Except that in the absence of a true Ubermensch the state requires cooperation to create itself to and to continue its running. Thus the existence of the state refutes the public goods argument entirely.
I’m indebted to Don Lavoie on this point. He mustn’t have been on one of his trips that day!!!
Haeyk
Do you understand what consent theory requires for a government to be voluntary? Consent must be unanimous, unambiguous, and ongoing. This means that everyone must agree to every law, and that every individual must have a right of secession.
By admitting that unanimous consent is utopian, you are thereby admitting to be trapped in the dilemma: consent theory must be false for a free rider problem to exist.
Red herring. This has nothing to do with the topic at hand.
I’m not intimately familiar with Hayek’s argument, but it basically amounts to the conclusion that social engineering does not work and that constructivism is false. One need not say a thing about ‘rationality’ to obtain this conclusion though. It is more so an attack on scientistic arrogance than a presumption against letting people do as they wish without hindrance by the state.
partly this arrogance is based on the fact that social scientists are rational enough to foresee every eventuality and take all into account. this arrogance also is partly based on thinking of people as mathematical units in an economic model.
read Hayek’s “the counter revolution of science”, he talks about this topic in that book.
Didn’t Hayek advocate a particular form of constructivist government ? Wasn’t he willing to murder anyone who didn’t agree to be ruled by his parliamentary republic or whatever he called his artificial social system ?
no i am afraid he never did anything you describe. hayek was very much against ideas of moral relativism (social constructivism). unlike anarchists, liberal thinkers want peace and to preserve people’s freedom, including freedom to live. hayek and von mises greatly admired each other. hayek carried on von mises’ economic and political work.
Right, so it has nothing to do with people being “irrational” but rather the presumption of excessive knowledge.
yes, i think maybe i phrased my reply badly.