I have decided to spend my time on reading the classics of liberty this month-to strengthen my fundamentals.Reisman's book,which I have read before is the best one to start with.It is the single economics text from which I have learned the most.I have read articles which praise "Human Action" and "Man,State and the Economy".Both are undoubtedly classics.But,why isn't anyone praising Capitalism? Isn't a work of this size a great achievement.It deals with most of the fallacies on economics in a brilliant manner.There are even ones who praise "Economics In One Lesson",though the fast part is a copy paste act from Bastiat's essay.It is not on say that I am in agreement with everything the book has to say.I don't understand why the author rejects anarcho capitalism.Why do a lot many libertarians reject anarchism? Probably,it is because their understanding the subject of private law is inadequate.Why don't they devote some time to it? Or are they seeking intellectual respectability through compromise? I don't think so.Reisman rejects Mises' ethical relativism and utilitarianism.I sympathize a lot with natural law theorists.But,there is something I don't understand.How would we decide whether an act is selfish or not? Where do we draw the line? Ayn Rand says that an act is selfish if the intended beneficiary is the person who performs the act.But,how do we know who is the intended beneficiary?Ayn Rand is of the opinion that a son who gives up his career to look after his parents is selfless.But,if the son has a good relationship with his parents and is doing it for the sake of selfish pleasure? I never understood.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment