Free For All - The Free Liberal Blog: You Can’t Get There from Here

August 2008

Sun

Mon

Tue

Wed

Thu

Fri

Sat

Bridging on Kevin Rollins’s blog, what Robert Kaercher does not address, and Carl Milsted does address, is any sense of process. How do we get from here – lots of coercion – to there – little to no coercion?

Writes Kaercher: “When the parasite eventually exhausts itself, as it inevitably will, the very same 99+% of people who currently say they reject anarchy will be more prepared for anarchy than they realize.

“We just need to persuade them of that crucial idea.”

As measured by per capita GDP, Americans, at least, keep getting richer, despite government growing as a percentage of GDP over time. Americans are practical people, and are like Missourians, who like to say: “Show me.” Based on results, more government would seem to lead to more wealth. While I believe that’s incorrect, that we’d all generally be far wealthier with less government, how can this be demonstrated?

Self-styled “anarchists” seem to remain mum on the matter. Instead, Kaercher seems to be predicting a cataclysmic collapse of Western civilization, at which time 99% will see the light: Big government is a failure, let’s have none! This logic leap is astounding and dumbfounding on its face.

If anything, the opposite is true. In times of crisis, people tend to cede more control to the State, not less.

To say, as Kaercher does, we “just” need to “persuade them” begs the question: With what? Where is the evidence that no state is in any way sustainable or desirable?

-Robert Capozzi

Comments

>what Robert Kaercher does not address, and Carl Milsted does address, is any sense of process. How do we get from here – lots of coercion – to there – little to no coercion?

So what? Is everyone with a political opinion obliged to "have a process," like every politician who has a "plan"? And what if "we" "can't" "get there"? what if that's reality?

>While I believe that’s incorrect, that we’d all generally be far wealthier with less government, how can this be demonstrated?

Maybe it can't. I think the ultimate answer is economic literacy. Which may be impossible; but I think it's the only way.

>Self-styled “anarchists” seem to remain mum on the matter.

Quite wrong.

> Instead, Kaercher seems to be predicting a cataclysmic collapse of Western civilization, at which time 99% will see the light: Big government is a failure, let’s have none! This logic leap is astounding and dumbfounding on its face.

Is it any more utopian or absurd than those libertarians who think "victory" is "just around the corner" if only "we" will "work with each other in the glorious fight"?

>To say, as Kaercher does, we “just” need to “persuade them” begs the question: With what? Where is the evidence that no state is in any way sustainable or desirable?

I think most people aare decent (if not, it's hopeless) and if they just understand basic economics, they'll naturally be more libertarian. So our only hope is economic literacy. How to achieve this, is a good qeustion--maybe it's not. I think it's probably not.

Posted by: kinsella | January 31, 2006 09:59 PM

Thus, it is hopeless.

Illiteracy is a problem of a void needing to be filled.

Most people aren't economically illiterate. Their minds are not a vacuum, but a plenum filled with error and darkness - but a sweet and pleasant darkness.

This is a different and more difficult problem.

But even assuming it is overcome, what of the people who aren't rational or decent? How many people can they cause to join with them in their irrationality?

I expand on this at more length and a practical problem in a post at my blog:

http://thomasz.blogspot.com/2006/02/why-governments-must-own-roads.html

Posted by: tomz | February 1, 2006 01:39 PM

Kinsella: you have stated something quite sensible! People will be *more* libertarian if they learn more economics. The key word is "more." There is a gigantic gulf between desiring smaller government and no government.

In your earlier posts you indicated that such an attainment was not worth the bother. Why make government smaller when having any government is unacceptable?

BTW: teaching better economics is surprisingly easy -- if you don't mix in the lesson with a call for anarchy, or cutting off the Social Security checks next month, or selling Yellowstone to Disney, or...

Posted by: balph | February 2, 2006 08:02 AM

Robert Capozzi wrote:
>Kaercher seems to be predicting a cataclysmic collapse of Western civilization, at which time 99% will see the light

Bob, that's not what Kaercher wrote. He said very clearly:
>After all, government is not civilization itself, but a parasite upon it.
When the parasite eventually exhausts itself, as it inevitably will...

Kaercher states very clearly that he is talking about the collapse of the "parasite," and he very carefully defines his terms to make clear that by "parasite" he means "government" and "not civilization itself".

You pro-gov libertarians have a bit of a habit, I'm afraid, of claiming that we anarchists are hoping for or predicting a collapse of civilization, when all we anarchists are hoping for is the collapse of government. It's you guys, not us, who seem to think that government and civilization are somehow the same thing.

I guess that explains why you pro-government fellows are always trying to figure out how to make government work -- you know, school vouchers, charter schools, "privatizing" Social Security, etc. We anarchists tend to agree with Marshall Fritz that it is not our job to figure out how to make socialism work. In fact, we notice that, when all is said and done, your clever little "market-oriented" plans to "improve" government often end up deepening government power and increasing the burden on the taxpayer.

Of course, I realize that a lot of you guys have a deep yearning to actually be part of the government so that you can get your hands on a bit of the loot yourselves. Sorry, guys, the Dempublicans are a lot smarter politicians than you folks!

Carl Milsted calls for a "lean just government." Of course, Dubya, Hillary, et al. all publicly call for a bloated, unjust government, right? All politicians claim to want an efficient, fair, competent government, as long as they can control the loot.

Personally, I agree with Will Rogers: "Be thankful we're not getting all the government we're paying for."

Please do try not to claim falsely that we anarchists hope for or predict the collapse of civilization. It's quite simple: we're for civilization, against government. We think there's a difference.

Dave

Posted by: DrDave | February 2, 2006 11:01 PM

>Kinsella: you have stated something quite sensible! People will be *more* libertarian if they learn more economics. The key word is "more." There is a gigantic gulf between desiring smaller government and no government.

Umm, okay. Anything else obvious to say?

>In your earlier posts you indicated that such an attainment was not worth the bother.

Did I? I don't think so. Pay attention. I try to speak precisely. Unlike the pro-state types who always mealy-mouth it.

>Why make government smaller when having any government is unacceptable?

What? You often hear that there are no stupid questions. But this is the exception that disproves the rule.

>BTW: teaching better economics is surprisingly easy -- if you don't mix in the lesson with a call for anarchy, or cutting off the Social Security checks next month, or selling Yellowstone to Disney, or...

OKay.

Posted by: kinsella | February 3, 2006 10:11 PM

Personally I have and will call for the immediate end to the welfare state and govenrment schools (on separation of church - corporal and spiritual works of mercy - and state grounds).

I would never propose school vouchers, but when asked, "Is voucher proposal X better than the status quo", I think it is reasonable to answer "yes" or "no" on the merits.

I don't know how the previous Pope would answer if asked if things were better under Hitler or Stalin, but I think he would have had an answer. Practical questions tend to be of this kind - recognizing if there is more than one evil, then there can be greater and lesser.

Please don't confuse that, and a call for the minimum possible government (and if you think it is zero, persuade me that it is both possible and achievable) with a call for anything else.

Thinking civilizaiton will be destroyed by barbarians without or within if no (necessarily collective ) defense is made is hardly identifying civilization with government. It is akin to asking can you have any kind of free market without ANY property rights (for this question, ignore the question of how they are defined and/or enforced, just do they need to exist).

That is the same kind of semantic confusion where if you are for "Free Trade", you *MUST* be for GATT, WTO, NAFTA, CAFTA, and whatever other treaties that are larger than some encyclopediae. Personally I'm for free trade and that is why I am utterly opposed to (insert-region-abbreviation-here)FTA.

Posted by: tomz | February 6, 2006 03:20 PM