“The Child Labor Amendment Debate of the 1920s”, by Bill Kaufman (Auburn: Mises Institute, 1992)
Few causes are so shrouded in sanctimonious mist as the movement, early in the twentieth centuly, to abolish child labor. Sympathetic journalists and historians dubbed it “the crusade for the children” and depicted its foes as avaricious manufacturers.
Some self-styled “child savers,” especially the women novelists and inveterate reformers of New England, were sincerely concerned about exploited children. Others, however, intended to reconstruct the family and install “government as overparent,” to use the words of Colorado Judge Ben Lindsey. Opponents of the Child Labor Amendment, far from being the calloused plutocrats of legend, included noted Progressives, urban Catholics, and thousands of farm families. They prevailed against the amendment, even if the goal of banning child labor later took the form of legislation.
The fight over the amendment highlighted the growing breach between
those loyal to Jeffersonian America and those who sought to
concentrate power in the grandest overparent, Washington, D.C.
{ 42 comments }
Child labor laws (or lack of them) becomes one of the principal arguments that anti Wal-Mart advocates use against the retail giant, saying that Wal-Mart and its customers encourage child labor in such places as China, just because the company sells cheap Asian goods. It is nothing more than a crass appeal to emotions, the same kind of fallacious argument as used back then in the 1920s to raise simpathy for the amendment.
Unfortunately, crass emotions is what sways people, not logic. It’s well known among psychologists that if you want to really convince people, don’t appeal to their logic and common sense, appeal to their emotions (or the raw reptilian part of their brain).
That is why envy is such a powerful force against things like free markets and property rights in general. Envy is a raw, crass emotion that can manifest itself in such extreme forms as Soviet communism.
Posts like this remind me why libertarianism is a morally bankrupt ideology.
depicted its foes as avaricious manufacturers.
As opposed to what? Are you going to argue that they were happy do-gooders who gave children lollipops and whose good intentions were tragically misrepresented by the awful liberal press? They were looking for the cheapest, most exploitable workers who would maximize their profits, for God’s sake.
You people have taken from economics the theoretical assumption that people are selfish rent-seekers and turned it into the glorification of greed. That is the essence of your failed ideology.
What’s next? A libertarian defense of child prostitution in Thailand?
What irony.
Child prostitution is often what results when you ban child labour.
I see your irony and raise:
Child labour is often what results when you ban child prostitution.
Ask these questions of the next person who declares to you that Wal-Mart must be boycotted, because of the child labor allegedly being exploited in Chinese factories:
Oskar: Unless you refuse and have been refusing to buy any products made in India, China or several other non-western countries that may sometimes employ child labour, you are seeing our irony and raising us with your own hypocrisy.
Libertarian ideology is not morally bankrupt. It just asserts that individuals should not be coerced to do things with their own property that they do not wish to do, and should not be restricted from doing with their property what they wish to do with it. It amounts to disallowing encroachment on property.
Other ideologies have not cornered the market on morality; it’s just the opposite really; they advocate violence and compulsion against property for their own pet purposes. That makes them unethical. And that makes them immoral.
Answer me these simple question:
Are/were Child Labour Laws good?
Should every state enforce them?
Should some states enforce these laws on others through trade regulations?
What I would expect from a libertarian is a “No,No,No”.
There are many ways to fight child labour but you have deliberately proposed the weakest and most time consuming way: selective boycott.
It’s obvious that I, a consumer, do not have the necessary data to make a moral choice with my purchase. Furthermore, I can not expect from every person in the world to spend their time researching which companies to avoid.
Yet you are unable to see that the obvious solution in the case of such an information overload is centralisation, in this case: government oversight over trade and import regulations. But more government would be first order EVIL, wouldn’t it?
You libertarians are fundamentally unable to see that in very specific cases the democratic government can be the tool for greater good. The most uncontroversial case are environmental regulations, anti-mobbing regulations. But because of your paranoia you are unable to admit that such cases do exist.
You are furthermore unable to see that if one takes away the state from these areas, the vacuum is immediately filled not by the utopian equality of all players, but by the domination of the most powerful private entity. Take away the tyranny of the state and you get instead the tyranny of a private body. That’s the unfortunate way the world works, not every who has power is a libertarian.
I’d rather stick with a democratically elected government, which owns no property but regulates it.
