Topic: "Book club" - page 6. (Read 6513 times)

You avoided answering this question.

Have you even read the book?  The impression you give is that you are doing what Friedman complained of: "When I put such questions to other libertarians, one common response is a frantic attempt to reinterpret the problem out of existence." 

Racism is real and racists did very good business until they were forced to stop.  I would not support living in a society that has signs up saying "Whites Only."  I don't care if it is or is not profitable.  Saying that racists are the ones who suffer is irrelevant - I don't care if they are ruining themselves.   Its not a morally acceptable way to run a society.

If you are OK with it, that's fine.  Its good to be clear what you stand for.

You contradict yourself.

The discriminator loses money, or an employee. The discriminated against can seek employment, or whatever service they were seeking, elsewhere, where they will not have to do business with a bigot. The discriminated against has a more enjoyable experience, elsewhere, and the discriminator is out business.

Would you support the right of a business to deny service to someone who is foul mouthed and spouting racist remarks?

You believe the only victim of racism is the person who is discriminated against.  The laughable thing is that you say only the person discriminated against suffers.  Perhaps blacks should pay people not to do business with them?  After all, you think they are not the victims.

A society that operates on that basis is morally repugnant.  If you don't want that, you need to rethink.

Which result is that? I want you to elucidate it in no uncertain terms.

If your ideas lead to a set of results that are morally repugnant, then its time to rethink.

I want a society where nobody has a positive obligation to anyone else, unless they choose to.

I mean, seriously? Asking an anarchist if he thinks something should be illegal? What did you think I would say?

You believe the only victim of racism is the person who is discriminated against.


Really? Then who is this myrkul guy I am quoting?


You want a society where its legal to refuse a man a job, house or a loan because he is black.  And you want a society where people can hang a man themselves.

Disgusting.

Another incorrect assumption on your part (among the endless parade of incorrect assumptions you make). You are mistaken in believing that a business owner will always operate in an economically rational way.


Quite an awful conclusion you've drawn there. It speaks volumes about how sloppy you are in analyzing your own thought processes. Now tell me, why would someone who chooses to not wear seat belts only endanger themselves? They're likely endangering their children through their own rules or beliefs, as well as possibly their childrens' friends when riding in their car.

If this is truly what you think I believe, then you're denser than I thought.

Sorry the society you want is very different from one I would find acceptable.  Your being OK with mobs lynching people suddenly is a lot more sinister than when I thought it was merely misplaced idealism.

I'm disgusted.

No, I don't. I don't believe it should need to be illegal. I agree that it is wrong, but telling someone "no" does not harm them, regardless of why they are told "no". Excluding someone from business on non-related terms only hurts the person doing the excluding.

My review mentions how Friedman has the exact problem with other libertarians that you are giving me.

Really, don't do that.  Saying that the business owner has miscalculated does not mean that its OK to allow him exclude blacks.  Its his business and if he thinks selling to racists is the best way to profit, that is no reason to make it legal.

Do you agree that excluding blacks from jobs or businesses should be illegal?

No, it's economically better not to exclude blacks, or any other ethnic group.

If you have 100 potential customers, of all creeds, skin colors, etc, and you turn away 25 of them because of one of those factors, you now have only 75 potential customers. If there are enough people who disagree with that policy that if voted on, it would be made illegal (in this case, 51 persons), you have further reduced your potential customer base. Even assuming that all of the excluded group object enough to vote against it, you've still reduced your potential customer base to 49.

The other 51 people, your excluded group included, would go elsewhere. That means you are giving your competition more business than yourself. That's not good business, especially when you consider that not all of those 49 potential customers will translate into actual customers.

As I said, I know its economically better for the restaurant owner to exclude blacks but its still wrong and in a decent society, it will be illegal.

The problem is, he views harm done to the passenger as a result of him not wearing the seat belt as a cost to society, and I view it as a cost to that passenger.


1. Agreed, racial discrimination is wrong. That is why I would not patronize an establishment that practiced it. I would tell my friends about it, and suggest they might want to avoid it as well. By practicing racial discrimination, the shop owner has excluded an entire segment of the population, as well as another, potentially larger, segment of your potential customers (even with the policy) that disagrees with the policy. So, it might work, but an inclusive policy would get people more business.
2. These stats are all very nice, but the fact remains that someone who does not wear their seat belt endangers only themselves.
3. No, not where you live, for the people whom you live near by. I suspect you will cry, "semantics!" but it's an important distinction. Also, keep in mind that they would need to negotiate deals with the other REAs in the area, meaning that making something objectionable like female circumcision "legal" would be more difficult than placing voluntary restrictions on behavior, such as banning alcohol.
4. This is actually your best point. Realistically, I can't think of a way to prevent this, aside from arbiters that allow a foreign power to influence their decision losing the reputation of impartiality that they depend on for continued business.

OK - read "The Machinery of Freedom" by David D. Friedman.

First impressions are that this was not intended as a book but as a series of essays submitted to magazines.  Some are very good; the writing is clear and the tone is light.  Some are just rubbish.  One of the likeable things about the book is that he freely and openly contradicts himself.  "Life is messy, these questions are complicated, why shouldn't I contradict myself?" is what he seems to think and I agree.  

The book was published in 1973 and the ever present threat from the Russians affects a lot of his ideas.  For those young enough not to remember, until 1976 it looked a safe bet that Communism would win and that our societies would be remembered as corrupt failures.  Friedman makes clear that freedom is better in economic terms - something we take for granted now but was radical in its day.

