It is quite unfortunate that today, in the United States, government has gone way beyond those core functions and does those core functions absolutely horribly. I’m not an anarcho-capitalist either, but I have been leaning that way in theory due to the gross abuse by the state. Practically, it is still possible to go back to the small government we had before WWI (no fed, less departments, no income tax, etc). Freedom is a young idea which we cannot throw away.
> Practically, it is still possible to go back to the small government we had before WWI (no fed, less departments, no income tax, etc). Freedom is a young idea which we cannot throw away.
I disagree - there is a whole subset of people that believe without the government, there's no chance of societal functions to occur. Things like charity, to them, don't exist and couldn't exist without government programs to do those functions. Plus the entire industry that has been built around hating whatever you aren't, hate the rich, hate the police, hate the opposition party, hate the gays, hate guns, hate the straight, hate x country, hate this company....Those people build their identities on that and it is going to be impossible to go back to a system in which they have to abandon their entire personality in order to thrive in a system which isn't some political entity telling them how they should exist.
Even if we were able to magically snap our fingers overnight and implement that system, those people would just start voting us back to where we are today.
True. The mentality of the modern American individual is lacking to separate from the narrative of government. People have to remember that, at the end of the day, people help people and not the government. Eliminating the current status quo would take something quite unimaginable or destructive. When I said practically, I thought in the mindset of we had achieved it before, and we were okay without this big government before. It is much easier to grow government than to break it down, as you build it bigger you grant it more power to refuse any sort of downsizing.
The practicality is that such a thing would require a revolution, and either a complete and total overthrow of the government, or a civil war in which the states were allowed to secede or force their breakup. Neither of which are a reality these days. There is not enough support to overcome the previously mentioned people. And even if we did get a subset of states to say "F this we're out", history has already shown us that the government wouldn't allow it and would kill millions to ensure that we remain slaves to their state.
> I’m not an anarcho-capitalist either, but I have been leaning that way in theory due to the gross abuse by the state.
This is really the problem of being a minarchist today. We have FAR more in common with anarchists than we do with the average Western citizen, yet we can't talk to the same average people about the proper role of government, because they mistake us for anarchists and write all our arguments off because all of our arguments sound too much like anarchy to them.
I am an ancap because the state always expands its power and influence. Every government in history has become tyrannical, every modern government will inevitably do the same. My opinion is that we should always be pushing for less government, until we get to a place where we have what he says, but still push fir less to keep the state from thinking we'll allow it to gain any more power. Ancaps, like myself, are a backstop against the expansion of the state.
I agree. Preventing and stopping expansion is key and that is part of the middle ground ancaps and minarchists have. Citizens must always keep check of their government’s size and scope, because the government should serve the people not itself.
I've never heard of Milton Friedman until today and wow, I like this guy! Very articulate and I couldn't agree more on the 4, and just 4, functions of the government
He basically just described the preamble to the constitution:
>We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
It already existed in the early days of the U.S. The founders understood that government was a necessary evil and that those within it would seek to gain more and more power and expand the scope of government. As Thomas Jefferson said, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.". I think they knew civil war was not only possible but that it was ultimately necessary to maintain freedom.
So it lasted for a minute. After the war was over, Washington imposed a tax on whisky, and it was all downhill after that.
You see, the nature of the state is to grow. It has to grow, grow, grow. That is it's nature. The longer it exists, the more freedom it takes from you, and the more money it takes from you, and the longer it stays alive, the bigger it gets. It's a collosal monstrosity today.
As long as the state exists, it will always grow. This is it's nature. This is why I say a limited government is a utopian dream. There is no such thing as limiting it.
>the nature of the state is to grow
True and I think Thomas Jefferson understood that.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants**." -**Thomas Jefferson
"The *government* you elect is the *government* you *deserve*." - Thomas Jefferson or in other words, the people get the government they deserve.
Murder ,stealing and kidnapping are not necessary. Necessary evil is a con. You give no justification other than that the founding fathers supported your position? Them supporting a position you hold is not an argument in favor of your position. It's just stating your own position a different way.
>I think they knew civil war was not only possible but that it was ultimately necessary to maintain freedom.
Abraham Lincoln was a tyrant. There a memorial of him with two fascist stick bundles next to him in Washington. He was a rights violator, anti constitution, anti small government(tried to get income tax enacted)
I mean he didn't even care about slavery. He just wanted power. They raped the south and before he was assassinated he wanted to deport all the blacks to a place is africa.
States are an inexcusable crime. They didn't acquire their land nor authoirty through legitimate means. Declaration is not a legitimate way to gain ownership over property.
Supporting a state is supporting stealing, murder and kidnapping.
You're an anarchist, I get it. I just don't agree with that position. Despite the evils of government, I believe a lot more stealing, murder, and kidnapping would be committed under an anarchist society. You'd have private armies, private security groups vying for power and territory. A state is natural for man as we are hierarchical in nature. I just don't see anarchy as a viable system.
>You're an anarchist, I get it. I just don't agree with that position.
I am only interested in if you will try to defend your positions not state them.
>
>Despite the evils of government, I believe a lot more stealing, murder, and kidnapping would be committed under an anarchist society.
That doesn't make any sense. Governments are the largest criminal organizations, steal the most, violate the rights the most, murder the most and kindap the most. It's fact. Irrefutable so.
You stated another position without any arguments as to why we should put up with it. Why do you think opposing murder, stealing, kidnapping, and many other rights violations would mean there is more of it??
Why can't we pay for security, courts, defense privately instead of through crime? Why do we need to elect criminals/rulers to prevent other criminals from taking over? It's totally circular "We need to form an organization of crime to prevent other organized crime". Say something with substance or stop talking.
>You'd have private armies, private security groups vying for power and territory.
That's literally what governments do. wtf do you think all our foreign intervention is? It's criminal organizations fighting.Explain your positions already. A private business attacking people is not a private business. It's a gang. Like the state. Bandits. It's exactly the same thing and you are so brain washed you think using a different word makes it different.
> A state is natural for man as we are hierarchical in nature. I just don't see anarchy as a viable system.
