Why Statists Always Get It Wrong
In this article I identify a problem statists face on an everyday basis when discussing philosophy and politics. It is easy to make nice equations and formulas, and theorize on great systems and cheap solutions neatly enforced by the state. But when consistently failing to realize the costs of coercion it makes their reasoning fundamentally flawed. Just scratching the surface reveals they really have no clue whatsoever. FULL ARTICLE
Comments (65)
The "as long as they get double the value" argument is also another attempt to quantify utility (in this case, but only measuring the *expected* financial cost vs. the *expected* financial benefit -- ignoring psychic & emotional costs).
If we accept this premise that force is justified as long as the monetary benefit is double the monetary theft, it would be logical to argue either of the following:
Ultimately, if force is required to complete a "transaction," it is axiomatic that the victim feels the transaction is not in their best interests. If the value if truly twice the price, it should not be difficult to acquire customers through persuasion vs. coercion.
Published: February 19, 2006 5:43 PM
I agree with all that Bylund says, but would go even further. Even if the costs of coercion could be somehow reduced enough to defend a tax funded program on the basis of costs/benefits, the argument is still broken because it assumes that the party collecting taxes will actually use the money to produce public goods. There is nothing in the theory of public goods to suggest that people who would normally try to free ride will change their ways and start producing public goods once they are empowered to tax others.
Published: February 19, 2006 6:01 PM
See The Law of Bitur-Camember, which shows that "double the value" isn't.
Published: February 19, 2006 6:30 PM
Milstead's reasoning is certainly muddled, but perhaps that's what you should expect from a guy who calls himself libertarian and yet spends his time shilling for various taxes, including a carbon tax:
http://www.holisticpolitics.org/GlobalWarming/
Published: February 19, 2006 9:21 PM
I don't even know why everyone in the libertarian community is jumping all over Milstead. Frankly, I don't think it is worth our time. His site Holistic Politics is a real hoot.
Published: February 20, 2006 2:54 AM
Yes, these sort of ideas would also hardly represent a stable solution, even if they were implemented: The original concept would degenerate under bureaucratic friction etc. Systems need to pay their own way to survive...
What would be interesting is to look at how to get from a state system, as we have now, to a free market system. Which systems would be eliminated first, and which last. To me, the state's armed forces would have to be one of the last to be removed, and there are some (arts grants?) which could be removed immediately with little consequence?
Published: February 20, 2006 5:11 AM
You see, Brett, this "dismantling the state" idea is a bit of a fantasy as well. We can all say how it would work, but who is going to do it? Surely you've seen enough of Beltway Libertarians to know what will happen. The trouble with engaging in the political sphere is the expectation that you have to have some alternative "solution", where not intervening isn't allowed. Emergent order is never an option, because that isn't what government is about.
I don't think activism is going to get anyone with libertarian or anarchist ideals anyway. The only likely possibility is a cultural shift, rather like that of the 18th century. We know that if the government loses support, it will collapse, so the chief objective is to try and help such a cultural shift along.
Government is dead in the water as far as helping human progress is concerned, and making enough people realise this is the way forward.
Published: February 20, 2006 6:50 AM
Sorry, I meant "I don't think political activism is going to get anyone with libertarian or anarchist ideals anywhere" - it's a bit clearer what I meant.
Published: February 20, 2006 6:52 AM
With libertarians like these, who needs statists?
Published: February 20, 2006 9:31 AM
I agree with the idea that statists are always wrong. I also agree that given the example, the forced tax isn't even enough to pay for its "collection." However, the example used was a poor one since national defense is a legitimate (moral) activity of a national government. If the author had used the example to talk about wheat subsidies or any of the plethora of social programs, I would have been fine.
It comes down to this... National Defense, Police, and the Courts are legitimate governmental activities because they serve the government's sole role as "Protector of Individual Rights."
As a Constitutional Republic, the use of retaliatory force (except immediate self-defense) is delegated to the government. It is not realistic to think one can have an effective national defense if it were paid for by those who voluntarily chose to do so. A national defense costs serious money-- and there's no way around that.
And I don't want to hear any pipe dreams about, "But if we didn't interfere overseas, no one would ever attack us!" The British policy of gunboat diplomacy kept the world a peaceful place for a very long time.
Back to my point... if the government was ONLY supporting the courts, police and military spending, any rational person would be fine with their taxes and there would be little resistance. For those who want to try to opt out, they should feel free to do so-- and the government would be free to pursue them in civil court to collect their user fees.
Now for the part that's bound to make many readers upset... the way that I believe taxes should be apportioned is by a real estate tax system. The logic for this is that the more you own, the more you have to protect, and therefore the more you should reasonably expect to pay to have it protected.
Those who do not have much (and are often the people who resist paying taxes) would be taxed so little (if at all), that "force" would not really come into it-- that might have a tax lean placed against their real estate but that's about it. And that would not be enforced until sale of the property or death of the owner, where the courts are involved in certifying the legal transfer of the property (oh, and yes, it is a good thing for courts to keep real estate records as recoding of legal contracts between citizens).
A final thought... this is the only article that I have received from the LvMI that has caused me to disagree so far. I did not know that the anarcho-capitalist viewpoint was one espoused by Austrian economics. Capitalism is supposed to be the state of perfect balance between the extremes of anarchy (individual thuggery) and despotism (group thuggery). The viewpoint expressed by the author strikes me as leaning heavily towards the anarchist position.
Published: February 20, 2006 9:56 AM
Eriks: nicely put.
The question I was trying to address was: "What makes a government "legitimate." I developed the criteria:
1. The benefits went to the taxpayers
2. The value given was at least twice that which could be provided by the open market.
And yes the mises.org (and lewrockwell.com) folks are pure anarchists. If you want to connect with freedom-lovers who want to actually shrink the state instead of fantasize about its spontaneous elimination, go to www.ReformTheLP.org.
Tom O'Neill: You deftly attack a straw man. My argument was value for money, not money for damages.
James: Your argument has some legitamacy. If government doesn't limit itself to such public goods, then it is indeed immoral. But be forewarned: you have allowed a practical consideration to enter the argument. As long as we are arguing practicality, let us ask the question on whether non-state armies will behave. History says NO! It is a rare thing indeed for an anarchic society to be anything close to libertarian. In well over 95% of the cases (in civilized lands at least) anarchy has lead to pillaging, slave trading and outright war. Most instances of anarchy have been less libertarian than a modern Scandinavian welfare state.
Published: February 20, 2006 10:51 AM
I agree with Eriks. I would like those who do not think national defense is a legitimate state activity to explain how the private market would supply such a good.
Published: February 20, 2006 11:06 AM
Carl: "What makes a government legitimate?"
The criteria you propose could be used (much like the Interstate Commerce Clause) to justify most anything. Can you imagine the bureaucracy that would result to determine "government cost vs. taxpayer value"?
Government is an institution that results from the delegation of the use of force (retaliatory only) as a society. It is not a question of legitimizing the existence of government, it is only a question of proving that a particular government activity is legitimate within the government's sole role as protector of individual rights.
The costs of national defense, police and courts cannot be "compared" to the private sector because the private sector has no ability to use force of any kind. One can certainly choose to use private courts (arbitration or mediation) and private police (security guards, etc.), but none of those options can use force. It is only the police that can arrest and detain criminals. It is only the courts that can enforce a judgment.
I know that anarchists attack the concept of "The Rule of Law" as arbitrary or improperly forced upon unwilling people. The question is not whether the Law is a good thing, it is only a question of whether we have good laws.
