Sunday, March 07, 2004
Belle writes:
Damn. Now everyone thinks I hate on the libertarians. I don't, really. Libertarians have many principled, coherent arguments to offer in a piecemeal way. I even agree with quite a few: I don't think there should be subsidies or tariffs; I think people should be able to own guns; I think drugs should be decriminalized. Hell, I think that people ought to be able to practice gay polygamy. 'Do your own thing, man, as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else', as that one hippie guy in your undergraduate philosophy classes used to say. I'm perfectly willing to listen to arguments about how the state is performing some function badly and at a loss which someone else could perform better and at a profit. Up with private space exploration! Let's sell the moon to random technopreneurs!
Nonetheless, I also think it's fair to point out when people go off the rails. The proposed end-state of all this state-trimming can't just be no government at all. Minarchist libertarians, people who just wish the US government was 50% of its current size, (or 15%) -- fine. I'm sure we can have many fruitful arguments. Anarcho-libertarians are fruitcakes, though, and many of the things they believe seem to contradict some of the more compelling arguments for things libertarians hold dear. For example, I have been convinced that strong property rights are a good thing. Countries with weak property rights and a lack of contract enforcement languish economically and can't unleash their full potential -- people can't borrow against their farm land to buy fertilizer, commerce is restricted to trust-based, small scale operations. So, I'm afraid we need the government to enforce contracts and guard against violations of property rights, otherwise everything will go to hell.
Her argument is of the sort: Shoes are a good thing. Of course, only the government can provide shoes. Too few Americans have shoe insurance.
She is right that contracts and strong property rights are good things that enable markets. Failure to have strong property rights is called the tragedy of the commons.
Shoes are good things too.
It is a leap to assume only the government can create or enforce contracts or property rights.
Reputation capital is on the line when breach of contract is alleged.
The parties can duel, cease trading, report to credit agencies. Most trade occurs in ongoing transactions, a reiterated prisoners' dilemma.
The New York Stock Exchange is an example of a self-regulating non-governmental entity. Poker games are another example - who calls the cops? People self-regulate their play.
Damn. Now everyone thinks I hate on the libertarians. I don't, really. Libertarians have many principled, coherent arguments to offer in a piecemeal way. I even agree with quite a few: I don't think there should be subsidies or tariffs; I think people should be able to own guns; I think drugs should be decriminalized. Hell, I think that people ought to be able to practice gay polygamy. 'Do your own thing, man, as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else', as that one hippie guy in your undergraduate philosophy classes used to say. I'm perfectly willing to listen to arguments about how the state is performing some function badly and at a loss which someone else could perform better and at a profit. Up with private space exploration! Let's sell the moon to random technopreneurs!
Nonetheless, I also think it's fair to point out when people go off the rails. The proposed end-state of all this state-trimming can't just be no government at all. Minarchist libertarians, people who just wish the US government was 50% of its current size, (or 15%) -- fine. I'm sure we can have many fruitful arguments. Anarcho-libertarians are fruitcakes, though, and many of the things they believe seem to contradict some of the more compelling arguments for things libertarians hold dear. For example, I have been convinced that strong property rights are a good thing. Countries with weak property rights and a lack of contract enforcement languish economically and can't unleash their full potential -- people can't borrow against their farm land to buy fertilizer, commerce is restricted to trust-based, small scale operations. So, I'm afraid we need the government to enforce contracts and guard against violations of property rights, otherwise everything will go to hell.
Her argument is of the sort: Shoes are a good thing. Of course, only the government can provide shoes. Too few Americans have shoe insurance.
She is right that contracts and strong property rights are good things that enable markets. Failure to have strong property rights is called the tragedy of the commons.
Shoes are good things too.
It is a leap to assume only the government can create or enforce contracts or property rights.
Reputation capital is on the line when breach of contract is alleged.
The parties can duel, cease trading, report to credit agencies. Most trade occurs in ongoing transactions, a reiterated prisoners' dilemma.
The New York Stock Exchange is an example of a self-regulating non-governmental entity. Poker games are another example - who calls the cops? People self-regulate their play.
Comments:
Post a Comment
