The Idea of a Private Law Society
Mankind being what it is, murderers, robbers, thieves, thugs, and con-artists will always exist, and life in society will be impossible if they are not deterred. How and by whom is this enforcement of law and order accomplished? The answer given by classical liberals and by almost everyone else is that the indispensable task of maintaining law and order is the unique function of the state. But the very institution of government is nothing less than a contradiction in terms: an expropriating property protector, "producing" ever more taxes and ever less protection. In order to be just and efficient, the production and maintenance of law will have to be undertaken by freely financed and competing individuals and agencies. FULL ARTICLE
Comments (81)
Most people in favour of state police haven't thought far enough to realize it's already a clear failure, and the free market has already replaced it where allowed — hence private security, private theft insurance, and private arbitration.
Hoppe opened my eyes when he extended Mises' socialist calculation problem to state police. With socialized policing, there's no rational way to determine how much "protection" each citizen needs and must pay for; nor is there any way to measure whether the product is worth more than the inputs. Is it really worth millions of dollars each year for my small hometown to buy expensive patrol cars and pay fat cops to eat doughnuts while watching for speeders or cyclists not wearing helmets? The government has no idea, but it's not their own money being wasted.
Published: July 27, 2006 9:47 PM
Indeed the image of Andy Tailor is a level of "police" that folks really want. Until or unless there's actual trouble, he just lets everyone do their own thing.
Oh, and the one deputy gets one bullet, in his pocket, which is taken away as soon as he gets jittery.
Of course, at need, all he need do is state, "I need help" and the entire town turns out (armed) to provide "collective" services.
"Law Enforcement" is a fired-clay bowl of poop. "Peace keeping" takes very little time and money in comparison, because "peace keeping" doesn't go in search of targets.
Published: July 27, 2006 10:51 PM
Would there be any limitation to a protection agency to kill or to torture, for instance, one criminal who has just stolen a DVD player, or who has committed violence (but has not killed) against a person?
I mean, Rothbard's Ethics of Liberty impose a limitation, but it seems to be that Hans Poppe's system would not rely upon such ethics in the persecution of criminals and execution of penalties.
Published: July 28, 2006 9:54 AM
...I mean, Rothbard's Ethics of Liberty imposeS a limitation...
sorry...I am not a native of a English-speaking coutry.
Published: July 28, 2006 9:58 AM
ops... it is Hans-Hermann Hoppe... I always forget how to write it....
Published: July 28, 2006 10:01 AM
Machado, "Would there be any limitation to a protection agency to kill or to torture, for instance, one criminal who has just stolen a DVD player, or who has committed violence (but has not killed) against a person?"
If I find someone who has broken into my home (or business), direct action on my part is appropriate because by breaking and entering, the crook has put himself in a position where if he is killed or hurt it is his own fault.
Now to your question. Once a crook is caught, it is now _my_ fault what happens. Unless he again attempts harm, any harm I do to him is my responsibility.
So there is an absolute limit to what actions a security provider can take with extracting a confession or information. It is exactly the same limit that any private person has to torture anyone else.
This would indeed create a much higher incidence of "lack of evidence" situations. But it would also mean that an innocent person need not be afraid. One of the most awful things about living in a police state is the constant fear of being mistaken for a criminal, or even worse, getting caught up in the web of continuously changing laws that make everyone a criminal every day in some way.
Published: July 28, 2006 10:41 AM
I commend Dr. Hoppe for “The Idea of a Private Law Society�. He begins his analysis from first principles, raises the problem of social order, and demonstrates the solution by the four interrelated rules. These ensure conflict-avoidance. Then Dr. Hoppe clarifies the more difficult problem of the role of the state. As he states, mankind will include those who will not act in accordance with the aforementioned rules. We are then faced with the problem of “How and by whom is this enforcement of law and order accomplished?�
The subject then has been properly formulated, but I now question his further analysis. Dr. Hoppe writes that “the state is an agency that exercises a territorial monopoly of ultimate decision-making.� My understanding is that the state merely possesses delegated powers, while the final decisions are made by the public, through their elected representatives. Similarly, the ultimate deciders of taxation are the public, who can ensure that taxes will not exceed their willingness (as a group) to pay.
Were we to be restricted to a government that held ultimate power, it would be a dictatorship, even if it were benevolent, and would be neither moral nor effective. Thus, whereas Hoppe shows the flaws of a government with final powers, he does not address a government that has only delegated powers, subject to the public.
It is true that government often becomes dictatorial, and takes power for its own interests. It may in addition get people to relinquish their right to self-defense, such as by taking away their guns. Truly, a public that does not insist on their right to self-defense, nor demands minimum government, will get the government it deserves. However, that is not the fault of the government, but of the denizens. *Does anyone doubt that if the public were overwhelmingly and conscientiously committed to a government confined to defending the rights of the individual, they could bring it about, even if they lived under a tyranny?*
Published: July 28, 2006 10:47 AM
It's a sad truth that more police in our current state spend more time in administering parking tickets and pulling over people for drug possesion and speeding, instead of tracking down dangerous criminals such as rapists or murderers. Hoppe was exactly right about the perverse incentives built into "public protection" by the state. The state and their police have enormous incentives to create laws that have much less risk to their lives when enforcing them (such as traffic laws and nuisance violation laws) completely at our expense. Being a dirty cop that searches people's vehicles when pulling them over and takes a few things while administering a ticket for reckless (i.e. rational) driving or whatever, is far easier and more lucrative than being an honest noble cop that's willing to take gunfire to stop bank robberers or track down other dangerous criminals. In the latter you could lose your life at any time, in the former the worst is a slap on the wrist, with a suspension, but you get to keep all you confiscated (asset forfieture). It seems as if over 99% of our laws cater to the dirty cop mentality. Hmmmm how do you think that happend? This absurdity won't happen in a stateless order.
My only question is how will the role of common law precedence in discovering universal rights be enforced universally in a stateless order? I understand there are incentives to come to a resolution, but if there 2 different precendents that contradict eachother by different groups of laws, by what appeal will resolve this conflict? Could there be a "Bill of Natural Rights" enforced by all for all that emerges in a stateless order?
Published: July 28, 2006 11:51 AM
Local police departments were apparently a cost effective solution when they were invented 150 or so years ago. Americans now spend more on private policing (guards, alarm systems) than the total of all local, state, and federal policing.
Writing from 30 years polic experience, police don't prevent crime except an occasional crime of opportunity. In the last 20 years most of the street police officers in most major cities spend most of their times chasing after radio calls. A call is generally made because a crime has already occurred. Police don't have time to actually look for bad guys. We occasionally stumble upon bad guys doing something bad.
Second, when a patrol car drives by the bad guy knows the coast is probably clear for the next half hour. If there was a cop on ever block (in low rise areas) crime would be deterred. Aroung here (Seattle) it costs about $100,000/year to put one police officer on the street.
Third, why do the crime shows only picture homicide and rape? Because only in real life only rape and homicide are investigated. In King County, WA, a juvenile must be convicted of 5 auto thefts before he gets any jail time.
When I signed on in '62 residential burglary was considered the most dangerous crime. Now days burglary is a "crime against property," an insurance problem. burglars are occasionally arrested but it more by accident than intent. An officer makes a traffic stop and the car is full of stolen stuff . . . something like that.
I havn't been able to think of any workable solution. The basic problem is the nature of our population has changed and only a miracle from God would put the genie back into the bottle.
Published: July 28, 2006 11:58 AM
Curt Howland
Thank you for your insights...
Actually, a supposed criminal would not be tortured because he could be an innocent. Actually, an innocent who will be willing to sue the security agency. There could be some sort of insurance to guarantee such right.
The real criminal could be protected the same way by "human rights" organizations (that would protect the criminals up to the extent that they must be punished up to the limit of his offense, perhaps double of his offense plus some damage).
Is this reasoning correct?
Published: July 28, 2006 12:16 PM
One implication I picked up from Prof. Hoppe's paper comes from his democratic-government-as-owner-of-usufruct indentification. Extended as far as it can go, this kind of ownership is the kind enjoyed by a fascist state. Thus, to the extent that a democratic government's officials act in their economic self-interest, democratic goverment unrestrained between elections grows into a pre-fascist state. All it takes for a transition from pre-fascism to plain fascism is the outlawing of all parties but one, which is possible democratically without a formal abnegation of the right to vote.
Published: July 28, 2006 12:37 PM
Billwald, I had a stepfather who was a cop, and it was his opinion that a cop anywhere was either dirty or utterly disgusted with the futility of it all.
That's not an environment I want a _good_ cop to have to work in! In a private police environment, it is just these good cops who will be able to command high pay and good benefits, just like anyone who is good at what they do can do. The example of "Banacheck", the George Pepard insurance investigator, comes to mind.
Machado, I think your reasoning is correct, but I would go further. Even a guilty person, once they give up, is a human being. "Shooting someone in the back" is universally condemned not because of the person shot being guilty or not, but because if you are shooting someone in the back it is assumed that you cannot have been threatened by them at that moment.
Almost every state recognizes that someone breaking into your house is fair game for stopping by whatever means you have available. Even now, it is rare to have a legal "requirement to flee" or to otherwise abandon your home to a crook first, and only if you are unable to do so can you defend yourself. Maybe only Massachusetts still has this abomination.
Texas is an entirely different place. Shooting someone from your house who is breaking into your car has been successfully defended as "defending property" there. It remains true only in that the crook was actively _attacking_, not running away or already caught.
Published: July 28, 2006 12:44 PM
This is a great topic...thanks to Dr. Hoppe.
My initial reaction is that I so hate insurance that I might rather live at the mercy of cops than of an insurance company. But perhaps my disgust for insurance is better directed at government/mortgagee-required insurance, which leads to high premiums and little true variation among the competing agencies.
Another question is who takes care of the elderly, infirm and poor - and others who cannot afford premiums. I imagine that, under such a radical scenario, Dr. Hoppe is contemplating a reversion to the point where, without the central planning and intrusions of State, families and communities take care of their own.
Published: July 28, 2006 1:01 PM
Alan Weingarten stated the following:
The subject then has been properly formulated, but I now question his further analysis. Dr. Hoppe writes that “the state is an agency that exercises a territorial monopoly of ultimate decision-making.� My understanding is that the state merely possesses delegated powers, while the final decisions are made by the public, through their elected representatives. Similarly, the ultimate deciders of taxation are the public, who can ensure that taxes will not exceed their willingness (as a group) to pay
Firstly, delegation implies consent. When talking about the "delegated powers" of the government, you assume that "collective consent" is a realistic possibility. What truly occurs is that the majority of voters who agree (only on the candidate, not necessarily his position on all issues) give the power to the "delegate" over the often fierce objection of the rest of the voters, and often many non-voters, whose individual rights in law and commerce are just as valid as the rights of those who choose to vote. At this point we have already undermined self-determination and personal liberty to a degree.
I would also disagree with the concept of delegation. Instead, it is more of a time-limited grant of power, as the public cannot immediately recall (without unlawful and immoral force) any delegate who violates his trust. In the market, when one breaches the realms of his delegated authority, he is subject to immediate (in most places) termination. In government, the same person gets to wait for the next election cycle and, even if removed, still gets to collect the fat pension at the expense of those who did (and those who did not) vote for him.
Market forces would cause the actors in a private solution scenario to be much more responsive and accountable than those with a granted monopoly.
Published: July 28, 2006 1:07 PM
Allen,
“The subject then has been properly formulated, but I now question his further analysis. Dr. Hoppe writes that “the state is an agency that exercises a territorial monopoly of ultimate decision-making.� My understanding is that the state merely possesses delegated powers, while the final decisions are made by the public, through their elected representatives. Similarly, the ultimate deciders of taxation are the public, who can ensure that taxes will not exceed their willingness (as a group) to pay.�
It is true that many citizens appear to believe that they delegate powers to the state and that they, through their vote, are the ones who decide such matters as levels of taxation, levels of public debt, and matters of foreign policy: wars and aid, and what major corporations benefit the most and how, from government works and monetary redistribution programs. However, I would say that this view is an illusion and many also seem to sense this is the case. But to the question of monopoly, it is plain that anarchy is not on any ballot, that secession is not an option under any state, and that paying taxes is never optional. It is true that any state requires the support of the people, or at least some form of acquiescence; at least not open rebellion. But this is true whether the state is small and liberal, or tyrannical and oppressive.
“Were we to be restricted to a government that held ultimate power, it would be a dictatorship, even if it were benevolent, and would be neither moral nor effective. Thus, whereas Hoppe shows the flaws of a government with final powers, he does not address a government that has only delegated powers, subject to the public.�
The difference is only in degree of aggression, but absolutely not in principle. Both states require tacit support from the people, and both states necessarily rely on aggression to implement their policies. And because of this, both states are unjustified in their existence.
“It is true that government often becomes dictatorial, and takes power for its own interests. It may in addition get people to relinquish their right to self-defense, such as by taking away their guns. Truly, a public that does not insist on their right to self-defense, nor demands minimum government, will get the government it deserves. However, that is not the fault of the government, but of the denizens.�
This is all very true. But further, it is the inherent nature of the state to usurp authority more and more over time. The fundamental premise of the state is that it has a right to initiate force and compulsion and threaten violence against non-aggressors. With a foundation such as that, one should expect nothing but increasing acts of tyranny from such an institution. It is a free-minded public which is not consistent enough to recognize that no state at all is justified nor can be trusted, that is the first to “get the government it deserves�.
“*Does anyone doubt that if the public were overwhelmingly and conscientiously committed to a government confined to defending the rights of the individual, they could bring it about, even if they lived under a tyranny?*�
The public must be overwhelmingly and conscientiously committed to a consistent and non-contradictory distaste for aggression of any form; including the aggression of the inherently aggressive state. At this point, no state could survive, and free and private enterprise would be left alone to take care of the rest of the (private) criminal element.
Published: July 28, 2006 1:58 PM
Allen,
When you speak of delegated powers, who does the delegating? The people? If so, then the state necessarily can't have any power that an individual doesn't have to give it. Therefore, if an individual doesn't have the power to detain an innocent person on a hunch, they can't delegate it to the state.
I'm all fine with the concept of a state of "delegated" powers, as long we keep the socialists and other fascists from expanding those powers to something superhuman. History tells me that that will never happen in real life, but I see no great problem with it in theory otherwise.
Published: July 28, 2006 2:09 PM
What A Great Article!
In parallel to Allen's comment, I have always said that if people are all virtuous, any form of government will work; if they are not virtuous, no form of government will work. Of course, virtuous people might favor a certain form of government, but it is their inherent virtue that makes for a functional society. We definitely don't have such a population as outwardly manifested by our society.
The proposed privatization of law depends upon a high level of virtue (an intentionally amorphous term that you should define to suit yourself). I like the ideas and would prefer to see something like that work. This sounds a lot like the situation in the time of the judges in ancient Israel when "there was no king in Israel, but every man did that which was right in his own eyes." (Judges 17:6, the Bible) Each group of people settled disputes by appealing to elders or judges, but otherwise they minded their own business and did as they pleased.
The problem I see is with fundamental human nature. First, people tend to divide themselves and group together according to like-mindedness. Second, there is always an element that says "Follow me and I will take from others and give to you!" This naturally results in the creation of tribes, city-states, and kingdoms that then war against each other and grow by accretion. Wasn't that a great synopsis of history?
The foremost example of this process in recent history is Somalia. For a while there was no central government, but the mode of organization was basically tribes. Now a central state is naturally asserting itself by force through the instrumentality of the minority who head the siren call of leaders promising power and influence.
Laying aside all the virtues of a privatized society of competing insurers, there will always be an element who enforce their will on others through violence. We talk theoretically of the individual criminal or small band of outlaws, and the model sounds good at that level. But the biggest threat to our pristine proposal is a widespread conspiracy of a significant fraction of the population to impose their rule upon us.
While private law insurers and protection agencies would be vying for our business, the treasonous would also be vying for support. Instead of being driven by the motives of providing the best service at the lowest cost, the statist would be motivated by the future value of overthrowing the system and gaining control of their neighbor's property for themselves. These types of sociopaths exist at all times and in all places (hopefully you will agree that history plainly bears this out?)
In order to usher in an edenic era of peaceful economic and social interaction, we must deal with the very real problem of a significant proportion of our neighbors agreeing to end the episode immediately for their own profit. We are not talking about what to do with they guy stealing your DVD player from your house--we are talking about the people who form an army and drive you out of your house to live in it themselves.
One obvious solution is to form you own army. Considering all the guerilla movements in the world that are willing to die fighting the current state in order to replace it, it would be naive to think that the mere existence of a defensive army will deter the statist revolutionaries. There will be a war. The question is, will the freedom lovers have the tenacity to continually defend their liberty?
I posit that the answer is clear from the existence of government everywhere in the world. The answer is no. Everyone has always ultimately given in and allowed the statists to rule in order to avoid bloodshed. One way to view this is that it is human-nature to believe that it is more cost-effective to give power to a government to protect us from evil people who want to force government upon us. To quote the rationale of the once-free ancient Israelites I alluded to at the beginning, they asked "That we also may be like all the nations; and that our king may judge us, and go out before us, and fight our battles." (I Samuel 8:20, the Bible)
In the end, I am more intrigued by the discussions of how monarchies have a vested interest in protecting and promoting the value of their kingdoms. Although I like the concept of a completely privatized society, I firmly believe that the first thing people will do is decide to reform a state and appoint a king to take care of them. Consider how much stock people place in the responsibility of presidents and prime ministers to make the economy and society work right--president and prime minister are merely euphemisms for monorchy. It is a defect of humanity to reject liberty and seek paternalism.
I feel like I am raining on the parade, but I believe these are important points to consider if we want to realistically assess the situation. I wouldn't be here if I didn't (perhaps vainly) hope for an improvement in humans nature as well as the human condition. I firmly believe that we can make matters better by coming to an understanding of correct principles and promoting them as much as possible. So bravo for the article and keep up the good work!
Published: July 28, 2006 3:26 PM
Dear Professor Hoppe:
As a die-hard LewRockwell/Von Mises reader, I have read many articles on how to privatize various public functions, including the legal system, as suggested by your recent Ludwig Von Mises Institute article on that subject.
Many institutions which are now public could be privatized with reasonable ease, albeit intense squawking from the apparatchiks who populate the bloated bureaucrats which preside over them. I see fire protection, waste disposal, interstate highways, mail delivery, etc. as all reasonably easily transferred to the private sector.
However, I don't see how it is possible to privatize the legal system. The alternative solution which you suggest, centered around insurance companies, won't work, in my opinion. I am a lawyer who deals with insurance companies, and they are often horrible, dishonest, and frequently fail to pay on legitimate contractual claims. I can't see entrusting a central function of the legal system to them.
You are entirely correct that the legal system is ruinous to our country. I am a trial lawyer, and I see it every day. Judges are venal, ignorant, and often in the grip of Marxist agendas. But the suggested replacement won't work either. Can you imagine the pragmatic problems of private vigilantes trying to collar bad guys. I live in an area populated by conscienceless barbarians, who would shiv you in a heartbeat. When conscience departs, only the law keeps them reined in.
How could insurance armies deal with larger scale predations? ("Oh, look, over the horizen. It's the Grand Army of the Gecko). The type of people attracted to such a mercenary life are little better than the police, and often worse.
I don't see this as a workable answer to the problem of a tyrannical state, because it would be replaced by similarly unaccountable mega-bureaucracies populated by the same sorts of persons who have brought our former republic to its current peril.
Sincerely,
Gregory A. Hession J.D.
Published: July 28, 2006 3:33 PM
Hello HH: How does a private law society protect us against the ultimate case when the Mafia, the Vito Corleones, the Jimmy Hoffas, the Capones and the Tony Bananas conspire
in an internecine combat to extort and control our Society, forcing everybody to pay tribute?
Don´t we need a contralized agency to protect us from them? This is the last stand, for which anarquisim to be practical must reply. It seems that we must have a state of last recourse. Thanks you for your brilliance. Your, Joe Keckeissen in Guatemala
Published: July 28, 2006 4:46 PM
Bravo! This is a breath of fresh air. Of course it will work. The role of the state is simply to maintain those conditions where prosperity, free trade and voluntary association can take place.
