|
Post by Don on May 21, 2017 7:45:45 GMT -5
The thesis:Examples from Edmund Burke, Adam Smith, Ludwig von Mises and F. A. Hayek help to illustrate the point, then comes the Munger Test: Then he gives a couple of examples: Try this simple test the next time you think government intervention is the prescription for societal progress.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 21, 2017 10:07:02 GMT -5
What are the example of societies where the populations have prospered and flourished in anarchy?
ETA:
And by that I mean, where large populations of people have done well without government for any prolonged of time. Also, if you can name any, what happened to them?
And by "done well", I mean, considered alongside life in e.g. the U.S., Canada, western Europe, Australia etc.
It might work okay for a brief while in an agrarian society of intellectuals who are all deeply committed to equality, fairness, and philosophy -- right up until an ambitious warlord type has an eye to their land and unites some like-minded followers.
The idea of any place where people live closely together with interests that necessarily compete and overlap, where some really do not give a shit about the rights of others (or at least, think their own are paramount) -- and that's pretty much everywhere in the real world -- without government...yeah, I find that prospect terrifying.
ETA:
I submit that the idea of a peaceful, successful, long-term society of any size existing with no government is a unicorn -- it sounds lovely, but it's never existed.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on May 21, 2017 11:33:34 GMT -5
It is, I think, unfair to respond to Don as if he were advocating either The State or anarchy.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on May 21, 2017 12:04:13 GMT -5
Anyway, I think there is some validity in the thesis--the "State" is a Unicorn--as long as we're clear that it's the imagined, hoped-for state.
Here's my short version of how the two primary political ideologies regard "the people" and "the state," plus libertarianism:
Conservatives expect the worst from the people and from the state (since the state is made up of people).
Liberals expect the best from the people and from the state.
Libertarians expect the best from the people and the worst from the sate.
Imperfect, I know. But I think it captures general expectations. One could see the first as overly cynical, the second as overly idealistic, and the last as realistic, of course. But one could also see the first as realistic and both of the others as idealistic. One could also allow that--given the reality of the world--only the second leaves room for hope...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 21, 2017 12:11:20 GMT -5
It is, I think, unfair to respond to Don as if he were advocating either The State or anarchy. Maybe I'm reading too much into his posts, but I think Don pretty much does advocate anarchy, and think the State is inherently problematic. (Which is where I diverge from him, since, though I agree with him on lots of civil liberties issues, I think the State is essential, if necessarily imperfect because humans are.) Am I wrong, Don?
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on May 21, 2017 12:16:25 GMT -5
I think Don is more in favor of a minimalist state, i.e. one where the state exists as a necessity to fulfill certain needs that only it can fulfill (defense, legal system, etc.) but where it does not involve itself in day-to-day activities of the populace, from the bedroom to the marketplace.
He can correct me if I'm wrong, but I've never seen Don advocate actual anarchy, at all.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 21, 2017 12:27:46 GMT -5
I'll still, of course, ask for an example of such a state that has worked long-term, successfully, and on a large scale.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on May 21, 2017 12:34:24 GMT -5
There's never been a successful communist or fully socialist state, either. Yet people keep arguing for both.
That said, the United States of today is not the United Sates of 1900. Comparatively speaking, the federal government of 1900 was minimalist, as compared to the federal government of today.
I'm not in favor of a minimalist state, myself, but I think there's value in recognizing the utopian fantasies of what some term "statists" for what they are: fantasies. Because doing so may actually lead to some pullback from a state that is just too fucking expansive right now.
|
|
|
Post by Don on May 21, 2017 19:53:58 GMT -5
Rob's doing a great job of representing my views in this thread. I really appreciate that, since I'm in the midst of packing for a 15-week RV trip out west. I'll be on the road starting Tuesday, but we've usually got some form of internet access, so you won't get rid of me entirely. "Minimalist state" is a good definition of what I'd like to see. When we get to 10% of its current size, then we can discuss how much more minimalist is optimal. It's not hard to get from a natural right to defend oneself from predators (successfully or unsuccessfully, a right every creature in the animal kingdom shares) to a minimalist state that represents an organization of that right to self-defense, through a justice system focused on restitution for crimes of force or fraud, contract resolution and the like. It's a far leap from there to the modern state, with "victimless crimes," regulation of peaceful commerce, and the creation of "positive rights," or what might be better termed government-granted privilege. I'll pick a little bone with the following, however. While it's handy for the comparison you made, it subtly misstates the libertarian argument. The fundamental difference between classical liberalism and libertarianism, IMO, is the evolution of the non-aggression principle. As stated in the pledge for the Libertarian Party, "I hereby certify that I do not believe in or advocate the initiation of force as a means of achieving political or social goals." More generally, it applies to any goals, personal as well as political and social. So it's not really that "libertarians expect the best from the people and the worst from the state," it's that we view the initiation of force as morally wrong, regardless of who has blessed the action, or what shiny badges they might possess. We do not believe that even "good" individuals, however one might define that term, are acting morally when they perform immoral acts at the behest of the state. (See also: The Milgram Experiment) The assumption of such power, even in a "good cause," leads to the belief that immoral acts, performed for the "good of society," are no longer immoral. So here's my restatement. "Only following orders" requires a suspension of one's own moral compass. That can only bring negatives to society as a whole. I guess that pretty well answers @cassandraw 's question about why I find the state problematic in general terms, as well.
|
|
|
Post by Don on May 21, 2017 20:04:05 GMT -5
I'll still, of course, ask for an example of such a state that has worked long-term, successfully, and on a large scale. There is, of course, no such textbook example, just as there is no such textbook example of a socialist state. However, it's very easy to look at both the historical record and the current states around the world, and draw a simple correlation between granting individuals choice and the well-being of the citizens. Compare East and West Germany, or Hong Kong and Venezuela. Compare portions of any economy that are suffering from regulatory capture to other portions that are relatively free-choice. I'm sure Rob can point you to copious examples, or I'll go digging when I get some time. Free choice allows people to innovate, and others to encourage or discourage those innovations according to their individual, subjective choices. This is how progress happens. Every government edict limits choice, restricts innovation, and forces the misallocation of some resources from those judged subjectively as the most valuable by the participants, making us all poorer in the process.
|
|
|
Post by Don on May 22, 2017 4:46:47 GMT -5
However, it's very easy to look at both the historical record and the current states around the world, and draw a simple correlation between granting individuals choice and the well-being of the citizens. Compare East and West Germany, or Hong Kong and Venezuela. Compare portions of any economy that are suffering from regulatory capture to other portions that are relatively free-choice. I'm sure Rob can point you to copious examples, or I'll go digging when I get some time. Free choice allows people to innovate, and others to encourage or discourage those innovations according to their individual, subjective choices. This is how progress happens. Every government edict limits choice, restricts innovation, and forces the misallocation of some resources from those judged subjectively as the most valuable by the participants, making us all poorer in the process. Ask and it shall be given, apparently. This article just popped up in my news feed. Communist Economics in One Page: A Refresher CourseThe article is most graphically summarized by this picture, which contrasts the automobiles produced in 1989, in East and West Germany. Can you guess which is which, and why? As rob is so fond of saying, incentives matter. The incentives in the marketplace are entirely different from those in the bureaucracy. To the extent that socialistic economic policies destroy price signals, those policies replace the incentives of the marketplace with the incentives of the bureaucracy. The end result of that difference in incentives is glaringly obvious to anyone who cares to look.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on May 23, 2017 13:33:19 GMT -5
There is, of course, no such textbook example, just as there is no such textbook example of a socialist state. But most people who are skeptical about the viability of libertarianism on a large scale are not socialists. That's as much of a straw man as claiming you must either be statist or anarchist. Are you really putting forward West Germany and Hong Kong as examples of libertarian principles in action? I mean, yes, they are (more or less) free market democracies, but they're even further from libertarian than the U.S. As for comparing the U.S. now to the U.S. in 1900... yes, the government back then was relatively minimalist, but how is that an argument that minimalist government is better. Would you rather live now or in 1900? Let's even pretend you had 21st century technology but a government akin to the U.S. in 1900. I submit that life would be worse for more people with the "minimalist" government that didn't interfere much in robber baron empires, monopolies, consumer safety, or civil rights. Does that mean I like everything about our greatly expanded government, or think that "MOAR GUMMINT" is always an unmitigated good? No, of course not. But you need a better argument than "Look how much less the government meddled a hundred years ago" to demonstrate that "minarchy" is an ideal to aspire to.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 23, 2017 13:42:08 GMT -5
I agree with Amadan.
I would like to see many post 9/11 expansions of government power dialed back. I'd hoped Obama would do that, but alas, he didn't. I wanted to kick a lot of my liberal friends who were all "it's fine! I totally trust Obama!" They're not so happy now that it's Trump. Ditto conservatives who screamed when it was Obama wielding power, but are hunky-dory when it is Trump. Damn it, stop and consider that the next president might not be someone you adore, and balance that into your view of how much power we give him. Ditto on every other branch of government. Checks and balances, limits on power -- there for a reason.
But a return to 1900 -- no, I don't want that.
ETA:
By the way, Don -- have a great trip!
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on May 23, 2017 17:48:41 GMT -5
[Are you really putting forward West Germany and Hong Kong as examples of libertarian principles in action? I mean, yes, they are (more or less) free market democracies, but they're even further from libertarian than the U.S. I don't think he's doing that, at all. He's suggesting that rather obvious conclusions can be drawn from such comparisons: more freedom of choice leads to better outcomes over time (as compared to socialist states). If you want to say that this doesn't prove that even more freedom of choice would lead to even better outcomes, you have a fair point (and I would agree with you). But Don is not--by my reading--offering up West Germany as an example of a libertarian state at all. I brought up the U.S. in 1900, and nowhere did I argue that it was evidence that "minimalist government is better." Cass asked for an example of a minimalist state that "worked long-term, successfully, and on a large scale." If you grant that the government of 1900 was minimalist as compared to the government of today, you have to grant that such a government worked and was successful on a large scale. It changed, true enough, but not all at once.
|
|
|
Post by Christine on May 23, 2017 17:59:26 GMT -5
[Are you really putting forward West Germany and Hong Kong as examples of libertarian principles in action? I mean, yes, they are (more or less) free market democracies, but they're even further from libertarian than the U.S. I don't think he's doing that, at all. He's suggesting that rather obvious conclusions can be drawn from such comparisons: more freedom of choice leads to better outcomes over time (as compared to socialist states). If you want to say that this doesn't prove that even more freedom of choice would lead to even better outcomes, you have a fair point (and I would agree with you). But Don is not--by my reading--offering up West Germany as an example of a libertarian state at all. That's kind of the problem, though. Cass asked for examples where anarchy works, lots of people have asked for examples where libertarianism works, and in response we all get "proof" in the stark contrast between.... Hong Kong and Venezuela.
|
|