|
Block
Replies To Readers, Part II
DIGG THIS
I write a lot
for Lew Rockwell.com. I have published over
100 articles on this site. This is not as much as some contributors.
Gary North for example is one of the most prolific,
with over 600 op eds to his credit. Other "big hitters"
on LRC are: Lew Rockwell: 503; Ron Paul: 496; Charley Reese: 493;
Tom Engelhardt: 363; Bill Bonner: 350; Jim Lobe: 261; Paul Craig
Roberts: 257; Michael S. Rozeff: 241; William L. Anderson: 235;
Mike Rogers: 227; Karen Kwiatkowski: 217; Murray Rothbard: 207.
My contributions pale in comparison with theirs, but, still, mine
are significant in terms of quantity, I think I can say without
much fear of contradiction.
Previously,
I selected some of the more notable of my readers’ responses to
these writings of mine, and answered them here.
I am devoting the present publication to another such sampling.
The format
is as follows: I will cite the inquiry in full, followed by my response.
In some cases, there are several iterations thereof.
I cannot answer
all letters sent to me in response to my LewRockwell.com op-eds.
There are simply too many of them. Hopefully, this present attempt
of mine will at least go part way in the direction of being responsive.
All of this material has been lightly edited by me, sometimes in
order to preserve anonymity.
Ia. Career
I read your
comments (on LRC) about a career in liberty with great interest.
I am a long-time libertarian with a strong interest in Austrian
economics, and I've been struggling with two decisions: whether
or not to go to grad school, and what to study in grad school. My
job would support me in going part-time, and XX College, only an
hour away, has several Austrians on faculty. On the down side, at
most one of them will be teaching graduate students, and most grad
classes are taught by adjuncts. I don't think I'm qualified to go
to graduate school for economics full-time, or at least I don't
think I'd get support if I did, since I don't have much undergraduate
coursework. On the other hand, I could probably get accepted with
support into a strong program in math and study logic. Is it possible
to teach liberty within a math department? Probably not.
I'm also nervous
about going to grad school full-time with the coming depression.
Is it not foolhardy to give up current employment and commit yourself
to 5–10 years of unemployment while predicting the worst depression
in US history? I see that you are still urging students to go to
grad school – what do you think about this issue?
Ib. Block’s
Reply to Career
Ultimately,
only you can decide what to do in such circumstances. Let me tell
you what I would do were I of the age I assume you to be, early
20’s. I would go for it; enroll in graduate school. Now is
the time to apply. You need not confine yourself to the geographical
area you mention. Nowadays, graduate schools offer some $15,000–$20,000,
plus zero tuition, sometimes with a teaching/research requirement,
sometimes not. That is probably more than your part time job pays.
The biggest obstacle, I find, to attaining the Ph.D. in economics
(the sine qua non for university teaching) is, wait for it, math
skills. But this is your strong suit! I suppose one
could promote liberty while teaching math, but it would be a real
stretch. I strongly recommend economics instead of math. And, as
for the depression we now seem to be undergoing, some schools have
gigantic endowments, and would be in a position to continue their
financial support of you all throughout your 4–5 year training (not
10 years). If you chose this course of action, get in touch with
me again and we can discuss places to apply to. My "philosophy"
on this is to go to the most prestigious university that will take
you, either assuming equal financial considerations, or ignoring
them.
IIa. Former
Friedmanite:
I have been
an avid reader of LewRockwell.com and Mises.org ever since a former
boss and mentor converted me from a Friedmanite/monetarist to an
Austrian. I have always been a libertarian, although I did not always
fully realize it. I dabbled, like most, with Rand, but I find Objectivists
a bit too kooky. Not that anarcho-libertarianism is devoid of kooks,
they are just my kind of nuts.
Anyway, I’ve
been reading your correspondence with readers that you’ve posted
on the Lew’s blog. So I thought I would take advantage of your good
nature and seek any advice/insight you might offer.
I have a BA
in Economics (when I became a monetarist) and worked as an economist
at a bank in Chicago (where I became an Austrian). A few years ago
I got my MBA and went to work for a major US oil company. And then
dilemma set in…
I like my job
and I like the industry, for the most part. I am able to travel
around the world and it is quite lucrative. I’m fascinated by geology
and the essentially useless gunk that we take out of the ground
and convert into very useful things. Nevertheless, I have several
problems working in XX.