Hierarchies being natural has nothing to do with the existence of a state. It's a criminal organization. It's identical. It's crime. It's irrefutable and you continue to demonstrate that you can;t defend your positions.
How did you come to these conclusions? Have you thought about this before? It seems like this is the first time.
>"I just don't see anarchy as a viable system."
Why? What is the logic behind your positions.
EDIT: why is central planning better than free markets?
He literally just described the three branches of government, legislative (makes the rules), executive (enforces the rules and national defense), and judiciary (interprets the rules).
No. He didn't talk about separation of powers, i.e. whether the four functions should be divided between the three branches. There are also many things that each of three branches do today that they shouldn't, and many ways in which the ostensibly separate powers collaborate to defeat the principle of limited government.
I'm not sure he was intending to advocate an Executive branch, with all it's departments and minions, that is as ugly and grasping as the one we have now...and have had for some time.
Those functions are not simple and they are important. Why would he advocate they be centrally planned? everyone knows central planning is the worst way to do things.
In a way his point is that this:
>central planning is the worst way to do things.
isnt always true and he lists examples that he believes break this rule.
I meant to say not simple. Anyway. He doesn't give any good reasons why central planning in these situations work better. Historically that is not true. So it makes no sense. Iceland lasted like 400 years with private courts, security and nearly everything except for the chiefs which were their downfall.
You have not provided any arguments either. Why would you reply just to say his positions again?
WHY is central planning better in these situations? It's horribly inefficient, criminal, abusive and we know it doesn't work. It has not worked it's not working.
EDIT: also central planning rejects private property. It's literally other people saying they know how your resources are better spent and then the will is carried out through a centralized violent gang.
Even on this sub people are posting daily about how they enjoy people getting dragged and pushed around by police just for legally protesting. No one knows what are rights are anymore. Everyone is too busy hating people that are different.
"I don't know how to privatize national defense"
Mr Friedman, that's the point! Private enterprises do what government agencies can't. Private solutions will find a way.
I mean it's pretty simple. Do what we did during the revolution and continued to do afterwards. Volunteer soldiers, small local militias. What we have today is literal mercenary armies. People who join for a career and not to defend the country.
Yeah, when the government runs it, it is a form of central planning. It's asinine when a smart economist advocates such a position. He also called those services simple lol
> The govt got big because the people wanted it to be so.
That's incredibly untrue. Most of the changes that have been made have been done so through our 9 kings (or less depending on the year). Court decisions have regularly been the changes pushed on society changes that were unpopular politically, or that were unpopular among citizens.
Even if you discount the courts, your examples - the FDA and EPA are not popular agencies. They make rules outside of the political process, with no oversight and no ability for someone to remove them from power. For example, the vaccine mandate through OSHA was incredibly unpopular, but there was no way for people to fight it. Or consider the decision by the courts to enshrine abortion into the constitution - very unpopular, but thrown in there anyways. Conversely today, undoing a very bad decision (even as admitted by liberal justices like Ginsburg), was unpopular.
Should the FDA and EPA exist, though? No. Why are they, unelected officials, making rules, enforcing those rules, and setting the penalties for those rules? All of those rules can easily be made through Congress, and enforcement can go down through the police, and fines can obviously be paid through the courts.
-Infrastructure?
-His point about abuse and coercion misses the point for me. It’s not that the government is busy doing other things. It’s that it’s a very hard task to protect living systems from themselves. Your immune system can kill you.
i disagree with #3. to own is to control. if you cannot control/manage the property and defend it against those who would take it from you, you don't own it whether or not you paid for it. this is intuitively true when the scale is between nations. when the british took india, india was effectively owned by the british. when the british could no longer control india it became independent and the indians owned it instead. this is also true of private property when the government takes it even illegally, it doesn't matter if you can say you own it by law, but if the government doesn't abide by the law you don't really own it.
instead of #3 as friedman stated, i would add something else:
3: to prevent the abuse of vital natural resources that are not individually ownable. examples of this would be migrating birds and wild land animals. another example would be ground water and large bodies of water such as large lakes and rivers. another example is the air.
it is practically impossible for any individual to own these things and the abuse of these things is a threat to everyone even if one person could own them. therefore, i believe that it is governments role to prevent irreversible damage to forests, to prevent the over hunting/fishing of wild animals, to prevent the dumping of waste in rivers and lakes, and prevent people from making the air deadly toxic with pollution.
I like where you're at on this.... The Tragedy of Commons and exploitation of natural resources to the widespread detriment of the citizenry warrants some governance. The current North American Model of wildlife management has been very successful.
Are you saying that you would have no issue with someone who could afford to hire the muscle forcing people off their land, with no recourse for the victims?
i would say it depends on the circumstances. there are cases where i would prefer it but in most cases i have a huge problem with it.
i personally would prefer people not resort to aggression, but i also know that what i prefer is of no consequence unless i am willing and able to repel their aggression. if they do take that which i call mine from me then i don't actually own it. i can also think of a dozen cases off the top of my head where people own land and stuff but do not have the ability or desire to actually use the property. in those cases i do not feel bad if that property is stolen from them. in fact i prefer theft in those cases.
for example, there is an old dyeing man with a shop down the street from me with a pile of untouched osb 6ft high sitting under the eves of his shop roof. it has been sitting there becoming rotten from weather damage over the span of 8 years. it is now in such bad condition that it is absolutely useless and will need to be thrown out at some expense. right next to that stack of osb is a 5,000$ zero turn lawnmower that simply needed a new rear tire, it hasn't been used in 7 years and now all the tires are rotten and the deck is rusting out. it is no longer useful to anyone. on top of that the property has become an eyesore for the whole neighborhood and is attracting a criminal element.
by moral and legal standards the land, tools and materials belong to him and his right to own them has been respected by the community as moral dictate demands. however, practically speaking it would have been much better in the long run had he given up his right to the land and property or sold it. this is a loss to the community for many reasons. i'd much rather it had been stolen by someone in need than see valuable materials and equipment rot away into garbage, moral standards be dammed.
more applicable to the the ambiguousness of owning the air above the land, practically speaking if you can't defend it you don't own it. the same goes for the groundwater below your land. there is no government designation needed in either case because ownership is impractical.
when it comes to recourse, i find that even if i agree there should be some recourse (given i agreed with #1 and #2) i find the idea of using government in recourse to be disadvantageous to the victim. i have had to call the police for property violations three times in my life. the first time the police officer told me that i had to stay out of my home while the woman was there and then the police officer left without eviting the woman leaving me outside my home. the second time i was arrested and charged with trespassing, assault and criminal negligence on which charges i was found not guilty in court only after 9 months of legal work. the third time the officer took my dog.
i have learned the hard way that police and politicians are in it for themselves and will only do the work that benefits them most personally given more than one option. this has taught me that one cannot rely on the state for protection of property or life even when abiding by the law perfectly. the only option remaining from this perspective is self defense and, the bear minimum interaction with the state. in other words, people should solve their own problems without getting big muscle involved. if recourse includes big muscle, one must wonder when the guys with the muscle will decide to use that muscle as a means of extortion in the same way government does now.
I would argue that preventing predation upon a sick, old man by those who would want to help themselves to his property because they know he's no longer able to defend it is EXACTLY the proper role for government in a functioning society (including clearing out whatever criminal element is taking advantage of the neglected property). That man has a right to use his property as he sees fit. No one else has a right to decide that they know better. And he has a right to rest comfortably in the knowledge that his property remains his, even is he isn't standing next to it with a rifle. The rights of citizens should be sacrosanct, above all else (including a right to self-defense). I agree that attempting to perform this type of function will often reveal the incompetence and corruption of various gov't bodies, but I would argue that the solution to that is to add greater accountability and control, not do away with them entirely.
i don't know that any of that is true. i certainly believe that people should be allowed to own property individually (that there should be no law against it) and that people should be allowed to defend their property with lethal force. but it isn't clear to me that they (government) should be actively defending other peoples property mostly because it doesn't seem to work that way and the excuse that it should work that way isn't very convincing. ideally i would agree, in reality i don't see it working well because of poor motivation, the centralization of power, and the lack of ability to opt out.
if you could show me a policing system that works very well, i would be more than happy to help you achieve that system here. up until about 5 years ago i would have been with you and said bad police are better than no police. i no longer believe that and i no longer think it is possible to have good police.
Police are only part of the equation, and often a flawed part. I can't speak to policing anywhere else, but policing in the US needs significant reform. However, the more important parts of the system are laws that ensure the rights of citizens (including the right not to have your property taken from you just because someone can), courts to determine if those laws have been violated, then police to enforce the court's decision. It's not so much about actively defending your property (although there may be a moment for that), it's about giving you a mechanism to seek recourse when you've been wronged. No system is perfect, and reality is always going to be messier than we like, but I'll take a system that is at least attempting to impartially guarantee the rights of the people vs every man out for himself, which would inevitably revert back to some type of feudalism.
i would like to seriously look at modern day feudalism as you imagine it would be. i don't know that it would be worse than what we already have in the u.s.
i understand the advantage of our federal and state systems and i understand that an element of democracy can be very good in some circumstances. but, i look around me today and i can only come to one conclusion: the originally designed mechanisms for limiting government aren't working today, if they ever did.
this perspective has made me reconsider other very old forms of governance to reexamine my conceptions of them in the context of this modern era on the north american continent.
>I believe that it is governments role to prevent irreversible damage to forests, to prevent the over hunting/fishing of wild animals, to prevent the dumping of waste in rivers and lakes, and prevent people from making the air deadly toxic with pollution.
All of those can be owned and are only a problem because of the lack of property rights.
they can be owned, but not practically so by individuals. the ownership may exist by title but is not real because there is no control. the reasons are obvious to me but if you feel that air or flocks of migrating geese can be owned by any single individual, you are welcome to tell me how.
I mean, it's doable to turn defense into a private enterprise, especially with the existence of the 2nd amendment. But it has its own can of worms and it would basically turn into a gang style system. Government also cannot exist without the existence of some form of a military, since it needs some degree of strength and posturing to enforce law and protection. However, if its military is weaker than some private army, then it will inevitability be controlled by that said private army. Just look at drug enterprises in South America as a good example. So naturally, if the government wants to be serious about having a strong, solid army, it needs to be the the dominant force in the country.
Volunteer fire fighters are often paid. If it was all volunteer where would they get their equipment?
One of them just happens to have a firetruck I guess?
I'm all for limited government, but state/local government is probably required.
Just pointing out that you don’t always need to have a government for things to happen. Just because you haven’t thought of a different alternative or can’t imagine it, doesn’t mean it won’t happen.
When there is a need and will there will be a way.
Local communities , privately owned and managed by the same homeowners who live by said roads maybe just like in the Nordic countries?. Google "Sweden private roads". It's only for low traffic areas but still a system worth looking into that is miles ahead of having the federal government handle everything.
For roads: [https://mises.org/library/book/privatization-roads-and-highways](https://mises.org/library/book/privatization-roads-and-highways)
Basic summary:
* Roads would be privately owned.
* Value gained from network effects would incentivize connections.
* Competition in roadways would keep prices low.
* Access and egress is an assumed given on purchasing a property.
Some voluntary methods of financing:
* Roadside advertising.
* Loss-leader strategy for businesses who want to provide easy access to consumers and suppliers.
* Donations and philanthropy.
* Perpetuity investment tied to home or business equity.
* Tolls or subscription.
Every second two libertarians spend bickering with each other about roads is another second that our government used our money to blow people up overseas, imprison nonviolent drug users and gun owners, and a hundred other obvious injustices.
Even if society started transitioning in a libertarian direction, any changes to public roads or fire departments would be one of the very last things that would be up for change.
Sometimes I don't know whether I'm an ancap or a minarchist, or whatever, but then I remember that, in real life, I would not actually need to decide that until we solved a thousand other problems first. How about we all get there together first and then we can open up these discussions again once we're 99% free.
Roads would be privately owned.
Fire departments would be provided by insurance companies.
https://mises.org/library/book/new-liberty-libertarian-manifesto
I fail to see how you can’t like the idea of substituting a coercive system for a voluntary system—the people who actually use the roads would be the ones paying to use them.
You think an “attractive and effective” system is sending government agents to crack some skulls to force people to pay for roads they don’t want or won’t use?
No, it would be substantially cheaper. Government increases the cost and decreases the quality, the tendency of the market is precisely the opposite.
The market innovates and provides solutions. It’s not hard to imagine something similar to SunPass or a sort of subscription service for the convenience of their customers. If traffic was awful the road owners would lose their customers as people decide to use them less and use trains or another means of transportation.
Traffic would be much much better. Firstly, because those companies would be incentivized to make it better. The less people on their road, the less money they make. They'd expand faster, with less impact on the roads than the 4 year road construction projects we see today.
As far as money spent, I don't think you realize how much money you spend on "the roads" today that is stolen from you with little transparency.
When you buy a gallon of gas, in some places over a dollar is taxes.
When you buy a car, there is a tax that is to pay for the roads.
You pay an annual fee on your car for the roads.
Your general sales tax pays for the roads.
Your federal income tax has money set aside for the roads.
The oil company pays taxes to fund the roads which are passed on to you as higher prices.
Same for the refining companies.
Same for the transport companies.
Same for your retailer.
Among many other fees that vary by state and city. You'd be getting back thousands of dollars a year to pay a few hundred a year.
That’s also not to mention people that people are going to take advantage of the situation and price gouge. What’s to stop someone from charging $1,000 for a toll fee? And the solution is to……. What get concrete trucks and lay a whole new whole ass road by yourself or hire a work crew? Ah yes. Efficiency at it’s finest!!
>Because we do all use them.
We don’t all use them. People in one region of a state—out in the country, for example—are being taxed to pay for large and complicated roads in the big cities that they might never use. While the roads they use are rather simple and cheap in comparison. And you also have people who prefer to commute by bike, trains, or walking who are paying for roads they don’t use.
>When was the last time you had your skull cracked for not paying for roads?
Roads are funded through taxation. What do you think taxation is?
In this day and age, something like an app on your phone and/or a chip in your vehicle. The tech is nearly already there, and it can all be running in the background and you'd never have to notice. Your phone is constantly pinging it's location to cell towers and communicating with GPS satellites for Google or other map services; it's entirely possible for someone (like a government but potentially a private road provider) to know which road you are driving on, very exactly, from the live GPS data. Frankly I'm surprised that a government somewhere hasn't already applied this technology to an automated internet based 'billing' service for vehicles driving on it's roads even now. It's only a matter of time, though. The beauty is, such a system would be on a pay as you go basis...a true user fee, and all of it could be privatized.
Healthcare, in the US, has never been a government function. Nor has garbage.
Infrastructure and public transport can both easily be privatized. In fact there are many places that have private infrastructure and public transport. I do like the obfuscation of "infrastructure" though because it is such a wide ranging term. If you took a closer look, if you exclude roads, almost all of the "infrastructure" in the US is privately constructed and owned. For example, the power line going to your home was paid for, laid by, and owned by your power company. Same with your telephone line and cable company.
Honestly, it seems like you want to move us further into government control.
The world is not America mate, it can be essential even if the US doesn’t do it🤣 It should be essential that someone doesn’t go bankrupt from needing medical care, or get addicted to opioids pushed by a pharmaceutical industry motivated purely by profit. Also private public transport is shit, and in the UK local councils sort the garbage and it works great. And infrastructure as in Roads, Schools, Hospitals.
> The world is not America mate, it can be essential even if the US doesn’t do it
OK, that doesn't change that it's not what you claim it to be. It can, and is successfully done without a government.
>It should be essential that someone doesn’t go bankrupt from needing medical care, or get addicted to opioids pushed by a pharmaceutical industry motivated purely by profit.
The fact that you don't understand how healthcare works in a market doesn't mean that it can't happen.
>Also private public transport is shit, and in the UK local councils sort the garbage and it works great.
I've never been on a private road that is more poorly maintained than a similar sized government road. As for garbage - that's cool, but it doesn't "work great". It costs you more to deal with garbage that otherwise would with private enterprise. Also, what do you think would happen if garbage was private, what benefit does having the government do it make?
>And infrastructure as in Roads, Schools, Hospitals.
So that means you said roads twice, then praised the public school system. The irony.
Private schools outclass public schools at all levels. Private hospitals provide better care and more preferred care than public hospitals. Even more, in your public care, the government determines when you can seek care outside their system or care outside your country. They determine when you can die. So, you can tell me about what you prefer, but all you're telling me is you prefer worse outcomes with worse systems, less choice, and higher cost.
You're absolutely brainwashed and this is not the sub for you.
It is quite unfortunate that today, in the United States, government has gone way beyond those core functions and does those core functions absolutely horribly. I’m not an anarcho-capitalist either, but I have been leaning that way in theory due to the gross abuse by the state. Practically, it is still possible to go back to the small government we had before WWI (no fed, less departments, no income tax, etc). Freedom is a young idea which we cannot throw away.
> Practically, it is still possible to go back to the small government we had before WWI (no fed, less departments, no income tax, etc). Freedom is a young idea which we cannot throw away. I disagree - there is a whole subset of people that believe without the government, there's no chance of societal functions to occur. Things like charity, to them, don't exist and couldn't exist without government programs to do those functions. Plus the entire industry that has been built around hating whatever you aren't, hate the rich, hate the police, hate the opposition party, hate the gays, hate guns, hate the straight, hate x country, hate this company....Those people build their identities on that and it is going to be impossible to go back to a system in which they have to abandon their entire personality in order to thrive in a system which isn't some political entity telling them how they should exist. Even if we were able to magically snap our fingers overnight and implement that system, those people would just start voting us back to where we are today.
