David Friedman on How to Privatize Everything
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 18 июн 2024
- "Producing laws is not an easier problem than producing cars or food," says David Friedman, author, philosopher, and professor at Santa Clara University. "So if the government's incompetent to produce cars or food, why do you expect it to do a good job producing the legal system within which you are then going to produce the cars and the food?"
Friedman sat down to talk with Reason TV at Libertopia 2012 in San Diego. Friedman reflected on the impact of his landmark book, The Machinery of Freedom, discussed the differences between libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism and revealed what his father, economist Milton Friedman, thought of his anarchist leanings.
Approximately 7 minutes. Interview by Paul Feine. Camera by Alex Manning and Zach Weissmueller. Edited by Weissmueller.
Visit reason.com/reasontv for downloadable versions and subscribe to Reason TV's RUclips channel to receive automatic notifications when new material goes live.
If they would ever make a movie about David Friedman, Danny DeVito should play him
Yes!
Danny devito is a socialist
@@thairhussain Meryl Streep played Thatcher.
How about the other way around
Devito is way too old now. He's like 76 now.
Private security companies have been hired by middle, and lower class neighborhoods in Detroit in the absence of city police services, and it has worked out quite well for them. This is proof that even poor communities can pool enough funds to hire a few security guards to patrol their neighborhood.
You holding this up as how it would work without a state system as a backstop. How do you ensure user pay police don't end up as thgs ensurign the masses are kept in line? The system today is definitely biased in favour of the rich, but under the AnCap system it's pretty much only money that gets to talk.
How would AnCaps deal with the murder of someone from out of town that has no personal identification. I doubt there's any centralised DB for identity checks. Who pays for the police to investigate the murder?
I'm all for cutting back on a lot of wasteful Govt spending and welfare programs, but I'm also cognisant of how rapacious corporations are and to believe that they can be held in check by some user pays arbitration system sounds similar to believing in unicorns.
if there's multiple arbitration companies, how do you decide which service will be used? Would a black person feel like they could trust a company that was 99% white staff? Would a white person have similar fears if the company was predominantly staff by non whites?
i think AnCaps forget that the state provides a lot of set and forget to our daily lives. We have the road rules, we have laws, we have some protections again corporate malfeasance. To get similar levels of protections under an AnCap society with the same level of universality (at least in theory) I don't see it happening.
Maybe you can provide some ways you believe it could??
Jeffrey O'Neill Read more of what David Friedman has to say about anarchy, perhaps. I could try answering you myself, but I thought it'd be better that I direct you to him because he answers these very questions and this video is about him.
Jeffrey O'Neill the police are already thugs just to keep people in line. You can fire private security if you don't like them, it's very difficult to fire police.
Jeffrey O'Neill if someone from out of town were murdered, there would be some kind of charitable organization (kinda like the ACLU, or maybe some concerned wealthy people) that would fund the investigation.
The idea that people wouldn't be concerned they just found evidence for a murderer in their area is absurd.
Jeffrey O'Neill believing in unicorns is more like believing that government holds corporations at bay, not giving them unearned market share through anti-competitive laws.
It was anti-capitalist socialists that invented the idea of the corporation, to give government control over the means of production. Corporations are rapacious because they are governmental, not individuals with capacity for compassion and community ethics.
If only he had inherited his father's voice
He's a jew, what more do you want?!
4EverDubin so was his father, and he had the most soothing voice I have EVER heard
ditkacigar89 Yeah, looking back at my comment I have know idea what I was getting at.
ditkacigar89 Maybe it is because Jewish people who have a soothing voice are very rare.
john landry Bull. Most people don't have a soothing voice, if truth be told.
I have incredible luck to have inherited a deep voice by genetics,
even though my father speaks in a regular high baritone voice.
While most of it is inherited, it's also in the way you speak and
move your vocal chords that will define your voice.
It is easier, if you sing and or speak a lot.
Insurance companies don't like paying out claims so if a fire is threatening a structure they insure then you can bet they'll pay to have the fire put out even if it's on uninsured property. Volunteer fire departments have also proven successful in towns, and cities where the local government underfunds, or doesn't fund a fire department.
How does the insurance company know there's a fire? Will they be as responsive as someone calling the fire department and a crew sent immediately? Do you believe a corporation cannot get muddled down by bureaucracy as much as Government can?
