- Karl3125
- Member
Offline 
- From: California, U.S.A.
- Registered: 7/09/2015
- Posts: 37
Re: Resources on Political, Economical and Ethical philosophy
nojoum wrote:
I just need enough information so that I can understand which economic policy I should support. Or if there is a presidential election, I would know if he is just making baseless claims and so on. Anything that can help me to be a responsible citizen is welcome. I dont mind if it is university or college text book. I will read it.
You need to read Mueller's Redeeming Economics, followed by a steady diet of Fr. James V. Schall.
- Karl3125
- Member
Offline
- From: California, U.S.A.
- Registered: 7/09/2015
- Posts: 37
Re: Resources on Political, Economical and Ethical philosophy
I'll also mention that Ed has written some articles on economics and political philosophy. Here are the ones I believe are most revelant:
"Reply to Walter Block" Journal of Libertarian Studies, vol. 22, no. 1 (2010)
"Classical Natural Law Theory, Property Rights, and Taxation" Social Philosophy and Policy, vol. 27, no. 1 (2010)
"Personal Identity and Self-Ownership" Social Philosophy and Policy, vol. 22, no. 2 (2005)
"There is No Such Thing as an Unjust Initial Acquisition" Social Philosophy and Policy, vol. 22, no. 1 (2005)
"Self-Ownership, Abortion, and the Rights of Children" Journal of Libertarian Studies, vol. 18, no. 3 (2004)
"Hayek on Tradition" Journal of Libertarian Studies, vol. 17, no. 1 (2003)
"Taxation, Forced Labor, and Theft: Reply to Edwards" The Independent Review, vol. 6, no. 2 (2001)
"Taxation, Forced Labor, and Theft" The Independent Review, vol. 5, no. 2 (2000)
"Hayek, Social Justice, and the Market: Reply to Johnston" Critical Review, vol. 12, no. 3 (1998)
"Hayek on Social Justice: Reply to Lukes and Johnston" Critical Review, vol. 11, no. 4 (1997)
- UGADawg
- Member
Offline
- Registered: 6/18/2017
- Posts: 128
Re: Resources on Political, Economical and Ethical philosophy
I'd seen some of those Feser articles but not all of them. The ones on Hayek and social justice in particular look interesting. Thanks for posting.
Also to your above suggestions, I think Hazlitt's Economics in One Lesson is a great little book, but I usually think it's best read in addition to a more general introductory text, rather than on its own. My reason for this is that it's really more about economic policy analysis, and in particular the application of opportunity costs to the evaluation of economic policies, rather than an exposition of the economic way of thinking in general. So I think it can be a bit misleading to the novice with no other background in economics. I haven't read the Ballve book so I can't comment on it, though I know it's popular as an introduction in certain circles.
- seigneur
- Member
Offline
- Registered: 6/26/2015
- Posts: 469
Re: Resources on Political, Economical and Ethical philosophy
I would appreciate if anyone can recommend some introductory books on the subjects above. Basically, as a citizen I would like to have enough knowledge to support the good causes, right policies, vote for the good politicians and so on.
This is a nice plan, but the nature of this world and the state of this humanity is such that there are not many people to generate good causes and right policies, and when there occasionally are, the good causes get corrupted in the process of implementing at the latest. There certainly are no good politicians whatsoever. This much should be obvious in the age when conservatives have to have Trump to lead them. It should have been obvious already earlier when they had W.
The best one can do is to be politically active oneself, but this is not an option for everyone, just like it's not an option for everyone to be economically active.
That said, a general theoretical ground of politics, economics and ethics is advisable to have. In my view, it's better to be well-read in ancient literature on any topic, and use the most uptodate literature as a complement. Modern literature does not work as groundwork, because among modern people there are rarely any of those who think the right way. This includes people generally viewed as conservatives. For example, for all the respect I have for Dr. Feser, I have no respect whatsoever for his economics, particularly for his authorities on economics, such as Hayek with his hopelessly atomistic view, with no recognition of classes in society and of elements within classes. To be politico-economically relevant, the author must have either a theory of class or at least an empirical acknowledgement of classes.
Ancient authors think correctly and thoroughly, but then again there are those who think too abstractly or wishfully. Plato's Republic is just a castle in the air. A very nice castle, to be sure, but completely in the air, ungroundable and unworkable. To save time, this particular work is safely postponed or perhaps even avoided.
A good start, in my opinion, is Athenian Constitution It's attributed to Aristotle, but likely not Aristotle's. It's good because it provides a politico-economic history, i.e. it's a history-book with a focus on political and economic motives and developments. This will provide a realistic insight into how politics and economics works, aside from any statistics or formulas. Statistics and formulas are for later, if relevant.
In the same vein, the much-lauded Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith is good, inasmuch as it is also a politico-economic history. Observant history-books in general are an informative read, even when you don't agree with the author.
When reading, I personally tend to have much attention to the form of the reading material. In electronic form, ereader is the best invention. Ereaders require ebooks, i.e. epub or mobi or specifically formatted pdf files. With this in mind, I suggest this online collection for your perusal
- UGADawg
- Member
Offline
- Registered: 6/18/2017
- Posts: 128
Re: Resources on Political, Economical and Ethical philosophy
For example, for all the respect I have for Dr. Feser, I have no respect whatsoever for his economics, particularly for his authorities on economics, such as Hayek with his hopelessly atomistic view, with no recognition of classes in society and of elements within classes. To be politico-economically relevant, the author must have either a theory of class or at least an empirical acknowledgement of classes.