As a closing note... it was interesting to see yet another "Reform the Libertarian Party" web site. The thing everyone seems to miss is that the LP is rotten at its core-- specifically because it has not core philosophy. It treats "liberty" as a self-evident axiomatic concept without the need to base that claim with a valid metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics.
As an alternative, I suggest www.AynRand.org, www.DrHurd.com, or www.Rattigan.net.
Yours in Reason,
Eriks
Published: February 20, 2006 11:08 AM
I agree with the idea that statists are always wrong.
...and...
However, the example used was a poor one since national defense is a legitimate (moral) activity of a national government.
Eriks, how can these two statements be reconciled since they contradict each other. Your first statement says that you believe the idea represented in the second (that national defense is the prerogative of the state) is always wrong.
Maybe what you meant to say was "I agree with the idea that all statists with a different brand of statism than my own are always wrong, since my version is the only true version of statism."
Published: February 20, 2006 11:11 AM
The average person likes,wants, and demands government. The desire was probably hard wired into the brain by natural selection.
Published: February 20, 2006 11:17 AM
Brian, "Check your premises!"
You seem to think that a government military is a statist thing-- yet you provide no explanation of this odd assertion. Please explain why you this defense spending is a statist program.
For your convenience, I'll point out a few points:
I look forward to your reply...
Published: February 20, 2006 11:37 AM
billwald: "hard wired?"
Nothing is hard wired into a human brain beyond the recognition of pleasure and pain. Anythig else violates tabula rasa.
The reason people "want" government has much more with their desire to be protected from violence (force) than anything else and to have recourse when one's rights are violated.
Published: February 20, 2006 11:40 AM
Government is an institution that results from the delegation of the use of force (retaliatory only) as a society. It is not a question of legitimizing the existence of government, it is only a question of proving that a particular government activity is legitimate within the government's sole role as protector of individual rights.
Who is this "society" entity that is doing the delegating? Why is it that your institution has been deemed the only legitimate protector of individual rights? Can the individual not protect his own rights?
The costs of national defense, police and courts cannot be "compared" to the private sector because the private sector has no ability to use force of any kind.
Once again the first response must be Why? You say private individuals have no ability to use force. Does this mean that it would be impossible for me defend myself since, as you say, I lack the ability? Or do you mean to say that it is illegitimate for me to use force to defend myself? But then why is it legitimate for someone else to do it for me? How can I delegate a task to someone else if I am not allowed to do it myself? What is the mystical "legitimation" process that occurs when I delegate my (non-existent) right to protect my self?
One can certainly choose to use private courts (arbitration or mediation) and private police (security guards, etc.), but none of those options can use force.
...and...
It is only the police that can arrest and detain criminals. It is only the courts that can enforce a judgment.
These two also don't make sense together. If a private court is not a "court", and private police are not "police" then why do you call them by the same name? By your language it is perfectly acceptable for a private court to enforce a judgement since "only the courts can endorce a judgement." They are both courts. If not, why not?
Published: February 20, 2006 11:40 AM
You seem to think that a government military is a statist thing-- yet you provide no explanation of this odd assertion.
Government (in the sense of a territorial monopolist of "protection" and "justice" with the power to extract payment for its "services" by force) implies a state. A government military is then a state military. How can this NOT be statist? If there is a difference please explain. What is the difference between a state military and a statist military?
"Anarchism is the idea that there should be no government. . .This amounts to the view that every man should defend himself by using physical force against others whenever he feels like it, with no objective standards of justice, crime, or proof." --Leonard Peikoff
Not exactly, anarchism is the idea that there should be no coercive STATE (in the sense described above). Anarchy means simply: "without rulers". Anarchy in is this sense does not imply chaos and lawlessness.
Published: February 20, 2006 11:55 AM
Brain nails it i think.
Published: February 20, 2006 12:14 PM
Brian i mean. :)
Published: February 20, 2006 12:15 PM
I think that minarchists are confused between violence, and the initiation of violence. The former can be a justifiable means of defense for anyone. The latter, known as coercion or aggression, is not justifiable for anyone, not even the state. However, it is because the minarchist allows the state to commit aggression and coercion through taxation and yet inconsistently they do not allow the private citizen this same right that they get confused. It is because the minarchist confuses justifiable defensive violence with unjustifiable state aggression, that they do not see that defensive violence by the individual and agents hired by him, as justified.
Published: February 20, 2006 12:35 PM
The Objectivist fantasy about some kind of a minimal state somehow magically not expanding -- as if praxeological laws didn't exist -- is quite amusing. Even more amusing is the outright hypocrisy of stating on the one hand that the initiation of aggression is wrong (something Rand states), and on the other hand that somehow the State is justified (the State being an entity which, by definition, inmitiates aggression). So, if that's the way you're to go about things, you might as well just be a Utilitarian.
To clarify something to those who keep on asking about how the free market would provide national defense, the key point of anarcho-capitalism (or pure libertarianism, or propertarianism) is about ethics. It is immoral to steal, to initiate aggression against anyone. Now, no-matter what the consequences of not initiating aggression may be, it is wrong to initiate aggression.
Of course, libertarians also argue that a pure libertarian society (anarcho-capitalism, propertarianism) would also be the best society. As for how such a society would provide for national defense, I refer the reader to Hoppe, Hans-Hermann. Myth of National Defense, The: Essays on the Theory and History of Security Production.
Published: February 20, 2006 12:44 PM
"What would be interesting is to look at how to get from a state system, as we have now, to a free market system."
- Brett
"The trouble with engaging in the political sphere is the expectation that you have to have some alternative "solution", where not intervening isn't allowed."
- Nathan
Brett did not limit his expressed interest to political action. We will eventually go from a state system to a free market system. I share Brett's interest in how we will do that. It may happen through violence and mayhem in some World War 3 or 4 or 5, or it may happen through the slow growth of communities which find ways to immunize themselves from... specifically, from the expectation that uninterested parties (like Murray) will pay for something that interested parties want. I am doing what I can to build such a community, and I expect that it will survive WW3 or 4 or 5.
"It comes down to this... National Defense, Police, and the Courts are legitimate governmental activities because they serve the government's sole role as 'Protector of Individual Rights.'"
- Eriks
"I agree with Eriks. I would like those who do not think national defense is a legitimate state activity to explain how the private market would supply such a good."
- Alex
I refer you to the actions of the colonists near the end of the 1700s. People want freedom and protection from tyranny, and they will often pay for it with their lives.
"Anarchism is the idea that there should be no government. . .This amounts to the view that every man should defend himself by using physical force against others whenever he feels like it, with no objective standards of justice, crime, or proof."
- Leonard Peikoff
Leonard is famous, but he did not consider very well the implications of eliminating "archy" or "sanctioned coercion." The term "anarchy" has been hijacked. Perhaps it would be more useful to talk about "allowing people to refuse to pay for things they claim not to want." That DOES NOT amount to whimsical use of physical force.
"What is the mystical "legitimation" process that occurs when I delegate my (non-existent) right to protect my self?"
- Brian
I agree with Paul Edwards that Brian nailed it. I just wanted to provide the answer to his question: The mystical legitimation process is agreement. Apparently, if you can get enough people to agree with you that brutality is ok, then that makes it ok. It's the foundation of democracy after all!
