This week I found myself almost completely unable to disagree with Hayek. He successfully stressed the value of the state as a tool to be used to guarantee property rights, he pointed out the logical yet unfortunate decline in the rule of law, he explained the presence of state that can still be described as small. The only questions I have are impractical yet still present. The terrible 'what ifs' that can fester in many a young academic mind. Due to natural superstition and the presence of media today, I can not help but wondering how society and the free market could handle an extinction level event like a giant asteroid or the ever popular zombie apocalypse. What form of insurance will occur without the gargantuan state ready with its impractical level of insurance?
In the event of a national or global emergency what else has the ability to mobilize on such an aggregated level? Sure hardware companies will be able to react to the greater demand for home defense supplies. And gun companies can kick up production, even the media market provides plenty of how to's. But in the long run how can we deal with such an event? An apocalyptic event may be an example of non-coercive spontaneous order but that doesn't change how much it would suck.
So governments are created to decrease world suck. The methods may vary between egalitarian socialism or utilitarian economic growth but the idea still remains. Does Hayek just think liberty is more important than lowered world suck?
No comments:
Post a Comment