Communitarian conceptions of the ’situated self’ lie at the core of ‘green’ critiques of market approaches to environmental problems. According to this perspective resource management issues should be dealt with in the ‘public sphere’ of democratic politics rather than the ‘private sphere’ of market drien consumer choice. This paper suggests that such arguments rest on a series of non-sequiturs. Drawing on Hayek’s non-rationalist liberalism it shows that a ’situated’ view of the self offers a radical endorsement of the case for privatisating environmental assets, wherever it is possible to do so.

Um excerto da entrevista a Friedrich Hayek no programa Firing Line de William Buckley (mp3). Sobre as teorias de Keynes e o keynesianismo. Ver os comentários de Robert Murphy.

“Israel Kirzner on Coordination and Discovery” de Daniel Klein e Jason Briggeman

Israel Kirzner has been one of the leaders in fashioning an Austrian school of economics. He has tried to marry Friedrich Hayek’s discourse with the deductive, praxeological approach of Ludwig von Mises. The praxeological style stakes its claims to scientific status on purported axioms and categorical, 100-percent deductive truths, as well as the supposed avoidance of any looseness in evaluative judgments. In keeping with the praxeological style of discourse, Kirzner claims that his notion of coordination can be used as a clear-cut criterion of economic goodness. Kirzner wishes to claim that gainful entrepreneurial action in the market is always coordinative. We contend that Kirzner’s efforts to be categorical and to avoid looseness are not successful. We argue that looseness inheres in the economic discussion of the most important things, and associate that viewpoint with Adam Smith. We suggest that Hayek is much closer to Smith than to Mises, and that Kirzner’s appeals to Hayek’s discussions of coordination are spurious. In denying looseness and by trying to cope with the brittleness of categorical claims, Kirzner becomes abstruse. We dissect Kirzner’s discourse and find that it erupts with problems. Kirzner has erred in rejecting the understanding of coordination held by Hayek, Ronald Coase, and their contemporaries in the field at large. Kirzner’s refraining from the looser Smithian perspective stems from his devotion to Misesianism. Beyond all the criticism, however, we affirm the basic thrust of what Kirzner says about economic processes. Once we give up the claim that voluntary profitable activity is always or necessarily coordinative, and once we make peace with the aesthetic aspect of the idea of concatenate coordination, the basic claims of Kirzner can be salvaged: Voluntary profitable activity is usually coordinative, and government intervention is usually discoordinative. But the praxeological style of discourse must be dropped.

Friedrich Hayek no programa “Meet the Press” em 1975 (audio)

Ler, a propósito, as notas de Jeffrey Tucker.