One obviously
is that there are few industries more in bed with government (both
in the US and abroad) than XX. Second, because of point one, if
I am to rise through the ranks, at some point I will hit the bank
of the Rubicon (or maybe the Euphrates given that I’m in oil). The
more senior I become the more likely I would have to directly/publicly
participate in/support lobbying efforts and other statist-corporatist
shenanigans. Currently I can hide in the middle ranks and avoid
direct participation. But I’m not sure for how long. Finally, by
the nature of being in finance & accounting, I play the role
of politruk, charged with enforcing compliance to Sarbanes-Oxley
and other rotten regulation. Of course this is true with almost
any SEC-registered company, but I chafe at it nonetheless.
Anyway, after
this long-winded bellyache (assuming you are still reading), I’m
not so sure what to do. As I said I like my job. I do not foresee
myself going back to school for a Ph.D. in Economics. (I considered
that, but opted for a MBA instead.) I’ve considered teaching high
school economics at some point in the future (but I know your thoughts
on that). In the meantime, I’m working on a couple of libertarian
novels, but as a libertarian I still have pangs of guilt and hypocrisy
working for "big XX."
IIb. Block
replies to former Friedmanite:
I used to think
of myself as the Jewish mother of the Austro-libertarian movement.
In answering yours and these other letters, I suppose I’m morphing
in to Aunt Liberty. In any case, here goes.
-
Get out
of big XX. Get your Ph.D. in economics. Become an economics
professor. Help win the hearts and minds of the next generation
for liberty. If you can’t or won’t do that,
-
Stick
with big XX. Just decline promotions and raises. Put your heart
and soul into your novels, or whatever other way you can support
liberty (e.g., promote the Mises Institute, Ron Paul’s new initiative,
etc.) Maybe you can avoid the quandary by remaining in middle
management. But even this position is not all that enjoyable
to you; it just beats selling out at a higher level. Endurance
and staying power are ordinarily good characteristics. But,
it seems to me, your present professional life is not that enjoyable,
and your not unreasonable fear is that it will get worse.
-
Get out
of big XX and into some other field where your MBA will serve
you in good stead. The finance field is now in a bit of the
doldrums, but a degree in business ought to open up some other
doors.
Sorry I can’t
be more helpful, I just read what I said and it sounds pretty pathetic,
even to me. But, I suppose, that is a function of the present (mixed
economy) situation. But the perfect is the enemy of the good. The
solution, here, as I see it, is to maximize happiness, productivity,
liberty, etc., in a situation where none can be fully attained.
Ah, the real world.
IIIa. Young
libertarian
You have written
many times in favor of libertarians taking jobs with the government
or government dependencies. Usually this has involved academia.
So here is something that might be new. I have a background in Electrical
Engineering and Physics, all of the job offers I have been receiving
are funded at least in part by government and most are designing
weapons for the DOD. The pay is rather good for this work as well.
I know that
if I was in the business of making weapons it would be likely that
sometime someone would buy my goods and do evil with that, I wouldn't
have a problem with that. I would have a problem with being hired
by the mafia to design and build weapons knowing what they tend
to do with those weapons.
What is a young
libertarian to do?!
IIIb. Block
responds to young libertarian
One of the
worst villains of Atlas
Shrugged was Dr. Robert Stadler. He worked as a developer
of new weapons for the state. I would have no compunction in recommending
that you stay your present course, as you outline above. You could
still remain a libertarian, if you were to attempt to undermine
the entire enterprise. But, given that you do not want to become
too well acquainted with the inside of a jail, I do not recommend
such a policy. I do not recommend it even if you were willing to
take this risk. As an advocate of the economic doctrine of specialization
and comparative advantage, I look to my own in this regard: academic
and intellectual pursuits.
What is a young
libertarian in the munitions business to do? Why not try the private
sector in this regard. Would not enterprises such as Smith and Wesson
be suitable, if you want to stay in the field of developing and
perfecting weapons? Would not your degrees enable you to engage
in many other types of pursuits?
IVa. Transportation
planner
I enjoyed listening
to your recent interview on "road
socialism." I work as a transportation planner for a metro
planning organization, and confess that I find myself agreeing with
much of what you say. I am curious if, given your research,
you would have any suggestions on where someone with my background
in working in transportation would be able to put my skills to good
use, presuming that you don't think that is with the government
naturally. In other words, until there is a revolution that
sweeps away public roads, how can one best work in a less than ideal
situation?
Thanks for
any input you can offer.
IVa. Block
replies to transportation planner
Are there no
jobs for transportation planners in the private sector? I know nothing
of this, firsthand, but, it occurs to me that Disney World, Six
Flags, and other such private concerns build large parks that also
have roads and other internal transportation facilities (conveyor
belts, moving walkways, etc.) Then, there are many large indoor
shopping malls. The one in Edmonton, Alberta is gigantic and there
are others still larger. Would they not be able to avail themselves
of your services?
Do you consider
the hallways in high-rise buildings, and the aisles in grocery stores,
as transportation corridors? If so, then here are yet more opportunities.
If not, and these are, instead, the province of architects (you
see the limitations of my knowledge of this field), then an option
is become one of them.
But suppose
there are no such other jobs, and you don’t want to become an architect.
May you remain with your present job, and still be compatible with
libertarianism?
In my view
(see other answers in this letter) what is important is not so much
who you are employed by, but what you do in your career.
For example, if by working as a transportation planner you could
somehow promote private roads and highways (don’t ask me how; you
undoubtedly know more about this than I), then I would say you are
justified in doing so. But, still, you would likely be guilty of
some contravention of the libertarian code. The practical
way to deal with this, as I see it, it to make some not insignificant
financial contribution to a libertarian organization. (I won’t insult
your intelligence by mentioning a specific one; I’m sure you can
readily guess).
To me, the
most poignant moment in the movie Gandhi
when someone comes to Gandhi and says that he killed a young Hindu
(or was it Muslim? I don’t remember) boy. What can he do to make
amends? Gandhi suggests adopting a homeless orphan Muslim (or was
it Hindu? I don’t remember) boy, and raise him in his own tradition.
This is not exactly the libertarian punishment for murder, but it
does strike a certain libertarian chord. If you do a small wrong,
and want to remain consistent with libertarianism, you should make
some sort of fair compensation for it. This applies, particularly,
in my opinion, in such complex areas as now under consideration.
I have even
gone so far, in some of my writings, to pose the question of the
"spy" libertarian, working behind enemy lines in a Nazi
concentration camp. By doing so, he is able to save, oh, 10 lives
out the 100 he is instructed to murder, but must kill the other
90, in order to maintain his cover. We stipulate that in the absence
of his intervention, all 100 would have been done away with. May
he do so? May he murder 90 people, in order to save 10? My answer
is yes, provided he is willing to pay whatever (compatible with
libertarianism) penalty the heirs of the 90 victims choose to impose
upon him. My hope is that these heirs will regard the murderer as
the hero I think he is, and impose no penalty upon him, whatsoever,
as is their right. Saving 10 lives is no small thing. But this would
be up to these heirs. Well, if it is "legitimate" to work
in a Nazi concentration camp for this purpose, no doubt this applies,
even more so, in your specified case. (I have no doubt that someone
will lift my words out of context, and claim that Block says "It
is legitimate to work in a Nazi concentration camp and murder 90
innocent people." How can you stop that sort of thing? I really
don’t know.)
But, to return
to reality, well, practicality. What about a job in a think tank,
as a journalist, writing about the importance of privatizing vehicular
thoroughfares? What about teaching these insights? There are entire
think tanks devoted to transportation; maybe one of them might be
appropriate. I wish I could be more helpful, but that is the best
I can do.
Va. Football
There's an
ongoing news
story out of Blue Ash, Ohio where an elderly woman is charged
for petty theft after refusing to return a neighbor boy's football
that had reportedly landed in her yard on several occasions.
Now, my take
on this is that, if it is indeed true that the boy had ignored prior
warnings against carelessly tossing his football into the woman's
yard, I feel that the woman was right to confiscate the football.
Flagrantly throwing the ball into her yard constitutes a form of
trespass and I believe that the boy has no right to property (the
football) with which he flagrantly violates the property of others.
