Having just reread this, which I wrote before my morning java, allow me to rephrase a bit: I’ve stayed away from the ethical/moral domain in this argument - only conveying that it’s reality that most all exchanges result in one side getting the better end of a deal, even if both sides felt equally about it. It’s just the way life is, that’s all. A free market does no guarantee in each and every trade/purchase that’s made, but that doesn’t take away from the fact that it’s the best we’ve got … where resource allocations, opportunity costs, negative externalities, and dissemination of knowledge - and should all be accounted for in the determined price of each transaction.
http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2008/03/those-who-do-no.html#comments
Tiny Tim sings “tiptoe through the tulips” while again PT Barnum’s words ring true:
Well, I myself understand the flaws of a democracy/republic, however, I also understand the power of a Constitution. I think the U.S. form of government would work pretty well, if we would just amend the Constitution to include restricting the government from regulating the market, from funding or providing education, from regulating marriage, from sending troops outside of the country, from sending money/goods to other countries, from subsidizing industries, from owning property besides government buildings, and from legislating victimless crimes. We should also have one that legalizes private currencies and mail carriers and takes these powers out of the hands of the government.
There may be a couple I have missed, but the point is, we can use our Constitution to further limit the powers of our government, but we just have not done it.
Ours is a democratic republic - the republican part keeping checks upon the fear of a rampant democratic urge … and the Constitution is a safeguard to ensuring that desired equilibrium and compromise (for certainly the landowners and holders of capital wouldn’t accept a system that would force them to relinquish their wealth to a mob rule - would you?). So it’s indeed the best we’ve got - and the democratic forces are truly most compatible with a free market respect for consumer sovereignty, so that it ought to be embraced as the sensible political paradigm for market optimization.
Those are all good ideas, the problem of course is that only the government can change the constitution, and why would it do that?
Only a revolution, or the credible threat of revolution, can force the government to limit itself.
This seems to miss a larger point though. Men like myself and other Anarchists here are not going to stand for any government, no matter how limited it is.
Without a big government, how are you going to stop us? The dichotomy is true, you know. Either a large government or none at all.
Because hopefully someday, enough people are educated, that leaders are elected that would make those changes.
I am not really sure what your point is. Stop you from what?
But that is exactly what the communists used to say, that people could be educated to such an extent that communism would work. Of course it was a lie. People are what they are and you cannot change them.
Regardless you need a supermajority to change the constitution, and there are enough people who, however educated in liberty they may be, enjoy privileges as members of the ruling class and will block reform. So what do you do then?
BS. It is all in there. Most of it. Totally ignored.
From overthrowing that government.
Um, but no matter how educated people become, Communism will never work. However, if people did become educated about freedom, freedom would work.
If they were truly educated and truly understood the importance of freedom, they would not block reform, because it would mean they could get even more wealth and that they could purchase much more wonderful goods than are currently on the market (society would see a much improved pace for injenuity).
Regardless, if the majority of the population understood the need for a small government, and their representatives did not give it to them, the representatives would not stay in power long.
This is why I think privatizing education should be the number one priority for liberty lovers. Studies have shown that the education system is fraught with left wing thinking people. Go figure, since it is a government run program.
I assume you are referring to Article I Section 8. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court ruled that Article I Section 8 did not limit the power of government.
However, the Bill of Rights have pretty successfully limited the power of government, and so this is why I say we need amendments specifically limiting the power of government.
Um, you do not really need a large government to stop anarchists from overthrowing one, given that there are probably going to be far fewer anarchists and also given that anarchists are not very organized.
Are you familiar with Rothbard’s arguements in “For A New Liberty” against the effectiveness of constitutions? Constitutional devices are turned around and used as justifications rather then restrictions of state power, or they are ignored and defied rather quickly. There’s also a vagueness of language problem. Clearly, the American experiment demonstrates the failure of constitutions. A piece of paper cannot stop governments from growing and intervening.
This is all aside from the fact that statist social contract theory is erroneous in the first place, that there never has been a genuine social contract based on explicit consent and that a genuine voluntary social contract wouldn’t constitute a “state”.
I do not think it is clear at all. First of all, the freedoms granted by the Bill of Rights, for the most part, are still protected, and this for over 200 years.
Second of all, the problem with the U.S. Constitution, IMO, is the fact that it was designed by a group of Federalists and Anti-Federalists. I am pretty sure the Federalists really screwed it up. Luckily though, the Anti-Federalists saw the weakness of the Constitution and got the Bill of Rights put into it.
I am pretty hazy on the specifics of what happened, but I do think we could fix it, but it would pretty much take nearly an act of god to get it done.
Back to the fundamental impetus by which the concept ‘democracy’ is derived - “consent of the governed” - is it in fact the very same essence played in a free market by its rule of consumer sovereignty? And isn’t the common criticism that it becomes an oppressive means for a tyrannical will of a majority over that of any minority actually flawed in reasoning - given that its essential dynamic starts at the decision-level of individuals, which merely ends up as some sort of (what appears to be) generalized behavior? Isn’t the theory of democracy most compatible with an Austrian perspective?
There has never been consumer sovereignty. Nor should be.
No it does not mean that for everybody. For the class of tax-consumers, such as politicians, academics, and people who profit from government activities such as the military industries and media, liberty is very, very bad. The more you teach them about it, the more convinced they will be that it is bad.
You are asking them vote against their own interests by voting for liberty. That is exactly the same thing the communists wanted. You must realize that democracy is a system of communism and that if people follow their own self-interest under democracy, liberty must die.
Of course, national education is the most important pillar of the ruling class’ power. That is why they will never allow you to privatize it. You can maybe privatize social security, health care, roads, energy, those are all just fringe issues. Education is the root of the belief in government, and it will be the absolute last thing they cling to.
You are extremely confused as to the extent of your own power and influence. You can’t assume that the ruling class will just open the gates for you to come take their power away.
The theory of the market is that market participants exchange two goods, one less desired for one more desired. Democracy has nothing to do with that. Under democracy, the ruling class enables its power by getting the people to vote and thus declare consent for their submission. With the submission of the people confirmed, the ruling class taxes, that is takes a good from subjects in exchange for nothing. This is the very opposite of the market and thus entirely incompatible with the Austrian school perspective of economic efficiency.