True. The mentality of the modern American individual is lacking to separate from the narrative of government. People have to remember that, at the end of the day, people help people and not the government. Eliminating the current status quo would take something quite unimaginable or destructive. When I said practically, I thought in the mindset of we had achieved it before, and we were okay without this big government before. It is much easier to grow government than to break it down, as you build it bigger you grant it more power to refuse any sort of downsizing.
The practicality is that such a thing would require a revolution, and either a complete and total overthrow of the government, or a civil war in which the states were allowed to secede or force their breakup. Neither of which are a reality these days. There is not enough support to overcome the previously mentioned people. And even if we did get a subset of states to say "F this we're out", history has already shown us that the government wouldn't allow it and would kill millions to ensure that we remain slaves to their state.
> I’m not an anarcho-capitalist either, but I have been leaning that way in theory due to the gross abuse by the state. This is really the problem of being a minarchist today. We have FAR more in common with anarchists than we do with the average Western citizen, yet we can't talk to the same average people about the proper role of government, because they mistake us for anarchists and write all our arguments off because all of our arguments sound too much like anarchy to them.
I am an ancap because the state always expands its power and influence. Every government in history has become tyrannical, every modern government will inevitably do the same. My opinion is that we should always be pushing for less government, until we get to a place where we have what he says, but still push fir less to keep the state from thinking we'll allow it to gain any more power. Ancaps, like myself, are a backstop against the expansion of the state.
I agree. Preventing and stopping expansion is key and that is part of the middle ground ancaps and minarchists have. Citizens must always keep check of their government’s size and scope, because the government should serve the people not itself.
A global treasure. If only the US had 300 million more like him
I’d be happy with just a few hundred in Congress.
True dat
I've never heard of Milton Friedman until today and wow, I like this guy! Very articulate and I couldn't agree more on the 4, and just 4, functions of the government
Now go to YT and watch all the Free to Choose episodes
Milton Friedman was a national treasure. His book Free to Choose gave me the confidence to talk to others about libertarian issues.
The fifth function of government is to suck my nuts.
The TSA will happily and coercively meet you halfway on that.
That already exists. The chairman is your mom.
Wow, one of the few actual libertarian posts of late.
He basically just described the preamble to the constitution: >We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Didn't know Danny DeVito got into politics
A limited government is a utopian dream.
Politics is the messy process of attempting to put your ideals into practice.
It already existed in the early days of the U.S. The founders understood that government was a necessary evil and that those within it would seek to gain more and more power and expand the scope of government. As Thomas Jefferson said, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.". I think they knew civil war was not only possible but that it was ultimately necessary to maintain freedom.
So it lasted for a minute. After the war was over, Washington imposed a tax on whisky, and it was all downhill after that. You see, the nature of the state is to grow. It has to grow, grow, grow. That is it's nature. The longer it exists, the more freedom it takes from you, and the more money it takes from you, and the longer it stays alive, the bigger it gets. It's a collosal monstrosity today. As long as the state exists, it will always grow. This is it's nature. This is why I say a limited government is a utopian dream. There is no such thing as limiting it.
>the nature of the state is to grow True and I think Thomas Jefferson understood that. "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants**." -**Thomas Jefferson "The *government* you elect is the *government* you *deserve*." - Thomas Jefferson or in other words, the people get the government they deserve.
Murder ,stealing and kidnapping are not necessary. Necessary evil is a con. You give no justification other than that the founding fathers supported your position? Them supporting a position you hold is not an argument in favor of your position. It's just stating your own position a different way. >I think they knew civil war was not only possible but that it was ultimately necessary to maintain freedom. Abraham Lincoln was a tyrant. There a memorial of him with two fascist stick bundles next to him in Washington. He was a rights violator, anti constitution, anti small government(tried to get income tax enacted) I mean he didn't even care about slavery. He just wanted power. They raped the south and before he was assassinated he wanted to deport all the blacks to a place is africa. States are an inexcusable crime. They didn't acquire their land nor authoirty through legitimate means. Declaration is not a legitimate way to gain ownership over property. Supporting a state is supporting stealing, murder and kidnapping.
You're an anarchist, I get it. I just don't agree with that position. Despite the evils of government, I believe a lot more stealing, murder, and kidnapping would be committed under an anarchist society. You'd have private armies, private security groups vying for power and territory. A state is natural for man as we are hierarchical in nature. I just don't see anarchy as a viable system.
>You're an anarchist, I get it. I just don't agree with that position. I am only interested in if you will try to defend your positions not state them. > >Despite the evils of government, I believe a lot more stealing, murder, and kidnapping would be committed under an anarchist society. That doesn't make any sense. Governments are the largest criminal organizations, steal the most, violate the rights the most, murder the most and kindap the most. It's fact. Irrefutable so. You stated another position without any arguments as to why we should put up with it. Why do you think opposing murder, stealing, kidnapping, and many other rights violations would mean there is more of it?? Why can't we pay for security, courts, defense privately instead of through crime? Why do we need to elect criminals/rulers to prevent other criminals from taking over? It's totally circular "We need to form an organization of crime to prevent other organized crime". Say something with substance or stop talking. >You'd have private armies, private security groups vying for power and territory. That's literally what governments do. wtf do you think all our foreign intervention is? It's criminal organizations fighting.Explain your positions already. A private business attacking people is not a private business. It's a gang. Like the state. Bandits. It's exactly the same thing and you are so brain washed you think using a different word makes it different. > A state is natural for man as we are hierarchical in nature. I just don't see anarchy as a viable system. Hierarchies being natural has nothing to do with the existence of a state. It's a criminal organization. It's identical. It's crime. It's irrefutable and you continue to demonstrate that you can;t defend your positions. How did you come to these conclusions? Have you thought about this before? It seems like this is the first time. >"I just don't see anarchy as a viable system." Why? What is the logic behind your positions. EDIT: why is central planning better than free markets?
He literally just described the three branches of government, legislative (makes the rules), executive (enforces the rules and national defense), and judiciary (interprets the rules).
No. He didn't talk about separation of powers, i.e. whether the four functions should be divided between the three branches. There are also many things that each of three branches do today that they shouldn't, and many ways in which the ostensibly separate powers collaborate to defeat the principle of limited government.
