I think Rothbard in the final quote is underestimating the number of people who think others both cannot make good decisions in their own lives and cannot make good political decisions, and so should not be allowed either.
The rule by unelected 'expert' and government or international agency, has little room for individual choice in the economic or political sphere.
That's a good point, although when it comes to appointed experts at least the assumption seems to be that people can reasonably well choose politicians who will then choose the proper experts. (That's the argument I have heard, at least.) I think in Rothbard's time it was felt one needed more justification for the whole rule by experts thing. Nowadays it seems to be the default view, and advocates no longer feel compelled to justify why unelected bureaucrats should have power.
Imagine playing a game of Civilization in which you build zero military units. You would inevitably be conquered by someone that did.
Similarly, if one devotes zero production to "politics", someone else will dictate politics for you.
Lastly, economics is subservient to politics. If communists take over the market will not survive.
Given that Congress has a 20% approval rating, I don't think "our politicians are ineffective demagogues" is a message that doesn't already have wide acceptance.
A simple exercise would be to ask which places have politics you like more and then ask why they have those politics (or conversely why places with politics you don't like have those politics). Depending on the answer, there may be something applicable to your own polity.
"[I]f one devotes zero production to 'politics', someone else will dictate politics for you." That describes me; but what sort of "production" could I achieve in politics? I think political efforts on my part would be unproductive, so I make no efforts and simply accept being dictated to.
It works until it doesn't work. I accepted your view until the last two years, but "the void will deliver something acceptable enough" just fell too short empirically.
I hate taxes, bureaucrats, and public schools. Empirically, places like TX and FL have no income tax, greatly curtailed bureaucrat power during COVID and other matters, and may soon adopt an Arizona style school choice voucher. Everything there is cheaper too. That's a pretty darn big difference in quality of life. I suggest supporting whatever politics produces that.
“We just need to acknowledge that standard textbook economics, though intellectually sound, is emotionally unappealing.” If more economics in the world is meant to solve more problems economics needs to put things in cause and effect terms so regular people can make better practical decisions. Good look with that as long as economists are flying around with words like puzzle and velocity and tightening. How about instead: we printed a lot of money so goods and some other prices have to rise but if you invest in those things that will rise the most you will be fine. That would be an economics the people would respect.
"In the market, the fittest are those most able to serve the consumers"
I'm sure I'm not the first to say so, but this seems pretty naive from Rothbard. Markets are, indeed, like democracies - the people are marketed to, and then readily buy what they are told to buy.
It suggests that Rothbard may have arrived at his conclusions by empirical means but presented them as praxeologic in order to draw attention to them. Probably not so, but it's a theory.
I think Rothbard in the final quote is underestimating the number of people who think others both cannot make good decisions in their own lives and cannot make good political decisions, and so should not be allowed either.
The rule by unelected 'expert' and government or international agency, has little room for individual choice in the economic or political sphere.
That's a good point, although when it comes to appointed experts at least the assumption seems to be that people can reasonably well choose politicians who will then choose the proper experts. (That's the argument I have heard, at least.) I think in Rothbard's time it was felt one needed more justification for the whole rule by experts thing. Nowadays it seems to be the default view, and advocates no longer feel compelled to justify why unelected bureaucrats should have power.
Imagine playing a game of Civilization in which you build zero military units. You would inevitably be conquered by someone that did.
Similarly, if one devotes zero production to "politics", someone else will dictate politics for you.
Lastly, economics is subservient to politics. If communists take over the market will not survive.
Given that Congress has a 20% approval rating, I don't think "our politicians are ineffective demagogues" is a message that doesn't already have wide acceptance.
A simple exercise would be to ask which places have politics you like more and then ask why they have those politics (or conversely why places with politics you don't like have those politics). Depending on the answer, there may be something applicable to your own polity.
Congress as a whole has a low approval rating, but individual members of Congress are liked enough to get re-elected.
"[I]f one devotes zero production to 'politics', someone else will dictate politics for you." That describes me; but what sort of "production" could I achieve in politics? I think political efforts on my part would be unproductive, so I make no efforts and simply accept being dictated to.
It works until it doesn't work. I accepted your view until the last two years, but "the void will deliver something acceptable enough" just fell too short empirically.
I hate taxes, bureaucrats, and public schools. Empirically, places like TX and FL have no income tax, greatly curtailed bureaucrat power during COVID and other matters, and may soon adopt an Arizona style school choice voucher. Everything there is cheaper too. That's a pretty darn big difference in quality of life. I suggest supporting whatever politics produces that.
Building zero military units produces precisely that.
Shareholders demand that a company is run efficiently so as to make a profit.
There is no such demand that government uses tax payer money efficiently.
“We just need to acknowledge that standard textbook economics, though intellectually sound, is emotionally unappealing.” If more economics in the world is meant to solve more problems economics needs to put things in cause and effect terms so regular people can make better practical decisions. Good look with that as long as economists are flying around with words like puzzle and velocity and tightening. How about instead: we printed a lot of money so goods and some other prices have to rise but if you invest in those things that will rise the most you will be fine. That would be an economics the people would respect.
"In the market, the fittest are those most able to serve the consumers"
I'm sure I'm not the first to say so, but this seems pretty naive from Rothbard. Markets are, indeed, like democracies - the people are marketed to, and then readily buy what they are told to buy.
I guess no products ever fail, right?
This suggests a Straussian read on Rothbard.
It suggests that Rothbard may have arrived at his conclusions by empirical means but presented them as praxeologic in order to draw attention to them. Probably not so, but it's a theory.