Hi, I was wondering why I haven’t heard about efforts from libertarian-leaning think tanks and organizations in trying to convince, say, a coalition of insurance companies to promote the privatization of roads on the argument that the insurance industry and these companies would benefit because of a whole new object to insure (roads) and lower risk brought about by the competition between roads. Or, say, in trying to convince under-priviliged hardware and software companies to promote the repeal of patent laws in the computer industry? Hey, it’s worth a shot, even if it’s only to help educating people about those possibilities.
Have you ever had a good look at any of these so-called “free market” think tanks? Do you think they would anything to piss off who pays their wages?
Kakugo, isn’t the LvMI and the Cato Institute too a think tank?
LvMI is not concerned with influencing policy and is not a think tank.
Mont Perelin, Reason, Cato, CEI,.etc are, as Hoppe says, about competing for their own specific ideas only within the spectrum of social democracy and not outside it. Many of them are temporary working places for wonks.
Holier than thou alarm clock going of.
Sorry.
But it was not meant that way, because I just meant the difference between those who work to change a system under the constraints of the system and those who worry about education only.
For example, an academic economist is expected to say that deficit budgets have flaws, whereas think-tankers and wonks are told that there is going to be a deficit and they’ll have to figure out what to do inspite of it. Peter Orszag was a strong fiscal conservative, before his first job in Washington required him to draw out and design the Troubled Asset Recovery Program.
I usually make a distinction between people who work within the system and people who work with the system. I don’t mind Cato and all publishing op-eds and blow the whistle on police abuse and stuff like that. I have a less favorable opinion regarding people who just cooperate and don’t try to do anything for the better.
On a more metalevel: the morality or immorality of ‘if I shoot 1 person, ‘they’ won’t shoot 10’ isn’t clear to me. (If you get my drift why this is relevant?)
I usually make a distinction between people who work within the system and people who work with the system. I don’t mind Cato and all publishing op-eds and blow the whistle on police abuse and stuff like that. I have a less favorable opinion regarding people who just cooperate and don’t try to do anything for the better.
On a more metalevel: the morality or immorality of ‘if I shoot 1 person, ‘they’ won’t shoot 10’ isn’t clear to me. (If you get my drift why this is relevant?)
Isn’t this just splitting hairs because at the end of the day, regardless of intent, they are both acting through the state. And if the state is a fundamentally unjust institution, then using it for a supposed good motive, doesn’t seem to me to change the fact someone is still trying to utilize machinery that feeds on blood and spirit.
What does ‘using the state’ mean?
Is advocating for a marginal better policy ‘using the state’?
Is someone immoral who tries to soften the blows by the slave owners?
You tell me.
Ah, second bests. I believe it is.
Is the blow more moral if it is softer?
Well, the problem with Washington (and Brussels) think tanks is that they don’t understand a little something about incentive and action.
Which is that even if their suggestions have some influence, ultimately what wonks and legislators do is based on what they want to do, and they’ll more likely take outside advice on things they would have done anyway. It’s partly futile, and partly going down the road of being just like them in order to appease them.
eg. School choice. School voucher programs are a really bad idea, but that is the result of Friedmanite liberals trying to reconcile with social democrats. But ultimately, why speak in the language of your opponents? Why have them dictate the terms? Why not have them understand that throwing money in public school education, whatever the form, will not solve problems of society? But ultimately, that is not even in debate - the premises are set that School is Good and Everybody Must Go To Same Quality Schools, and hence Mont Perelin delivers what they ask. Ultimately, all policy wonks and think tankers come to the same close culture and lose sight of real problems.
For the record, I am reading a book on European history after WWII, written by a proud social democrat. Even though nationalization and bureaucratization was more out of certain interests competing to get as much power as they could get, and happened of its own accord, the social democrats had the distinct vision of seeing this happen all the way. In the postwar social democracy of 1960s, whether you were a classical liberal, a Christian democrat, a conservative, or a social democrat, you could have wide disagreements, but only within the framework of the system, and it was not to be replaced. There were limits of tolerable dissent, and in Austria, you lost your job and your status if you dared venture too far into “reactionary” thinking. The author seemed to think that this was the perfect way of doing things. Conservatives were to strictly be left complaining about people who take off their clothes in public and liberals were to speak of nothing other than whether wage controls should be eased in certain sectors.
Maybe, maybe not, but I don’t see any reason to judge negatively about anyone who tries to soften the blow.
It’s also an interesting question: is morality a dichotomy or a range of possibilities?
Will someone please address my question rather than taking this space to argue over unrelated matters? Thanks.
How do you suppose any free market group will convince large organizations to conduct large tasks like this one?
Like, I said before, one might convince a coalition of insurance companies to promote the idea of road privatization because they would benefit from A) Lower risk involved due to safer roads and B) An entirely new object to insure: roads. Of course, the ones ideally in the position to do the convincing and providing the educational material and background would be those organizations and think tanks that endorse the privatization of roads. If you think that these institutions wouldn’t do this, then why not individuals from these institutions?
(I’m sure there are other examples than the privatization of roads directly benefiting insurance companies.)
There are some things the gov provides that are also provided by the private sector. For example, there are more private police than public police.
Roads however, are usually not provided by the private sector, because they are of sufficient quality to make it uneconomic to build better private roads alongside them.
Depends on a country. In Poland where government roads are a joke almost all highways are build and operated by private corporations that profit from them. Of course all is heavily regulated and corruption and regulatory chaos run rampart. Latest innovation on our highways starting July 1st 2011 is http://www.kapsch.net/pl/en/ktc/portfolio/tolling-systems/multi-lane_free-flow_etc-system/Pages/kapsch_highway.aspx automatic electronic microwave toll system (just the thing libertarians theorized about;)
Have you asked yourself why I used vowels for free market?
Oh, and have you ever seen the faces people make when you talk about the Austrian School of Economics? This school is as removed from mainstream acceptance as it can be. No free stuff? How will we live without it!
What do you mean, maybe, maybe not? Isn’t this something you should resolve BEFORE staking out a moral position?
Yes, we can’t judge the nice slave owners negatively. That would be uncouth!
You tell me. Is it possible to be a moral aggressor?