We justify our positions based on utility and efficiency. I think Friedman said it best when he said:
The big distinction you have to make is between marginal benefit and average benefit. The marginal benefit from having 91 percent of people in school rather than 90 percent does not justify making it compulsory. But if in the absence of compulsory education, only 50 percent would be literate, then I can regard it as appropriate.
Has anyone ever asked you “If you think markets can provide [schools/money/healthcare/etc] better than government, why do you think the opposite is true for law/security?”
Utility and efficiency for whom?
Also, how do you calculate efficiency without markets?
I mean, I can play the Consequentialist game too. I get a lot of utility from liberty and I think markets are efficient, therefore, anarchism is best. Ta Da!
No moralizing whatsoever.
Utility and efficiency for whom?
What would Friedman say?
And no one said anything about socialism, so don’t even try to go there.
Pentahedron, ever hear of David Friedman?
I know who his son is.
Why are we talking about Friedman? You said YOU are a Consequentialist. I am asking YOU about how you make choices as a Consequentialist.
Please answer the question.
Also, please comment on my Consequentialist argument for anarchism.
I’m mentioning Friedman because HE IS a consequentialist. Why would my definition be any different from his or any other consequentialist libertarians?
If you get a lot of utility from being a dictator and you think a command economy is the most efficient kind of economy, does that mean it’s the best?
Hence why I mention David Friedman (Milton’s son), who is anarchist because he sees as most efficient. Check out his writings.
Thanks. I’ve read a few of Daves arguments.
As are you.
I don’t know. But you neither articulated your position or Friedman’s.
You tell me. You’re the Consequentialist.
Where do you come then?
I am an anarchist in that i want to end central government. But I do think that a transition to a civilised anarchist society might require a form of Minarchism. If they made taxation voluntary then a government could continue to exist. In an anarchist society people would be free to try and convince other people to join their government. But forcing people to join their government would be illegal. Local cooperation’s could form that could resemble a type of government. It would be realy just ending forced taxation and the national regional monopoly.
What (if not the market) has provided government? How is anything not provided by markets? How is any socio-economic outcome not the result of each human agent acting according to his/her subjective valuations, including their cost/benefit calculation of the coercion they’re willing to accept from others and the coercion which they’re willing to assert over others?
These are not rhetorical.
Z.
I`m a minarchist because I think it has the potential of leading to anarcho-capitalism.
Either way, I`m still gonna live like an Ancap, no matter what society dictates me.
I don’t know. But you neither articulated your position or Friedman’s.
There’s no consequentialist “position”. If you knew that you wouldn’t be asking even after I already gave you a short definition on how consequentialists think: to maximize utility while minimizing the negative consequences. It can’t get much more simpler than that and if you still don’t understand, refer back to the Friedman quote.
Where do you come then?
I don’t post on any other libertarian forum except here. I started out by first reading the Ron Paul forums and these forums while reading some of Mises works next before I signed up. Then I kind of broke away since I wasn’t satisfied with just thinking of every position based on a NAP litmus test.
If it’s so simple, then why do you evade the very heart of the matter. Why can’t you answer two simple questions for him:
Because it’s self-explanatory.
Faith in what?
That statelessness would look anything remotely like anarcho-capitalism. It could very well end up looking like Somalia.
How does anarchism suffer from the fatal conceit?
Anarcho-capitalists claim to know the optimum size of governemnt through reason alone. When in fact nobody could possibly know the answer to this question, as civilization is far too complex, and the necessary knowledge dispersed. In fact just take the financial markets alone. Nobody could possibly know what would happen to the financial markets. My guess would be widespread panick and systematic collapse.
Edit: and if one wants to achieve anarcho-capitalism through gradual reform, that can legitemately criticized as completetly utopian.
Minarchy can be criticized as utopian as well. If you suggest that the wrong people were at the helm then the question of “Where will you find the angels?” is relevant. I suggest to you that humans are best in liberty (freedom of illegitimate force). I do not intend to transform humanity into mechanized moral agents, rather I know free market harmony will create the greatest potential for human moralization than any other option we have.