I quite understand the philosophy of this school of economics towards government. But I think a key factor has been overlooked by almost all AE key intellectuals.
Instead of Government vs. No Government. I think the important question is…
Public Government vs. Private Government
I prefer to call private government corporatism and my quote says everything about it.
I believe that when government is public we are all better off by having it than not having it.
A country and its political system is nothing more than a coalition of economic and human recourses to answer all problems a society must face.
Obviously we differ on how much government to have and what powers should we grant it.
But to have a one universal cure of “NO GOVERNMENT” is naive, childish and ignorant.
first off, sieben, that it the funniest response to a post all year…
second, to the OP, are you claiming that by having a solely private society, we will create corporatism?
Third, I do not get when you mean “one universal cure of No Government”? There are many different versions of anarcho-capitalism, I suggest you read Walter Block, Robert Murphy, Murray Rothbard, and David Friedman… They all have different views on how an anarcho-cap society would work…
Fourth, it is contradicting to consider government, private because the definition of government implies control over PUBLIC policy and PUBLIC goods…
Fifth, if you posted this, then you know very little about Austrian Econ and our philosophy… Even the Austrian Economists that supported a state (Mises, Hazlitt) would have looked at this post and laughed…
While the level of argument is overwhelming, especially to us ignorant children, I think you may have over looked something. I’m sure you’re able to recognise how some outcomes are, while possible, very unlikely to happen in a market - everyone getting paid the exact same amount for example. People could choose to make this happen, they obviously wont though. Simply changing the desired outcome of government (being “public” instead of “private”) says nothing about the actual incentives facing governments or what they actually will do in practice.
There is no such thing as “Private Government”. What you call “Private Government” is just government. Remember corporations are legal fictions chartered or sanctioned by govenrment.
I like the rule:
Government that governs best governs least.
with the addition:
So government that governs optimally does not govern at all or it does not exist.
Third I cant give any credibility to science fiction not seen anywhere in human history.
Fourth Your definition of government does not match mine.
Fifth I do know enough to express a personal opinion about it and enough to disagree or agree in certain areas.
Isaac “Izzy” Marmolejo replied on Wed, Dec 29 2010 1:49 PM
first off, sieben, that it the funniest response to a post all year…
second, to the OP, are you claiming that by having a solely private society, we will create corporatism?
Third, I do not get when you mean “one universal cure of No Government”? There are many different versions of anarcho-capitalism, I suggest you read Walter Block, Robert Murphy, Murray Rothbard, and David Friedman… They all have different views on how an anarcho-cap society would work…
Fourth, it is contradicting to consider government, private because the definition of government implies control over PUBLIC policy and PUBLIC goods…
Fifth, if you posted this, then you know very little about Austrian Econ and our philosophy… Even the Austrian Economists that supported a state (Mises, Hazlitt) would have looked at this post and laughed…
I am without words for you. I challange to prove…let me correct myself…to try to prove anything you wrote.
Bogart wrote the following post at Wed, Dec 29 2010 1:51 PM:
There is no such thing as “Private Government”. What you call “Private Government” is just government. Remember corporations are legal fictions chartered or sanctioned by govenrment.
I like the rule:
Government that governs best governs least.
with the addition:
So government that governs optimally does not govern at all or it does not exist.
I think you’ll find that semantics lie at the heart of this issue.
May I ask you how you’re defining the word “government”? I’m willing to bet that you’re defining it differently from most other people on this forum. But that’s okay – after all, there are no right or wrong definitions, only different definitions.
first, are you claiming that by having a solely private society, we will create corporatism?
second, theory is different than science fiction. If you are suggesting that Walter Block or Rothbard are writing science fiction, you are not helping your case at all… This proves that you know very little of our philosophy..
third, that is not my definition of government, that is the definition of government. you cant just tweak the definition to your liking… if we were able to tweak definitions to our liking, then I would change the definition of socialism to support Austrian views and consider myself socialist…
if all you know is enough about Austrian Econ to criticize it, then again, you know very little…
[quote=“Isaac “Izzy” Marmolejo”]
third, that is not my definition of government, that is the definition of government. you cant just tweak the definition to your liking… if we were able to tweak definitions to our liking, then I would change the definition of socialism to support Austrian views and consider myself socialist…
[/quote]
In fairness to Wolfman, there actually are no correct definitions for words. That includes the word “government”. There are definitions that people understand and definitions that people use. Rather than argue over which definition used for a word is the definition for that word (an argument which no one can win), I think it’s better to try to understand your opponent’s semantics.
Also, I think you’d do well to lay off the personal attacks. They serve no purpose with the issue at hand.
It doesn’t, unless you simply refuse to acknowledge that it exists. I was trying to be humorous though - I guess it proves the arbitrariness of the matter case and point!
I was referring to the arbitrariness in definitions. I suppose one could argue neither the picture or arbitrariness exists, but I’m the last person who could pull that off in a convincing fashion!
