The Mises Community
An online community for fans of Austrian economics and libertarianism, featuring forums, user blogs, and more.
Forums
 »
Economics
 »
Political Theory
 »
How Molyneux answers most "but how will the private market X"

Thank you for your participation and interest in the Mises Community. This software platform has seen its day, however, and so is now closed. We are redoing our entire site, so look for some exciting developments by the end of the year. Thank you for your support of Austrian economics, liberty, and peace.

How Molyneux answers most "but how will the private market X"

rated by 0 users
This post has 12 Replies | 4 Followers

Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,984
Points 89,720
Reply
Wheylous Posted: Wed, Aug 1 2012 10:49 PM

I've been thinking of writing about this topic for a while now, but while scanning through Molyneux's Practical Anarchy, I noticed a good summary of my idea. I will present my idea first:

Whenever people get in a discussion about AnCap with me, they usually bring up things like taking care of the poor. Most of the mainstream, whether left or right, does not want welfare completely removed. Hence, they are deeply concerned when I say that I don't think there should be any welfare programs run by the state. Literally almost everyone does that. "But who will take care of the poor?"

And so from this constant repetition, I've been able to distil a new argument:

Argument by Argument

What does that mean? It means that by the very fact that every single person debating anarchy is so concerned about the poor, then goddamn it seems like the poor have a lot of people who care about them.

Hence, by the very fact that issue A is seen by a big problem by most people who discuss anarchy (Who will take care of all the Bs in society?), it seems like a whole big portion of society cares about all those Bs, and so issue A is resolved.

Molyneux states it more succinctly:

“Since everybody is concerned that ‘X’ will not be provided, ‘X’ will naturally be provided by those who are concerned by its absence.”
  • | Post Points: 80
Top 75 Contributor
Male
Posts 1,018
Points 17,760
Reply
Kelvin Silva replied on Wed, Aug 1 2012 10:52 PM

I see what you did there.

 

“Since people are concerned that ‘X’ will not be provided, ‘X’ will naturally be provided by those who are concerned by its absence."
"The sweetest of minds can harbor the harshest of men.”

http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.org

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 203
Points 3,195
Reply
Stephen Adkins replied on Wed, Aug 1 2012 11:38 PM

Agree with you but to play statist's advocate, look at how badly the poor are doing despite all the care and welfare money we throw at them. And you want to take even that away from them?! They were right - libertarians really are heartless.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,984
Points 89,720
Reply
Wheylous replied on Wed, Aug 1 2012 11:42 PM

Well, look at the drug war and all other regulatory hurdles :P

Plus, the current paradigm is that it is the duty of government to provide for the welfare of people, so people do not really bother to be as actively involved in forming a social safety net and taking precautions against unemployment, etc.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 203
Points 3,195
Reply
Stephen Adkins replied on Wed, Aug 1 2012 11:53 PM

I'm just feeling super deflated lately when it comes to changing people's minds. I have a new housemate whose a total statist. He is a public school teacher and his head almost exploded when I tried to get him to see the major difference between private and public schools. To get him to see practically any social issue like I do would take days of intense conversation and open mindedness that I don't see much evidence of. So I just shrug and let him think what he wants I guess.

I'm imagining his response to the welfare question. They need more and they deserve more, probably.

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 200 Contributor
Posts 421
Points 7,165
Reply
Phi est aureum replied on Thu, Aug 2 2012 2:33 AM

To which, a not-totally-inappropriate response (keeping the argument by argument in mind) would be, "Well, you need to give more, and you deserve to give more."

(;

The only one worth following is the one who leads... not the one who pulls; for it is not the direction that condemns the puller, it is the rope that he holds.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,922
Points 79,590
Reply
Autolykos replied on Thu, Aug 2 2012 11:11 AM

Stephen Adkins:
I'm just feeling super deflated lately when it comes to changing people's minds. I have a new housemate whose a total statist. He is a public school teacher and his head almost exploded when I tried to get him to see the major difference between private and public schools. To get him to see practically any social issue like I do would take days of intense conversation and open mindedness that I don't see much evidence of. So I just shrug and let him think what he wants I guess.

