I'd agree that bigger governments tend to crowd out freer markets. More government tends to result in less liberty. But I can't see how anarchy would work. I'm more disposed to consider it than socialism, but either answer seems prohibitive in its negatives.
Minarchy (libertarianism) strikes a compromise I can support. It cedes a monopoly role to government to initiate force only to defend rights. I'd define rights as "negative rights" (the right to be left alone), not "positive rights" (my "right" to your life's output). These rights were once expressed as the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Any scope-creep of government past negative rights into social engineering, legislating morality, central planning, "managing" an economy, incentivising citizens' behavior, "social justice", etc. - I see as an abuse of its charter.
Anarchists maintain that government cannot be held to this charter. It's a hard argument to dispute, given the sweep of history. But I'd rather spend my eternal vigilance on limiting scope-creep than fighting off neighborhood warlords with my own voluntary gang.
This still means I'm willing to intrude on the fiscal liberty of others by supporting coercive contributions to the common defense. But that's as far as I'm willing to go. Obviously, others are willing to go further.
I mostly agreed with the first four minutes, with some minor exceptions. I got worried when he sincerely used the phrase "military-industrial complex" and it turns out my fears were justified as he turns into a full-blown anarchist by the end of the video (although I like the Forrest Gump music).
He likes free markets, but doesn't recognize that markets don't even exist without property rights. The fact is, you need some kind of government to enforce property rights. There are also other legitimate social functions that government should perform, such as accounting for externalities and encouraging the provision of public goods.
I'd support a much smaller government, but actual anarchy is too far. Richard above sums it up nicely: "I'd rather spend my eternal vigilance on limiting scope-creep than fighting off neighborhood warlords with my own voluntary gang."
I certainly don't think this is "over the top," except that the conclusion does not match the strident tone of the piece. If the state is so evil and powerful, and the only way to restore liberty is through anarcho-capitalism, then education isn't the solution - revolution is. So why are is Mike afraid to say that?
Nor do I think the tone of the piece advances the purpose of the piece, that is, if that purpose is education. Education must begin with showing people specific examples of how the current system is not capitalism, because most people think it is.
4 comments:
baby bear
I'd agree that bigger governments tend to crowd out freer markets. More government tends to result in less liberty. But I can't see how anarchy would work. I'm more disposed to consider it than socialism, but either answer seems prohibitive in its negatives.
Minarchy (libertarianism) strikes a compromise I can support. It cedes a monopoly role to government to initiate force only to defend rights. I'd define rights as "negative rights" (the right to be left alone), not "positive rights" (my "right" to your life's output). These rights were once expressed as the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Any scope-creep of government past negative rights into social engineering, legislating morality, central planning, "managing" an economy, incentivising citizens' behavior, "social justice", etc. - I see as an abuse of its charter.
Anarchists maintain that government cannot be held to this charter. It's a hard argument to dispute, given the sweep of history. But I'd rather spend my eternal vigilance on limiting scope-creep than fighting off neighborhood warlords with my own voluntary gang.
This still means I'm willing to intrude on the fiscal liberty of others by supporting coercive contributions to the common defense. But that's as far as I'm willing to go. Obviously, others are willing to go further.
I mostly agreed with the first four minutes, with some minor exceptions. I got worried when he sincerely used the phrase "military-industrial complex" and it turns out my fears were justified as he turns into a full-blown anarchist by the end of the video (although I like the Forrest Gump music).
He likes free markets, but doesn't recognize that markets don't even exist without property rights. The fact is, you need some kind of government to enforce property rights. There are also other legitimate social functions that government should perform, such as accounting for externalities and encouraging the provision of public goods.
I'd support a much smaller government, but actual anarchy is too far. Richard above sums it up nicely: "I'd rather spend my eternal vigilance on limiting scope-creep than fighting off neighborhood warlords with my own voluntary gang."
I certainly don't think this is "over the top," except that the conclusion does not match the strident tone of the piece. If the state is so evil and powerful, and the only way to restore liberty is through anarcho-capitalism, then education isn't the solution - revolution is. So why are is Mike afraid to say that?
Nor do I think the tone of the piece advances the purpose of the piece, that is, if that purpose is education. Education must begin with showing people specific examples of how the current system is not capitalism, because most people think it is.
Post a Comment