I am increasingly convinced that humanity is beyond saving
Goods might be produced by giant, hierarchical
corporations, like those that now exist. I hope not; it does not strike me as either an attractive way for people to live or
an efficient way of producing goods.
My own preference is for the sort of economic institutions [under which] almost everyone is self-employed. Instead of corporations there are large groups of
entrepreneurs related by trade, not by authority. Each sells, not his time, but what his time produces.
This person, advocating the superiority of a non-hierarchical stateless society of freely associating persons in control of their own means of production, which to many of its supporters is known as “communism”, is otherwise known as the renowned anarcho-capitalist David Friedman.
I am one of those who believe that the cure for centralization is decentralization. It has been described as a paradox.
There is apparently something elvish and fantastic about saying that when capital has come to be too much in the
hands of the few, the right thing is to restore it into the hands of the many.
the present system of industrial England.… Who except a devil from hell ever defended
it. .. ?
The poor are not a race or even a type. It is senseless to talk about breeding them; for they are not a breed. They are, in cold fact, what Dickens describes: ‘a dustbin of individual accidents,’ of damaged dignity
And this one socialist is the staunch anti-communist G.K. Chesterton.
It sure is flattering that even allegedly mortal enemies can basically agree on the things they are supposedly very strongly fighting over*, but on the other hand it makes me feel like I should find a source of rather concentrated alcohol and consume a substantial quantity to temporarily relieve myself from the despair of dealing with this species.
* It could certainly be said that many anarcho-capitalists and social anarchists are fighting over economic policy the same way France and Germany used to fight over the Rhine valley; the disagreement seems to be less about what it should contain, and more about who would be entitled to claim those contents as their own.
The actual difference between steel anarcho-capitalists and steel social anarchists seems to be basically some aesthetic preferences and degree of tolerance for various not-directly-violent hierarchies and cultural inadequacies. Now wouldn’t that be a simply marvellous problem to have as the most pressing concern of our society. At least cats can be herded relatively effectively with catnip or fish…
In this diagram, I would put you, me, Friedman and GKC all in the top-left corner. E.g. Friedman advocates a policy where nobody can impose upon him but he does so not in the context of “I would do better under this policy” – witness that he is currently doing quite alright under our current regime – but in the context of “This would be better for us all.”
Do “people who think public choice theory is just a special case of the ubiquitous principle-agent problem that has been oversold for political reasons“ get a slot on your graph?
Cannot tell if real question or dig at me for using public choice instead of principal/agent
If real question: They probably go slightly left of the PCT socialists
If dig: I picked Public Choice deliberately because it contrasts with rent seeking, viz: P/A problem doesn’t necessarily imply rent seeking but PCT almost automatically does – the idea is that as you move down, you move towards either rent-seeking or ignorance-of-rent-seeking.