Comments on: On to London, Oxford, and Berlin…. http://tomgpalmer.com/2009/10/18/on-to-london-and-oxford/ Personal website and weblog of the libertarian thinker Tue, 16 Mar 2010 04:00:58 -0400 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: Tom G. Palmer http://tomgpalmer.com/2009/10/18/on-to-london-and-oxford/comment-page-1/#comment-14074 Tom G. Palmer Thu, 22 Oct 2009 03:29:06 +0000 http://tomgpalmer.com/?p=4132#comment-14074 Sure, if you write a contract and it's broken, it's a broken contract. I still don't see any reason to outlaw business relations or products that Murray Rothbard objected to for utilitarian reasons and then concocted a non-utilitarian reason to insist on outlawing. Regarding the cultishness, I haven't followed their treatment of Ostrom and Williamson. I did follow the treatment of Coase (shameful distortions and bizarre denunciations), Gary Becker ("worse than a communist"), Milton Friedman, and others and I think that the term "cult" is accurate. One announcement that economists with such important insights got a prize does very little to subtract from the overall cultishness of the group. But I suppose it's a nice gesture. Sure, if you write a contract and it’s broken, it’s a broken contract. I still don’t see any reason to outlaw business relations or products that Murray Rothbard objected to for utilitarian reasons and then concocted a non-utilitarian reason to insist on outlawing. Regarding the cultishness, I haven’t followed their treatment of Ostrom and Williamson. I did follow the treatment of Coase (shameful distortions and bizarre denunciations), Gary Becker (“worse than a communist”), Milton Friedman, and others and I think that the term “cult” is accurate. One announcement that economists with such important insights got a prize does very little to subtract from the overall cultishness of the group. But I suppose it’s a nice gesture.

]]> By: Ben Southwood http://tomgpalmer.com/2009/10/18/on-to-london-and-oxford/comment-page-1/#comment-14069 Ben Southwood Wed, 21 Oct 2009 01:02:43 +0000 http://tomgpalmer.com/?p=4132#comment-14069 A final point: Notice how favourable "the Austrians" (mises.org) has/ve been towards the recent Sverige Rikesbank Prize (Nobel Prize) winners Ostrom and Williamson, despite their clearly being neither members of the Austrian School, nor libertarian. Not quite as culty as some might say, right? Thanks again Ben Southwood p.s. with regards to the previous post, I was not arguing that others should oversee the contracts, only that were certain contracts made, the over-printing of tickets could be an immoral/unjust act, and as such the Rothbardian argument could be partially, although not fully, true A final point:

Notice how favourable “the Austrians” (mises.org) has/ve been towards the recent Sverige Rikesbank Prize (Nobel Prize) winners Ostrom and Williamson, despite their clearly being neither members of the Austrian School, nor libertarian.

Not quite as culty as some might say, right?

Thanks again
Ben Southwood

p.s. with regards to the previous post, I was not arguing that others should oversee the contracts, only that were certain contracts made, the over-printing of tickets could be an immoral/unjust act, and as such the Rothbardian argument could be partially, although not fully, true

]]> By: Tom Palmer http://tomgpalmer.com/2009/10/18/on-to-london-and-oxford/comment-page-1/#comment-14068 Tom Palmer Wed, 21 Oct 2009 00:01:26 +0000 http://tomgpalmer.com/?p=4132#comment-14068 Dear Ben and Friends, It was a great pleasure. I enjoyed the discussions immensely. I'll have to do some more thinking on this issue. But overall, I prefer to let people write their own contracts and make their own agreements, without insisting that they have to consult me first. But I will think about it. Cheers, Tom Dear Ben and Friends,

It was a great pleasure. I enjoyed the discussions immensely.

I’ll have to do some more thinking on this issue. But overall, I prefer to let people write their own contracts and make their own agreements, without insisting that they have to consult me first. But I will think about it.

Cheers,
Tom

]]> By: Ben Southwood http://tomgpalmer.com/2009/10/18/on-to-london-and-oxford/comment-page-1/#comment-14066 Ben Southwood Tue, 20 Oct 2009 16:37:54 +0000 http://tomgpalmer.com/?p=4132#comment-14066 Hi Tom Thanks again for coming to visit us in Oxford. I'm leaving this comment as a way of communicating a potential compromise/conclusion to the free banking/fractional reserve intra-libertarian debate. Would "your side" of the debate concede that it is possible to have bailment type deposit contracts (e.g. "ringfence" agreements) in a free banking system, just as it would be possible to have loan/bond type contracts, and pay on demand deposit contracts as well. And surely "your side" of the debate would then be forced to concede that banks could theoretically act immorally in issuing more tickets to reserves than existing reserves. (In a free society, justice would be achieved morally). This would only mean that in the future contracts would have to be explicit in their meaning. Ben Southwood Hi Tom

Thanks again for coming to visit us in Oxford.

I’m leaving this comment as a way of communicating a potential compromise/conclusion to the free banking/fractional reserve intra-libertarian debate.

Would “your side” of the debate concede that it is possible to have bailment type deposit contracts (e.g. “ringfence” agreements) in a free banking system, just as it would be possible to have loan/bond type contracts, and pay on demand deposit contracts as well.

And surely “your side” of the debate would then be forced to concede that banks could theoretically act immorally in issuing more tickets to reserves than existing reserves. (In a free society, justice would be achieved morally).

This would only mean that in the future contracts would have to be explicit in their meaning.

Ben Southwood

]]>