Foseti asked a question a few days ago...I responded in the comments, and he admitted to placing "Aretae-bait". Nonetheless, his question and my answer lead me largely to accept 1/2 of a formalist position:
Here's the line:
A state attempting to actively maximize the welfare of its citizenry is fundamentally incoherent. Can't be done. Full stop.
This leads to 2 or 3 potential systems that are not incoherent:
Anarchy -- not a state, no problem
Monarchy -- Maximize the welfare of the monarch (at the expense of everyone else). Coherent and evil.
and potentially
Coasian -- State is responsible for some portion of property rights and minimizing transaction costs...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
6 comments:
This requires a State with the powers it has now, it's ruinously bankrupt and corrupt, and maximizes transactions costs to it's own benefit.
Your solution requires a greater altering of Human Nature than Communism. People frequently will put aside personal interests for the communal good.
You're wishing for a State the agents of which have enormous power but do not use it to enrich themselves.
It's mad.
bdoran,
1. Welcome to the blog.
2. I think I'm actually meta'ed out a level. Semi-standard strong libertarian claim: paper constraints cannot constrain a state over time. If you have a state, it will move inexorably in the direction of a total state.
I agree on the direction of any State, in particular the one we have. The one we have BTW is largely Vogon..they're not evil they just run things...and they didn't think about what they were doing. They still *haven't* although it has dawned on them that they may be in danger.
They also over-centralized...the great ineradicable strength of Jeffersonian democracy is there is no Head to cut off, and not much body in terms of vital organs in one place.
Our Vogons have put all their organs in a circle around their capitas...
Let Liberty reign. In fact Let Liberty ROCK!!
1. Private property is evil. Owners will use their property to maximize their welfare at the expense of everyone else.
2. Monarchy is evil. Kings will use their property to maximize their welfare at the expense of everyone else.
Please explain why number 1 is wrong, and then explain how number 1 can be wrong but number 2 can be true.
Private property is among the best ways to generate wealth among a people. The ability for poor citizens to own private property appears to be the best known path out of poverty. Also, private property is philosophically justified by the combination of two factors: The admixture of effort into the land and the availability of similar property elsewhere that someone else could own.
I don't know what the heck your #1 is.
Carl,
The dilemma is easily solved. A King doesn't just own property. He also has force on his side. He doesn't have to attract the customer, he can send his soldiers around to force people to do his will.
In a nutshell:
1. Maximizing one's welfare by offering others goods or services in free exchange = general welfare maximizing.
2. Maximizing one's welfare by offering others violence = general welfare minimizing.
I'll note that as the size of each kingdom is reduced, more and more of a King's business in done with those in other kingdoms. Hence the exchange becomes less force-dominated, and more welfare enhancing.
Compare: 15th century Italy (multiple independent city states, flowering of Renaissance) with 17th century Italy (domination by large states like Spain, sliding into a backwater).
One can therefore argue that as corporations become larger and larger, they too are likely to approach state like behaviour and hence problems. This is worse if they are geographically concentrated.
Post a Comment