Med COIN-Bloggen kommenteres løbende på dagsaktuelle emner. Vi vil søge at præge debatten, sådan at de skjulte konsekvenser ved nye former for indgreb, afgifter, skatter, forbud bliver gjort mere synlige.
Disse tre tænkere burde indgå i pensum på statskundskab og økonomi:
Ludwig von Mises
Ludwig von Mises (1881-1973) var økonom, videnskabsteoretiker og forfatter til den økonomiske grundbog og videnskabelige afhandling Human Action. Mises har skrevet omkring 25 bøger og utallige artikler om økonomiske sammenhænge og økonomiens betydning for menneskers velfærd og velstand. Mises arbejde kendetegnes ved, at økonomiske lovmæssigheder gives liv ved at blive integreret med historiske, sociologiske og politiske eksempler fra Mises' samtid eller længere tilbage i historien. En grund til at give sig i kast med Mises kunne derfor blot være, at man ønsker nye vinkler på ens eget fagområde herunder sociologi, politik eller historie.Ludwig von Mises har med sit arbejde bidraget betydeligt til at gøre økonomi til en levende og vedkommende videnskab - også for ikke-økonomer. Læs hele kommentaren her
Ayn Rand (1905-1982) kan uden problemer kaldes vor tids største oplysningsfilosof. Motivationen for begunstigelse af den titel skal findes i, at ingen i vor tid på så omfattende vis har beskæftiget sig med så mange fagområder herunder filosofi, æstetik, kunst, økonomi, politik, videnskabsteori, etik med mere, og samtidig har formået at integrere det teoretiske arbejde, sådan at det udgør et sammenhængende hele. Læs mere her.
George Reisman er økonomiprofessor og forfatter til hovedværket Capitalism - A complete and integrated understanding of the nature and value of human economic life. George Reismans bog "Capitalism" samt hans artikler er ved adskillige lejligheder blevet fremhævet på www.coin.dk, og ved flere lejligheder i dagspressen. Reismans forfatterskab er kendetegnet ved en klarhed og konsistens, som man skal lede længe efter at finde noget tilsvarende til. George Reisman er født i 1937 og studerede fra en tidlig alder under en af verdens måske største økonomer, Ludwig von Mises. Han nød også personlig tilknytning til filosoffen og forfatteren, Ayn Rand. Begge disse tænkere har netop været centrale for George Reismans arbejde, Læs artikler af Reisman her.
...The other basic defect of these parties is that the demands they raise for each particular group are limitless. There is, in their eyes, only one limit to the quantity to be demanded: the resistance put up by the other side. This is entirely in keeping with their character as parties striving for privileges on behalf of special interests. Yet parties that follow no definite program, but come into conflict in the pursuit of unlimited desires for privileges on behalf of some and for legal disabilities for others, must bring about the destruction of every political system. People have been coming to recognize this ever more clearly and have begun to speak of a crisis of the modern state and of a crisis of the parliamentary system. In reality, what is involved is a crisis of the ideologies of the modern parties of special interests. Ludwig von Mises
More in "Liberalism"
Det er altid glædeligt, når man som skribent bliver læst og forstået. Her er hvad Jesper Skovgaard skriver i sit speciale "EN MODENHEDSMODEL FOR VIDENSTYRING" udarbejdet ved IT-Universitet i København 2009:
"Grundlæggende er incitamentsstrukturen [...] anderledes i den offentlige sektor [end i den private], da man ikke i samme grad som i den private sektor er underlagt markedsmekanismerne. I den offentlige sektor eksisterer begrebet entreprenøren ikke, altså det menneske der med egne eller frivillige investorers midler investerer, udvikler og organiserer ud fra en forventning om at blive belønnet af interesserede forbrugere. Den offentlige sektors opbygning er mere formel og ufleksibel hvilket betyder, at organisationsformen har langt mere vanskeligt ved løbende at imødekomme forbrugernes behov, i takt med at de ændrer sig. Dette skyldes blandt andet, at man ikke får tilbagemeldinger om brugertilfredshed i form af salg og markedsandele, så man kan vurdere om det der leveres, har værdi for kunden eller ej."
Han henviser som kilde til COIN-artiklen fra 2007 Den offentlige og den private sektor af undertegnede, som naturligvis blot har forsøgt at formidle Ludwig von Mises indsigter jævnfør HUMAN ACTION - Part Six - The Hampered Market Economy (pdf).
(Forslag til gruppearbejde: Kan Søren Pind overtager entreprenørens rolle i Afrika? Diskutér.)
Liberalism is no religion, no world view, no party of special interests. It is no religion because it demands neither faith nor devotion, because there is nothing mystical about it, and because it has no dogmas. It is no world view because it does not try to explain the cosmos and because it says nothing and does not seek to say anything about the meaning and purpose of human existence. It is no party of special interests because it does not provide or seek to provide any special advantage whatsoever to any individual or any group. It is something entirely different. It is an ideology, a doctrine of the mutual relationship among the members of society and, at the same time, the application of this doctrine to the conduct of men in actual society. It promises nothing that exceeds what can be accomplished in society and through society. It seeks to give men only one thing, the peaceful, undisturbed development of material well-being for all, in order thereby to shield them from the external causes of pain and suffering as far as it lies within the power of social institutions to do so at all. To diminish suffering, to increase happiness: that is its aim.
