I surmised that you didn’t think Pentahedron had a valid answer for LS’s question, “Utility and efficiency for whom?”
I didn’t think he had a valid answer. I also think utilitarianism is a poor term for Austrians to use to describe a set of values. It’s sorta like saying, “My values are valuable”.
For “social welfare” or something like that. You think this is a valid answer?
What answer are you referring to?
First he evaded the question. Then (after your comment) he answered:
https://forum.freecapitalists.org/t/minarchists-or-anarchists/18569/67
Whatever its etymological merits or demerits are, I find the term useful, because I’m saying much the same thing Mises said, and he used the word to label what he was saying with regard to law and ethics.
There are certain ways of talking about social welfare that do violate methodological individualism. With just the bare statement “social welfare” it’s not clear whether he is adopting any such approach.
So you value utilitarianism? 
=D
Sorry, couldn’t resist.
“That statelessness would look anything remotely like anarcho-capitalism. It could very well end up looking like Somalia.” - Eric
http://www.peterleeson.com/Papers.html
Check out the one titled “Better off stateless” It deals with Somalia.
“That statelessness would look anything remotely like anarcho-capitalism. It could very well end up looking like Somalia.” - Eric
http://www.peterleeson.com/Papers.html
Check out the one titled “Better off stateless” It deals with Somalia.
I have read that before. It is unconvincing for two reasons.
-
The safest and most stable part of somalia is somaliland, which can be said to have a functioning government.
-
The fact that anarchy is better than totalitarian dictatorships doesn’t really prove anything. If for example the North Korean government were to collapse, I would expect living standards to rise. Would I take this as an argument for anarchy? No, because we are comparing it to the North Korean government.
Eric,
As I wrote in another thread:
What is so meritorious about non-market monopolistic restriction of freedom-of-entry into the markets for security, defense, and justice that makes you believe it will remedy any imperfections in the market provision of those services without creating worse imperfections?
What are you basing your assertion that Somaliland is the most stable part of Somalia upon?
If a totalitarian form of government is bad then why is a liberal, in the classical sense, form of government not bad as well? What do you make of the owner vs. renter argument put forth by Hoppe?
I’m a recently de-radicalized libertarian; I’m not even sure I qualify as a libertarian anymore. I no longer believe in anarchism, and I tend to support Burkean reforms, not policy shocks to our social order.
If you read a book like Doubt is Their Freedom, you realize that businesses pursuing profit can have disastrous social results (in the cases cited in the book, commercial interests have contaminated scientific inquiry, further exacerbating the market failure of asymmetric information).
What are some examples?
Here’s the introduction to the book: http://www.defendingscience.org/Doubt-is-Their-Product-Introduction.cfm.
As one reviewer summarized the examples: “Tobacco. Asbestos. Lead. Vinyl chloride. Chromium. Formaldehyde. Arsenic. Atrazine. Benzene. Beryllium. Mercury. Vioxx.”
But, I do recommend reading at least the introduction. Libertarians tend to have the idea that litigation (specifically, torts) can easily remedy these problems; historically, that hasn’t happened. Furthermore, the asymmetric information between producer and consumer can become increasingly problematic when government intervention is not introduced (rather than better information becoming more widely available over time, it can become more muddled since producers can manipulate public opinion more ably).
Sure, but why would that mean that we should coerce them or something?
To save lives.
So you want to try to save people from their own stupidity?
I’m a recently de-radicalized libertarian; I’m not even sure I qualify as a libertarian anymore. I no longer believe in anarchism, and I tend to support Burkean reforms, not policy shocks to our social order.
If you read a book like Doubt is Their Freedom, you realize that businesses pursuing profit can have disastrous social results (in the cases cited in the book, commercial interests have contaminated scientific inquiry, further exacerbating the market failure of asymmetric information).
Ordered it. Looks pretty interesting.
So was it this book specifically that broke the camels back and caused you to reject anarchism?
I remember when I rejected anarchism and became a minarchist. Syndicalism and socialism stopped making sense, especially the calculation problem. Rothbard pulled me back in though, though minarchists such as Stossel and Ron Paul helped as well (scratch that last one!).
Strangeloop will be back, the state is for suckas
Your book there reminds me of this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cD0dmRJ0oWg