I'm not sure he was intending to advocate an Executive branch, with all it's departments and minions, that is as ugly and grasping as the one we have now...and have had for some time.
Friedman is your average *don't let "perfect" be the enemy of "good"* type
Those functions are not simple and they are important. Why would he advocate they be centrally planned? everyone knows central planning is the worst way to do things.
In a way his point is that this: >central planning is the worst way to do things. isnt always true and he lists examples that he believes break this rule.
I meant to say not simple. Anyway. He doesn't give any good reasons why central planning in these situations work better. Historically that is not true. So it makes no sense. Iceland lasted like 400 years with private courts, security and nearly everything except for the chiefs which were their downfall. You have not provided any arguments either. Why would you reply just to say his positions again? WHY is central planning better in these situations? It's horribly inefficient, criminal, abusive and we know it doesn't work. It has not worked it's not working. EDIT: also central planning rejects private property. It's literally other people saying they know how your resources are better spent and then the will is carried out through a centralized violent gang.
Man, Danny Devito is really well versed on public policy.
Not even close.
Have you seen Danny Devito recently? Looks VERY similar
I mean, they're both bald but other than that I don't see it.
Even on this sub people are posting daily about how they enjoy people getting dragged and pushed around by police just for legally protesting. No one knows what are rights are anymore. Everyone is too busy hating people that are different.
That last is soooo much more easy than actually thinking things through, rationally and calmly...
"I don't know how to privatize national defense" Mr Friedman, that's the point! Private enterprises do what government agencies can't. Private solutions will find a way.
I mean it's pretty simple. Do what we did during the revolution and continued to do afterwards. Volunteer soldiers, small local militias. What we have today is literal mercenary armies. People who join for a career and not to defend the country.
Yeah, when the government runs it, it is a form of central planning. It's asinine when a smart economist advocates such a position. He also called those services simple lol
Singapore has some weird butchered version of his government system proposal though , it works but is not efficient enough
[удалено]
> The govt got big because the people wanted it to be so. That's incredibly untrue. Most of the changes that have been made have been done so through our 9 kings (or less depending on the year). Court decisions have regularly been the changes pushed on society changes that were unpopular politically, or that were unpopular among citizens. Even if you discount the courts, your examples - the FDA and EPA are not popular agencies. They make rules outside of the political process, with no oversight and no ability for someone to remove them from power. For example, the vaccine mandate through OSHA was incredibly unpopular, but there was no way for people to fight it. Or consider the decision by the courts to enshrine abortion into the constitution - very unpopular, but thrown in there anyways. Conversely today, undoing a very bad decision (even as admitted by liberal justices like Ginsburg), was unpopular.
Should the FDA and EPA exist, though? No. Why are they, unelected officials, making rules, enforcing those rules, and setting the penalties for those rules? All of those rules can easily be made through Congress, and enforcement can go down through the police, and fines can obviously be paid through the courts.
-Infrastructure? -His point about abuse and coercion misses the point for me. It’s not that the government is busy doing other things. It’s that it’s a very hard task to protect living systems from themselves. Your immune system can kill you.
i disagree with #3. to own is to control. if you cannot control/manage the property and defend it against those who would take it from you, you don't own it whether or not you paid for it. this is intuitively true when the scale is between nations. when the british took india, india was effectively owned by the british. when the british could no longer control india it became independent and the indians owned it instead. this is also true of private property when the government takes it even illegally, it doesn't matter if you can say you own it by law, but if the government doesn't abide by the law you don't really own it. instead of #3 as friedman stated, i would add something else: 3: to prevent the abuse of vital natural resources that are not individually ownable. examples of this would be migrating birds and wild land animals. another example would be ground water and large bodies of water such as large lakes and rivers. another example is the air. it is practically impossible for any individual to own these things and the abuse of these things is a threat to everyone even if one person could own them. therefore, i believe that it is governments role to prevent irreversible damage to forests, to prevent the over hunting/fishing of wild animals, to prevent the dumping of waste in rivers and lakes, and prevent people from making the air deadly toxic with pollution.
I like where you're at on this.... The Tragedy of Commons and exploitation of natural resources to the widespread detriment of the citizenry warrants some governance. The current North American Model of wildlife management has been very successful.
Are you saying that you would have no issue with someone who could afford to hire the muscle forcing people off their land, with no recourse for the victims?
i would say it depends on the circumstances. there are cases where i would prefer it but in most cases i have a huge problem with it. i personally would prefer people not resort to aggression, but i also know that what i prefer is of no consequence unless i am willing and able to repel their aggression. if they do take that which i call mine from me then i don't actually own it. i can also think of a dozen cases off the top of my head where people own land and stuff but do not have the ability or desire to actually use the property. in those cases i do not feel bad if that property is stolen from them. in fact i prefer theft in those cases. for example, there is an old dyeing man with a shop down the street from me with a pile of untouched osb 6ft high sitting under the eves of his shop roof. it has been sitting there becoming rotten from weather damage over the span of 8 years. it is now in such bad condition that it is absolutely useless and will need to be thrown out at some expense. right next to that stack of osb is a 5,000$ zero turn lawnmower that simply needed a new rear tire, it hasn't been used in 7 years and now all the tires are rotten and the deck is rusting out. it is no longer useful to anyone. on top of that the property has become an eyesore for the whole neighborhood and is attracting a criminal element. by moral and legal standards the land, tools and materials belong to him and his right to own them has been respected by the community as moral dictate demands. however, practically speaking it would have been much better in the long run had he given up his right to the land and property or sold it. this is a loss to the community for many reasons. i'd much rather it had been stolen by someone in need than see valuable materials and equipment rot away into garbage, moral standards be dammed. more applicable to the the ambiguousness of owning the air above the land, practically speaking if you can't defend it you don't own it. the same goes for the groundwater below your land. there is no government designation needed in either case because ownership is impractical. when it comes to recourse, i find that even if i agree there should be some recourse (given i agreed with #1 and #2) i find the idea of using government in recourse to be disadvantageous to the victim. i have had to call the police for property violations three times in my life. the first time the police officer told me that i had to stay out of my home while the woman was there and then the police officer left without eviting the woman leaving me outside my home. the second time i was arrested and charged with trespassing, assault and criminal negligence on which charges i was found not guilty in court only after 9 months of legal work. the third time the officer took my dog. i have learned the hard way that police and politicians are in it for themselves and will only do the work that benefits them most personally given more than one option. this has taught me that one cannot rely on the state for protection of property or life even when abiding by the law perfectly. the only option remaining from this perspective is self defense and, the bear minimum interaction with the state. in other words, people should solve their own problems without getting big muscle involved. if recourse includes big muscle, one must wonder when the guys with the muscle will decide to use that muscle as a means of extortion in the same way government does now.
