4 ms·

>See, for example, David Friedman's The Machinery Of Freedom for a number of historical case studies. Is it possible to give a reasonable summary of the thesis

>See, for example, David Friedman's The Machinery Of Freedom for a number of historical case studies. Is it possible to give a reasonable summary of the thesis of this book? >No, it's a reason, as above, to not have the government have a monopoly on law enforcement. What is the definition of 'government' here? Also, whatever that definition is, it doesn't need a monopoly on law enforcement, but only some of the authority over it.

pdonis 8y ago
> Is it possible to give a reasonable summary of the thesis of this book? I'm not sure, but I'll try: the main thesis is that many, if not most, if not all, of the functions we currently associate with conventional governments do not actually need to be provided by conventional governments; they can also be provided by private entities in a free market. Most of the book is trying to imagine and develop in detail how key functions, such as police, fire, and courts, might be provided in a system where conventional governments either did not exist or did not provide those functions. > What is the definition of 'government' here? Also, whatever that definition is, it doesn't need a monopoly on law enforcement, but only some of the authority over it. Different sources will use different definitions, which might lead to different answers to this. :-) A good starting point might be Friedman's definition: a government is an entity which everyone agrees is allowed to do things that, if any other entity did them, would be considered crimes. A common example is taxation: the government is allowed to take money from you whether you agree to give it or not, which would be theft if any other entity did it. A government under this definition might not need to have a monopoly on law enforcement, but it would need to have a monopoly on any actions required for law enforcement that would be crimes if another entity did them. (One common point of debate among different strains of libertarians is whether the set of such actions required for law enforcement is non-empty.)

pdonis 8y ago

> Is it possible to give a reasonable summary of the thesis of this book? I'm not sure, but I'll try: the main thesis is that many, if not most, if not all, of the functions we currently associate with conventional governments do not actually need to be provided by conventional governments; they can also be provided by private entities in a free market. Most of the book is trying to imagine and develop in detail how key functions, such as police, fire, and courts, might be provided in a system where conventional governments either did not exist or did not provide those functions. > What is the definition of 'government' here? Also, whatever that definition is, it doesn't need a monopoly on law enforcement, but only some of the authority over it. Different sources will use different definitions, which might lead to different answers to this. :-) A good starting point might be Friedman's definition: a government is an entity which everyone agrees is allowed to do things that, if any other entity did them, would be considered crimes. A common example is taxation: the government is allowed to take money from you whether you agree to give it or not, which would be theft if any other entity did it. A government under this definition might not need to have a monopoly on law enforcement, but it would need to have a monopoly on any actions required for law enforcement that would be crimes if another entity did them. (One common point of debate among different strains of libertarians is whether the set of such actions required for law enforcement is non-empty.)