FDR and the New Deal

[bartdanr]

Howdy, Arminius,

well yes because when a conversation begins to turn on all sorts of assumptions that are unprovable and unlikely (i.e. all the conspiracy theory stuff) then it does become "fringe" thought (moreover, it doesn't seem very productive).

You don't have to be a conspiracy nut to see that FDR wanted us in WW II. We certainly did not act like "neutrals" in either the European war (doing lend-lease in suppor of the British) or the Pacific conflict ("punishing" the Japanese for their war in China for their trade embargos). I don't believe that FDR knew the specifics about Pearl Harbor, but I do believe that he badly wanted us in the war. I think it was criminaly stupid to not be prepared for the attack on our base...we were far from "friendly terms" with Japan.

yes, but this is because of increased privatization.

Really? Do you advocate that military equipment should not be built by the private sector, but instead by state-owned factories? Eisenhower's remarks were not against "privatization" of certain functions within the military; they were about the "military-industrial complex" which was built on the government funding private companies to build weapon systems. In addition, some private companies that are not directly related to military contracts (such as oil companies--or even fruit companies, if you go back far enough) have had a disturbing about of clout when it comes to using our military forces for "US interests".

While "privatization" may have some downsides that we can discuss, I don't believe it's fair or accurate to state that private contractors (e.g., Blackwater) have led to the most significant problems in our foreign policy or military readiness.

Don't get me wrong, I don't necessarily have a problem with certain functions (i.e. administrative, some aspects of logistics and supply, and other similar activities) being contracted out. We're beginning to see the problems inherent in trying to contract out traditional military functions (like security); although in some cases that can work well (such as base security).

So what specific areas of the military do you believe to be "off limits" to privatization?

I would argue it has deeper roots, but if the alternative Augustine proposes is not anarchy then what is it? We are talking about eliminating our national military and publicly funded police agencies and privatizing those functions (and I assume they would be ran by interests with deep pockets for their own purposes).

You would have to ask him, not me. I'm interested in hearing what he has to say.

of course emotions have limited utility in a reasonable discussion about public policy. However, unfairly besmirching the reputation of a man who has done so much for this country does show poor character in my view. Whether or not it makes me a little riled up doesn't change that fact.

As I said, I'm a bit confused by using General Petraeus as the target of anger or hostility, other than a "cute" [read: poor taste] play on his name comes off the tounge easily.

I guess I'm a willing servant as well (although I'm way lower on the food chain than our good General). Most of us in this country view military service as honorable & I have little respect for those who don't.

I view military service as honorable in principal; however, my respect has limits. I am in full agreement with Orwell's statement: "Those who ‘abjure’ violence can only do so because others are committing violence on their behalf". [The more often quoted "rough men" statement is actually a misquote, though certainly more colorful.] But not all military action is respectible--as history has shown, military actions can be quite dishonorable when these actions are performed in an unjust manner.

Now, one might point out the US military has a better record than most militaries, and I agree. But I do not automatically assume that we have or always will use our military for honorable ends. I have more respect for those in the lower ranks--even in these actions--than for the Generals (and especially, the politicans) who sent them on these errands.

EDIT: I'd also add that I can also respect enemy forces--they can behave in an honorable manner, or a dishonerable way. For example, intentional killing of non-combatants is dishonorable, no matter who does it...and respecting the rules of war is honorable, no matter who does it. Nevertheless, they remain the enemy are are to be defeated.

[Augustine2004]

I am willing to stop at panarchy. Some communities may have local governments; others may choose to go the anarchy route. No government above the county level anywhere, though.

Instead of automatically assuming that only governments can mount adequate national defense, why don't you examine that thesis IN DETAIL?

A.W., how often must you be warned against overreliance on history?

Take your 'increased privatization' assertion for example. You have to explain why partial privatization leads to worse problems. In reality, sometimes things get worse, because the regulations left in effect still cause problems.

[bridgeforsale]

You don't have to be a conspiracy nut to see that FDR wanted us in WW II. We certainly did not act like "neutrals" in either the European war (doing lend-lease in suppor of the British) or the Pacific conflict ("punishing" the Japanese for their war in China for their trade embargos). I don't believe that FDR knew the specifics about Pearl Harbor, but I do believe that he badly wanted us in the war. I think it was criminaly stupid to not be prepared for the attack on our base...we were far from "friendly terms" with Japan.

I'm not sure what we could have done (since radar wasn't developed as it is today). Even if we had destroyers in the Pacific it's too much space to observe. We could have built underground barracks or bomb shelters .... but with the element of surprise on Japan's side it's difficult to imagine defending Pearl Habor much better than we did. We wound up defeating Japan because we forced them to engage us in their region of the world (and deplete their resources to the extent where they lost the capacity to project power as far as our mainland).

Really? Do you advocate that military equipment should not be built by the private sector, but instead by state-owned factories? Eisenhower's remarks were not against "privatization" of certain functions within the military; they were about the "military-industrial complex" which was built on the government funding private companies to build weapon systems. In addition, some private companies that are not directly related to military contracts (such as oil companies--or even fruit companies, if you go back far enough) have had a disturbing about of clout when it comes to using our military forces for "US interests".

of course the private sector must continue to build our military equipment. However, I think Eisenhower's comment is often taken too far. Sure we need to be watchful of the military industrial complex, but no less watchful than we are of other government bureacracies.

While "privatization" may have some downsides that we can discuss, I don't believe it's fair or accurate to state that private contractors (e.g., Blackwater) have led to the most significant problems in our foreign policy or military readiness.

I'm not trying to blow the problem out of proportion. I merely say there are some problems inherent in privatizing certain functions (particularly more combat oriented functions).

So what specific areas of the military do you believe to be "off limits" to privatization?

The short answer is combat related functions. However, I would add the caveat that our military must always be capable of being self-sustaining (meaning we must always maintain the capacity to deploy without assistance from contractors or civilian DOD employees).

As I said, I'm a bit confused by using General Petraeus as the target of anger or hostility, other than a "cute" [read: poor taste] play on his name comes off the tounge easily.

you previously asked me why I made some less than charitable remarks, this is why (because other posters besmirched Petraeus pretty harshly). I'm glad you think belittling Petraeus is in poor taste ... since it is. I view Petraeus as a good man and excellent soldier who saved American lives who would have otherwise been lost due to poor policy planning on the part of the Bush Administration.

I view military service as honorable in principal; however, my respect has limits. I am in full agreement with Orwell's statement: "Those who ‘abjure’ violence can only do so because others are committing violence on their behalf". [The more often quoted "rough men" statement is actually a misquote, though certainly more colorful.] But not all military action is respectible--as history has shown, military actions can be quite dishonorable when these actions are performed in an unjust manner.

Now, one might point out the US military has a better record than most militaries, and I agree. But I do not automatically assume that we have or always will use our military for honorable ends. I have more respect for those in the lower ranks--even in these actions--than for the Generals (and especially, the politicans) who sent them on these errands.

EDIT: I'd also add that I can also respect enemy forces--they can behave in an honorable manner, or a dishonerable way. For example, intentional killing of non-combatants is dishonorable, no matter who does it...and respecting the rules of war is honorable, no matter who does it. Nevertheless, they remain the enemy are are to be defeated.

nothing here I disagree with.

[bridgeforsale]

I am willing to stop at panarchy. Some communities may have local governments; others may choose to go the anarchy route. No government above the county level anywhere, though.

sort of a posse comitatus state (in Latin the term means power of the county). The fact is our constitution enumerates a federalist system where the state is viewed as sovereign. However, any state can delegate as much power as they like to counties, towns, cities, villages, etc.

I guess the problem is we're long past the days where we can rely on minutemen for our defense? I'm not sure who you imagine will lay out the hundreds of billions of dollars required to sustain a modern military? I guess you imagine that all of a sudden the rest of the world will become born again the day we drop our arms ..... sounds pretty naive to me.

Instead of automatically assuming that only governments can mount adequate national defense, why don't you examine that thesis IN DETAIL?

why don't you begin by telling me who you imagine will sustain our modern military? Or if you support getting rid of most of our miltary and drawing down to a small mercenary force who will be contracted out to private entities? Of course what then stops China, Russia, etc. from overrunning us?

A.W., how often must you be warned against overreliance on history?

I don't think I'm relying on history at all. I'm looking at the world as it exists today & I know we need a miltary.

Take your 'increased privatization' assertion for example. You have to explain why partial privatization leads to worse problems. In reality, sometimes things get worse, because the regulations left in effect still cause problems.

I don't think you can blame the Blackwater incident (for instance) on regulations. If anything it was lack of regulations .... but the better view is in war bad things will happen. Arguably during Iraq the US military has been the best behaved military in history.

The fact is I'm just not as radical in my thinking as you are. I think we need to start with great society programs. First converting them to block grant programs, then slowly phasing them out completely. With regard to the military .... I don't think things are perfect. I agree we cannot sustain the global presence we have today in perpetuity. I see no reason why we shouldn't be looking for ways out of the Pacific and Europe. It may be a ten or twenty year long process .... but the sooner we begin the process the better IMO.

[joel]

The fact is I'm just not as radical in my thinking as you are. I think we need to start with great society programs. First converting them to block grant programs, then slowly phasing them out completely. With regard to the military .... I don't think things are perfect. I agree we cannot sustain the global presence we have today in perpetuity. I see no reason why we shouldn't be looking for ways out of the Pacific and Europe. It may be a ten or twenty year long process .... but the sooner we begin the process the better IMO.

Yes, we definitely need priorities and ways to ease transitions. For example, zero taxes would be a libertarian ideal, but that's probably not the first step we should take. Ayn Rand's take on it, for an example, was that, sure, we'd like one day to abolish all taxes (and have the government funded entirely by voluntary means), but that's the last thing we should do in the transition to a libertarian government. Only after transitioning everything else about politics to libertarian could we even think of abolishing taxes altogether. So, I tend to agree with you. Even if a voluntary government or Augustine's no government at all is the ideal and ultimate goal, that's not, practically, what we should be working on now. The first steps might be to phase out programs like Social Security and oppressive regulations or to return us to sound money.

[Augustine2004]

sort of a posse comitatus state (in Latin the term means power of the county). The fact is our constitution enumerates a federalist system where the state is viewed as sovereign. However, any state can delegate as much power as they like to counties, towns, cities, villages, etc.

How about the federal government delegating all powers to the states, and they in turn delegate all powers to the counties, and then they delegate all powers to the towns and surrounding areas?

I'm not sure who you imagine will lay out the hundreds of billions of dollars required to sustain a modern military? I guess you imagine that all of a sudden the rest of the world will become born again the day we drop our arms ..... sounds pretty naive to me.

Why won't you come to the public-goods thread or the small-government thread? Are you afraid that if you went there other readers would go there also? Or notice how weak your arguments are compared to mine?

We the people will pay for the defense, of course! It's only partly my fault you don't understand how the free market can provide national defense.

why don't you begin by telling me who you imagine will sustain our modern military? Or if you support getting rid of most of our miltary and drawing down to a small mercenary force who will be contracted out to private entities? Of course what then stops China, Russia, etc. from overrunning us?

Answer to the last question: NO! I would trust the free market to correctly assess the threat to the nation and react accordingly. Maybe 9/11 would not have happened. For one thing pilots would have been permitted to carry guns and other means of defense. Government monopoly of defensive means is STUPID.

I laid out a general case against public goods. You have to show that it does not apply to national defense. I then tried to show how the free market may provide national defense. You understand that I cannot predict every detail. I can only speculate what would happen if the government was to give up provision of national defense.

Please, I don't want to have to repeat my case here in this thread. It would be off topic for one thing.

I don't think I'm relying on history at all. I'm looking at the world as it exists today & I know we need a miltary.

OK we need a military. Why the hell do you keep assuming that if the government didn't provide national defense we won't have any? And to interpret today's world properly, you still need praxeology.

I don't think you can blame the Blackwater incident (for instance) on regulations. If anything it was lack of regulations .... but the better view is in war bad things will happen. Arguably during Iraq the US military has been the best behaved military in history.

Oh, yeah, the threadbare canard of 'lack of regulations.' Sigh. The fact is, the government let Blackwater run wild for too long.

I don't give much of a hoot for the behavior of the military, given the results. Millions of refugees. Does that not mean anything to you at all!? Are you really that obtuse? Morally deficient?

The fact is I'm just not as radical in my thinking as you are. I think we need to start with great society programs.

I want them myself. However, I just don't see the government as starting & running them.

First converting them to block grant programs, then slowly phasing them out completely.

Oh, OK.

With regard to the military .... I don't think things are perfect. I agree we cannot sustain the global presence we have today in perpetuity. I see no reason why we shouldn't be looking for ways out of the Pacific and Europe. It may be a ten or twenty year long process .... but the sooner we begin the process the better IMO.

No, we can withdraw within a month, easy, if the people want to withdraw and dismantle the empire. There may be an outbreak of violence in the beginning, but we're going to be violent anyway. It's possible that there will be less violence in the long run anyway.

[bridgeforsale]

How about the federal government delegating all powers to the states, and they in turn delegate all powers to the counties, and then they delegate all powers to the towns and surrounding areas?

OK

Why won't you come to the public-goods thread or the small-government thread? Are you afraid that if you went there other readers would go there also? Or notice how weak your arguments are compared to mine?

I just searched for those threads and found nothing .... links please (I'll be glad to jump in).

We the people will pay for the defense, of course! It's only partly my fault you don't understand how the free market can provide national defense.Answer to the last question: NO! I would trust the free market to correctly assess the threat to the nation and react accordingly. Maybe 9/11 would not have happened. For one thing pilots would have been permitted to carry guns and other means of defense. Government monopoly of defensive means is STUPID.

on its face your proposition sounds naive and hap hazard; but I'll have to read what you have in mind in more detail (I'll be honest ... I can't imagine how your idea could work in today's world).

I laid out a general case against public goods. You have to show that it does not apply to national defense. I then tried to show how the free market may provide national defense. You understand that I cannot predict every detail. I can only speculate what would happen if the government was to give up provision of national defense.

again ... I need to see where you laid out these arguments. I searched for these threads you keep eluding to & came up empty. Please provide some links & I'll check it out.

Please, I don't want to have to repeat my case here in this thread. It would be off topic for one thing. OK we need a military. Why the hell do you keep assuming that if the government didn't provide national defense we won't have any? And to interpret today's world properly, you still need praxeology.Oh, yeah, the threadbare canard of 'lack of regulations.' Sigh. The fact is, the government let Blackwater run wild for too long.

regulations isn't the issue, the issue is the sheer massiveness of the military we need to stay ahead of potential threats like Russia or China (I can't imagine how it would be in any private companies interest to fund such a massive endeavor) Moreover no single company or economic interest could possibly afford it ..... so it seems to me they would have to form some sort of cooperative (i.e. a shadow government, but one not elected by or accountable to the people).

I don't give much of a hoot for the behavior of the military, given the results. Millions of refugees. Does that not mean anything to you at all!? Are you really that obtuse? Morally deficient?

and do you really think a military beholden to private interests (who operate to advance the interests of a small class of elite people) will be any better?

No, we can withdraw within a month, easy, if the people want to withdraw and dismantle the empire. There may be an outbreak of violence in the beginning, but we're going to be violent anyway. It's possible that there will be less violence in the long run anyway.

Hasty action would risk China moving in on Taiwan, conflict between North and S. Korea, tension between Japan and its neighbors, Russia strong arming Europe, etc. Destabilizing the globe is not a desirable outcome under any circumstances; so I can't imagine an argument that would compel me to endorse a quick retreat from our global commitments.

I'm in favor of giving nations like Japan plenty of notice that we're leaving. Arming and training them to provide for their own security prior to withdrawing our forces. The same goes with Europe. Obviously these nations already have military expertise; but they don't have the massive infrastructure they need to protect themselves. So it must be done on a transitional basis.

[joel]

The fact is our constitution enumerates a federalist system where the state is viewed as sovereign. However, any state can delegate as much power as they like to counties, towns, cities, villages, etc.

I would think it is the other way around. That the people delegate their powers to the state. And the states delegate their powers to the federation. It is the people that have the right to un-delegate such powers. A state (or the federation) relinquishing power would not be delegating it (downward), but would be relinquishing it back whence it came.

[bridgeforsale]

I would think it is the other way around. That the people delegate their powers to the state. And the states delegate their powers to the federation. It is the people that have the right to un-delegate such powers. A state (or the federation) relinquishing power would not be delegating it (downward), but would be relinquishing it back whence it came.

well sort of ... but not exactly. The federal and state governments are viewed as co-equal branches of government in our constitutional framework & in fact the supremacy clause allows the federal government to usurp state power when a state is trying to infringe in an area federal regulation validly dominates (key word being "validly"). However, at the same time the constitution also limits the federal governments power (for example it can't regulate matters of health and welfare, only the states have this power ... however, it can "spend" in the interest of health and welfare). The way the federal government has circumvented this limitation is through block grants and similar schemes. For instance take the Medicaid program. In theory a state doesn't have to participate in it. However, if a state doesn't voluntary participate in it the feds don't have to fund it either. Of course participation requires adherence to certain mandates and regulations.

To add to the complexity of this mess congress delegates rule making authority to federal agencies. So now you have non-elected bureaucrats effectively drawing up regulations the states must adhere to (or risk losing their funding). The federal government has become like the evil computer in science fiction movies that gains enough artificial intelligence to operate without human control (and of course it designs its own exponential growth).

The history of a growing federal government runs much deeper than most think The constitution does contain the commerce clause, giving the federal government the power to regulate interstate commerce; and as early as 1791 we had a central bank. So I suspect a pure libertarian agenda will not find many friends in Washington or among the general public anytime soon.

To conclude, I agree with the basic premise of most posters here. Government is usually bad, and the bigger the worse (in other words the further it gets from the people the worse). Moreover, I also agree we need to reduce or eliminate our overseas commitments. I just prefer to avoid falling into the chaos Russia did when they tried to shift to a market economy overnight. I prefer the China approach, which is to move carefully.

[bartdanr]

Hiyah, Arminius,

The history of a growing federal government runs much deeper than most think The constitution does contain the commerce clause, giving the federal government the power to regulate interstate commerce; and as early as 1791 we had a central bank. So I suspect a pure libertarian agenda will not find many friends in Washington or among the general public anytime soon.

Yet during a time of unprecedented economic expansion and standards of living (from 1836-1913) we had no central bank. Were there resessions and depressions? Yes, but (a) there was no inflation as we see today (there was inflation, but not the inflation we see today with fiat currency), and (b) going back to a central bank in 1913 did not obviously stop (or necessarily mitigate) economic downturns. I find it odd that so many who realize the folly of the central planning of the economy (i.e., nearly everyone on earth except for the truly unrepentent Marxists) still think it's "necessary" for the state to control the monetary supply--as if it ever could truly have the knowledge (or more importantly, wisdom) to do so.

To conclude, I agree with the basic premise of most posters here. Government is usually bad, and the bigger the worse (in other words the further it gets from the people the worse). Moreover, I also agree we need to reduce or eliminate our overseas commitments. I just prefer to avoid falling into the chaos Russia did when they tried to shift to a market economy overnight. I prefer the China approach, which is to move carefully.

I agree--though we should realize "justice deferred is justice denied." A lengthy draw-down can be even more dangerous--who wants to be the last man (or battalion) in South Korea?

Whether we go slowly or quickly, what is your view of the ideal "end state" for our military commitments? I feel that the job of the military is defense of the United States and its possessions, period. Nothing about "interests" where we somehow think we have a "right" or "responsibility" to topple dictators that we don't like; "save" another country from aggression, civil war or ethnicl violence; or save the bacon of American companies overseas. I think if we adopted this view we could certainly cut our military spending (higher than the rest of the world's military spending combined, I believe) and still maintain a strong defense.

The worst possible case, in my opinion, is continuing trying to right all the wrongs of the world while drawing down the military (or, frankly, even expanding it greatly). Empire is both unsustainable and unjust.

[Augustine2004]

small government thread
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...d.php?t=107328

public goods thread
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...d.php?t=108296

You can read the threads above, but you should try anyway to prove that national defense is somehow an exception to the prescription of letting just the free market supply what we are willing to pay for.

A.W., you’re right, given the world’s lack of support for panarchy or anarchy, they cannot be now in effect or any time soon. Until the world understands that states are inimical, not beneficial, overall to the global people, the free market is to some extent just theoretical, and will never be given a full chance.

I fight the state not because I expect to succeed, but because it’s evil.

