4 ms·

The Machinery of Freedom [pdf]

36 points by mhb 4y ago

roenxi 4y ago
Society is composed of lots of little tribes (each a few 10s or 100s of thousands of people).They have different values, they see the world in different ways. The real power of the internet over the last 30 years is it is now all but impossible for a tribe not to get its message out there if it cares to. I like to point to the fact that people are now able to compare commercial media narratives to what the people involved actually said. It was always obvious that there was a gap, but the size of that gap was much bigger than most people realised. The consensus of opinion was always an illusion. People can fight it as much as they like, but the libertarian answer of promoting freedom and equalising power between those tribes is the strategy that will lead to the best outcomes for most people. A state isn't populated by a homogeneous group of people and we have to tolerate real diversity of opinion. It is the classic Stallman situation - the people advocating for more freedom usually turn out to be better at getting sustainable outcomes.
- phpisthebest 4y ago
  The size of the tribe is critical.. i believe one of the reasons the US has lasted for so long is the distributed nature of power. I also believe one of the major issues we face today is we continue to consolidate that power into a central federal government with unlimited power.
1attice 4y ago
Firefox says this file is offered at an https URL but delivered via HTTP, and is thus a security risk. Host should correct misconfiguration.
bmitc 4y ago
I haven't heard of David Friedman before, or at least I don't think I have, but after reading the preface and a few other pieces about him, including his own words, I get the feeling that he is ... controversial, to say the least, or at least I hope so. I may read through more of this paper to at least entertain a perspective that at first appearances differs wildly from mine, but the bits I have read don't look good. In what case has unbridled capitalist markets ever solved anything, much less everything? Almost all of the issues plaguing the U.S. at the moment are due to private interests infiltrating government, policy, etc. Somehow, this author feels oppressed by the U.S. Post Office, of all things, but is perfectly happy privatizing all of life, including laws. We can't talk about religion or Musk here, but this type of thing gets posted and upvoted. This author even appears to be a denier of global warming effects. In his own words: > I don't think there is any good reason to expect AGW to produce bad effects on net, let alone catastrophic effects. And isn't it strange that the most extreme capitalists and libertarians usually happen to be independently wealthy?
- mhb 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - bmitc 4y ago
    Referring to his father as such is an appeal to authority and is only relevant to back the idea that he came from a well off, if not wealthy, family. I don't think I'm doing him a disservice. He's the one who wrote these things. And a lot of my sentiment and response comes from reading bits of the posted book. Categorizing his writings as purely explorations is a bit of a cop-out because, from what I've read so far, he seems to be rather consistent in his so-called explorations.
    - mhb 4y ago
      [flagged]
      - bmitc 4y ago
        I said I haven't heard of him before. I had done a cursory look up of him and read some articles and blog posts of his. So the context of his father didn't help because I knew it already and, like I said, is largely irrelevant. > I didn't realize that was just a prelude to an argument you wanted to have. I'm not sure what this means.
        phpisthebest 4y ago
        [flagged]
        bmitc 4y ago
        Just to be clear, I think the stance of my original comment was clear enough, and the original reply to me was a bit underhanded. Both it and your comment are poking for something, but I'm not sure what that is or what argument I'm setting up for that wasn't already in my original comment. If you have any substantiative commentary, that would be welcomed.
ursuscamp 4y ago
This book was extremely influential on me during my formative years.
courseofaction 4y ago
I have flipped to four sections which looked interesting and found them all totally unconvincing. The author doesn't so much explore topics as expound on them, with an ideological bent that fails to question itself adequately. E.g. the premise of the (bluntly opinionated) "Sell the Schools" - the post office is declining because it's a government monopoly? Are you sure sir?
- bmitc 4y ago
  I also found the Post Office stuff a bit bizarre. It isn't clear to me why people are so obsessed with the Post Office. I mean, I thought the Post Office hate was recent, but this book is from 50 years ago! Do they also hate libraries for competing with book stores? It seems to be a foreign concept to some that not all useful services are naturally profitable enterprises without augmenting them in some way that negatively affects their service. > The author doesn't so much explore topics as expound on them, with an ideological bent that fails to question itself adequately. I agree with this, and you said it well. The author, including in his more recent writings, seems to have some rather deep-set biases and ideologies but, at least to me, appears to wrap it up with what is presented as honest philosophical and economic "explorations".

