Bloglijst

Deze blogs volg ik allemaal.

Coordination problem

Paar Oostenrijkse economen (Horwitz, Leesson, Coyne, Boettke, ...) die over allerlei liberale en Oostenrijks economische zaken bloggen.

EconLog

Kling, Anderson en Bryan Caplan bloggen over vanalles en nog wat - doorgaans vanuit politieke of economische hoek. Vooral Caplan kan soms heerlijk onderbouwd en toch redelijk controversieel zijn.

The Adam Smith Institute Blog

Beetje geïnformeerd blijven over een liberale kijk op de voornamelijk Britse politiek en beleid.

Against Politics

Niet al te vaak geüpdate blog, maar doorgaans wel altijd heel interessane analyses.

AidWatch

Blog van o.a. William Easterly die voornamelijk heel kritisch kijken naar ontwikkelingshulp.

De Anarcho-Kapittels

Blog van mede Vlaamse liberale anarchist, met niet al te vaak een update, maar telkens weer een filosofisch gerechtvaardigde analyse.

Cafe Hayek

Don Boudreaux is een hilarische liberaal, die regelmatig brieven stuurt naar de media (radio, kranten, etc.) met altijd erg grappige tekstjes, vooral gebruik makend van reductio ad absurdum.

Ideas

David Friedman zijn blog; waarin hij zijn ideeën over vanalles en nog wat poneert.

Cato @ Liberty

Cato hun blog; met analyses van hun medewerkers over politiek, economie, etc. Vooral en eerder beleidsgericht.

Crash Landing

Blog van Gene Callahan; tegenwoordig enorm interessant omdat hij verandert iets van libertariër naar eerder een communautaristisch type.

Division of Labour

Groepblog over vanalles en nog wat; voornamelijk economen.

The Knowledge Problem

Blog die zich vooral richt op energiemarkten, informatie, etc.

Freakonomics

De blog van het boek; met even interessante/grappige analyses als in het boek. Gaat over vanalles en nog wat.

George Reisman

George Reisman blogt zelden en als hij blogt altijd heel uitvoerig over vooral economie.

Liberty & Power: Groupsblog

Blog die heel open en duidelijk libertarisch is, cfr. de naam.

The Liberty Papers

Verzameling liberalen die bloggen over allerlei politieke/economische issues. Leuk

Marginal Revolution

Vooral Tyler Cowen die blogt over vanalles. Vaak controversieel.

Mises Economics Blog

De blog van het Mises Institute. Vooral fundamentele liberale theorie en oostenrijkse economie.

Austro-Athenian Empire

Blog van Roderik Long, de bekende 'links-libertariër'. Post helaas niet zoveel echt interessante analyses.

Mutualist Blog Spot

Kevin Carsson zijn blog; helaas linkt hij vaak gewoon naar zijn ander project (the free state project).

Free Association

Sheldon Richmann zijn blog; vaak vooral anti oorlog.

The Beacon

Blog van the Independent Institute; altijd interessant over politiek.

The Economic Way of Thinking

Paar Oostenrijkse economen becommentariëren op oostenrijkse wijze allerlei zaken.

Thinkmarkets

Een van mijn favoriete blogs, door de haarfijne en genuanceerde analyses van allerlei politieke fenomenen, waarbij er altijd naar de kern van het probleem wordt gegaan. Echt een informatieve blog.

The Libertarian Standard

Verzameling niet zo bekende, maar wel heel enthousiaste (dus uitgebreide blogposts) libertariërs die vaak en over vanalles bloggen op een redelijk hoog niveau.

Overcoming Bias

Een blog waarbij - zoals de titel het zegt - allerlei vooroordelen in vraag worden gesteld; vaak sociologisch onderzoek dat wordt weergegeven met niet altijd even evidente conclusies.

Economie door 10th graders

Check deze website.

Achtergrond: een project in een klas waarbij de leerkracht 10th graders vroeg om economie eenvoudig voor te stellen. Dit is het eindresultaat. Hier wat meer informatie (en ook de mogelijkheid het boek te kopen).