I wanted to point out something about our hero Murray that Per missed. Let us assume that Murray would profit double from his expense if only he were to *ignore his economic conviction* and willingly give up the $5000. Statists think this is great because they have no respect for the school of hard knocks. Murray's conviction should kick him in the rear - if it is wrong. That would make him a better person. How long does it affect you when you are prevented from making a free choice based on your conviction?
Published: February 20, 2006 12:58 PM
David: You're making the same mistake as Marxists do. You're assumig that "given the chance" people would act in their own best interest (i.e., rationally).
The way one restricts the state from growing in a proper Constitutional Republic is through a well-written non-ambiguous Constitution-- which is upheld consistently.
What, under your premises, would be the result/response to a 9/11 style attack by a hostile non-domestic power bent on the destruction of freedom?
What, under your premises, would have been the proper course of action for America with regard to World War II? (My premise here is that Hitler posed a clear and present danger to the people of the United States and our very soverignty as a nation.)
Under this anarcho-capitalism, what am I supposed to do when a business fails to pay its debts to me if there is no court of Law to enforce contracts? Am I supposed to send in a bunch of thugs to rough them up till they pay, i.e., Mafia-style?
A government monopoly on courts and police provides for a consistent, objective framework where everyone can understand and depend on consistency. Justice must be blind, not voluntary.
What's interesting is that in many cases, we have the same standards for right and wrong (murder is bad, stealing is bad, etc.), yet you seem to be failing to take into account those very people cited earlier who "choose not to participate." Consciously decideing to "opt out" does not relieve one of their contractual obligations-- and who will enforce said obligations in the absence of a single court of competent jurisdiction?
The proper way to opt-out of a Constitutional Republic is to move out of it.
Published: February 20, 2006 1:03 PM
Just as an aside... I am greatful in a way to those here who are articulating the anarco-capitalist (or whichever work you'd like to use) position as it is helping me fill in some holes in my own theory of the "political map."
I've been bothered for a long time by The World's Smallest Political Quiz as being deceptive and incomplete. Y'all are giving me the rest of what I need to better understand the quadrant of my own map that relates to various forms of "non-government."
Thank you.
Published: February 20, 2006 1:14 PM
Eriks,
Elaborating on the moral position, my point is that you cannot justify the existence of States, since all States necessitate aggression against others, by definition of them being a territorial monopoly for providing the service of protection. This means they have to, by definition of being a State, coercively prevent anyone from competing with them. As a practical matter, every State that has ever existed relies on a combination of taxation and inflation to fund itself, so every State that has ever (and most likely ever will) exist has necessitates mass-robbery as well. It is really no different than a mafia organization. Hence, my flat-out assertion that this entire scheme is immoral; this assertion is irrelevant of any conceived-of consequences if we didn't have a State (which is mere consequentialism, and is morally meaningless).
Now, in the absence of States -- and in the absence of the expectation of a State being created -- people will have to come up with non-centralized, non-aggressive, ways to defend their property and lives. The most likely market-mechanism that would arise to deal with this would be private protection agency companies, the service being paid for by insurance premiums. National defense would be provided for in like manner. Contrary to popular myth, it is not true that defense services cannot only be provided for by those who pay for them.
The idea that a Constitutional system can restrain the growth of the State is flawed. Everywhere that such has been tried, it has failed. Look at the US. There are natural economic laws which give every State an incentive to grow, irrelevant of a few words written down on pieces of paper. Today, the US Constitution is functionally dead. Although it was no beacon of freedom initially -- it actually marks increased centralization over the Articles of the Confederation -- it did place some restraints on the State. However, all of those restraints have been bulldozed over by absurd interpretations of the document, which have naturally been accepted as received doctrine, and are now espoused by brainwashed lawyers as if they came from the heavens.
Regarding the scenarios you pointed out, I'd argue that those situations were caused by Statism and imperialism and the first place, and wouldn't have been faced by anarcho-capitalist socieities. I'd also note that decentralized resistance is an extremely effective mode of resistance against invasion (e.g., guerrila warfare). This is why the US simply could not win the Vietnam war, despite having vastly superior military might to the Vietnamese. Of course, a propertarian society would be much richer than Statist societies, ande would have superior technology to them, and superior defense in that manner.
I'd again refer you to the book on the myth of national defense.
Published: February 20, 2006 1:48 PM
David: You're making the same mistake as Marxists do. You're assumig that "given the chance" people would act in their own best interest (i.e., rationally).
Of course people act in ways which they deem appropriate to further their own interests. You are making the mistake that somehow you can act in their best interest when it is impossible for you to know what that interest may be.
The way one restricts the state from growing in a proper Constitutional Republic is through a well-written non-ambiguous Constitution-- which is upheld consistently.
Impossible. Your uber-Constitution will still have to be interpreted by humans, each of which will have their own ideas about what your piece of paper is supposed to mean. They will also each have their own interests to pursue. Of course, according to you, this is not a problem as long as the interpreters make the same decision you would have. But what about those that disagree or refuse to sign the piece of paper in the first place? Do they cease to be soveriegn individuals that can thus be disposed of?
What, under your premises, would have been the proper course of action for America with regard to World War II?
Stay out of it.
(My premise here is that Hitler posed a clear and present danger to the people of the United States and our very soverignty as a nation.)
I reject both premies. One, and this is off topic, it is not self-evident as you seem to claim that Hitler posed a clear and present danger to the people of the United States. Two, I must reject the concept of "sovereignty as a nation". There is no such entity as a "nation" with its own distinct identity in reality. Sovereignty belongs to the individual not to some non-existent transcendental entity called the "nation", "society", "community", etc.
What, under your premises, would be the result/response to a 9/11 style attack by a hostile non-domestic power bent on the destruction of freedom?
Under this anarcho-capitalism, what am I supposed to do when a business fails to pay its debts to me if there is no court of Law to enforce contracts? Am I supposed to send in a bunch of thugs to rough them up till they pay, i.e., Mafia-style?
These two scenarios appear different but are in many ways the same. Both are instances of agression against property (terrorist bombing = destruction of property, murder; refusal to pay debt = theft of property). The difference lies in the existence of a contract in the later case (non-paying debtor).
The case of the non-paying debtor is easy. Are we to suppose that you have entered into a contract with this firm without some sort of contract stipulating jurisdiction in case of disputes? This seems unlikely considering your strong preference for justice.
For some reason you seem to think that since there is not one monopoly court, there must be none. This is a false dilemma. Surely you are free to contract with any agency specialized in providing the security/contract enforcement services you desire. Most likely the other party to your business transactions will have done likewise. It is the business of these firms to deal with issues just like this.
As for bombings, mass murders, serial killers, etc the same approach could be used. Suppose you have a multitude of protection service providers in the area. It is unlikely that one such firm alone will able to handle the costs involved in apprehending the responsible parties and also make good on its insurance contracts with its effected clients. However it is possible, and highly likely, that all or many of the firms/agencies that share a common interest of preventing large-scale crimes such as a bombing would have mutual reassurance agreements amongst themselves. These contracts and agreements could also be a means of providing resources for the defense against larger scale aggressions (invading armies, etc).
It is not possible to predict the exact institutional structure of the system, or how it would evolve over time. I can however reject that coercion and agression is necesarry in order to defend against coercion and agression.
Published: February 20, 2006 2:23 PM
Eriks, if I may give you another perspective, although David Heinrich has done his usual excellent work already.
For a moment, forget the word "anarchy", because that has lots of baggage. Try, "voluntary association" or, as has been suggested above, "people not forced to pay for what they do not want."
The Smallest Political Quiz is not incomplete in of itself, it just doesn't explain what the two axis are. Both range from total regulation to no regulation, along two arbitrary lines, "personal" and "economic".
Voluntary interaction means that if I don't send a check to the IRS, no one comes hunting me. If I buy a pound of cocaine, I can do so openly without fear because if I'm doing so, the person I'm buying from is selling because *they* wish to also.
The only thing us anarcho-capitalists do is extend voluntary interaction into every facet of life. You and I can do anything we wish to do, so long as the people involved agree.
The reason anarcho-capitalism exists as a term is the corruption of the word "anarchy" to equate to "chaos". Indeed, chaos, death, destruction, rampant violence without responsibility is the antithesis of voluntary interaction.
People interact on completely voluntary terms every day. That we have evolved rules, such as "stop at stop signs", "keep right except to pass", "don't short-change your customers", isn't because someone is holding a gun to our heads. It's because by doing so we ensure that everyone can "just get along" in a social environment. Again, anarcho-capitalists extend and rely upon this "social standard" to demonstrate that, left alone, people do not instantly explode into random mobs of chaos.
Those that rebel against the social standard are few, but important. They are the safety valves, the individuals who provide feedback to the system of tacit agreements, who demonstrate where there are flaws. These "outlaws" have always existed, and allowing people who simply cannot civilize themselves to be "outlaws" is a far more rational and sane reaction than to create an entire massive interventionist state that crushes everyone in a vain attempt to "prevent crime".
So postulate for a moment that there is no such thing as a "court of law". I, a shopkeeper, am going to post that all disputes arising from business conducted in my store will be arbitrated by the Smith&Smith Arbitration Company. I am also going to post that, as a member in good standing of the Underwriters Labs Assurance Group, you can be certain that all products sold have been tested and shown not to blow up in your face if you follow the directions.
The fact is that people providing private security, private arbitration, private product safety, private investigation, all already exist here and now. The fact that the State has declared itself as the provider of "justice" is thereby demonstrated to be a hollow promise. Even after paying the State its pound of flesh, there is still need for efficient, private "justice", because there are times when people do indeed do nasty things to each other. What private justice does not do is go out and prosecute voluntary interaction, unlike the State.
Published: February 20, 2006 2:40 PM
Marx probably got it right: sooner or later, the State will fade away. It's being replaced by a stronger Civil Society as we speak. Expecting things to happen overnight is a fantasy of revolutionary politics.
The viable alternatives are already here. It just needs time to grow.
Published: February 20, 2006 4:08 PM
Nathan (way back,8th comment):
I think the cultural shift in thinking that we are looking for will happen after enough previously state-supplied services (roads, police etc) have been transferred to the private sector that enough people start to think to themselves "why are we still paying high taxes to the government, when all these services are coming from the private sector?".
Published: February 20, 2006 4:12 PM
NuSapiens: Looks like we made sort of the same point, in different ways, at the same time.
Published: February 20, 2006 4:13 PM
Contrary to popular myth, it is not true that defense services cannot only be provided for by those who pay for them. David J. Heinrich.....
David: Suppose there is a 9/11 and the perpetrators (original planners, financiers, etc.) are all holed up someplace in Colorado. Their next attack is promised to be a crude nuclear device exploded in NY City. I live in NY City, but I and others don't pay insurance premiums to the private security firms. Explain to me how defense services can be provided only to those who pay the premiums to the exclusion of myself and others.
Published: February 20, 2006 4:30 PM
Alex,
Quite easily...those paying for these services receive compensation and help (from the private insurers) to move themselves, their families, and their things out of NYC and elsewhere. They also receive compensation to build or live in equivalent houses/apartments in their new locations. Those who don't pay for these services don't receive this reimbursement (that is, they don't receive an insurance payout). Presumeably, also, the insurance companies provide first warning to their paying clients. Non-paying customers presumeably would have inferior access to this information, and would not be reimbursed for abandoning their places of residence.
That's the most rudimentary way. Now, there may be a few additional complications. The insurance companies may take ownership of the abandoned properties, and thus have incentive to defend NYC from the nuclear attack, even though there may be individuals not paying for that service, because the benefits to them of defending and maintaining the property values would be significant.
There are also other ways in which insurance companies (protection agencies*) could profit from defending NYC (note, since there wouldn't be silly anti-trust laws, they could collaborate in the defense of the city for their mutual benefit). Here I have in mind an adaptation of the mechanism that Barta Silas has explained in An Alternative to Patents. Barta proposes that inventors can profit by taking advantage of the price-changes in markets due to new inventions. Namely, they place investments strategically in various goods and companies, then publicize widely their invention, and profit from the price movements. Of course, it is likely that most inventors would sell off this profit-right to hedge-fund companies, under contract not to make such investments in exchange for a fixed-sum payment, thus allocating investment risk from those who may not be capable to bear it (inventors) to those adapt at bearing it (specialized hedge-funds).
I hope that the way in which this mechanism could allow for private protection agencies to profit from national defense would be obvious. Namely, they make investments in financial instruments, stocks, bonds, options, derivatives, etc, that would be most benefitted from a successful defense of the city-area. Having better information on the nature of the threat (and their ability to defend it) than other market-participants, they could take full advantage of this information and achieve abnormal economic profits. Of course, they too may wish to sell off this right (under contractual obligation not to partake in investment) for the same reason that the investor sold off his knowledge of likely future market-changes (because it is not their specialty), and to avoid possible conflicts of interest.
I haven't elaborated on this very much, but it is my hope that with a little bit of creativity, a reader could imagine how such a business model could create strong incentives for corporations to provide defense of geographic areas (possibly even free of charge!**) due to the ability to speculate in the market-place using financial instruments.
* I am lumping protection agencies for domestic crime and those for abroad-attacks together here. Of course, it may be that due to specialization, there may be specialized companies dedicated specifically to protecting against serious domestic crimes, petty domestic crimes, contract violations, and broad-scale threats of foreign attack.
** Of course, a similar framework might also provide for some measure of defense against domestic crime.
Published: February 20, 2006 5:35 PM
Opting out of a constitutional republic. What kind of nationalist b.s. is that? Also, Stefan Molyneux who has written on lewrockwell.com has a great website with articles and lots of podcasts on how anarchocapitalism can and will work and is superior to government. www.freedomainradio.com is his website I invite both minarchists and anarchists alike to listen as his logically rigorous arguments are great to listen to as I would call him the Robert Leferve of our time. And please, when arguing against anarchocapitalist at least address the anarchocapitalists arguments instead of rehashing old arguments. It sounds like many minarchists don't at least read and research the opposition. I was once a minarchist and I never did that
Published: February 20, 2006 5:50 PM
Alex, 9/11 is not the result of an anarcho-capitalist system, it is precisely the result of prior statist intervention in foreign affairs. But let us assume that it occurs anyway: The private insurance companies have every financial incentive to prevent the disaster from occuring, regardless of the breakdown of payments from its clients, or non-clients. The NYC insurance companies will have even a higher incentive to protect themselves.
You're argument basically boils down to a defensive free-rider problem. The Austrians, rightly so, reject the free-rider dilemma as a problem to begin with. By statist logic, if free-riding was such a catastrophic problem then it would follow that open source software needs to be government regulated and subsidized with your tax dollors (including taxes of proprietary software), otherwise some people would benefit from the end result, without having contributed anything at all.
Should the bomb actually go off in any case - the way to exlude you and others would be to not provide you with any service or assistance.
