I was in an economic discussion in another forum, and a guy said: "A truly free market has not and will never exist except in the dreams of Ludwig."
Now im not that interested in the historic part of this statement, more of a semantic question it seems. What really seems interesting though, is why so few countries(if any, i dont know) strive to achieve a Laissez-Faire at present. Is it because it doesnt have a great reputation and socialist ideals like welfare states are too dominant and need to show their weaknesses before being replaced with a liberalist ideal? But autonomous thinking politicians should realise the problems of the aforementioned regime anyway and do the "right thing".
Why is it so rare then!?
Politicians like keeping and/or expanding their power.
nandnor:Why is it so rare then!?
Think about the time preference of a politician's career. What sort of behaviour and incentives are created by a temporary position of absolute authority?
If you find something evil that wobbles, push it. - Gary North
there will always be a majority clamoring for a strong daddy figure to tell them that he will take care of everything and they don't have to worry. people only grow up if they're forced to.
liberty student: nandnor:Why is it so rare then!? Think about the time preference of a politician's career. What sort of behaviour and incentives are created by a temporary position of absolute authority?
Monarchist pig.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
nandnor:What really seems interesting though, is why so few countries(if any, i dont know) strive to achieve a Laissez-Faire at present.
Laissez-faire is against the principal idea of the state. How can you have a controler who has no power and doesn't do anything. You can't, in this situation the controler wouldn't be a controler. As pointed before the idea of letting down controls is against the preferences of a politican. If they started striving towards free-market they would create more competition for the positions they themselves hold since less politicians would be requiered.
There is also this that the politicians would have to start admitting that they've been robbing the people all along. Now try explaining to an angry mob of thousands or even millions that you were doing it all for their own good.
As for younger politicians with no previous significant record - I suppose it's not that easy to climb to the ranks while promoting the ideas that would tear down the system.
One night I dreamed of chewing up my debetcard - there simply is nothing like hard cash in your pocket!
I think it is simply because very few politicians are "educated", or even have the ability to become "educated". Simply put, 90% of the population is too stupid to be able to grasp the idea of rights, let alone human action.
At most, 5% of the population would need to stop complying to bring down the government.
Spideynw:I think it is simply because very few politicians are "educated", or even have the ability to become "educated". Simply put, 90% of the population is too stupid to be able to grasp the idea of rights, let alone human action.
Well if 90% of the human race was stupid I wonder how we evolved as a species. I tend to think that stupidity is most of the time an excuse. People know what they do and they know why they do it.
In the begining there was nothing, and it exploded.
Terry Pratchett (on the big bang theory)
nhaag:Well if 90% of the human race was stupid I wonder how we evolved as a species.
I should say I think 90% of the population is not smart enough to understand argumentative fallacies.
yessss, and we all belong to these 90% some time or another.
Why do you think the free market is rare?
Hardly anyone talks, trades, shares ideas, etc. with the use of force. In fact, most of life is anarchistic.
Ludwig von Mises' philosophy is just based on applying this same sense to all things.
nhaag: yessss, and we all belong to these 90% some time or another.
I am talking about the capacity to understand. Granted, when we were children, probably none of us could have understood argumentative fallacies. However, I think about 90% of the adult population is unable to grasp argumentative fallacies. I breezed through my Philosophy class. However, about 90% of the students really struggled to understand basic Western philosophy. They simply were not capable of critical thought.
Of course this is all conjecture. I could be wrong, but I do not think so.
John Ess:Hardly anyone talks, trades, shares ideas, etc. with the use of force. In fact, most of life is anarchistic.
Good point. This is easy to overlook.
nandnor: I was in an economic discussion in another forum, and a guy said: "A truly free market has not and will never exist except in the dreams of Ludwig." Why is it so rare then!?
Because in essence, the free market is the negation of politics. And I think politicians sense that on a basic level. Look; if a politician is responsible for the roads in a given country, considers the options of privatizing the roads and handing them over to private industry, he will realize very soon that he would be out of a job is he did what he was considering. The politician has a vested interest to keep his position. And since his job consists of doing something that the free market could also deliver, the very nature of his job is at odds with the free market. So the biggest threat to the politicians income and livelihood is the free market. When you say to a politician that the free market has better solutions than the state, you are in effect telling him that you want to take away his job!
I think that's the reason why government mandated school teach that the industrial revolution was a disaster and that the crash of '29 was caused by the free market. By damning the free market, they are securing their own jobs. This fits the conclusion that Lew Rockwell has drawn so wisely; that which is good for the state is per definition not good for the people.
Spideynw,
This seems pretty harsh and unfair. It is the equivalent of a mechanic saying, "90% of the population doesn't know how to replace a transmission in a car! What idiots!" or a butcher saying "90% of the population doesn't know how to butcher a beef! What idiots!" Of course most people aren't going to understand economic issues, government policies, the intricacies of the market. Most people are not economists. Most people are not politicians. Most people are not market forecasters. How could you expect most people to be? I'm glad the mechanic doesn't spend most of his time learning economics, because then it probably means he's not learning as much as he can about mechanics. I'm certainly not going to know how to replace my own transmission when it goes out. I rely on the mechanic for his special knowledge and skills just as the mechanic relies on you for yours.
I am saying people cannot, in general, even begin to understand Austrian economics. So it is not like a mechanic saying, "90% of the population doesn't know how to replace a transmission in a car! What idiots!" It is like a mechanic saying, "90% of the population cannot learn how to replace a transmission in a car!"
However, it is more probable that 90% are simply uninterested in learning how to replace a transmission or understand Austrian economics.
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap