I normally don’t really get into what is going on across the pond known as the North Atlantic but these days you can help but notice thanks to the literal dirge coming from the news media even in the United States about how sad it is that Great Britain would leave the European Union. I am going to say for the record that if I was English, I would have voted to leave as well. Let’s be honest here, alliances and treaties benefit the weaker nations and the stronger nations end up footing the bill. The English have really not benefited from being in the EU and the EU has become purposeless bureaucracy that doesn’t seem to do anything useful.
For Americans it shows once again the peril of becoming involved in entangled alliances. Our founders warned of this right out the gate because there are far more downsides to alliances than upsides.
If you are in an alliance and some one in your alliance starts a war because they are a prick, then you are suddenly involved defending a prick. I fear NATO might get this way with some of the nations involved.
Larger and Richer nations in an alliance always end up footing the bill for everyone else. The EU demonstrated this when some of its economically weaker nations had to be bailed out by the others. There is no way the richer nations will ever be compensated for it later.
The Military Strong Nations end up covering the ass of those that are militarily weak. I wonder what kind of military each of the European nations would have if the USA was not part of NATO? Why do we have to be the largest military in the world? Because we have to make up for the shortfall of all their armies to protect themselves. In my mind this is why European socialism ‘works’ – they don’t have to pay for the real expense of covering their butts — we do. If they had to really spend the money they truly need to defend themselves the system would be imploding far quicker than it is now.
So, what brings peace is the obvious question because my answer is money. Free trade brings inter-dependency and then it becomes far more profitable to keep peaceful relationships than to fight one another. Maybe more dollars freely traded would do more for world peace than dropping bombs? Just saying.
Brexit for me is the obvious conclusion from an alliance that has become entangling and sooner or later some enterprising souls will realize there is more economic opportunity in England being a sovereign nation working out peaceful trade agreements on its own than following the dictates of the EU which has become more and more demanding of them with nothing traded back in return. Sorry, I don’t think this is the last exit from the EU. I think England is just the first domino to fall and for good reason. No one likes acting against their best interest for very long.
If you head to the Libertarian Party website, one of the things you can click on at the top of the page is the Test to see what you political persuasion is and it calls itself the worlds smallest political quiz. I have taken the quiz several times over the years but it is only on a recent try that I honestly cold say I got a 100% result as being 100% libertarian. Try it for yourself. In any case it only has ten questions and take probably a minute to take if you’re a quick thinker. If you conscientiously answer each question truthfully you will find where you sit on things. As a little exercise for myself to further definite my views I thought I would give a short answer written out about why I picked what I did for each question.
1. Government should not censor speech, press, media or the internet – Agree. I have never liked it when the government gets involved with any form of controlling information. Even in time of war there should be the right to disagree with the war and write such without penalty. To be honest this is getting harder to do with the internet anyway but it should be clear I get very antsy around people who want to control information because such a person is someone who believes they can handle that information better than yourself or want to punish you for your opinion. The first step to totalitarianism is to try to control what people are informed of or restrict free speech.
2. Military service should be voluntary. There should be no draft – Agree. Yeah, I registered for selective service but to be honest I believe such things should be voluntary and honestly you get a better army with voluntary enlistment anyway. Pragmatic issues aside, there is no way the government should force people to fight for it. Have good and free government and people will line up around the block to fight for it.
3. There should be no laws regarding sex between for consenting adults – Agree. Honestly how is there a crime if both sides are consenting? It really is not the government’s business what people do in the bedroom and to be honest this cannot be stopped. If it does not hurt me or steal my stuff there really should be no law about it.
4. Repeal laws prohibiting adult possession and use of drugs – Agree. I may take some heat from my law enforcement friends but this is something that just needs to be done. The drug war has become as ineffectual as prohibition was in the 20s and 3os. The results are dead cops over bags of leafy material and powder and to me no amount of drugs seized is worth the life of a single cop that dies at the hands of the bad guys. More than that though the principle stated about still applies. A person doing drugs does not hurt me nor does it steal from me. To criminalize this is kind of stupid leading to stupid results.
5. There should be no national ID card – Agree. Some would argue that this would be Social Security cards and such but to me there is a greater privacy issue here where people have access in the government to my life based on this notion of a national ID card. The fact is the SS card and number are used to gain access to your personal information regularly. I always love discussions of people who claim a right to privacy and do see the fact their privacy is already compromised.
6. End corporate welfare. No government handouts to corporations. – Agree. I have always thought tis was a waste of money. Capitalism basically states if you cannot compete then you die as a corporation. Many of these corporations had they died would have been replaced by something else or if nothing replaced it then perhaps there was no longer a need the company was addressing. The question though if your going to help major corporations how is this fair to small business. This offers way too much chance of corruption and needs to be stopped.
7. End government barriers to international free trade. – Agree. I agree for two very practical reasons 1) mutual economic benefit is the quickest path to peace between two countries and 2) economic growth requires us to understand the economy globally anymore. By slamming up barriers we interfere with the free market’s ability to generate wealth.
8. Let people control their own retirement, privatize social security – Agree. This gets rid of the need for a national ID card for one and to be honest I feel most people would do better handling their own retirement. You might see corporations offering pensions again which were far more lucrative if we didn’t have this illusion that the government would take care of us in retirement.
9. Replace government welfare with private charity – Agree. Government welfare is the biggest bribe and control mechanism of certain politicians and it is supported by taxes that basically involve the immoral act of pointing the gun of government at certain people and forcing them to pay for someone else’s welfare when they might possibly have trouble paying for their own. This is forcing people to be charitable and it is a lousy system and an immoral one.
10. Cut taxes and government spending by 50% or more – Agree. I believe very strongly in a balanced budget amendment because what we should have is the government we can afford not the government we want to wantonly spend for. This becomes easier if you limit governments role to defense, equitable justice systems and true public goods. If that is all government did they would need far less money.
This of course creates an interesting issue for me. I am absolutely lined up with the Libertarian Party but I think their political savvy needs work and a clear direction. I also question whether they have a real chance to win in most elections. There does not seem to be an overall game plan and their idealism gets in the way. In order to diminish government you have to gain control of it. To gain control of government, you do have to be a little Machiavellian like it or not.
I could hold most of these views in the Republican Party but there would be some that would think my stance on the moral questions is soft. If there is one thing for sure about religious republicans is that they want to control people’s morality with the force of government and they don’t see this is actually no morally better than their opponent who want to control people’s economics with the same force of government. So Libertarian Party? Perhaps. This is something I need to think on further.
Every once in a while I run across something on YouTube that is interesting and unusually upbeat. This video made me aware of something I knew which I found interesting but that fact that others find it interesting as well. Adam Smith is probably best known for his book Wealth of Nations but his little known and more fascinating work is the one these people are talking about – The Theory of Moral Sentiments.
I read both these book a long time ago but I am thinking of revisiting them. The nice thing about old authors is that usually their works are far shorter than today. The downside is that authors like this do write in a style that is fairly foreign to us today. I suppose I am a little weird in that I like old style writing and understand it much better. They knew how to get the most out of every word and had a far more immense vocabulary than most people do today.
I liked Adams Smith’s view that we are self-interested but that is not necessarily a bad thing. We are flawed but complicated. I have been long looking for someone to engage on human nature that is not necessarily a theologian. Perhaps Adam Smith and this book on morality would be a good one to begin with. It is a more refreshing and optimistic time and view of human nature.
To turn my political attention to what did happen last night it is the Republicans victory after victory in the Senate that sparked lot of interest. If things come out like I think they will we are probably looking at 53-47 or maybe 54-46 in the Senate. This means the Republicans control both houses of Congress for the first time in eight years. It also means that things are going to change in Washington in several ways.
1) For a long time the Dems have been able to label the Republicans as obstructing the process. The Senate and the President have said we are ready when you are when you put some legislation across my desk we agree with. For the last four years, the Dems have been able to label the house as obstructionist to progress. The big change was the rhetoric I heard last night that started to already spin this a different way. Now the only obstructionist in Washington will be in the White House. It will be one man that Republicans will be able point to and say – you are the only one holding up progress. I actually heard this a couple of times already last night with some of the winners on the GOP side of things.
2) Joe Biden will now be the new guy to replace Harry Reid in obstructing things in the Senate. As the VP he can influence how meetings are conducted and he play a lot of shenanigans to make this process difficult. The problem is he is prone to shooting off his mouth with bad consequences and I feel that he will not be up to the task of helping Obama obstruct legislation. He is far too volatile and lacks intelligence to pull it off. But it will be entertaining as he tries.
3) I think you will see some independents and Dems cross the aisle at least on some issues. The Democratic Senators up for re-election in two years will want to say they accomplished something while they were there and they will not be able to do so if they don’t cooperate at least a little. One of he mistakes in strategy I think the Dems made was blocking legislation from coming to the Senate floor. It didn’t give the Dems up this time for re-election a chance to define their position by voting and so your left to the popularity of the man in change – Obama.
All of this is a mixed bag to me. One of the things I want is the repeal of Obamacare and so we are step closer to that goal. Congress can now basically cause this to happen by simple not funding it adequately or at all. As a libertarian when the government mandates anything I hate it in general and Obamacare mandates a lot of crap that people do not want and has been an absolute joke when it comes to the ‘Affordable’ part of ACA.
The problem is the Republicans also have tendency to use government force to enforce their agenda. The problem remains of any group or party that is genuinely about limiting and shrinking the role of government anymore. Although when it comes to the economy I think will see some more freedom for business or at least regulation will not get worse. But we are a long way from real capitalism and economic freedom. Hopefully the next two years will further cause people to reconsider the libertarian cause.
And the congregation of those who believed were of one heart and soul; and not one of them claimed that anything belonging to him was his own, but all things were common property to them. And with great power the apostles were giving testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and abundant grace was upon them all.For there was not a needy person among them, for all who were owners of land or houses would sell them and bring the proceeds of the salesand lay them at the apostles’ feet, and they would be distributed to each as any had need.
Now Joseph, a Levite of Cyprian birth, who was also called Barnabas by the apostles (which translated means Son of Encouragement),and who owned a tract of land, sold it and brought the money and laid it at the apostles’ feet.
The early church was very different from church today but not because they had sound doctrine (which they did) but more so because they were unified in the love and support of each other. They had to be in many senses because the rulers of the Jews had taken such a strong stance against them. They turned to supporting each other in any way they could. It should also be noted that they were ministering in great power.
The main thing people talk about in this passage s the notion that the early church was some sort of communism or socialism as far as economics. It should be noted though that if it was this was not forced and later on disappears once the church spreads beyond the borders of Jerusalem. This is one of those cases where the church did what was necessary at that moment to both demonstrate love for one another and survive. It is not something that was mandated by the church it is simply something that happened. There is no evidence that it was God directed.
The thing is this did lead to a problem of people trying to outdo each other in generosity and it is interesting that after a terrible incident that resulted form this ‘peer pressure’ the practice seems to slow down and in some cases stop altogether. On a practical level it was also unsustainable. What happens when everyone gives everything and there is nothing left to sell or give? I think the early church needed this at the time and at times needs it still but it should never be forced or it isn’t true charity.
If someone asks my ancestry as in who came over on the boat to make me a part of this country known as the USA, I do have to shrug my shoulders a little. I consider myself a Celtic/Northwestern European mongrel. German, Norman, Saxton, Welsh, Dutch and Brit (Biological grandfather was named Bowman) and other assorted off shots of Barbarians that tried to conquer Rome. I do however have an affinity for bagpipe music which while I can’t verify, it is said only Scotsman can appreciate the bagpipes. So who knows?
Recently I saw the news that Scotland was going to try for independence but I am not so sure that is what they were trying for. If there is anything I can say looking at Scottish history it is that they have not always been independent but thy have always sought to be treated with respect. I don’t know the biggest thing you could say for this latest move is that it may have simply been the Scots standing up and saying to the rest of the United Kingdom – how valuable are we to you?
Honestly, Looking at what the new, never happened government of Scotland was proposing I could see failure written all over it. First you are proposing a very socialist economy without and real support other than to tax your citizens into oblivion I think it would have forced a change inside said government in less that five years as without the support of the British economy, this would have collapsed. There view on defense was lousy too. Let’s just get rid of all the nukes and sit here and hope no one bothers us. Sorry this is a good way to get invaded. Just ask all those Neutral countries that got swallowed up in WW2 by the Nazis.
The real problem was that the new proposed government gave Scots a country of their own independent of Britain but it did not give Scots any more personal freedom or independence. The fact is the grass was not greener when it came to this proposal and if anything the new proposed government made the lawn look kind of dry and ‘we have done this before.’
I will tell you what would have worked for me and my Celtic blood. Tell me that when Scotland is independent it is going to concentrate on the things Government should concentrate on. Defense, a solid justice system and protecting my rights and the rest it is going to leave to the freedom of the individual citizen and the private sector to work out for themselves. I would have seriously though of changing my citizenship and becoming Scottish. Unfortunately the government was proposing much of the opposite of this and I am going to say this is why they lost.
Scots don’t just want an independent Scotland. They want personal independence as well and until people figure that out, they are content to just be a part of Britain until another William Wallace rises up to give it to them.
After viewing this series I have to give a hand to Dr. Nigel Ashford for giving a good solid overview of classical liberalism and to Learn Liberty for putting them on YouTube. It has been a good informative study. I however look at it as not just touching classical liberalism so much as viewing the different levels of little or no government and why that should be. Looking back at it I have the following observations.
The methodology of all the schools of thought we have considered but there seems to be one overarching understanding that government is flawed in essence and that it needs to be questioned rather than just accepted. Whether you are believing that government always fails more than the market, that people should be allowed to act in their own best self-interests, that government cannot know what the best interests of an individual are, that government violates our natural rights, or that simply government is illegitimate and inefficient in and of itself; we all get to the same place in these schools. We all get to the simple and profound idea that government should be limited and for damn good reasons. I think all of the above when I think about the why government should be limited. To me all the arguments about why government should be limited have very valid points. The question for me is how government should be limited? That is the issue at hand for me.
I personally do not believe in anarchy. I feel that in anarchy you would see an almost immediate desire to have some government and I feel it makes too weak a state to defend itself. all talk about absolute rights becomes a moot point if you can’t defend them from a foreign or internal power. Therefore I believe very strongly that if there is one thing government should do it is defense of the people in the nation from foreign and internal threats. I think this is one area where government has shown itself to be fairly effective. This is why when people talk about cutting defense spending I get a little antsy because it really is one thing that government should be doing.
Now before anyone asks, I would include things like police, fire and ambulance services because honestly these along with the military are supposed to be about protecting citizens individual rights, their life and their property. I also would put the road system in defenses category. Most people seem to forget that the freeway system was not originally built for the purpose of commerce although it does benefit that. Road systems also have a defensive purpose of being able to move people and equipment in the event of war for defensive purposes. The Romans realized this and our roads might also include the airways as well but the meaning is clear that this needs to be a place where government can at least have a hand in to that in the event of war, there would be no confusion as to who was in charge of the roads and why.
A courts system is debatable to me as I can see that companies often use arbiters to good effect and with far quicker results but a centralized system of basic law for the purposes of handling crime, civil suits and contract disputes should be in place ,but with very clearly defined limits that it is about protecting individual rights. The fact is the courts should be bare bones and not as extensive as they have become. Private means should be encouraged with only appeals to public courts being allowed if people dispute the arbiter’s decision.
The issue of what might constitute a public good does indeed bother me and some would point the Chicago school with the issue of children’s rights and safety especially the mentally handicapped. This is an issue to be but to be honest I think children’s rights would fall under the courts as parents are made to realize that children have the same individual rights as them and they must be respected or face the same above court system for violating their children’s rights. I am not sure though if a special legal category should be created for people who cannot take care of themselves like the mentally handicapped but once again I fail to see how the court system would not be able to handle this if their concern is to maintain the personal rights of all citizens regardless of mental capacity and other factors. I am not sure this is a public good or not already covered under the government’s role as a protector of individual rights regardless of who that individual might be.
Public goods become a sticky issue. I feel that in order to qualify for this status you would indeed have to have something that no one can be excluded from and benefits everyone. It would also have to be proven that government is the only way this could be done. I think based on these criteria there would be little that would actually qualify. If government can produce a program that is open to everyone and genuinely does a better job based on evidence than private options. This does not leave too much and one of the evidences I would want to see is that it can sustain itself financially.
One of the issues I wrestle with is public education. I think every citizen should be educated but how to do that without big brother government is an issue. I think for instance a voucher that covers the basic level of education for anyone but options if you wanted to spend more money to get a better education based on a competitive market might not be a bad idea. Whether or not public schools should be an option might be debatable but I don’t think it would eliminate government creating a public school system but it would have to prove it was competitive with other options based on market forces.
This of course brings up the issue of taxes. I think any government no matter how limited will have taxes. I am not sure that all forms of taxation are theft. I think how a tax is levied is an important consideration as to whether it is coercive or not. It is probably worth a post of its own so I will put it on my list.
I am still left with many thoughts but this series ahs definitely clarified the issues involved.
I watched this video and thought to myself that it would be interesting to tell you about my version of the utopian country. Now all people who engage in philosophy and ideology start with utopia and then try to figure out how to get there. It is usually this basis of what one thinks the perfect country would be that you start to strategize with what you have to get there. I will be following Bill Whittle here as far as outline but mine is going to be somewhat different. Sit back and enjoy the ride as you enter The Rabyd Republic.
I too would start with a familiar framework which is also US Constitution but unlike Bill I have some different Amendments. I do not like line item veto and in part this is because I think a lot more laws would be passed with it, so if you don’t like something in a bill just don’t pass it. I like Bill’s idea of term limits but a single term is a little extreme for me. I would worry about government continuity on certain issues like security. I would however limit politicians to two term in and office and they could not run again ever if they filled both terms in an office. Bill is right on this, in a country of well over 300 million I am sure we can find 500 people every year.
I would however add two other amendments: 1) A balanced budget amendment so the country never gives you more government than they can afford and 2) an amendment so that congress cannot pass laws from which its own members or exempt. Sorry if you pass a law or create a program you are both subject to it and required to be a part of the system you have created.
I too would encourage most people to be armed. I am not sure this would stop crime so much as the fact if you step on my property you know that unless you are invited you are inviting death. I too think there should be common sense in this and guns have a way of injecting common sense very quickly. My belief is that property rights prevail on this. Based on my reading on the Constitution I feel that most laws that involve gun control are unconstitutional so they would be removed.
I like Bill’s view on the gay marriage because he is basically saying that the government is out of marriage altogether. You can marry who or what you want in the Rabyd Republic as well but also cannot force religious organizations to recognize your marriage if they find it objectionable. Now I want to make it clear hat I think government should be completely out of marriage. No marriage licenses, no taxes figured based on marital status and no loss of government benefits based on marital status because it straight up cannot be considered in the Rabyd Republic because marriage is not a government issue but and issue of culture and society.
I too believe that a business owner should be allowed to hire who he wants and serve who he wants. Private property should not be subject to government control. I too think though that Bill is right on this one too. Being a bigot would be bad for business. I think such places would just close. I don’t however think there should be rules forced on business about who they should hire, fire or serve. Public services are however a different story and have to be color blind and non discriminatory.
Economically, I feel that safety rules to protect the basic rights of workers are in order. I also think that businesses should understand that workers can still sue them for bad employment issues but all of this is handled in a court system that is designed to protect individual rights. Whittle when it comes to energy is talking about removal of the EPA which I support. Truth is when a property owner had a problem back in the day with a company polluting his land he could fight it through lawsuits. Since the creation of the EPA, this process now takes longer and has more graft than I care to think about. More government on environmental issues has actually slowed down things and not helped them. The one thing getting rid of the EPA would do would be to open up energy sources.
The idea of education and health care being commodities is correct. They are a product but one that has a commodity aspects to them. Education in the Rabyd Republic would not necessarily be like Bill’s view. I have no problem with the government providing an education product for free (I consider this one of the few public goods) but I also think that educators need to be held accountable for their results and if what they are doing is not working they need to fix it or be gone. I have long supported parental choice on education and putting public schools in the competitive environment. Parents can choose where their kids go to school and the government will pay for all of it (public school) or part of it (private).
Health Care is not a right in the Rabyd Republic and so consumers pay for it like anything else particularly the smaller ticket items. Insurance is all private because the one thing for sure that government has proven is that their health care services they will screw it up. In the Rabyd Republic, health care is private industry but the on government requirement is that each doctor and hospital is required to keep public the actual results they get with their care.
On to taxes, I consider taxes in general to be problematic in a libertarian state but not necessarily impossible. Bill has a flat tax but I have a problem with income tax as it violates the non-aggression principle for me. I mean why is it not OK for someone to steal money out of bank account but it is OK for the government to do so. In my country if a tax is not consumption based or the product of an actual vote of the people (still not perfect on the second one but better that a forced tax like the income tax). The government needs a road system to be sure for defense purposes and people are allowed to drive on it but you pay tolls. People who don’t use road don’t pay but are also not excluded from using the roads should they need them and can pay the tolls. A national sales tax might be in order as this too is a somewhat voluntary tax. If you do not want to pay it, don’t buy anything. Voted on mileages are also a possibility.
This would pretty much be the system for all government programs that are service based. If it can’t make money, it does not exist. Only the programs the government can provide that are profitable keep going which means there would be a whole lot less government programs. There would never be a welfare state because of this. Care of the poor goes to charitable organizations which have proven over a long period of time they are far better at acting locally and with better cost effectiveness.
We get as much government as the sales tax, tolls, fees and mileages provide. No deficit spending and a balanced budget require this to be true. If you want to support a public program you certainly can but it is not required so each of these programs would have to go out and prove their value to people so they will voluntarily pay for it. More likely though in such a situation private industry and companies would step in and that would not be bad. They would be better at most things anyway.