Oskar Shapley,
Banning child labor, or the products therefrom, may be a good thing, all else being equal. However, there are consequences to every action, and those who think it an unadulterated good thing to try to regulate such activities in China, India, or Thailand never address these consequences, so sure are they in their moral superiority.
Children, historically, have been used by their parents as labor for a number of reasons, but the most important was survival of the parents and the children. If you are going to ban child labor, you must deal honestly with the consequences of such an action. The wealthier a society is, the less need there is for child labor. Indeed, the wealthier the society, the more beneficial it is to have the children educated rather than have them work for wages.
Correct Yancey, Children in the third world who labour do so to avoid death by starvation, a fate the children of the west do not much risk facing these days.
The question the statists persistently fail to ask when it comes to child labour laws is why do developed nation’s children not starve when they don’t go to work, and yet third world nation’s children do? Or do they care only about child labour, and not about child starvation?
Since they never ask the question, they never get to the answer. What is the answer to this apparently irrelevant question? The western nations developed enough wealth and productivity of labour to be able to keep their children home, and yet remain well supplied with material goods. Why? Because people in the west were able and willing to save and invest in capital, which increased the productivity of labour and raised the well-being of the entire nation. Why? Because individual liberty and property was respected. Why? Because people had the wisp of an understanding that if you allow the government an inch of encroachment on your property and liberty, they will take a mile and stifle productivity and prosperity. Therefore, they put more effort towards and they were more successful than most at restraining their dangerous governments. We do not need to send our children to work because we kept our governments RELATIVELY in check. Not because some righteous politician came up with child labour laws.
As western governments chip away at our liberty and our ability to remain productive, they may one day reduce us to where we send our children to work for survival. And there will not be one little bit some asinine labour law will be able to do about it save from having us all shot. This is why advocates of child labour laws have nothing but a veneer of morality on the surface of their immoral desire to tell people whether they can work or not and whom they can hire in a voluntary fashion.
You libertarians are fundamentally unable to see that in very specific cases the democratic government can be the tool for greater good.
Correct. I am unable to see how if I am unable to detect any violations of the rights of children in China, and Wal-Mart is unable to detect these violations, and their parents do not think the childrens’ rights are being violated, and the children almost certainly do not feel that they are being violated, that somehow a “democratic government” will be able to detect these violations, and then miraculously correct the violations with some kind of scorched-earth policy of trade embargoes, search and seizure of transported goods, high tariffs, or perhaps war and conquest.
Come now, Oskar – you are no less intelligent than anyone in your government, you have a computer, you have internet access, and you can get in contact with many thousands of like-minded activists. Why don’t all of you do a little bit of work and tell me, exactly which factories, and which products? Also, please tell me by how much you feel the chidlren are underpaid relative to adult workers in the same industry, what is their rate of sickness and death compared to non-working children, and most of all tell me whether the children themselves are behind your campaign. Because I would really hate it if you and your “democratic government” somehow overreacted and caused more harm than good, through ignorance and miscalculation.
Child labour is often what results when you ban child prostitution.
It can never work that way. Prostitution is labor. It’s a last resort labor – since you always have private ownership of self. Remove the opportunity to get a real job and prostitution will be the only choice left. Since you seem to advocate eliminating both you are really for child starvation.
The reason the children work in such places is only because it’s their best choice. Should your magical democratic government step in to help, you will most likey find some children having indeed higher wages. At this point you will pat your self on the back – oblivous to the silent majority who will neither work nor prostitue – but just starve to death.
Oskar wrote:
“Child labour is often what results when you ban child prostitution.”
You have it backwards.
Why is it that the morality of child labor was never an issue until Western society was productive enough to have one or two wage earners support an entire household? It is my opinion that no child labor is preferable to child labor, but this option is only possible because of the capital accumulation and subsequent increases in wealth that Western society has gained for the past several centuries.
It seems like there is a certain level of moral snootiness implicit in standard arguments against child labor. The proponent’s basic belief is that given the options, no child labor is the morally correct option. The correctness of this belief is irrelevant though because many in this world do not have that option. Their error is in arguing that since they’ve decided child labor is morally wrong given their situation, all child labor is wrong regardless of time and situation. This basically means that the world has been living in sin since the dawn of history.
I just don’t think it’s fair to make these moral arguments until non-Western countries have developed enough to allow such option to be available. You can hold your belief, as I do, that when given the option, no child labor is better that child labor. Taking away additional revenue streams for impoverished families is not how we can create these options for lesser developed countries. It inhibits their ability to add to their capital structure and create conditions for greater prosperity.
