History News Network puts current events into historical perspective. Subscribe to our newsletter for new perspectives on the ways history continues to resonate in the present. Explore our archive of thousands of original op-eds and curated stories from around the web. Join us to learn more about the past, now.
[cross-posted at Austro-Athenian Empire]
How did Alan Greenspan make the transition? I discuss his true confessions in an LRC article today.
Where is the evidence that he was an Austrian?
Well, Austrian economics was Randian orthodoxy at the time that Greenspan was an orthodox Randian. Plus the articles he wrote for Rand were fairly Austrian. In "Gold and Economic Freedom," for example, he endorsed a version of the Austrian theory of the business cycle to explain the Great Depression. His account of competition in "Antitrust" was also pretty Austrian -- and certainly not neoclassical.
And what was his take on the Vietnam War?
I don't know, but I assume that during his orthodox Randian period it was probably the same as Rand's, which was that the U.S. shouldn't have gone into the war but as long as it was in it should win it.
"Alan Greenspan started off his political career, under Ayn Rand’s influence, as a fairly consistent Austro-libertarian, penning articles defending the gold standard and condemning antitrust law."
Where is the evidence that he was an Austrian?
And what was his take on the Vietnam War?
My right to own property in general isn't alienable, but it seems to me to make sense to that my property right in the pen in my pocket, say, is alienable.
Great piece, Roderick. A question: You write:
"Greenspan seems not to know what the word 'inalienable' means; it refers to a right that cannot be surrendered or transferred. (For example, the dispute over the legitimacy of selling oneself into slavery turns on whether self-ownership is alienable or inalienable.) If all property rights were inalienable, trade of any kind would be impermissible!"
Is this really the case? Is it property rights that are alienable, or simply property itself? After all, my right to liberty is inalienable – I can't sell myself into slavery – but I can rent away my time. My right to property might be inalienable – in that, I cannot transfer to someone else my right to own rightfully obtained property – while the title to that property actually is alienable. As for the right to life, I cannot alienate my right to life – and so, if I hire you to help me kill myself, I can always change my mind at the last minute. But I can indeed alienate my life through suicide, including assisted suicide?
It seems to me that life, liberty and property are alienable. It is our rights to these things that are not.