By placing our faith in bureaucratic government we have been living under the fog of cloudy reasoning. No wonder we don't get the results we want. Once we can see clearly, we will all act in our best interests. If you want responsibility from people, see to it that it is in their own best interest to act responsibly.
Imagine if every break-in and every violation of property were acted on effectively and efficiently. Mostly it would then be prevented and even if not, the goods would soon be returned and the culprit would be punished out of pocket. I think our society is capable of that.
And the theft of taxes would likewise be punished and reduced if not eliminated. And we could close out that multi billion dollar budget on victimless crime, and close a few costly prisons too.
What a miracle! What a mistake that we let it go so far without thinking.
Published: July 28, 2006 4:50 PM
David,
“In parallel to Allen's comment, I have always said that if people are all virtuous, any form of government will work; if they are not virtuous, no form of government will work. Of course, virtuous people might favor a certain form of government, but it is their inherent virtue that makes for a functional society. We definitely don't have such a population as outwardly manifested by our society.�
But will a virtuous and justice loving people favor aggression? The answer is no, and so there is no form of government that such a people could conceivably favor, if it is founded in the initiation of force and violence. And all states are so founded.
…
“The problem I see is with fundamental human nature. First, people tend to divide themselves and group together according to like-mindedness. Second, there is always an element that says "Follow me and I will take from others and give to you!" This naturally results in the creation of tribes, city-states, and kingdoms that then war against each other and grow by accretion. Wasn't that a great synopsis of history?�
This is not (as you know) an argument or justification in favor of a state, but rather a view or explanation of how or why one comes about. The key is to keep clearly delineated in one’s mind, the difference between the explanation of the existence of an evil and a justification for it. They are not the same thing.
“The foremost example of this process in recent history is Somalia. For a while there was no central government, but the mode of organization was basically tribes. Now a central state is naturally asserting itself by force through the instrumentality of the minority who head the siren call of leaders promising power and influence.�
But if enough well armed and free people are willing and able to show this promise of power and influence to be an illusion, fewer will be willing and able to be misled by this minority of murderers, liars and thieves. The state may fail against this resolve.
“Laying aside all the virtues of a privatized society of competing insurers, there will always be an element who enforce their will on others through violence. We talk theoretically of the individual criminal or small band of outlaws, and the model sounds good at that level. But the biggest threat to our pristine proposal is a widespread conspiracy of a significant fraction of the population to impose their rule upon us.�
You have identified the problem: the state. It is just as you describe; a nation wide conspiracy of silence amongst a significant element of the population who through a fraudulent and criminal process of democratically voting secretly at the polls impose their rule on the rest of us.
“While private law insurers and protection agencies would be vying for our business, the treasonous would also be vying for support. Instead of being driven by the motives of providing the best service at the lowest cost, the statist would be motivated by the future value of overthrowing the system and gaining control of their neighbor's property for themselves. These types of sociopaths exist at all times and in all places (hopefully you will agree that history plainly bears this out?)�
Yes, in a just and libertarian anarchy, these criminals would be tried for such crimes as you mention, and would become outlaws and outcasts, striped of social standing and sent away from our peaceful and cooperative society.
“In order to usher in an edenic era of peaceful economic and social interaction, we must deal with the very real problem of a significant proportion of our neighbors agreeing to end the episode immediately for their own profit. We are not talking about what to do with they guy stealing your DVD player from your house--we are talking about the people who form an army and drive you out of your house to live in it themselves.�
Have faith in the market. Let me ask you this, if you knew that you and your advisors, and your generals would be the top targets of professional insurance company hired and trained assassins, would you send your army to conquer a people protected by such companies; insurance companies that compete with each other on the grounds that they are more efficient at assassinating aggressive generals and presidents than the other? If you knew your generals would probably rather kill you than invade, would you still make the call to invade? The market will provide the best defense, whatever it is. Contrast that with how the state protects us: poking sticks in hornet’s nests and providing for mutually assured annihilation. Sounds like a statist plan to me!
“One obvious solution is to form you own army. Considering all the guerilla movements in the world that are willing to die fighting the current state in order to replace it, it would be naive to think that the mere existence of a defensive army will deter the statist revolutionaries. There will be a war. The question is, will the freedom lovers have the tenacity to continually defend their liberty?�
The freedom lovers will have the benefit of an advanced technological economy on their side. Life will be good for the freedom lover. Defense will be easy for the freedom lover who is dedicated to the cause of freedom. People will flock to such freedom and will embrace it. As long as people understand what gives us freedom and prosperity, they will not let it go so easily. But give the state an inch, and you have lost, because eventually the state will teach the children, and the children will grow up ignorant of liberty and freedom, and what allows for prosperity. As the children’s children grow up even more ignorant, they will believe any lie, including socialism, democracy, egalitarianism and every kind of false and crazy human “right� that can be imagined.
“I posit that the answer is clear from the existence of government everywhere in the world. The answer is no. Everyone has always ultimately given in and allowed the statists to rule in order to avoid bloodshed. One way to view this is that it is human-nature to believe that it is more cost-effective to give power to a government to protect us from evil people who want to force government upon us. To quote the rationale of the once-free ancient Israelites I alluded to at the beginning, they asked "That we also may be like all the nations; and that our king may judge us, and go out before us, and fight our battles." (I Samuel 8:20, the Bible)�
Perhaps. But this is no justification for advocating any form of state. And maybe if enough young people take an interest, and get educated, I don’t hold out much hope for the old statists (let them die out and a more enlightened liberty loving generation take their place).
“In the end, I am more intrigued by the discussions of how monarchies have a vested interest in protecting and promoting the value of their kingdoms. Although I like the concept of a completely privatized society, I firmly believe that the first thing people will do is decide to reform a state and appoint a king to take care of them. Consider how much stock people place in the responsibility of presidents and prime ministers to make the economy and society work right--president and prime minister are merely euphemisms for monorchy. It is a defect of humanity to reject liberty and seek paternalism.�
Again perhaps. But in the meantime, it is up to those who know something others don’t to advocate only what we know to be both right and true. And that is that aggression cannot be justified, and because the state depends on aggression, it too can never be justified.
“I feel like I am raining on the parade, but I believe these are important points to consider if we want to realistically assess the situation. I wouldn't be here if I didn't (perhaps vainly) hope for an improvement in humans nature as well as the human condition. I firmly believe that we can make matters better by coming to an understanding of correct principles and promoting them as much as possible. So bravo for the article and keep up the good work!�
You are not raining at all. And I’m with you all the way. We know that human nature is what it is and that there will always be criminals; and yet despite that, most humans admire truth and justice. It is just that the state is a perversion, and it perverts all who form it. I think we can be in a better situation than the Americans were before the revolution. We can be in a position to take back our liberty with the explicit knowledge that we and only we as individuals are justified in working for ourselves, producing for ourselves, saving for ourselves, and investing for ourselves. And all along the way, we can also protect ourselves and execute justice; all without embracing aggression or an aggressive state.
Published: July 28, 2006 5:30 PM
Cuthbert1776 writes that I ‘assume that "collective consent" is a realistic possibility.’ Allow me to begin from first principles, and consider a wagon train that people establish to go through Indian country. Is this not a realistic possibility? If it is, then there is a maximum number of people that can comprise a state.
However, I acknowledge the reality that there are many non-voters, and that there are all sorts of ways that delegates violate trust. Nonetheless, I aver that *in reality, virtually every government is delegated, for in time only those governments survive that do not violate the public.* When people can travel, they leave those countries they find impossible, and go to those they find preferable. Moreover, the corrupt governments over time become less competitive than the less corrupt. In that sense, there are governments that are more survivable, and those that are less survivable. The fact that there isn’t any country where every single individual is content with his government, is simply a reality of the human condition, rather than a flaw in government. If you as an individual cannot find a single government that you are content with, that doesn’t deny that most people, most of the time, do prefer their government. Note that although people are free to work anywhere, in any place of work there are many complainants. This does not refute that people have chosen their best alternative. So although each government is akin to a monopoly, in the end, it acts like the very market that gives people the government they deserve.
In America, the overwhelming problem is that of the redistribution of wealth. This problem did not arise against the will of the mass. On the contrary, *it is the will of the mass that precludes letting people keep what is theirs.* Again, even if every single person were satisfied with every single politician, this would not stop the real problem, which is that people in effect get what they insist upon.
There are those who think that the problem in the Arab-Muslim countries is their lack of democracy, because some denizens are persecuted. Yet the real problem is that the vast majority prefer settling matters by force. Were their governments more democratic, they would be even more tyrannical.
Paul Edwards raises a similar argument to Cuthbert1776’s, namely that people are deluded into thinking that they control the government through their vote. Yet my view does not depend on their vote, but on the reality of what they favor or disfavor. This was spelled out in “The Politics of Obedience: The Discourse of Voluntary Servitude� by Étienne de la Boétie.
Now Paul says that anarchy is not on any ballot, and that secession is not an option. True, but now consider that if a few people set up their own government, it would not have the staying power to resist the outside world. In short, the reason for the downfall of such communes is that the competing, or warring, outside powers, defeat them. This can be viewed as the choice of people to be a part of the large powerful powers, rather than the small purist communes. As Paul notes, my claim that there is some form of acquiescence “is true whether the state is small and liberal, or tyrannical and oppressive.�
He goes on to address my view that a government with ultimate power would be neither moral nor effective. Paul claims that delegated powers and a government with dictatorial powers would both involve aggression, so their difference is one of degree, not kind. Here, I strongly disagree. It is one thing to engage in that degree of aggression that is necessary for survival, and another to allow aggression that is avoidable. We can be decent people with flaws, without being monstrous. We can form useful products that are not 100% efficient. Paul’s views deny that there has been progress in forming America, by using his absolute standard of non-aggression. He might as well say that a life without freedom of religion is as justified as a life with such freedom, or that a life where his children die, is not fundamentally different from a life where his children live.
