David D. Friedman on Government Education
Вставка
- Опубліковано 27 бер 2009
- David Director Friedman (born February 12, 1945) is the son of economists Milton and Rose Friedman. He holds a Ph.D. in Physics from the University of Chicago, although he is mostly known for his work in political theory and economics. He became a leading figure in the anarcho-capitalist community with the publication of his book The Machinery of Freedom (1973). He is currently a professor of law at Santa Clara University.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_D....
www.daviddfriedman.com/index.s...
The Machinery of Freedom: Guide to Radical Capitalism, 2nd Ed.:
www.daviddfriedman.com/The_Mac...
Excerpt from "Free to Choose", Vol. 4 - The Failure of Socialism (1990 series)
Watch the full video and more at:
www.freetochoose.net/media/bro...
Check out his blog. It's very good. One of the best on the internet I would say. Lots of ideas and debate.
The program is "free to choose" aviable on ideachannel /dot/ tv
@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)
the answer is yes he would. In his book the machinery of freedom he confesses that it may not be possible to do this while maintaining a reasonable level of security but that he believes it probably is possible and that if it is possible than it almost certainly would be preferable.
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.
@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.
I also refer you to the work of Ronald Coase as an application of anarchism.
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.
wealth and freedom of its society.
"Commonly managed property"
Wth does that even mean?
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Any Jew that mentions the Holodomor is okay in my book lol
"eh" "eh" "eh", notice these interjections before many of his sentences.