This coming week I’ll be lecturing on “Mises vs. Friedman on Economic Method” (old lecture) and “Neglected Pioneers of Free-Market Thought” (new lecture) at Mises University; then the week after that I’ll be lecturing on “Bastiat and French Liberalism,” “Anarchism in 19th-Century Europe,” and “Anarchism in 19th-Century America” (all new lectures) at IHS’s “Revolutionaries, Reformers, and Radicals: Liberty Emerges” seminar at Bryn Mawr.
7 Responses to Tales of the Mighty Dead
Trackbacks/Pingbacks
-
Some announcements, and a message for our Governor « The Institute for Objectivist Studies -
July 27, 2013
[…] Meanwhile, in other IOS-related activity, Roderick Long is off lecturing on economics at the Institute for Humane Studies’s “Revolutionaries, Reformers…. […]
All sound terrific! Care to flesh out your teaser of the first by naming some names?
Socrates. Sima Qian. Bernardino of Siena. Thomas Hodgskin. Charles Dunoyer. Anselme Bellegarrigue. Josiah Warren. Plus a cast of thousands.
About your old lecture, there’s this reply by david friedman:
http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.nl/2013/02/a-note-on-economic-methodology.html
I hope your ”Anarchism in 19th Century Europe” includes an answer to Proudhon’s ”What is Property?” Anarcho-communists love to throw that one in our faces.
What I mean is, I haven’t yet found a good, non-consequentialist argument against the claim that possession (as I understand it, maintaining legitimate control of the use of objects or land only so long as you are currently using them) can be endorsed without endorsing property (as they seem to define it, the control of land long after one has ceased to use it directly). I haven’t yet been able to prove (or find someone who has proved) that the homesteading principle logically leads to an endorsement of property (as they define it) and not just possession…though, I’m certain that such an argument is possible.
I hope your ”Anarchism in 19th Century Europe” includes an answer to Proudhon’s ”What is Property?
It doesn’t.
I haven’t yet found a good, non-consequentialist argument against the claim
I give it a try here.