...to another.

@ pvdh

Thank you for your kind words. I have always seen in 'pvdh' a lot of the 'young mh'. But the old mh has much more experience than the young mh, which means that he has been able to make much more empirical observations of the real world as it is, not as we would like it to be. Old(er) age has many disadvantages, but 1 major advantage over (anyone's)'youth', i.e. the advantage of experience and of fewer illusions.

I also agree in large measure with your responses to 'jari', but I am surprised that you even attempted to respond to such a confused mind. Almost every sentence by 'Jari' reeks of mental confusion, and some of them are truly frightening - very dark indeed - in terms of their willful misuse (or abuse) of language. It is also very clear that he has no clue what economics is about, and that his starting point is ideology, not openness to learning and to observation. His complaint about economics is like complaining about medicine, i.e. like blaming a medical doctor for healing from disease instead of parroting a (in his case) mindless 'theology-without-reason'. Someone who can write "only certainty leads to freedom" obviously is not capable (neither emotionally nor intellectually) to cope with 'freedom'. The sad part is that such a person will never achieve true human 'morality' (which presupposes freedom or 'choice'), and a society of such personS cannot know morality nor achieve (independently) material wealth.

@Jari

One does not implement an economic theory. An economic theory is a number of laws that try to describe the reality. An economic theory is , for example, not against communism. It merely tries to describe and predict the effects of the legal environment created by communism on the “wealth” in terms of goods and money. You can feel that a theory is inefficient in describing reality, But you can’t be “against” a theory. I think that a theory that says that more economic liberty creates more wealth and money (regardless the way it is divided amongst the population) is largely correct. Weather or not we should therefore seek maximal economic freedom is an other question.
Yet I agree that some people try to give a meaning to there life merely by earning as much money and prestige as possible. A pitiful and very poor state of mind indeed.

The article of Richard, who takes every opportunity to ensure that his ideas are supported by students and intellectuals, is an invitation to respond with several comments.

First, it is stated in the article that economic freedom leads to economic prosperity. In other words, easy access to financial resources leads to economic prosperity. An amazing insight.

Second, was it not Keynes that argued that economic welfare would /should stabilize in a stationary curve, to be followed by a spiritual ('non - material') development?

Third, has it occured to Richard that economic theory was founded in the industrial revolution, which in turn is based on a vast amount of available, concentrated energy and material resources, accompanied by some inevitable modern illusions?

Fourth, what is meant by the 'civil society' we should strive towards? A society where everyone submits neatly to the invisible Hand, acting friendly because everyone is a potential client? If economic theory does not fit to reality, push and push, until every human activity can be found on the marketplace and wonder! Believe! What beautiful simplicity!

Fifth, there is no freedom of choise (if that is what Richard refers to). Every choise is preceeded by doubt. There is nothing more harmfull to (percieved) freedom than doubt and as such, only certainty leads to freedom.

Sixth, i do not understand why a theory that de-scribes financial flows caused by production, consumption and the distribution of goods, stuff, thingies from A to B, can be used to pre-scribe the path towards 'freedom' that is to be percieved by humans. Or does Richard define freedom as 'the movement of matter'? Very non - human. Very ... intellectual.

Why such emphasis by Anglo - Saxions and Jews to implement economic theory? A wild guess: economy and its results are a quick - fix to get rid of the symptons of a problem described in the quote:

'For people who have no transcendent purpose to their lives and cannot invent one through contributing to a cultural tradition (for example), in other words who have no religious belief and no intellectual interests to stimulate them, self-destruction and the creation of crises in their life is one way of warding off meaninglessness'.

meanwhile, leaving the causes very alive.

@ Mannekino

You are partly right and partly wrong.

You are right in stressing the need that "people should be able to bear the fruits of their own labor".  And, you are certainly also right that the MORAL basis for "solidarity" resides in its VOLUNTARY character.  Coerced 'solidarity' is not moral, and furthermore it can easily become a 'front' for special interest groups whose existence depends on forced 'solidarity'.  