Jeffrey O'Neill
How responsive are fire departments now? You can't compare what private services could be to what you *_want_* government services to be, rather than what they are. For example, the average response time for police is 7 minutes. If people had the choice to fund the police and police departments actually had to compete for customers, customers would find other alternative because that's just not that reliable. I would assume that public fire departments would be in a similar situation.
www.asecurelife.com/average-police-response-time/
In Argentina all the firefighters are voluntarily funded, they all have other jobs and voluntarily firefight. We are a country with 44 million people and even though we have 35% of poverty rate we manage to fund our firefighters in every town of the country flawlessly
@@jeffreyoneill4082 The Uber-model is the best example for many state-alternative services that the private sector could provide... When you order an uber ride, the system automatically finds the closest available driver to come pick you up... When it comes to fire prevention and fighting, the same could be true... Ex: maybe your insurance company provides you with a single click button to alarm them of a fire and allows their GPS system to alert the closest firefighters to come to your aid... The firefighters could be paid by the insurance company.
What town or city in America has an underfunded volunteer Firedeparment?
Because small governments never stay that way. We tried minarchism. Look where it got us. America started with the most limited government in human history, and over the course of only a couple of centuries it has grown into one of the most destructive, and overbearing states on the planet. Simply pressing the reset button will only result in the same mistakes being repeated.
Not unless we can constitutionally limit the government to the minarchist stuff.
Defense, Courts and perhaps school vouchers.
dilen noris
You do realize that the constitution can be amended? Your supposed inalienable rights will ironically go straight into the garbage and set on fire when the majority wants them to. Don't think it would happen, click the link below. Minarchy, if these Marxists even would let that happen, really is just a reset button that will lead to an even bigger state. It also makes no sense. Either people own themselves and their property or they don't. If they do then you can't justify making them tax slaves, especially not because you can't figure out how to make solutions to economic and social problems that people actually want to buy.
www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/04/26/a-majority-of-millennials-now-reject-capitalism-poll-shows/
The only solution is that we are armed and stay woke as fuck all the time.
the united states was never a minarchy, because in the consitution it had patent laws and that was meant to encourage innovation without those companies having to deal with competitors, thomas jefferson oppossed it to begin with but after seening the postive effects it had he actually supported it
Yeah but America has been long overdue for a cleanup for many years, everything needs tidying because otherwise the mess will keep piling up.
I miss Milton Friedman :'(
Why, he didn't fix anything.
It's worse now than ever.
Tom Evans Yeah he predicted what is happening today.
@@brooklyn6279 Yeah and I predicted 2020
Literally, I knew it was coming-- to the day.
his son is way more based.
David Friedman looks like my jewish grandmother
Was she a communist?
@@rodneyleon3645
shut up
Great video, amazing economist. I wish Reason covered more of Anarcho-Capitalism.
"Anarcho-capitalist regime". That's an oxymoron Paul.
I thought this as well
Regime: a range of conditions where a certain kind of behavior shows up in a system. Also, a plan for getting healthy www.lexico.com/definition/regime
Samsgarden: Anarcho-Capitalism ("AnCap" is an oxymoron, because capital requires authority to enforce ownership, beginning with the self; and AnCap relies on the "Non-Aggression-Principle" or NAP; which requires authority to determine who STARTED "aggression."
So AnCap is ANDYCapp because it's inebriated and will never work; so it took a NAP.
@@SovereignStatesman Not sure what you mean by "authority" here. I'm like Friedman, a "consequentialist" sort of AnCap. (There are moral first principles AnCaps too though.) Meaning looking at the fact that people are willing to expend effort or money to defend themselves and (what they consider) their property. This is true regardless of whether there's a separate authority to say who's "right". As Friedman points out here, people tend to value not-being-harmed more than they value the ability to harm others. So there's more of a market for defenders than for random goons. As for who was first, that's not required as a first principle, it's just, again, easier to hire someone to threaten revenge to attackers, than it is to hire someone to back you up in initiating force. Pay-for courts would seem to be useful for tricky conflict-resolution situations too, but that's a matter, not of predefined authority, but of people being willing to defer to someone who seems to have made decisions they respect in the past. I do like your quick-witted ability to fill in gaps in your argument with puns though.