[Sir-Think-A-Lot]

I am in the process of reading Franklin D. Roosevelt and the New Deal by William E. Leuchtenburg. I have studied history my entire life and took 40 credit hours while getting my biology degree. But Leuchtenburg raises issues that I have not seen anywhere before. FDR wasn’t the great knight in shining armor who rode forth to save the nation that popular culture would have us believe. Instead the similarities between FDR and Clinton are striking. Both FDR and Clinton took office without really having any core political philosophy. FDR’s New Deal wasn’t a uniform set of policy goals- it was more something FDR made up as he went along. FDR didn’t seem to be able to make up his mind about how to combat the Depression and he had advisors that usually had mutually exclusive socio-economic philosophies.

I’d like to get everyone’s view on what caused the Great Depression and why it lasted so long.

Well the depression started as a standard recession, until Herbert Hoover's(not FDR's) progressive economic policies

Most specificly he ordered the big business owners of the time to neither cut people's wages, or to raise the price on the goods they sold. Making it more difficult to hire new people or make a profit off of their goods. preventing them from expanding further. (the end effect of these policies was actually quite ironic: of 25% unemployment, but the wages for people lucky enough to have jobs went up).

He also rasied taxes(harming both businesses and indvidauls) to fund what I call the 'New Deal lite' Which included several programs that would later be credited to Roosevelt, including far subsadies, and public works programs(though not quite to the scale Roosevelt implemented them).

Ironicly FDR ran on a platform of curtailing the immense government spending that had started under Hoover, but once elected not only kept the programs Hoover started, but made them bigger(and more expensive) and added a host of new government programs.

I hightly reccomend The Politically Incorrect Guide to The Great Depression and teh New Deal, by Rupart Murphy. He effectively debunks a lot of the myths surrounding the Great Depression and FDR.

[bridgeforsale]

I took a look at both threads ... and although I didn't weed through all 10 + pages of each thread, I did take in the general points & I read some of Hoppe's work (concerning public goods). Here's one quote from Hoppe that I found striking:

Nonetheless, some examples that enjoy particularly popular status as public goods are the fire brigade that stops a neighbor's house from catching fire, thereby letting h i profit from my fire brigade, even though he did not contribute anything to financing it; or the police that, by walking around my property scare away potential burglars from my neighbor's property as well, even if he did not help finance the patrols; or the lighthouse, an example particularly dear to economists,' that helps a ship find her way even though the ship's owner did not contribute a penny to its construction or upkeep (link here).

Hoppe is wrong. Property taxes, paid by all homeowners (and by extension all renters) pay for local police and fire departments. Local, state, or federal dollars pay for the lighthouse, and we pay for these things as a people because of the economic return and other benefits we receive from endeavors like shipping (and because we don't want a world where private owners erect fences out in the middle of sea to restrict the benefit of its lighthouse to only those who pay a fee for its usage).

I'm not sure what other method Hoppe would propose. Surely all homeowners will want police protection from burglars and other criminals. Surely all homeowners will want to provide for the upkeep of a fire department. Since each individual homeowner cannot possibly afford to sustain their own police or fire department they will have to form some sort of collective. They will then have to have people who administrate that collective and disperse funds for the needed services. No doubt the homeowners will want to maintain the power to fire their administrators if they do a poor job.

Sounds like what we have now ... towns, cities, villages, etc.? To add my amusement ... Hoppe's article does the same thing you do Aug. Provides exactly zero quantitative data showing the merits of his theory, yet charges everyone else with fallacious logic, demanding we prove why public goods should exist?

Then when we point to tangible history (and the real benefits that have accrued to society by shifting certain functions to the public sphere) scholars like Hoppe (if he even deserves that distinction) will say we cannot rely on history.

I suppose his premise is that we've never had a truly capitalist order so history is an inaccurate measure of the value of public goods. However, we have had experience with private police forces, the accumulation of immense power by a small elite class, and public welfare functions being performed exclusively by charities. We can fairly ascertain the value of public goods in these areas by contrasting our current model against that history; and in many of these areas (though not all) our current model is clearly superior.

Surely a private military could never defeat a modern professional army. Surely our local towns and cities already provide a sufficient and democratic model for providing local police, fire, water, sewer, and other similar services. Whether some our local municipalities want to contract some of these functions out to private firms is another story (they have the ability to that). The state already has the ability to delegate as much power as they would like to local towns. The only constitutionally enumerated functions of the federal government are providing for a national defense, regulating interstate commerce, treaty power, etc. In other words I'm not defending the current system, but rather I believe our current constitutional framework allows for more libertarian governance (without the radical extremes proposed by men like Hoppe, who never proves his theories with quantitative evidence beyond platitudes about the superiority of capitalism, which really demands we assume a capitalist model will be more economically efficient and provide better services in all cases, including with regard to services we now view as public goods). Don't get me wrong, I like capitalism. I just cannot support bizarre ideas like private police forces or a private army.

