4 ms·

True. But does a better alternative to rule of law exist? Perhaps. I'd love to hear thoughts on this.

daeken 14y ago
Better is arguable, but I really do recommend The Machinery of Freedom by David Friedman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Machinery_of_Freedom http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Machinery_of_Freedom) for an alternative. It's well thought out and very detailed.
- lucian303 14y ago
  I have to check it out. However, if the book really does argue from a utilitarian POV, it fails right there. Utilitarianism by itself is hardly the basis of any human's thought. Otherwise we'd all be vegans thanks to Peter Singer's "Animal Liberation." Still, I'm not going to take Wikipedia's take on it. Thank you for the first book recommendation of the new year.
- nacker 14y ago
  Sounds interesting, but I have doubts about utilitarian arguments too. Why not check out Rothbard's "For a New Liberty"? It's in audio form for free here: https://mises.org/media.aspx?action=category&ID=87 https://mises.org/media.aspx?action=category&ID=87 Chapter 12. The Public Sector, III: Police, Law, and the Courts is particularly impressive. EDIT: Here is Rothbard's amusing argument against utilitarianism: "Let us consider a stark example: Suppose a society which fervently considers all redheads to be agents of the Devil and therefore to be executed whenever found. Let us further assume that only a small number of redheads exist in any generation—so few as to be statistically insignificant. The utilitarian-libertarian might well reason: “While the murder of isolated redheads is deplorable, the executions are small in number; the vast majority of the public, as non-redheads,achieves enormous psychic satisfaction from the public execution of redheads. The social cost is negligible, the social, psychic benefit to the rest of society is great; therefore, it is right and proper for society to execute the redheads.” The natural-rights libertarian, overwhelmingly concerned as he is for the justice of the act, will react in horror and staunchly and unequivocally oppose the executions as totally unjustified murder and aggression upon non-aggressive persons. The consequence of stopping the murders — depriving the bulk of society of great psychic pleasure — would not influence such a libertarian, the “absolutist” libertarian, in the slightest. Dedicated to justice and to logical consistency, the natural-rights libertarian cheerfully admits to being “doctrinaire,” to being, in short, an unabashed follower of his own doctrines."
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
n3rdy 14y ago
If you look at government as a service, imagine if it weren't compulsory, and if competition were allowed. This would solve many problems that are caused when government is a monopoly. If you can opt out, or conveniently choose another "service provider", it makes that service more accountable for its actions. Even services like phone/internet providers would improve as a result, because those government approved monopolies would no longer be enforced, opening up competition in those sectors as well.

Better is arguable, but I really do recommend The Machinery of Freedom by David Friedman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Machinery_of_Freedom http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Machinery_of_Freedom) for an alternative. It's well thought out and very detailed.

lucian303 14y ago
I have to check it out. However, if the book really does argue from a utilitarian POV, it fails right there. Utilitarianism by itself is hardly the basis of any human's thought. Otherwise we'd all be vegans thanks to Peter Singer's "Animal Liberation." Still, I'm not going to take Wikipedia's take on it. Thank you for the first book recommendation of the new year.
nacker 14y ago
Sounds interesting, but I have doubts about utilitarian arguments too. Why not check out Rothbard's "For a New Liberty"? It's in audio form for free here: https://mises.org/media.aspx?action=category&ID=87 https://mises.org/media.aspx?action=category&ID=87 Chapter 12. The Public Sector, III: Police, Law, and the Courts is particularly impressive. EDIT: Here is Rothbard's amusing argument against utilitarianism: "Let us consider a stark example: Suppose a society which fervently considers all redheads to be agents of the Devil and therefore to be executed whenever found. Let us further assume that only a small number of redheads exist in any generation—so few as to be statistically insignificant. The utilitarian-libertarian might well reason: “While the murder of isolated redheads is deplorable, the executions are small in number; the vast majority of the public, as non-redheads,achieves enormous psychic satisfaction from the public execution of redheads. The social cost is negligible, the social, psychic benefit to the rest of society is great; therefore, it is right and proper for society to execute the redheads.” The natural-rights libertarian, overwhelmingly concerned as he is for the justice of the act, will react in horror and staunchly and unequivocally oppose the executions as totally unjustified murder and aggression upon non-aggressive persons. The consequence of stopping the murders — depriving the bulk of society of great psychic pleasure — would not influence such a libertarian, the “absolutist” libertarian, in the slightest. Dedicated to justice and to logical consistency, the natural-rights libertarian cheerfully admits to being “doctrinaire,” to being, in short, an unabashed follower of his own doctrines."
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]

n3rdy 14y ago

If you look at government as a service, imagine if it weren't compulsory, and if competition were allowed. This would solve many problems that are caused when government is a monopoly. If you can opt out, or conveniently choose another "service provider", it makes that service more accountable for its actions. Even services like phone/internet providers would improve as a result, because those government approved monopolies would no longer be enforced, opening up competition in those sectors as well.