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

Wisdom from the Gossip Crowd

By
Last week, Dan Klein had met with a group of students on a draft of his recent paper. During the discussion he had raised a question that all students with the love for liberty usually ask themselves , "How come I get it? How come all these other people I know get it, but the everyday citizen does not get it?" The "it" being government intervention within our personal lives being more harmful and not as efficient as the market. Those in the room shared his agony with the question and for me coincided with the question, " Why does the battered wife not leave her beating husband? " The solution was simple when I sat around a table with my cousins and my wife and heard a discussion of a guy who felt he owned the world going out with other girls and yet his girlfriend stays by him. When the remark was made that his girlfriend was stupid for staying by him, I heard the words that made me understand why people still don't get "it". " She belie...
2 comments
Read more

Subjective Value through Non-Austrians

By
James Buchanan in his book The Reason of Rules(10.2.9) states: The individual is the unique unit of consciousness from which all evaluation begins. Note that this conception does not in any way reject the influence of community or society on the individual. The value structure of an isolated human being may be totally divergent from that of such a person described by membership in one or many social relationships. The presupposition requires only that societal or communitarian influences enter through modifications in the values that are potentially expressed by the individual and not externally. Armen Alchian and William Allen in Exchange and Production: Competition, Coordination, and Control : Groups, organizations, communities, nations, and societies are best understood by focusing on the incentives and actions of their members. A business, union, or family may be formed to further some common interest of its members, but group actions are still the results of decisions of individu...
2 comments
Read more

Saying No is hard; but in this case at what cost

By Jimbo Ar
Ecuador’s President, Daniel Noboa, called the electorate to the ballots on a National Referendum. The eleven questions established for this political process were in two main fields: security and labor market reforms. The Referendum took place on April 21, 2024.      The official results of the National Referendum are that in 9 out 11 yes-no-questions the Ecuador’s electorate gave the option of Yes a majoritarian support to the Administration’s plans. However, two questions the support leaned towards No; those questions main focus was on reforms to labor and foreign investment. The following graph show the results of the Referendum. Graph 1 Results of the National Referendum Source: CNE (National Electorate Council for it acronym in Spanish)        In the graphs, question D (3) stated that: Do you agree that the Ecuadorian State should recognize international arbitration as a method for resolving disputes in investment, contractual, or commercial matte...
Post a Comment
Read more