Skip to main content

The Need for Government or Anarchy?

Image
By
Mises and Friedman are in agreement "The consistent liberal is not an anarchist."
To Mises and Friedman it is a rather simple argument: How do you enforce your rules upon society to protect your property, your life, and your liberty without a government?
Mises' explained the need for government with ease:
"Life in society would be quite impossible if the people who desire its continued existence and who conduct themselves accordingly had to forgo the use of force and compulsion against those who are prepared to undermine society by their behavior. A small number of antisocial individuals, i.e., persons who are not willing or able to make the temporary sacrifices that society demands of them, could make all society impossible. Without the application of compulsion and coercion against the enemies of society, there could not be any life in society.
We call the social apparatus of compulsion and coercion that induces people to abide by the rules of life in society, the state; the rules according to which the state proceeds, law; and the organs charged with the responsibility of administering the apparatus of compulsion, government."
Their main questions is, what are the chances of everyone agreeing upon the said terms in a voluntary society with no government? What guarantees are in place to make sure that later generations do not choose against those very terms?

As much as they opposed government with the notion the market is more proficient than the government in most tasks, both intellectual greats, Mises & Friedman, conclude that life could not function without some sort of coercion, albeit a constrained coercion.

Is the market a better enforcer than the government? Can we not apply the same questions they had asked about life without a government to life with a government? What guarantees individuals agree to the terms? Let us take in mind that the market is not capable of extending its might through coercive social programs such as the government.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

De-dollarizing an Economy is not an Easy Task but in the Case of Ecuador it Makes No Sense

By Jimbo Ar
Ecuador adopted the US Dollar as its currency on January, 2000. The country at the time had almost a 100% rate of inflation and it used the US currency for major transactions such as: house, cars, and importations purchases, to name a few. However, there was a huge social cost of implementing the US Dollar in Ecuador. The political cost took a big hit when President Mahuad was ousted due to his decision in 2000.      Former President Jamil Mahuad in his book called: "This is how we dollarize Ecuador" (2021), makes a detailed account of the economic conditions in which the country was prior to the execution of the executive decree to use the US dollar as the country's official currency.  Mainly, in its chapter IX "Hyperinflation and freezing." Mahuad mentions the following: “We then had a triple run: a bank run (due to the withdrawal of bank deposits), an exchange run (due to the loss of Central Bank reserves caused by the purchase of dollars) and a flight of cap
Post a Comment
Read more

Lasso: you failed

By Jimbo Ar
     Guillermo Lasso was elected as President of Ecuador in 2021. Since May of that year, Lasso demonstrated difficulties in managing its own political party, networking and lobbying with the National Assembly, and most of all keeping close his alliance with the Partido Social Cristiano’s Leader, Jaime Nebot.      Lasso backed his presidency initial months with a successful Covid-19 vaccination campaign, which was supported mainly by international organizations. But further than that; Lasso’s government is a failure. In an earlier post of this blog, it’s mentioned the following: “ With this in mind and having elections for president in Ecuador in 2024; time is an enemy for Lasso’s presidency. Ecuador’s President needs to increase speed in changes, reforms, and lobbying through a divided Assembly (Congress) to obtain legislation that allows: economic freedom, stronger rule of law, and presenting a positive environment for foreign investment. All these changes must be done quickly en
Post a Comment
Read more

An Unlikely Runoff: González vs. Noboa

By Jimbo Ar
Source: BBC News Mundo  ( Luisa González & Daniel Noboa) Ecuador’s Presidential election took place on August, 20 th , 2023. According to the Consejo Nacional Electoral (CNE) official information, with more than 98% of the ballots in, it shows that Luisa González and Daniel Noboa are headed to the runoff in October this year. González, a disciple and loyal follower of Rafael Correa, achieved the 33.6% of the electorate; while Noboa, a self-proclaimed “progressive” –left-leaning- entrepreneur and son of banana mogul, got 23.4% of the ballots on Sunday. In other words, only 5 out of ten people supported both candidates in this election. Hence, 50% of the other constituents voted for other candidate (one out of the other 6 candidates that run for office) that means the October runoff duo have much work to do to get bigger support within the next 50 days.      However, the story goes beyond the introducing data presented in the earlier paragraph. The results show that Rafael Correa’s p
Post a Comment
Read more