tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post4890791882690929571..comments2024-03-27T03:00:27.024-04:00Comments on Facts & other stubborn things: Public Choice(ish) concerns about libertarianismEvanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12259004160963531720noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-11001131422891692622011-12-13T17:17:50.982-05:002011-12-13T17:17:50.982-05:00How does one run into the problems of political en...How does one run into the problems of political entrepreneurism illustrated by public choice absent a government engaging in economic regulations? If a government is intervening in the economy, whether through Keynesian or other interventionist measures, you will have people/groups who will try to steer those measures in their direction, for their benefit. Thus, Keynesianism -- but not only Keynesianism -- inevitably leads to public choice problems. Whatever else one may say about laissez faire, it cannot have such problems, because of the separation of economy and state. One of the benefits of the separation of church and state is that neither adversely affects the other. If you want to avoid problems of theocracy (the public choice version of the religious order if and when there is no separation of church and state), you keep church and state separate. If you want to avoid cronyism, you keep economy and state separate.Troy Camplinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16515578686042143845noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-87544299367649701852011-12-01T17:24:58.405-05:002011-12-01T17:24:58.405-05:00Well, Mattheus, anarcho-capitalism is a system of ...<i>Well, Mattheus, anarcho-capitalism is a system of *governance*, at least. And if it ain't robust, that means if you ever did get it implemented, it would quickly crumble, say, into competing gangs fighting for power.</i><br /><br />What a reach to turn anarchy into a type of governance.<br /><br />But allow me to elaborate. I meant to say "I think robust systems of men governing other men through political means is a bad thing."<br /><br /><i>Which, of course, is exactly what *would* happen!</i><br /><br />I could argue, but I'll leave you to your opinions.Mattheus von Guttenberghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09404889240800715511noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-81643290636910610932011-12-01T15:13:40.723-05:002011-12-01T15:13:40.723-05:00"I think a robust system of government is a b..."I think a robust system of government is a bad thing."<br /><br />Well, Mattheus, anarcho-capitalism is a system of *governance*, at least. And if it ain't robust, that means if you ever did get it implemented, it would quickly crumble, say, into competing gangs fighting for power.<br /><br />Which, of course, is exactly what *would* happen!gcallahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10065877215969589482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-91351768749399805652011-12-01T14:41:28.721-05:002011-12-01T14:41:28.721-05:00Two notes
Ad 1):
Of course Libertarianism doesn...Two notes<br />Ad 1):<br />Of course Libertarianism doesn't provide absolute liberty and not even maximal liberty in general. But what lies at its core is the maximization of mutually consistent, equal abstract liberty. And I think Libertarianism achieves that goal quite well, even though libertarians often highlight only one of these possible orders.<br />But there is no necessary connection between abstract liberty and factual liberty. (Almost) every citizen of the US has the abstract liberty to buy a vault full of gold, few have the factual liberty. The issue is, which level of abstract liberty promotes factual liberty.<br /><br />Ad 2): "True" Libertarianism would be politically robust by definition, as long as it stays "true". If all government can do is enforce unchangeable property rights, there's not a lot of scope for capture. But I doubt that there is a way of organizing a government, such that it can robustly maintain "true" libertarianism. (Even if, society under such a government might be unstable or undesirable.) Serving special interest would be illegal/unconstitutional, but they'd do it anyway, for example.Franznoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-49471836081817054202011-12-01T13:52:05.273-05:002011-12-01T13:52:05.273-05:00Likewise, libertarians don't have recourse to ...<i>Likewise, libertarians don't have recourse to the claim that capture of the libertarian polity by a capitalist isn't a mark against them. Of course it is. If their institutions aren't robust to these captures, they aren't worth anything. If men have to be angels...</i><br /><br />Love that quote, added it to my blog<br /><br /><a href="http://www.reddit.com/r/CafeHayek/" rel="nofollow">Invisible Backhand</a>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-21837992141836125462011-12-01T11:37:26.173-05:002011-12-01T11:37:26.173-05:00"Who'll build the roads" is not a le..."Who'll build the roads" is not a legitimate critique in my opinion.<br /><br />"Who will build <i>enough</i> roads" is (although it's somewhat underdeveloped!).Daniel Kuehnhttp://www.factsandotherstubbornthings.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1740670447258719504.post-91163514558028911802011-12-01T11:30:45.255-05:002011-12-01T11:30:45.255-05:00I read all of it and I'm honestly impressed wi...I read all of it and I'm honestly impressed with the effort and sincerity you've seemed to put into this. I don't agree with it, of course. I think a robust system of government is a bad thing. But I do appreciate your attempt to speak on a more fundamental level about politics than "Well then who'll build the roads?"<br /><br />I could obviously comment on each of your points, but we've already been over this ground before.Mattheus von Guttenberghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09404889240800715511noreply@blogger.com