I'm imagining his response to the welfare question. They need more and they deserve more, probably.

Following praxeology, the sunk-cost fallacy applies just as much (if not more) to ideology as it does to investment. Don't underestimate its power.

The keyboard is mightier than the gun.

Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.

Voluntaryism Forum

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,051
Points 36,080
Reply
Bert replied on Thu, Aug 2 2012 11:31 AM

The people who make these assumptions don't see their own fallacy (unless they actually believe it).  You have the arguement, as you stated, that's generally more so emotionally driven of "What about the poor (insert drawn out scenario here) etc.?"

Well, it does appear a lot of people care, like yourself to bring this up, but what will really happen?

1.  People on their own time and financial ability help those who cannot help themselves at the time because we are concerned, thus we wouldn't bring it up as people.

2.  We said "to hell with 'em" and will never donate a dime, because we all know no one donates money to help the poor, and people are so bad and corrupt we need other people to take our money to make sure the job is done.  Like when that earthquake hit Haiti?  No individual really donated, it was all just the government.

Or how about this:

Person A:  We can just ... (insert obvious long drawn out arguement) ... and then people would have more money in the short and long run as well as more money to freely choose what they wish to do with it, such as donating and funding organizations.

Person B:  Well, what about the poor?  Should we just rely on what people might do?

Person A:  Well, if you are so concerned, do you donate and fund organizations to help the poor?

Person B:  Ah, well, uh, I just spent $200 on new art supplies and I gotta make rent for my apartment because the rest is tied up in an avant garde short film I'm working on, and then I gotta take a trip up to Williamsburg for some projects I'm working on.  You expect me to do all this on a minimum wage job?!  Someone should really do something.

Person A: Yeah, someone should, like yourself, who should shut the fuck up.

That's probably how that conversation goes on a regular basis.

I had always been impressed by the fact that there are a surprising number of individuals who never use their minds if they can avoid it, and an equal number who do use their minds, but in an amazingly stupid way. - Carl Jung, Man and His Symbols
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,984
Points 89,720
Reply
Wheylous replied on Thu, Aug 2 2012 1:10 PM

The way I've seen the sunk cost fallacy explained at times actually seems anti-economical to me. As in they ignore marginal valuation of goods.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 150 Contributor
Posts 780
Points 13,125
Reply
Minarchist replied on Thu, Aug 2 2012 6:56 PM

The elimination of the welfare state would be followed by a precipitous decline in concern for the poor et al, because it is much easier to demand that the State help the poor than to write a check yourself. I suspect most of those persons now loudly calling for others (via the redistributionist State) to help the poor would be reluctant to do so themselves. Fortunately, in the absence of the welfare state, the demand for altruism should be much less than it is currently, and the supply should suffice.

apiarius delendus est, ursus esuriens continendus est
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
Male
Posts 239
Points 5,820
Reply
The Texas Trigger replied on Fri, Sep 21 2012 4:24 AM

 

Minarchist:
I suspect most of those persons now loudly calling for others (via the redistributionist State) to help the poor would be reluctant to do so themselves.

Kind of a self-righteous comment coming from someone who wants to force me to pay for public run protection of our property rights, MINARCHIST. "If the state didn't do it, no one would! Our property rights would be gone!"

 

"If men are not angels, then who shall run the state?" 

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 247
Points 4,055
Reply
excel replied on Fri, Sep 21 2012 5:44 AM

Kind of a self-righteous comment coming from someone who wants to force me to pay for public run protection of our property rights, MINARCHIST. "If the state didn't do it, no one would! Our property rights would be gone!"

Whoa there, tiger, do you expect him to pay for his own police-force or something? Everyone knows there would be no police or security without the state, because noone would want to pay for it!

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,417
Points 41,720
Moderator
Reply
Nielsio replied on Fri, Sep 21 2012 6:47 AM

"What should we do with the losers that are picked by the free market?", asks Jon Stewart

VforVoluntary.com | Youtube.com/Nielsio | Reddit.com/r/austrian_economics
  • | Post Points: 5
Page 1 of 1 (13 items) | RSS

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