It seems that
the townspeople of Blue Ash (I might add that Blue Ash is a very
affluent suburb of Cincinnati) don't see it that way. They feel
that the greater evil is this woman's "theft" of the football and
even went so far as to get formal charges pressed. Fortunately,
the DA dropped the charge, but it just goes to show how vehement
these folks were! Now, this isn't to say that the woman couldn't
have perhaps handled this a bit better, say, by negotiating a settlement
with the kid's parents. Nonetheless I fail to see how she should
be compelled to do so.
Of course,
you tend to see things in ways I myself don't readily see. How to
you opine on this? Who's right here?
Vb. Block
replies to Football
How old is
the boy? How many times has the ball trespassed?
Vc. Football
Good questions
both. The details in the news releases are sketchy. I can only infer
that the child is probably between the ages of 7 and 17. Most six-year-olds
don't chuck footballs and the fact that the child remains unnamed
throughout suggests that he's not legally an adult.
Only one news
release implied that the football landed in the yard multiple times.
The woman claims that the neighbor kids in general have a history
of carelessly tossing their toys into the woman's yard. This of
course is not necessarily an indictment against the specific child.
It was apparently known, as evidenced by the woman's and parents'
own words, that she had a policy of confiscating balls that happened
to land on her lawn, thus there appeared an element of prior
warning before the dispute arose.
I did find
one interesting development, however. When the woman got charged
with petty theft over it, the football was being held by police,
which tells me that the woman actually surrendered the ball, albeit
not to the owner. I don't think that the fuzz are going to charge
themselves with petty theft though. Of course, that's just a fudge
factor as if it weren't for the police, she'd probably still possess
the ball.
Vd. Block
replies to Football:
If there were
a condo association, they would undoubtedly handle this better.
Government creates a moral vacuum, as in this case, when it is not
busy being a moral evil. There really is no right or wrong here;
just as in the case of marches on public streets, or whether or
not children in public school should wear uniforms, and, if so,
of what color.
Why might a
condo association be more likely to successfully deal with this
sort of situation than the apparatus of the state? Because if the
former does not, the capital value of the houses will decline, and
this will give impetus in the direction of a common sense solution
to this conundrum. In contrast, when there is government failure,
the people responsible for it do not lose any of their own wealth.
How, specifically,
might a private housing group settle such an issue? I presume something
along the following lines. If the ball being thrown onto the ladies
garden was an accident, and only occurs a few times (say, less than
once a month), then she has to give it back. On the other hand,
if the ball was thrown there purposefully with an intent to annoy
the woman, or, if it is a regular occurrence, then, not only does
she get to keep the ball, but the children are prevented from playing
in that spot. Condo associations usually anticipate these sorts
of difficulties. When they do not, they have a mechanism for deciding:
majority vote of the owners of the condo association, who have every
interest in reasonable solutions.
VIa Dilemma:
I have been
caught up in a moral dilemma that I need to work through.
I was hoping that you may either help me reason through this or
place me in contact with someone who will.
I've been reading
your site for over a year now and have come to respect your writing,
the writing of the LRC community, and the writing of members of
the Ludwig von Mises institute. The ideas of the Austrian
School of Economics resonates very deeply with me for its logical
consistency and self-evident axioms.
Last December
I dropped out of college with one semester left for a degree in
Physics. I was double majoring in Physics and Mathematics and had
a full scholarship. I dropped out because I had, over the
years, saved enough money to support myself while attempting to
start a business of my own. This all came to an end because
I did not pay capital gains taxes for a year... the year was at
the transition point when my parents stopped filing my taxes with
theirs and I began to file my own. Penalties and interest
had accrued to the point where I would no longer be able to support
myself. At the same time that I received the notice from the
IRS I had made a poor investment decision which, although I could
still support myself, left me not being able to both support myself
and pay off the IRS debt. In fact, it was bad enough that
I didn't have the capital to pay off the debt in its entirety.
Luckily (or
perhaps unluckily), I had done an internship with a defense contractor
between my Sophomore and Junior years. I got the internship
due to a connection (my brother). I obtained a TS/SCI clearance
which is the highest attainable. My boss and one of the lead
physicists/software developers took a liking to me during my summer
there. When my boss got word that I had rejected an offer
for a full time job at the company, he personally gave me a call.