Hoe schrijven over internationale organisaties?

Hier is een voorbeeld

By reporters everywhere

An ineffectual international organisation yesterday issued a starkbwarning about a situation it has absolutely no power to change, thenlatest in a series of self-serving interventions by toothless intergovernmental bodies.

“We are seriously concerned about this most serious outbreak of seriousness,” said the head of the institution, either a former minister from a developing country or a mid-level European or American bureaucrat. “This is a wake-up call to the world. They must take on board the vital message that my organisation exists.”

The director of the body, based in one of New York, Washington or an agreeable Western European city, was speaking at its annual conference, at which ministers from around the world gather to wring their hands impotently about the most fashionable issue of the day. The organisation has sought to justify its almost completely fruitless existence by joining its many fellow talking-shops in highlighting whatever crisis has recently gained most coverage in the global media.

“Governments around the world must come together to combat whatever this year’s worrying situation has turned out to be,” the director said. “It is not yet time to panic, but if it goes on much further without my institution gaining some credit for sounding off on the issue, we will be justified in labelling it a crisis.”

The organisation, whose existence the White House barely acknowledges and to which hardly any member government intends to give more money or extra powers, has long been fighting a war of attrition against its own irrelevance. By making a big deal out of the fact that the world’s most salient topical issue will be placed on its agenda and then issuing a largely derivative annual report on the subject, it hopes to convey the entirely erroneous impression that it has any influence whatsoever on the situation.

The intervention follows a resounding call to action in the communiqué of the Group of [number goes here] countries at their recent summit in a remote place no-one had previously heard of. The G[number goes here] meeting was preceded by the familiar interminable and inconclusive discussions about whether the G[number goes here] was sufficiently representative of the international community, or whether it should be expanded into a G[number plus 1, 2 or higher goes here] including China, India or any other scary emerging market country that attendees cared to name.

The story was given further padding by a study from an ambulance-chasing Washington think-tank, which warned that it would continue to convene media conference calls until its quixotic and politically suicidal plan to ameliorate whatever crisis was gathering had been given respectful though substantially undeserved attention.

Ends

Vraag aan Gene Callahan

Callahan is een van de meer intrigerende bloggers die ik ken; overgestapt (zover ik weet) van libertarische anarchist tot meer communautaristisch geïnspireerd. Hier mijn vraag aan hem; als hij antwoordt; dan post ik het ook.

Maybe a similar set of questions (which could be a blogpost on it's own?) There is the natural law tradition in libertarianism; which 'proves' libertarianism from natural rights. Obviously - I think - you disagree with that interpretation. But even if you are a communitarian (If I can characterize you like that; given the numerical references to Oakeshott; that doesn't seem to be totally of the mark); then still libertarianism should have (I think) a certain attraction, depending on how you judge the validity of 'analytical anarchism'. To be more precise; I'm personally convinced by the idea that there is something of a 'natural law', that is a priori, but that doesn't mean the rigid interpretation and application (e.g. Murray Rothbard, who I think was a better economist than 'libertarian', in 'the ethics of liberty') has to be the only one. The possibility of an 'anarchist' society, i.e. without the presence of a 'universal' organization who has the supreme authority in lots of cases, regulates, controles a great deal of help to the poor and the sick, etc. is very attractive to me, even on non-strict libertarian grounds. E.g. Rasmussen & Den Uyl their vision of a meaningful life on 'libertarian' grounds is very attractive to me. I usually advocate a 'free society' in terms of something like that (think also of Nozick's book part 3: utopia, with all the different communities and 'their' vision of 'the good'.) Even if one thinks one can have positive obligation towards a political group or community, that doesn't (imo) entail the 'state' as such, i.e. an organization with very high opt out costs, that (sort of) monopolizes within a territory and organizes and regulates a lot of things. Even if one thinks that one can have positive obligations similar to taxes, assistance to the poor, etc. that doesn't entail a state as such. (I believe one can have 'forced' redistribution even without a state; just look at other societies where there isn't something like a (modern) state and which does enforce redistribution through the legal institutions of that society. I think of the Xeer (in the book 'the law of the somaliis' is this explained in detail.) This all sort of requires that one doesn't 'believe' in the Hobbesian fear, which, I admit, I do not. I think societies can function without an overal organization that has sort of the legal right to interfere with a lòt of things, that 'normal' citizens can not. In principle; I don't have that much quarrel with 'I take your x to serve the immediate need of this person here and now', but this is most obviously _not_ the case with the welfare state - something I think you will admit too? In short: one can have meaningful communities and positive obligations without the need to defend a state as it exist to day. To be fair; I really don't believe in something like a 'minimal state'; I think De Jasay (I think) is really spot on when he says that this requires an (powerful) organization to limit his own existence and that this is very difficult and requires a véry, véry strong ideological awareness with the people; something that is unachievable. I also believe that the ideal 'anarcho-capitalist society' from Rothbard will 'fail' for the same reason; it requires a very (very likely, imo) strong ideological awareness. I, however, believe that 'anarchy' is a real possibility and this will have comparative more libertarian tendencies than the status quo. (Basically: the 'somali-argument': Somalia isn't perfect but anarchist somalia is better than statist somalia; you probably know the work of Leesson and Powell too?) I'm also one of those people that sort of thinks that the state has parasitic tendencies; maybe not as only organization, but there is something strange (and imo bad) on how it works. One can have meaningful communities and societies without it and that alone should (imo) attract people towards this idea. A lot of things - maybe not all clear: I'm sorry for that - but I hope it can sort of intrigue you in answering in full. :) So; I'm sort of, I think, challenging to give a more detailed explanation of your (positive) vision (and maybe comment on my interpretation.)