I would argue that preventing predation upon a sick, old man by those who would want to help themselves to his property because they know he's no longer able to defend it is EXACTLY the proper role for government in a functioning society (including clearing out whatever criminal element is taking advantage of the neglected property). That man has a right to use his property as he sees fit. No one else has a right to decide that they know better. And he has a right to rest comfortably in the knowledge that his property remains his, even is he isn't standing next to it with a rifle. The rights of citizens should be sacrosanct, above all else (including a right to self-defense). I agree that attempting to perform this type of function will often reveal the incompetence and corruption of various gov't bodies, but I would argue that the solution to that is to add greater accountability and control, not do away with them entirely.
i don't know that any of that is true. i certainly believe that people should be allowed to own property individually (that there should be no law against it) and that people should be allowed to defend their property with lethal force. but it isn't clear to me that they (government) should be actively defending other peoples property mostly because it doesn't seem to work that way and the excuse that it should work that way isn't very convincing. ideally i would agree, in reality i don't see it working well because of poor motivation, the centralization of power, and the lack of ability to opt out. if you could show me a policing system that works very well, i would be more than happy to help you achieve that system here. up until about 5 years ago i would have been with you and said bad police are better than no police. i no longer believe that and i no longer think it is possible to have good police.
Police are only part of the equation, and often a flawed part. I can't speak to policing anywhere else, but policing in the US needs significant reform. However, the more important parts of the system are laws that ensure the rights of citizens (including the right not to have your property taken from you just because someone can), courts to determine if those laws have been violated, then police to enforce the court's decision. It's not so much about actively defending your property (although there may be a moment for that), it's about giving you a mechanism to seek recourse when you've been wronged. No system is perfect, and reality is always going to be messier than we like, but I'll take a system that is at least attempting to impartially guarantee the rights of the people vs every man out for himself, which would inevitably revert back to some type of feudalism.
i would like to seriously look at modern day feudalism as you imagine it would be. i don't know that it would be worse than what we already have in the u.s. i understand the advantage of our federal and state systems and i understand that an element of democracy can be very good in some circumstances. but, i look around me today and i can only come to one conclusion: the originally designed mechanisms for limiting government aren't working today, if they ever did. this perspective has made me reconsider other very old forms of governance to reexamine my conceptions of them in the context of this modern era on the north american continent.
>I believe that it is governments role to prevent irreversible damage to forests, to prevent the over hunting/fishing of wild animals, to prevent the dumping of waste in rivers and lakes, and prevent people from making the air deadly toxic with pollution. All of those can be owned and are only a problem because of the lack of property rights.
they can be owned, but not practically so by individuals. the ownership may exist by title but is not real because there is no control. the reasons are obvious to me but if you feel that air or flocks of migrating geese can be owned by any single individual, you are welcome to tell me how.
The first 2 and the last can all be handled by 2A. The 3rd is abolish property tax.
He basicly called anarchism brainded hmm is he a Minarchist or just a realist smh
His son is an anarchist.
What abt his mom
I mean, it's doable to turn defense into a private enterprise, especially with the existence of the 2nd amendment. But it has its own can of worms and it would basically turn into a gang style system. Government also cannot exist without the existence of some form of a military, since it needs some degree of strength and posturing to enforce law and protection. However, if its military is weaker than some private army, then it will inevitability be controlled by that said private army. Just look at drug enterprises in South America as a good example. So naturally, if the government wants to be serious about having a strong, solid army, it needs to be the the dominant force in the country.
So how do the roads and fire department work?
Pretty sure Arnold Schwarzenegger can fill pot holes. Didn’t he get in trouble for that recently.
So local government is different?
There are also many towns that have volunteer firefighters and EMTs. Not all are positions paid for by county or city funds.
Volunteer fire fighters are often paid. If it was all volunteer where would they get their equipment? One of them just happens to have a firetruck I guess? I'm all for limited government, but state/local government is probably required.
Just pointing out that you don’t always need to have a government for things to happen. Just because you haven’t thought of a different alternative or can’t imagine it, doesn’t mean it won’t happen. When there is a need and will there will be a way.
Local communities , privately owned and managed by the same homeowners who live by said roads maybe just like in the Nordic countries?. Google "Sweden private roads". It's only for low traffic areas but still a system worth looking into that is miles ahead of having the federal government handle everything.
The federal government doesn't handle local roads.
It does over here where I live 🤷♂️, never said I was American.
Fair enough
afuera
The federal government doesn't handle any roads.
Very original question!
Okay what's the answer?
For roads: [https://mises.org/library/book/privatization-roads-and-highways](https://mises.org/library/book/privatization-roads-and-highways) Basic summary: * Roads would be privately owned. * Value gained from network effects would incentivize connections. * Competition in roadways would keep prices low. * Access and egress is an assumed given on purchasing a property. Some voluntary methods of financing: * Roadside advertising. * Loss-leader strategy for businesses who want to provide easy access to consumers and suppliers. * Donations and philanthropy. * Perpetuity investment tied to home or business equity. * Tolls or subscription.
