RoR: Forum

Isn't this exactly why a state will never work? The state owns nothing and has to restrict others in order to be able to give something to the people.

You say that is not the goal, a government is supposed to fullfil? Yes, that might be, but as long as their are politicians who want to give their political existence a reason to be, there will be such things as restricted ownerships, just for the sake of the legitimation of the state.
You really can't give Bush and the Republicans, or the democrats the sole guilt. It is the nature of a state and has always been.

Post 1

Monday, February 28, 2005 - 7:10am

Actually, I do not talk of "the sate," which is mostly a Hegelian/Marxian concept, but of government, which has a nice pedigree within the classical liberal/Objectivist political theoretical tradition. I have discussed this issue so much that I will not repeat my case here other than to say that what free market or libertarian anarchists offer is as much a government as what Rand did, the only difference being that between a stationary versus a floating institution (kind of like the difference between a stationary pizza place versus a pizza delivery service). The rest is a distinction without a difference, as old anarchist types have correctly noted in their criticism of Rothbard & Co.
(Edited by Machan on 2/28, 7:19am)

Post 2

Monday, February 28, 2005 - 9:20am

Well, government and state are really synonymous in Germany, so I am sorry for my misspelling.

I grant that an anarchist approach would only divide a state into its pieces (military, judicial system, police) and perhaps would substitute a democratic society by something we don't want (perhaps a brotherhood of some sort).
So, I don't intend to drive it that way, I just say that a limited state is better than what we have today.
And when I look at what we have in Germany and what the US is slowly becoming, then I can say that it won't be a state in the future, but a control-mechanism known from George Orwell's novel 1984.
Your article showed that in the name of "social justice", every politician is entitled to take away property if he just pokes the social-justice-stick.

Post 3

Monday, February 28, 2005 - 7:56am

Your assessment is, of course, correct. But I believe, perhaps falsely, that Bush is smarter than he appears, and also sneakier.

The medicare prescription drug plan, for example, avoided the government price fixing the Dems wanted, and contains a nugget of conpetetion with private industry, a nose under the tent if you will, that could one day sow the seeds of destruction and lead to a free market solution. The same might be said for private SS accounts. At this point in time, short of revolution, this small achievement may be the best that can be had--or I could be imagining the whole thing.

Post 4

Monday, February 28, 2005 - 9:59am

Good article Mr. Machan. Tell me, I am going to order a couple of your books, "Classical Individualism", "Generosity" and "Political Philosophy, Essential Selections". My question is about the last one... what exactly does it cover? Does it give a good run down from ancient to modern? I have the Straussian text "A History of Political Philosophy" which I'm sure you're aware of. While some of the essays are very good in it, some are definitely marred with biases. I'm also looking for something that covers libertarian writers.

Best regards,

Shane Hurren

Post 5

Monday, February 28, 2005 - 12:22pm

Great Article Mr. Machan. I disagree with it though. Coming from a Southern conservative background and knowing A LOT of people who believe exactly what Bush believes, I think his idea of ownership is absolute, its just that he believes people have a moral obligation to give up their non-land property. If he had it his way, we would be a lot better on issues like eminent domain but probably just as bad on welfare. On those issues Bush simply dosen't see it as a property rights issue, he sees it as moral rightous.

Just to conclude, Bush is strong on property rights but has a very narrow scope of what they are. This is kinda like what you said but I'm trying to be fair to Bush and saying that he has a better grasp on property rights then most of his opponents.

Post 6

Monday, February 28, 2005 - 1:18pm

I'd like to respond but not on this forum, concerning the books you ask about.

Post 7

Monday, February 28, 2005 - 4:39pm

Political change happens incrementally. At least we're talking about ownership now, and even if it's flawed, we can use this to continue pushing towards more property rights, until it is absolute.

Post 8

Monday, February 28, 2005 - 9:17pm

Let me echo Scott's post. It doesn't have to be perfect in order to be a move in the right direction. For example, if the Chinese government said that they will seek to divest certain state-owned industries, I would think that is the right move (even though they didn't divest everything, nor renounce their prerogative to steal things). Let me suggest that a good political proposal is one that 1) returns some real benefit (e.g. liberty), and 2) defines the debate for the next proposal.

That said, I wonder if we could get more out of the libertarian political capital that we will spend on this issue. Why not ask for more?

Post 9

Tuesday, March 1, 2005 - 3:31pm