However, you are wrong if you think that the "fruits" of human labor can be produced (and borne) in isolation, outside a well-functioning society with indispensable institutions.  So, their is both a moral and a practical (economic and political) argument for a certain amount and for certain kinds of 'solidarity'.  The smart argument is about that "amount" and about those "kinds" of solidarity.  It is certainly not about questioning the need for some solidarity itself.  And your point about the "hypocrisy" of most socialist parties is certainly correct, but also besides the core of the argument. 

Extreme libertarians can go and live in a 'jungle', but it is certain that their labor will not bear much fruit there.  In fact, that used to be the economic condition of 'primitive man'.

@ peter

The difference between Austrian economics - and its closely related political philosophy; Libertarianism - and socialism is the fact that there is no objection in collective arrangements for the less fortunate, only that participation in such schemes should be strictly voluntary. Modern day socialism is a form of coercion and hypocrisy. The term solidarity only applies to the electorate of the parties that govern socialism, for example the Dutch socialist party would like to restrict access for Polish immigrants to work in the Netherlands to improve their standard of living. If anything, they should be supportive of the Polish proletariat. But such endorsement for economic freedom would greatly affect their results at the voting booth because the electorate of these parties are generally the individual who's jobs can be replaced by cheaper labour from Eastern Europe. Such examples easily exposes the hypocrisy within the socialist parties.

I think there are not many Austrian economists who would disagree with you. As a libertarian I also agree with the core of your argument, which is if I'm correct, that we all have an obligation as human beings to care for those who cannot care for themselves. The main difference between for example libertarianism and socialism is that the basis for such collective arrangements should be voluntary. People should have the right to bear the fruits of their own labour.

I met this German couple inside a temple while visiting India! It was the German gent whose rating I have quoted on the subject line. There, you can do or say almost anything and get away with it ! Small shop owners thrive in India too!!

The poverty that is crippling that nation is from lack of Western investment and too much honesty versus Western technology while the Chinese are quick to steal Western technology and export back pirated goods to us as if it is their original product [like the Japs did earlier]!!! Another factor for India's poverty is the fact that almost all evade tax denying Government its revenues. It is free for all from the days of islamic mogul corruption and intrigues with no rule of law in effect, the filthy rich muslims hogging all the resources and even job quotas [rich - especially wrt the bollywood's zillion khans] getting richer leaving behind 70% Hindus as poverty stricken. India is free but stinks from the islamic pig sty!!

Moral: Honest people suffer!

@ pvdh

That was a nice little speech that you gave there about "solidarity", with wich I largely agree in principle.  However, you undermine your own credibility with that last sentence about 'Tony being a poodle', because it is totally irrelevant to the subject at hand, and it displays an alarming degree of "kuddegeestigheid" or, if you will, a LACK of intellectual INdepende together with disconcerting emotional 'dependence'.

Tony is intellectually much stronger than George, and is certainly not a "poodle" of anybody.  He does, however, share with George the 'courage of his convictions'.  The fact that you would deny that to him, suggests that he has more courage than you.  Why?  Because he follows his convictions, even when he knows that it goes against the 'grain' and is unpopular (how many politicians can do that?), whereas you parrot the orthodoxy around you, even to the extreme of parroting the insulting language of personal destruction.

I’ve no doubt that freedom is the key to economic wealth, yet there is more to life then wealth alone. Some of us think that taking care of the less fortunate, trying to leave nobody behind, adds to the quality of life. That this has a cost is beyond any doubt. We know that there is some corruption on the receiver’s side, and that on the side of those who have to pay for it, you find people who don’t give a shit about their less fortunate compatriots. They blame it totally on the laziness or cultural behavior of the poor, and leave without any problem their country for a few pennies of taxes less to pay. Yet a (however ever shrinking) percentage of Europeans still feel it is their duty, based on their Christian heritage, to organize the welfare state, that values every human being as a human being. I'm one of them. What we should do, however, is find the golden middle path. Recognize that the public willingness for solidarity is lessening, and try to save the essential for the most unfortunate amongst us. A modern socialism. If Tony hadn’t behaved like the pet of George, I would have been a fan of him.