Well I've got to say, I really enjoyed reading this. I was especially surprised by your knowledge of early American history! And I appreciate that you're skeptical of the utopian vision of an idealistic private sector. Although I obviously support capitalism, there is always the recognition that the drive for profits will incentive some really shit behavior that's bad for everyone involved.
Great article. I'll be rethinking my views on safety vs innovation.
My own views on the subject have changed quite dramatically over the years. In my late 20s/ early 30s I was working in Westminster politics and was a staunch Randian free-market libertarian. As I've moved into my 40s I've become more centrist and less 'militant' in my opinions, as I've realised there is good and bad in almost everything to some extent. Every ideology has its downsides as well as its strengths. So that's where I'm coming from.
Maybe we should do a podcast on this as I think there's a much longer conversation to be had about the legitimate role of government in regulating markets in a complex environment.
I'm an admirer of Rand as well, but just like you I take a nuanced view on her. I think she has some really excellent ideas, and other ideas that are completely impractical in the real world. I also completely agree that every ideology has its own upsides and downsides. Sowell: there are no solutions, only tradeoffs.
In terms of the podcast, if by "we" you mean you and I then sure, I would like that. I'm traveling for the next week but I'm free after that.
Interesting article. I agree with most of what you say, except "firstly, the leader must protect against external threats, and secondly, they must keep law and order within the tribe".
As it happens, in one of my own recent posts, Essential Functions of Government, I strongly disagreed with this idea that protection is the primary function. To my mind, it "overlooks the fact that there are functions of government which are intrinsic to the very existence of a coherent society, functions without which there can be no sense of community. These functions are more fundamental than 'protection' because, if they’re done badly, or if they're compromised by higher level functions, then the community starts to disintegrate". (https://malcolmr.substack.com/i/126372706/core-functions-of-government)
But protection is a primary function BECAUSE it helps maintain cohesion in a society. In order to have a cohesive nation or society one must first define it and set its boundaries, and that's done geographically with borders. "We are the people who live here, we are not the people who live there." If you don't have strong borders, you don't really have a nation, because anyone from anywhere at any time can make a legitimate claim to be part of your demos.
Just look at how lack of protection is working out in France right now. There's no cohesion at all.
"In order to have a cohesive nation or society one must first define it"
That's my point. Geographical boundaries are certainly one part of how a society is defined but they're far from the only part. If the people within a geographical area are tearing each others' throats out, protection against external enemies is a bit meaningless. Without a set of customs and rules to establish and maintain *internal* cohesion, there can be no sense of 'We' — and therefore no differentiation between internal and external.
Well I've got to say, I really enjoyed reading this. I was especially surprised by your knowledge of early American history! And I appreciate that you're skeptical of the utopian vision of an idealistic private sector. Although I obviously support capitalism, there is always the recognition that the drive for profits will incentive some really shit behavior that's bad for everyone involved.
Great article. I'll be rethinking my views on safety vs innovation.
My own views on the subject have changed quite dramatically over the years. In my late 20s/ early 30s I was working in Westminster politics and was a staunch Randian free-market libertarian. As I've moved into my 40s I've become more centrist and less 'militant' in my opinions, as I've realised there is good and bad in almost everything to some extent. Every ideology has its downsides as well as its strengths. So that's where I'm coming from.
Maybe we should do a podcast on this as I think there's a much longer conversation to be had about the legitimate role of government in regulating markets in a complex environment.
I'm an admirer of Rand as well, but just like you I take a nuanced view on her. I think she has some really excellent ideas, and other ideas that are completely impractical in the real world. I also completely agree that every ideology has its own upsides and downsides. Sowell: there are no solutions, only tradeoffs.
In terms of the podcast, if by "we" you mean you and I then sure, I would like that. I'm traveling for the next week but I'm free after that.
Great! Let me figure out how to set up the tech to tape Zoom discussions and I'll get back to you.
Ok cool. You could just email me, chiefquant@unhedgedcapitalist.com
Interesting article. I agree with most of what you say, except "firstly, the leader must protect against external threats, and secondly, they must keep law and order within the tribe".
As it happens, in one of my own recent posts, Essential Functions of Government, I strongly disagreed with this idea that protection is the primary function. To my mind, it "overlooks the fact that there are functions of government which are intrinsic to the very existence of a coherent society, functions without which there can be no sense of community. These functions are more fundamental than 'protection' because, if they’re done badly, or if they're compromised by higher level functions, then the community starts to disintegrate". (https://malcolmr.substack.com/i/126372706/core-functions-of-government)
But protection is a primary function BECAUSE it helps maintain cohesion in a society. In order to have a cohesive nation or society one must first define it and set its boundaries, and that's done geographically with borders. "We are the people who live here, we are not the people who live there." If you don't have strong borders, you don't really have a nation, because anyone from anywhere at any time can make a legitimate claim to be part of your demos.
Just look at how lack of protection is working out in France right now. There's no cohesion at all.
"In order to have a cohesive nation or society one must first define it"
That's my point. Geographical boundaries are certainly one part of how a society is defined but they're far from the only part. If the people within a geographical area are tearing each others' throats out, protection against external enemies is a bit meaningless. Without a set of customs and rules to establish and maintain *internal* cohesion, there can be no sense of 'We' — and therefore no differentiation between internal and external.