Let me add a caveat:  I am not endorsing everything Steve Kangas says. Not really endorsing anything!   The point is he has some interesting articles and slants on things.  I just happened to like one or two articles I read and there are  many out there. 

Glad to hear you are not endorsing anything Kangas has said!

LOL!  Have you read several of his articles?

Can you point me to this critique of austrian economic theory?

Go here.  You can pick up the entire section from here which talks about a lot of things.

It is here.

And I must add that I totally disagree with everything I have read on Mr Kanas's site (may he rest in peace) and no I don't care to explain why.

Aw, come on, Ron, tell us why.

Aw shucks…ok

Hey, I thought you would never ask.

Mr. K. seems to think that we just couldn’t get along without centralized government. Why, what would we do if government didn’t provide us with a means to educate our children, deliver our mail, build our roads, manage our finances, etc., etc.? Everyone knows that the government is much more efficient than the private sector at these things. And by private sector I don’t mean just the contracting out of government priorities to politically connected private enterprise. To me Mr. K’s views exemplify everything that is wrong with this country and are a threat to what liberty we have left.

I thought he did a good job of explaining the difference in government and the Market and also of Natual Monopolies.  Law and order was also discussed as well as public infrastructure.  I thought he had a good argument for the fact that some things are better provided for by the government and some are better provided for by the market.  Here is a quote:

Another irreplaceable role of government is providing national infrastructure, which includes roads, electricity, telecommunications, postal systems, and other large-scale underpinnings of the national economy. Historically, private enterprise has been unable to afford building national infrastructure. Only government has the pockets deep enough to fund such huge projects. Almost always, these projects lay dormant or underdeveloped until the government takes them up, and then progress is rapid.

Nor would we want private companies so large that they could provide national infrastructure; any company that large would surely be a monopoly, for competitors of equal size would be a waste of the nation's resources.

The classic example is road building. Private companies tried building toll roads and turnpikes in the early 1800s, but the projects were not viable. Most companies lost money in the long run, and only a few made slim profits. As a result, America’s road system languished. But a dramatic boost in road building came with Eisenhower's Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956, which authorized the creation of over 40,000 miles of interstate highway. These highways expanded, interconnected and accelerated the U.S. economy, with profound results. They allowed the middle class to migrate from the cities to the suburbs, with an enormous increase in privacy and quality of life. They also breathed new life into commerce.

End quote.

Now, I agree pretty much with what he says above.  BUT, his next paragraph was about imminent domain and that I have a hard time with.  That aspect of government control needs to be tempered.  And I think it can be and is abused.  But I cainnot go along with the argument that government should not do any of these things.  I agree with him that government does some things better and the market does some things better.  But I also feel that government is too big and does try to do too much.  And that is where we need to try to change things and moderate the extent of the hand of government.

Here is another quote from the same article:

The true extent of law and order

When most people think of "law and order," they generally think of police officers fighting street crime. However, the most important laws in society are actually the laws that set up our social, property and business systems.

For example, business laws protect us against fraud, false advertising, breach of contract, copyright infringement, embezzlement, insider trading, monopolistic abuse, unfair market manipulations and hundreds of other ills that would occur under true anarchy. Without business laws, the market could not even operate. For example, if we did not have copyright laws discouraging people from pirating all their software, computer programmers could not even make a profit, and would have no incentive to produce.

Property laws protect us against theft, invasions of privacy, trespassing, pollution, vandalism, and disputes over property boundaries and ownership. Without these laws, we would have no stable system of private property.

Social laws guarantee our freedom of speech, religion, press, ballot box, due process, and equal rights. Without these laws, we would not live in a free society, but in tyranny.

Again, the free market could not provide these public goods without suffering from free riders and tribal warfare. This leads to an important conclusion: the public sector creates the rules that the private sector needs to operate.

And one more:

Any other comments from folks out there?  I think this man had a way of making some good points.  The problem to me is not that government provides some things but that government tries to provide too many things and legislate too much.  How do we temper it?

The ultimate public good: law and order

Imagine a land with no law and order. Everyone would be free to commit violence and aggression without worrying about police retaliation. Greed would spur individuals to rob, cheat and steal at every opportunity. Jealous lovers could kill with impunity. Nothing could stop your neighbor from driving you off your land and taking your property, except your own use of defensive force.

In such anarchy, only the fittest and luckiest would survive. But even after these survivors won their first battles, they would only find themselves in a new round of conflict, this time against proven and battle-tested survivors. The price of continual war isn’t worth it, even to the survivors. Society avoids this bleak scenario by agreeing to cooperate for survival, or at least limiting the competition to fairer and less harmful methods. This more stable and peaceful approach makes everyone richer in the long run.

But cooperation requires rules that everyone lives by. Unfortunately, private markets cannot provide such law and order. Take, for example, the law against murder. How could the market enforce such a law? With government, the answer is simple: the police enforce it. But how would the free market provide police protection? Some libertarians have proposed imaginative solutions, like having private police agencies compete on the free market. You might subscribe to Joe’s Security Forces, and I might subscribe to Bill's Police Agency. But suppose one day I steal your car. You could call your police agency to come and arrest me. But I could claim the car is rightfully mine, thanks to a bad business deal between us, and call my own police agency to defend against your theft of my property. The result is tribal warfare. What’s worse, the richest citizens would be able to afford the largest private armies, and use them to acquire yet more riches, which in turn would fund yet larger armies. Libertarian scholars have attempted to save their idea with even more imaginative arguments, but the exercise only proves the unworkability of the idea, and the vast majority of scholars reject the whole approach.

