Peter Leeson argues, on the evidence, that Somalia is better off under anarchy than it was under government (link). Max Sawicky is—actually, I’m not quite sure what he is, but I guess he is not impressed (link). But I think Sawicky may be too defensive. Fact is Leeson, who bears the clangorous title of “Professor of the Study of Capitalism at the Mercatus Center,” has made a critical tactical concession—he has (implicitly) acknowledged that the superiority of the market is actually a testable hypothesis—not just an article of faith.
At any
To prove that the actual, living government of a real nation, is so bad that not even a market economy can be worse—that’s an interesting proposition, if not perhaps exactly what Professor Leeson believes it to be. To argue that government is a cultural artifact and that a market is a cultural artifact—and that it is rational to compare real with real—now that strikes me as a blazing re-entry into the world of reason and good sense.
Of course, it may be that pigs will fly before Professor Leeson ever comes up with a set of data that actually contradicts his hypothesis, but this would hardly distinguish him from a lot of other economics, many of whose lives must be greyed by the lack of surprise in their results.
I look forward to his paper demonstrating that we will be better off when we abolish
Idle afterthought: When Professor Leeson attends a faculty meeting, is he packin’ heat?
Inquisitive Afterthought: I wonder--and this time, I'm not even being sarcastic, or not really--how Professor Leeson would apply this lesson to Iraq? Should we get out now so the country will fall apart and everyone will be better off?
No comments:
Post a Comment