36 points by mhb 4y ago

Society is composed of lots of little tribes (each a few 10s or 100s of thousands of people).They have different values, they see the world in different ways. The real power of the internet over the last 30 years is it is now all but impossible for a tribe not to get its message out there if it cares to. I like to point to the fact that people are now able to compare commercial media narratives to what the people involved actually said. It was always obvious that there was a gap, but the size of that gap was much bigger than most people realised. The consensus of opinion was always an illusion. People can fight it as much as they like, but the libertarian answer of promoting freedom and equalising power between those tribes is the strategy that will lead to the best outcomes for most people. A state isn't populated by a homogeneous group of people and we have to tolerate real diversity of opinion. It is the classic Stallman situation - the people advocating for more freedom usually turn out to be better at getting sustainable outcomes.

phpisthebest 4y ago
The size of the tribe is critical.. i believe one of the reasons the US has lasted for so long is the distributed nature of power. I also believe one of the major issues we face today is we continue to consolidate that power into a central federal government with unlimited power.

1attice 4y ago

Firefox says this file is offered at an https URL but delivered via HTTP, and is thus a security risk. Host should correct misconfiguration.

bmitc 4y ago

I haven't heard of David Friedman before, or at least I don't think I have, but after reading the preface and a few other pieces about him, including his own words, I get the feeling that he is ... controversial, to say the least, or at least I hope so. I may read through more of this paper to at least entertain a perspective that at first appearances differs wildly from mine, but the bits I have read don't look good. In what case has unbridled capitalist markets ever solved anything, much less everything? Almost all of the issues plaguing the U.S. at the moment are due to private interests infiltrating government, policy, etc. Somehow, this author feels oppressed by the U.S. Post Office, of all things, but is perfectly happy privatizing all of life, including laws. We can't talk about religion or Musk here, but this type of thing gets posted and upvoted. This author even appears to be a denier of global warming effects. In his own words: > I don't think there is any good reason to expect AGW to produce bad effects on net, let alone catastrophic effects. And isn't it strange that the most extreme capitalists and libertarians usually happen to be independently wealthy?

mhb 4y ago
[flagged]
- bmitc 4y ago
  Referring to his father as such is an appeal to authority and is only relevant to back the idea that he came from a well off, if not wealthy, family. I don't think I'm doing him a disservice. He's the one who wrote these things. And a lot of my sentiment and response comes from reading bits of the posted book. Categorizing his writings as purely explorations is a bit of a cop-out because, from what I've read so far, he seems to be rather consistent in his so-called explorations.
  - mhb 4y ago
    [flagged]
    - bmitc 4y ago
      I said I haven't heard of him before. I had done a cursory look up of him and read some articles and blog posts of his. So the context of his father didn't help because I knew it already and, like I said, is largely irrelevant. > I didn't realize that was just a prelude to an argument you wanted to have. I'm not sure what this means.
      - phpisthebest 4y ago
        [flagged]
        bmitc 4y ago
        Just to be clear, I think the stance of my original comment was clear enough, and the original reply to me was a bit underhanded. Both it and your comment are poking for something, but I'm not sure what that is or what argument I'm setting up for that wasn't already in my original comment. If you have any substantiative commentary, that would be welcomed.

ursuscamp 4y ago

This book was extremely influential on me during my formative years.

courseofaction 4y ago

I have flipped to four sections which looked interesting and found them all totally unconvincing. The author doesn't so much explore topics as expound on them, with an ideological bent that fails to question itself adequately. E.g. the premise of the (bluntly opinionated) "Sell the Schools" - the post office is declining because it's a government monopoly? Are you sure sir?

bmitc 4y ago
I also found the Post Office stuff a bit bizarre. It isn't clear to me why people are so obsessed with the Post Office. I mean, I thought the Post Office hate was recent, but this book is from 50 years ago! Do they also hate libraries for competing with book stores? It seems to be a foreign concept to some that not all useful services are naturally profitable enterprises without augmenting them in some way that negatively affects their service. > The author doesn't so much explore topics as expound on them, with an ideological bent that fails to question itself adequately. I agree with this, and you said it well. The author, including in his more recent writings, seems to have some rather deep-set biases and ideologies but, at least to me, appears to wrap it up with what is presented as honest philosophical and economic "explorations".