4 ms·

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 wo

by 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.
phpisthebest 4y ago
[flagged]
- bmitc 4y ago
  > to libertarians, and anarchists it is the inverse that is the problem. Government creeping and corrupting private enterprise. > Corruption is a 2 way street here, government can be corrupted by private enterprise, but a private enterprise can be corrupted by government as well I have yet to see any coherent argument or advice that supports the widespread corruption of private enterprise by government in the U.S. The U.S. is an oligarchy. Is the claim that the government got us here by "corrupting" private corporations and enterprises? Where is the evidence and argument for that?
  - AnthonyMouse 4y ago
    Many regulations are put into place at the behest of incumbents to keep out new competitors. This is the government corrupting the market. Obviously this is a two way street. The campaign contributions or job offers that go to the people enacting the competition-destroying regulations can be regarded as corrupting the government (even though it's legal, because guess who makes the laws). But in either case the solution is to remove those regulations and prevent them from being enacted, thereby preventing anyone from being "compensated" for their installation or continued existence.
roenxi 4y ago
> Almost all of the issues plaguing the U.S. at the moment are due to private interests infiltrating government, policy, etc. How could a good government exist that isn't controlled by private interests? The alternatives are either the government is run by interest groups external to the government, or it is run by the head of government (in which case it is a dictatorship and you have to deal with the likes of Xi Jinping that is much worse). To come up with an alternative would be to invoke vague fuzzy principles that have never been observed in practice.
- AnthonyMouse 4y ago
  Suppose you had a government with better checks and balances than the one we have. More parties have a veto over new laws etc., and it is easier to repeal existing ones. The law against murder stays because ~100% of people want it; the laws against building new housing or repairing tractors are gone because >10% of people don't. It then becomes more difficult for special interests to enact legislation not in the public interest because legislation only stays in effect when there is near consensus that it should.
  - roenxi 4y ago
    That would be a government captured by the small-government interests. While that is the interest group I would want controlling government, it is still going to get attacked with the same template - some form of "all our problems stem from [private interests who are befitting from light regulation] infiltrating government.
    - AnthonyMouse 4y ago
      "Infiltrating the government" generally implies having the government do something nefarious. If the government did hardly anything, there would be people who don't like that, but that's not really the same thing. The difference between someone infiltrating the government and someone impeding anyone else from infiltrating the government.
  - phpisthebest 4y ago

by bmitc 4y ago

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.

phpisthebest 4y ago

[flagged]

bmitc 4y ago
> to libertarians, and anarchists it is the inverse that is the problem. Government creeping and corrupting private enterprise. > Corruption is a 2 way street here, government can be corrupted by private enterprise, but a private enterprise can be corrupted by government as well I have yet to see any coherent argument or advice that supports the widespread corruption of private enterprise by government in the U.S. The U.S. is an oligarchy. Is the claim that the government got us here by "corrupting" private corporations and enterprises? Where is the evidence and argument for that?
- AnthonyMouse 4y ago
  Many regulations are put into place at the behest of incumbents to keep out new competitors. This is the government corrupting the market. Obviously this is a two way street. The campaign contributions or job offers that go to the people enacting the competition-destroying regulations can be regarded as corrupting the government (even though it's legal, because guess who makes the laws). But in either case the solution is to remove those regulations and prevent them from being enacted, thereby preventing anyone from being "compensated" for their installation or continued existence.

roenxi 4y ago

> Almost all of the issues plaguing the U.S. at the moment are due to private interests infiltrating government, policy, etc. How could a good government exist that isn't controlled by private interests? The alternatives are either the government is run by interest groups external to the government, or it is run by the head of government (in which case it is a dictatorship and you have to deal with the likes of Xi Jinping that is much worse). To come up with an alternative would be to invoke vague fuzzy principles that have never been observed in practice.

AnthonyMouse 4y ago
Suppose you had a government with better checks and balances than the one we have. More parties have a veto over new laws etc., and it is easier to repeal existing ones. The law against murder stays because ~100% of people want it; the laws against building new housing or repairing tractors are gone because >10% of people don't. It then becomes more difficult for special interests to enact legislation not in the public interest because legislation only stays in effect when there is near consensus that it should.
- roenxi 4y ago
  That would be a government captured by the small-government interests. While that is the interest group I would want controlling government, it is still going to get attacked with the same template - some form of "all our problems stem from [private interests who are befitting from light regulation] infiltrating government.
  - AnthonyMouse 4y ago
    "Infiltrating the government" generally implies having the government do something nefarious. If the government did hardly anything, there would be people who don't like that, but that's not really the same thing. The difference between someone infiltrating the government and someone impeding anyone else from infiltrating the government.
- phpisthebest 4y ago