If try to summarise the book:
1. He is a small state libertarian who would like to have no state but doesn't see that as possible.  "I would still regard the government as a criminal organization, but one which was, by a freak of fate, temporarily useful. It would be like a gang of bandits who, while occasionally robbing the villages in their territory, served to keep off other and more rapacious gangs."
2. Friedman sees government as being the best answer as to how to provide defence.  He is OK with taxes for defence and with conscription if an enemy that requires that level of manpower appears.  The book was written during the Cold War when "big" wars were still possible so its understandable that he felt that conscription had to be an option.
3. Friedman hates the idea of a libertarian foreign policy but he does believe that its needed.  For example, he supported the US aid to the Shah of Iran including training of the secret police for use against democratic Iranians.  He was anxious to persuade Germany and Japan to re-arm to lighten the defence burden the US carried.
4. Friedman sees that government has to provide courts.  He prefers the idea of arbitration but "[Arbitration arrangements without some enforcement mechanism are a satisfactory substitute for the courts when the problem is merely an honest disagreement and the matter being settled is less important than continued good relations
between the two parties. In other cases, arbitration may be unsatisfactory if the arbitrator, unlike the court, has no way of enforcing his decisions. If one party refuses to accept a decision, the other's only recourse is to go to court..."
5. Friedman has an idea for private alternatives to the police and courts.  This is one of the chapters where he struggles to make sense.  He defines government as "legitimized coercion."  He imagines a robbery by a Joe Bock being investigated by a "protection agency" called Tannahelp.  This agency has the power to go after Joe, enter his property and punish him.  It chooses its own punishment if he does not submit to them.  This act of legitimate coercion makes it Joe's government.  There are no limits - it's staff can kill him if they feel like it.  
6. Joe may have a "protection agency" that is against the death penalty.  Joe has paid for this protection.  If Joe goes to arbitration, this agency can say they feel opposed to capital punishment.  Tannahelp is free to ignore this feeling.  Friedman thinks they won't "If the opponents of capital punishment feel more strongly than the proponents, the agencies will agree to no capital punishment." unless the person robbed has paid for capital punishment.  In that case, its steal a TV and you die.  Isn't that fraud on poor Joe?
7. Friedman thinks laws will emerge that represent economic value.  So in a free market of laws, stealing a TV will result in a proportional punishment.  The proportion depends on what percentage of TV thieves get caught.  Frankly it all gets a bit weird here but he thinks it will all work out well as the whatever the market provides is justice.


Criticisms:
1. Morals matter.  Even if racial discrimination is economically effective for whites, its still wrong.  Friedman implies a restaurant should be free to exclude blacks as part of the owner's property rights.  Fine - perhaps that is economically good for the white owner.  It's still wrong morally and that the law is right to prohibit it.
2. Law influences behaviour.  Everyone knows that seat belts save lives.  In a free society, 37% of people wear seat belts.  That 37% are the people who save up for old age, maintain their buildings and generally are the backbone of society.  When the law makes seat belt compulsory, 94% of people wear them.  That extra 57% of the population are the people who will do the right thing if told to but otherwise are just passengers on the ship of state.  6% of the population won't wear seat belts come what may.  Any plan for society has to include that 6% of stubborn misfits. Friedman's ideas only work for the "nice" 37%.
3. Religion matters.  Where I live, a free market in law would have female circumcision legal and beer illegal.  Just because the market comes up with this, that doesn't make it right.  
4. Foreign powers matter.  There is an essay on how the anarchic system in Iceland was destroyed by a foreign power picking sides in disputes and ending up controlling the country.  Recently we have seen a decent society in Somalia destroyed the same way by Ethiopian sponsorship of clan wars.  We may soon see the same in Libya.  Anarchy is unlikely to work but even if it does, you can't go first or you will have foreign powers create civil wars.
5. I think the market is over-rated.  Just because something makes sense to an economist does not mean we have to live by it.  Who made Paul Krugman or Edwin van Mises into God?  If a decent society is slightly poorer, then who cares?  Morality always involves doing without nice stuff.  Otherwise we would all be saints.

Good stuff:
1. Friedman is great on monopolies.  
2. Friedman is great on school vouchers.  In Ireland, if you are unhappy with your school, you can withdraw your child and the budget goes with her.  The effect is that schools have to struggle for excellence.  For all of Ireland's problems, it still churns our educated people at very low cost compared to the US and UK.
3. He is great on the US welfare system.  Americans tax the poor and subsidise the middle class and he rightly tears into that system.
4. The whole book is driven by facts and logic.  For example, I bet that he would change his mind about seat belts now that we have facts and figures that were not available in 1973.
5. He is funny about how libertarians respond to criticism: "When I put such questions to other libertarians, one common response is a frantic attempt to reinterpret the problem out of existence."

Surprise:
He dismisses the ideas like the NAP as meaningless.  I did not expect that at all.

Good book - thanks for the suggestion.

Regarding the ambulance discussion, hopefully you will both be able to choose the option you prefer.  Personally, as anarchistic as I am, I'd probably still pay an HOA fee to provide transportation/clean up for injured individuals in shared areas (parks, water, roads).  And I'd probably choose highways that include at the very least towing vehicles & moving injured people off the road in their toll amount.  I'm not sure if this could be accomplished on a state or even city level though because I'd be forced to pay for places I'm not interested in.  I foresee a AAA ambulance service for yourself/friends/family instead of 911.

Empire of Wealth: The Epic History of American Economic Power by John Steele Gordon

And just in case you didn't hear me:

Read my books, whether you like me or not. They're not snooze-inducing, and they will share with you facts about the world which your ideals do not address.