@@NerdFuture I and I DISLIKE your pretentious inability to understand the logical implication of a final arbiter in such disputes, other than the law of the jungle (with "consequentialism" meaning PRAGMATISM), on the bullshit premise that "it'll work out for the best;" which amounts simply to moral relativism (i.e. complete psychosis) and social Darwinism, and thus the principle of moral cowardice by denying responsibility for final authority; combined with the hypocrisy of faulting everything else by the danger of error, thereby trading liberty for security by forsaking autonomy for dogmatic bureaucracy.
The concept of "Pay-for courts" also holds parties accountable that parties to know the arbiter's decision before the fact, which would defeat the court's purpose of a neutral authority to mitigate disputes among parties; particularly when the people do not consent to their government, thus implying oligarchy despite your circular logic.
But enough with your disturbed Utopian casuistry; the law already provides for final authority in the voters of the individual state itself. This fact was obscured by charlatans during the Lincoln era, but it's still the law by historical fact and binding agreement, despite regime-suppression.
This was an amazing video. Thanks for uploading this.
The trolls are hating on this video hard...he must be on to something.
Communism gets even more hate in the US... soooo they must be on to something!!!
I know it's been a year since you commented but I was thinking the same thing. I'm not sure whether to laugh or cry at some of these comments. It also makes me wonder why it's so difficult for people to see an answer that's right in front of their faces. I guess the indoctrination is strong with most of the public, I don't know though. People are having a visceral emotional reaction to some who is simply putting forth a new idea, and some literally want to kill him. Kind of amazing.
@@meinkopf3855 If only that were true today. In America the business owner is demonized. Big Tech is villainized even tho were here on RUclips consuming it. Big Pharma is villainized, even tho Pfizer just recently came out wiith a 90% cure for COVID. See how silly the world has become.
Another Friedman?! Version 2-point-0?! Hmph, I never knew. Awesome! Thanks, ReasonTV!
Sorry for late comment. Milton is the father.
The third Friedman is heading the Seasteading effort. David's son.
David Friedman is awesome! Please post the full interview!
As someone who is still on the fence regarding libertarian/anarcho-capitalist philosophy, and who hasn't read Machinery of Freedom, I have a question: How would markets guarantee that a feud system wouldn't develop?
I recommend reading _Everyday Anarchy_ then _Practical Anarchy_ by Stefan Molyneux. They answer a lot of questions and lays down the framework of how you can figure out how problems would be solved.
_Everyday Anarchy_
fdrurl.com/EA
_Practical Anarchy_
fdrurl.com/PA
What in life is guaranteed?
What's wrong with a feud system?
look into the homesteading principle, its a way of determining land ownership, and thats what it comes down to. at the moment, we are serfs to the state. the various states own ALL land on the earth, so feudalism with fealty (conscription) restriction of movements, and taxes...yea thats close to status quo. you cant buy land free, you still have to pay property tax on it, and you dont really own it. the moment someone says I/we own this country, coast to coast, and people beleive it, there will be feudalism/collectivism.
6:00 Love his reaction at "Are you optimistic about the future?"
not so true in 2022 lol :)))
not everything has to be paid for in an anarcho-capitalist society. there is NOTHING prohibiting voluntary security, militias, etc. as well as ones that work for donations or are completely free of charge. that's the beauty of free market anarchism - it gives you as many choices as you can possibly conceive and as long as you aren't forcing anyone to do something, then there's nothing wrong with it.
What an interesting and fascinating man! Thanks for uploading.
Well, having read Friedman's book and Rothbards manifesto, I consider him essentially Rothbardian.
The first man who, having fenced in a piece of land, said "This is mine," and found people naive enough to believe him, that man was the true founder of civil society. A nice Rousseau quote. It will become a sad sad world where everything has been turned into a commodity to be bought and sold. All in the name of progress, and economic growth that comes at the expense of our ecosystem for instance. A miserable world with no democracy, the only thing you'll be able to do is 'not buy a product'.
A miserable world with no democracy
quite ironic
The amount of not rich, sophisticated, anticapitalists (or sceptic about capitalism), who turn into anarcho-libertarians following their own reason, is a metric of the real progress that takes place in people's minds
Ancap is merely consistent libertarianism.
Exactly! This is why I'm a bit irritated by minarchists that are so gun ho about minimal government that they don't see the inconsistency.
I changed from a minarchist to an anarchist on March 2018 so I've been ancap and going strong for about 3 years.
