I really reject his founding principle around the value of efficiency. The efficiency he declares as better appears to be in the axis of production of wealth and takes no consideration for the distribution of that wealth.
The idea that everything should be privatized for the efficiency (and later other reasons) is just broken in its own right.
I also really don’t like how he repeatedly throws out "commies" as an insult.
This guy reminds me of the "architect of Gilead" in the handmaid’s tale. He is obviously a smart, abstract, theoretical thinker, but they’re so abstract that they wind up being reducto-ad-absurdum.
I shudder to think there are people in the world that take this guy seriously. (To say nothing of the Mises Institute, who appears to have a crazy amount of money with which to spread this stuff)
... and now he’s on this "all taxation is theft" stuff. Calling the government a thief. It’s so myopic... but we have people who take this stuff literally and they’re incredibly damaging to society.
I think the thing that gets me most about his argument is the ignorance of nefarious actors and monopolies.
It isn’t reasonable to say "free market, they’ll go out of business" if real people need to suffer while they do that.
Look at Comcast for example. When and where in history has an entity like Comcast gone out of business? How many people suffer under one or more of their "policies"? Who can step in to challenge them? Why are there no challengers in any markets?
After all that, he talks about all the rules that these systems run by, who enforces them? Which organizing body holds them or updates them? If all taxation is theft, how are laws compiled and how do we ensure fairness and equitable access?
This guy like so many other economists seem to work so far into the realm of theoretical and philosophical systems, there appears to be no accounting for major flaws.
How do you deal with a warlord who rises up to claim all the roads in a tiny fiefdom without taxes?
In his examples of interpersonal violence how does he defend himself? That soft squishy old intellectual with lots of resources? How is he protected in his libertarian utopia?
How does it not devolve into an oligarchy or a dictatorship?
> It isn’t reasonable to say "free market, they’ll go out of business" if real people need to suffer while they do that.
Real people will suffer even more if these corporations don't go out of business. The worst scenario here would be a monopoly enforced by the state that you cannot escape.
If they go out of business then at least you've gotten a chance to reset and hopefully apply previously learnt lessons.
> How do you deal with a warlord who rises up to claim all the roads in a tiny fiefdom without taxes?
Why do you assume that only the state can provide security? This was the original sin. There are many ways in which this is possible in a free market environment.
> When and where in history has an entity like Comcast gone out of business? ... Who can step in to challenge them?
There is no problem with monopolies unless they're state enforced. Businesses grow because they serve their customers well unless the state intervenes.
4 comments
[ 0.19 ms ] story [ 19.5 ms ] threadThe idea that everything should be privatized for the efficiency (and later other reasons) is just broken in its own right.
I also really don’t like how he repeatedly throws out "commies" as an insult.
This guy reminds me of the "architect of Gilead" in the handmaid’s tale. He is obviously a smart, abstract, theoretical thinker, but they’re so abstract that they wind up being reducto-ad-absurdum.
I shudder to think there are people in the world that take this guy seriously. (To say nothing of the Mises Institute, who appears to have a crazy amount of money with which to spread this stuff)
It isn’t reasonable to say "free market, they’ll go out of business" if real people need to suffer while they do that.
Look at Comcast for example. When and where in history has an entity like Comcast gone out of business? How many people suffer under one or more of their "policies"? Who can step in to challenge them? Why are there no challengers in any markets?
After all that, he talks about all the rules that these systems run by, who enforces them? Which organizing body holds them or updates them? If all taxation is theft, how are laws compiled and how do we ensure fairness and equitable access?
This guy like so many other economists seem to work so far into the realm of theoretical and philosophical systems, there appears to be no accounting for major flaws.
How do you deal with a warlord who rises up to claim all the roads in a tiny fiefdom without taxes?
In his examples of interpersonal violence how does he defend himself? That soft squishy old intellectual with lots of resources? How is he protected in his libertarian utopia?
How does it not devolve into an oligarchy or a dictatorship?
Real people will suffer even more if these corporations don't go out of business. The worst scenario here would be a monopoly enforced by the state that you cannot escape.
If they go out of business then at least you've gotten a chance to reset and hopefully apply previously learnt lessons.
> How do you deal with a warlord who rises up to claim all the roads in a tiny fiefdom without taxes?
Why do you assume that only the state can provide security? This was the original sin. There are many ways in which this is possible in a free market environment.
> When and where in history has an entity like Comcast gone out of business? ... Who can step in to challenge them?
There is no problem with monopolies unless they're state enforced. Businesses grow because they serve their customers well unless the state intervenes.