Thursday, October 23, 2008
The Problem With Minarchist Analogies
This post will be critical of John Stossel, so I just want to make clear that he is awesome and is doing a lot to spread free market ideas. Now then...
In a recent WSJ op ed, Stossel compares society to an ice skating rink, and explains that he filmed an attempt to "centrally plan" 100 skaters using a bullhorn. (This was Daniel Klein's idea.) Then they even got Brian Boitano to try it as well, and even here the outcome was obviously inferior to a "deregulated" skating environment.
Well, in today's WSJ, there were a bunch of cynics pointing out that if you slightly changed the analogy to make it closer to the financial bailout, then Stossel would obviously want a "referee." (E.g. if there were so many skaters that if they piled onto one area of the rink, the whole building would collapse and kill the spectators.) And then someone else sarcastically agreed with Stossel, and said he also thought we should get rid of stoplights. Somebody else said you need referees in professional ice hockey.
Now, I'm sure Stossel's TV show was worth doing; it sounds like they did it pretty cleverly, and bringing the "expert planner" Boitano in was a great twist. (I must confess that I can't hear that guy's name without thinking of South Park.)
This exchange of views illustrates the difficulties of minarchism. A Rothbardian anarchist can quite consistently say, "Yes, it's not whether there are 'rules' or not, it's that owners should set the rules on their property. So darn tootin you get rid of government streetlights and stop signs, and you sell the roads to the private sector. Let them decide how to provide the best service to their customers."
If you are a consistent champion of the free market, then all these nagging problems fall away. You're not in the awkward position of having to say that the financial bailout is wicked and stupid, but the Pentagon and Supreme Court are virtuous and brilliant.
In a recent WSJ op ed, Stossel compares society to an ice skating rink, and explains that he filmed an attempt to "centrally plan" 100 skaters using a bullhorn. (This was Daniel Klein's idea.) Then they even got Brian Boitano to try it as well, and even here the outcome was obviously inferior to a "deregulated" skating environment.
Well, in today's WSJ, there were a bunch of cynics pointing out that if you slightly changed the analogy to make it closer to the financial bailout, then Stossel would obviously want a "referee." (E.g. if there were so many skaters that if they piled onto one area of the rink, the whole building would collapse and kill the spectators.) And then someone else sarcastically agreed with Stossel, and said he also thought we should get rid of stoplights. Somebody else said you need referees in professional ice hockey.
Now, I'm sure Stossel's TV show was worth doing; it sounds like they did it pretty cleverly, and bringing the "expert planner" Boitano in was a great twist. (I must confess that I can't hear that guy's name without thinking of South Park.)
This exchange of views illustrates the difficulties of minarchism. A Rothbardian anarchist can quite consistently say, "Yes, it's not whether there are 'rules' or not, it's that owners should set the rules on their property. So darn tootin you get rid of government streetlights and stop signs, and you sell the roads to the private sector. Let them decide how to provide the best service to their customers."
If you are a consistent champion of the free market, then all these nagging problems fall away. You're not in the awkward position of having to say that the financial bailout is wicked and stupid, but the Pentagon and Supreme Court are virtuous and brilliant.
Comments:
What do you make of this article? Greenspan admits a flaw?
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/081023/financial_meltdown.html
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/081023/financial_meltdown.html
Bob, don't take this as a criticism. It is really just an open question that I am asking myself. How can one be an anarchist and a Christian. In Romans 13:1-2, Paul says "there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God." Thus, Paul explicitly says that the state has a function and is instituted by God. This statement doesn't mean the state is good and right in it's current form but if the state has even one God given legitimate role one could not be a pure anarchist and remain faithful to the Bible.
Wow Jackson, you asked _the_ question! I am working through this myself, and can point to a couple of things you can look at:
1) Presidential candidate Chuck Baldwin has written about this topic at Lew Rockwell's site:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig8/baldwin1.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig8/baldwin2.html
2) Though it doesn't address Romans 13 (part 3 will do that - someday), I wrote an article "Does the Bible Support a Libertarian Philosophy?" at http://theholycause.blogspot.com/2008/09/does-bible-support-libertarian.html
I think this is one of the biggest issues of today, one that Christians need to discuss.
1) Presidential candidate Chuck Baldwin has written about this topic at Lew Rockwell's site:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig8/baldwin1.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig8/baldwin2.html
2) Though it doesn't address Romans 13 (part 3 will do that - someday), I wrote an article "Does the Bible Support a Libertarian Philosophy?" at http://theholycause.blogspot.com/2008/09/does-bible-support-libertarian.html
I think this is one of the biggest issues of today, one that Christians need to discuss.
