A-Team Stands for Anarcho-Capitalism
"The A-team" supports the idea of natural law, rejects the nominalist tradition, rejects relativism both on ethical and epistemological grounds, supports entrepreneurship and free market, praises division of labor and monetary economy, builds its morality on the nonaggression axiom, rejects the necessity for economic regulation, undermines the government itself by demonstration of its failures, and shows how society is shaped by human action.
The "A" in the praised TV series probably stands for anarcho-capitalist.
-
First of all, the A-team is an illegal, anti-government, underground organization of people who escaped from prison. They are outlaws, surely pay no taxes, and, in most episodes, the US army is chasing them. Are these guys a band of thugs? Not at all. They are portrayed as positive heroes and the government apparatus is portrayed as the institution that unjustly tries to imprison them.
-
The A-team does not respect positive law, since this statist invention is responsible for their plight. However, the whole series is built on the idea that there are easily recognizable ethical values that cannot be questioned by any human being, even by the state itself. There is no moral relativism, or epistemological relativism, for we exactly know what is right and what is wrong, and our intellect grants us the ability to recognize it. No verdict, no bill, or no general's will can change that fact. Official institutions can only obscure the nature of things, and nobody has a power to change them. This clearly corresponds to the idea of natural law, so greatly expressed by Bastiat – positive law that denies natural law can have only one consequence: law perverted. Hence the A-team believes rightly that there are universal and never changing ethical values, which should be respected at any time by anyone.
-
One of the most famous sentences from the theme is the reference to a "crime they didn't commit." During the Vietnam War these soldiers were ordered by their colonel to rob a bank. After they finished their job, they found out that their headquarters were destroyed. It was impossible for them to prove that they acted as the colonel told them to. The US government, then, decided to prosecute them for the crime. Here we have another great example how positive law perverts the natural law. When the individuals acting on their own do something wrong, it is considered a "crime". But if the government engages in such a behavior, then suddenly "crime" is out of a picture. One of the famous examples is of course taxation. The state takes over people's income without their consent, but if some private individual takes someone's money without consent, he is considered a "criminal". This is a classic example of verbal law production and a Hobbesian belief that will can change or create law.
-
The whole philosophy of the A-team boils down to an axiom of non-aggression. They never initiate a conquest on someone else's property, no matter what profits that would create. They also never defend true aggressors. Instead the people against whom aggression was initiated always employ them. This feature is completely essential for them to take any challenge. In the episodes they engage in entrepreneurial analysis to find out what is happening, who is responsible for what, and how the aggression was started. Moreover, the A-team is of course acting with the consent of the persons who were attacked—unlike the state, which grants to itself a right to decide for somebody to defend him.
-
Clearly the A-team is an example of an anarchistic creativity, but certainly of the capitalist version, not the leftist one. The crew's actions are based on the advanced division of labor – it concerns both the internal organization, and the external, since the A-team obviously uses the external market in order to achieve its results. The clients are mostly people who are not good in the production of security, but instead devote their time to producing something else. With earned income they hire people with comparative advantage, the A-team, to protect their rightful property and lives.
-
The A-team is a type of anarchist, anti-leftist, organization that relies on economic calculation. In a sense the A-team is a beneficial, efficiently organized firm, which has prices for its inputs and outputs. Every production process requires money capital so the necessary factors of production are bought (guns, oil, people hired, and other resources). In order for the whole process to be profitable the A-team naturally prices their product: the production of security. So forget the idea that it has anything to do with leftist anarchism. This production of security is organized on a completely commercial basis. All economic goods are scarce, so one has to pay a price for them.
-
The anarchism of the A-team is clearly an Austrian type, not the neoclassical. Of course goods produced by them are priced, as any other useful service. It does not mean that at any times in any place the A-team is acting like a neoclassical firm owner, searching only for the lowest inputs and the highest revenues. As is mostly the case with real capitalists, the A-team sometimes offers its services for a lower price or even on a charitable basis. Hence we see that the crew is a clear example of homo agens, choosing means and ends, not homo economicus, automatically responding to price spreads. In other words, although economic calculation is essential to their proper functioning, there are limits to that calculation. Certain things are valued without reference to market prices.
-
A-team successes are amazing despite the fact that the government has outlawed them. Moreover, they are not only haunted by the official law, but what is even more inspiring, they are a completely unregulated organization. Think about it – they got no permission from the government to act, no government official is subjecting them to an official statist control, they have no accounting books and no lawyers, they do not have to explain themselves or report to any politician. They just do their job by producing and supplying the goods that are demanded by peaceful individuals. And guess what? Without the government regulation their achievements are unbelievable.
