Political Theory

Re: Social Stability, Rule of Law, and the Free Society

Wheylous — Sat, 08 Dec 2012 19:08:52 GMT

Haha, yeah, that happens. You really should challenge him on the topic of monopoly. Here are my resources:

http://candlemind.com/projects/progclub/file/michael/histmon.php

Essentially, bad monopolies do not exist in the free market for any significant amout of time. Take, for example, the time when US Steel tried to fix prices. The plan fell apart in a few weeks.

Re: Social Stability, Rule of Law, and the Free Society

Physiocrat — Sat, 08 Dec 2012 15:45:41 GMT

I shared your article on facebook and had this exchange about it-

HIM- Read Stiglitz and you'll see there is no such thing as a free market - the opposite of democracy is oligarchy, not freedom. Markets create monopoly positions, which will exploit without recourse. This article is deeply naive.

ME-Would you like to provide a defence of democracy against any of the criticisms outlined in the article or suggest an alternative governance system which would be superior to democracy other than voluntarism?

HIM- No, because my criticism of extreme liberalism is the one I've detailed above. Any recourse to 'free markets', as this particular article uses as it's ideological underpinning is a recourse to dogma, not fact.

ME - The article does not provide an argument against aristocracy, benevolent dictatorship or communism which you are at liberty to defend. Despite obviously coming from a voluntarist view point his arguments about the nature of men, good or evil, and the implication for the justification for democratic governance system do not not depend on a voluntarist worldview. Consequently his arguments stand.

People are so blnkered it's almost unbelievable, they don't even address points you are making.

Re: Social Stability, Rule of Law, and the Free Society

Wheylous — Thu, 06 Dec 2012 21:10:42 GMT

Thanks!

I focused specifically on democracy because even minarchists envision some sort of democracy.

As to the benevolent dictator, the issue becomes how to get the right one into power.

Re: Social Stability, Rule of Law, and the Free Society

Physiocrat — Thu, 06 Dec 2012 16:33:46 GMT

Good piece Wheylous I enjoyed it. Democracy deserves a good thrashing.

However the point of some men being more good than needs to analysed in terms of other political systems otherwise the benevolent dictatorship is an option. Yet, the most prevalent argument I hear from those against voluntarism is statism is inevitable; some the universe is constructed in such a way that states will exist so we have to make the best of a bad job.

I know you weren't addressing this, just pointing out future lines of research. On it's own terms though it's a really good piece. And no I haven't seen that voter just yet!

Social Stability, Rule of Law, and the Free Society

Wheylous — Thu, 06 Dec 2012 16:01:43 GMT

Social Stability, Rule of Law, and the Free Society

The voluntaryist’s suggestion ... is met with amusement at best, fury at worst. “The nation would devolve into perpetual struggles of one man against another!” critics cry out. If this is true, it may be a death blow to the idea that man can exist in peaceful, law-abiding voluntary relationships. Indeed, Hobbes would be right that man must be coercively controlled to rear in his savage nature. Is this what we must accept?

...

The central idea to take away is one of institutional incentives – We know that the public systematically desires rule of law – this is what is actually the cause of the stability in the system.

...

The conclusion of Jefferson is ever clearer – If men are angels, then we do not need coercive government; if they are not, we dare not have it

I hear it'll soon be a hit article. Be one of the first to read it and brag about it!

</shameless self-plug>