A discussion on a private email list brought up a familiar topic: When is it permissible for self-described anarchists (let’s restrict ourselves here to anarcho-capitalists) to take government money? This is a tricky question, and I have yet to see someone offer a satisfactory list of necessary and sufficient conditions. Usually when an-caps argue about this, they end up shooting more and more refined analogies back and forth.For example, to me it’s not enough to say that any money spent in the private sector is legitimate (vis-a-vis one’s anarchism). I personally would not feel justified in working for a Halliburton. However, what about the guy who opens a Dunkin Donuts near a police station? Is he accepting “government money”? Does it matter if he’s in a podunk town with a sheriff and a deputy, versus if he lives in LA and knows for a fact that several of his customers beat the #$#)($* out of suspects?
A big problem in this area is education: Can anarcho-capitalist economists take teaching posts at State schools? After all, the State intervenes heavily in education, which is a perfectly laudable market institution. But surely there are more teaching posts because of the State than there otherwise would be. Does the an-cap professor have to estimate whether his or her post would actually exist in the absence of State intervention, or is that irrelevant?
Personally, I have decided that I will never work for an official State school. If I really mean it when I refer (in LRC articles, for example) to the State as “a gang of killers and thieves,” then how can I possibly associate with such people? Yes yes, there are millions of analogies and counterarguments, but for me there is a definite line to be drawn at actually being on the payroll. (I also wouldn’t take welfare, for example, even though in previous years I have put in a lot to the tax system.)
Before closing, I should say that in no way am I taking a holier than thou stance. For example, I applied for the Stafford (unsubsidized!) loan in grad school, even though the State technically coerced those lending institutions into offering me such low rates. And I know a guy who is so hard core about starving the beast, that he felt like a sellout when he took a job on the books and had some of his paycheck withheld. (I.e. when he worked under the table, then at least his money wasn’t funding the State’s wars etc.)
But as far as State schools, I think there are a few other things that people often leave out of the discussion. First, why would I want to throw my talents into a State school? I would much rather work on the side of the underdog, and every time I publish a paper or give a talk, I want a private school to get the credit. (This also applies to whatever influence I have on students; I don’t want to enhance a State school’s reputation by churning out better-than-otherwise students, so long as I could do the same at a private school.)
A second issue is a bit more subtle: When moderate Americans hear of an-cap professors berating the existence of the State, while they work for the State, I think two things happen. (A) They think, “What a hypocrite! These ivory tower academics need to get in the real world before redesigning society!” And (B), they think, “Our government is so open and tolerant! It even employs academics who call for its abolition! I’m so glad I live here and not under the Taliban.”
(Again, this is not meant as a criticism of those who choose to work at State schools. I’m just explaining my position.)
{ 40 comments }
You’re very lucky that you have private colleges where you live. Many have no such choice. Then all one can do is firmly bite the hand that feeds.
Ayn Rand had an article that was instructive on this issue. She was asked whether it was moral for someone to take a government-backed student loan. She said it was, because the person receiving the loan had no moral duty to abstain from receiving a benefit the government was giving to others. Rand distinguished between such benefits and those who choose to work in the government at jobs that had no function other than to violate individual rights (I believe she cited the Federal Trade Commission as an example.) The difference was between using a service that *should* be provided by the public sector (i.e. the Postal Service) and those that could never exist in a free market (i.e. monopoly regulators).
Of course, Rand was only addressing the ethical dilema; whether taking state money is practical towards advancing one’s particular interests or ideology is a separate question.
Hans-Hoppe teaches at the University of Las Vegas, Nevada and Murray Rothbard taught there before him. I do not see this as being hypocritical. The main reason why is that if the government taxes and spends on universities, it inevitably pushes private institutions out of the market by charging artificially low tuition. Therefore, the number of available positions at private universities is diminished, reducing opportunities for non-public university professorships.
The bottom line is that the state has created a system in which there is crime all around us. If we worried about “taking advantage” of this crime all the time we probably wouldn’t even step outside our front doors in the morning, and we certainly wouldn’t be driving on public roads.
On the other hand, there would definately be something wrong with say becoming an IRS agent while claiming to be an anarcho-capitalist at the same time.
Actually I thought Rand’s best contribution was this: “There is, of course, a limitation on the moral right to take a government job: one must not accept any job that demands ideological services, i.e., any job that requires the use of one’s mind to compose propaganda material in support of welfare statism — or any job in a regulatory administrative agency enforcing improper, non-objective laws.” (Objectivist, June 1966, sent by Roderick Long)
Now, this is interesting. Many people think it might be a bad thing, for example, for a libertarian to work for the INS or the IRS or some such, but would be happy to take a job as a presidential speech writer. Somehow it is usually assumed to be ok to do intellectual work but not ok to actually rob and kill for the state. Rand seems to be saying that it is as bad or worse to offer one’s intellectual talents for propaganda reasons.
I recently struggled with this problem. Here in Detroit the automotive industry (most of the city) shuts down between Christmas and New Years (because of the UAW contracts). For most this is a paid vacation but I am currently a contract employee (The big three hire all new employees as contractors first to avoid all the messy federal laws restricting their right to fire people for being incompetent), so it was forced time off for me. The problem is so common though that every contract employee is given a small packet of information on how to solve the problem of losing wages over the vacation: apply for unemployment.
I struggled for days, being an anarcho-capitalist, on whether or not it was ethical to accept the state’s welfare money. Sure, I think welfare is robbery and wrong to the core but I am forced to pay in to it whether I like it or not – so why not reclaim some of that money?
Ultimately I decided that it was ethical but I simply couldn’t bring myself to do it. Ethical maybe, but it still felt immoral to me. Having just graduated from college and moved to a new place I could have really used the money – but I just felt dirty about taking it.
Here is Rothbard’s point of view on this question: “The ground on which we must stand, to be moral and rational in a state-run world is to: (1) work and agiÂtate as best we can, in behalf of liberty; (2) while working in the matrix of our given world, to refuse to add to its staÂtism; and (3) to refuse absolutely to participate in State activities that are immoral and criminal per se.”
I worked for a small private startup at my last job. Even though we were “private”, most of our money came from government agencies/projects. I think the public/private distinction can be misleading. What matters is what interests you are serving. Are you serving people’s voluntary wants and needs or demand created by government regulation and taxes? I don’t think there’s a clear cut answer in most situations.
Sam Bostaph wrote, on the list: “Murphy raises several questions–and gives no answers to them. Then, he asserts personal preferences–with loose or no reasoning to support them. He might as well be discussing choices from menu.”
I agree with Sam. And as I wrote on the list: “Bottom line: the overwrought, over-agonized, over-thought attempts to justify one’s way of living in this imperfect world are simply pointless.
“First, libertarian employees of state universities might try to come up with any number of justifications for why their chosen career is “justified”. But in the end, how many of them would quit if their little libertarian calculus came out the wrong way? I think it’s clear the answer is near-zero. Clearly this is just make-weight argument; rationalization. Strunk and White say, if you don’t know how to pronounce a word, say it loud! “Why compound ignorance with inaudibility?” Likewise, if you are going to enter the game of life–in this mixed-state world, where some careers one would choose in the free market are largely monopolized by the state; where one must participate in state-decreed institutions and rules in order to flourise, prosper, succeed, and survive–don’t pussyfoot around about it. Don’t be embarrassed by it. Don’t, for God’s sake, *apologize* for it. Remember Galt had the face without pain or fear or guilt. Those who opppose the current malicious order are not to blame for it. They are — we are — already victims. To insist that we victims — *because* we are victims (those who respect rights) — have to suffer even further damage, to restrict ourselves from career and business and life opportunities that, ironically, our fellow men who do not agonize over the morality of their choices, … frankly, to my mind, it is ridiculous and obscene.
“Libertarianism at its essence distinguishes between victim and aggressor. To whine and hand-wring about what one libertarianly can or cannot do in this world — when our non-libertarian enemies, yes enemies, do not give a damn about it — is, in my view, to equate victim with aggressor; to blame the victim for trying to make it in the the nonlibertarian world he has been thrust into; a world that is nonlibertarain specifically because of the beliefs and actions of his fellow non-libertarian citizens. To say he should have a higher standard of behavior than them is to add injury to injury.”
Murphy writes, “I personally would not feel justified in working for a Halliburton.” I suppose there are a few die-hard types out there whose personal preferences would lead them to ever and ever greater personal sacrifices so they feel they are living by some kind of moral principles or something. But I find the entire notion that you *need*, in general, to “justify” where you work is just a bit silly. I agree w/ Bostaph that Murphy supplies no reasons for his assertions; why it’s okay to set up a donut shop selling to police, but not to “be on the payroll”. Surely Austrians are aware there is nothing economically special about the “employee” relationship; just as political borders are just political and not economically objective.
I believe it is not hypocritical to live in the real world, as a general matter. What is hypocritical, in my view, is the pretense of some libertarians that they work at their present state-related jobs *only* because they have found a way to justify it. I would be a lot of money that 99% of these people would not quit their jobs, even if you could show them their little pet proofs “justifying” the morality of their position is flawed. So it’s just a makeweight argument trotted out in a vain attempt to show that one’s chosen career is “justified”; but the only reason to do this is the false notion that one’s career *needs* justifying.
Jeffrey’s quote from Rothbard (in particular, “(2) while working in the matrix of our given world, to refuse to add to its staÂtism”), I believe, answers the titular question perfectly.
Even if it is the case that, by starting from scratch, a better system could be constructed, if our aim is the construction of that system, we must recognize that we do not have the luxury of erasing the influences of Marx, FDR, et al. Those who would change the system must necessarily work within it, and if that means using U.S. Mint-coined money, so be it.
Stephan,
Interesting points, although showing that something is moral or immoral, legal or illegal, does not in any way show that one would stop doing it. Everyone acts immorally numerous times each day. The fact that they know they’re acting such doesn’t stop them from doing such. Good people try to strive to be the best they can, presumeably.
Ultimately, everyone has to live with what they do, and with how other people perceive what they do.
A good person is someone who tries to do what he thinks is moral. Such people generally are engaged in careers they think moral. It will take a lot of argument to convince them otherwise. However, if they can be convinced of the immorality of their career, they will quit it (or cease being good people).
An “evil” person is someone who does not bother to try doing what he thinks is moral. That is, the person who knows what is moral, yet does not abide by it. I would characterize Alan Greenspan as such a person.
In an earlier post on this blog, I noted the example of Todd Zywicki, a law professor who recently finished a stint as planning director at the FTC. In his professorial role (at a state school, George Mason), Zywicki has portrayed himself as a free-market champion. Yet during his FTC service, he stood by and said nothing while the agency committed all sorts of individual rights violations. This is the type of person who needs to be condemned as evil–the man who poses as an ally of free markets, yet when put in a position of authority does nothing to advance the cause.
I wonder what Ayn Rand would have thought of the fact that one of her closest associates is now the person who is responsible for carrying out the biggest inflationist institution in the world-and also propagates for the usefullness of that institution.
Libertarians who work as speechwriters for the State do great damage. They enable the interventionists to disguise their destructiveness with positive-sounding rhetoric.
Unless something great happens, the government is going to be stealing my money and violating my rights until the day I die. I have no problem getting some of that money back through subsidized loans and government scholarships. Although I do believe it is disrespectful for the government to sponsor a scholarship in Barry Goldwater’s name, I am proud to be nominated for it.
As the for the private/state school arguments, private schools subsidized by the state also. Kids complete the fafsa and receive pell grants, and loans to go the both schools. We support the state in so many ways because we enhance society and its members. I think you’re justified if you work is agaisnt the government, but not against the people.
Stephan,
I agree w/ Bostaph that Murphy supplies no reasons for his assertions; why it’s okay to set up a donut shop selling to police, but not to “be on the payroll”.
Just to clarify, I didn’t say it was OK to set up a donut shop. I asked if it were (for those who think one can’t work for Halliburton in good conscience). My point here is not to lay out the definitive answer, but rather to say that I think I could come up with particular examples that would cast doubt upon any hard-and-fast rule people on either side give. E.g. if an an-cap thinks there’s no problem working for Halliburton, then we can ask about a military company that exclusively supplies stuff to the gov’t.
I agree with Bostaph that I didn’t give any answers; that’s my point. (But this implies of course that I didn’t agree with the official positions both of you took. As I recall, Bostaph said something like, “They aren’t fair with me, so I’m not going to worry about playing nice with them.” That’s not the issue; no one is saying you shouldn’t work for the State because it might violate the rights of the tax man. Am I allowed to mug a guy walking down the street because the IRS took my money?)
I didn’t bring this up on the List because I thought this topic was getting beaten to a pulp, but since you posted your response from there, let me address something that concerned me:
To insist that we victims — *because* we are victims (those who respect rights) — have to suffer even further damage, to restrict ourselves from career and business and life opportunities that, ironically, our fellow men who do not agonize over the morality of their choices, … frankly, to my mind, it is ridiculous and obscene.
Here you’re just begging the question. Are you an innocent victim “(those who respect rights)” if you work for the government? No one is arguing that the victims of gov’t abuse should hurt themselves even more so; the claim is that victims of government abuse aren’t thereby given a green light to abuse third parties as compensation.
And finally, I don’t see why you’re disgusted that “our side” is worried about choosing justified means. Isn’t that what makes us libertarians, that we worry about violating side constraints?
Bob,
You said previously, “And I know a guy who is so hard core about starving the beast, that he felt like a sellout when he took a job on the books and had some of his paycheck withheld.”
My personal view is these latter types are by and large just lazy or non-career-minded people trying to justify not wanting to have a successful career. It gives them a good excuse. “I’m not a loser–I’m altruistically paying the cost to do my part to help ever-so-slightly and temporarily starve the beast!” Yeah right!
Incidentally, as a practical matter, Gil Guillory is one of the best libertarians I know, and he works at Halliburton.
Bob, I am not “disgusted” at the hand-wringing; it’s just pointless, and I do not believe it is libertarian. It is extra-libertarian. Some libertarians are also vegetarians; likewise, some libertarians can have a preference for futilely altruistically damaging their lives just for the small chance to make a fleeting and imperceptible difference that benefits primarily those who do not deserve it. Sure, they have that right; but it’s not libertarianism per se.
I believe libertarianism is motivated by a desire to avoid conflict, and to live in peace; therefore, libertarians seek justification for the times they do want to use violence (e.g., to punish someone). But if I am choosing chocolate over vanilla, the issue of justification never comes up. LIkewise as a general matter, one doesn’t need to justify his career choice. Unless, that is, it can be shown that this career involves one *committing aggression*. Now clearly, our concept of causation here has to narrow; otherwise, almost everyone who is not a hermit is an aggressor, since we all use public roads, public mail, eat food that is certified by the government, fly on planes inspected by the feds, etc. So if you are not careful, then we all have to simply commit suicide, as simply by living, we are committing aggression. Such a conclusion is obviously absurd and counter to common sense. Any suggestion that you have to “justify” your career choice given such criteria would be tantamount to a death sentence, which is clearly adding injury to injury. Therefore, whatever the criteria are, for identifying what particular jobs are getting dangerously close to aggression and thus require justification, the criteria have to be narrow, and moreover, there is no presumption that one has to “justify” his job.
I would agree that some things one does are aggressive; but when it comes to “being part of the system” the very problem with having a state is that it is impossible to lead a “lily white” life. If you say there is an obligation to do this, it’a akin to outlawing guns, because if you do it only outlaws (and criminals) will have guns. Likewise, this standard would mean that ONLY the morally scrupulous are going to follow them and harm themselves by not partaking of the state-involved society which is the fault of their non-libertarian neighbors; and in fact, the more statist they make society, the worse off the libertarian would become, because the more careers etc. they absorbed into the public function, the less “safe” things there are left for libertarians to do. Suppose I’m a telephone line repairman, have done it all my life; one day the state monopolizes it. I suppose I have an obligation to quit and starve my family rather than be a technician for the new state run telephone company.
In this case our fellow man has doomed us to live in a state-run world, one in which we cannot help but be compromised if we want to survive. My personal view is it is unwarranted to claim that libertarianism itself requires someone, just because he is libertarian, to add injury to injury.
I wrestle with this issue a lot. I’ve applied for patents, even though I think patents are statist; I’ve approached Canada’s Business Development Bank, because private banks seem incapable of financing anything other than second-rate ideas that will maintain the status quo; I apply for Canada Council for the Arts grants on a regular basis.
What I won’t do is take any job by which I will be doing direct work for the government, or ever take welfare–even though I’ve suffered through many days during my life where I could not afford to eat anything.
I may be a halfer-hypocrite…
It’s strange that you phrase the question the way that you do: “Should Anarchists Take State Money?” As far as I’m concerned, the answer is “of course!” Take as much as you can! The more money you take from the State, the less money the State has to do its Stately things with.
Of course, you shouldn’t change your behavior so as to be an agent of the state in order to feed at its trough — but that’s not how you phrased the question.
Anarchists and libertarians could stand to do a little more hand-wringing about whether they should give the state money. Tax resistance is not a particularly difficult path to take (even without breaking the law and without signing on to some loony legal theory — see The Picket Line for instance), and it surprises me that so many anarchists and libertarians, with such integrity and bravery in their keyboards, still sign over huge sums to the State they’d like to think they oppose.
I am currently getting my Ph.D. at a public university in Bioengineering. In academia in the fields of science and biology the majority of work is funded by government money. A researcher is considered somewhat worthless until he/she gets a grant from the NIH or NSF. It is pretty sick. This is forcing me to have a career only in private industry after I get out of here- which I can’t wait for, but I have been struggling with being paid by government money for now. It’s hard, but I try to think that what I get paid now will be taken from me with taxation throughout the rest of my life. Also, another issue I’ve had is my advisor recently asking me to apply for a fellowship from the Dept. of Defense- at first I thought it would be terrible, but then I thought about how I would be taking money to do a very useful project dealing with curing diseases, instead of the money going to fund evil militarist projects- like David just mentioned above. I think Ayn Rand commented that it is ok to accept something like government loans/grants as long as you publicly express that you are against them under normal circumstances. However, circumstances are not normal, but here is my public display of dissatisfaction with taking gov money!
The problem with the hypocrite is not that he
engages in behavior that he castigates in
others. Rather, the problem is that he does not
acknowledge his own moral deficiency in the
matter. Thus, a married man with a mistress can
consistently argue that adultery is wrong, so
long as he admits that he is not sufficiently
strong enough to abstain from activities he knows
to be wrong. (It should be obvious that the
truth of a moral claim does not depend on the
fact of compliance or non-compliance by its
advocates.)
Rothbard’s point, that certain occupations
(doctors under national health care, policemen
under State judicial monopoly) are not
*inherently* anti-libertarian while others
(fractional reserve bankers, IP attorneys,
concentration camp guards) are, is certainly
valid. However, a State-sponsored libertarian
*is* a libertarian who acquires property in anti-
libertarian ways, regardless of the nature of his
occupation. So, we can ask whether that
libertarian’s sin is one of weakness (admission
of a failure of will power in avoiding behavior
he knows to be wrong) or hypocrisy (obscuring the
fact of his own sins by focusing on the wrong-
doing of others).
It seems clear enough from much libertarian
literature that there is great delight in harping
on the short-comings of others (e.g., opposition
to Walmart or “free trade”) while remaining
silent on the failures of many libertarians to
live up to their own standards (e.g., being an
academic at a tax-funded university, or working
at a think tank like ARI that opposes “foreign
aid” for all countries except Israel). So, I
think many libertarians can fairly be called
hypocritical, although of course this detracts in
no way from what is true in libertarianism.
Dan
Mahoney is right that “It should be obvious that the truth of a moral claim does not depend on the
fact of compliance or non-compliance by its advocates.”
I do not know if his distinction between the nature of hypocrisy and being weak-willed is sensible, but it seems to be; what is flawed IMO is his application of it in particular cases. In particular, his assertion that “being an
academic at a tax-funded university” and “the occupation of IP attorney” are “inherently anti-libertarian“.
And that, therefore, any self-proclaimed libertarian who is also one of these things but who does not acknowledge that they are weak and unable to refrain from such anti-libertarian profession is a hypocrite.
In the case of IP: Mahoney lumps “IP attorneys” in with “fractional reserve bankers” and “concentration camp guards”. I’m glad to see Mahoney condemns concentration camp guards (and presumably concentration camps), but it’s so
obviously out of place to equate IP attorneys with Nazi thugs so as to not require elaboration.
In any event, re the morality of acquiring patents or practicing IP law, I’ve discussed this topic previously: The Morality of Acquiring and Enforcing Patents and Letter to an Anonymous Patent Attorney.
Suffice it to say here that “being an IP attorney” does not *necessarily* mean doing anything unlibertarian, even by the unforgiving standards. An IP attorney may specialize, for example, in doing contracts and licenses, defending companies from IP lawsuits, and giving IP advice and opinions. Even the mere *acquiring* of a patent cannot be considered unlibertarian, any more than buying a gun is; a patent, like a gun, can be used for good or evil. No libertarian can deny that a company sued for patent infringement is unlibertarian if it countersues for patent infringement using one of its own patents; i.e., uses patents defensively only.
Whether it is unlibertarian to initiate a patent infringement suit against another company is a bit more complicated. First, we must realize it is the client, not the IP attorney, that sues. The IP attorney is no more responsible for the suit than is the Kinko’s down the street who does some document exhibit copying for the plaintiff; or the company’s receptionist. Second, almost every defendant in a patent suit *supports the existence of IP laws*. The same could be said of antitrust law. I do not feel very sorry for a company hit with such suits that is run by people who support the existence of such laws, any more than I feel sorry for Democrats for being taxed so much. I wish they would be taxed more … if it would not mean more money in the state’s hands. So, I would favor raising taxes on Democrats and redistributing the money to libertarians. Just as not all force is bad, not all tax or IP or antitrust suits are bad. It depends on whether the victim is innocent or not.
Now some think it is anti-libertarian to be an attorney per se–I met some insane Objectivists one time (or do I repeat myself) who maintained that.
It is also not clear why Mahoney thinks it is obvious why “being an academic at a tax-funded university” is clearly anti-libertarian; it certainly is not. At the least a libertarian professor may be viewed as gaining restitution from his oppressor, the state.
It seems obvious to me that it is not so obvious what “occupations” are “clearly” “anti-libertarian”. I prefer to think that if I am wrong about this, it is not because I am weak-willed, but just stupid.
Well, considering how many lawyers rely on tort action to make their living, I’d bet that most of them discourage their clients’ lawsuits about as often as welfare recipients discourage welfare programs. So yes, I’ll continue to blame lawyers much more than I blame the Kinkos that photocopies legal documents (seems pretty unethical & unprofessional to attempt deflecting accountability in such a way–but then that’s what lawyers are trained like barking seals to do). Furthermore, I say bring back the original 13th Amendment that was robbed from America’s interests by those Revolution-era traitors who made underhanded demands about their laughable right-of-entitlement pretense.
“I think Ayn Rand commented that it is ok to accept something like government loans/grants as long as you publicly express that you are against them under normal circumstances.”
If that statement is accurate then she was an even bigger dill-hole than I had surmised.
I would like to offer an apology to Stephan
Kinsella for my remarks on IP attorneys, and I
appreciate his clarification on the matter.
Whether something like IP attorneys would coexist
in a private property order with, say, teachers,
it is perhaps not as clear as I thought. One
thing seems clear, though: both occupations as
they currently exist owe their income to State
action to very large extents, and libertarians
in these professions should not pretend
otherwise. Arguments along the lines of, “two
wrongs can make a right” do not change that basic
fact.
(In truth I share much of Kinsella’s lack of
great concern for this particular issue, but in
the interest of clarity it deserves to be pursued
and Bob Murphy is right to bring it up.)
Again I apologize for giving any offense.
Dan
Thanks Dan, and sorry for the misunderstanding. I quite agree that most IP lawyers and public teachers are hypocrites in the sense that they won’t admit that their exact profession would not exist but for state intervention. I do not disagree Murphy was right to bring it up, it’s an interesting topic.
Vanmind is confused however when he says, “Well, considering how many lawyers rely on tort action to make their living, I’d bet that most of them discourage their clients’ lawsuits about as often as welfare recipients discourage welfare programs. So yes, I’ll continue to blame lawyers much more than I blame the Kinkos that photocopies legal documents (seems pretty unethical & unprofessional to attempt deflecting accountability in such a way–but then that’s what lawyers are trained like barking seals to do).”
To attack lawyers per se is simply a symptom of a naive, rube-ish view of the world. It’s on par with assembly line workers always bitching about about “managers” and “engineers” and people with “desk jobs” who only “push paper”; or with hating lawyers because Congress is mostly lawyers–hey, Congressmen are mostly white males too, why not hate all white males?
Anyway, as a matter of fact, lawyers routinely do try to talk their pigheaded clients out of wasting time and money on lawsuits largely driven by emotion, pride, etc. But clients quite often stubbornly and irrationaly insist that a meritless lawsuit go forward, or one where there is a quicker, simpler, cheaper, more rational solution.
Bob,
“A second issue is a bit more subtle: When moderate Americans hear of an-cap professors berating the existence of the State, while they work for the State, I think two things happen. (A) They think, “What a hypocrite! These ivory tower academics need to get in the real world before redesigning society!” And (B), they think, “Our government is so open and tolerant! It even employs academics who call for its abolition! I’m so glad I live here and not under the Taliban.”"
So? Neither of these “arguments” is a valid objection to what the professor is advocating, as I think you know. So what exactly do you hope to accomplish with folks who aren’t reasoning validly? They’re as apt to misconstrue anything you do.
“To attack lawyers per se is simply a symptom of a naive, rube-ish view of the world. It’s on par with assembly line workers always bitching about about “managers” and “engineers” and people with “desk jobs” who only “push paper”; or with hating lawyers because Congress is mostly lawyers–hey, Congressmen are mostly white males too, why not hate all white males?”
Both my parents are lawyers and I have to say, I strongly disagree with some of the stuff they have done. For instance, my dad and I were talking about a Supreme Court case called Pruneyard(sp?) in which it was decided that grocery stores had to allow political activists access to their property so they could give out political information to customers. My dad told me that he disagreed with the decision BUT he said he actually used the decision in that case to force a grocery store to allow access to a political candidate he had as a client. I told him I thought that was absolutely ridiculous. Fortunately, he is not doing anymore political work now.
Politicians too, for sure, aren’t given enough slack. “Don’t lump us all in with the bad apples” is a valid response. The rumours are true, yes, that even some nuns are as scummy as the worst scum. Spooks are usually nice people once you get to know them.
For lawyers, such gross, unfair prejudice seems to stem from a Shylock-derivative syndrome. Those two fictional characters made all usurer/lawyer teams look bad, when–for anyone who knows how to interpret the words of Shakespeare with accuracy–Shylock was the clear victim of the story, his lawyer only drafted a standard flesh-for-money contract, and Portia acting as sagacious legal counsel saved the day in the end.
So, now that we modern wonderkind understand who can be considered a villain, or a hero, or who is victim, victim, always victim, what can we do to eliminate the pretense of entitlement that afflicts too many within the latest generations of the legal profession? Such a chronic, endemic, emotional illness–incubated during the treasonous Revolution-era days when the original 13th Amendment became a murdered relic of US history–seems these days to have festered into a general ethics-cancer for the profession:
“You will refer to this court as ‘Your Honor’ or you will be placed behind bars. You will put your hand on an arbitrary book and swear allegiance to an arbitrary entity or you will not be considered a valid human being in the all-seeing eye of this court. You will yield your strategic legal planning to arbitrary members of our lower-ranked lawyer plebes or you will become swamped with ridiculous volumes of arcane and dead languages that are preserved to enable us a pretense of specialized wisdom.”
I hope the response “F*ck that” becomes common parlance.
LoL Vanmind
The key issues are intent and foreseeability.
The professor who chooses to work at a state school when private alternatives exist is making a conscious choice to be subsidized. The professor at a private institution with some subsidized students cannot control whether these students opt to receive subsidies. He can only control whether he himself is subsidized.
The technician in a nationalized phone company likely had no role in the decision to nationalize the company. He could not have foreseen that his employer would be nationalized, and thus he is not at fault. He certainly should seek honest alternative employment if he is to respect his neighbors and their property.
Fiat money, forced payment of taxes and public roads are examples in which no realistic alternatives exist. There is not intent to harm others. Anyone can think up scenarios on which refusing to use public services is better in the long run, but these arguments are highly subjective and are dependent on a complex series of events which may or may not come to pass.
For this discussion, I think it best to hold libertarians accountable to basic common law principles of liability, such as intent and foreseeability.
I am not sure I understand what Rothbard means by “those actions that would be perfectly legitimate if performed by private firms on the market�. Collection of revenue would fall under this definition.
If it were not for the Texas public school system, I would not have my job. The money taxed from property owners across the state goes into their hands and most of them have contracted with the Texas Association of School Boards to exchange that money for a variety of services. Even worse, TASB’s central legislative mission is the unrelenting defense of government schools.
Since my division works to pool risk and instruct the school administrators and employees how to avoid injuries and accidents in order to save on insurance claims, I have no doubt in my mind that in a proper an-cap society, this function would be fulfilled.
I sat down with my immediate supervisor a few months ago and let him in on my “dirty little secret”: I was an ardent libertarian who has stated many times on my public website that I want education 100% privatized and out of the hands of the state. I figured it was best to let him know before he discovers it through an angry and concerned phone call from a member, conjuring up scary images of “an anarchist working for us” or some such nonsense. He was taken aback but didn’t think that this would be a problem as long as I remained in my current position and didn’t allow my opinions to taint my work, which they don’t.
But he made it clear we’d have to re-evaluate our position should a promotion become available (really, the only path possible in my current division) to be a travelling safety consultant doing inspections at facilities across the state. I’m taking work-related classes at St. Edward’s University, a private college in Austin. I don’t know if I’ll be at TASB when I graduate in five years, but I know that I don’t want to live through the upheaval of changing jobs right now. Heh, I just bought a house and am in closer contact with the state (permits, property taxes, deeds, restrictions, etc.) than I ever like to be.
I get this asked me a lot being openly anarcho-capitalist and a member of the military. Even in our dream world, private production of security would take place, and some form of military would operate somewhere under certain conditions. The better question is “does my participation lead to different results than my non-participation?” If i wasn’t in this position, someone else would be.
Furthermore, the military is dominated by political and moral conservatives. Its just a divide between soldiers who are openly supportive of empire vis a vis the neo cons while many others are hesitantly supportive, and others secretly or openly opposed. I try to use ever opportunity to be a voice of reason for other soldiers, one that would not be there otherwise. Whether my actions are marginally anymore effective than shunning the institution of course are debatable, but it is at least my contention that as long as ones direct actions were not specifically coercive (as in me personally killing, maiming, etc) then I am only degrees closer to ‘evil’ thank someone working at a government school, or using government resources. Therefore, for me, the ‘degrees from coercion’ are arbitrary, while ones actual actions in whatever position they hold determines the morality and practicality of working for the State.
To Charles: is it not true that you provide services to people in Texas that were coerced into accepting such services? Just because workplace risk management would be done in a hypothetical free society does not mean that your particular services would be contracted for. We do not know whether you or someone else would win in the market place at the price you are currently charging.
To Peter: you are providing me with military security service. However, I did not agree to receive this service from you. The money taken from me to pay you was taken involuntarily. I fail to see how you advance an-cap principles by continuing this arrangement. Again, military security would be provided in free society, but not necessarily by you and not necessarily at the current price (which is obviously not a market price). What difference does it make to me if you are more skeptical of empire building or mismanagement than others would be? My property is still going into your pocket, regardless of any secret opinions you hold or persuade co-workers of.
I don’t get this line of reasoning. Someone could just as easily argue that the mafia collects garbage, garbage would be collected in an an-cap society, therefore I may work for the mafia and be paid with mafia-extracted proceeds. Shouldn’t people who oppose coercion refrain from assisting the mafia/state by contributing their labor services to it?
In a property-based society, I think theft victims would be due compensation for the state’s theft. Charles, Peter and all state employees should be held liable for their intentional decision to work for organizations which they could reasonably foresee would pay them in stolen property. This stolen property should be returned to its rightful owners because it does not belong to Charles, Peter and the other statists.
Let me first apologize: I am spending a lot of time lately watching my newborn, and so I can’t carefully read everybody’s posts. Thus perhaps my response will not do justice to all of your subtleties. In any event, let me try once more to explain my position, because I’m sure I’m not being entirely clear:
What troubles me is the quick dismissal by many libertarians of the whole notion that it might be hypocritical/illegitimate to work for the State. (E.g. whenever this comes up Walter Block always asks me, “Do you use public roads?” as if that’s the definitive retort.) And yet, the arguments by which this is apparently proven–that the State intervenes in education, reducing private sector jobs, and that there is nothing inherently aggressive in teaching–would also allow just about every current recipient of tax money to justify his or her behavior.
E.g. people who get welfare checks could say, “The State’s public school system, heavy regulations, and minimum wage laws make it impossible for me to find work. I’m a victim. And there’s nothing wrong in accepting charity. So I am not at all a looter when I take tax money to fund my lifestyle.”
I could do the same for recipients of farm subsidies (tariffs hurt farmers), gov’t grants, etc.
So to continue with my example of Block, he has certainly in his writings and speeches castigated “welfare bums” who live off stolen money.
For a final example, in this LRC article I responded to Jonah Goldberg, who thought he had demolished naive libertarianism by first arguing that it’s OK to use force to stop a friend from committing suicide, and then extrapolating and saying it’s thus OK for all of us to hire a police officer to do it.
In response, I said that the crucial difference was that the policeman raises his salary through coercion, and that the taxpayers can’t say whether they really value his services for the money he receives.
Now, in the present context, many libertarians would have to tell me I’m dead wrong. The fact that the policeman lives off taxpayer money isn’t inconsistent with libertarianism. Rather, it must be that the cop in question (a) engages in inherently aggressive behavior (such as enforcing drug laws) and/or (b) in some way endorses/promotes the State, beyond his mere working for it.
Don’t misunderstand: Maybe this is what I should have written in response to Jonah. But guess what? At the time, I don’t think a single libertarian chided me on this. No, I got a bunch of emails congratulating me on whupping that silly Jonah real good.
So what I’m basically saying is that libertarians often have one set of principles and arguments that apply to their opponents, and another set that apply to themselves. It doesn’t mean their support for the latter and hostility for the former are misplaced, it just means I think they need to be more careful when explaining their stances.
Kennedy,
Ah, we battle again. (I see you have constructed a new light saber.)
So? Neither of these “arguments” is a valid objection to what the professor is advocating, as I think you know. So what exactly do you hope to accomplish with folks who aren’t reasoning validly? They’re as apt to misconstrue anything you do.
You and I have a difference in outlook on how to promote liberty. I want to convince the masses; you want to wait for an entrepreneur to invent a portable hole that can be deployed whenever a government agent approaches.
My approach requires appealing to the people who watch the Jon Stewart show. And if I ever were a guest on a show like that, and he (or a caller) asked me, “If the gov’t is so bad, why did you work for it for 10 years?” then no matter what I said, I would lose credibility with the audience.
“You and I have a difference in outlook on how to promote liberty. I want to convince the masses; you want to wait for an entrepreneur to invent a portable hole that can be deployed whenever a government agent approaches.”
While I think you have your heart in the right place, I think that your strategy is just about as likely to work as Kennedy’s. I’m pretty sure there are more believers in anarcho-capitalism today than there were 20 years ago, but it is still very much a fringe movement. The mythological underpinnings of the state are still around, and they don’t appear to be going anywhere soon. Nontheless, I think that if the time does come when ancap could come to furition, the theories being developed behind it now could prove to be very important.
Henderson — Your focus on my wages-through-taxes is exactly the point I was trying to make. Personal actions lead to the moral or practical kosher-ness, not faults of the institution at large. Utilizing Block’s example of road usage, would I be immoral if I used roads that are paid for through taxes? Compared to a person who doesn’t use any roads and stays on their property all day, would I, as a tax-funded road user, be less moral? And even if I stayed in my house all day, but purchased items via the internet and they were delivered via roads or their manufacturing was done by someone who used a public road once, or one employee of that company who was on welfare once or had a guaranteed college loan, would I be more moral in choosing to buy a product from a company without such an employee? Indeed, evaluating the morality of indirect actions becomes very problematic.
peter,
Using a public road is not theft because you didn’t choose to have the state build the road. You did choose to collect a paycheck directly from a criminal enterprise. This is an “actual action” in your words. So I think you should be held liable for an intentional act of participation. This distinction between intentional and unintentional is not problematic at all.
“I’m pretty sure there are more believers in anarcho-capitalism today than there were 20 years ago, …”
Only because a number of people pre-disposed to it but unaware of it became aware of it through the internet. Over three years ago Bob was willing to bet me that in five years (from then) 1% of the population of America would be ancap. We did not bet because we couldn’t come up with a suitable metric, but I think it should be clear to Bob by now that his prediction was wildly over-optimistic. He was speaking at a time when anti-state.com had experienced tremendous growth, but that explosive growth was ending as he spoke.
This is an old article that I found, and I felt I must comment.
Henderson has brought up a very valid (although shortsighted) point regarding no alternative existing for public road transportation.
What you are implying here is that no alternative or choice exists in the realm of our road system. However, it is clearly not the case. As Mises stated in many of his writings, there is always a choice involved in action. Likewise, in choosing to drive on and utilize a public road, you are thereby making a choice between two alternatives. Using the road system that is available or not doing so. It is certainly the case that an individual can choose to walk (you could even move to make this more probable) to work or anywhere else. You could also choose to be a hermit and live a self-sustaining life. So, it seems, your argument boils down to one of mere convenience. Sure, it isn’t convenient to walk everywhere or live a hermits life, but those are clearly choices, choices which most individuals find too problematic to choose.
It is safe to say that, philosophically, all libertarians in modern society are committing “aggression” in order to live a decent life, a life dominated by the state.
Comments on this entry are closed.