David D. Friedman on Government Education

[PrimateDynasty]

lmao I totally agree

[phrimburger]

badass

[selfrealizedexile]

If someone really, really wanted to push me into it after a very long conversation, I would say we have anarchism now, the strong are preying on the weak, and the concept of "progress" actually enslaves the naive bleeding hearts.

And given that claimed reality, I will always seek to improve myself through education, physical recreation, undermine any who would seek to enslave / steal from me from a risk/reward standpoint, and kill any who would kill me.

That's the realist's standpoint.

[joels344]

This guy is excellent.

[selfrealizedexile]

He looks more like his mom than his dad. From what little I've seen of this man, he seems to be more of an anarchist than libertarian like his father which I find disappointing. Anarchy has many technical problems.

[Slimdawgc]

Yes, but every system has many technical problems. An intelligent analysis comprises of comparing different political systems against each other, and seeing which system offers the best results for society and individuals. In my view, anarchism (not "anarchy") is the optimal system.

[selfrealizedexile]

Well, it's still the same theory; you're simply trying to shed the bad connotation "anarchy" has. The technical problem I was referring to was if Anarchism's claim that society can have an actually "new" reordering, which is ofc a fantasy given that human nature has never changed. Also, if it was the underlying reality that gov't was some kind of artificial barrier that needs to be knocked down, it wouldn't have existed in the first place. I think Minarchism is much more preferable.

[selfrealizedexile]

It just simply isn't the case that everyone will respect everyone's civil liberties or property rights. The mere existence of gov't and wars proves this fact.

Almost all gov'ts aren't minarchistic, they are engineered by corrupt slavemasters. I find Anarchism to be more of a religious point of view. I'd follow it if I felt it had a realistic potential.

I think if society does something akin to what our Founding Fathers did you might have success, and that is to say write a strict

[Slimdawgc]

I also refer you to the work of Ronald Coase as an application of anarchism.

[selfrealizedexile]

constitution that does not let the simple majority rule as that's a form of socialism that does not respect an individual's property rights. Ofc, you only "might" have success as our constitution has been trampled on for the past 150 years. Right now, we have an understanding between the morally bankrupt Americans and our gov't to ignore gov't programs and bills that are actually unconstitutional, and there's a plethora of them. This democracy will be the death of itself as it damns the

[Slimdawgc]

I respect your POV, but I vehemently disagree with it. Anarchists do not deny human nature, but they do not think government is the best way to deal with it, since government has human beings serving in it. I refer you to the work of Elinor Ostrom and Leo Tolstoy as a starting point for community-based government (aka anarchism). Constitutional government is still government, and governments will historically always get bigger and more oppressive.

[selfrealizedexile]

Community-based gov't then is not technical Anarchism.

That sounds more like localized Minarchism.

As would your "anarchism" get bigger.

If you gave me good bits of their theories, I might be enticed to read them; but I already have a enough on my plate via my Austrian economic books and the constitutional law ones after that in addition to being in college that the required reading from there. It's not that I wouldn't read it, but you have to do a better job of selling it than that.

[Slimdawgc]

Community-based government IS what most anarchists support; I think you've been mislead.

Elinor Ostrom defied the traditional view that the only way to deal with open-access resources is to either give it to government, or hand it over to private companies/individuals, demonstrating that commonly managed property can, under certain conditions, yield the optimal allocation.

For examples of anarchism in practice, check out the Zapatistas in Mexico, or the Spanish Civil War.

[selfrealizedexile]

"Commonly managed property"

Wth does that even mean?

[Slimdawgc]

There are generally four types of property rights systems: government controlled, private property, commonly managed, and open access. "Commonly managed" means a community shares the land in common, with the benefit stream accruing to members - even though this ostensibly would lead to the so-called tragedy of the commons.

Like you said, we cannot effectively debate on such a small forum - your points aren't convincing, and neither are mine. Send me a message, and we'll talk more.

[JohnColt]

@Slimdawgc Sorry to butt into an old discussion, but I thought you might be interested to know that D Friedman, in his book The Machinery of Freedom, points out that in a totally free anarchist society, there is nothing to stop willing individuals from setting up the kind of commonly managed systems you mention. He doesn't encourage it though. Friedman's states that he would like to live in a society of self-employed individuals - freelancers collaborating on whatever projects they chose.

[Slimdawgc]

@JohnColt I can dig that, though the problem is that nobody knows what an anarchist system would look like. Ideally, I'd like to see a healthy mix of the free market and collectivization. Yet that's up to people to decide - I just hope they learn from the anarchist experiments of the past.

[JohnColt]

@Slimdawgc I don't know much about anarchy's history, but presumably you are referring to instances of revolution. Friedman addresses this issue in chapter 37 of the same book. He ends with a Yeats poem:

Hurrah for revolution and more cannon-shot!

A beggar upon horseback lashes a beggar on foot.

Hurrah for revolution and cannon come again!

The beggars have changed places, but the lash goes on.

[Slimdawgc]

@JohnColt Anarchism does not necessarily mean revolution. It means you devolve decision-making from the top to the bottom. That can occur through revolution, but it doesn't have to - indeed I think anarchism is probably more sustainable when it evolves gradually. (P.S. Anarchism usually does NOT endorse violence)

[JohnColt]

@Slimdawgc Yes, you are right.

[selfrealizedexile]

wealth and freedom of its society.

[nsieg2]

Brilliant!

[wikichris]

Check out his blog. It's very good. One of the best on the internet I would say. Lots of ideas and debate.

[EsotericThrone]

I like D. Friedman

[sciencebzzt]

What program is this from? Do you have any more?

[meirpolaris]

The program is "free to choose" aviable on ideachannel /dot/ tv

[1888junkteam]

excellent work!