Next, Paul writes “it is the inherent nature of the state to usurp authority more and more over time.� So he concludes that no state is justified, by his absolute standard. It is akin to someone who says, if I can’t have perfection, my life is not worth living. That is surely a personal right. However, for those of us who view moral growth, not perfection, as justification, it is otherwise. I wonder whether Paul thinks that if he cannot find a perfect woman, he is better off without any mate at all?
Then he considers that a public could be virtuous enough to reject aggression of any kind, whereupon no state could survive. It may be true (although Ayn Rand doubts it) that if each of us were self-governing, we would not require any external compulsion. However, I view that as unrealistic, while delegated powers are feasible.
Quasible correctly notes that “if an individual doesn't have the power to detain an innocent person on a hunch, they can't delegate it to the state.� He then has no confidence that “we [can] keep the socialists and other fascists from expanding those powers to something superhuman.� That however depends on how well those who believe in liberty out-compete the arguments of those who believe in expanding the power of the government beyond its proper role.
David Spellman writes that “if people are all virtuous, any form of government will work; if they are not virtuous, no form of government will work.� He desires the situation where "there was no king in Israel, but every man did that which was right in his own eyes." That however may be an ideal, rather than what is feasible. Let us note that in his quoted Bible, even the greatest heroes, such as Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Moses had serious flaws. I concur with David about the limitations of people, and concur that “I firmly believe that we can make matters better by coming to an understanding of correct principles and promoting them as much as possible.�
Published: July 28, 2006 7:43 PM
Dear Professor Hoppe (and everybody else),
I've heard time and time again in your writings and in other libertarian pieces that a State is a "compulsory territorial monopolist of protection and jurisdiction equipped with the power to tax without unanimous consent" (taken from "Myth of National Defense"). If these two criteria must be met for a state to exist, was the Unites STATES of America actually a STATE under the Articles of Confederation (1777 - 1788)?
After all, there was NO power to tax under the Articles, the national government was not the ultimate decision-making authority, and the national government did not enjoy the priviledge of being a "compulsory territorial monopolist of protection and jurisdiction."
Has anybody ever thought about this before?
Sometimes I feel the best hope for true liberty in the US is to return to our roots by repealing the Constitution and reinstating the Articles of Confederation.
Thoughts?
Published: July 28, 2006 8:22 PM
Allen W> "My understanding is that the state merely possesses delegated powers, while the final decisions are made by the public, through their elected representatives."
This is the "we are the government idea." I have no idea why people believe that. I challenge anyone to walk down their street and randomly ask people: (1) who "their representatives" are, (2) name 5 bills their "representative" voted on, and (3) what the substantive content of that legislation is. The idea that a crude vote somehow turns into meaningful and representative legislation is utterly bewildering. Why do people believe this?
In short, I have no elected representative. No one I vote for gets elected. Even if they did, I would not claim the crudest weapon (my vote) somehow resulted in policy measures that represented my wishes. At best, I vote for someone because I think they will hurt me less than the other candidates.
I think we should go back to "no taxation without representation." Since I am not represented, I should not be taxed.
Allen W> "... he does not address a government that has only delegated powers, subject to the public."
The "delegated powers" powers in the USA began to almost immediately turn into "implied powers" thanks a good deal to the first Secretary of the Treasury. You might remember that individual as the same guy who was ignored at the Constititional Convention. When a politician can't "front door" it, they "back door" it. This is the nature of the beast. Limited government (only delegated powers) is a myth.
Allen W> "Cuthbert1776 writes that I ‘assume that "collective consent" is a realistic possibility.’ Allow me to begin from first principles, and consider a wagon train that people establish to go through Indian country. Is this not a realistic possibility? If it is, then there is a maximum number of people that can comprise a state."
(1) Presumably there is unanimous consent in deciding to travel together.
(2) "Collectivism" (or just cooperation) in this case is simply individuals agreeing -- it is not a monopoly government.
So the example does not apply.
Allen W> "It is akin to someone who says, if I can’t have perfection, my life is not worth living."
This implies a couple of things that are probably not correct, at least they aren't from my perspective. The first incorrect implication is that one who favors no government is not able to discriminate between degrees of badness in government and not able to choose the least bad. This is hardly a statement of life not worth living in absense of perfection. The second error is more subtle. This error is that anarchy is somehow a society of absolute perfection and is a utopia. I personally don't know any anarchists who claim such a thing. The presumption of private or public law is "societal imperfection," for if beings and their actions were perfect, there would be no need for law. Anarchists say that anarchy is the least bad (the best) societal arrangement because it allows the most freedom for individuals. That is all. In this way, freedom (liberty) is the base morality.
Published: July 28, 2006 9:21 PM
Nick
“Sometimes I feel the best hope for true liberty in the US is to return to our roots by repealing the Constitution and reinstating the Articles of Confederation.�
I’d drink to that. It would be a radical step in the right direction.
Published: July 29, 2006 1:37 AM
Allen,
“It is one thing to engage in that degree of aggression that is necessary for survival, and another to allow aggression that is avoidable.�
I don’t know whether we are just using different definitions of the term “aggression� or if you truly believe it is necessary to initiate violence and threats of violence against peaceful non-aggressors in order to survive. If it is the former, it would be worth while for us to come to agreement on terminology before we proceed to talk past each other. If, however the situation is the latter case, then we are very far apart. In fact, it is man’s tolerance for aggression, and in particular state aggression that puts the very survival of the planet at risk. Aggression does not allow survival. Aggression makes the possibility for survival more tenuous.
“We can be decent people with flaws, without being monstrous. We can form useful products that are not 100% efficient. Paul’s views deny that there has been progress in forming America, by using his absolute standard of non-aggression. He might as well say that a life without freedom of religion is as justified as a life with such freedom, or that a life where his children die, is not fundamentally different from a life where his children live.�
Allen, I don’t see how my views deny or even allude to any progress or lack of progress in the forming of America. The more liberty people enjoy, the better. All I am saying is liberty is ideal and aggression is unjustified. And the state is aggressive. A little bit of injustice is still unjustifiable, even if it is preferable to a whole lot of injustice. I will take a little injustice over a lot of injustice any day. Just let’s not try to justify injustice ever. It can’t be done, so no point in trying.
“Next, Paul writes “it is the inherent nature of the state to usurp authority more and more over time.� So he concludes that no state is justified, by his absolute standard. It is akin to someone who says, if I can’t have perfection, my life is not worth living. That is surely a personal right. However, for those of us who view moral growth, not perfection, as justification, it is otherwise. I wonder whether Paul thinks that if he cannot find a perfect woman, he is better off without any mate at all?�
Actually my comments were to show that it is utopian to expect the state to not usurp when by its very nature, it must usurp. This is not, however my basis for claiming the state is unjustified. I draw this conclusion from these two vital facts: 1. Aggression is unjustifiable. And 2. The state is necessarily aggressive. It is akin to saying theft is unjustifiable, so therefore I cannot justify stealing. It appears your idea of what constitutes a justification is different from mine. As for your wife/political view analogy, I don’t think it is too successful. Principles are not human beings. They need not be imperfect by definition. They are not something you pride yourself in compromising on as you might compromise in expectations of your perfect woman, who does not exist.
“Then he considers that a public could be virtuous enough to reject aggression of any kind, whereupon no state could survive. It may be true (although Ayn Rand doubts it) that if each of us were self-governing, we would not require any external compulsion. However, I view that as unrealistic, while delegated powers are feasible.�
But now I believe you have read more into my view than I intended to convey. I am not advocating complete absence of laws, police, courts and compulsion, and neither is Hoppe. On the contrary; libertarian anarchy is very concerned with law: Austrian Law. The foundation of liberty is respect for private property and contracts, and this implies force and compulsion to enforce these things in a just manner. In fact, this is what rules out the state: it has no respect for private property and contract. The state rules by decree and expropriation. The state is a criminal organization on no sounder footing and arguably less sound footing than the mafia, for at least the mafia does not commit mass murder and genocide as several states in recent history have done including the most powerful one. And the mafia doesn’t indoctrinate the population with propaganda that it is looking out for everyone’s best interests. But I’m not advocating the mafia. I’m just trying to put the state into a clearer context.
Published: July 29, 2006 2:29 AM
Greg White denies the feasibility of delegated powers, because he requires that individuals understand who their representatives are, the status of their bills, etc. Yet delegated powers do not deny that things can get out of hand, but only that if people chose, they could select and restrain their representatives. As an aside, in various senior communities, people select a board to decide various issues, which then gets similarly out of hand. Currently, many of those in such communities are seeking state government to control their boards. Yet these have been fully voluntary organizations.
Next, he claims that he has no elected representative. OK, can he go to another country that is to his liking? If not, it is because nowhere is there any group of people who believe as he does. Perhaps Greg believes that if in America the overwhelming majority were committed to his view they would lack the power to have a representative of their choice?
Greg then overlooks my example of a wagon train as a government, because they only agree to travel together. To the contrary, there is delegation of military control, as when the wagons form a circle to defend against the Indians. Anyone who tries to help the Indians would then be shot.
Next, I fail to follow his response to my claim that when someone sets perfect standards for a government (such as having no aggression) it is akin to concluding that life is not worth living. He writes that one can discriminate between degrees of badness, which is exactly my point. Greg does not address the position of those anarchists who believe that since government requires aggression we should have none at all.
Paul Edwards decries my distinction between necessary and avoidable aggression. Let me clarify that setting up and running any government necessitates coercion against those who disagree, or refuse to be taxed. This is the initiation of violence against peaceful non-aggressors. No government can function if it requires unanimous consent, and must therefore at times commit aggression.
Next, Paul does not agree that his views deny any progress. OK, was it right to form the government of the US or not? When he says that “A little bit of injustice is still unjustifiable, even if it is preferable to a whole lot of injustice� he says both. On the one hand, we should have formed America because it is preferable; on the other hand we should not have formed it because it was unjustifiable. Perhaps he could state unambiguously whether or not it was right to form America? That was something that people had to decide in 1776. I think that he is saying that we should have done so. If so, it is necessary to form governments, although they embody aggression. Yet then he writes that aggression is unjustifiable, as though we should not form governments.
Paul acknowledges the difference between seeking an ideal, and recognizing that human beings are imperfect by definition. Here we agree, for we seek the ideal of no aggression, while being confined to governments that are by definition imperfect.
Finally, he thinks I have not recognized that he believes in laws, police, courts and compulsion, as does Hoppe. Yet he does so with the requirement that this cannot permit aggression, which is what we were discussing.
Published: July 29, 2006 7:11 AM
Allen, given your uncharitable description of Paul's position ("waiting for perfection"), let me give my similar view of your position: You're waiting for pigs to fly. Delegated powers have never constrained a group that claims a monopoly on force. Never. Therefore, those that hope pigs will fly bear the burden of proving that their design is superior.
Pretty simple.
Published: July 29, 2006 8:52 AM
Anarchist's typically attact a straw man of their own creation when attacking the state, and this is no exception. As Allen has pointed out, the people are ultimately responsible in our republic for how they govern themselves. Anarchists will claim they aren't fully represented, but that's by design: the founders didn't want a direct democracy, which they considered mob rule. Neither will anarchists admit that the rule of law exists, which also limits direct participation in democracy. Anarchists will loudly proclaim the faults of a direct democracy, then turn around and blame our republic for not being one.
Published: July 29, 2006 9:53 AM
Quasibill thinks that I have given an uncharitable description of Paul’s position. Yet either Paul claims that we should not have had the American government (since aggression cannot be justified) or that we should have had that government (because it was an improvement). The issue is not whether I am charitable, but rather what is actually his position. As to Quasibill’s statement that “Delegated powers have never constrained a group that claims a monopoly on force� does he doubt that the American public brought an end to our fighting in Vietnam? Or that states have recently taken actions that constrain “eminent domain�?
However, let me take an uncharitable view of the pure anarchist position, which holds that *we should never engage in any act that guarantees some aggression*. Note that when a man takes a mate (or if they have a child) there will inevitably be some aggression. The purist approach precludes such immoral acts. Since their ultimate guide is to disallow any aggression, they would prevent having any life. Perhaps a bomb throwing anarchist should consider a sufficiently large weapon to end all life?
Now that would be an uncharitable view. However, I would hope that the anarchist would agree that our aim should not be to preclude any aggression, but to minimize it. The former would proceed by no government; the latter by minimal government.
Published: July 29, 2006 11:44 AM
Allen W> Yet delegated powers do not deny that things can get out of hand, but only that if people chose, they could select and restrain their representatives.
You're missing the point. You actually believe "they" can be controlled in some coherent and meaningful way by democratic process. It is not clear why you would believe this given all the evidence to the contrary.
Allen W> OK, can he go to another country that is to his liking?
Nice. Government is allegedly based on consent of the governed. "But if you don't like the governance, then leave." Well how is the consent given to govern in the first place? Why doesn't that strike you as circular? Your idea of consent is not consent at all. It is mere obediance.
Besides, why should I deny myself the society of people I choose to be associated with, irrespective of the particular coercive and monopoly government in the region (not confusing society with government)? (Read the first paragraph of Common Sense.)
Allen W> Perhaps Greg believes that if in America the overwhelming majority were committed to his view they would lack the power to have a representative of their choice?
You seem to equate a politician getting elected by a majority vote as somehow translating into majority approval of the policies of the elected politician. Again, it is not clear why you believe this. Moreover, many politicians get elected by less than a majority of the people that go and vote (not to mention the rest of the population that does not vote).
But worse, your statement is incoherent if indeed I am an anarchist. If I were an anarchist, what the majority believed (assuming a majority could even be assembled and verified on any particular issue!) would be irrelevent to me. By definition, an anarchist doesn't "believe in" representative democracy, even if of the republican form.
Allen W> Greg then overlooks my example of a wagon train as a government, because they only agree to travel together. To the contrary, there is delegation of military control, as when the wagons form a circle to defend against the Indians. Anyone who tries to help the Indians would then be shot.
Apparently you automatically assign agreeing to cooperate on defense as "government." It is not government, if the term has any meaning. Participation in mutual defense is voluntary in your example, not coerced.
Allen W> Greg does not address the position of those anarchists who believe that since government requires aggression we should have none at all. ... and later... Note that when a man takes a mate (or if they have a child) there will inevitably be some aggression.
I can only guess that your definition of "aggression" is so broad as to strip it of any meaning it did have.
Allen W> ...does he doubt that the American public brought an end to our fighting in Vietnam?
That was due to pressure born of civil disobediance, hardly one of following the democratic process of a supposed republican government. I venture that all significant societal advances towards freedom are via the punctuated equilibria of non-obediance. If so, I like your advice. {laughs}
RogerM> As Allen has pointed out, the people are ultimately responsible in our republic for how they govern themselves.
Of course, that is the crux of the argument. I, and I think Hoppe and Paul too, would say that we are not governing ourselves and that the notion that we are is pure fantasy.
RogerM> Anarchists will claim they aren't fully represented, but that's by design: the founders didn't want a direct democracy, which they considered mob rule.
Sure, they called it a so-called republican form. You're not informing anyone of anything they don't already know. So what? It doesn't matter what "the founders" wanted. They have (had) no right to decide how I or anyone else should arrange their affairs.
RogerM> Neither will anarchists admit that the rule of law exists...
This is, of course, complete nonsense. Barnett, for example, wrote an entire book on it. Benson's book, which has an image link inside the article, is another example.
RogerM> Anarchists will loudly proclaim the faults of a direct democracy, then turn around and blame our republic for not being one.
Actually, they are loudly proclaiming the faults of both. You didn't get that?
Published: July 29, 2006 2:04 PM
Paul:
"most humans admire truth and justice"
I think this is an assumption that cannot hold up to reality. I think there is more "my team" or “my family� in human nature than any "truth" and "justice". Truth is only important within "my team", and the further away the relationship, the less truth and justice is valued.
An obvious example is the attitude of most Americans on the relative value of human life. Most Americans have little regard for the lives of Iraqis. They have little enough regard for the loss of non-related Americans in Iraq, but clearly, they would care more if it were 500,000 American babies dying vs. the same number of Iraqi children. Otherwise, the famous quote of M. Albright would have caused outrage and revolt.
I believe this is simply a result of millions of years of evolution. The closer one is to you relation-wise, the more DNA is shared. Giving your life to save a cousin will allow much of your own DNA to survive into the future. Much more than giving your life for an Iraqi. Evolution is like a magical sorting machine that favors DNA that remains intact through time. I think Richard Dawkins "The Selfish Gene" is instructive not only at the molecular level, but also at the level of societies. And in the end, only survival counts. Perhaps libertarians admire truth and justice, but when push comes to shove, they prefer the survival of their closest relations more.
Published: July 29, 2006 2:08 PM
Greg White simply doesn’t follow my position. He writes that it is unclear why I believe that representative government can be controlled. Continually, the public gets its way, as politicians toe the line. I gave the examples of Vietnam, eminent domain, and could have given many more, such as the whole movement toward social democracy. In particular, the public swung to civil rights for the Blacks before the politicians favored it.
As to people leaving for another country, that is only for the minority who do not fit in. The overwhelming majority are content to stay. Now if Greg maintained that the overwhelming majority could never get their way, it would be an argument against my position.
He interprets my position as though I claimed that it had to come to votes, although my claims are otherwise. With regard to the Dubai Ports, the politicians changed their position simply because they found it to be unpopular.
Nor do I require majority approval, since a plurality, or a strong pressure group suffices. It is only required that in time, leaders cannot go against the serious commitments of the mass. This I claim, along with Étienne de la Boétie, applies to virtually all governments.
Next, the Wagon Trains in fact required full obedience as they encountered emergencies, regardless of what people originally agreed to. They had the full force of any dictatorial government.
Greg goes on to say that my definition of aggression is so broad as to strip it of any meaning. Since however, I accepted Paul’s definition, that pertains to his definition.
At any rate Greg did not address my final comment, so I now repeat it.
Let me take an uncharitable view of the pure anarchist position, which holds that *we should never engage in any act that guarantees some aggression*. Note that when a man takes a mate (or if they have a child) there will inevitably be some aggression. The purist approach precludes such immoral acts. Since their ultimate guide is to disallow any aggression, they would prevent having any life. Perhaps a bomb throwing anarchist should consider a sufficiently large weapon to end all life?
Now that would be an uncharitable view. However, I would hope that the anarchist would agree that our aim should not be to preclude any aggression, but to minimize it. The former would proceed by no government; the latter by minimal government.
Published: July 29, 2006 4:20 PM
"...representative government can be controlled. Continually, the public gets its way, as politicians toe the line. I gave the examples of Vietnam, eminent domain, and could have given many more, such as the whole movement toward social democracy."
This type of "control" can be exerted over any form of government, so it's not clear why you say that "representative government" **in particular** can be controlled in this way. Whether we are talking about a representative government, or a dictatorship, the government will do as much as it can to enrich and empower itself. At some point, the people being abused by government make it clear that they will take the jobs (and possibly the lives) of the governors if the abuse continues. At this point, the government stops this particular form of abuse (and begins another).
Of course, you are not really offering a reasonable defense of government. You are simply saying that a certain type of mild slavery can "work". But of course, a slave master knows that he can only abuse his slaves so much before they will attempt to kill him. So, in this sense, the slaves exert some "control" over their master. This is the same type of "control" you are talking about. Yet the slaves are still slaves.
Ultimately, if you want to defend government, you have to say that the market can not provide "service X" in sufficient quantity/quality (note the necessary social-planning overtones). Therefore, force must be employed so that "service X" can exist.
But I contend that there is NO service or function that can be perfomed by government that can not be performed better by the free market -- assuming the service in question is indeed vital, which is often a HUGE assumption made by statists.
Care to take a crack at it?
Published: July 29, 2006 5:10 PM
Fred Mann correctly notes that control can be exerted over any form of government, so it is not clear why I say that representative government in particular can be controlled. It is partly a matter of degree, such as in time and cost, where representative government is quicker and less difficult to manage. (Elections, for example, are preferable to coup d’états.) In addition, there is greater freedom to learn what is going on in representative government, than say in countries with a controlled press. Moreover, the ability to own private property is better in say America than say in Russia, which in turn permits greater political control. Finally, in dictatorships, corruption reduces the influence of those who are not venal.
