You said efficient governments, what isn’t efficient about Communist China? It wasn’t necessarily in disarray. It was controlled and authoritative to the citizenry.
So I don’t really owned this computer I am talking to you on unless someone steals it from me?
Yet it all it did was hinder prosperity; a truly efficient government (which is an type of “efficiency” other than the use of the word in the OP’s assignment) is one that creates the environment in which society can prosper.
You only own that computer if you, or someone on your behalf can protect it against an attack.
Aye, I nominate it for that too.
What do you think of your chances of getting a good grade? [;)]
Not for a second. It presupposes merely that when constructivists attempt to design society and arrange social institutions (read: lack of a state, full reserve banking, anti-IP) to meet their specifications there will be consequences that no planner could have ever foreseen.
Well flourishing is a completely subjective claim. Clearly certain people did prosper under the Communist regime.
Which begs the question how can someone steal from me if I never even own it?
So you fear radical freedom?
To quote Anselme Bellegarrigue:
Who shall fear the untamed horse, but one who would tame it ? Who shall fear an avalanche, but one who would stop it ? Who trembles in front of liberty, but tyranny ?
I wonder if the great Hayek thought that slavery in the american ‘free society’ was the result of ‘spontaneous’ order, and that people who opposed it in the name of ‘abstract’ concepts such as justice are evil rationalists and ‘constructivists’ ?
Conservatism is so laughable. And it’s doubly laughable when it’s presented in ’ scientific’ form…
Your best post in 2 months.
Do you fear unintended consequences that result from planning society?
If you’re an an-cap, just argue that 0% efficiency is desirable because it leads to anarchism, and thus freedom. He or she will never see that angle coming. If it’s well written, they might appriciate your originality.
Nobody is planning society. Drop the strawman.
Radical institutional change per rapidally instituing anarchy is social planning.
No it is not. Opposing your irrational conservatism is not ‘social planning’.
In reality, forcing people to do what they wouldn’t freely do, for instance using IP laws, is social planning. Abolishing IP laws is not social planning but restoring the ‘natural’ order. The same is true for any other intervention in the market including the market for justice.
If you desire sudden institutional change in favor of your vision of society, you are a social engineer who thinks that he can play god with me. Surely, you can justify it by saying that you’re against social planning by giving giving each individual more freedom to act as they desire, but that in itself is a plan that you are projecting upon society.
You have a plan, and you are forcing it upon society through instant institutional change: you are a social planner, you cannot free yourself from that label by showing that your own plan is different from the status quo plans.
Ridiculous strawman. You are the planner who wants to use violence to enforce his conservative vision of society.
The problem Lam dear, is that in your amoral world there’s no such thing as justice, only ‘convention’ - or spontaneous stuff - or whatever your religious masters tell you that is ‘right’ - but your lack of moral compass means nothing to general considerations of justice.
I have a plan, and you have a plan, we’re both social planners, but I prefer the process of piecemeal social engineering.
Juan, your problem is is that you delude yourself with ideals of justice unable to realize that they are nothing but your own metaphysical judgments of value, and that there is absolutely nothing objective about them. They are your opinion, little else.
I have no ‘social’ plan. I’m only interested in individual justice. And thanks for admitting that you ‘prefer’ social engineering.
LOL. Again, don’t delude yourself into thinking that all people are as lost as you are.