No sect and no political party has believed that it could afford to forgo advancing its cause by appealing to men's senses. Rhetorical bombast, music and song resound, banners wave, flowers and colors serve as symbols, and the leaders seek to attach their followers to their own person. Liberalism has nothing to do with all this. It has no party flower and no party color, no party song and no party idols, no symbols and no slogans. It has the substance and the arguments. These must lead it to victory. Ludwig von Mises
Find the arguments in "Liberalism".
For the liberal, there is no opposition between domestic policy and foreign policy, and the question so often raised and exhaustively discussed, whether considerations of foreign policy take precedence over those of domestic policy or vice versa, is, in his eyes, an idle one. For liberalism is, from the very outset, a world-embracing political concept, and the same ideas that it seeks to realize within a limited area it holds to be valid also for the larger sphere of world politics. If the liberal makes a distinction between domestic and foreign policy, he does so solely for purposes of convenience and classification, to subdivide the vast domain of political problems into major types, and not because he is of the opinion that different principles are valid for each.
The goal of the domestic policy of liberalism is the same as that of its foreign policy: peace. It aims at peaceful cooperation just as much between nations as within each nation. The starting point of liberal thought is the recognition of the value and importance of human cooperation, and the whole policy and program of liberalism is designed to serve the purpose of maintaining the existing state of mutual cooperation among the members of the human race and of extending it still further. The ultimate ideal envisioned by liberalism is the perfect cooperation of all mankind, taking place peacefully and without friction. Liberal thinking always has the whole of humanity in view and not just parts. It does not stop at limited groups; it does not end at the border of the village, of the province, of the nation, or of the continent. Its thinking is cosmopolitan and ecumenical: it takes in all men and the whole world. Liberalism is, in this sense, humanism; and the liberal, a citizen of the world, a cosmopolite. Ludwig von Mises
More in Ludwig von Mises Liberalism.
No "automatic" and "anonymous" forces actuate the "mechanism" of the market. The only factors directing the market and determining prices are purposive acts of men. There is no automatism; there are men consciously aiming at ends chosen and deliberately resorting to definite means for the attainment of these ends. There are no mysterious mechanical forces; there is only the will of every individual to satisfy his demand for various goods. There is no anonymity; there are you and I and Bill and Joe and all the rest. And each of us is engaged both in production and consumption. Each contributes his share to the determination of prices.
The dilemma is not between automatic forces and planned action. It is between the democratic process of the market, in which every individual has his share, and the exclusive rule of a dictatorial body. Whatever people do in the market economy, is the execution of their own plans. In this sense every human action means planning. What those calling themselves planners advocate is not the substitution of planned action for letting things go. It is the substitution of the planner's own plan for the plans of his fellow-men. The planner is a potential dictator who wants to deprive all other people of the power to plan and act according to their own plans. He aims at one thing only: the exclusive absolute pre-eminence of his own plan.
[...] Socialism is not in the least what it pretends to be. It is not the pioneer of a better and finer world, but the spoiler of what thousands of years of civilization have created. It does not build; it destroys. For destruction is the essence of it. It produces nothing, it only consumes what the social order based on private ownership in the means of production has created. Since a socialist order of society cannot exist, unless it be as a fragment of Socialism within an economic order resting otherwise on private property, each step leading towards Socialism must exhaust itself in the destruction of what already exists.
To seek to organize society is just as crazy as it would be to tear a living plant to bits in order to make a new one out of the dead parts. An organization of mankind can only be conceived after the living social organism has been killed. The collectivist movements are therefore fore-doomed to failure. It may be possible to create an organization embracing all mankind. But this would always be merely an organization, side by side with which social life would continue. It could be altered and destroyed by the forces of social life, and it certainly would be destroyed from the moment it tried to rebel against these forces. To make Collectivism a fact one must first kill all social life, then build up the collectivist state. The Bolshevists are thus quite logical in wishing to dissolve all traditional social ties, to destroy the social edifice built up through countless centuries, in order to erect a new structure on the ruins. Only they overlook the fact that isolated individuals, between whom no kind of social relations exist, can no longer be organized.
Organizations are possible only as long as they are not directed against the organic or do it any injury. All attempts to coerce the living will of human beings into the service of something they do not want must fail. An organization cannot flourish unless it is founded on the will of those organized and serves their purposes.
...Not the word but the thing must be considered. Limitation of the rights of owners as well as formal transference is a means of socialization. If the State takes the power of disposal from the owner piecemeal, by extending its influence over production; if its power to determine what direction production shall take and what kind of production there shall be, is increased, then the owner is left at last with nothing except the empty name of ownership, and property has passed into the hands of the State.
Don’t Ayn Rand and Henry Hazlitt deserve to be included in the curriculum, along with Marx and Engels? Shouldn’t Ludwig von Mises be taught beside John Maynard Keynes? Only then will students fully understand the world around them and how it got that way. Only then will they have a real choice of ideas. -- Marsha Enright in Students Need Mental Ammunition
Books to read: