labmath2 Posted November 17, 2014 Posted November 17, 2014 Someone asked David Friedman this question and i was wondering if other libertarians agree or disagree with his answer. Skip to 1:40:10 1
dsayers Posted November 17, 2014 Posted November 17, 2014 "efficient political" is a contradiction in terms. Violence is inefficient in the long term. So nothing that is political can be described as efficient. Even if politics were not violent, it would be inefficient since there's now a 3rd party in a two party transaction. This means you're not only paying for the product/service, but also the administration overhead. It sounded as if the person who was asking the question was trying to make freedom fit into the current container of violence. You can't fault him for that. We're so used to the State being present in so many aspects of our lives, it can be challenging to imagine what it would look like outside that paradigm.
prolix Posted November 17, 2014 Posted November 17, 2014 "efficient political" is a contradiction in terms. Violence is inefficient in the long term. So nothing that is political can be described as efficient. Even if politics were not violent, it would be inefficient since there's now a 3rd party in a two party transaction. This means you're not only paying for the product/service, but also the administration overhead. It sounded as if the person who was asking the question was trying to make freedom fit into the current container of violence. You can't fault him for that. We're so used to the State being present in so many aspects of our lives, it can be challenging to imagine what it would look like outside that paradigm. I think you are conflating "political" with the state and current government. You can be political in a personal and private setting as well. I think a free society will have politics. Maybe it is just semantics. But I think the incentive to be politic transcends a state society and a free society... Politics (from Greek: πολιτικός politikos, meaning "of, for, or relating to citizens") is the practice and theory of influencing other people on a global, civic or individual level. More narrowly, it refers to achieving and exercising positions of governance — organized control over a human community, particularly a state. You could read that as, yes, politics is the state. Or you could read that as politics is part of governance. The distinction between governance and government. And because most people are statists, the wiki reflects that and conflates politics and governance with the state. Sure the word has gotten a bad wrap, but I don't think politics is exclusive to the state. Office or Family politics come to mind....
shirgall Posted November 17, 2014 Posted November 17, 2014 To me the underlying meaning of the term "political" has meant "systems and techniques intended to generate consent." Its symptoms range from persuasion to manipulation. The politically savvy can evaluate a person, or a district, and figure out whatever is needed to appeal to them, or at least appeal to them enough, to get what they want. By itself it is a neutral term. So, yes, all groups will have politics, so long as there is something that they need to decide together. Efficient political institutions systematize this activity. They may be very efficient at generating consent (with a nod to Chomsky here) but that does not mean they are efficient at anything else. It seems pretty unlikely that they will excel at anything other than accumulation of power.
labmath2 Posted November 17, 2014 Author Posted November 17, 2014 Efficient political institutions systematize this activity. They may be very efficient at generating consent (with a nod to Chomsky here) but that does not mean they are efficient at anything else. It seems pretty unlikely that they will excel at anything other than accumulation of power. This is so insightful i am kicking myself for not thinking of it. If it is true, then it implies that the most efficient system for transfer of goods and services may not necessarily be the most efficient system for generating consent. I've always thought of consent and the market as mutually inclusive.
NotDarkYet Posted November 17, 2014 Posted November 17, 2014 Efficient for who? Political power is very efficient - for evil. It's the free market for goods bads.
Alan C. Posted November 17, 2014 Posted November 17, 2014 The market's means of discovering efficiency is profit and loss. What is the means of vetting in a political institution?
shirgall Posted November 17, 2014 Posted November 17, 2014 What is the means of vetting in a political institution? A political institution's metrics for efficiency are: 1. ability to influence policy 2. ability to raise funds 3. ability to organize people to affect the above
Recommended Posts