I wasn’t sure whether to post this in “Economics Questions” or “Political Theory”; those two subjects are tightly interwoven for me.
No love? I really think anarcho-capitalists will love this lecture, presented by Mises Brasil.
Oh yeah I just watched it this morning. As well as the youtube on market failures.
I think Friedman is basically right about how private law would work. But his institutional analysis of democracy as a collective action problem is lacking. He’s open to statism on issues where there is a market failure but not political failure. So for example if a meteor were going to hit the earth, the interests of the state converge with the general interests of the market and he would presumabely think that a state would be justified in this case.
Moreover, his analysis of why democracy doesn’t work doesn’t get to the heart of why statism is a bad idea. Because in a democracy, he pretends like the state is really the people who are in political office, and in many cases this may be de facto true. But there’s also the possibility that the majority will be able to control their leaders in special situations, like smaller states or post-term trials by the people. I don’t think its likely but its possible.
In this case, there is only one incentive argument left against statism, and that is that the political power is judge in its own case. And when that political power rules in its own favor, there is almost no way you can stop it. This is the crux of anti-statism. The collective action problem is, in practice, significant, but our opponents can hold out for state reform. However, so long as any power is judge in its own case, there can be no reform. Its a much more powerful argument.
He also doesn’t mention the calculation problem that state actors face… I don’t know why. He makes passing reference to the price system, so he’s probably aware of it. In the face of an impending meteor, it might seem a little vain to talk about “efficiency” in provision, but if there are many different ways to build a giant laser, you have to have real prices to know what the most efficient way is. This gets more significant if the laser is a multi-trillion dollar investment.
Presumabely he wants to stay away from the non-aggression principle, which is okay. He’s thought provoking but he leaves a lot of the arguments against statism that I’m used to and have become comfortable with out.
I think being against the State, on principle and forever, is based on moralistic thinking, and I reject it. I prefer a cost-benefit analysis.
Friedman, elsewhere, states that whether a particular form of political organization, including that one, is stable, can maintain itself, depends on a variety of factors, including the environment that surrounds it. I don’t believe that my preferred form is stable under all possible circumstances, and there is not a lot of point to abolishing one government only to have the institutions that are supposed to replace it collapse and be replaced by another and possibly worse one.
Austrians seem resolute that there should be no government ever and in no circumstances. I, to repeat, am an anarcho-capitalist. But I prefer desirable consequences; could–in logically possible states of affair–some of these consequences be better attained by government? Maybe.
I don’t rely on moral arguments. They’re a bonus. But government does have a definition that is a priori. With a few other axioms, like human beings act in their own self interest and are capable of choosing between different means, we can almost categorically reject government. The only situations in which it might be practical are when exogenous forces behave strangely… Aliens: "Form a government or we’ll obliterate your planet!'.
Right I’m saying that if you keep the analysis to political failures vs market failures because of individual rationality, you’re not considering enough factors to evaluate statism. If you couple it with the judicial and calculation problem, we’re being more practical, and it happens to result in more scenarios falling in favor of anarcho capitalism.
I pretty much agree with that.
I mean, we’re anarchists for a reason.
Neoclassical: "I think being against the State, on principle and forever, is based on moralistic thinking, and I reject it. I prefer a cost-benefit analysis.
Friedman, elsewhere, states that whether a particular form of political organization, including that one, is stable, can maintain itself, depends on a variety of factors, including the environment that surrounds it. I don’t believe that my preferred form is stable under all possible circumstances, and there is not a lot of point to abolishing one government only to have the institutions that are supposed to replace it collapse and be replaced by another and possibly worse one."
+1. Under certain conceivable situations, I wouldn’t say government is better, but just that the state of natural anarchy will not stabilize into anything but minarchy. It just depends on the fiber of the individuals in each particular society. (See the post in my sig.)
Austrians seem resolute that there should be no government ever and in no circumstances. I, to repeat, am an anarcho-capitalist. But I prefer desirable consequences; could–in logically possible states of affair–some of these consequences be better attained by government? Maybe.
I just tend to be anti-Enlightenment in political theory, which is is pretty much against any form of government that has been en vogue for the past two hundred years.
Dondolee, can you elaborate on why you are anti-enlightment?
You mean, like in a Hoppean way?
You mean, like in a Hoppean way?
No, as the rejection of Enlightenment morality/sociology clap-traps. Also the word “anti” for me is used as more of “instead of” as “opposed to”. Burkean/ radically apolitical may be a good way to kind of explain it.
can you elaborate on why you are anti-enlightment
I’ll only give one assertion and no argument for the moment: Zeigeists for rousing mobs that have caused an unprecedented amount of hysterics and blood shed (Man, Equality, Reason, The “good cause” etc).
Not to step on toes, but for the sake of elaboration, I would add that an “anti-Enlightenment” sensibility:
- is Burkean, meaning, a restraint from sudden social change, which typically must be coercively imposed (centrally planned). This is later co-opted by Hayek in his model for adaptive changes within a spontaneous order.
- has a lack of reverence for the “common man,” acknowledging that the proles are incapable of political self-determination in an egalitarian framework.
I wouldn’t call myself “anti-Enlightenment,” but I would defend the above two propositions.
For me, it is not a lack of reverence for the “common man”, far from it. I don’t even acknowledge the term, or a concept of “common man”. It is more the lack of reverence for forcing broad categorizations and dichotomies that don’t even exist, one of the consequences of this is going to be centralization (and the glorification of centralization) and all the horrors that come along with it. It is the lack of reverence for the fact that the phrase “common man” means much in political theory.
When I speak of mobs, one of the 1st things that springs to my head is groups of intellectuals buying their own idiocy.
The Burkean meaning would fall into that, along with placing custom on a superior plane to political theory; all the while acknowledging the VAST (for an understatement) superiority of decentralization and markets
Child rape is evil. That is moralistic thinking. The result of that moralistic thinking is that all non-sociopathic human beings are opposed to child rape, on principle and forever.
The State is not only evil, it is the backwardation of moral reasoning. The ancient Judean prophet Isaiah said it this way, “Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!” This is the essence of the State. Ultimately, it is nothing less vile than trying to define child rape as good.
Sic semper tyrannis.
Clayton -
How would you prove that you are not a common man?
How would you prove that you are not a common man?
Anyone can set up there own descriptive and convienent catagorizations, many of these can have some common overlap with other people in the same culture. It is when someone tries to use this as some normative outside themselves, or an unexplained definition that is absolutley foriegn within the context of the culture, you run into problems.
While I “get” the concept of “the common man” (or the “natural elite)”, I will most likely reject most sociological, political, or psycological descriptions of him as anything worth thinking about. “The common man” for me can only exist as data. He is literally a statistic, an average within data on any experiement. Anything outside of that is most probably an ideal and a phantom, a ghost in the machine.
A great talk. Its refreshing to have a path to anarchy form the other side of the economics profession, plus David is cool. What a dynasty. And they keep getting better, these Friedmans