Block (2022) takes issue with Slenzok’s (2021) argument against universal antipandemic restrictions (UAPR) developed in the context of COVID-19. He purports to have concocted a thought experiment that invalidates Slenzok’s analysis. In this brief reply, it is demonstrated that Block’s scenario is beside the point and that his (qualified) pro-UAPR position is premised on a notion of agnosticism which, if followed consistently, would render libertarianism utterly inapplicable to real-life conditions.
{"title":"Rejoinder to Block on COVID","authors":"Norbert Slenzok","doi":"10.35297/001c.89848","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.35297/001c.89848","url":null,"abstract":"Block (2022) takes issue with Slenzok’s (2021) argument against universal antipandemic restrictions (UAPR) developed in the context of COVID-19. He purports to have concocted a thought experiment that invalidates Slenzok’s analysis. In this brief reply, it is demonstrated that Block’s scenario is beside the point and that his (qualified) pro-UAPR position is premised on a notion of agnosticism which, if followed consistently, would render libertarianism utterly inapplicable to real-life conditions.","PeriodicalId":83116,"journal":{"name":"The Journal of libertarian studies","volume":"428 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-11-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135637149","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article argues that praxeology, as a general theoretical approach, can explain the emergence of the socialist doctrine. However, socialist laws of economics cannot be derived from praxeology. It is specifically shown that the immutability of market economic laws does not allow society to achieve a full-fledged communist reality. Using the Soviet Union as an example, this article demonstrates that the market economy cannot be eradicated, despite government efforts, but is omnipresent even if it is ostensibly outlawed. Also, this article demonstrates that Ludwig von Mises’s conclusion about the principal impossibility of economic calculation under socialism is fully applicable to the highest stage of communism, as theorized in Marxism. In relation to socialism in a broader sense, as the collectivization of the means of production grows, the magnitude of the impairment of economic calculation grows with it. Socialist thinkers failed to rebuff Mises’s reasoning because all their proposals violated the economic uncertainty principle: the exact price structures before the exchange are unknown and are in superposition.
{"title":"Laws of Economics under Socialism","authors":"Allen Gindler","doi":"10.35297/001c.89178","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.35297/001c.89178","url":null,"abstract":"This article argues that praxeology, as a general theoretical approach, can explain the emergence of the socialist doctrine. However, socialist laws of economics cannot be derived from praxeology. It is specifically shown that the immutability of market economic laws does not allow society to achieve a full-fledged communist reality. Using the Soviet Union as an example, this article demonstrates that the market economy cannot be eradicated, despite government efforts, but is omnipresent even if it is ostensibly outlawed. Also, this article demonstrates that Ludwig von Mises’s conclusion about the principal impossibility of economic calculation under socialism is fully applicable to the highest stage of communism, as theorized in Marxism. In relation to socialism in a broader sense, as the collectivization of the means of production grows, the magnitude of the impairment of economic calculation grows with it. Socialist thinkers failed to rebuff Mises’s reasoning because all their proposals violated the economic uncertainty principle: the exact price structures before the exchange are unknown and are in superposition.","PeriodicalId":83116,"journal":{"name":"The Journal of libertarian studies","volume":"26 4","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"134907511","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Traditionally, scholars have portrayed British popular Liberalism as thoroughly laissez-faire, minarchist, and anti-imperialist before the late nineteenth century. After this point, many scholars claim, popular Liberals broke with their traditional policies for humanitarian and pragmatic reasons by funding social welfare programs, regulating the economy, and endorsing imperialism. This article disagrees, contending instead that British popular Liberalism was never sufficiently committed to classical liberalism. A misguided humanitarian impulse arose within the movement that permitted exceptions to laissez-faire at home and interventionism abroad. Popular Liberals believed that because these exceptions were rare and undertaken in good faith, they did not undermine the movement. However, these initial interventions advocated by popular Liberals established a precedent that was exploited whenever further interventions seemed expedient. In the end, this statist trend destroyed the movement.
{"title":"Explaining the Interventionist Trend of British Liberalism in the Late Nineteenth and Early Twentieth Centuries: A Lesson in First Principles","authors":"Martin George Holmes","doi":"10.35297/001c.88314","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.35297/001c.88314","url":null,"abstract":"Traditionally, scholars have portrayed British popular Liberalism as thoroughly laissez-faire, minarchist, and anti-imperialist before the late nineteenth century. After this point, many scholars claim, popular Liberals broke with their traditional policies for humanitarian and pragmatic reasons by funding social welfare programs, regulating the economy, and endorsing imperialism. This article disagrees, contending instead that British popular Liberalism was never sufficiently committed to classical liberalism. A misguided humanitarian impulse arose within the movement that permitted exceptions to laissez-faire at home and interventionism abroad. Popular Liberals believed that because these exceptions were rare and undertaken in good faith, they did not undermine the movement. However, these initial interventions advocated by popular Liberals established a precedent that was exploited whenever further interventions seemed expedient. In the end, this statist trend destroyed the movement.","PeriodicalId":83116,"journal":{"name":"The Journal of libertarian studies","volume":"58 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-09-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"134885823","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article identifies the lack of policy analysis as a major research gap in pay equity policies. Applying a policy analytic approach, the article applies comparative empirical evidence to the tasks of problem structuring and policy prescription as well as to three different evaluation methods: effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, and benefit-cost analysis. The results show that pay equity policies lack fundamental justification as public policies. Implications for research and policy revision follow.
{"title":"Are Pay Equity Policies Justified?","authors":"Bruce Gilley","doi":"10.35297/001c.87974","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.35297/001c.87974","url":null,"abstract":"This article identifies the lack of policy analysis as a major research gap in pay equity policies. Applying a policy analytic approach, the article applies comparative empirical evidence to the tasks of problem structuring and policy prescription as well as to three different evaluation methods: effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, and benefit-cost analysis. The results show that pay equity policies lack fundamental justification as public policies. Implications for research and policy revision follow.","PeriodicalId":83116,"journal":{"name":"The Journal of libertarian studies","volume":"35 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-09-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135396394","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：