Economy well-understood has unchanging teachings of face time, places, people and politicians. It is not about how science maiastru nation's GDP grows under our compared to how much you choose to dust off everything and all. Economists in charge, other than the accountants power or opposition, have much to say when the time comes for trial … the law. And not only is the judge duziniere "law X helps me to prosper me, I am important to society, so it's good for everybody", nor "law has more Y recipients than vaduviti, so the company, country, ' le dome is doing better." The sensation of "the navel of the Earth" of some sectors in the economy or social aritmeticile that decrease tears smiles there can be no moral or scientific.
Liberal economists and their Division ultras, libertarienii, read the infinitely more caring world. Although today many tatueaza in Their larynx mantra of Liberals, wordy speech they remain for someone who knows that liberalism is at home with Mises and Hayek or (with their predecessors and followers), than with Keynes or various ' neoclasici '. The last are friends of enduring the Governments so itself ' liberal ' in the mission to shape plan centralized economy! ' Austrians ' (qua economists) libertarian (qua political philosophers) reject the idea of an economic and social experiment method to find laws, economy and Law. They link settlement with the power to reason they discern a priori by the contemplation of the action, i.e., human nature. And they are often uncooperative by faith in a concept ' uncomfortable ' in Holy democracy: the right to property.
Okay, but what an economist might say (with such sins: and, and libertarian) about the Constitution? Carefully enough. Economic science deals with the impact of the rules on the functioning of the economy and human action. but economists say no ' Austrian ' ever the economy could be a substitute for legal studies or law. But they have a tough sentence. They propose a relation of order: judgments of efficiency gain only makes sense once the ethics position is fair from the very beginning, as assumed, says m. n. Rothbard. ERGO, the Economist's interest remains valid: the law defines and change ownership.
If economists of all schools of thought have always been interested in assessing this impact, the intellectual tools were not homogenous in their realism. Currently, two visions make up the field of study Law & Economics. One is a positive approach, studying changing the allocation of property rights between two equilibrium States. The other is a normative, suggesting that fixing property rights should follow the criterion of efficiency.
Professor j. g. Hülsmann offers us, in an Austrian ' recovery ', realistic and rigorous, the great Bastiat, another perspective. He proposes a comparative analysis between two mutually exclusive types of appropriation (any action be it economic, production, contract, donation, inheritance, tax limitation, implied a connection with prohibire). Effects are compared with the owner's consent made rapprochement with the present of a good economic effects arising from the vicinity of the same good without the consent of or. These relative effects, high-quality, represent a special class of economic laws named for author remembered "contrafactuale laws of proximity." The study argues the fact that Hülsmann their qualitative impact evaluation law on the economy.
A constitutional framework that legitimizes and devote a certain type of appropriation in damage each other produce, nolens volens, the consequences of a certain type-good or bad-for society. Criterion e ontological property. Warning, it's not a referendum on democracy criterion, it's only a test! Aggression (the ' constitutional ') does not create prosperity. Recast. Though, empirically, the economy grows with all taxes and regulations what a cocoseaza. (Judging from the counterfactual, would have increased even more in their absence!). Property randuieste efficiency (economic calculation for tracking profit-based pricing free formats in transactions between the owners of resources) give a motivation stronger and harness the information available at the intimate level of each staff member. Bullying destroys them as democratic (and sophisticated justified) would be raptul.
Let's look, for instance, at some of the American constitutional principles, as well as to some of the contemporary European and to match with the status quo.
For example, the Constitution of the United States, enumerate carefully (and limited, so) the powers of the federal Government, the Division of duties between Governments and citizens.  antithetical, deceased (materialmente, because the spirit's alive!) draft Treaty european juggling special interests in concessions, subtiind the idea of limited powers. At the same time, the american citizen's constitutional rights are designed to protect him from life, find the State in freedom and his property. The Lisbon Treaty rights to abundant provided by the State, what can be created for a group just by touching the liberties of others. The document ignores the economics of the market, replacing it with the concept of social economy of Lam. Too little visible were the commitments towards protecting private property, free initiative and Division of labour.
One such spirit of Europe is seen in today's matter: an old continent and bureaucratic, revolut in technology, revolutionary when public stipendiile troubled, politically correct and morally "biased". At least one American girl in lot, but eretica orderly tradition of freedom.
The climax of the defunct EU Constitution is that in Europe, endowed with equal freedom gene ' fraternal ' and embarrassment of classical and liberty damblagita indreptatirile descatusate curious case of the masses, of the French Revolution there was an impression among many that the constitutional Treaty has deserved to fail, among others, and because it was … too liberal!