I told him I was dropping out of school and didn't really have any
interest in working for a government contractor. He said that's
fine, but let’s just see if I can't get a job anyway. He ended
up getting me a job offer at almost the same salary as the original
offer. With the situation I was in I took it, as it was the
only way I saw that I could pay off the mounting debt. Perhaps
that was a wrong decision...
So, here is
my first dilemma:
My job does
not do any direct harm such as killing or stealing. Although,
you could say it works in support of the military and thus helps
them carry out their killing (such things are very much removed
from what I do). So could the same logic used in the application
of taking government loans and grants for college be used with my
job? It allows me to build up the skills, experience, and
money in order that I may contribute to the fight against it.
However, in the back of my head I'm thinking that it still may be
wrong what I am doing.
Here is my
second dilemma:
I have reached
an end after 8 months with my current project as it is no longer
challenging and I'm just going through the motions. My old
boss offered me a position as a Junior Java Developer on the contract
he's currently managing. The work they're doing is infinitely
more interesting from a technical perspective and would allow me
to learn much more useful and applicable skills for private industry.
The difficulty I'm having is that what this contract does makes
me somewhat uneasy... although in reality not any more uneasy than
what most of the government is doing. The customer for this
contract has no relation to the military and is well known by the
public. However, for safety reasons, the affiliation with
the customer for people who work for it are kept secret. In
fact, the contract itself is public knowledge... but again, for
safety reasons, affiliations are kept secret. In reality this
is already in place and the money for it has already been apportioned.
What's the difference between me doing this and Ron Paul joining
the military? Correct me if I'm wrong, but Ron Paul wasn't
drafted, was he? So long as I'm not mistaken (which I may
very well be), then won't this opportunity in the long run make
me better able to oppose and fight the state and all it does?
Or am I just inventing justifications...
VIb. Block
replies to Dilemma:
Were Murray
Rothbard to be responding, he would no doubt give a different point
of view, despite the fact that he and I both start with, and base
our libertarianism upon, the non-aggression axiom and private property
rights. I knew Murray, and I'm no Murray, so, in listening to me,
you are quite probably getting less of an insight than would otherwise
be the case. (Nary a day goes by when I do not think about him;
I used to run problems of this sort by him, and always learned from
him. Ah, well. Without Murray, perhaps the best libertarian insights
can be provided by disciples of his, such as, pathetically, me.)
As I understand
him, Murray took the view that it is illegitimate to work for, have
anything to do with, any government institution that is per se a
violation of laissez faire capitalism. Since, for example, the Fed
would not exist in such a milieu, it would be illicit to work for
them. As for me, in contrast, the way I see things is that it all
depends upon what an individual DOES when he works for the Fed.
Merely working for them, period, is not sufficient to determine
whether the action is compatible with libertarianism. So, for example,
if I were offered the job as head of the Fed, I would take it. And,
then, I would do my utmost, within the law, to undermine the Fed,
to argue for its demise, and for a return to the gold standard,
etc. I would use it as a bully pulpit from which to promote libertarian
theory in general, and, in particular, as it related to monetary
matters.
With that as
an intro, let me now attempt to come to grips with your situation.
First dilemma.
If you were
working, directly, as a support for illicit activities, e.g., making
bombs to kill innocent people, then I would say you could STILL
take on such a job, and be on the side of the angels, but ONLY if
you were throwing monkey wrenches into the machinery. For example,
rendering the bombs impotent. But, suppose you could do so for,
say, 10% of the bombs, while, in order to keep your "cover" you
had to do a good job on the other 90% of these evil bombs. I would
regard you as a libertarian hero. However, the heirs of the victims
of the 90% of the bombs would have a case against you; unless they
forgave you for your illicit acts, you would have to pay the penalty,
perhaps the death penalty, when the libertarian Nuremberg court
took effect.
However, you
say you are not doing any such thing. Please tell me, specifically,
what it is that you are actually doing. For example, if you were
working on making planes go faster and/or more safely, and this
helped both "good" and "bad" planes, then we enter into a sort of
grey area.
I think government
loans and grants are beside the point. They are ALWAYS justified,
in that the government is a robber gang, and the less money they
have, and the more money others have, the better for liberty. (See
Ayn Rand's Ragnar Dannesjkold on this; also look here.)
