I watched the debate and, while I'm definitely biased, I thought you provided a much more compelling argument than Yaron Brook. I appreciated your emphasis on comparative analysis, what is more likely to produce good results. However, I'm still surprised that I've never seen a proponent of anarcho-capitalism reject the fundamental premise of the limited government advocates in these debates, that a properly limited government is ideal and good. Legally limited government is impossible in theory and practice. So, the proponents of minarchy do not merely compare conjecture of anarchy to an idealized government, they compare it to an impossible government. As Yaron Brook correctly notes, the defining characteristic of a government (as opposed to governance institutions) is a monopoly on the legal use of force in a given geographical area. Yaron argues that there must be a single, final arbiter in order for freedom to be possible. But, this monopoly desired by Brook extends to the judgement of its' own actions relative to the law. This necessarily places all governments, at least in their own province, outside of and above the law.
Governments are not limited by law, they are limited by custom, attitudes and ultimately the degree of acquiescence of the people. Governments necessarily violate individual rights, this issue is not negated by the fanciful appeal to "consent of the governed". One cannot grant consent if one cannot withhold it or withdraw it. Dr. Brook imagines a government limited to only a few legitimate roles but, what is the principle that allows government to violate individual rights in order to provide the goods he desires, but not others?
You are correct, the move from minarchy, as Brook imagines, to anarchy is small. Brook argues that a coercive final arbiter must exist, that the State is legitimate and necessary. This belief precludes the possibility of strictly limited government. He is a minority supplicant, insisting that his preferences about the appropriate limits of government force are objectively valid, while the preferences of others are invalid. Good luck with that! As long as government is considered morally legitimate and necessary, the forces that profit from government intervention (rights violations) will always dominate the "leave us alone" crowd.
Dr. Brook argued that some ideal must be provided, and he is correct. However, that ideal cannot be the absurd, even self contradictory, idea of a strictly limited government. It must be the idea of a voluntary society, where no person. or group of people, can legally arrogate to themselves the right to rule others, to do things morally barred to us "mere mundanes". Ironically, the only chance of minarchy gaining traction and being stable is if the default attitude toward government is that it is inherently illegitimate. People may, and probably would, tolerate such a government, not because they believe it right or good, but that it seems more tolerable than imagined alternatives.
To paraphrase William Lloyd Garrison, "Minarchy in theory is metastasis in practice".
Spoiler alert! I watched the debate and know who was picked as the winner. If you don't want to know now, stop reading this.
I was surprised and disappointed that Brook was declared the winner (but only by a small margin). I saw a similar debate between Richard Epstein (limited govt advocate) and Michael Huemer (ancap) after which Epstein was picked as the winner.
What has happened to libertarians? Forty years ago, this joke was going around: Q: What's the difference between a limited government advocate and an anarchist? A: Six months.
One of the problems I have with these debates is that they let people vote “undecided” At the beginning.
People are notoriously bad at knowing their own beliefs/motivations/values. So I think a lot of people vote undecided, not because they are truly undecided, but because they like the idea that they are undecided.
But then they just watch the debate and agree with all the points that they already agree with, and vote for the person they already agree with at the end of the debate.
Making it look like someone picked up a lot of votes when they actually changed very few minds (or even had net negative).
The simple solution is to just not let people vote at the end unless they explicitly voted for a side at the beginning. No one is truly neutral, so I suspect the vote totals wouldn’t actually change that much, you would just stop all these people voting undecided when that’s likely untrue.
I enjoy the SOHO debates, but the Oxford format is pretty silly. If desired, one can game the system even more effectively by voting against the side you already agree with and then change it at the end.
Question for Bryan or anyone: Bryan you mention an economist whos name I cannot make out, who has done work on company towns. I would very much like to snag that name off of you, if you don't mind?