-
The A-team proves also that the so called "free rider", or maybe in their case "positive external effects", is completely irrelevant for the production of security. Statist theory claims that the production of security should be supplied by compulsory monopolistic measures since all the people benefit from them but cannot be excluded if they decide not to pay. In the A-team there is no problem with that. Of course there are certain individuals who will benefit from their actions despite the fact that they won't pay a penny. Any security agency is doing a favor to a person respecting property rights even though not every single person of that kind pays that agency. This, however, does not change the fact that the A-team works properly on the voluntary basis and finds its customers without monopolized use of force. They can successfully find the clients without making their services compulsory.
-
What follows from the above is a pro-market view of the private business and the government production of goods, for the only thing the latter achieves is a government failure. The A-team has to be hired because the government, despite levying taxes, is not able to help individuals defend themselves. Instead of efficiently chasing the criminals, government is more interested in chasing real entrepreneurs. Fortunately the A-team is able to make fools of them, notoriously escaping from their custody with never-ending smiles on their faces. The crew's chief is Hannibal Smith, great leader, brilliant planner, a natural elite, who constantly smokes his cigar, a symbol of his defiance against the socialist-puritan ethos of our time.
Comments (65)
Mat Machaj is my hero.
Next I want a comparative analysis with the police who wouldn't help the Dude get his briefcase back. The one with his papers.
Published: July 17, 2006 10:37 AM
Come to think of it, maybe George Peppard was something of anarcho-capitalist sympathizer. Not only did he play the lead role on the A-Team, but he also played a freelance insurance investigator in the great television series Banacek. When the insurance companies and police were stumped, he was called in to solve the crime--for a large fee, of course.
See:http://www.thrillingdetective.com/banacek.html
Published: July 17, 2006 11:09 AM
This: "It does not mean though that at any times in any places the A-team is acting like a neoclassical firm owner, searching only for the lowest inputs and the highest revenues.", in my view, aptly sums up the difference between the Austrian and Neoclassical Schools of Economics.
I thought that this article was exceedingly well done and accurate. To me, it is interesting to note that the "A-Team" aired during the "Reagan Revolution" of the '80s. It's message is in stark contrast to currently popular "24", of mid-2006.
And, with this: "neoclassical firm owner, searching only for the lowest inputs and the highest revenues."-- I'll once again express my dismay with those "Austrians" that support, without doubt, the case that is Wal-Mart. I'd wager you'd never find the "A-Team" shopping their aisles.
Published: July 17, 2006 11:46 AM
Great piece? What next: Knight Rider?
Published: July 17, 2006 11:54 AM
I was addicted to the A-team as a child. Saw a re-run the other day for the first time in 20 years, and was amazed at the explicitly anti-state themes involved (much like the Dukes of Hazzard).
However, the one thing that may throw a wrench in this analysis is Face and his con-man antics. In fact, he often donned the guise of a state agent to accomplish his cons (I guess this could also be an indirect indictment of the state, but that might be stretching a bit).
It is clear, though, that the basic A-team themes are totally anti-PC (rightwing variety) today.
Published: July 17, 2006 12:16 PM
I see nothing wrong with lying and cheating the State and its agents, even if this means cons to accomplish the goals of the A-Team. I am justified in hiding my money from a thief; it's self-defense.
Published: July 17, 2006 12:39 PM
"some supposedly serious crime"
They were framed for robbing the bank of Hanoi, as they are all Vietnam Veterans
Published: July 17, 2006 12:44 PM
Hilariouos. ;-)
That was a fun show. I liked Banacek too. ;-)
Published: July 17, 2006 12:45 PM
Let's not also forget that B.A loved his gold! Sure, not as money, but it's gold nontheless.
Published: July 17, 2006 12:55 PM
I agree completely. The A-Team does represent anarchism well. The only place you'll ever see an anarchist society is in fiction, just like the moneyless society of Star Trek.
Published: July 17, 2006 1:11 PM
Remember Murdoch, who is claimed to be a maniac needing (state-sponsored) therapy despite being totally able to care for himself. A very Szaszian view on mental illness that is displayed in the series.
Published: July 17, 2006 1:12 PM
Manuel, no, not Knight Rider. Knight Rider was funded by _The Center For Law And Government_, obviously a neo-Con front group.
