Difference between revisions of "The Machinery of Freedom/animated lecture"

From CWRE
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(more or less done analyzing his arguments)
m (moving category to /claims)
 
(5 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
−
==Claims==
+
==Index==
−
* The term "liberalism" was stolen by the enemies of liberalism; modern libertarians are the true liberals. ([[/transcription#1|¶1]])
+
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTYkdEU_B4o The Machinery Of Freedom: Illustrated summary]: the video
−
** objection: Liberalism was about doing away with centralized control of markets; modern liberals are against that too -- they're just willing to admit that corporate control is just as bad as government control, and that well-designed government regulation can decrease centralization overall.
 
−
* Libertarianism (formerly called liberalism) is the philosophy that supports [[small government]] and [[free market]]s. ([[/transcription#1|¶1]])
 
−
* Libertarianism holds that the function of government is to do a few things that can't be done by individuals associating voluntarily in private markets: ([[/transcription#2|¶2]])
 
−
** police
 
−
** courts
 
−
** national defense
 
−
* [[Anti-governmentism/private is better|Where the same thing can be done either by government or privately, private is usually better.]] ([[/transcription#3|¶3]] [[/transcription#16|¶16]] [[/transcription#21|¶23]] [[/transcription#30|¶30]])
 
−
** Private markets produce better products than socialist systems do -- "we expect markets to produce better cars than socialist systems".
 
−
*** Objection: it's not clear what definition of "{{l/ip|socialism}}" he's using here.
 
−
**** Europe (especially Sweden) is often called "socialist", but they produce pretty good cars.
 
−
** objection: This ignores the fact that there are some things government does better and private organizations do worse. While it may be that the REA/AA scheme will in fact do better than government, we can't assume that this will be so just because "private is better".
 
−
*** response: For the most part, Friedman does support his conclusions with reasoning.
 
−
**** objection: It just needs to be understood that this reasoning is necessary. We can't just ''assume'' that the private organizations will do better than government because they are private organizations.
 
−
* (DF's main argument) The basic functions of government can be handled privately:
 
−
** '''police''' (enforcing laws)
 
−
*** individuals hire private firms (rights enforcement agencies - REAs) to protect their rights and settle their disputes with other individual
 
−
**** objection (DF[[/transcription#6|¶6]]): conflict between REAs
 
−
***** objection detail (DF[[/transcription#7|¶7]]): REAs will use violence to settle their disputes
 
−
****** response (DF[[/transcription#8|¶8]]): violence is expensive -- REAs are not likely to use it to settle conflicts because in the long term it's a losing proposition with uneven results
 
−
******* objection (W): What if an REA is unreasonable?
 
−
***** response (DF[[/transcription#9|¶9]][[/transcription#13|¶13]]): REAs will hire arbitration agencies (AAs) to settle their disputes with other REAs
 
−
** '''courts''' (making laws) - handled by arbitration agencies (AAs)
 
−
*** objection (DF[[/transcription#11|¶11]]): who will enforce the use of AAs and adherence to their decisions?
 
−
**** response (DF[[/transcription#11|¶11]]): the [[discipline of constant dealings]]
 
−
***** objection (W): ...which requires a highly stable, non-transient society -- which we don't have now, and which there is no reason to expect would be delivered by this system
 
−
*** objection (DF[[/transcription#17|¶17]],W): What if two REAs can't agree on an arbiter? (e.g. what if one REA's customers prefer a death penalty, while another REA's customers are opposed?)
 
−
**** response (DF[[/transcription#18|¶18]]): an argument that has something to do with raising prices in response to demand and/or buying the acquiescence of the other and/or its customers. This doesn't really answer the question.
 
−
***** objection (W): To the extent that the argument is relevant, however, it seems to depend on everyone having similar amounts of money -- otherwise a view can prevail because of the holder's wealth rather than the degree of their conviction that they are right.
 
−
** <s>national defense</s> (not covered; conceded that privatizing this is an easier problem to solve)
 
−
* objection (DF([[/transcription#13|&para;13]]): Under this system, different sets of people/entities will operate under different sets of rules. Isn't that unfair?
 
−
** response (DF([[/transcription#13|&para;13]])): Actually it's an improvement, because:
 
−
*** we already live under a system where rules vary (by state, munucipality, etc). ([[/transcription#13|&para;13]])
 
−
*** any rules needed for any given interaction can be worked out non-coercively via this method ([[/transcription#15|&para;15]])
 
−
*** rules will be more closely tailored to the needs of the people ruled by them -- people will only get the rules they want ([[/transcription#20|&para;20]])
 
−
==Pages==
 
 
* [[/transcription]]: a complete transcription of the lecture in the video
 
* [[/transcription]]: a complete transcription of the lecture in the video
−
==Links==
+
* [[/claims]]: listing and analysis of the arguments made in the lecture
−
* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTYkdEU_B4o The Machinery Of Freedom: Illustrated summary]: the video
 

Latest revision as of 18:09, 23 May 2015

Index

Retrieved from "https://cwre.org/w/index.php?title=The_Machinery_of_Freedom/animated_lecture&oldid=756"