I write about Economics & Politics and sometimes I post pictures of things I like. Find me elsewhere on the intrenet:
twitter.com/Suga_Shane
LarryBrownSports.com
NBAOffseason.com
NFLoffseason.com
MLBOffseason.com
gunsgeargallantry.tumblr.com/
Why does David Friedman look like he’s older than his dad ever was? It some how doesn’t make sense.
David Friedman’s The Machinery of Freedom
Animated summary.
This is beautiful!! Source in source.
(via self-ownership)
Opponents argue that gun control, by disarming potential victims, makes it more difficult for them to protect themselves. Supporters reply that since criminals are more experienced in violence than victims, the odds in an armed confrontation are with the criminal. This is probably true but almost entirely irrelevant to the argument.
Suppose one little old lady in ten carries a gun. Suppose that one in ten of those, if attacked by a mugger, succeeds in killing the mugger instead of being killed by him—or shooting herself in the foot. On average the mugger is more likely to win the encounter than the little old lady. But—also on average—every hundred muggings produces one dead mugger. At those odds, mugging is an unprofitable business—not many little old ladies carry enough money to justify one chance in a hundred of being killed getting it. The number of muggers declines drastically, not because they have all been killed but because they have, rationally, sought safer professions.
— David Friedman, Hidden Order: The Economics of Everyday Life (via utilitymaximiser)David Friedman on How to Privatize Everything
“Producing laws is not an easier problem than producing cars or food,” says David Friedman, author, philosopher, and professor at Santa Clara University. ”So if the government’s incompetent to produce cars or food, why do you expect it to do a good job producing the legal system within which you are then going to produce the cars and the food?”
Friedman sat down to talk with Reason TV at Libertopia 2012 in San Diego. Friedman reflected on the impact of his landmark book, The Machinery of Freedom, discussed the differences between libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism and revealed what his father, economist Milton Friedman, thought of his anarchist leanings.
Excellent interview with David Friedman, the son of Milton Friendman.
David gets into how Anarcho-capitalism solves the coordination problem of a government-less society, how his father thought of his AnCap views as extreme and others.
I especially like how he takes down the idea of minarchy, where he mentions that Laws are no simpler to produce or enforce than making cars or cereal and if a minarchist doesn’t trust government to produce goods, how do they trust the government to be competent to produce and enforce laws.
Overall, a great interview. Glad David didn’t go down the same path as his dad and discovered the true meaning behind libertarianism.
Imagine buying cars the way we buy governments. Ten thousand people would get together and agree to vote, each for the car he preferred. Whichever car won, each of the ten thousand would have to buy it. It would not pay any of us to make any serious effort to find out which car was best; whatever I decide, my car is being picked for me by the other members of the group. Under such institutions, the quality of cars would decline.
This is how I must buy products on the political marketplace. I not only cannot compare the alternative products, it would not be worth my while to do so even if I could. …
— David Friedman, The Machinery of Freedom (via laliberty)(via michaelangerlo)
When a consumer buys a product on the market, he can compare alternative brands. … When you elect a politician, you buy nothing but promises. You may know how one politician ran the [government] for the past four years, but not how his competitor might have run it. You can compare 1968 Fords, Chryslers, and Volkswagens, but nobody will ever be able to compare the Nixon administration of 1968 with the Humphrey and Wallace administrations of the same year. It is as if we had only Fords from 1920 to 1928, Chryslers from 1928 to 1936, and then had to decide what firm would make a better car for the next four years….
Not only does a consumer have better information than a voter, it is of more use to him. If I investigate alternative brands of cars …, decide which is best for me, and buy it, I get it. If I investigate alternative politicians and vote accordingly, I get what the majority votes for. The chance that my vote will be the deciding factor is negligible.
Imagine buying cars the way we buy governments. Ten thousand people would get together and agree to vote, each for the car he preferred. Whichever car won, each of the ten thousand would have to buy it. It would not pay any of us to make any serious effort to find out which car was best; whatever I decide, my car is being picked for me by the other members of the group. Under such institutions, the quality of cars would decline.
This is how I must buy products on the political marketplace. I not only cannot compare the alternative products, it would not be worth my while to do so even if I could. …
— David Friedman, The Machinery of Freedom (via laliberty)