How to be a libertarian sellout

Perfect example given here! He discusses monetary economics. I'd love to see him up against Block or Hoppe. :)

Also of interest is this interview.

"...author of The Dismal Science: How Thinking Like an Economist Undermines Community..."


Wow, that is the complete opposite of what I've come to think, & that is the problem of economics not being considered attractive to study (or important) by the vast general peoples of the U.S.  I don't think economics can be studied enough.   

I would agree that studying economics (beyond the mainstream, particularly), would undermine the collectivist sense of community, and possibly lead to better learned individuals who would *gasp* have a better understanding on what goes on in the world.  This, I would think, would ultimatley benefit a soverign nation (which is a community of sorts).

Although, since The Internet went public, I think Economics has been making a sleeper-comeback, and will probably only look even more attractive by those angered & confused at the coming national (& possibly global) depression before us.

I keep waiting for mainstream economists to reveal the devastating argument for why a government managed (inevitably inflationary) currency is so indispensable. Even if you buy into the argument that a declining price level slows economic growth (I don't), why don't any of these people endorse a fiat standard based on 100 percent reserves? it seems to me that the worst part of economic crises is caused by bank failures and the resulting contraction of the money supply. Even Henry Simons came out against fractional-reserves.

The Art of the Possible:

Libertarianism and Liberalism: What Went Wrong

"Conclusion. So what do we need? Libertarianism needs to move back to its radical roots. The elements of the libertarian movement that favor genuinely free markets as a matter of principle, as opposed to defending corporate interests under the guise of phony “free market” rhetoric, need to separate the sheep from the goats.

"Liberalism, on the other hand, needs to move away from its managerialist roots ('The body of Leviathan and the head of a social worker,' in Joseph Stromberg’s memorable phrase) and become more genuinely left-wing. It needs to embrace direct democracy, self-management, and decentralism."

This article sort of infuriates me, because it strikes at the very core of human progress. Human progress is always against the herd. If we were going away from a gross barter, subsistence life, and towards a more fully human, abundant model of social organization, some community sense has to be lost, and for the better, I'd argue. There is no use keeping vestigial sentimentalities about small communities and the whole village mentality. People should learn to let achievement make them happier than 'togetherness'. This barbaric mentality just creates situations where people must choose between loyalty to people, and loyalty to principles. In every job i've worked, where i've tried to improve profitability, or aesthetics or whatever -- you hit this community wall, where people are just inured to ways of doing, that they outright refuse progress, even obviously against their own interests, were they to reflect upon the matter for more than a fleeting instant. Generally, this village mentality is tied to personalities, and loyalties -- and other wretched frivolities. I think that even counterintuitively, increasing the time of non-personal interaction overall, has been instrumental in raising everyone's standard of living. There is no use all starving as a huddling mass.