|
|
Read
the transcript of the original panel discussion! Anarchy vs.
Limited Government
Submit your
comments and join the discussion! Comments may be edited for
content and clarity. Due to time constraints, not every comment will be receive a
response.
|
I write in response to your "Does Freedom Mean Anarchy?" symposium (December).
It seems logical that freedom can exist without the oversight of government if
all parties share the same value system. Galt's Gulch is a good example of a
society in which government was unnecessary because every member had the same
moral values. Because of these moral values, protection of individual property
rights was unnecessary. Galt's Gulch does not exist in the real world and people
do not value individual rights in the same manner. As a result, these rights
become infringed and a lawmaking authority is necessary to protect the individual
and these rights.
Our Founding Fathers recognized this and attempted to create a government of
limited authority based on enumerated powers to protect individual rights. This
enumerated authority was designed to ensure the creation of a free nation. Today
many feel these powers extend far beyond the framers' original intent. I believe
that they indeed created a "more perfect union" but failed to recognize that
being a congressman would become an occupation that one could pursue for a
lifetime. Our Founding Fathers had families, farms, and businesses that they
wanted to get back to, leaving the power of government to the next patriot. Now
the career politician must continue to get reelected by showing what he has done
for his constituents even if it means expanding the reach of the federal
government beyond its purpose.
The erosion of freedom would not be reversed by removing government authority
over individuals with differing values; however, understanding the causes of the
erosion would help prevent it from happening further.
* * *
|
"Does Freedom Mean Anarchy?" No. The free market is a self-regulating,
self-governing process; and interference with it, interference with government,
is not itself government but antigovernment.
Would a pure free market develop separate, competing law enforcement agencies
within a community? No. It would develop separate, competing communities.
Does any of this really matter? No. The problem for libertarians is not
telling a free market what to evolve into. The free market will figure that out
by itself. The problem for libertarians is getting the world to permit a free
market to evolve. And answering why has it not yet done so? It isn't because
libertarians haven't yet resolved all the finer points of political and moral
theory. "It's the economy, stupid," the desire for plunder and redistribution.
And there will be no end to it until you show that it doesn't pay, that taking
from the rich to give to the poor doesn't make the poor richer but poorer.
That is the only logical strategy; and the narrow minded, neophobic
libertarians who can't be bothered with it are not leaders in the fight for
freedom but irrelevant to it.
* * *
|
David Friedman said public choice theory has not yet explained why "they don't
take [nearly all] of our income but rather satisfy themselves with 30 or
40%".
Unusually for him, he understates the amount of the taking, and thus
exaggerates the puzzle, by neglecting compliance costs.
* * *
|
Everyone involved in the discussion appears to wish to impose their own
perfect "system" (or lack thereof) on everyone else. All appear to seek to solve
the problems of the rest of humanity, instead of their own.
In other words, there is an underlying implication in this discussion of: "in
order to solve my problems, and make me feel better, I need to change the rest of
the world to my standards first," even from the "anarchist." Messrs. Friedman,
Murray, Boaz, and Bradford are no different from any other philosopher, whether
celebrated or obscure. They think: "If everyone did and thought as I do, my world
would be perfect, and everyone else would be better off into the bargain."
What a bunch of baloney!
* * *
|
I just wanted to say that it is frightening to see Charles Murray in dialogue
with some of the editors of Liberty. I just don't think Murray's writings are
compatible with liberty, especially with Liberty editor Dr. Thomas Szasz's
writings.
Murray's latest book "Human Accomplishment" is dedicated to Dr. Charles
Krauthammer, the syndicated columnist and psychiatrist. Murray and Krauthammer
have been friends for some time and play chess on Mondays at Krauthammer's home.
Krauthammer is an outspoken critic of Dr. Szasz, and there is a chapter on Szasz
in Krauthammer's Pulitzer Prize-winning book, "Cutting Edges."
Krauthammer, along with the late Gerald Klerman, is credited with discovering
"secondary depression". But as Szasz has shown, since there is no such thing as
"mental illness," Krauthammer and Klerman invented "secondary depression."
Klerman debated Szasz at Harvard on suicide and psychiatric coercion. Dr.
Krauthammer loves psychiatric coercion.
Murray was never able to see that the late Richard Herrnstein, co-author of
"The Bell Curve," was a fake, as are all psychologists. Dr. Murray doesn't see
that Dr. Krauthammer is a fake, as all psychiatrists are.
I don't know what Liberty is doing with Murray.
| Liberty's
editors respond: |
|
Let's see. We should all shun anyone who has a friend who is a critic of
Thomas Szasz? We're sorry that Dr. Murray frightens you, but we'll continue to
associate with anyone we think is intelligent and challenging.
* * *
| Everett DeJager
theorizes: |
|
I read "Does Freedom Mean Anarchy?" and the authors did lots of discussing,
but did not come up with the simplest answer. The essential thing we ask of
government is protection from aggression. Is there a better way to protect myself
from aggression than expecting government to do it? I suggest there is.
I suggest there should be companies selling protection. I suggest one be named
We Protect Or We Pay. WPOWP. They would sell protection policies, like insurance
companies.
How would WPOWP operate? Let's imagine a thief. Let's name him Luigi. Luigi,
like everybody else, has bought a protection policy. Luigi is a burglar. He
breaks into a house and steals the silverware. He has to sell it to convert it to
money. He sells it to a pawn shop.
The victim reports the theft to WPOWP. They pay, according to the contract.
Then they check pawnshops. The pawnbroker is also a customer of a protection
company. He reports the sale as possibly a theft. It does not take long for WPOWP
to recover the silver, and find Luigi.
Luigi's protection company would be notified. They would instantly cancel
Luigi's protection policy. Luigi would be a dead man. He would be a bad risk.
Of course, it would not happen this way. The beauty of this system is that
theft would be prevented! Word would get around among the possible thieves that
they could never get away with anything. Luigi would have to find an honest way
to make a living.
A problem was suggested: suppose, in a no-government world, a protection
company decides to go into the burglary business? I consider this extremely
unlikely. Its customers would learn that it was not a nice protector, and cancel
their contracts. After all, the vast majority of people do not like thieves.
Additionally, if a protection company became an aggressor, all the other
companies would find it necessary to oppose it. Because their customers would be
its victims, they would lose money. They would do their best to publicize the
criminal activity of their competitor.
Since the protection companies are businesses, they would be run by
businessmen, who are honest.
Of course, there are protection services you can buy, but they are hired only
by people who fear getting assassinated. Bodyguards. What I suggest is for
ordinary people, like you and me. I suggest this service instead of police and
courts. Instead of government. Anarchy.
Somewhere I read that police service costs about $20 per year per person. I
bet the free market can do it for less and better.
| | | | | | |
|