As he says “the government will do as much as it can to enrich and empower itself.� This however can better be done in a dictatorship than in a representative government. In the latter, we may be enslaved to the redistribution of income, but that is less due to the governmental aims than to the public. If we have become inured to intrusive government, it is because we have accepted it, and can if we choose, reverse it. Yet I find it an exaggeration to refer to us as ‘slaves’, as though we could not leave the plantation, marry whom we choose, or read what we like, etc.
Fred says that to defend government, one must show that the services it provides cannot be provided by the market. That is incoherent, since for the market to function, there must be a government that protects it. In other words, the market cannot provide a comprehensive set of laws, a police force, an army, and a judicial system, for it would no longer be a market, but a government
Published: July 29, 2006 7:02 PM
Eric,
Me: “most humans admire truth and justice"
“I think this is an assumption that cannot hold up to reality. I think there is more "my team" or “my family� in human nature than any "truth" and "justice". Truth is only important within "my team", and the further away the relationship, the less truth and justice is valued.�
I think all humans are fallible, corruptible and subject to just what you say. But they are also capable of holding high ideals and to value truth and justice. It depends on a variety of things, one of which I believe is what they are taught when young, and the other, what their environment encourages. I think the state schools inculcate poor values and childishness and foolishness on the people and the state caters to and plays on man’s weakness of character; his greed and envy and fearfulness of different people. It says such things as “vote for me and together we will legitimately pilfer the undeservedly wealthy and enrich your deserving poor self�, and “vote for me and we will defend you and keep you safe so you won’t have to worry your little minds over aggressors of different religion and skin color�. It says “trust us, for by voting for us, you will know we have your best interest at heart�. The state numbs the minds and reduces the character and wisdom of the people and makes them open to otherwise blatant lies and deceit. It is true, within a few generations of public schooling, even the freest people on the planet have been reduced to envious and ignorant socialists clamoring and scraping to be in the mob that rules.
But I reject that it has to be this way. I think the popularity of the mises.org and lewrockwell.com sites shows what we are truly capable of, if we are given the chance by exposure to the truth, to throw off whatever it is that has blinded us in the past.
Furthermore, Eric, if you really believed that this and everything else to do with human activity was predestined by the gene, you would hardly see there being a point to arguing via reason to convince anyone of this or anything else, as you would instead realize and believe that it is genes and magical evolution that predestines what we believe and how we act and that there is no possibility in changing anyone’s ideas about it. When we argue, we demonstrate a conviction that ideas can be changed by discussion, and that therefore, it is human reason and purposeful human action that is the basis of what humans do, not the “magical sorting machine� of evolution.
Published: July 30, 2006 4:04 AM
Allen,
“Paul Edwards decries my distinction between necessary and avoidable aggression. Let me clarify that setting up and running any government necessitates coercion against those who disagree, or refuse to be taxed. This is the initiation of violence against peaceful non-aggressors. No government can function if it requires unanimous consent, and must therefore at times commit aggression.�
Check. I don’t think your clarification was necessary. At least not to the anarchist.
“Next, Paul does not agree that his views deny any progress. OK, was it right to form the government of the US or not? When he says that “A little bit of injustice is still unjustifiable, even if it is preferable to a whole lot of injustice� he says both. On the one hand, we should have formed America because it is preferable; on the other hand we should not have formed it because it was unjustifiable. Perhaps he could state unambiguously whether or not it was right to form America? That was something that people had to decide in 1776. I think that he is saying that we should have done so. If so, it is necessary to form governments, although they embody aggression. Yet then he writes that aggression is unjustifiable, as though we should not form governments.�
Allen, if I get to choose between being branded with a hot branding iron on a weekly basis, or a slap on the wrist once a month. All things being equal, I take the slap on the wrist. However, all I’m saying is if I didn’t commit aggression against this wrist slapper, I hardly see him as justified in slapping my wrist. You think he is justified because its an improvement over the branding. We just differ on what constitutes justification for violence I guess. As for the forming of the federal government, my answer is it was an unmitigated disaster. The articles of confederation were better than the constitution. The antifederalists were right. Patrick Henry could smell a rat, and its rotten corpse is still stinking up the place today.
“Paul acknowledges the difference between seeking an ideal, and recognizing that human beings are imperfect by definition. Here we agree, for we seek the ideal of no aggression, while being confined to governments that are by definition imperfect.�
Since state government is unjustified, it follows that we can’t argue in its favor. The state also happens to be unnecessary. That both of these statements are factual is probably not mere coincidence.
“Finally, he thinks I have not recognized that he believes in laws, police, courts and compulsion, as does Hoppe. Yet he does so with the requirement that this cannot permit aggression, which is what we were discussing.�
This leads me to believe we have a terminological problem here. Justice does not necessitate aggression; it rules it out of court. The just application of coercion and compulsion requires that it be used only against aggressors. This can be handled by a voluntary, private fee collecting service provider in the free market. No coercion and no violently enforced monopoly is required for this service.
Published: July 30, 2006 4:26 AM
Paul Edwards was asked whether it was right to form the American government. He answers that he prefers a smaller punishment to a larger punishment, but that doesn’t justify the punisher. Yet, *if a group of people choose someone to be their punisher, it is they, not he, who are responsible.* It is as though one hires a trainer to smack him, and then condemns the trainer for being violent.
Yet the basic issue is otherwise, for once one chooses less aggression, the argument against having a government that is based on rejecting aggression does not hold.
Next he says that in particular, the Articles of Confederation were preferable. That is a separate issue (where my understanding is that the Articles were not workable). Yet even if they were perfect, they would still be a government, and would have been chosen by Paul.
But then he writes “Since state government is unjustified, it follows that we can’t argue in its favor.� So we are back again to rejecting a lesser punishment because it is unjustified. Perhaps, I am too simple. I can follow the view that we should have something, because (even if we don’t like it) it is the best alternative. I can follow the view that we should not have something because it is unprincipled. However, I cannot walk and chew gum at the same time, holding that we should have it, and we should not have it.
Paul writes that we have a terminological problem, because in principle aggression is wrong and avoidable. Yet our disagreement is fundamental, because *although I hold that aggression (and evil itself) is wrong, I asseverate that it is not completely avoidable*. Man can, at best, minimize aggression. Were he to ensure that none occurs, he could not take a wife, have a child, or continue to live.
Now one can disagree that life does not permit the complete absence of aggression (or evil). However, that is not a difference in terminology, but a fundamental metaphysical (or theological) difference. To those of us who hold that man cannot be perfect, we view the enemy of the good as the requirement to be perfect.
Perhaps our discussion is not a political matter of the feasibility of “a voluntary, private fee collecting service provider in the free market� but of the existential nature of man and his life.
Published: July 30, 2006 8:00 AM
I don't suppose there are any plans to reprint Hoppe's "A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism" anytime soon? The cheapest second-hand edition is over £50.
Published: July 30, 2006 12:04 PM
Allen Weingarten,
I asked the question earlier in thie post of whether the US was even a government at all underneath the Articles of Confederation (no power to tax, no monopoly on force, no ultmate decision-making authority, etc.). At best, it was a quasi-state, similar to the Hanseatic League.
Published: July 30, 2006 3:32 PM
Nick Bradley writes that "the Articles of Confederation...was a quasi-state, similar to the Hanseatic League." We may take that as given, without in the least accepting it as a state that did not contain any aggression. That is because it contained the individual states (of New Hampshire, Massachusetts-bay Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia).
I do not think that any anarchists claim that the individual states were free of aggression, were completely voluntary, and had no taxes. Thus if someone (such as Paul Edwards) justified the Articles, he would be justifying aggression.
Published: July 30, 2006 4:29 PM
Hi
Thanks for a thought-provoking article. I have a question.
I believe there's an element in the nature of the defense business that makes it inherently unstable.
Although we can think of defense as merely a service like any other service, this unfortunately not true. You see, a doctor cannot force me to have a liver operation by offering a bargain price on liver operations. A banker cannot threaten me to put my money in his bank by *threatening* me to offer better interest rates.
The nature of the defense business is such that:
i) the more you become specialized, the more a potential threat you become; and
ii) an equally important and historically verified fact, the stronger and more formidable a defense force (such as the Ottoman janissaries), the more easily corruptible it becomes since the higher the level of threat becomes the more it creates opportunities to bargain for its avoidance.
Please do not emphasize the fact that in the system proposed insurance companies will avoid you if you don't learn how to use a gun. If you believe learning to pull the trigger of a colt pistol puts you on an equal footing with an SAS anti-terror team soldier - with actual combat experience - you simply don't know what you're talking about.
Although I agree with Professor Hoppe and most commentors in this forum that the current state of affairs is unsustainable, I have to assert that unlike all other services, the expertise in defense can - and you can bet your farm will - be used for corrupt purposes once it becomes apparent that a number of such specialized services have the capacity to control practically all other transactions by providing the safety environment for them.
As I'm sure you all know, the supply-side economists came up with this thing called the "Philips curve." Maybe I have a paranoid mind, but to me that relation practically says people will not revolt against oppressive taxation until an inflection point after which comes the diminishing returns. This is an implicit formulation of the degree of sufferability of monopoly on violence. And I'm afraid just as the principle of self-interest will hold true in pushing those specialized in using violence to abusing it, this relation will also motive them to use it cunningly so as to create their own monopoly.
You may claim such a monopoly cannot be established under a free market arrangement, but again this is because you presume the defense service is like all others, that just as dentists have no stake to create a monopoly or a cartel in a free market spontaneously this cannot happen either. And you'd be wrong, because if you're specializing in using force, there's every incentive for mergers, cutting cartellization deals, consolidation since defense, due to its nature, becomes more profitable the more consolidated it becomes.
It may be that the only way to limit such possibilities would be a very strongly localistic (and, therefore, racially segregated) society in which only very small communities exist, all services remain within the boundaries of small towns, and the potential of using violence is attenuated due to the fact of biological relatedness.
All of these are my views, of course. You are free to disagree.