The folly of this exercise becomes even more apparent when you consider how the free market would provide the law itself. Again, some libertarians propose private legislative companies competing on the free market. By paying a legislative company a few hundred dollars a year, you could buy whatever slate of laws you would like to live by. Unfortunately, two people might claim sole ownership of the same property, and point to their different slate of laws awarding them ownership. In that case, the law is of no help in identifying the true owner, and the two parties are left to negotiate. These negotiations would occur under conditions of anarchy, and the side with the most power, influence or police force would win the negotiations. This would be a society of power politics, where might makes right.

True law and order can only be provided by a single entity covering the entire group in question. That is, law and order is a natural monopoly. A single private company can’t run this natural monopoly for two reasons. First, it would have no competition, unlike government, which could restore competition through voting. In other words, governments are democracies, but private companies are dictatorships, and if only one company provides law and order, you might as well have a monarchy. Second, true law and order is also a public good, much like national defense, but one that offers protection against internal enemies instead of external ones. Free riders could enjoy the benefit of the private company’s law and order without paying for it. Having democratic government provide law and order is the only way to solve these problems.

Perhaps you find these arguments and "facts" compelling, but what happens if they are simply NOT true?  For example, you quoted Mr. Kangas saying that "if we did not have copyright laws discouraging people from pirating all their software, computer programmers could not even make a profit, and would have no incentive to produce."  This is absolutely wrong!  The operating system and web browser that I am using to type this message, all the software running NoLessDays.org, and nearly all the software I use for both work and pleasure is free (as in freedom and beer).  The system is, in my opinion, far superior to any offering I have used that is protected by IP laws.  In addition, many folks do make money writing this software, by offering services, and or customizations in conjunction with the offering.  But  many folks write this software for reasons other than monetary gain, and continue doing so.

Obviously Mr. Kangas is lying or grossly misinformed -- and, either way, I think his conclusions and "facts" on many other issues are similarly flawed.

Obviously, you are lying or grossly misinformed --- how does that sound when directed at you?  Make your point without being so disagreeable.  I know for a fact there are a lot of programmers who make their living writing software...specific, detailed, tailored for certain areas.  There is also free software out there.  But that is not what he is talking about.  Anyway, this was written quite a few years ago.  I get his point.   You have a 'thing' about copyright laws...that is your opinion.  It does not mean that whoever you happen to disagree with is a liar or grossly misinformed.  If you look at arguments more closely you will see that usually both sides make some valid points.  If you want to debate don't turn people off right away by being so disagreeable.  Some of the people you take issue with just may be smarter than you ... maybe.  Everyone has an opinion.  If yours does not agree with someone else's it does not mean that you are always right and they are always wrong.  I would probably give your arguments more weight if they were couched a little differently.  I believe that by going off on a tangent you miss his point entirely. 

"For example, if we did not have copyright laws discouraging people from pirating all their software, computer programmers could not even make a profit, and would have no incentive to produce."

His point is what now?  Here it is in my own words:

Without copyright laws, programmers

• couldn't make money, and
• would have no incentive to produce.

If I understand his statement correctly, it is clearly, 100% wrong... and that is all I stated.  The fact that there are programmers who make money because we have IP laws DOES NOT validate his position, nor does it invalidate mine.

And what does this have to do with when it was written?  I can accept that Mr. Kangas just couldn't fathom programmers writing code in the absence of IP law because he had never seen it happen.  Okay, that's fine, but he's still wrong!

I do not call out Mr. Kangas on this point because I am morally opposed to copyright (though I am), but rather because he is clearly wrong.

I appreciate the advice on my presentation skills.  Perhaps you can offer some pointers in a separate thread.

“For example, business laws protect us against fraud, false advertising, breach of contract, copyright infringement, embezzlement, insider trading, monopolistic abuse, unfair market manipulations and hundreds of other ills that would occur under true anarchy. Without business laws, the market could not even operate.”

Really? I don’t know about protecting us but they certainly protect the looters who pay the bill to put our esteemed leaders in power. We have been swindled. One example that comes to mind is the investment bank Goldman Sachs. Trillions of your (and mine) dollars have gone to Henry Paulson’s old friends on wall street. Oh! the government is protecting us. Give me a break.

Sorry Sis but I’m with Christopher on this one. To the lying, and grossly misinformed, I would like to add that his ramblings sound like something you would encounter in  a 3^rd or 4^th grade public (uh government) brainwashing school curriculum. We can do better. I’m all for an open and intelligent exchange of ideas but enough of this guy already.

I am not saying what we have is perfect, we certainly have had some major issues lately!  But I do believe that there should  be courts to protect your property and contracts from breach or fraud by others, to settle disputes by rational rules, according to objective law.  To me that is what he is saying.  Business laws are necessary to support a viable market.  What is wrong with that? 

 Viable markets exist and operate in spite of government imposed laws and regulations which are impediments to free enterprise. These would include antitrust law, health and safety regulations, environmental regulations and labor controls. I believe there should be rule of law, but the hundreds of thousands of state imposed regulations are just used as a way for businesses that can’t compete to use government to clobber its competitors.

Actually I think we are saying basically the same thing.  I agree there are too many rules and regulations.  But I believe you need some basic laws under which to operate.   Sometimes I get the impression you don't want any.  I just believe it has gotten out of hand and has been overdone.  Just read The Tyranny of Good Intentions and The Death of Common Sense.