Hayek didn't need class analysis to explain the coordination he was seeking to explain, nor is it possible to explain what Hayek was seeking to explain with some kind of class analysis in any event, so this is quite the ridiculous criticism.
It's also inaccurate to label Hayek as atomistic, e.g. see his writings on rules and institutions.
Last edited by UGADawg (2/11/2018 2:59 pm)
- Jeremy Taylor
- Administrator
Offline
- Registered: 6/25/2015
- Posts: 792
Re: Resources on Political, Economical and Ethical philosophy
I'm certainly not a Hayek groupie, but he is one of the most interesting liberal economists, in my mind (after Roepke). I agree it doesn't make sense to call him an atomist, at least not in his later work. Ironically, after strongly setting himself apart from conservatism, he undertook social and cultural analysis that was positively conservative. Also, his work on dispersed knowledge is an excellent contribution, although I agree with Kevin Carson it should be applied critically to corporations as well as government.
Anyway, an unusual, but interesting, work on economics (and more) work worth reading is Parkinson's Law, by C. Northcote Parkinson.
- UGADawg
- Member
Offline
- Registered: 6/18/2017
- Posts: 128
Re: Resources on Political, Economical and Ethical philosophy
JT, yes, his views that are decidedly not atomist do show up most prominently in his later work, though it's important to understand why his writings tended toward more of a methodological individualist stance in his earlier work, in particular with regards to the type of problems he was addressing, e.g. the socialist calculation debate.
I haven't read much of Kevin Carson's stuff, though I am aware of him, and I find some of his stuff frankly bizarre, e.g. his odd commitment to some kind of LTV. Regarding the use of knowledge, while it's true large businesses, in the limiting cases, come to suffer from knowledge problems, it's often straightforwardly misunderstood that that's the sole aspect of the knowledge problem Hayek was concerned with. In particular, it's a sort of static conception, whereas Hayek was also very much concerned with dynamics, and in particular how different institutional contexts structure processes of generating new knowledge. If this is understood, there's little sense to be made of worrying about corporations merely because they're corporations, while the same need not be true in the case of governance, precisely because of the different institutional frameworks and what this implies w.r.t. incentive compatibility issues and information feedback mechanisms.
If you're interested, a key paper here is Hayek's Competition as a Discovery Procedure.
- Karl3125
- Member
Offline
- From: California, U.S.A.
- Registered: 7/09/2015
- Posts: 37
Re: Resources on Political, Economical and Ethical philosophy
Re: Hayekian social theory: I read an interesting article on Röpke and Hayek as "neo-distributists". Here's the citation: Corrin, Jay P. "The Neo-Distributism of Friedrich A. Hayek and Wilhelm Röpke." Thought: Fordham University Quarterly 63, no. 4 (1988): 397-412. DOI: 10.5840/thought198863429 (If anyone wants a copy, send me a private message.)
Last edited by Karl3125 (2/13/2018 4:35 pm)
- seigneur
- Member
Offline
- Registered: 6/26/2015
- Posts: 469
Re: Resources on Political, Economical and Ethical philosophy
Hayek didn't need class analysis to explain the coordination he was seeking to explain, nor is it possible to explain what Hayek was seeking to explain with some kind of class analysis in any event, so this is quite the ridiculous criticism.
It's also inaccurate to label Hayek as atomistic, e.g. see his writings on rules and institutions.
Instead of atomist, I perhaps should have said individualist, but you'd likely object to that too. Anyway, I find it ridiculous when one claims to be describing society and has nothing to say about class and broad social strata which quite objectively provide all the causal dynamics and relevant motives in society.
Hayek in Road to Serfdom, "In every real sense a badly paid unskilled workman in this country has more freedom to shape his life than many an employer in Germany or a much better paid engineer or manager in Russia. If he wants to change his job or the place where he lives, if he wants to profess certain views or spend his leisure in a particular way, he faces no absolute impediments. There are no dangers to bodily security and freedom that confine him by brute force to the task and environment to which a superior has assigned him."
In short, below-subsistence level pay is good "in every real sense". Job insecurity is good. You are better off with freedom of speech (in the sense of having the freedom to profess any random ungrounded opinion) than with having your basic needs covered. Bolshevist brute force is evil, while there is no such thing as neglect of entire classes/strata who form the numerical majority in capitalist society. Etc.
About as ridiculous as it gets. Everybody would do well to consider two sides of every coin and build up one's own theories on vast subjects such as economics informed by the earliest ancient authors rather than the mostly misguided moderns.
- UGADawg
- Member
Offline
- Registered: 6/18/2017
- Posts: 128
Re: Resources on Political, Economical and Ethical philosophy
Hayek didn't need class analysis to explain the coordination he was seeking to explain, nor is it possible to explain what Hayek was seeking to explain with some kind of class analysis in any event, so this is quite the ridiculous criticism.
It's also inaccurate to label Hayek as atomistic, e.g. see his writings on rules and institutions.In short, below-subsistence level pay is good "in every real sense". You are better off with freedom of speech (in the sense of having the freedom to profess any random ungrounded opinion) than with having your basic needs covered.
Yes, I guess to be fair, if that's how inept your understanding of the point here is, then it's no wonder you find him ridiculous.
Last edited by UGADawg (2/13/2018 10:49 am)