Published: July 30, 2006 5:00 PM
Allen Weingarten,
What type of aggression did the states under the Articles commit as a whole? Did you know that some of them did not even have taxes (some of the counties did, however)? In fact, many of the states tried to pass tariffs on goods in the mid-1780s that failed miserably; a tariff would merely cause goods to flow to a "free port". After Massachusetts' failed Tariff, the state Government levied heavy capitation taxes (an identical dollar amount on all persons) on the populace. Small Farmer's farms were seized and Shay's Rebellion was started. Simply put, state governments at the time of the Articles of Confederation were not capable of enforcing taxes.
In order to avoid future problems in raising taxes, many state governments and wealthy mercantilists and American manufacturers got together and began lobbying for a cartel of tariffs in the form of a national tariff. This was the basis for amending the Articles, among other things. They were almost amended, twice (it requires all 13 states to approve an amendment), but Rhode Island vetoed both times. At one of the ArCon amendment conventions in Philadelphia in 1787, participants threw out the entire Articles of Confederation and adopted a Mercantilist Constitution, with patents, a giant trade bloc (that forced out foreign goods), limited monopolization of monetary policy, a federalized navy, a Supreme Court, and much more.
Published: July 30, 2006 5:23 PM
Allen W>Greg White simply doesn’t follow my position. He writes that it is unclear why I believe that representative government can be controlled. Continually, the public gets its way, as politicians toe the line.
You throw around amorphous terms like "the public" as if it means something specific. I challenge you to find an example of a politician saying that what they are doing is not in the "public interest." Moreover, no one here, especially me, has said that living under some governments/rulers is not preferable to living under another. You don't seem to comprehend this. Sure, politicians bend to special interests (always called "the public"). No one is saying they don't -- I am saying they do.
Allen W>As to people leaving for another country, that is only for the minority who do not fit in. The overwhelming majority are content to stay. Now if Greg maintained that the overwhelming majority could never get their way, it would be an argument against my position.
The government is not ruled by a majority, through vote or otherwise. Even if it was, that would hardly justify it to those coerced and not in the "majority." I don't know where you get your "content majority" data from. I suspect it is bunk. Besides, constitutionally speaking, this is supposed to be a republican form (US).
Allen W>Nor do I require majority approval, since a plurality, or a strong pressure group suffices. It is only required that in time, leaders cannot go against the serious commitments of the mass.
Yes -- you support the political rent seeking of special interest groups. I don't. It is immoral to use the anonymous ballot and the hammer of the state to rip off your fellow citizens.
Allen W>Next, the Wagon Trains in fact required full obedience as they encountered emergencies, regardless of what people originally agreed to. They had the full force of any dictatorial government.
You keep making things up -- I suppose hoping you'll eventually stumble upon a working argument. I wrote two separate papers in college regarding the early wagon-based Western emigration, so I am familiar with many of the stories. Have any in particular you'd like to dissect?
Allen W>{"uncharitable" stuff snipped}...I would hope that the anarchist would agree that our aim should not be to preclude any aggression, but to minimize it. The former would proceed by no government; the latter by minimal government.
To the first sentence: No. "Aggression" -- if an agreement on what it means can be had -- is not acceptable. This is not to say that in free society various individuals "free spheres" cannot be arguable where they first appear to contact/overlap, and (private) adjudication will help resolve the spheres of freedom of the individuals (constraints born of scarcity).
To the second sentence: I wish I could believe the idea of limited government. It is apparently a myth -- thus my lack of confidence in it. For a time I too believed it.
Allen W>To those of us who hold that man cannot be perfect, we view the enemy of the good as the requirement to be perfect.
Oh, please. No one is talking about perfection. It is about personal responsibility. If you or I make a mistake, we personally accept the responsibilty for it.
Allen W>Yet, *if a group of people choose someone to be their punisher, it is they, not he, who are responsible.* It is as though one hires a trainer to smack him, and then condemns the trainer for being violent.
You seem to say "we" and "group" a lot, but have little focus on the individual, despite the fact that it is an individual decision to associate with a "group." I did not join your group.
Yes, the trainer gets blamed. As Spooner pointed out so keenly in No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority, the vote ballots are anonymous -- one cannot take their grievances directly the voters responsible. (This could also end up as one excuse for total war -- or "blind" attacks on civilians.) One has to critique the "trainer" because there is no other direct and known party. Moreover, just because someone hires a hit-man, it does not totally absolve the hit-man, even though the hit-man's client is responsible too.
I doubt I will have much or any more time for this discussion. Good Luck.
Published: July 30, 2006 5:40 PM
Allen W>Greg White simply doesn’t follow my position. He writes that it is unclear why I believe that representative government can be controlled. Continually, the public gets its way, as politicians toe the line.
You throw around amorphous terms like "the public" as if it means something specific. I challenge you to find an example of a politician saying that what they are doing is not in the "public interest." Moreover, no one here, especially me, has said that living under some governments/rulers is not preferable to living under another. You don't seem to comprehend this. Sure, politicians bend to special interests (always called "the public"). No one is saying they don't -- I am saying they do.
Allen W>As to people leaving for another country, that is only for the minority who do not fit in. The overwhelming majority are content to stay. Now if Greg maintained that the overwhelming majority could never get their way, it would be an argument against my position.
The government is not ruled by a majority, through vote or otherwise. Even if it was, that would hardly justify it to those coerced and not in the "majority." I don't know where you get your "content majority" data from. I suspect it is bunk. Besides, constitutionally speaking, this is supposed to be a republican form (US).
Allen W>Nor do I require majority approval, since a plurality, or a strong pressure group suffices. It is only required that in time, leaders cannot go against the serious commitments of the mass.
Yes -- you support the political rent seeking of special interest groups. I don't. It is immoral to use the anonymous ballot and the hammer of the state to rip off your fellow citizens.
Allen W>Next, the Wagon Trains in fact required full obedience as they encountered emergencies, regardless of what people originally agreed to. They had the full force of any dictatorial government.
You keep making things up -- I suppose hoping you'll eventually stumble upon a working argument. I wrote two separate papers in college regarding the early wagon-based Western emigration, so I am familiar with many of the stories. Have any in particular you'd like to dissect?
Allen W>{"uncharitable" stuff snipped}...I would hope that the anarchist would agree that our aim should not be to preclude any aggression, but to minimize it. The former would proceed by no government; the latter by minimal government.
To the first sentence: No. "Aggression" -- if an agreement on what it means can be had -- is not acceptable. This is not to say that in free society various individuals "free spheres" cannot be arguable where they first appear to contact/overlap, and (private) adjudication will help resolve the spheres of freedom of the individuals (constraints born of scarcity).
To the second sentence: I wish I could believe the idea of limited government. It is apparently a myth -- thus my lack of confidence in it. For a time I too believed it.
Allen W>To those of us who hold that man cannot be perfect, we view the enemy of the good as the requirement to be perfect.
Oh, please. No one is talking about perfection. It is about personal responsibility. If you or I make a mistake, we personally accept the responsibilty for it.
Allen W>Yet, *if a group of people choose someone to be their punisher, it is they, not he, who are responsible.* It is as though one hires a trainer to smack him, and then condemns the trainer for being violent.
You seem to say "we" and "group" a lot, but have little focus on the individual, despite the fact that it is an individual decision to associate with a "group." I did not join your group.
Yes, the trainer gets blamed. As Spooner pointed out so keenly in No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority, the vote ballots are anonymous -- one cannot take their grievances directly the voters responsible. (This could also end up as one excuse for total war -- or "blind" attacks on civilians.) One has to critique the "trainer" because there is no other direct and known party. Moreover, just because someone hires a hit-man, it does not totally absolve the hit-man, even though the hit-man's client is responsible too.
I doubt I will have much or any more time for this discussion. Good Luck.
Published: July 30, 2006 5:40 PM
Allen writes:
"Fred says that to defend government, one must show that the services it provides cannot be provided by the market. That is incoherent, since for the market to function, there must be a government that protects it. In other words, the market cannot provide a comprehensive set of laws, a police force, an army, and a judicial system, for it would no longer be a market, but a government."
Allen, you do not have a correct definition of government. Coercion -- i.e. forcing people to pay for certain "services" -- is the key ingredient of government. Everything you list can be/has been provided privately WITHOUT coercion or government "protection".
I suggest you read Rothbard's "For a New Liberty" to get some of the basics under your belt. It's free (audio and text versions) on this website.
Published: July 30, 2006 6:21 PM
Greg White states correctly that politicians always claim to act in the public interest. What I wrote however is instead that these politicians are constrained to toe the line.
Next he writes that no one has said that living under some rulers is not preferable to living under others. The question however is whether this constitutes a justification for the preferable form of government.
Then he says that the government is not ruled by a majority. Does Greg believe that if an overwhelming majority conscientiously wanted something, the government could deny it?
Greg then claims that I “support the political rent seeking of special interest groups.� I don’t know where he gets that view, since I am opposed to the redistribution of income, whether by special interest groups, or by the vast majority of our citizens. I hesitate to discuss much more with Greg, since he apparently does not know that I have consistently advocated minimal government, whose role is the protection of individual rights, no intervention in the economy, and which requires equality before the law.
Since his next claim is ad hominem, namely that I “keep making things up� I don’t see that further discussion is beneficial to either of us.
Fred Mann says that I do not have a correct definition of government, since coercion is its key ingredient. Yet I surely agree that government means force, and in ways a monopoly of force. This does not preclude that government includes a police force, an army, and a judicial system. Fred apparently thinks that there have been armies and comprehensive judicial systems that are provided by markets. OK, please name the countries that do so?
Published: July 30, 2006 7:38 PM
Allen,
Tsarist and then Soviet Russia where all societies where the majority was perpetually ignored by the government.
Yet, in a free society, political decisions made by the majority should only pertain to that majority, not to any other parties not interested in said decision. It is not legitimate if it is forced on all in the territory in which the political decision is made.
I don't think most countries with state monopolies on defense, in the present era have allowed private enterprise to have their own armies, on threat of force. Iceland was a free market in defense and law that lasted far longer than the US had in its relatively freest state.
