AlexMerced
Member
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2007
- Messages
- 7,373
Ron Paul is a closet Rothbardian, I mean they were good buddies... you don't spend that much time with Rothbard and not become an Anarcho-Capitalist
The reason someone would say Hayek would not support Ron, is that Hayek was more willing to concede a Role for the state, he referred to himself as an old wig. A lot of An-caps and Rothbardians attack Hayek on this calling him "squishy" in his view on the state but the more I read of Hayeks works when it comes to his writings on money, knowledge and their role in the pricing system he had some of the most amazing insights of his generation that should not be ignored soley because of his moderate views on the role of the state.
Basically... Hayek was a notch above minarchist, but he was no statist, he and his students have a lot of great things to say and he did learn Mises but that was later on I think after he was already a functioning economist.
Hayek got more play than Mises cause his book were released in english so early on, while it took decades for some of Mises work to be translated leaving it fall under the radar.
Most economist, even the occasional keynesiam (gasp!) offer some interesting insights, while the keynesian framework is flawed doesn't mean their economists are incapable of having valuable insights now and then.
The reason someone would say Hayek would not support Ron, is that Hayek was more willing to concede a Role for the state, he referred to himself as an old wig. A lot of An-caps and Rothbardians attack Hayek on this calling him "squishy" in his view on the state but the more I read of Hayeks works when it comes to his writings on money, knowledge and their role in the pricing system he had some of the most amazing insights of his generation that should not be ignored soley because of his moderate views on the role of the state.
Basically... Hayek was a notch above minarchist, but he was no statist, he and his students have a lot of great things to say and he did learn Mises but that was later on I think after he was already a functioning economist.
Hayek got more play than Mises cause his book were released in english so early on, while it took decades for some of Mises work to be translated leaving it fall under the radar.
Most economist, even the occasional keynesiam (gasp!) offer some interesting insights, while the keynesian framework is flawed doesn't mean their economists are incapable of having valuable insights now and then.
