Reply to Josh

Evidently, there is an HTML limit on characters for replies.  Here is my reply:


I'm sure there are natural rights theorists who would disagree with both of us, and have some good reasons why, but while natural rights are a semi-useful philosophical tool, I find them lacking as an overall framework.

Since you don't really list what assumptions you find implausible, it's hard to get at what you mean.  And since the conclusion you draw (a closed, non-dynamic system) are so far from what Austrian economics argues for (creative destruction, entrepreneurship, marginal revolution, price theory), I think you need to look at the source material a little more.  In fact, the closed system is explicitly found within both Rawls and Keynes, for example, who restrict immigration and hope to solve the "money problem" so we can all get on living the good (non-economic) parts of life.  Most theories of regulating the free market argue that the churning of unrestricted competition results in too much variation on the macro scale, justifying government intervention to keep people from being swept up in fray.  So, yeah, I'm not really sure how you get there.

Libertarian thought is focused on individual actors within a radical change framework.  While acknowledging the failures of the market to address both the problem of imperfect (and lumpy) knowledge and that institutions must be designed to guard against the self-interest of actors, it argues that voluntary market exchanges do so better than other alternatives.

For arguments for anarcho-capitalism and the problems therein, I would go to David Friedman's Machinery of Freedom which deals with many of these argument.  I heard him talk at one of my IHS seminars, and while his investigations into private police, private courts, and war within an anarchocapitalist state are interesting and enlightening, he openly admits they do not fit into a coherent, persuasive whole.

For a minimal state, which libertarianism does advocate, international relations don't seem to be a self-evident problem.  That's actually one of the few things the federal government is supposed to do.  Non-intervention and peaceful trade are backed up by a strong national defense (not insane, conservative strong mind you).  All but the most radical libertarians tend to view things like national defense as a collective action problem that actually requires government to solve.

Number 2 is actually a well-taken point.  Many anarchists believe that any state, even the minimal state, is inherently unstable and will assume more and more power.  Robert Higgs would be a good example of such a theorist (youtube: Robert Higgs: Warfare, Welfare, and the State).

But, if I can take some license here, I'm assuming that you mean a minimal state would lead to domination of the people by large corporations?  In that case, we need to disentangle the concepts of capitalism and corporatism.  Generic Republicans, the Chamber of Commerce, and business lobbies argue for corporatism cloaked in free market rhetoric.  A true free market allows entry and exit from institutions and provides for greater self-correcting (THOUGH FAR FROM PERFECT) mechanisms than what we have today.

For number 3, it's a little hard to prove something like this, but given the increase liberalization of the past few centuries, we have seen violence precipitously decline as coordination and tolerance increase.  While it is unlikely that continuing to liberalize society would result in increased crime, increasingly liberal orders are more likely to be able to adequately deal with increases in crime as their institutions are more robust.

With regard to inequality, for all but the most doctrinaire egalitarian some inequality is justified.  Within a market, it is important to distinguish between efficient and inefficient inequalities.  Efficient inequalities are the results of entrepreneurial action and point others towards where profits and social gains are.  Inefficient inequalities are the result of market failure or government failure.  Within a classical liberal framework, inefficient inequalities are minimized as opposed to institutions with larger amounts of government intervention (as government corrections to market failures run into many systemic problems).

Classical liberals do value equality.  Equality before the law, mainly.  And that the institutional framework treats all those before it equally.  Indeed, those who are unhappy with that institution are free to leave and create new ones (social entrepreneurship).  Fairness is a condition that does not necessarily imply a social democratic or welfare state order, however.  As John Tomasi in Free Market Fairness shows, classical liberalism can satisfy the requirements of justice as fairness.

Regarding your last point, it does take some extra work to show why the minimal state is necessary.  The best examples are Hayek, Buchanan and Tullock, and Mises.  I've found Buchanan and Tullock in the public choice school to be most approachable.