Published: July 30, 2006 8:54 PM
Allen,
As I said (or tried to say), ALL services currently provided by government can be, or have been provided privately WITHOUT coercion or government "protection". See Rothbard's "Pennsylvania's Anarchist Experiment" for example. Colonial Pennsylvania went for many years without any government whatsoever. Private mercenaries (armies for hire) make up the second largest group of soldiers in Iraq (after US soldiers). The entire legal system in Somalia is run (obviously) without taxation or government. But laws, judges, and law enforcement do indeed exist there. Security guards are private police forces. But even if none of these things existed, there is still no argument that can be made why these services CAN'T be provided privately on the market. You have simply made assertions that this can not be so, but have provided no actual arguments.
Instead of just saying, "the market cannot provide a comprehensive set of laws", why don't you say , "the market cannot provide a comprehensive set of laws BECAUSE ... (place your argument here)".
Pick whatever service you like....
Published: July 31, 2006 1:15 AM
Eric --
Evolution is like a magical sorting machine that favors DNA that remains intact through time. I think Richard Dawkins "The Selfish Gene" is instructive not only at the molecular level, but also at the level of societies. And in the end, only survival counts. Perhaps libertarians admire truth and justice, but when push comes to shove, they prefer the survival of their closest relations more.
You may want to learn more about the evolutionary theory. The highly simplified popular form of it Dawkins presents in the "Selfish Gene" is certainly illuminating, but it seems that you're not aware of the meaning of it all -- and of the intricate interplay of group and individual selection.
First of all, you may have noticed that Dawkins talked about the evolution of ideas. Later work have shown that in case of humans (and even some non-human species) there is a co-evolution of genes and memes - not simple genetic evolution.
The libertarian set of ideas is a memeset competing with statist memeset. It is also (unlike statism) is non-parasitic in nature; it follows that it will win, given a chance (again, in the evolution it is not sufficient to be more fit, it is also important to gain a critical mass).
You may also be unaware that the free market algorithm and evolutionary algorithm are much more powerful together than evolutionary algorithm alone - the combination is capable of much more rapid search for the working solutions and of finding solutions inaccessible to the evolutionary algorithm alone, as was demonstrated by the Eric Baum's Hayek machine. (An economist would call that "division of labor", an engineer - "modularization").
In other words, all we know about evolution of societies says that if a libertarian society posessing the modern technology will be left to evolve for few decades, it will became totally beyond the reach of statist societies in the terms of defensive and survival capabilities.
And, I'm afraid, you totally missed one of the main points of the libertarianism - of course libertarians care more about family and friends more than about any larger groups like nations. Libertarian is an individualist ideology. What makes it a workable system is the "invisible hand" of the market, not some mushy altruistic ideal.
Published: July 31, 2006 2:32 AM
"i) the more you become specialized, the more a potential threat you become;"
To criminals, certainly. It's not obvious that free market security companies are a threat to individuals.
What is obvious is that free market security is less of a threat than the State.
"I have to assert that unlike all other services, the expertise in defense can - and you can bet your farm will - be used for corrupt purposes once it becomes apparent that a number of such specialized services have the capacity to control practically all other transactions by providing the safety environment for them."
So long as these are free-market firms we're talking about, they still have to remain profitable by serving their customers. They don't have the control you speak of if the customer can leave at any time. (This sovereignty of the individual is a key difference between the state's behaviour and that of the market.)
"And I'm afraid just as the principle of self-interest will hold true in pushing those specialized in using violence to abusing it, this relation will also motive them to use it cunningly so as to create their own monopoly."
As long as corporate growth services the customer by providing superior service at lower prices, it is welcome. A large corporation that tried to become a monopoly and ramped up its prices would rapidly lose market share to competitors and start-ups. In the unlikely event a defence corporation got too aggressive in its methods, its customers would feel insecure and switch to competitors.
"And you'd be wrong, because if you're specializing in using force, there's every incentive for mergers, cutting cartellization deals, consolidation since defense, due to its nature, becomes more profitable the more consolidated it becomes."
Only so long as these changes benefit the customer, who is free to leave once they don't. You could make most of these arguments for every single market, but reality shows these concerns to be baseless. The laundry detergent business also provides every incentive for mergers, cartels, and consolidation; and yet competition continues to thrive.
The fact is, war and aggression are expensive and bad for business. Wars are rarely (if ever) fought with the funds of private individuals; that's why it's a child of the coercive state, and not the free market. The security companies I've seen have no interest in starting wars with each other. Simply doing the jobs they've been hired to do — guard buildings, drive armoured cars, etc. — is more profitable.
Published: July 31, 2006 5:35 AM
Brett Celinki claims that “Tsarist and then Soviet Russia w..ere all societies where the majority was perpetually ignored by the government.� I dispute that. One example is when Lenin wanted to establish collective farms throughout the country, but was forced to abandon it because of the vast objections of the farmers.
Not only was there large support for the disgraceful practices of the USSR (where dissidents were ostracized by a willing public) but even today there is sizeable nostalgia for Stalin, and the desire for a strong Russia. The Russian public continues to accept destructive practices, since they are told it will harm the greedy rich. Also note that the KGB (GPU or NKVD) officials have never been prosecuted by the Russians, while their members (including Putin) continue to have great influence. Things were better under the Tsar If only because people had the ability to leave) and many loved Mother Russia.
Some people believe that a government that prosecutes many, lacks support. Yet in some countries, no matter who is in power, there will be many who are prosecuted. There, the most representative government could be hated by most. It is akin to a workplace, or senior community, where most are dissatisfied, yet that was their choice.
Brett says, and I agree, that “in a free society, political decisions made by the majority should only pertain to that majority, not to any other parties not interested in said decision. It is not legitimate if it is forced on all in the territory in which the political decision is made.�
Next, he notes that countries have not allowed private enterprise to have their own armies. That however, does not demonstrate that it is feasible to have a private enterprise army.
Now there are continual debates (which one can find via Google) about Iceland succeeding as an anarchist commune, that most of us are not qualified to judge. In my recollection, David Friedman is more modest and open in his claims, than are those who use his work to presume certainty. (As an aside, Iceland may have been under the governance of a single military power.) Yet, even if the vaunted example of Olde Iceland held water, it has not reemerged in the modern world. How would we show that Iceland should be the model for an advanced nation? Has that country left a heritage that we ought emulate? It is reminiscent of Orson Welles’ line in the “Third Man�, that after centuries, what Switzerland has produced, is the cuckoo clock. Perhaps Brett believes that our Founders, instead of using the most civilized nations as their guide, should have been inspired by our sparse, debatable, knowledge of Iceland?
Fred Mann says that “ALL services currently provided by government can be, or have been provided privately WITHOUT coercion or government "protection".� Now the “can be� is claimed by theory. What about reality? Can one demonstrate that a free market army has existed, let alone won a war? Can one demonstrate that a free market judicial system has run a country? It is true that particular services can be better done by the market. That does not show however that government can be replaced, because those services have been provided, under existing governments.
Now Rothbard’s article “Pennsylvania's Anarchist Experiment: 1681-1690� is substantive and documented. In contrast with the debatable statements about Olde Iceland, here is an illustration of something that in fact occurred, in near modern times. I presume that Rothbard is correct that “the new, but rather large, colony of Pennsylvania lived for the greater part of four years in a de facto condition of individual anarchism, and seemed none the worse for the experience.� One can argue that what was sustained for four years could have become permanent. On the other hand, one could conclude that it demonstrated, that even under the fortuitous conditions of the new world, there lacked the power to withstand the outside world. Thus, there can be anarchist communes, and perhaps there were in the old West, when people set up their towns. Whether they can survive remains at issue.
Now Fred writes in relation to privatized services “even if none of these things existed, there is still no argument that can be made why these services CAN'T be provided privately on the market. You have simply made assertions that this can not be so, but have provided no actual arguments. Instead of just saying, "the market cannot provide a comprehensive set of laws", why don't you say "the market cannot provide a comprehensive set of laws BECAUSE ... (place your argument here)".
The first argument I provided was a negative one, namely that we cannot conclude that because the market provides a service, given that it is protected by an existing government, that it could have done so without the prior existence of a government. A positive argument is that for the market to provide a service, it must be protected from theft. Here the force to do so must be comprehensive, for if one part of a country has its police force, and another part has another, there will be war between their parties. Moreover, there are outside nations who will steal what a given nation produces, so there must be the ability for a successful defense.
In short, for the market to provide (not a given or a few services, but) a complete set of services, there needs to be a potent army, and the guidance of a comprehensive set of laws. These I submit constitutes a government. Here, "the market cannot provide a comprehensive set of laws BECAUSE ...� these require the adherence of a public that cannot agree on any such set. When some agree, they are few, and will in time disagree. Moreover, being few, they do not have the power to withstand the many. There is a balance that is needed between virtue and survivability. A few could be quite virtuous, but unless they are many, they lack the power to survive as a sovereign order.
Now I know that the anarchists define ‘government’ and ‘market’ in such a manner, that the words permit no need for government, and permit a fully operational market. I do not accept those definitions, not only because they are not lexical, but because they leave out the heart of the human condition, namely that man has aggressive tendencies which require the curtailing of his barbarism. These rely on traditions and concepts that necessarily employ some aggression. Were man able to be self-governing, we would not have had to have the aggression of government to begin with.
Published: July 31, 2006 8:38 AM
There are those who claim that the problem with government is its lack of representation. They speak of situations where some or most denizens resent their venal rulers. Allow me to suggest why this fails as an explanation for what is wrong.
Last year, my wife and I joined a senior community (requiring age 55+) in Monroe Township NJ. The members had voted for a Board, which called a meeting that we attended. Some of them complained about when the garbage was picked up, while others complained about the cutting of the grass, snow removal, displays on houses, or which mix of services would be provided, etc. For each complaint on one side, there were multiple counter desires. In my ornery fashion, in contrast to all who expressed their dissatisfaction, I thanked the Board for their fine unrewarded activities. There were a few applause, but virtually all of the audience was up in arms against their representatives. Somehow, someone had stolen their dream of a contented retirement.
Now there is a Turner-Rice bill, that will be passed in some form or other, for these communities. The complainants will have a NJ state bureaucracy that will handle all sorts of ‘problems’. Needless to say, the populace will complain as though they were libertarians or anarchists at what will ensue. The bureaucracy will be dictatorial, imposing, and very expensive (although those who push the bill claim otherwise). Conscientious residents will be unwilling to serve on a Bo