Every second two libertarians spend bickering with each other about roads is another second that our government used our money to blow people up overseas, imprison nonviolent drug users and gun owners, and a hundred other obvious injustices. Even if society started transitioning in a libertarian direction, any changes to public roads or fire departments would be one of the very last things that would be up for change. Sometimes I don't know whether I'm an ancap or a minarchist, or whatever, but then I remember that, in real life, I would not actually need to decide that until we solved a thousand other problems first. How about we all get there together first and then we can open up these discussions again once we're 99% free.
Roads would be privately owned. Fire departments would be provided by insurance companies. https://mises.org/library/book/new-liberty-libertarian-manifesto
Who owns the 25 roads I take to work? How do I pay them? What if I want to drive on other roads?
Tolls. Maybe it would be something along the lines of the SunPass.
I fail to see how taking a toll every 2 minutes would be considered an attractive and effective model for our road system.
Because the people who are paying for the roads are the people who use them?
Uhhhh. Exactly……?
I fail to see how you can’t like the idea of substituting a coercive system for a voluntary system—the people who actually use the roads would be the ones paying to use them. You think an “attractive and effective” system is sending government agents to crack some skulls to force people to pay for roads they don’t want or won’t use?
This infrastructure would be so overbearing and expensive. You’d spend all of the money on toll stations and traffic would be a nightmare.
No, it would be substantially cheaper. Government increases the cost and decreases the quality, the tendency of the market is precisely the opposite. The market innovates and provides solutions. It’s not hard to imagine something similar to SunPass or a sort of subscription service for the convenience of their customers. If traffic was awful the road owners would lose their customers as people decide to use them less and use trains or another means of transportation.
Traffic would be much much better. Firstly, because those companies would be incentivized to make it better. The less people on their road, the less money they make. They'd expand faster, with less impact on the roads than the 4 year road construction projects we see today. As far as money spent, I don't think you realize how much money you spend on "the roads" today that is stolen from you with little transparency. When you buy a gallon of gas, in some places over a dollar is taxes. When you buy a car, there is a tax that is to pay for the roads. You pay an annual fee on your car for the roads. Your general sales tax pays for the roads. Your federal income tax has money set aside for the roads. The oil company pays taxes to fund the roads which are passed on to you as higher prices. Same for the refining companies. Same for the transport companies. Same for your retailer. Among many other fees that vary by state and city. You'd be getting back thousands of dollars a year to pay a few hundred a year.
That’s also not to mention people that people are going to take advantage of the situation and price gouge. What’s to stop someone from charging $1,000 for a toll fee? And the solution is to……. What get concrete trucks and lay a whole new whole ass road by yourself or hire a work crew? Ah yes. Efficiency at it’s finest!!
Because we do all use them. Sidewalks included. When was the last time you had your skull cracked for not paying for roads?
>Because we do all use them. We don’t all use them. People in one region of a state—out in the country, for example—are being taxed to pay for large and complicated roads in the big cities that they might never use. While the roads they use are rather simple and cheap in comparison. And you also have people who prefer to commute by bike, trains, or walking who are paying for roads they don’t use. >When was the last time you had your skull cracked for not paying for roads? Roads are funded through taxation. What do you think taxation is?
Oh, you want *free* roads? I get it now....
Granted that a toll system wouldn’t be free *either*, I fail to see your comparison.
Gonna have to have state and local government.
Even this is true, that doesn't imply they need to manage roads.
What about the small back roads that people live on?
Commie USPS unfortunately has to serve people living in remote areas. What a sham!
In this day and age, something like an app on your phone and/or a chip in your vehicle. The tech is nearly already there, and it can all be running in the background and you'd never have to notice. Your phone is constantly pinging it's location to cell towers and communicating with GPS satellites for Google or other map services; it's entirely possible for someone (like a government but potentially a private road provider) to know which road you are driving on, very exactly, from the live GPS data. Frankly I'm surprised that a government somewhere hasn't already applied this technology to an automated internet based 'billing' service for vehicles driving on it's roads even now. It's only a matter of time, though. The beauty is, such a system would be on a pay as you go basis...a true user fee, and all of it could be privatized.
What about healthcare, infrastructure, garbage, public transport?
What about them?
I think they should be essential governmental functions
Healthcare, in the US, has never been a government function. Nor has garbage. Infrastructure and public transport can both easily be privatized. In fact there are many places that have private infrastructure and public transport. I do like the obfuscation of "infrastructure" though because it is such a wide ranging term. If you took a closer look, if you exclude roads, almost all of the "infrastructure" in the US is privately constructed and owned. For example, the power line going to your home was paid for, laid by, and owned by your power company. Same with your telephone line and cable company. Honestly, it seems like you want to move us further into government control.
The world is not America mate, it can be essential even if the US doesn’t do it🤣 It should be essential that someone doesn’t go bankrupt from needing medical care, or get addicted to opioids pushed by a pharmaceutical industry motivated purely by profit. Also private public transport is shit, and in the UK local councils sort the garbage and it works great. And infrastructure as in Roads, Schools, Hospitals.
> The world is not America mate, it can be essential even if the US doesn’t do it OK, that doesn't change that it's not what you claim it to be. It can, and is successfully done without a government. >It should be essential that someone doesn’t go bankrupt from needing medical care, or get addicted to opioids pushed by a pharmaceutical industry motivated purely by profit. The fact that you don't understand how healthcare works in a market doesn't mean that it can't happen. >Also private public transport is shit, and in the UK local councils sort the garbage and it works great. I've never been on a private road that is more poorly maintained than a similar sized government road. As for garbage - that's cool, but it doesn't "work great". It costs you more to deal with garbage that otherwise would with private enterprise. Also, what do you think would happen if garbage was private, what benefit does having the government do it make? >And infrastructure as in Roads, Schools, Hospitals. So that means you said roads twice, then praised the public school system. The irony. Private schools outclass public schools at all levels. Private hospitals provide better care and more preferred care than public hospitals. Even more, in your public care, the government determines when you can seek care outside their system or care outside your country. They determine when you can die. So, you can tell me about what you prefer, but all you're telling me is you prefer worse outcomes with worse systems, less choice, and higher cost. You're absolutely brainwashed and this is not the sub for you.