Reddit Reddit reviews Private Governance: Creating Order in Economic and Social Life

We found 6 Reddit comments about Private Governance: Creating Order in Economic and Social Life. Here are the top ones, ranked by their Reddit score.

Business & Money
Books
Economics
Economic History
Private Governance: Creating Order in Economic and Social Life
Check price on Amazon

6 Reddit comments about Private Governance: Creating Order in Economic and Social Life:

u/fieryseraph · 5 pointsr/Libertarian

>Show me an example of a system like this working. I dare you.

https://www.amazon.com/Anarchy-Unbound-Self-Governance-Cambridge-Economics/dp/1107629705

https://www.amazon.com/Private-Governance-Creating-Economic-Social/dp/0199365164

https://www.amazon.com/Invisible-Hook-Hidden-Economics-Pirates/dp/0691150095

https://www.amazon.com/Not-So-Wild-West-Economics/dp/0804748543

https://www.amazon.com/Machinery-Freedom-Guide-Radical-Capitalism/dp/1507785607

https://www.amazon.com/Art-Not-Being-Governed-Anarchist/dp/0300169175

There is also a whole ton of economic literature out there about groups who resolve disputes using game theory, or long term contracts, things like that, instead of relying on a central governing body with a strong threat of violence.

u/Hayekian_Order · 4 pointsr/changemyview

There is a distinction between those who believe in anarchism as the ideal system and anarchism as operational in practice (or both, of course). I stand on the former and would like to be convinced of the latter.

As an ideal, anarchists believe no state is the most moral way to structure society (technically unstructured). The key issue here, and this is the core issue of any political thinking, is of collective action, and from that, the use of coercion, force, and other physical methods. For instance, many if not all people would say force is justified in self-defense. However, is coercion or force justified when someone goes over the speed limit when driving, which is not directly harming someone but could potentially harm someone. What about if someone harms themselves (in the case of suicide, drug use, food use, and euthanasia)? Is force also justified if someone ignores some sort of building requirement when building their own home (pointing to certain zoning laws and building requirements)? There are varying degrees in which force and violence are tolerated. For anarchists, the belief is that force is only justified in self-defense--and that it should be the right of the individual to defend himself or herself but never to initiate it. There are even pacifist anarchists who go further and will not even defend themselves.

There is also the misconception that anarchists are radical individualists, that is, there should be no other groups, associations, fraternities, or other collection of people. It is precisely because people should be free to join whatever group that anarchists believe what they believe. No individual should be forced against their will to be part of another group. There are also strains of anarchist groups that do believe in self-governance on a small scale and voluntary level. That is, something akin to a kibbutz or the Amish community. These people willingly form their own associations and create a sort of self-government structure.

On the nature of conflict and crime, it is indeed true conflict can and will arise from any sort of human interaction. The question becomes is this conflict solved best through government or by the parties involved? Remember, every war ever fought was because of government and the people in power convinced the common man and woman that this was their problem as well. Private Governance by Edward Stringham, while not advocating for the anarchist position, details how complicated problems and conflicts are mitigated through private means. This book is not a defense of anarchism nor is it meant to convince you of anarchism, but that there are examples where private means are the best ways to solve problems. Richard Dawkins is known to have said: "We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further." In the same vein, most of us are anarchists about most governments and most forms of governance; some people just go one government further.

Onto the second half of your bullet points, the theory of anarchism is simply the belief that people should rule themselves bottom-up rather than from a person or a group of people top-down. The points you make are not necessarily implicated by the theory of anarchism, though you may believe there are strong reasons such events could happen. Democracy, majoritarian by definition, itself is fundamentally mob justice. Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn does a great exposition and criticism on democracy on exactly this point in Liberty and Equality. H.L. Mencken is purported to have said: "An election is nothing more than the advanced auction of stolen goods."

u/aduketsavar · 3 pointsr/Anarcho_Capitalism

Jason Brennan's Markets without Limits was an important moral theory about commodification and I think filled a huge gap.

Horwitz's Hayek's Modern Family is another one -although I couldn't find time to read it yet-

Private Governance by Edward Stringham is another contribution to the ancap institutional theory.

This year Jason Brennan will publish another book, Against Democracy, and it will probably be excellent, Jason Brennan is easly my top 5 libertarians alive.

u/strolls · 1 pointr/UKPersonalFinance

I guess it's because, to the layman, the stockmarket seems like a complex new invention - as this thread demonstrated, it spawns feelings of "debt was just invented to keep us beholden to the rich capitalists".

I'd have said the same things myself when I was younger.

I guess I'd be particularly interested in the middle ages and also the rise of the stock exchange. I find the Dutch East India Company was "the first company in history to issue bonds and shares of stock to the general public" and it that it arose in the decline of the Hanseatic League. Stringham's Private Governance is cited in the notes on that wikipedia page ("Companies with transferable shares date back to classical Rome, but these were usually not enduring endeavors and no considerable secondary market existed") so perhaps I should pick up a copy.

u/glibbertarian · 1 pointr/Futurology

I promise I am thinking, and have thought, plenty about how society would function in Ancapistan. I'm not going to try write it all out when it's said better in other places. You can read this page or go more in depth with this.

u/comentaristasincero · 0 pointsr/brasil

> Sem o estado, ninguém tem nenhuma obrigação de respeitar sua propriedade.

Para dizer isso você deve provar que o único sistema possível para organizar a sociedade seria em um meio jurídico monopolista, ou seja, um sistema de leis policentrico seria impossível.

Porém isso não é verdade, já existiram sistemas legais policentricos, como por exemplo a lex mercatoria, portanto o argumento de que o capitalismo precisa do estado como monopolista da lei para garantir propriedade cai por água abaixo, dizer isso é puro senso comum, coisa de quem não estudou o assunto e está palpitando.

>Se você lesse ao menos os autores do liberalismo clássico não defenderia o terraplanismo da economia.

Ninguém realmente estuda os autores do liberalismo clássico, a história da economia de 100 anos atrás não é importante para os modelos atuais, aliás, você deve até pensar que eu tirei minha teoria da escola austríaca, de Von Mises, Rothbard e afins.

Não, um modelo jurídico não precisa de autores "clássicos" e obsoletos, hoje a economia é trabalhada com modelos matemáticos e resultados testáveis, ninguém lê "autores do liberalismo clássico" para fundamentar seus modelos, essa mentalidade é de 100 anos atrás quando a economia era tratada como filosofia, sem necessidade de modelos testáveis, como Marx e Mises fizeram em suas análises do capitalismo.

Se você tivesse lido um pouco sobre o assunto, saberia que é possível trazer as ferramentas que são utilizadas em economia para a área política, como por exemplo a teoria dos jogos, as mesmas ferramentas que conseguem fundamentar falhas de mercado podem ser utilizadas para analisar falhas de governo, e é dai que se criam modelos que alinham os incentivos dos agentes de uma forma melhor, como é o caso de uma teoria jurídica de lei policentrica, como o anarcocapitalismo. Aqui um livro da Oxford sobre anarcocapitalismo e lei privada policentrica: https://www.amazon.com/Private-Governance-Creating-Economic-Social/dp/0199365164/ref=asap_bc?ie=UTF8

Na real, acho que esse tipo de espantalhação só seria aceito no echochamberdob.