Keith Preston has a critique of my Mises Circle paper. (CHT Ralph Raico.) Needless to say, I have some comments to make about it, but no time right now (I just got back from San Diego), so I’m simply linking to it for the moment. (But three smiley faces to the first reader to identify the glaring non sequitur in his first paragraph ….)
In related news, Martin a.k.a. Mr. Civil Libertarian has a piece on left-libertarianism here.
Here are my comments for the upcoming panel on state exploitation in San Diego.
Here’s my paper for the upcoming Mises Circle in Chicago. It’s my usual left-libertarian song and dance, spun for a Mises audience and for the conference topic, “Strategies for Changing Minds Toward Liberty.”
From Terry Arthur’s excellent talk at the PCPE (online at the Adam Smith Institute – Kevin will appreciate the irony, though I should note that Arthur’s actual affiliation is the IEA, not the ASI), noting how the practice of taxing transactions between firms but not within firms tends to encourage the latter at the expense of the former:
Without the tax wedge, the greater division of labour would allow more contracting out to take place, the average size of firm would be smaller, and the number of businesses would be larger. … Perhaps anti-capitalism protesters against giant global companies … should focus on campaigning for lower taxes as a means to promote smaller firms.
This last was obviously intended tongue-in-cheek; Arthur was surprised to learn that what he was imagining was quite real.
Addendum:
The old link is dead. Long live the new link.
Tomorrow I’m off to the PCPE. Here’s the paper I’ll be presenting. Those who read me regularly will find nothing new in it; the aim of the paper is simply to introduce the general ALL/C4SS approach to a Prague audience.
The latest issue (a double issue: 68/69) of Anarchy magazine carries reviews by “Will B.” of two Southern Nevada ALL pamphlets: Charles Johnson’s “Women and the Invisible Fist” and Carol Moore’s “Woman vs. the Nation-State.”
Will B. tells us that ALL is “mutualist,” and that this is a synonym for “anarcho-capitalist”; but despite this double confusion he turns out to like Charles’ piece anyway. Carol’s, not so much. (I’ll have to reread Carol’s piece before deciding how fair the critique is.)