Oh yeah, gold. "What's this 'bling' word, Fool?!? Don't go messing with my chains, Fool, or I'll flatten your face!"
Published: July 17, 2006 1:14 PM
It should also be noted that the show essentially jumped the shark when the team stopped running from the government and started working for them.
Published: July 17, 2006 1:56 PM
digg it here
Published: July 17, 2006 1:58 PM
Curt,
You're right. I had forgotten about the "Law and Government" part. Shame on David Hasselhoff!
Published: July 17, 2006 2:24 PM
Let's not forget the frequent plot device of charity that surfaced in many episodes. In a number of them, the Team performed their services for NO FEE to clients whom they felt deserved their services yet could not afford to pay. This is a part of any free market.
Published: July 17, 2006 2:46 PM
Knight Rider - "Foundation" for Law and Government (FLAG). Not "Center" for Law and Government.
Published: July 17, 2006 5:06 PM
"There is no moral relativism, or epistemological relativism... there are universal and never changing ethical values, which should be respected at any time by anyone."
What's that in there for? That isn't Anarcho-Capitalism.
Published: July 17, 2006 6:54 PM
This just made the front page of Digg's TV section! Congrats!
Published: July 17, 2006 8:03 PM
Well, let's not indict Face too quickly. For one thing his trickster like social engineering modus operandi was rarely in anything but the highest of goals and generally aimed at those who's robotic drone-like aquiessence to authority was part of the hive like mentality that at it's core was what they really fighting against. lol.
Published: July 17, 2006 10:02 PM
ABSOLUTELY BRILLIANT!! :):):):)
Published: July 17, 2006 11:23 PM
The A-Team did not PROVE anything. It was a fictional tv series. Communists could make all the propaganda they want about how great the Socialist Utopia Worker's Paradise is, but it doesn't prove squat. I'm not going to let the A-Team off easy just because I'm a libertarian or Mr. T is an intimidating person. Well, maybe the second one, but I haven't heard him complain yet.
Published: July 17, 2006 11:24 PM
This is simply the most awesome internet article I read all day!
Kudos to the author!
Published: July 18, 2006 12:43 AM
I do not have anything of real value to add to this string, but I must say that it has been amusing - I am now anxious to catch a re-run.
Whether the plot dynamics prove to be more Austrian or Neoclassical, my nostalgic interest has been raised.
Dwayne Wegner
Published: July 18, 2006 1:39 AM
Amazing what you can read into a cheesy predictable 80s TV show. What next? Do we prove the inefficiencies of government by analyzing the smiling patterns of Eric Estrada in CHiPs? By the way, anachistic societies have often existed throughout history. Check out the early history of Pennsylvania, the only colony to go without a government for about 50 years. and it had less problems with the Indians than any other colony.
Published: July 18, 2006 4:33 AM
Obviously portraying an idea in a fictional setting does not prove anything, but it is a powerful way of modeling economic concepts in a way that anyone can understand them. I remember watching DuckTales as a child, and thinking back on it the show had modeled ecoomic concepts very soundly, and in a format even young children could understand. DuckTales would definitely be a show for another analysis like this: just from the episodes I remember, Scrooge McDuck made his vast fortune entirely privately; he maintained his own private security (government police, when shown, were almost always incompetent); a king was shown creating imagined threats to his people to keep his hold on power. TV shows and movies that show a strong positive anti-state message are rare enough; it is very refreshing to find them.
Published: July 18, 2006 8:42 AM
Nice peice, echoing my own views on the A Team.
Unfortunately... There is an A Team episode where the guys bust up a group of moonshine manufacturers because people have got sick drinking the moonshine. Is this sort of nanny state, drug warrior stuff consistant with the A Team libertarian view?
Published: July 18, 2006 9:59 AM
Mr. Machaj,
This is an wonderfully written article! Bravo!
You are a tremedous scholar combined with great wit.
The A-Team concept symbolizes the limited number of Amerians who truly think "Outside The Box.
My manta is to "Just Say No" to moronic bureaucrats and politicians who think that any problem in life can be solved by making a new law.
It's sad to say that the predominant theme in modern American culture is fear, not freedom.
Published: July 18, 2006 10:00 AM
Slight correction to Paul, the cab driver. Pennsylvania only made it on its own for 9 years, not 50, and Somalia about 15 (?).