Jackson,
In all the English translations I've seen, Paul refers to "ruling authorities", "governing authorities", "higher powers", "powers that be" etc.; however, he clearly does not refer explicitly to the state. As Bob demonstrates when he writes, "Yes, it's not whether there are 'rules' or not, it's that owners should set the rules on their property.", the consisent adherent to liberty (the anarcho-capitalist) need not oppose the existence of rules or ruling authorities (in this case property owners). Obversely, the Christian, according to Paul, need not support any particular form of ruling authority, but should refrain from lawbreaking, disorderliness, and open rebellion.
To sythesize these ideas, the orderly system of private property owners acting as ruling authorities within the limits of their property under anarcho-capitalism, is entirely consistent with the Pauline ethic of submission to authority.
In all the English translations I've seen, Paul refers to "ruling authorities", "governing authorities", "higher powers", "powers that be" etc.; however, he clearly does not refer explicitly to the state. As Bob demonstrates when he writes, "Yes, it's not whether there are 'rules' or not, it's that owners should set the rules on their property.", the consisent adherent to liberty (the anarcho-capitalist) need not oppose the existence of rules or ruling authorities (in this case property owners). Obversely, the Christian, according to Paul, need not support any particular form of ruling authority, but should refrain from lawbreaking, disorderliness, and open rebellion.
To sythesize these ideas, the orderly system of private property owners acting as ruling authorities within the limits of their property under anarcho-capitalism, is entirely consistent with the Pauline ethic of submission to authority.
# posted by 
: October 24, 2008 at 10:05 AM
: October 24, 2008 at 10:05 AM
What if you are the ruling authority? Such as a king. What is your responsiblity given that verse? By extension, if you are part of a democracy you are ostensibly part of the ruling authority.
If the greatest of commandments is to love thy neighbor as yourself, the ruling authority would seemingly need to support a style of governence that avoids the use of force.
If the greatest of commandments is to love thy neighbor as yourself, the ruling authority would seemingly need to support a style of governence that avoids the use of force.
# posted by : October 24, 2008 at 11:10 AM
: October 24, 2008 at 11:10 AM
Hey guys,
I will deal with Greenspan later today, hopefully. (It sounds like I'm calling up Luca Brasi.)
Jackson, I am pretty sure I addressed that (great) question in my talk at Hillsdale on anarchism [mp3].
I will deal with Greenspan later today, hopefully. (It sounds like I'm calling up Luca Brasi.)
Jackson, I am pretty sure I addressed that (great) question in my talk at Hillsdale on anarchism [mp3].
Greg,
I have read though Baldwin's material a while ago and I remember his main point being that Christians should not obey when called to do unbiblical things. Like when the Apostles continue to testify about Jesus despite direct orders from the Sanhedrin to stop (Acts 5:28-29). Perhaps I should read back through it again.
Anonymous 1,
to clarify the Greek text reads "every soul be subject to the authority of those who are in authority." I think this could be taken as you suggest where property owners are in authority over their own property. But this doesn't take away from the fact that Paul says Rome has a God given authority and by implication so do other states.
Anonymous 2,
A king or other authority is subject to God because God gave them the authority.
Bob, thanks for the link. I'm going to listen to it today. BTW, I enjoyed your interview with Scott Horton.
I have read though Baldwin's material a while ago and I remember his main point being that Christians should not obey when called to do unbiblical things. Like when the Apostles continue to testify about Jesus despite direct orders from the Sanhedrin to stop (Acts 5:28-29). Perhaps I should read back through it again.
Anonymous 1,
to clarify the Greek text reads "every soul be subject to the authority of those who are in authority." I think this could be taken as you suggest where property owners are in authority over their own property. But this doesn't take away from the fact that Paul says Rome has a God given authority and by implication so do other states.
Anonymous 2,
A king or other authority is subject to God because God gave them the authority.
Bob, thanks for the link. I'm going to listen to it today. BTW, I enjoyed your interview with Scott Horton.
Bob,
I listened to the audio you linked to. It was a good presentation overall but I think your discussion on Romans could have been better. If I understand you correctly, you said that passage can't say all governments are legitimate because some Christians thought Saddam was illegitimate and should be overthrown.
But one could also argue Christians simply did not follow biblical teaching when they supported the war. Unfortunately, Christians fail to follow the Bible frequently. If we were to deduce what the Bible says from church history, we would not arrive at the Scriptures.
Post a Comment
I listened to the audio you linked to. It was a good presentation overall but I think your discussion on Romans could have been better. If I understand you correctly, you said that passage can't say all governments are legitimate because some Christians thought Saddam was illegitimate and should be overthrown.
But one could also argue Christians simply did not follow biblical teaching when they supported the war. Unfortunately, Christians fail to follow the Bible frequently. If we were to deduce what the Bible says from church history, we would not arrive at the Scriptures.
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]