I'm a minarchist libertarian. I don't so much believe government is incompetent in many aspects of society and the economy, so much as I simply don't believe much of this is the legitimate role of government. I believe the only legitimate role of government is to protect the people's rights to their own person and property through law enforcement, a justice system, and a military. Everything else should be left to the people to decide for themselves as they see fit. The one contradiction I have in my view is that I don't believe government should be stealing from some to give to others in other cases, but that is still what government is doing with respect to law enforcement, a justice system, and a military. I see this as a necessary evil, but I am willing to go further and try anarcho-capitalist ideas of also privatizing these three roles. For now, though, I don't see it as entirely realistic that privatization could be an adequate substitute to government in these three roles. For now, my view is that the federal budget should be decreased by around 87% and then experimentation with privatizing these three other roles ma finish that off, but this still leaves a safeguard in case privatization of these roles does prove inadequate.
The legitimacy of the government doesn't exist. You can say whatever you want but government is not legit, is coercitive. Period.
You can always want a some kind of government in society, so let's say the state ends today. A group of people can always create a covenant community and have a government and authority in there, since 100% of the people agree with it. That would also be a anarcho-capitalism society. But government as it exists is and always will be not legit and nothing can change it.
@@tarkfarhen3870 At least in the US, second amendment.
John C you pay the army police and the judges... or those who need protection of property...people who have nothing will not pay and guss what we are majority and we would come to get you like always in history.... you do not understand that you are those who are protected and without protection or without protection interes of poor people you would get hurt...
John C lower budget for 87% and we will see how long would you last.... people respect law when they have interes to that without benefits from gouverment you would have revolution. . i would love that you try that....
Thanks for adding to the discussion...
In 1649, to alleviate tension and maintain the peace between his people and the colonists, Massasoit sold a tract of land fourteen miles square to Miles Standish and others of Duxbury. The sale took place atop Sachem Rock, a rock outcropping on the Sawtucket River in what is now East Bridgewater, Massachusetts. The site is listed on the National Register of Historic Places.
So if he didn't recognize the concept of ownership, why would he sell land to the colonists?
How did "everyone" come into owning what you say was stolen from them?
This interview turned me into an abolitionist. After this, I saw his 40m interview, then it was all downhill from there.
Oops, I met Nick Gillespie and mistakenly thanked him for this interview! I suppose I can blow it off as "I mean you, your organization..."
Wouldn't it be better if you studied and read a little bit of economy, history and sociology before "turning into an abolitionist"?
Yousapoes poes I did study, which led me on this path, and I know a lot of economics, history, sociology, and psychology. Anyone who exercises a modicum of rational thought will discover governments are the source of most evil in the world, and humanity would do best in abolishing them.
***** Humanity is responsible for the "evil" in the world stupid.
Mak Muk I'm part of humanity, and I'm not evil. I'm not even a sociopath. Governments are infested with sociopaths. Governments are evil.
Power leads to evil things.
If you think that only governments have a problem with power, you're maybe not interpreting reallity in a very truthful way.
*****
"if the government is incompetence at making cars and food, then why would it be any better for laws?"
Because Incompetence in one area does not imply incompetence in others even if they have similar difficulty levels. Why is that so hard for a Professor to understand? It is so simple!
Privatization as a successful solution requires two things people aren't talking about. Educated consumers and business built on doing good, not just making money. With the current undereducated population and companies bent on profits at any cost, privatization is leading to far inflated costs, underperfoming insitutions, and the citizens are paying the price. Certain things in a MODERN society should never be privatized.
Wow, a worthy son of a great man. Must read his stuff, thanks Reason.
"without some form of government, people with loose ethics would trample others."
that already happens with government.
The people who invest in an organization, own that organization. They determine how it will be run. If you don't like it, you don't have to sell them your time. It's not slavery because there 10,000s of places you can work and you don't have to work for any of them. You don't seem to understand ownership at all. Nobody is claiming to own you, they are just owning the company that wants to buy labor from you. If you don't supply what they want to buy, they can buy from somebody else
That is what I believe and I have ample evidence for it. Wherever neoliberals have taken power, whether it was Chile, the US, or the UK, the working man has been stripped of his dignity, the rich have gotten obscenely richer and democracy has been undermined where there is not a developed robust civil society (Pinochet).
Theoretically, what is the difference between "local community norms enforced by private actions" and "laws"?
I think what Mr. Friedman proposes is a radically different form of government than what we're used to, but that it's still "government".