To illustrate this, could you imagine American homesteaders refusing to use child labor? The kids would just wait in their log cabins all day while their father struggled to find enough food to feed them all because, by God, child labor is immoral and he has to do it all himself? It’s because of the work of homesteading families and the work of many other families that we are now prosperous enough to have this option.
Fighting child labor in foreign countries through the government only decreases the per capita wealth of the families who most desperately need whatever revenue they can get. Furthermore, it inhibits the economic progress that would eventually allow them to keep their children home.
Opposing the political conditions in the US that impede this process is the most effective way to decrease the amount of child labor. Just think of the audacity of many liberals who argue against out-sourcing (providing additional income streams to relatively undeveloped nations) and child labor (removing even more income streams in these nations) only to then complain that the Western world isn’t doing enough to raise the standards of living in these nations.
And ours is the morally bankrupt ideology?
Good point on the out-sourcing/child labor view inconsistency, Jon. They like to meddle and control. The reason they like to advocate third-world tax-payer funded charity is because this invokes further elements of coercion. The more compulsion they can inflict on the luckless, the happier they are. The negative results of these actions are not an issue for them at all.
Just curious: At what age do you believe a child is old enough to send into a coal mine without any respiratory protection?
BTW The reason I say “without any respiratory protection” is because that is because the belief here is that OSHA regulations are just more government meddling in private enterprise, right?
So – you are not morally bankrupt. What age is it OK for you and I to send our children into the mine shaft?
Idaho:
Tell us first the right age for a child to starve to death. When you let us know, we can get back to the question of moral bankruptcy.
You’re missing the point. Is it better for children to mine coal or starve? I know that’s a tough one. Just think about it. Certain death vs. a pretty good chance at getting by.
To answer your question Idaho, it’s up to the parent to make that decision. It’s not your decision, and it’s not mine. I can understand why kids at one point worked in coal mines. I also understand why in the US, the supply of and demand for child labor in the coal mining industry would be non-existent, and it’s not because of the laws that have been passed.
We don’t live in a perfect world and there are no perfect solutions. We’re offering long-term solutions that we think will create the best possible world. There’s nothing utopic about it. Get off you moral high horse and try thinking a little more thoroughly about these issues.
I hope that’s satisfactory. I would like to ask a question in response. Is all child labor immoral? Mowing? Lemonade stands? Should farmers be allowed to use their kids in the field? Keep in mind that farming is one of the top ten most dangerous occupations in the US. If you answer that none of these things is acceptable, at least you’ll be consistent. However you’ll also be claiming that mankind has been cruelly exploiting children for almost the entirety of history.
And while we’re at it, I have another question. How can we best address the conditions that create the supply of and demand for child labor. We hold that best and only way is through the market system. That means private enterprise coupled with voluntary charity. If you want to truly engage this issue on those grounds, be my guess. I like a good discussion. From what I can tell, you just want to throw out pithy statements/questions that just try to over-simplify things.
Yeah, Paul beat me to the question.
I at first wanted to respond to some comments by people, but anything I wanted to say and more has already been posted. Good job, guys. (Paul, Jon, etc.)
Maybe I’ll just take it a step further… do we want our children NOT to work?? Isn’t it actually bad for them to grow up learning to live without lifting a finger for their own good? Does this not instill in them an attitude of priveledge, that they should be handed what they want?
I think we have too much of a Disney attitude about children in this nation; that they should be sheltered from the realities of life until such a late age. I read an interesting article about some of history’s most accomplished figures, many of whom did more before the age of 18 than most people do in their entire lives today. Children are stronger and more intelligent than they are usually given credit for, and to waste their developmental years on a lifestyle that does not put them in a position of learning to pull their own weight does harm to them.
I’m not advocating back breaking labor, unless that’s what one has to do for a living. I just don’t think children should be cushioned and coddled to the point that they think the real world sucks when they finally have to make their own way in it.
No actually I threw that out because you guys seem to see things in such black and white terms (e.g. all government interference with business is bad).
Agreed that child starvation is bad, and that given such a stark choice work would be preferable. On the other hand, you’ve also shifted the to subject generally safe work, such children mowing lawns and selling lemonade.
Nothing wrong with children (and I’m talking about US kids, because that’s what the original article is about) learning a work ethic by tossing newspapers or whatever. I agree 100% with Alan on this point.
But back to the point, I have a 2-1/2 year old girl who just learned how to sing “jingle bells”. Do you think she’s ready yet, or should I wait a while longer? Do you think her employer should be required to protect her from the well-known hazards of the job or not?
You’ve said that it’s up to me to decide when to put her to work then? Is she then my *property* (or human tool) to care for or dispose of as I see fit? If not, how shall we determine when she’s ready to decide for herself?
Should she be allowed to keep her earnings, or do I confiscate them (or a percentage of them), because she’s my progeny, and incurs certain living expenses? Or is she entitled to keep 100% and spend it all on suckers, because it’s her labor that’s earning the money?
Do you think that *US* children are better off with (or without) the option of working as ‘breaker boys’? BTW I love these ivory tower cavalier academic discussions of what *could* be some child’s brutal reality.
FWIW I will guarantee that I’ve shoveled more coal and ash than any of the doofey intellectuals responding here…
Idaho:
We come from opposite assumptions regarding the family and the state. My assumption is that in general the family is the best source of advice to rely on to make such decisions as about when to work and why; and under what conditions. I say that grossly inept parenting is the exception, and diligent honest caring and beneficial state assistance is also the exception. I will always place my bets on the family, parents and free markets over the state, coercion, compulsion, legalized theft and violence.
My bet is that you would help your 2 1/2 year old daughter to eventually make a better decision of when and where to work than some state bureaucrat or federal administration ever could or would. Your assumption is that there are many inept and uncaring parents out there and that the children need state protection from these dangerous people. I’m not with you on this assessment.
Presently our own government is torturing detainees and saying it is ok and burning to death others with white phosphorus and saying that is ok. They regularly kill civilians with bombs and bullets and call these crimes a “tragedy”. They will meddle with lives until they extinguish them. And then they will want to meddle some more.
These are not the people i want controlling my life or yours, or telling me when it is ok to work. Frankly, i would rather swift justice could be served to them. But they are the justice system and so i don’t hold my breath.
If libertarians appear to see things in black and white, that is because they have a set of very clearly defined principles which help them to discern the difference between an idea that will have a lasting beneficent affect on our lives, and an idea that sounds good superficially, but will have a lasting deleterious affect on our lives. These principles, when applied to questions of the state, are very useful in choosing the consistent, and (I think) correct path in matters of the state. Every issue is different and requires detailed analysis and discussion. But the principles of liberty and property (i.e. Justice) must be applied consistently, and when they are the conclusion is always the same: invoking the state to solve problems is playing with fire.
Let me ask a few questions that I can never seem to overcome.
In this whole discussion, I am perplexed by our tendancy to assert a child’s “free will” in various matters. Above, the idea was put forth that child prostitution is the last resort for children unallowed to work. Now, perhaps a 10 or 11 year old might make such a free choice, but I just can’t see the 5 and 6 year olds who are often in prostitution in these situations making such a decision. The fact of the matter is that they are sold in to prostitution by parents.
Often these parents make this decision not because they have been kept form work or because some represive government has negatively effected the economy in such a way that work is illegal, but because they have debilitating and expensive addictions (gambling, drinking, drug abuse, etc.)
In such a case, and such cases are numerous, any assumption about limiting a child’s free choice is simple foolishness. The child in such an instance has NO choice.
Furthermore, let me ask what boycotting does that is harmful? A practical example of the positive effects of labor protest comes in the form of Mary-kate and Ashley’s line of make up. It was being manufactured in India largely by women, and women’s right’s groups organized a protest with the express purpose not of ending the manufacture of the product, or to end the employment of women, but to change standards. They succeeded. So we must ask ourselves if there is middle ground in the international child-labor issue. I’ll freely concede that child labor may well be a harsh reality in third world countries, but companies from a nation that espouse “human rights” do not need to pay the lowest wage possible with the lowest work standards imaginable. Such things do not need to be realities. Many companies, such as Mary-kate and Ashley, hold themselves to higher standards. As a result of protests, they enacteds several improvements for labor, one of which was the recognizing of maternity leaves.
Anyway, I’m afraid I began to ramble here, but the question remains. Can we so blanketly condemn Child Labor Laws in the face of obvious and numerous examples of agregious violations. For instance, in the case stated above, about children working in coal mines without resperatory protection, why not require companies to provide such protection to children if and when child labor is required? Why draw such hard lines in an area that so adversly effects so many people? How do we claim to protect the rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness while maintaining the rights of greedy corporations to destroy human beings who often act not out of choice, but of necessity?
Oh, and Paul I also wanted to get from you an explanation of the nature of the ownership of property. This is an element of libertarianism that perplexes me. How do we maintain the right to personal property (and specifically I refer to the ownership of land and natural resources) while rejecting the “initiation of force” when it is the initiation of force on the part of the government which has secured the land in such a way that the right to owning it may be recognized by the government? I don’t think I have shot a hole in your belief system by any means, but how do we simulateously hold a firm view of the social contract, reject the initiation of force, and maintain the private ownership of land and nature resources? Any clarification would be helpful.
Hi Aaron:
I can promise you if you grep in mises.org and lewrockwell.com you will find better answers than I am about to present, but I don’t mind giving my meager rendition:
“In this whole discussion, I am perplexed by our tendancy to assert a child’s “free will” in various matters. Above, the idea was put forth that child prostitution is the last resort for children unallowed to work. Now, perhaps a 10 or 11 year old might make such a free choice, but I just can’t see the 5 and 6 year olds who are often in prostitution in these situations making such a decision. The fact of the matter is that they are sold in to prostitution by parents.”
The simple fact is that it is very unnatural (not impossible) for parents to not care for the best for their children. There are libertarian means of dealing with unfit parents that do not involve restricting the property rights of struggling yet caring families. The state is just not qualified for the job.
“Often these parents make this decision not because they have been kept form work or because some represive government has negatively effected the economy in such a way that work is illegal, but because they have debilitating and expensive addictions (gambling, drinking, drug abuse, etc.)”
To what extent government repression influences this currently is debatable, but the fact that the condition exists, suggests the remedy is to remove the child from this environment. I simply advocate private means.
“In such a case, and such cases are numerous, any assumption about limiting a child’s free choice is simple foolishness. The child in such an instance has NO choice.”
I agree, given the scenario, the child has the right to private protection. We agree on the end. The question is means: private or state action.
“Furthermore, let me ask what boycotting does that is harmful? A practical example of the positive effects of labor protest comes in the form of Mary-kate and Ashley’s line of make up. It was being manufactured in India largely by women, and women’s right’s groups organized a protest with the express purpose not of ending the manufacture of the product, or to end the employment of women, but to change standards. They succeeded. So we must ask ourselves if there is middle ground in the international child-labor issue. I’ll freely concede that child labor may well be a harsh reality in third world countries, but companies from a nation that espouse “human rights” do not need to pay the lowest wage possible with the lowest work standards imaginable. Such things do not need to be realities. Many companies, such as Mary-kate and Ashley, hold themselves to higher standards. As a result of protests, they enacteds several improvements for labor, one of which was the recognizing of maternity leaves.”
Boycotting is a wonderful free market activity. It says “I value something over your low price, high quality goods and I as a free individual am expressing this by abstaining from buying your good in an effort to influence your ethical, but in my view, immoral behavior.” If society agrees and boycotts with you, or the person you are attempting to freely influence agrees, then you are all home free. It’s cool. On the other hand, it is wise to keep in mind the potential affect the boycott will have on those whose lot you wish to improve. If the fact of the market is that a higher wage will put poor people out of work, you may have accomplished the opposite of your goal.
I condemn labor laws because like all laws invoked by the state, they inevitably, and in all cases, lead to the opposite results of those desired.
“Oh, and Paul I also wanted to get from you an explanation of the nature of the ownership of property. This is an element of libertarianism that perplexes me. How do we maintain the right to personal property (and specifically I refer to the ownership of land and natural resources) while rejecting the “initiation of force” when it is the initiation of force on the part of the government which has secured the land in such a way that the right to owning it may be recognized by the government? I don’t think I have shot a hole in your belief system by any means, but how do we simulateously hold a firm view of the social contract, reject the initiation of force, and maintain the private ownership of land and nature resources? Any clarification would be helpful.”
I’m not sure if I got a real grip on your question, but I’ll take a swing anyways: Homesteading, adding ones labor to property, gifts, and buying, are the only ethical means to obtain property. Only individuals can homestead. States simply arrogate property to themselves by decree or by confiscation. Property is directly connected with the non aggression axiom. Un-owned property is first homesteaded. After that it must be either abandoned and homesteaded again, or given away or sold to be owned by anyone else. In all of this, no aggression needs to or can take place. It is all voluntary. The state, by its nature and definition, by its one distinguishing feature from any other social apparatus, is coercive. To function, it must take by force or threatened force. If an entity does not do this one thing, it is not a state.
I should qualify that a state claims a monopoly on coercion. Otherwise, i’m just describing a common criminal aren’t i. Funny that.
Aaron,
No real libertarian will write that boycotting should be outlawed, or even that it will always be ineffective. Indeed, it is a free-market activity as long as state action is not used or is the ultimate goal of the boycott. I can imagine an almost infinite number of scenarios in which a free-market boycott is useful, I just don’t want to use violent coercion to enforce it. Outside of that, all I really want from boycott organizers is some real honesty when discussing the possible consequences. An earlier commenter claimed that libertarians see everything in black and white, but the truth seems to be quite different.
Well, I see Paul beat me to it, and more eloquently at that.
Some good posts on this subject. Just wondering, how many of you have been to a third world country, where the majority of families live on less than $2/capita/day, and the income of a 6-year-old child is extremely important to the survival of the whole family?
Paul,
For clarification can you explain how one homesteads land which is taken from those who did not want to give it away? Specifically here I am thinking of native americans, who were forcibly removed and allowed homesteading to occur. I understand where you are coming from and appreciate your attempt to answer my question, but isn’t it really the force that the government represents, or the threat of force that prevents someone from infringing on my property or has allowed me to own land now that was once taken from someone who did not wish to volunteer it?
For instance, if I were to set up a chair in someone’s front yard, it is by threat of force – fine, law suit, arrest or specific force by the land “owner” – that I would be coerced into leaving. In nature, there is no inate ownership of property, and in society the same rings true. Ancient Israel had a system of “jubilees” in which land and possessions were always “given back”, indicating that they never really belonged to any person. Similarly, the native americans rejected in many ways land “ownership” and we used Locke’s arguments about the right to property to rationalize genocide.
How do these matters factor in, or don’t they?
Aaron:
Consider my answers to be my two cents worth. How some of these questions would really be decided i would guess would be put to private libertarian courts of law. But here i go swinging away again anyway:
“For clarification can you explain how one homesteads land which is taken from those who did not want to give it away? Specifically here I am thinking of native americans, who were forcibly removed and allowed homesteading to occur.”
Using my definition of homesteading, in the past it would not have been feasible (libertarian or ethical) to homestead land which was stolen. On the other hand, there may be debate over whether having walked or ran over a piece of land, from time to time constitutes homesteading either. But the courts would have to decide.
“…isn’t it really the force that the government represents, or the threat of force that prevents someone from infringing on my property or has allowed me to own land now that was once taken from someone who did not wish to volunteer it?”
I think it will be helpful to separate the two issues. 1. protection of rightfully owned property. 2. how to deal with stolen property. For the former, the state has arrogated to itself the monopoly in deciding cases of and protecting property ownership. This service can be provided more equitably via private courts. For the latter, it was with the support of a violent state that individuals were enabled to infringe on native property. Private libertarian courts would take each infringement case on the basis of a concern over property violations, not from the state’s coasian “optimization” view.
“For instance, if I were to set up a chair in someone’s front yard, it is by threat of force – fine, law suit, arrest or specific force by the land “owner” – that I would be coerced into leaving.”
Yes, the difficulty is in synchronizing on our terminology. What we want is non aggression. What is aggression: initiation of force. The term “initiation” is what distinguishes aggression or coercion from simple force. We can and sometimes must use force to defend our property. The aggression came when you put the chair in someone’s front yard. You aggressed against their property. Therefore you are rightly forced to leave (not via a bullet in your head though). If you were able to keep the chair on their front yard against their will, you will have succeeded in coercing them to acquiesce. It is intricate wording but I think you’ll agree it is quite important.
“In nature, there is no inate ownership of property, and in society the same rings true. Ancient Israel had a system of “jubilees” in which land and possessions were always “given back”, indicating that they never really belonged to any person. Similarly, the native americans rejected in many ways land “ownership” and we used Locke’s arguments about the right to property to rationalize genocide.”
Unless we put humans outside of the realm of nature, I think it is hard to argue that ownership of property is unnatural. It is because of man’s natural ability to reason, that he understands the need for ownership in property. The Hebrew Scriptures are full of implicit acknowledgements of property ownership. God gave gifts of property to individuals often. On the question of genocide, there is no logical way one can use Locke to justify the theft of even a ten dollar watch, let alone the murder of the entire Native American nation.
History is just crammed to the brim of examples of state action that results in wars, mass murders, genocides, tortures, thefts and grave injustices. All performed on a massive scale. In contrast, my understanding is that the private citizens who originally landed in America did friendly business with the natives, paying for land and services. Contrast that with what was done to the Native Americans under the power of the American state, and you will see just another instance of the history of the state repeating itself once again.
Paul,
This is good. I feel like we’re narrowing the funnel and understanding each other more perhaps. Our terms certainly seem problematic. I’m not sure how we are talking about the “initiation of force.” For instance, I hear professors at my university (which was voted one of the top ten most conservative in the nation) argue that taxation (income taxes, etc.) constitute or require an initiation of force. However, in what way is the government not simply applying force in order to enforce the social contract? What makes the difference between initiation and appropriate application? Who decides what is what and when and how does this look in a practical political context?
Cool.
“…professors … argue that taxation (income taxes, etc.) constitute or require an initiation of force.”
I agree: it is aggression because it is expropriation against a non-aggressing person. What contractual obligation did the tax-payer explicitly enter into, or not live up to that should result in this expropriation?
“However, in what way is the government not simply applying force in order to enforce the social contract?”
Social contract is a deception. Contracts are something that people actively enter into only willingly or voluntarily. We have been hoodwinked into believing that we have contracted with the government and have an ethical obligation to pay taxes and they have agreed to provide services for this. There is no such contract and taxation is simply coercive and unethical. We pay taxes because we don’t want to go to jail or be shot. We would not voluntarily pay for or contract for the “services” our governments presently render us. Not at government prices.
“What makes the difference between initiation and appropriate application?”
Both parties agree to the contract without one being at the wrong end of a gun. After that, according to the agreement one has a right to satisfaction if the other does not live up. Otherwise it is fraud or at least implicit theft.
“Who decides what is what and when and how does this look in a practical political context?”
A free market in police, courts and defense would answer that. No coercive monopolies allowed. Also, look for articles by Block and Hoppe. But really there are so many. Here’s something I have handy.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/molyneux3.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/molyneux2.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/molyneux1.html
Thanks man. I’ll check that out. I have some more concerns, but I’ll save them until I’ve read that stuff. Thanks again.
Aaron
At this point Paul, I think I’m going to have to just respectfully disagree. Any notion that a social contract is a deception must inherently invalidate the constitution (a contract between the government and people which I did not agree upon), and I cannot accept such a thing.
The truth is that only in theory can we say that the social contract is a deception. It is an argument of words that lacks authority because there is no absolute definition of “contract” or the role of government that exists in a place we can look to for firm answers.
In this, I offer my ultimate objection to libertarianism and anarchism – namely that it’s arguments are only self-fulfilling – they start with themselves and end there too, allowing the arguer to gaurantee any result as a sure thing. Furthermore, they rest heavily not in the authority of a particular source, but on the thoughts and philosophies of enlightenment thinkers whose hopeful modernist ambitions for the perfection of humanity and society have failed.
The truth recognized by the US Constitution is that government exists for the purpose of securing my life, liberty and property in a way that private organizations like the ones in your articles simply could not. As a result, I have a simple choice. I may recieve the services of the government – protection, property (I am unconvinced that ultimately our right to property is not secured by the authority given to the government by way of force), liberty and various other services like the security of the society in which I live by the preservation of essential laws and the provision of essential needs.
The private police and court systems described in your article do not sound like liberty, but like a 19th century futuristic novel – something from Wells or Orwell.
I ultimately can simply not accept a system that has an unrealistic understanding of humanity, the nature of business/the private sector and the need for at least some minimal form of democratic government.
CLARIFICATION:
I forgot to put the second element of my choice. I can leave the state or I can protest with words or actions.
This may sound like “love it or leave it,” but it is not. Essentially, you agree to the social contract everytime you wake up in this nation. It works something like a resteraunt. Upon entering a resteraunt the owner can say to you politely that you are to either order or leave. Now, upon walking in, you did not agree to any such a system, but you presence there obligates you to their rules (such as that or any number – no shouting, dress codes, etc.)
Whether we admit it or not, it is by means of the government that I am able to live here in Indiana. My home is located where the Miami Indians once “home-steaded” and my right to live freely has been consistantly defended by the United States government by means of diplomatic and militaristic action. My liberty and ownership of property, as well as my use of roads, access to education, assurance of fair trial, etc. is preserved by that same government. Any enjoyment of such services is an implicit agreement to the social contract.
As long as I am in the resteraunt, drinking the water, I have to follow the rules. Any appropriate measures taken to enforce those rules are warrented, so long as I stay in the resteraunt. As long as I leave it, and it’s subsiquent protection (walls, ceiling) and services (food, water) – I am no longer obligated.
We must all act, and expect others to act in a way that is consistant not only with our particular needs, but with the common good. Government is, in my opinion, not only the best, but the only means by which to secure and require such action of each individual.
Aaron:
I am glad we can agree to disagree on such friendly terms. Until your last two posts, I didn’t even realize how far apart we were. It reminds me of the discussions I have had in the past with my best friend. At one point I merrily thought I was persuading him of the merits of Austrian thinking until one day I found out he was a hardened Keynesian. It seems funny now, but back then I didn’t appreciate him thanking me for the help I gave him to solidify his understanding of economics.
I will part this discussion with a slightly tangential response to your statement that “…only in theory can we say that the social contract is a deception.” To quote Rothbard from MES, “…the dichotomy between “theoretical” and “practical” is a false one. In economics, all arguments are theoretical. And, since economics discusses the real world, these theoretical arguments are by their nature “practical” ones as well.”
When something is theoretically true, use caution when refuting it by arguing that it is only theoretically true.
Aaron and aaron. You two have very similar names.
Aaron,
Paul linked me to the very same Molyneux essays in an earlier thread, but I had a slightly different take on them than yours. I think they may be workable, and even better than the present state, I just don’t consider them really private or necessarily benign. I think it a state- or social compact- of another type, and still, potentially, malignant. I don’t think there are easy solutions to the problem of limiting government, and that the anarcho-capitalists’ approach amounts to trying to define the government out of existence.
Yancey:
Often i think that the problem anarchists have with connecting with non-anarchist libertarians is coming to an understanding and agreement on what actually constitutes a state in the first place. It is very important for us to come to an agreement on what a state is before we can discuss it very thoroughly.
By my view, the state is a geographically based and coercively enforced monopoly on such services as courts, police, defense, roads and insurance where funding for these services is provided by taxation (theft), extracted under the threat of violence. Its services are provided on a coercive basis.
Just why do i argue that the services presently provided by the state can be provided by the free market, and that those enterprises involved in providing such services would not become states? The crux of it is this: they would not and could not demand a coercively enforced monopoly on the services they provide. No such monopoly or right to this monopoly would exist. People could compete, and choose to buy from the competition in any and all of these services.
By using the definition of the state that i am advocating (it’s not my creation), which i think is a highly useful one, we can see that it is not necessary to have a state to have the services the state presently provides us. It is not necessary or useful to define as the state, any enterprise that provides such services when these services are not monopolized on a coercive basis.
Defining something as a state, even though it does not maintain a coercive monopoly on the services it provides is, in my view, a counterproductive and useless construction. It renders the discussion of how to provide necessary defensive services (involving use of force) through the free market as futile by definition, since if implemented at all must be implemented by a state apparatus.
Paul,
Of course you are right that we must agree on a definition of the state. Let us suppose that my chemical factory pollutes your well water. You sue me in a private court and are rewarded a judgment of 10 kilos of gold (after all, we do agree on the value of hard money:^). I decide to ignore the judgment. You are just out of luck in an anarchist society, in my opinion. The private insurance companies in Molyneux’s essays may try to make my life difficult, but if I don’t yield, you are just screwed. In such an example, to get me to pay would require escalating coercion that would, at some point cross into violent coercion, depending on my level of recalcitrance, and your persistance to gain restitution. In other words, we would still have to be ever vigilant to ensure that these “private” entities did not resort to violent coercion, if we wish to preserve are anarcho-society. This requirement of vigilance is what leads me to define Molyneux’s ideas as a state of another type, though less violent than the one we have now.
However, even if I don’t agree with you that we can achieve the anarcho-capitalist ideal, we agree on the direction to go.
Comments on this entry are closed.