I have a little simpler golden rule – the golden rule and that pretty much amounts to: don’t be a jerk and mind your own business.
Hope you enjoyed your trip to the Rabyd Republic, I like living here and would welcome other citizens.
Time to hit the last school of thought in classical liberalism libertarianism. – Anarcho-Capitalism. Here is the synopsis of the video.
The two big names associated with this school are Murray Rothbard and David Friedman. There are actually two different schools of thought on anarchy. One is collectivist anarchy and then there is his school based n capitalism.
Rothbard believes in Natural Rights like Ayn Rand but he developed the Non-Coercive Axiom: It is always wrong to use force except in self-defense.
David Friedman follows his father of the Chicago School with its comparison of market versus government. Focused on Consequences.
The role of Government is that there should not be any government at all. No State should exist.
A State is an institution which claims a monopoly over the legitimate use of force over a given territory. Rothbard says that this violates natural rights. To him taxation is theft.
Friedman takes a little different tack by saying the state is inevitably inefficient. The Market is always more efficient than government.
Government is illegitimate and inefficient. They use the examples of private security and private arbitration being more prevalent because they are more efficient that the police and courts. If you create a minimal state it will never stay minimal.
I am not sure this is a classical liberal school so much as some of the folks that use classical liberal ideas and push them to some interesting conclusions. I have been asked by anarchists why I don’t like anarchy and I have two basic problems with it. 1) While it is true that say arbitration is used in the place of the courts there is in inequity from one arbitration company to the next. You could always have the issue of corruption that sways an arbiter and then you have no recourse against it. 2)Private security is great until it turns against you and with no clearly stated Bill of Rights, you could not stop them.
Practically the issues are legion but the most troubling one is defense because anyone who knows anything about game theory knows that anarchy loses every time. Private defense firms have no way of organizing on a grand scale against a truly organized aggressor. I will not argue that private security is probably better for smaller jobs but the big stuff but there is not a chance and would you want to give a private army that kind of power with no governmental recourse if they go rogue? I see anarchy going two ways of pressed, it will ether develop into a totalitarian corporation that dominates everyone or it goes to small government. Both are inevitable.
This country originally was run in anarchy and people gave it up after only a few years to go with the limited government of the US Constitution and Bill of Rights. Anarchy failed after the Revolution because it became too dangerous a society in which to live. Sorry as much as it may be true that small governments don’t stay that way, it is also true that no government does not stay that way. Some organized threat will end it or the basic fact some people are evil and will require an organized response.
Continuing on in our engagement of Classical Liberalism, there are two variations in the Austrian School.
Hayek – There are limits to knowledge, reason and understanding what we should do. He is largely a guy who will give into tradition if tradition works. He believes highly in spontaneous order without the need for a central planner. Order is the product of human action but not human design.
Von Mises – Believes in deductive reasoning. We can discover axioms through reasoning and experience. 1) Human action is purposeful. 2) Individuals are the only actors (Methodological Individualism) 3) Value is subjective.
Government should be limited because policy makers do not have the ability to identify individual goals and they can’t work out the best means of an individual to meet those goals. They are skeptical of governments ability to both identify and achieve goals for individuals because government lacks the knowledge to do this. Government action is thus almost always bad for individuals.
Hayek – Rule of Law should limit government actions. Laws should apply to everyone equally and they should be future oriented. Limited welfare state can be justified following the rule of law.
Von Mises – The government should exist to protect the life, liberty, health and property of its citizens but there is no room for a welfare state.
I find this school with its two very different methods and conclusions engaging because they both have some good points. The interesting thing is they both agree on the role of government but they have different ideas of what that could mean based on how they start out. Like many schools of thought so far, they all agree on the fact government should be limited but because how they draw that conclusion, the more specific conclusions are different.
Mises is right about value being subjective. With that in mind he basically draws the same conclusion as the framer of the US Constitution which is interesting because he comes from a knowledge point of view in relationship to government where they were talking more natural rights. Hayek has one great point which is law should be about limiting government actions and thus every law should apply to everyone. No one is exempt from law including law makers. This would change a lot if applied to the USA.
I like elements of both these schools of thought in the Austrian school and mostly I think they are dead on in that government can not know what is best for the individual and how for that individual to obtain that for themselves. This is why individual rights need to be defended as much as possible.
Next: The Natural Rights School
Welcome to All Things Rabyd
All Things Rabyd is here for your enjoyment. Your comments, likes and other feedback are welcome and encouraged. Blessings.
All Things Rabyd 