In other words, the society he describes still has "government". It simply doesn't have "a government".
Right... it is a society which has laws but no defacto ruler. Laws in anarcho-capitalism are established by the market. All actions and contract obligations are voluntary. But this is quite unlike government. Government obtains compliance and authority through force, whether it does a good job or not. Businesses must effectively and efficiently meet demands in order to stay in business.
This isn't really Milton Friedman's proposal, this goes back to Murray Rothbard. I like the Friedman's but they tend to borrow ideas from the Austrian School and forget to acknowledge them as credit.
Government law has been monopolized because only the government can create them. Private law has multiple people competing to be the arbitrators.
But think about the possibilities of privatized legislation....
Magistrates would now have a bottom line. Justice...or whatever affordable version of justice that is available will be dictated by invested interests. It then becomes paramount to the public to pay tithe in order to have their fare share of justice. Once a verdict has been assessed the cost of executing sentences goes back to the individual and is negotiated by the parties involved.
Reward excellence. Deter incompetence and expensive arbitration, learning how to negotiate settlements first hand on all legal affairs of state. Utilities. National Security. You name it.
It always looks to me as if since the dawn of human thinking we have been slowly and surely becoming an anarchist society.
*****
No. The Constitution says that it is the supreme law of the land in regards to situations which are within the federal government's jurisdiction. It does not grant any such monopoly.
david friedman DA GAWD
That's just not true. It's just that most people find the risk reward relationship of selling labor to a stable established company preferable to the risk reward relationship of starting their own company which is likely to fail. Everyone has an option, it's just that many choose one of them. I'll be damned if I'm going to take all the risk of starting a business and then not be able to control how it operates--in other words invest my money, time, and energy and then not own what I built.
Hardly anybody was a more articulate and witty defender of the free market than was Milton Friedman
"A surgeon can't build an engine so why do you expect it to be able to do heart surgery."
-David Friedman, basically
Yeah ikr that argument was really dumb. Nice analogy!!
HE DOESN'T OWN ME FOR MY WORKING LIFE.He can give me "orders" and I can walk out the door if I don't like them. If my dignity is challenged, I can go elsewhere. I can create a union and leverage the collective power we have. Again, working conditions improved PRIOR to ANY legislation.
What is wrong with wage labor again? I get to use resources that someone else created, collected, risked their entire life savings for so that I can increase my productivity and profit and somehow it's BAAAAD?!
Not true at all lol.
@@edgaraf9411 "nuh uh" is an impressive argument.
It worked on the playground and neighborhood when I was kid so after being brainwashed in formal public and the private schools I would consider giving it go. Keeping my eyes open for that country.
Ah, ok cool. Thanks for clarifying!
The idea of private sector courts is the dumbest idea of all time. Reason TV my ass
Why?
And what's so good about the public courts of today enforcing shitty laws like the war on drugs?
@Steph D. I think there should be private courts if things need to be kept formal to function.
As for the colors like black in the ancap flag I honestly don't know what the represent individually.
@@Cacowninja The gold represents Capitalism as an economic system and the black represents Anarchism as a civil system, Anarcho-Capitalism being the implementation of both.
@@plasmazulu6643 Well according to this:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ancap_flag.png#:~:text=Summary,of%20Anarchy%20which%20symbolises%20defiance.
The yellow represents gold as exchange and the black represents defiance as in from a state.
Whatever the case it's a functional and consistent philosophy.
anyone enforcing laws will be a government, that's the point.
here's a quote saying that land is not property, and it belongs to everyone, it's one guy saying it's not owned and owned by all at the same time. "What is this you call property? It cannot be the earth, for the land is our mother, nourishing all her children, beasts, birds, fish and all men. The woods, the streams, everything on it belongs to everybody and is for the use of all. How can one man say it belongs only to him?" -Massasoit
This is a horrible kind of place, a place where no one would really want to live, just because you may never use a hospital, you wouldn't want to pay for it. Man, this is a really horrible kind of society, a dog-eat-dog egotistical ugly place. How do you solve the problem of public goods? How do you pay for the army, voluntary contributions?
How about Somalia. There is a place where there is very little government. It's almost like a heaven on earth in Somalia. These places with lots of government like America, England, France, Germany, or Belgium are much worse off than Somalia.
very original.... common, you can do better than that -__-
"Law is merely a declaration; it has no real tenacity to the course of action taken by moral individuals.