To conclude, I think Hoppe is largely proven wrong by our historical experience in at least some of these areas. We've already experienced abuses by private police forces. We can simply look at the world around us, where every industrialized country (including our potential enemies) have large professional armies; and intuitively know we must maintain a professional military. So I'm sorry .... but I see no reason to view Hoppe as a serious scholar. I do think we can and perhaps will move closer to a libertarian world (over time); but Hoppe's ideas are frankly absurd.

[bridgeforsale]

Well the depression started as a standard recession, until Herbert Hoover's(not FDR's) progressive economic policies

Most specificly he ordered the big business owners of the time to neither cut people's wages, or to raise the price on the goods they sold. Making it more difficult to hire new people or make a profit off of their goods. preventing them from expanding further. (the end effect of these policies was actually quite ironic: of 25% unemployment, but the wages for people lucky enough to have jobs went up).

He also rasied taxes(harming both businesses and indvidauls) to fund what I call the 'New Deal lite' Which included several programs that would later be credited to Roosevelt, including far subsadies, and public works programs(though not quite to the scale Roosevelt implemented them).

Ironicly FDR ran on a platform of curtailing the immense government spending that had started under Hoover, but once elected not only kept the programs Hoover started, but made them bigger(and more expensive) and added a host of new government programs.

I hightly reccomend The Politically Incorrect Guide to The Great Depression and teh New Deal, by Rupart Murphy. He effectively debunks a lot of the myths surrounding the Great Depression and FDR.

Yes .... but there's a big difference between what Hoover or even Coolidge did (as far as wage-price controls, intervention in agriculture, etc.) and the theories of men like Hoppe. Few libertarians would argue intervention in capital markets is a good idea, or we should continue to prop up farmers with artificial subsidies (although the latter might be more arguable, since we do pay them to do something that's in the long term national interest, but not in their short term interest .... crop rotation).

Moreover, to spite FDR's campaign pledges ..... he was much more of an interventionist compared to Hoover (or anyone before him for that matter).

[joel]

I don't buy into the anarchist stuff, but I have some comments.

Nonetheless, some examples that enjoy particularly popular status as public goods are the fire brigade that stops a neighbor's house from catching fire, thereby letting h i profit from my fire brigade, even though he did not contribute anything to financing it; or the police that, by walking around my property scare away potential burglars from my neighbor's property as well, even if he did not help finance the patrols; or the lighthouse, an example particularly dear to economists,' that helps a ship find her way even though the ship's owner did not contribute a penny to its construction or upkeep (link here).

Hoppe is wrong. Property taxes, paid by all homeowners (and by extension all renters) pay for local police and fire departments.

You are missing the point. He is explaining the reasoning why people think of them as public goods and thus why people argue that they should be paid by taxes. In the scenarios he lists he is considering them as they would be if they were left to the free market. The point is that people argue they are public goods because they would have positive externalities when handled by the free market.

The intent of the rest of the paper is to refute such arguments.

To add my amusement ... Hoppe's article does the same thing you do Aug. Provides exactly zero quantitative data showing the merits of his theory,

What kind of measurements would one take?

yet charges everyone else with fallacious logic, demanding we prove why public goods should exist?

Surely the burden of proof is on the one proposing the use of physical force?

I suppose his premise is that we've never had a truly capitalist order so history is an inaccurate measure of the value of public goods.

Or simply that there has never been (an cannot be) a controlled experiment regarding such things.
Also, his point is not that public goods don't have value, but that there is (logically) no such thing as a public good.

We can fairly ascertain the value of public goods in these areas by contrasting our current model against that history; and in many of these areas (though not all) our current model is clearly superior.

Can you provide an example? (of such an area and how contrasting our current model against history reveals the current model to be clearly superior)

Surely our local towns and cities already provide a sufficient and democratic model for providing local police, fire, water, sewer, and other similar services.

There is historical and theoretical reason to believe many utilities are better provided without government-enforced monopolies of them.