MISES: Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy, Law and Economics 2020-02-20T19:07:30+00:00 Adriano Paranaiba Open Journal Systems <div style="text-align: justify;"> <p dir="ltr">MISES: Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy, Law and Economics , scholarly and peer-reviewed journal (print and on-line) published three times a year by Instituto Mises Brasil which was founded in 2007. The topics covered in the journal mainly include (but not limit to): Epistemology and Ethics, Economics, Methodology and Praxeology, History of Economic Thought, Society, Legislation and Politics, Culture and Freedom.&nbsp;</p> <p dir="ltr">The journal is published in Portuguese, Spanish and English. The e-journal provides free and open access to its content on our website.</p> </div> The Austrian School´ s perspective on the Brazilian airport concession 2020-02-20T19:07:30+00:00 Elaine Arantes Otavio Ferrari Piaskowski <p>The concession of the Guarulhos, Viracopos and Brasilia airports is discussed from the perspective of the Austrian School based on the Austrian Theory of Market Process (KIRZNER, 1997; BARBIERI, 2001) and the Austrian Theory of Economic Intervention (MISES, 2010b). The problem observed is that the state is the granting authority, regulatory body and partner in the concessionaire. The results indicate that the presence of the state prevents the efficiency of entrepreneurial management, the discovery of new knowledge and the stimulation of competition. It is due to the fact that the Brazilian Airport Infrastructure Company (INFRAERO) is present in the management of airports granted and not granted. INFRAERO was negatively impacted as it lost part of its revenue from surplus airports and maintained its responsibility for managing low-income or deficit airports. Ludwig von Mises’s Theory of Interventionism, written in the 1940s, remains contemporary and guides the process of organizational management.</p> 2020-02-20T19:05:25+00:00 Copyright (c) The Facets of the Enlightenment Movement from a Libertarian Perspective: 2020-02-20T18:02:36+00:00 Patrick Reimers <p>This paper pretends to explain the origins of the French Revolution, in particular in regards to its connection with the main proponents of the French Enlightenment. It argues that the Enlightenment movement was rather heterogeneous, shaped by many different thinkers with often incompatible views. The merits of Jean</p> <p>Jacques Rousseau in regards to conservation and education are described, while equivalently criticizing his rather collectivist ideas and his disputable views on women. It is argued that even if during the main period of the Enlightenment movement, liberal thinkers such as Montesquieu, Turgot, Lafayette and Condorcet had defined political theories based on individual freedom and competition, they were possibly “too far ahead of times” to significantly shape the French Revolution. Independently from the positive aspects of the Enlightenment movement, the actual French Revolution was often collectivist and nationalist and led to a violent phase – the ‘Reign of Terror’. Thus, this analysis allows us to understand the complexity and diversity of the Enlightenment movement and its relation to the actual French Revolution. Consequently, the revolution’s collectivist, nationalist and violent phase must be seen critically, also showing us that the implementation of democratic processes can bear risks, as the ‘majority rule’ can differ quite significantly to the concept of the ‘Rule of Law’.</p> 2020-02-20T00:00:00+00:00 Copyright (c) Contrasting the role of the serendipity in austrian and neoclassic theories 2020-01-21T17:26:54+00:00 Artur Marion Ceolin <p>The serendipity, as likes as any another change, is a constant in the human action and we are not lacking examples in the history, as the discovery of the penicillin, to see its great importance role at the innovation process. But, despite this importance, the serendipity is excluded of the neoclassic models, because of its static equilibrium approach and also for the treatment of knowledge. On the other hand, the Austrian methodology, for considering the dinamic efficience, the market as a process, the future as something to be made and the knowledge as disperse and to be discovery, it’s the best approach for the investigation of the occasional generation of innovation, called <em>serendipy.</em></p> 2019-12-20T00:00:00+00:00 Copyright (c) Moral considerations about taxes 2020-01-14T12:48:13+00:00 Eric Villac Pinheiro <p>This paper presents the positions of different currents of thought regarding taxation. Initiating the confrontation between the currents throughout history, by presenting the current of Catholic theology; followed<br>by how natural law answers the question of tax morality, as well as the scholastic view on the problem, the thinking of the classical liberals and the Austrian school, and finally, in order to put the question in contemporary, seeking to answer whether Tax collection is just or not.</p> 2019-12-20T00:00:00+00:00 Copyright (c) Why regulate utilities? 2020-01-14T12:48:23+00:00 Harold Demsetz João Felipe Rodrigues Lanza <p>The modern economic theory defines regulation as a necessary measure in utilities’ markets due to a supposed low compettitivity in those industries. Altough the regulatory methods which ar used in those industries have been consantly criticised for their inefficiency, th belief that the regulations are necessary has been kept unchanged. Therefore, the obective of this article is to prove that the convencional economic arguments that justify regulation in utilities are based on misled premises about these industries’ dynamics.</p> 2019-12-20T00:00:00+00:00 Copyright (c)