Published: July 18, 2006 10:49 AM
This all has a fascinating correspondence with the concept of natural law as developed by MIchael van Notten in THE LAW OF THE SOMALIS (Red Sea Press, 2005). Many Somalis find natural law simply the natural order of things, and they developed a sophisticated law system based on it. Much of that law system survived the colonial period, especially in rural areas, and provides the "rule of law" that has made possible the economic miracle that is Somalia today.
Published: July 18, 2006 1:08 PM
Are you sure you want that horrible show as a symbol for anarcho-capitalism?
That's like having a retarded three-legged llama as your team mascot.
I guess we can cite it as proof that machine guns aren't dangerous, anyway.
--
Words of the Sentient:
I like to believe that people in the long run are going to do more to promote
peace than our governments. Indeed, I think that people want peace so much
that one of these days governments had better get out of the way and let them
have it. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
E-Mail: KazVorpal@yahoo.com
Yahoo Messenger/AIM/AOL: KazVorpal
MSN Messenger: KazVorpal@yahoo.com
ICQ: 1912557
http://360.yahoo.com/kazvorpal
Published: July 18, 2006 1:09 PM
I pity the po' foo who mess wit de A-Team!! You Chicago Skoo foo's is nuttin' but trash. Suckuh!! Got no brains. If ya had brains, you'd be in da Austrian skoo'. Huh!
Published: July 18, 2006 1:14 PM
I'm beginning to wonder what is worse - Libertarian fairy tales (as above), or their other writing which I assume is supposed to be taken seriously.
So in this ancap fairyland, what happens if Snow White eats a poisoned apple? The only known antidote is a kiss from a male heir to the monarchy.
Of course one might be found by kissing enough frogs, but wouldn't the Ancaps kill the frogs to insure there wouldn't be a tyrant to rule them?
Just like Somalia (I would note the "warlords" of the ancap system engaged in piracy, and I've often asked if a market which includes stolen merchandise is included in the definition of a "free market") - I said if it is so wonderful, go there.
If the A-Team is so wonderful, maybe the AnCap crowd that whines and moans about the state and says how wonderful such would be on this and the related sites and the rest who play in their ancap market constructed castles in the clouds could try playing the game on earth for real and without a hollywood writer (nor Divine Providence for that matter if I've read their religious positions correctly) to insert a deux ex machina at appropriate times.
Please put your body with your mouth instead of this chesire cat capitalism you advocate and tell me how it goes fighting the state on AnCap terms.
Here, or in Somalia (where you could probably overthrow the nascent state).
Go ahead. If you dare. If your will has even a fraction of the resolve of your rhetoric.
Or perhaps I am the one confused in that I don't get the joke. LRC and Mises.org is one big (british style) comedy site.
Published: July 18, 2006 3:06 PM
Or perhaps I am the one confused in that I don't get the joke.
Ding, ding! What do we have for this contestant, Johnny?
The A-Team is mentioned as a stark contrast to all those fascist shows we get to see today, like "24", the defunct "The Agency", "Law & Order" (used to be my favorite show, but lately, I have only seen police bullying and psychological extorsion in it), etc. Hollywood may NOT love the neocons and the Republicans, but it A-D-O-R-E-S big obtrussive government. It also despises individualism and entrepreneourship.
Published: July 18, 2006 4:11 PM
I, too watched the A-Team. The reruns were aired on a TV station in L.A., to include the last seasons. It is interesting to note that this anarcho-capitalist bunch ended up working for the "State", and at the last episode, were to end thier careers as "anarcho-capitalists", meaning, no more charity or anti-State work for the A-Team, as they were off the hook regarding the law and the State. In the end, the Team had always been of,by and for the State, even if they had been wrongly convicted. In several episodes they actually helped local police officers against evil capitalists, polluters and such.
The assertion that the Team was a collection of anarchists is so far off the mark that one has to wonder if the author of the column claiming thier anarcho-capitalist credentials has watched enough episodes of the show.
But the column in question was written for fun--otherwise it is an unintentional joke.
Published: July 18, 2006 10:32 PM
For an account of real persons avoiding the state and living the AnCap ideal - minus the obsession with private property, read "The Professional Thief"
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0226780511/qid=1153275276/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/103-6244971-6026263?s=books&v=glance&n=283155
(I think it is also a Books on Tape audiobook).
Any ancap system would have to deal with real people who spend their entire effort and careers to violate rights (and are not "the state"). And create market-oriented solutions with QC (the book was before ISO 900x) and customer service and everything else built-in.
It would be in the top 5 of my Libertarian reading list, if only to illustrate the State's failure, but the Market's inability to provide either security or justice in an absolute, or even a meaningful relative sense.
It shatters most of the posts I try to take seriously, but find fundamentally flawed. To use another modified brownism, they want to eliminate collective objective morality and replace it with nothing.
The market will promote involuntary exchanges if a suffient number of people with capital voluntarily exchange it to impose the involuntary exchanges (often called extortion). It has absolutely no intrinsic capability to favor the preservation over the violation of property rights. That is a preference of the participants of the market. If people are willing to buy stolen merchandise because of the discount, the market will promote theft. It will simultaneously promote theft prevention. If people will accept bribes, then any insurance/security company will either need slaves (at least as far as any privacy is concerned), or will have to pay for integrity. Consider how little it is valued today, I wouldn't expect that to change under an AnCap system.
Published: July 18, 2006 11:34 PM
And the Remember Me button defaults to "No" when some timeout hasn't occured, so it forgot my post so I have to waste this post to fix the default.
Published: July 18, 2006 11:36 PM
If people are willing to buy stolen merchandise because of the discount, the market will promote theft.
A slippery slope argument... fascinating.
The risks involved in dealing with stolen goods are such that it does not merit the future profit - the only places where stolen goods are dealt with little risk and maximum profitabiluty is on those places where the S-T-A-T-E offers protection to dealers, like in the Tepito barrio of Mexico City. Only through cooperation with the authorities can a stolen goods market prosper.
What this means is that your contention that the market will entice people to deal in stolen goods is simply not true - in a free market, free-market solutions to protection of private property (any not being waiting for the police to arrive, if at all) would make obtaining stolen goods riskier and less profitable than dealing in purchased goods.
The market will promote involuntary exchanges if a suffient number of people with capital voluntarily exchange it to impose the involuntary exchanges (often called extortion).
Until now, it has been true just the opposite - the free market does NOT promote extorsion. Instead, such comes from a NON market entity, mainly the State. Interestingly enough, you seem to find it preferable to be extorted by a supermonster monopoly than by a private extorsionist. I wonder why...
To use another modified brownism, they want to eliminate collective objective morality and replace it with nothing.
"Objective" morality? What's objective about morality? And "collective"? Are we humans like ants or bees all of a sudden?
Published: July 19, 2006 1:30 AM
"The A-team" ... rejects relativism both on ethical and epistemological grounds
ok, dude, you start off completely on the wrong foot. the a-team was clearly realtivist in their ideas of morality (as in the lengths they would go to for the greater good) and in their terms of success (the plan didn't work out the way hannibal said it would, but the results were satisfactory).
in fact, the a-team tv series seems to be about glorifying moral and epistemological relativism.
Published: July 19, 2006 7:11 PM
Nah, Hannibal's a communist! "I love it when a centrally planned economy comes together."
Published: July 19, 2006 7:43 PM
hannibal's plans worked about as well as communism.
if you took away the "tv magic" and replaced it with reality it would be dead on.
Published: July 19, 2006 10:20 PM
I hope you're not arguing that because an idea works on the TeeVee, it would work in real life. "Do you see what these fictional characters can accomplish? We can accomplish it, too! (All it takes is a great writing staff!)" In which case, I mean, none of it really matters because pretty soon The One is going to be found, and we'll be released from this prison of illusion in which the robots have incarcerated us. No spoon, and all of that.
Ultimately, believing that 'pure' capitalism will work is just as idealist and out of touch with reality as believing that 'pure' communism will work. Given that The Market is mostly focused on the prosperity and concerns of the individual, I wouldn't be so quick to look to it for answers to societal and group concerns.
On the subject of 'taxes', by the way: I'm not sure if mandating social responsibility of the wealthy by collecting money to make life less miserable for the people who can't write their own paychecks and don't already have the money necessary to get other people to make money for them is really greater an evil than the alternative of allowing the poor to starve and go homeless. Which is the greater crime, 'thievery', or remaining passive while millions of people starve and die, unable to afford food, housing, clothing and adequate healthcare? And do you really believe that creating millions of extremely desperate, extremely hungry, sick people is going to reduce crime?
Should the government's function be reduction in net misery or preservation of ownership? What does a decision in either direction say about us as a society?
Published: July 24, 2006 1:53 PM
Mr. Torres, I've often wondered about people who push the idea of "objective" morality.
Mostly because what they are actually objecting to is that I'm not automatically agreeing with whatever it is they think is "objective" morality.
I don't even need to disagree, merely assert that they aren't actually being "objective" at all. For instance, just because something is written down doesn't mean it's correct.
Published: July 24, 2006 2:09 PM
Ah, Curt, you touch upon the idea of the Prescriptivist Attitude. I'm actually writing an article about that on my website. (Click my name in the 'Posted by' line...) It should be up within the next week or so, I would think.
Published: July 24, 2006 7:08 PM
"Which is the greater crime, 'thievery', or remaining passive while millions of people starve and die, unable to afford food, housing, clothing and adequate healthcare?"
I can't supply all those things myself, so I don' see how stealing it from me is going to help anyone.
"Should the government's function be reduction in net misery or preservation of ownership?"
Net misery is not measurable because value is subjective. The government can only spread the misery, therefore it should do neither function.
"What does a decision in either direction say about us as a society?"
There is no such thing as a society. You can do what you want, and so can I. Therefore our net misery is reduced (still not measurable).
If you want to have constant conflict then we shouldn't claim property for ourselves. The fact that we wish to avoid conflict is the reason we institute private property in the first place.
"Mostly because what they are actually objecting to is that I'm not automatically agreeing with whatever it is they think is "objective" morality."
Economists don't care what you think or the ends you choose, the question is DO YOU USE VIOLENCE to get your way? Do you support others doing things in that matter?
If you do think it is justified, why then a single monopolist judge to do the job? That would be supporting TWO VALUE judgments - hence it is totally improper for economic analysis.
Published: July 24, 2006 11:09 PM
You seem to view taxes as an end unto themselves. That is, they serve no purpose other than to take money from individuals and give it to the government. You may not be able to directly supply healthcare, but if the government takes your money to, in part, fund a program that supplies healthcare to the poor, you're indirectly supplying it.
And, like you said, you can't supply healthcare to the poor. This is why a larger organization of some sort is needed. The problem is that the current implementation is inefficient--a bureaucracy bloat. Money that should go to something useful (helping those unable to help themselves, a.k.a. social responsibility) is being misdirected into, say, a bridge to a sparsely-populated island in Alaska, or a bunch of no-bid contracts for amounts a dozen times the actual cost of the services provided, or paying people to keep things from actually going through.
Where do you get "there is no such thing as a society"? Society is essentially just collective superego. If there were no such thing as society, it would be a-okay to show up to work in a sweatsuit, and to shout obscenities at old ladies. I know these are simply traditional, arbitrary constructs, and I don't necessarily agree with their implementation, but we are constantly operating and reorganizing ourselves to be appealing or impressive to others. THAT is "society", which shares a root with "social", which is one thing humans do constantly. To claim there is no society is to claim that no person has any friends.
You're conflating reduction in net misery with increase in net happiness. There's a difference. You can't try to make people happy--that's extremely subjective, and varies wildly from person to person. Reduction in net misery works about the same for everyone. No sane person enjoys starving. No sane person would choose not to have critical surgery. Things that reduce misery work about the same for everyone (barring emo kids with bad haircuts who aren't pleased with anything). And the misery of mass poverty supersedes the misery of an individual only taking home twenty million dollars instead of thirty. Perhaps that is "spreading the misery", but it's also balancing an inherently imbalanced system.
Value is indeed subjective, which is why the value of property is a broken concept. Especially land value. But this idea would be taking us a little off-topic. And so it goes.
Go ahead, adopt the attitude that social responsibility can run off and screw itself. I don't care. But if you think individuals are capable of policing themselves, and that humanity is capable of achieving utopia, you're very obviously demonstrating a detachment from reality.
Published: July 25, 2006 1:29 AM
There are plenty of voluntary organizations that do exactly that. Charities compete for donations and hence have an incentive to spend them efficiently. A monopoly government with a guaranteed tax budget has no such constraint. Any failure in government simply leads to cries for more funding. This is government's backhanded way of blaming its incompetence on the victim--the taxpayer--for not being generous enough with his paycheck.
You think this is just an implementation problem? Then why does it seem to happen in every government, no matter what party is in power? Bloat is inherent to government itself.
When one party is voted out and the opposition voted in, why do they not immediately repeal all the bad policies of the old party? Simple. Because the costs affect a few well-connected special interests while the benefits are diffused among the unorganized general public. Which group do you think will be in a better position to influence policymakers? For the same reason, the new party doesn't implement policies that promote the "common good," but simply hand out taxpayer money to their preferred group of special interests.
Now I suppose it's theoretically possible that the general public could organize sufficiently well to prevent the narrow special interest groups from running the show. But if they could do that, they wouldn't need a government! They could just direct that effort to helping the poor or whatever directly. So the only case government would work, it would also be superfluous.