Published: February 20, 2006 6:00 PM
quincunx:
Although perhaps not a part of the economic argument (too hard to quantify), I imagine that the strength of the Civil Society that NuSapiens mentions above would also be a factor in reducing Free Riding? The fact that volunteer organisations are widespread even in the state-dominated system that we have now, would be cause for optimism that free riding would be kept low by social pressure.
Published: February 20, 2006 6:42 PM
Mr. MacMillan, the "free rider" problem is what you are trying to suggest. It has been dealt with time and again, under myriad guises, yet someone always brings it up again with anything and everything from food to roads to water to security. I wish you would just say, "Considering the number of people in a city like NYC, how do you solve the free rider problem?"
You don't. I don't. No one person solves this problem. If building a road is uneconomical because the owner cannot develop a way to fund it that does not deal with "free riders", it doesn't get built. Someone will come along and do so when they *do* have such a plan.
There are indeed many people in NYC, and a threat such as an atomic bomb (of any size) endangers many people. Property owners alone could easily muster the resources needed for a small elite attack force, say "Delta Force, Inc." to find and kill or capture anyone so stupid as to make such a threat.
Now imagine the economies of scale. "Delta Force, Inc." sells subscriptions, to be ready in the case of bomb threats to your building, hostage situations, bank robbery, etc. Such a service would be well funded for a "collective" action such as you describe, and if they're not then it would be simple for them to offer the service "If the people of New York give us $2M, we'll go get 'em!" Either the people of New York would fund them, or they wouldn't, and if not then so be it.
You cannot force people to be smart. The unprepared will fail, and they will take you and your altruism with them when they do.
Published: February 20, 2006 6:42 PM
Eriks,
Leonard Piekoff is well known, and is about the worst standard bearer for Objectivism you can find. Honestly, you can get better Objectivist defenses of government from the likes of David Kelley or Tibor Machan than you can from the rant Peikoff produced in his "Objectivism" book,
"Anarchism is the idea that there should be no government. . .This amounts to the view that every man should defend himself by using physical force against others whenever he feels like it, with no objective standards of justice, crime, or proof."
This is plainly a strawman. Anarchism is indeed the view that there should be no government. In this Peikoff is correct. However, he defines government in agreement with Rand, saying "By its nature, government has a monopoly on the use of force" since Rand said, "A government is an institution that holds the exclusive power to enforce certain rules of social conduct in a given geographical area."
But the logical implication of this is not necessarily that an absence of government means that there is no institution to enforce certain rules of social conduct within a given geographic area. Another logical alternative to an institution with the exclusive power to to enforce certain rules of social conduct in a given geographic area is an institution without exclusive power to enforce certain rules of social conduct in a given geographic area. And so, in other words, the absence of a monopoly in the supply of some good does not logically necessitate the absence of any supply of that good.
In fact, it is Piekoff, and Rand, who thiemselves advocate societies in which there is no institution in existence to keep force out of human interaction, to restrain force, and therefore use it only in retaliation. After all, if a government is an institution with the exclusive power to enforce certain rules of socila conduct, then nobody but the government can enforce those rules against the government. If, as Rand said, an institution ought to exist to keep force out of human relationships, then an institution ought to exist to keep force out of relationships between government and citizen. But if, as Piakoff says, government has a monopoly on force, then there can be no institution able to use legitimate, retaliatory force against the government whenever the government broke the law.
Typical responses to this have said, "yes, well, we still need to know whether what we think is an act of aggression really is before preceeding against anybody." This is true, but so what? This means that we ought to judge the government before we enforce the law against it. But that still implies that we need to be able to use force against the government if our judgment is correct, and so that there ought not to be a monopoly on the use of force. Moreover, it implies the existence of a wholly independent judiciary. And I should also add that this judiciary should also be judgeable, and so a judiciary independent to it should exist, etc. Likewise with any agency of force used against he government.
All this implies that if the use of force is to be kept out of human affairs, there needs to institutions able to use retaiatory or defensive force to keep force out of said affairs. This implies that there needs to be institutions able to prevent those institutions from using force, and so that there must not be a monopoly on the use of force. It also implies that there must not be a monopoly judiciary, but that judiciaries exist within which alternative judiciaries can be judged. But if any of this is the case, then there must not be a government, as Peikoff and Rand define it. It is piekoff who advocates an institution that can use "physical force against others whenever [it] feels like it, with no objective standards of justice, crime, or proof" since he thinks there ought to be no institution able to use force against his, and no institution able to hold his to account in courts of law.
Published: February 20, 2006 7:43 PM
While I appreciate everything that y'all have written in response to what I have said, I am still left with a question to which I have no adequate answer:
While its perfectly legitimate to provide for means of settling disputes in contracts, i.e., arbitration, what about those who refuse to comply with either the contract or the mutually pre-selected arbiter?
As a CEO, I've been through enough contract disputes to know that no one we've ever pursued for a default has ever willingly made good without the threat of court enforcement.
As for competing private courts or whatever shape they may take, that does nothing to provide an objective set of standards by which business is conducted, i.e., what constitutes fraud, what minimum standards must a contract meet to be enforceable, what constitutes coercion versus what is plain bad judgment, etc.
To broaden a bit, how does one establish property rights if differing private courts have made differing rulings about its ownership? What does one do in the face of a massive aggressor such as an invasion by a foreign country? The example of the American revolutionaries is an example of people fighting for freedom-- but within the framework of a government and a military.
I'm not even close to sold on what has been presented here. To use one of my favorite quotes, "If the theory ain't practical, then the theory is crap."
Published: February 20, 2006 8:54 PM
OK, good. And what theory could be less practical than that theory of government to which you cling?
Published: February 20, 2006 9:06 PM
Brian is right.
Erik, I too have read Ayn Rand's work and am sympathetic to much of it. The trouble to watch out for is that (as Kinsella has correctly identified in his critique of the thinking of many engineers) there is a whole body of libertarian and freedom oriented writings pre-dating Rand which she completely ignores. Unfortunately many Objectivists do the same thing and behave as though only the thinking of Objectivist writers, of whom Rand is the first and greatest, is worthy of consideration. This is a terrible and expensive mistake.
First of all, Rand was not always correct. She got things dead wrong on some occasions. That's too bad but there you have it. She contradicted herself on major issues. Here is an example.
Rand said that she was consistently an Objectivist and consistently rational. For her there could be no dichotomy between theory and practice. Despite this, her private life, in practice, was a complete disaster. She wrecked relationships she should have cherished. She brutally injured those she loved. As a result she was depressed and unhappy. Something irrational going on there then. Similarly her professional life was not much better. She built up a movement and became very influential. Then she "purged" her organisation, "exiled" close friends, alienated people who were (or would have been) sympathetic to her ideas and marginalised herself and her message. Something irrational about that as well.
OK. So why do I bring this up? Because I am interested in explaining something- an important point. Rand made mistakes. She neglected important facts. At times she was irrational. This is most important to concede. Having seen this we are in a much better position to analyse her work and also to carefully consider the work of other thinkers and writers. Now instead of judging all we see in terms of Rand, we can analyse in terms of ourselves, our individual experiences and individual judgement. That's something plenty of Objectivists fail to do.
Second point, it is important to read and analyse the works of thinkers other than Rand. So we need to look into Von Mises, Rothbard, Hazlett, Bastiatt, Menger etc. etc. etc. We also need to consider the other philosophers. Here's a question. After reading Kant, could you come to the same conclusion about him as Rand? Really? Could you?
Apologies for these digressions. They're not meant to be personal attacks on Objectivists per se, just some advice.
Returning to the topic at hand.
Brain correctly identifies the issues. It all comes down to initiations of force. Can they ever be accepted? Is it OK for a little bit of stealing so long as it is the government that is undertaking the stealing? Here's my view. The answer is no. Never. In order to be consistent to the IOF principle the answer must hold for ALL human endeavour. That means government can't tax. It can't require a tribute or force anyone to pay, even if it is indeed better for them to so do. Erik, it means that should Fetu Kara (or anyone else) decide he would spend his $5,000.00 on drink, smack, prostitutes, gambling, cigarettes and marijuana rather than on "national defence" (which in his drug addled state he has no use for whatsoever anyway), that's his decision and no-one has a right to stop him or to take his money away for their purposes.
Apply principles consistently and you soon come up with the arguments favoured by anarchists, not minarchists, Rand notwithstanding. BTW wasn't she in favour of consistent applications of principle?
I hereby promise not to initiate force against anyone else and I promise not to support initiations of force either. So should you.
Talofa
Sione
Published: February 21, 2006 3:58 AM
what about those who refuse to comply with either the contract or the mutually pre-selected arbiter?
Someone who repeatdely refuses to abide by the contract or the resolution of pre-selected arbiters is in no different position from someone who refused to go to an arbiter in the first case. Seeing as the alternative in the first case was either war, or arbitration, with arbitration being the rational choice because it is cheaper than war, the solution to your dilemma is for the party that wins the arbitration to enforce the resolution against the party that loses, probably by getting their protection agency to enforce it.
It is doubtful that the party that lost the arbitration will be able to find himself an agency willing to protecting himself against such enforcement, because such an agency would then be put in a position of defending anybody, guilty or not, which would give its clients no incentives not to go out and commit crimes.
Published: February 21, 2006 4:13 AM
Sione,
You say:
If the initiation of force is bad and yet I do it anyway, what dire consequences await me?
Published: February 21, 2006 7:02 AM
If the initiation of force is bad and yet I do it anyway, what dire consequences await me?
Well I guess it depends on who you attacked. Maybe you have nothing to worry about if you attack the pure pacifist. In that case good for you for choosing your victims so wisely.
On the other hand, if you have attacked someone that does believe in defense, you must be prepared to deal with the defensive/retaliatory violence that will undoubtably be heading your way. This could come personally from your victim and/or contracted agents (family, protection firm, etc) of your victim.
You might also need to face the social (nonviolent) consequences of your actions such as ostracism, etc. This of course would vary depending on the area in which your crime was committed and the general attitude/beliefs of the population towards your behavior.
Published: February 21, 2006 7:53 AM
Peter,
Extending upon Brian's response to your question about the consequences of initiating aggression, one of them is simply this: that you have initiated aggression.
Engaging in immoral acts is it's own punishment, as it degrades the soul, spirit, and mind. If some otherwise initially normal person started initiating aggression left and right, he would devolve into a psychopath. Each crime, each immoral act, constitutes not only an evil that the aggressor does against the victim, but also against himself. Someone on the path of devolving into such a psychopath is, in short, on the path of devolving towards something like an animal. This is the natural punishment of crime.
Now, you might say that these kinds of people don't care about the affect that crime has on their soul, mind, and spirit. You might say that they have no guilt, no conception of morality whatsoever. Ok, so-be-it. In that case, they are perfectly analagous to animals in that respect, in which case the question of "punishing" them becomes rather silly (unless you're Captain Ahab, you don't talk about "punishing" animals that kill people, do we?). In short, for these kinds of "people" who are morally no different than animals -- that is, they feel no moral compunction, no guilt, nothing o the sort -- it is no-more logical for us to talk about the "dire consequences" that await them than is it to talk about the "dire consequences" to await animals that maul people. Such talk is insanity.
Of course, like animals, that still does not mean that we can't just ignore the threat. However, it does mean the threat must be considered from an alternate viewpoint. I would also note that in the case of such people, the Statist system certainly doesn't have an answer for them.
Published: February 21, 2006 8:21 AM
Curt, Quincux, and David Heinrich:
In my comment I was not stating that the free rider problem was one that was insurmountable or even to be overly concerned about. I was merely seeking an explanation to the following statement:
"Contrary to popular myth, it is not true that defense services cannot only be provided for by those who pay for them." David J. Heinrich.....
I still don't believe a satisfactory answer has been provided. The private defense insurance companies moving only the insurers out of NYC until the threat passes does not do the trick, since the loonies holed up in Colorado will, of course, strike where they can do the most damage to life and property. They may advertise NYC as their target and strike elsewhere. Since the defense providers know that, the only viable protection against the threat is to go and get the terrorists in Colorado, and this action protects everyone threatened whether defense insured or not.
Also, I doubt whether most people would want to live in a society that would ask wounded and dying men, women and children lying in the streets after an attack, what defense insurer (or medical insurer) they are with, and then step over their bodies if they groan "None".And what about those who cannot speak due to injuries? Do we fish through their wallets to try and find their insurance cards before supplying aid?
Published: February 21, 2006 10:18 AM
Also, I doubt whether most people would want to live in a society that would ask wounded and dying men, women and children lying in the streets after an attack, what defense insurer (or medical insurer) they are with...
First of all you should be more precise. It is impossible for a society to ask anyone anything. Different agencies may have different policies. There may be agencies that go about business in exactly the manner that you decry. However, it seems to me that you would not want to be a patron/client of such a heartless organization. More than likely there would be other organizations that would explicitly provide care for all in such a situation. Of course the cost of this service would most likely be higher.
The key is that the uninsurred injured have no just claim or entitlement in regards to care. But they would still more than likely receive care since this kind of issue seems to be important to so many people. If the demand for care for the indigent and misfortuante exists (as it certainly does), then there is no reason why the service cannot or would not be provided voluntarilly.
Published: February 21, 2006 10:51 AM
"What, under your premises, would be the result/response to a 9/11 style attack by a hostile non-domestic power bent on the destruction of freedom?" (you also asked about WWII, which can be answered with the same response...)
- Eriks
My response to the destruction of my freedom is the same whether it is my fellow citizens or hostile non-domestic power: Learn about the reasons for the attack, offer solutions that don't rely on theft, and hide from those who are irrational. It is also entertaining and beneficial to create traps for the irrational so that their behavior might injure themselves instead of me. I do some of that too. I think you are looking for a group of people who would gather strength and resources to themselves in order to attempt to destroy the freedom-destroyers. That seems quite rational as well, and I might join you *if you give me the choice*.
"Under this anarcho-capitalism, what am I supposed to do when a business fails to pay its debts to me if there is no court of Law to enforce contracts? Am I supposed to send in a bunch of thugs to rough them up till they pay, i.e., Mafia-style?"
...
"As a CEO, I've been through enough contract disputes to know that no one we've ever pursued for a default has ever willingly made good without the threat of court enforcement."
- Eriks
If you risk so much in dealing with a business that you feel compelled to rely on the taken-by-force resources of others to get payback from the business, then I suppose the best thing to do is accept that you screwed up and educate others about the individuals involved in the business that has failed to pay you what it owes you. Learn to accept failure. Failing teaches us how to succeed. Have you gone through collections agencies?
"The unprepared will fail, and they will take you and your altruism with them when they do."
- Curt
Awesome!
Published: February 21, 2006 1:26 PM
Peter, by the time I saw your question it had already been well answered by David and Brian.
I'll add a few thoughts. The particular result of an initiation of force depends on the context; on the circumstances. In the short run the force initiator may reckon he's OK (although I would argue he has indeed damaged himself) but in the longer term the results are poor. It's a little like taking the drugs. In the short run the damage might not be too bad and the druggie thinks he's doing fine but over the longer term they are going to be deleterious to health and life one way or another.
Unfortunately there are plenty of examples of those who tried initiations of force. The results are not ideal. People get hurt.
On another thread recently I wrote about how Villiami committed a fraud on the local people of his village. What was the result of this IOF? Among other things he received a right hiding. That would have hurt. He was unable to go into the village for a while because he was so ashamed. He certainly could not go into town on the big island. That would have been asking for real difficulties. He was left with certain debts to pay. He lost the respect of everyone. No-one would take his cheques again either. No-one wanted to associate with him or even talk to him. His mother was furious. Even now, a considerable time later, people would remember (to his shame and embarrassment no doubt). I reckon he would have his card marked as untrustworthy, even these years later. Hell! I sure wouldn't be taking one of his cheques.
The worst part is that what he did also resulted in changes in the village life. Trust was taken for granted but it is so easily corroded. It takes a great deal of time for it to return, if ever. Villiami's foolishness changed the community he lived in for the worse. Now everyone knows things have altered, everyone knows why and everyone knows who the culprit (the cause) is. As long as Villiami is living there he will be a cause of suspicion. He will be blamed. It takes a lot of time to repair things like this. People resent the loss of civility and they resent the added effort they have to expend to protect themselves, especially when they didn't have to before.
Does this assist Villiami in his life? I reckon not. I think he would be most hurt, not just by what other people are doing and saying but also by realising what he did to himself.
What dire consequences await those who start initiations of force? I don't know the specifics for each and every instance but I would agree they would be dire.
Anyway, why initiate force? Why would YOU want to be like that; like a criminal? Peter, I'm betting you wouldn't be.
Talofa
Sione
Published: February 21, 2006 5:44 PM
"Anyway, why initiate force? Why would YOU want to be like that; like a criminal? Peter, I'm betting you wouldn't be." Sione Vatu
I'm sure he wouldn't, but there are tens of millions, perhaps hundreds of millions who would.
"If you risk so much in dealing with a business that you feel compelled to rely on the taken-by-force resources of others to get payback from the business, then I suppose the best thing to do is accept that you screwed up and educate others about the individuals involved in the business that has failed to pay you what it owes you. Learn to accept failure. Failing teaches us how to succeed. Have you gone through collections agencies?" Curt
There are many crooks who fail to make good on contracts. Saying, "Oh, well, I won't deal with those people again" and telling others to do the same is little or no penalty to commercial crooks, who simply start up in another state, under another name, etc. If this is to be the penalty for such criminal behavior, wouldn't that simply encourage even more commercial crimes.
Published: February 21, 2006 6:08 PM
Brian, David H., Sione,
Thank you for your responses. My question was too general, so I'll be more specific.
Why should I be guided by libertarian ethics with it's IOF principle as opposed to other systems of ethics, which may not have it? What are the consequences of my not doing so?
I live among people who do not seem to judge others by the libertarian standards, so it is unlikely that my breaching the IOF, in and of itself would result in ostracism.
Published: February 22, 2006 6:16 AM
Peter,
Well, I think this is kind of what I was addressing. Given that the initiation of aggression is criminal by natural law, various societies may or may not recognize this, in that societal laws either will or will not conform. Now, simply because you don't live in a society where the initiation of aggression is considered wrong, doesn't mean that there are no consequences to engaging in it.
I pointed out the effect of immoral behaviour on a person's soul and character. This is a consequence you can't escape from (unless you're one of the psychopaths I mentioned).
Published: February 22, 2006 7:43 AM
"I pointed out the effect of immoral behaviour on a person's soul and character. This is a consequence you can't escape from (unless you're one of the psychopaths I mentioned)." David J. Heinrich
David, there is a sizable percentage of the population who feel no effect on their soul and character of various types of behavior that you and I would regard as immoral. This is especially true in the relm of commercial activity (commercial contracts). A huge number of people do not accept the fact that they should not break contracts, simply because they prefer the outcome that results from breaking the contract. I'm not sure you have ever seen the TV show "Judge Judy". If you have, you will see that the judge goes to some lengths to explain with logic of equity and law why the defendant should compensate the plaintiff. A total idiot could understand the logic used and how the judge's conclusion follows from the logic. However, time and time again (most of the time) the defendant simply rejects the conclusion. Why? Is it because they are less than total idiots? No, it is simply because they don't like the conclusion. They want a particular outcome that is favorable to them and they plain don't care, and certainly don't feel badly about rejecting any argument or law that doesn't yield them this outcome. Only force will make these people accept certain legal and equitable outcomes that are unfavorable to them.
Published: February 22, 2006 9:56 AM
Well, I am late to the thread (Damned government declared holidays!), but what the hell.
An earlier commenter wrote that it is an impossibility to stop the growth of the state beyond the minimalist state described by Eriks. The point was made that history demonstrates this conclusively. While I agree with this assertion, I must point out that stateless society has also never lasted, but has "devolved" into states using various levels of coercion. I think it simplistic to declare that the choice is either stateless or stateful, and naive to think stateless is some barrier to the alternatives. As Eriks has pointed out, contracts must be enforced, the violent, when identified, must be controlled by something. What is this something in the anarchistic world? I submit this something, as described by the anarchists on this site, greatly resembles the beginnings of a state. Indeed, I think anarchy and total state control to be the extremes along the political spectrum, a spectrum without gaps or barriers to cultural shift. It is no more difficult or easy to stop state growth at the constitutional republic stage than it is to stop private enforcement agencies to become de facto states in the "anarcho-capitalism" model. Vigilance is always going to be a requirement, and its lack will always be the failure. I think human beings are destined to forever move from one extreme to the other, in cycles.
Published: February 22, 2006 1:01 PM
Alex, I think I see why you're not able to assimilate the answers being given to you. Like many other people, you have been taught to think that without the Sword of Damoclese hanging over their heads, other people will act in ways with which you disagree.
The statement that you wouldn't want to live in a society which will leave broken and helpless people on the ground until they answer who provides their insurance is an excellent example.
The answer to this is that such a society does not exist, and not because of the existence of coercive government. Such a society exists because of you, me, and everyone else who believes that broken and helpless people are worth our exertions and attention merely because they are people.
When a cow gets stuck in a well, people gather to help the owner save the cow. They do it, when they could be out making themselves wealthier, without any expectation of profit.
The "tsunami" donations by private individuals dwarfed what was donated by governments, and the same thing happens in every disaster. There are still volunteer fire departments, demonstrating this spirit.
Fact is, the individuals who would leave broken and helpless people in the streets are few and far between. They are not "hundreds of millions", as the governments want you to believe.
And if such a person walks by as I lay dying? Let them go! If such an individual requires coercion to do a "good deed", then I am better off without their help.