The operation in which society conducts itself in a cohesive, orderly manner is clearly shared principle, rather than declared law.
Who among us youth who identify as Constitutionalists have read the Constitution and derived our identity more from it than we have the amorphous absorption of what we perceive to be a sacred and noble culture which our forefathers had established?"
Incredibly poor argument, you think Somalia was well off with a government?
I think your argument lacks reason if I can't use real world examples of countries which have large governments or no government. then maybe I should use a fantasy world like you.
Somalia is a failed socialist state.
Reason, delivers reason. Nice job.
He doesn't want to break up America into any nation-states. He wants no nation states.
Please interview him again
Here in Eastern Europe as communism ended the government began privatezation and they established a capitalist economy but they didn't understand how it works, neither the people did, then came a massive wave of inflation alongside with joblessnes, and it still affect these countries.
Everything you up to your last sentence was spot on. I encourage you to research the ways by which governments incentivize these behaviors. Afterall, what institution has been responsible for their education over the last 90 years?
I agree we should try privatizing. If it it's not a better way we could always come back to this chaos
I just did. It is very similar. In slavery, you worked for your master, received something in return, you were even treated nicely since you were an asset to your master, much like a worker to his owner today. You rent yourself out, work for those 8 hours for a pay unilaterally set by the owner and how much bargaining power you actually have hinges on your bosses benevolence. You do not own the fruits of your labour, you work to enrich your boss, the profits that you yourself helped make are his
Nonsense, you have no choice as a slave. You do as an employee.
I have a couple of points to make about your comment:
1. Tons of kids from ghetto neighborhoods are going to college on my dime since they are getting financial aid.
2. Freedom and equality are NOT mutually exclusive. Equality denotes something that is taken from one party and given to another to attempt to achieve a "balance", while freedom by nature puts everybody on a level playing field by not accommodating one group over another.
....Continued
Actually, it was the government that required the recall of the EV1. The government gave GM a special permit to produce cars that it considered not street legal for a short time. When it was time for the permit to end, the cars had to be recalled. GM decided that the cars were not profitable to make. So they didn't make them. Later, with stolen money from the government, they made the volt using that technology and it's a total boondogle.
hayek and schumpeter teach us that the reason industrial processes are best handled by the private sector is because decentralization allows the best methods to be found and win. for law, the parameters under which that competition can be best facilitated, i see no guarantee that the harmful oligopoly would be "selected against", as it were, because the powerful would choose their own rules. i'm not saying that doesn't happen now (def in america), but i'm unconvinced that the same model applies.
The reason the government is so bad to begin with though, is largely due to players in the private market. So many companies and corporations already have such a huge, huge impact in the legislative process, so there's really nothing preventing them from using their influence to create 'good' laws now. Problem is, that's just not they really want.
I did provide a something with a temporal dimension. I spent the 8 hours of my time manipulating wood, metal, whatever and that service is over once I leave. The business owner doesn't KEEP the widget, he trades it for money with someone else and he does ME the service of making that trade happen and gives ME the money that I, myself, was incapable of doing on my own. Hell, he even pays me on the hope that he will sell the product, he might not sell them and go bankrupt. Opting out is quitting.
What an apt description of you and your comment.
So the owner of the property can do what he wishes when a person enters his property, for instance a worker in a factory? Disgusting. The owner of the road can do whatever he wishes, on a whim decide to put traffic light every 5 feet, he can do it why not? If people don't like it they can always take a different road right? Probably parallel to it?
And I pointed to the statistics that show that the less government you have the less disparity you have. As someone starts buying up land more and more, the cost of each new plot goes higher and higher, it's called the law of supply and demand. The greater profits that this guy earns signals to all entrepreneurs that his field is where they can make money and they compete and his gross profits go down. "Excessive success" is counterbalanced by competition.
I'm working on it.
It is definitely worth a try...
For Plains Indians, who depended on the buffalo, private property rights provided the incentives for successful hunts. Successful hunters were entitled to keep the skin and choice portions of the meat. Many tribes had some basic form of currency, such as Wampum.
So yes, there are historic instances of private property among the Native Americans well before the Europeans arrived.
In a barter system, if you have Good A and you want Good B, you either have to find someone who offers Good B in exchange for Good A or find a chain of deals with which you can acquire Good B starting with Good A. Money, which is basically a product everyone accepts as a form a of payment, alleviates the inconveniences inherent in the barter system.