As for building up your skills, and money, given that this is a
grey area, one suggestion I have is that you tithe 10% of this to
a group like the Mises Institute, which is clearly on the side of
the angels.
Second dilemma.
I'd like to
help here, but I'm afraid that the information you give, above,
is insufficient. As I say, while for Rothbard things are more clear,
well, black and white, for me it is CRUCIAL to know exactly what
this work entails.
I wish I could
do better than I have done. If you can't share more info, I can't
help any more.
PS. I will
say this. Anyone with your misgivings, anyone with your concerns,
has GOT to be one of the good guys!
VIc. Dilemma:
Thank you very
much for taking the time to do this (thanks to Dr. Rockwell, too).
Sorry for the late response, but a lot has happened in the past
two weeks that kept me modifying the email.
My current
project is no different than what any IT department carries out
at a large corporation. We write and maintain software for
the purposes of internal communication and automation of "business"
processes. The software we write could range anywhere from
tracking payments and costs to providing a means for people to gain
security clearances. I suppose this project is pretty applicable
to private industry (contrary to what I said in the last email).
The other project
however is different. It's a relatively small project (13
people). Its purpose is to build a system to collect and store
data from surveillance activities (conducted on public property) in
order to sift through it so that connections can be made when law
enforcement officials open up a case against someone.
The data which is being collected comes from cameras placed on highways.
The back license plate, the front license plate, and a photo of
the driver is captured. The project is currently funded by the DEA
(it's directive supposedly comes from an executive order)...
surprisingly, half the funding doesn't come through taxes but through
the seizure (theft) of the "criminal's" property.
This is apparently the first project of its kind and is getting
a lot of interest from local and state law enforcement officials.
I'm pretty certain that all of this is unclassified (I have not
been given a security briefing on it), but I'm still uncomfortable
with having this information published.
I was leaning
towards going ahead and taking the job. I had the project
manager send me the paperwork so that I could look over it.
As I did, I saw that one of the questions asked was "do you foresee
any conflict of interest between your personal habits and beliefs
and the DEA mission, which is to provide a drug-free environment?"
I guess I do see a conflict of interest... a fairly large and glaring
one. I just don't want any part of it nor do I want to contribute
anything to my current customer. I was talking to my parents
about this over the phone last night. I was telling them about
how I've found that it wouldn't be very conducive to my happiness
to keep on working in this industry. I have a brother who
works for XXX (which makes toiletries and cleaning products... pretty
much anything and everything you would find in someone's bathroom
cabinet) and I made the point that, as odd as it sounds, at least
his job at the end of the day has a purpose that someone could be
proud of. People buy his company's products because they make
their lives better in some way. People don't buy my company's
products, the government does. The government doesn't buy
the products to make peoples lives better, but to force things and
ideas upon people. That is its nature.
Dr. Block,
you gave me the example of working to make planes go faster to point
out that there exists a sort of gray area between right and wrong.
You also pointed out that sabotaging work to the point that you
didn't get caught may even make a man a libertarian hero.
Perhaps you're correct... but there is still something unsatisfying
about that.
As to the second
example, I had used similar reasoning to justify my current job.
It wasn't so much to the point that I would sabotage, but rather
that I would put in my time until I was in a position to change
something. It was an argument based on the fact that since
I had done that type of work, maybe I would eventually, far into
the future, gain enough respect from the people in the field to
the point that I could change something. After all, if I didn't
take the job, someone else would. So it might as well be me
who would use it to my advantage. In my mind there exists
something wrong with this... I think it is because I believe that
the means by which you change something is just as important as
the fact that it has changed.
As to the first
example, I have to disagree. I used the same reasoning as
the second example, except with more certainty. But I believe
that the means by which you make something better is just as important
as the fact that something has been made better. Yes, government
funding could very well cause a plane to go faster. Which
in turn would provide a benefit to people outside of government.
But does the benefit cover the costs of having stolen from someone?