Adam Smith en Muziek (?)

In deze nieuwe paper van Dan Klein en zijn PhdStudent wordt een nieuw licht over Adam Smith geschenen. Hier is de abstract:

Abstract: Adam Smith often used musical and synchronous figures of speech to convey the notion of sympathy, as when our sentiments “keep time together.” In this way Smith explored social cooperation or “harmony.” Smith’s emphasis on synchrony in treating the social ecology of moral sentiments provides a theoretical touchstone for recent psychology experiments showing that synchronous experience conduces to cooperation. In this paper we report the results of a word search on Smith’s use of synchronous figures in The Theory of Moral Sentiments and explore the important places that synchronous language holds in his works. We relate these matters to the issue of the relationship between The Theory of Moral Sentiments and The Wealth of Nations, and to solidarity and group selection in evolution. Meanwhile, we note that Smith was well aware of society’s inherent disharmonies.

Rwanda heeft blijkbaar 92% gezondheidszorgverzekering

Maar toch denk ik dat ik liever gewond raak in het onverzekerde USA dan in het verzekerde Rwanda.

Klik hier voor enkele interessante - eerder psychologische - proposities.

Een voorbeeld

How might such a guarantee increase happiness? It could make people happier by reassuring them that they themselves will be healthier and more financially secure (self-interest), or that others will be (altruism). Yet altruism and self-interest probably cannot explain the “happiness benefits” that people enjoy when governments guarantee health insurance. As I have argued elsewhere, the jury is out on whether broad health insurance expansions like ObamaCare result in better overall health; they may, but it is entirely possible that they would not. The jury is also out on whether ObamaCare will produce a net increase in financial security. It will subsidize millions of low-income Americans, but it will also saddle them with high implicit taxes that could trap millions of them in poverty. Meanwhile, ObamaCare’s new taxes will reduce economic growth and destroy jobs. If such a guarantee doesn’t improve health or financial security, it’s not worth much in terms of altruism or self-interest.

Nuttige links

Art Carden post een boel nuttige links.

Over

1. economics in one lesson
2. McCloskey's the bourgeois virtues
3. The Road to Serfdom
4. Economische groei, de environmentalisten, en Julian Simon (herinner u de weddenschap?)
5. de economie van schaarse grondstoffen
6. ontwikkelingshulp
7. over Walmart
8. Immigratie
9. Myth of the Rational Voter
10. common objections to capitalism