Anarchism is just a society without State? Well, so call it in a proper way: capitalism without State. That's what it is. Nothing more, nothing less.
If you think competition is a good thing, why would you want the EU to break up into completely sovereign states that can then enforce anti-competitive protectionist policies?
Depends on your take on how to achieve libertarian goals. On the one hand, the EU is a trading bloc, on the other hand, it's a giant legislative body
Because A lot of Times BRUXELLES decide not the 27 states
How did I not know Milton Friedman had a son who followed in his father's footsteps. Wow
I'm saying what David is saying, that the state shouldn't be writing the laws. That the sate should not have a monopoly on violence. All that said, if a guy gets rich in a free society, he gets that way by providing people what they want. Even in our unfree society, there is nothing preventing workers from buying a company. Some companies are owned by workers. The act of supplying labor does not entitle somebody to ownership in a company although that is one form of payment.
Believing it is a crime to build a hospital with your tax dollars (probably a couple of cents is the average person's input) you may never use, but may help less privileged is such an insanely sociopathic view I can't fathom it has support. Private charity? As a supporter of economic efficiency I can't believe you think private charities could somehow manage to amass funds and execute the plans more efficiently.
A traffic light impinges on my liberty? No no no, my friend. When you get on a road you are on the property of the owner of that road, and he can define the rules of that road as he so wishes. That's no infringement of liberty.
1) Ford didn't have a monopoly. 2) There was a market incentive; despite it's problems, the Ford Pinto was an inexpensive, popular car. It wasn't even relatively unsafe compared to other cars at that time; the lawsuits were just a lot higher profile because some people burned to death. But in terms of lives lost, the Pinto was pretty average. 3) People had legal recourse against Ford.
The government has no incentive to make good laws, no penalty for making bad ones, and no competition.
If ads were honest and the buyers were given full information all you would need to do was give the technical specifications and that would be it. In perfect competition, a free market. There would literally be nothing that would set products apart, apart from marketing.
Works for me. I stand by my statement regardless of your attack on my semantics. The current way money gets to these corporations has nothing to do with what's best for the consumer. Give them more to control, and more stuff will start to fall apart and suck all around.
I know this clip is very old, but I think it`s worth to set my comment on this anyways.
The one thing I disagree with Friedman here is the notion that laws have to be produced or invented.
My stance is that laws are more something that we have discovered over time trough studying human behavior and then we already have a natural law and in my understanding is how natural law is natural.
We recognize what is good and what is bad trough trial and error and that we can feel compassion, empathy, and sympathy.
We know how we feel if someone take our stuff and can then put our selves in other peoples place and understand that it would be just as irritating or devastating for them to lose that property.
This is exactly why I mean that each individual should have sovereignity over their own life, freedom, rights, and property and that any infringement against any of it will be in conflict with the natural law and thus a crime.
Any private court or law agency would have to abide by the natural law and the only rule they can set is on private property, but none can get in conflict with the natural law.
ANARCHO - no rule, SYNDICALISM - organized workforce. Result - competing gangs of similar strength keeping each other in check. With no one gang answerable or accountable to any party outside own organization, driven purely by self preservation and profit and not governed by any disclosed mandate or charter it can be held up to. Values, objectives, loyalties are all negotiable & are likely to shift over time. Still tolerable, accept for the fact that on top of this, group activities (settlements, pacts, schemes) are all veiled in secrecy & no avenues for arbitration or recourse exist, as all disputes are settled internally.
They can go to you and ask for your cooperation in the investigation. If you refuse, they can advertise to the local community the evidence against you and make known your refusal to cooperate. Your freedom to travel and buy goods and services would be greatly diminished. No one wants to aid an aggressor. They themselves may be blacklisted!
These were just off the top of my head. RUclips search "private defense" or "The Practical Case For Anarcho-Capitalism " for more in depth discussions.
I like the term market anarchist better than any other label today. It perfectly describes what is essential and not preferred (I.e ancap, amcom systems)
I mean Towards A New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto.
And you're right about their differences, but they come to basically the same conclusion for different reasons. They both agree that abolishing the State is the most effective means of securing the society they envision, but I believe only Rothbard holds that it should be done regardless of any utilitarian argument. That is, Rothbard thinks it should be done for both moral and practical reasons, and Friedman mainly for practical reasons.