What if people didn't want to work as hard in order to pay for that
plane to go faster... or what if they just wanted to use that money
to buy a faster car? The cost of such actions are immeasurable
due to the fact that people's wants, needs, and hopes are subjective
to each individual... and due to the fact that they change with
experience and situations. Also, what if the research was
successful beyond anyone's wildest dreams? Then socialists
everywhere would point to it as an example of how much good government
does, and the only thing that needs to change to make other parts
of government successful is the management. The possibility
of providing that as an argument makes me uneasy.
P.S.
I've decided that the best course of action is for me to reapply
to the University of XXX, finish my degree, get a masters (maybe
a Ph.D. after that), and go work in the private industry.
Right or wrong, working for the government (especially the intelligence
community) is incredibly unsatisfying.
VId. Block
replies to Dilemma:
I am delighted
that you have resolved your own personal quandary by deciding to
go back to school. My best wishes for your future career. I certainly
agree with your emphasis on subjectivism; as an Austrian economist
I could of course do no other. But this is true even as matter of
common sense. Working "behind enemy lines" is not for
everyone.
A few more
comments.
I fear I misspoke
when I said above that with regard to making "planes go faster
and/or more safely, and this helped both "good" and "bad" planes,
then we enter into a sort of grey area." I should have said,
instead, "complex" area. To me, grey areas are the enemy
of all that is good and true in libertarian philosophy. They constitute
an acquiescence that perhaps there is a conflict in rights, which
is very problematic.
I also agree
with you when you say that "the means by which you make something
better is just as important as the fact that something has been
made better." Certainly, making things better through
theft is not ordinarily seen as compatible with libertarianism.
But what about that case in the movie Dr. Strangelove, where, in
order to save the entire world, the protagonists had to shoot open
a soda machine? Or the case where a man is stuck hanging on to a
flagpole, 15 stories above ground, and wants to move, hand over
hand, to a patio and to safety. Or, suppose B is burning to death,
while A is watering his garden nearby, while refusing to put out
the fire. Are we to order C not to grab the hose out of A’s unwilling
hands and save B’s life? Are we to tell such people, on libertarian
grounds, that they may not do these things? I think, rather, that
the libertarian answer is that they may, but must pay the appropriate
(destruction of property, trespass, water stealing) penalty for
doing so. (Of course, the owners of, respectively, the coke machine,
the 15th floor patio, the water hose, have a right to
fight off these respective rights violators, but that is a different
question. By analogy, the taxpayers who finance the government enterprises
you are now happily not going to work for have a right to resist
making the necessary tax payments.)
It has been
a pleasure trying to wrestle with these conundrums. You have helped
me think about these issues. I only hope I have been as much help
to you as you have been to me.
VIIa. Young
man
I understand
that there are not a lot of employers who care about Austrianism.
The real question, then, is whether or not there are positions available
in furthering Austrianism. I am not so blind as to walk into a field
without an exact position in mind. If the position does not exist
or would be highly unlikely to attain, I would appreciate your honesty
anyways. I don't want to go into economics if I am to be used as
a pawn by a corporation that does not hold my specific views and
beliefs. Any advice you could give me would be appreciated. I want
to help free the people of this world anyway that I can, even if
it means feeding the poor myself. I believe that the change needs
to come from the top down, though. Thus, my interest in an economic
position.
VIIb. Block
replies to Young man:
Please answer
these questions, so that I may better advise you. How old are you?
What academic degrees do you have? What is the level of your math
skills?
VIIc. Young
man
I am 23 years
old as of November the twenty second. I went to the XX School of
Business for Computer Applications. I completed the program and
received a diploma. It was not an Associate's Degree but rather
a certificate of completion (a joke, but enough to land a job).
The highest math I have completed was Algebra 2 and Geometry. I
took a math course at XX, but it was basic. I realize that these
are not very difficult classes, but my level of understanding far
exceeds my scholastic accomplishments in every area. I hope this
information is helpful to you.
VIId. Block
replies to Young man
I don’t hold
out much hope at all for a Ph.D. degree in economics. If we had
our own Austrian graduate school, mathematics and statistics would
not, I think, be a gigantic barrier. But, the way most graduate
schools in this discipline are now constituted, you need a LOT more
math than you now have. If you have a facility for this, and are
willing to devote at least an entire year plus two summers to taking
(and doing well in) math and stat courses, I might revise my
opinion on this matter.