Published: February 22, 2006 2:45 PM
Curt,
My "hundreds of millions" phrase was pertaining to commercial crooks who feel little or no remorse about breaking contracts, committing fraud, etc. These "crooks" are ordinary people, not mafia-types. And yes, force of the courts is necessary to limit the harmful activities of these people. And, contrary to what you suggest, the government, whose activities I would dearly love to restrict greatly, has not brain-washed me into believing this. Instead, this is a world-wide estimate I have made from observation of people's behavior over (unfortunately) many years. I wish I could be as optimistic as you about people's altruism to take care of those in trouble, but I'm afraid this optimism conflicts greatly with my observations.(In spite of people occasionally pulling children out of wells for no pay and the charities you and I and millions of others support.)
Do you think that private altruism covers the gaps in the current system of U.S. privately insured health care?
Published: February 22, 2006 5:10 PM
Alex, of course there are private criminals, but the actions of these criminals is negligible compared with the crimes committed by governments. Do you need the numbers?
Also most crimes committed are actually not crimes at all under common-law and libertarian ideology.
It is precisely the fact that there are evil people, that you do not want to give power to them in the first place.
"Do you think that private altruism covers the gaps in the current system of U.S. privately insured health care? "
I think your problem is that you are getting it backwards: The current system of U.S. privately insured health care creates the gap in private altruism. How can I be generous after I get robbed continuously? Also, Why should I pay for health services for the desperately needy, when I can't afford to have it myself! (again, because I'm being robbed).
Published: February 22, 2006 6:55 PM
Alex, you mistake me. Altruism is a lousy way to do anything. People give because they wish to, and they give in numbers that bureaucrats cannot achieve, because they give willingly of their own money while bureaucrats give what doesn't belong to them.
As far as insurance goes, please show me where in America there is any "free market" in insurance. Last I looked every state has insurance regulation boards to complement the Federal insurance regulations, thus creating a nightmare of regulation.
Published: February 22, 2006 7:00 PM
I don't know how it works elsewhere, but in New York state, insurance regulations are merely 500+ pages of wacky stuff like negotiating 'fair prices' with the Insurance Board Czars, negotiating 'fair price' increases, time-limits of various mundane paper work (in triplicate) and generally stating the manner in which things MUST be insured among the different types of insurance. Oh, and that is not to mention the fact that there is so much contradiction - that one has to consult with a professional as to what is and is not enforced these days. In fact, I just realized that one needs insurance against insurance regulation!
If insurance was actually allowed to function freely, it would become obvious that it is a better way to minimize risk - thereby reducing the patronage of the state, and improving society. And we obviously can't have that, so we must deal with intervention on intervention on intervention ... ad nauseum.
Published: February 22, 2006 7:26 PM
David J. Heinrich,
I don't believe that it is and I don't assume it. That is not to say that I reject any idea of Natural Law, just the idea that an IOF, however that may be defined, necessarily violates it.
I agree with you that immoral behaviour has its negative consequences, but I am skeptical of the idea that an IOF is categorically immoral and must lead to them.
My experience is that most people do not turn into psychos or become "animals" by ignoring this principle and acting according to the guidance of alternative ethical principles.
Are there any other consequences to a violation of the IOF principle?
Published: February 23, 2006 5:48 AM
Quincux and Curt:
Thank you for your responses. I am relatively new to the line of thinking espoused at this site and I find it very interesting. I find many things with which I agree. Government as a thief, for one! Not sure I am ready to buy all the assumptions about human behavior at this point, however. I find it interesting that Marxists argue people are led by the private enterprise system to be selfish, whereas one message here seems to be that government leads people to be selfish. I believe both presumptions have elements of truth.
Published: February 23, 2006 10:52 AM
"Saying, 'Oh, well, I won't deal with those people again' and telling others to do the same is little or no penalty to commercial crooks, who simply start up in another state, under another name, etc. If this is to be the penalty for such criminal behavior, wouldn't that simply encourage even more commercial crimes. ... Only force will make these people accept certain legal and equitable outcomes that are unfavorable to them."
- Alex
It was my input you quoted, not Curt's, but I see that it is easy to mix us up because we seem to agree on a lot. In any case, you are correct that the penalty - publication of their transgressions - is very weak. But I do not think it wise to (attempt to) control the behavior of others by penalizing for acting in whatever way they decide to act when you don't like it. Rather, I think it much wiser to foresee that they will act this way and therefore avoid doing business with them. Hence, my suggestion to "accept that you screwed up". Notifying others of the problem is merely a service you can provide to them to make yourself more valuable. Government intervention encourages very risky behavior under the pretense that government force can correct any problems that come about.
"...contracts must be enforced, the violent, when identified, must be controlled by something."
- Yancey
Why must they be enforced, and who should pay for the enforcement? My very first understanding of "contract" was much like the etymology of the word - to pull together - it's an agreement. If one side ceases to hold to it, then so does the other side. No enforcement should be necessary. Then I learned of this disgusting invention called "illegal breach of contract." Suddenly the world is full of things that everyone must be forced to pay for.
I would much rather have an insurance company help me control the violent peolpe around me that be forced to pay a government to do it. Under a government, my recourse for bad service is the ineffective whining and complaining and the more effective moving to another country. As a customer of an insurance company, I can simply switch companies. I could also take upon myself to control violent people around me. If I were free, that is.
"I think human beings are destined to forever move from one extreme to the other, in cycles."
- Yancey
Yancey was discussing total state control and total lack of state control. Except for the word 'forever,' I must agree, but there are ideas which have, for the most part, taken over our planet, such as the idea that sex produces children. When the same percentage of people understand that acquiescing to authority produces parasitic communities that eventually destroy themselves, there will remain very few states. Of course that could take millenia, but with the ever more ubiquitous global economy, it could take decades.
"I find it interesting that Marxists argue people are led by the private enterprise system to be selfish, whereas one message here seems to be that government leads people to be selfish. I believe both presumptions have elements of truth."
- Alex
Alex, your judgment of selfishness is apparent. You may want to read Ayn Rand's "The Virtue of Selfishness", or consider that most people are not stupid enough to do for themeselves at the expense of those around them - that they are much more likely - especially as they become more free - to do for themselves in a way which also benefits others.
Published: February 28, 2006 5:51 PM
By the way, I have to say that this article goes a very long way in explaining to me the thinking of the oxymoronic anarchist socialist. Until this article, the term socialist anarchist was just a ridiculous contradiction in terms without explanation. I did not have any inkling as to how someone who believed in anarchy could be so confused as to believe in anything but free markets. And naturally, it is hard to conceive of someone advocating free markets, not seeing that socialism and free markets are opposites, and that anything resembling socialism would require a state to enforce it. This is the case because socialism is against the nature of things, or more specifically, the nature of free men.
But Per’s explanation of how the socialist fails to understand the concept of time preference, explains with crystal clarity, how the socialist can fail to see the justice in the capitalist taking his profits, while employing labor as well. The socialist anarchist will never be able to address this simple question: how does one prevent labor from freely contracting with the profit seeking capitalist? Nor will he ever understand why such a contract would be freely undertaken in the first place. Time preference is the answer. They really should get a grip on this because, as Per reminds us, it is a fundamental feature of being human.
There is only one true form of anarchy, and it is free market, anarcho-capitalism. All others boil down to some form of statist tyranny. And how anarchistic is that?
This was a truly insightful and helpful article.
Published: March 29, 2006 12:55 PM
My comment was actually in connection with this article:
http://www.mises.org/story/2096
The Trouble With Socialist Anarchism
by Per Bylund
[Posted on Friday, March 24, 2006]
Which i don't seem to be able to comment on in the blog directly.
Good article though, i recommend it.
Published: March 29, 2006 1:11 PM