I'm not an anarchist, I'm an Objectivist, so I agree with the argument that the basic issue is force and that the purpose of a strong central government is to place force under objective control, to remove it from from social interaction except in the case of retaliation and defending property rights. As a wide spread defense of this view at the most successful places in history like the US, Britain, Israel, and Hong Kong. They haven't been more capitalist then anarchist.
It's ok. It accompanies your comments very well.
But the government IS YOU!!! The people of a state, a country, you get to decide, participate in the decisions! But all the corporations react the same, who would force them that they treat their employees with dignity?
You can argue over usages of words all you want, that doesn't change the reality that private property is a natural part of human life. Nor does it change the fact that people are better off when private property rights are recognized and protected than when they are ignored or suppressed.
Market failure is, by definition, when individual self interest does not translate into group self interest given the incentives.
you can argue over usages of words all you want, that doesn't change the reality that private property creates, as in a worse reality for most, and a pampered reality for a few.
i'm not sure i understand your question exactly... just because we believe that many things should be privatized does not mean that everything has to be - we are one of the few groups of anarchists that advocate for different people solving different problems their own way as opposed to having a set-in-stone book of rules. the future of anarchy is going to be a mixture of capitalism and mutualism whether people like it or not some people will just handle things differently than others that's all
That's not what's meant by market failure in economic jargon.
A market failure is the inability of a market to bring about the allocation of resources that best satisfies the wants of a society. So the overall utility is lower than what it would be otherwise.
The USA did quite well with just the constitution for 200 years. It has only been in the last 30 or so years that things have gone completely out of control. Mostly because we have found ways to ignore it.
This was exactly the same with slave societies, no wage labor. Horribly inefficient, which was one of the driving forces in its abolishment. Wage labor allows workers to increase productivity, to save and to move up in socieity.
"there is NOTHING prohibiting voluntary security, militias, etc. as well as ones that work for donations or are completely free of charge."
How about volulenteers?
How the hell would this work i practice, exactly? Are we all supposed to wear little hats to distinguish each other and patrol the streets in case of an emergency security situation where no laymen dares to intervene? And how about externalities? If no insurance, should firemen wait until it becomes the neightbors prob? etc.
I don't work for anyone and no, even if I did, they're not my RULER. They are a person that I am trading with. I value their ability to provide me a stable income, a place to work, their advertising, and so on. They value my production of whoppers.
My vote has never changed the results of any election. Neither has anyone else's throughout history AFAIK.
Because we in America live in a Republic and I agree that we need smaller divisions
City and Town states that way we will have more competition to implement good ideas and find and get rid of bad ideas.
Wage labor: The trading of labor for money. Are you opposed to free and open commerce? That's all wage labor is: an agreement between two people to trade two goods. That's the most beautiful thing on the planet because in that moment, wealth has been created.
I never stated what the first man was trading with. How do you know it's a barter system?
Absolutely.
part three. What can you do about a government screwing you over. You can write to them and ask them to stop. You can get together with thousands of others and protest. You can vote. The problem is of course that there is a smaller group of people the government is paying off with the money they took from you. These people are much louder than you are. Concentrated benefits and dispersed costs (google it) do not exist in private markets. You wont' give 25 cents for a bad product
So in effect any kind of public enterprise, a state-owned company, public schools, public healthcare insurance, all that is actually private initiative? Did they even have any tax revenues in the Soviet Union since everything was state-owned and the public sector doesn't create economic value?
Does that really matter? Sure, let's just forcibly take all property from their owners and distribute it evenly. I would say that would be an utter disaster. People have already proven that they are skilled at managing certain things, taking away the livestock from a rancher and giving it to some other person leads to a waste.
How about we start by privatizing as much as possible in the gov't, remove all IP laws, subsidies, and tariffs for a start.
The problem is government cannot be used to increase the well being of the people on our planet. In 1800, you could say, "name one place on earth where freedom from slavery has been in effect and worked. And then explain to me why it isn't still in effect?" What we know is government doesn't work and it's time to try something different. That said, both Ireland and Iceland have had a type of anarchy and it worked. I'm not sure why they abandoned it.
His son! I loved his father.
Private initiative is what funded the Defense weapon known as the internet. So if you want to say a war state is the savior of the poor than that's all on you but don't forget a state is dependent on the economic growth of the people.