Abstract: The purpose of this paper is to address from a normative perspective issues raised by John Mueller (2010) in Redeeming Economics: Rediscovering the Missing Element. Mueller criticizes economists, including Austrians, for failing to properly address unilateral transfers—in particular, charity, childcare, and crime—in economic thought. Mueller challenges economist Gary Becker’s position that giving increases the utility of the giver. Mueller also claims that the ends of action are persons, not utility or satisfaction. Further, unlike Ludwig von Mises and other economists, Mueller maintains that there is not a single preference scale but that there are separate scales for ends and means. In addition, his view is that people give in proportion to love for others and steal in proportion to hatred of others. One of my aims is to integrate my work on unilateral transfers based on Objectivist ethics with some ideas from the Austrian school. I discuss the overlap between some Objectivist principles and those of Austrians such as Mises, Friedrich Hayek, and Henry Hazlitt. In so doing, I extend work I have done on crime, childcare, and charity to the Austrian school. I compare this work with Mueller’s, focusing on some heuristics I have derived for childcare and for charitable giving.

Keywords: Objectivism, Ayn Rand, Ludwig von Mises, charity, childcare, crime

Download Paper: “Charity, Childcare, and Crime: From Objectivist Ethics to the Austrian School”

Abstract: This paper reviews some points of agreement between Objectivism and the Austrian school of economics. It also discusses some of my points of departure with Objectivism. One such is Rand’s justification for holding life as man’s ultimate value. I present a case that the recognition of death’s inevitability is needed to establish life as man’s ultimate value. Although death’s inevitability is implicit within Objectivist ethics (in its emphasis on a person’s entire life), the focus of Rand’s discussion of the ultimate value is on life’s contingency, not its limitedness. I present an example comparing a being with a contingent and limited life to a being with a contingent but potentially endless life. This illustrates the function of life’s limitedness in valuation. I qualify my position somewhat by exploring one way in which a being with a contingent but potentially endless life may value his life as a whole. I also explain that a being with an endless life might have no ultimate value, but could have an endless number of goals. Finally, I discuss a desert-island scenario that supports the noninterference principle.

Keywords: Ayn Rand, Austrian school, objectivism, is-ought, ultimate value, eudaemonia, Robinson Crusoe, non-aggression principle

Download Paper: “Rand and the Austrians: The Ultimate Value and the Noninterference Principle.”

Abstract: This paper examines rights and the protection of rights from both the minarchist and the anarchist perspectives. The former relies on Objectivist (and Neo-Objectivist) perspectives and the latter relies primarily on Murray Rothbard’s views. My view is that government protection as put forth by Objectivists is coercive, as are all methods of financing. However, under anarcho-capitalism, children (and those with diminished capacity) who have been killed or abused by their caregivers do not have equal (or any) protection under the law. The principle of equal protection is one with which both Objectivists and Rothbard agree. A case is made for government protection of rights under those circumstances. In addition, a case is made for positive rights to parental care for children, and also for government protection of those rights if they have been violated by their caregivers. I also argue for government oversight in instances when the rights of children (and those with diminished capacity) have been violated and as a consequence the children (and those with diminished capacity) have no alternative means of care.

Download Paper: “Rand, Rothbard, and Rights Reconsidered”