Dear Dr. Caplan,
I watched the debate and, while I'm definitely biased, I thought you provided a much more compelling argument than Yaron Brook. I appreciated your emphasis on comparative analysis, what is more likely to produce good results. However, I'm still surprised that I've never seen a proponent of anarcho-capitalism reject the fundamental premise of the limited government advocates in these debates, that a properly limited government is ideal and good. Legally limited government is impossible in theory and practice. So, the proponents of minarchy do not merely compare conjecture of anarchy to an idealized government, they compare it to an impossible government. As Yaron Brook correctly notes, the defining characteristic of a government (as opposed to governance institutions) is a monopoly on the legal use of force in a given geographical area. Yaron argues that there must be a single, final arbiter in order for freedom to be possible. But, this monopoly desired by Brook extends to the judgement of its' own actions relative to the law. This necessarily places all governments, at least in their own province, outside of and above the law.
Governments are not limited by law, they are limited by custom, attitudes and ultimately the degree of acquiescence of the people. Governments necessarily violate individual rights, this issue is not negated by the fanciful appeal to "consent of the governed". One cannot grant consent if one cannot withhold it or withdraw it. Dr. Brook imagines a government limited to only a few legitimate roles but, what is the principle that allows government to violate individual rights in order to provide the goods he desires, but not others?
You are correct, the move from minarchy, as Brook imagines, to anarchy is small. Brook argues that a coercive final arbiter must exist, that the State is legitimate and necessary. This belief precludes the possibility of strictly limited government. He is a minority supplicant, insisting that his preferences about the appropriate limits of government force are objectively valid, while the preferences of others are invalid. Good luck with that! As long as government is considered morally legitimate and necessary, the forces that profit from government intervention (rights violations) will always dominate the "leave us alone" crowd.
Dr. Brook argued that some ideal must be provided, and he is correct. However, that ideal cannot be the absurd, even self contradictory, idea of a strictly limited government. It must be the idea of a voluntary society, where no person. or group of people, can legally arrogate to themselves the right to rule others, to do things morally barred to us "mere mundanes". Ironically, the only chance of minarchy gaining traction and being stable is if the default attitude toward government is that it is inherently illegitimate. People may, and probably would, tolerate such a government, not because they believe it right or good, but that it seems more tolerable than imagined alternatives.
To paraphrase William Lloyd Garrison, "Minarchy in theory is metastasis in practice".
Kind Regards,
Jeremy Parfitt
Spoiler alert! I watched the debate and know who was picked as the winner. If you don't want to know now, stop reading this.
I was surprised and disappointed that Brook was declared the winner (but only by a small margin). I saw a similar debate between Richard Epstein (limited govt advocate) and Michael Huemer (ancap) after which Epstein was picked as the winner.
What has happened to libertarians? Forty years ago, this joke was going around: Q: What's the difference between a limited government advocate and an anarchist? A: Six months.
One of the problems I have with these debates is that they let people vote “undecided” At the beginning.
People are notoriously bad at knowing their own beliefs/motivations/values. So I think a lot of people vote undecided, not because they are truly undecided, but because they like the idea that they are undecided.
But then they just watch the debate and agree with all the points that they already agree with, and vote for the person they already agree with at the end of the debate.
Making it look like someone picked up a lot of votes when they actually changed very few minds (or even had net negative).
The simple solution is to just not let people vote at the end unless they explicitly voted for a side at the beginning. No one is truly neutral, so I suspect the vote totals wouldn’t actually change that much, you would just stop all these people voting undecided when that’s likely untrue.
Hi Joe,
I enjoy the SOHO debates, but the Oxford format is pretty silly. If desired, one can game the system even more effectively by voting against the side you already agree with and then change it at the end.
Cheers,
Jeremy
Question for Bryan or anyone: Bryan you mention an economist whos name I cannot make out, who has done work on company towns. I would very much like to snag that name off of you, if you don't mind?
Hi Kristian,
https://www.jstor.org/stable/2565121
Price V. Fishback
Cheers,
Jeremy
Of course he just posted it in his post today, I thanked him and I thank you sir!
Great job Bryan! Yarron could not describe in one word what he was arguing for, sounded like big government.