If man is not fit to govern himself, how then, can he be fit to govern others?
The only utopians I see are those who think unlimited power will not be abused when given to a small group of individuals. This belief flies in the face of both history and theory, and yet people still cling to it.
Published: July 25, 2006 7:51 AM
PR, the only thing I would ad to your excellent post is to eliminate "seem" from your response to the standard socialist saw that every prior failure is because of problems with "implementation".
It's neither "prior failures" nor "seem". Every prior _attempt_ has failed. It is a simple fact, like gravity, that government efforts to provide services fail.
The socialist is simply one that thinks if they are the ones to throw the bowling ball up this time, this time it won't hit them in the head.
This is why the socialist accusing others of being "utopian" is so absurd. They ignore the fact that Utopia was a _planned_ society, run by perfect, omnipotent, philosopher kings. It is the ultimate example of solving all the "implementation problems", the ultimate socialist state.
And it relies on what never was nor will ever be, absolute perfection.
Published: July 25, 2006 9:30 AM
That's exactly it, though, they're voluntary. How many people, do you think, are giving the money they're getting back, thanks to the current tax cuts, entirely to charities they feel will aid the poor? How many are giving any at all? If we eliminated taxes entirely, do you really believe that people would be willing to spend that money on charity? Why? What would be the incentive? Hell, we've got all this credit card debt, and our kids want PlayStation3.
And the only victim you see in this is the taxpayer? What about the sick and starving who should otherwise be provided services necessary for their survival? Oh, no, they're not victims at all, just the people who are losing money. (Oh, by the way: If there were "no such thing as society", then money would have no value at all. Its value is entirely subjective--something that's agreed upon by the collective. Without that agreement, it's just paper.)
The solution to special interests isn't to completely dissolve the government. You know, it's pretty much a given that cars, airplanes, and other motor vehicles will break down, too--that doesn't mean that we should get rid of them entirely, it means we should work to make them better. Just because a system is broken doesn't mean it ought to be thrown away entirely. Baby, bathwater, et cetera.
And, uh, no thanks, I really don't want to deliver my own mail, either. Now, I suppose that's the kind of thing that could be turned over to private agencies (FedEx?), but that idea kind of breaks down for things like public roads. What kind of business is going to take the loss of just paving roads without compensation? And how would you divide up the responsibility among all road construction companies so that the burden doesn't fall on only a few of them?
The policing procedures of the government work by enforcing societal agreement. Government is not an individual, it is a collection of individuals that are supposed to represent the population and the values thereof. Yes, there's a bit of a breakage in this with regard to special interests, but on the whole, representatives are at least somewhat accountable to the public. Now, if it were a single king ruling all the land, I could see your point about "how, then, can he be fit to govern others?", but when rulers are elected by the public, it's different from individual men ruling individual men. And while there's no individual incentive to, say, not dump chemical byproducts into the woods because it's the most efficient method, there's an enforced policy in place to protect against such a thing, using law enforcement and rules that are, overall, determined by the populace. Turn law enforcement and the military over to private organizations, and it's going to be far more difficult to keep them in line with the mores of the public.
Do you really believe the government has unlimited power? That they could say, "okay, all your businesses belong to us, now," and the public would just comply without question? The only people who could conceivably be considered "utopians" by your definition of the term would be ones who think we are currently living in utopia. I've never met one.
And, oh, Curt, you're absolutely right: The government consistently fails to provide services. I know I, for one, have never seen a paved road in my life. Nor does the mail people claim to have sent me ever get delivered. And WIC, which is supposed to provide food to mothers and children in need, has never provided a single meal to anyone ever. The military? Don't even get me started! We lost both World Wars, don't you remember? Total, abject failure on all fronts, throughout history. The Aqueduct is a myth!
And a system that relies upon the self-policing of individuals doesn't require perfection, either, huh?
Published: July 25, 2006 2:03 PM
By the way, I think one of the main current purposes of government is to ensure that those with wealth can keep most of what they have without the neglected, poverty-ridden masses finally banding together out of desperation into formidable forces and robbing them of everything they have.
In other words, taxes attempt to establish a balance with income/wealth distribution that would most likely otherwise be gotten by force.
Published: July 25, 2006 2:14 PM
J Crowley there are too many things wrong with your arguments.