As to non-academic
jobs, most employers who want a free enterpriser would not be aware
of Austrianism; indeed, many of my colleagues at most universities
I have been at have never heard of this school of thought. On the
few occasions they have, they think it is just a more radically
free market type of Chicagoism.
 I
think that a great majority of Austro-libertarians are motivated
precisely as you are: to help free people, to help end poverty,
starvation. Milton Friedman, who is not one of my favorite economists,
nevertheless said something that moved me very much. Allow me to
share this with you. He said (my paraphrase): "Due to the efforts
of economists, all of us, from the days of Adam Smith to the present,
we as a profession have been responsible for the fact that tariffs
are, oh, 1% lower than they otherwise would be. And with that, we
have paid our salaries 10,000 times over." If you become an
economist, especially a free market economist, and, even more important,
an Austrian economist, you will join in this splendid tradition
of doing the Lord’s work.
Will you pay
a financial penalty for trying to make the world a better place
in this manner? That is hard to say. In my view, some of us who
labor in this particular vineyard would be far better off financially
were we to have undertaken different pursuits (e.g., in the corporate,
financial, real estate, investment worlds). Others of us would have
come out about the same. And there is a third category that does
far better, financially, as an Austro-libertarian (professor, think
tank analyst), than would otherwise be the case. In terms of psychic
income, all I can say is that being an Austro-libertarian is a real
rush. I look forward to Monday mornings, surely a litmus test for
this sort of thing. Heck, I look forward to every morning
because that means I get to start doing what I love to do: trying
to promote liberty and pushing back the envelope on economic knowledge
by that one more millionth of a per cent.
 To
be honest about it, as you ask me to do, of course there is a downside
(aren’t there downsides to just about everything?) Speaking of my
own profession, economics, it cannot be denied that the Keynesians
and main-stream economists hold the prestigious academic positions
at places like Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford, Chicago. They
are the ones (except for Hayek) who win the Nobel Prizes in economics.
They get to write regular op-ed columns in the New York Times,
Wall Street Journal and other such places. I would imagine
that something of the same sort occurs in the corporate world.
I hope and
trust you will see this as an honest assessment of career paths
and choices
VIIIa. XX
My name is
XX. I have been learning about Austrian economics for about a year
now and have become interested in the movement. I feel that there
are not enough Austrian economists in the field. I am very interested
in going into the field of economics and would like some information.
First of all, any suggestions on schools that provide Austrian economics
in their teachings? Secondly, I want to have a position in mind
before I enter into school. Could you point me in the right direction
for finding jobs in the economic field that specifically deal with
the use or teaching of Austrian economics? And finally, I understand
the importance of self-education and would like some suggested readings,
please. I want nothing more than to dedicate my life to the cause
of liberty. I understand that in order to be free, one must have
the freedom of a sound, stable money. Please, help to point me in
the right direction, that I might help others to understand as I
understand.
VIIIb. Block
replies to XX
 For
universities, go to the Mises web and look for Block, advice.
For jobs, there
are none that I know of that call, specifically, for Austrian economics,
as opposed to a general free market orientation. For example, there
are almost 50 state-oriented free-market think tanks; there are
numerous national and international free market think tanks. With
the exception of the Mises Institute, I don’t know of any who would
place a premium on Austrian free market economics as opposed to
any of the other schools which veer in this direction (e.g., Chicago-ism,
Public Choice).
For readings
on sound stable money, you might start with these:
Rothbard, Murray
N. 1962. "The Case for a 100
Percent Gold Dollar," In Search of a Monetary Constitution,
Leland B. Yeager, ed., Cambridge , MA : Harvard University Press,
pp. 94–136, and Auburn, AL: Ludwig von Mises Institute, 1991.
See also "The Logic of Action One" pp. 364–384.
Rothbard, Murray
N. What
Has Government Done to Our Money?, Auburn, AL: Ludwig von
Mises Institute, 1990.
December
1, 2008
Dr.
Block [send him mail] is a
professor of economics at Loyola University New Orleans, and a senior
fellow of the Ludwig von Mises Institute. He is the author of Defending
the Undefendable and the newly released Labor
Economics From A Free Market Perspective.
Copyright
© 2008 LewRockwell.com
Walter
Block Archives
|