It can all be boiled down to the belief that the government can help the poor - whereas in reality it's policies does nothing but promote poverty. Don't buy into the rhetoric, but rather examine what gov actions really accomplish, and ask yourself why the trillions of dollars wasted fighting poverty has only brought more poverty.
"And a system that relies upon the self-policing of individuals doesn't require perfection, either, huh?"
Exactly.
Published: July 25, 2006 2:50 PM
How can a society of people who supposedly don't care about the poor elect politicians who do?
Oh come on. Show me a baby who's murdered tens of millions of people like modern states have.
If there were another government failure to prevent a 9/11-style attack in the US, then yes, I'd expect exactly that. Only government is consistently rewarded for failing to perform even its most basic function. The bigger the failure, the more powerful it gets.
Wealth redistribution does indeed placate the poor so they won't question the regime. Progressive income taxes hinder the middle class rising to the upper middle class, thus protecting the moneyed interests that know how to use tax shelters or get lavish government subsidies.
Published: July 25, 2006 4:10 PM
Aw, Crowley, lay off the Austrian economagicians. If you take away the rhetoric they hijacked from anarchism, what would they have?
Published: July 25, 2006 7:50 PM
For the love of life, turn off your television.
Give up your totalitarian ideology
Published: September 12, 2006 7:51 AM
it's telling that the model upon which this thesis is based is a fanciful fiction.
Published: September 19, 2006 1:17 AM
How does this square with the fact that, near the end of the series, the A-Team starts working as government agents under the command of General Stockwell?
How can they embody anarcho-capitalist values and be working for the Man?
Published: September 19, 2006 9:01 AM
No wonder this was and still is (for the most part) my favorite television show. Great analysis, yes. And as for the Dude's briefcase,...
Published: September 19, 2006 3:22 PM
"rejects the necessity for economic regulation, undermines the government itself by demonstration of its failures"
how about "undermines capitalism itself by demonstration of its failures" - or would you like to argue that capitalism is inherently perfect?
if any system that is not perfect is undermined by its impurity then you cannot consider any real world system to be anything other than flawed.
can any system be considered perfect?
it would appear to me that those two arguments juxtaposed would lead to an internal contradiction thus invalidating the whole position ...
Published: September 19, 2006 7:16 PM
Brilliant gentelmen, absolutely brilliant. Ahh, as usual: from an old tv show to Austrian economics.
1. As for all the comments about A-Team beeing just a tv show or serving eventually under the orders of general What'shisname - I've got news for You guys: it's a little hush hush, so don't tell anybody - we know!
Mr Machajs' article is a little bit of a joke, didn't You notice? Ah, don't think twice about it lads;)
2. As for the evergreen: AnCap/AustrianEconomics vs Socialists/Statists/Monetarists (even YOU can find something fit for you:):
If You are trying to get in an argument with Austrian school economics read Mises first. Read Nozick, read Rothbard, read Bastiat.
Oh, you did, did ya? Sory then. Then You must know there is no flaw you could find. You found one? Congratulations, there's a Nobel Prize waiting for you at the reception office...
Let's be serious for a moment. Theoreticaly there is nothing wrong with the AnCap model. Practically you say? Well, since you don't trust pure logic, you'll have to wait with practical conclusions for a laissez fair state (because, of course, You don't know any moments in history, when "laissez fair" has been a respected principle, do you?). And then how a minarchistic state will function. And finally AnCap. But don't worry, You will have an occasion for empirical studies. Trust me on this one;)
ps. If you agreed with what is in the parenthesis, you should be doing some reading on your history as well;)
Published: January 29, 2007 1:08 PM
thanks good site and webmaster
Published: March 28, 2007 5:53 PM
Mati Machaj is my Hero, too!
Published: June 12, 2007 2:56 AM
Mat Machaj is a hero to us all!
Published: June 12, 2007 3:04 AM
How do you pronounce 'Machaj' ?
Published: June 14, 2007 4:06 PM
m as in Mises
a as in Alabama
ch as in Hero
a again, like in rothbArd
j as You
or in the IPA transcription mA:hA:j
[ps. I can be such an idiot when I don't think]
Published: August 7, 2007 1:55 PM
The A-Team was an anti-leftist group while working for the government, but they were an anti-government group while working for the people.
They didn't jive with the anti-leftist agenda of the government.
What they wanted to do was help the people, when they discovered the government within the government wasn't helping the people, but helping itself - they did what was righteous, by truly helping the people using all of their training.
They did what they were told they were trained to do. Help the people.
Published: January 17, 2009 8:03 AM