On Evil Acts
How does an evil impulse come to reside in a particular person and unleash itself in ghastly ways? Another consideration: how can we as a society best deal with the problem of evil? The problem comes from conflating the two issues. We do not have to side with either the progressives (people are basically good) or conservatives (people are basically bad). We only need to say that whatever is the intrinsic nature of man, the market will find the best possible means to deal with it, and whatever the outcome of that market process, it cannot be made better by involving the state. FULL ARTICLE
Comments (52)
Why no discussion of religion? There is also a difference between having everyone responsible for their own safety, i.e. concealed carry, versus cameras and SWAT teams everywhere, although you might call both of those positions conservative.
Published: April 19, 2007 7:32 AM
Was there really any point to this article? Yes, unfortunately, every ideologist is going to stake a claim on an incident such as this to further their ideals. For Liberals to say 'let's have more gun control' is as pointless as Conservatives saying 'let's strengthen police power' as much as Religionists saying 'let's have stronger faith' as Libertarians saying 'leave to the market'. What could free markets have possibly done that would have made a world of difference?
Published: April 19, 2007 8:09 AM
Getting the state out of security at a STATE university strikes me as a problem. Yes, getting the state out of education (privatize the university) would be great. The Commonwealth of Virginia (state) DOES have some law against firearms on its campuses (the law that was almost repealed a short time ago), and eliminating THAT would also be great.
As Lew worked up to his prescription, I had hoped it would turn out to be "freedom," and in fact that really was his prescription. Unfortunately, he didn't put it that way, which fuzzed the message a bit and shunted him into advocating private enterprise, which is also good, but again seems to address the recent incident but poorly.
The lead-in about the spurious need to start from an assumption about human nature was great, though - Vintage Lew.
Published: April 19, 2007 9:03 AM
TLWP:
What could free markets have possibly done that would have made a world of difference?
Probably nothing. It is what a free market will not do after the fact that is at play. There will be countless argument, discussion, and debate over this for years. I do not believe that free markets solve every form of human suffering. If one is looking for a perfect solution to the human condition I have found it at times in various art forms such as cinema, sculpture, and novels but only as a temporary escape. Statism and religion will use the knee jerk reaction of people desiring a perfect solution to grow popular support. It will be a pathetic display. I would encourage libertarians to avoid engaging in this exercise.
Not to say that there is not room for constructive dialog on this issue. But statism and religion will not provide that forum and libertarians and advocates of the non-agression
principal should avoid promises of the perfect solution. The solution I am looking for is what system best deals with the problems we actually face.
Nathan Reed
Published: April 19, 2007 9:03 AM
"What could free markets have possibly done that would have made a world of difference?"
For one, a university that considers one of its students to be a danger to other students would be free to expel that student, without fear of being sued for discrimination or whatnot. I doubt that this is the case currently.
Published: April 19, 2007 9:26 AM
What could free markets have possibly done that would have made a world of difference?
A private education institution would have been less likely to tolerate having this psychopath as a student.
At a private school, one that is the slightest bit selective anyway, would have noticed the presence of an anti-social student who had a propensity to submit fiction writing assignments filled with violent fantasies. One professor thought enough of him to refuse to allow him in class on the grounds she feared for her safety.
Things have to be rather severe when things get to the point where you can't be in the same room with someone for fear of violence. No private educational services provider would put up with that.
Also, colleges all over the country were much smaller before government interference. The fact that this is an enormous, state-run facility, with 25,000+ students, helped provide a level of anonymity and social detachment that you just don't see at smaller, private schools.
Published: April 19, 2007 9:28 AM
There are some very good points raised in this article.
HOWEVER, to be wise and/or sustainable, decisions (whether by the "market," government agencies or personal individuals) must have taken secondary and long-term effects, as well as immediate special circumstances, into consideration.
Carol
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are
always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts."
--Bertrand Russell
Published: April 19, 2007 9:46 AM
Also, let's have some perspective and economic rationality about this. I'm not trying to say that these murders are not intolerable nor am I saying that they are in any way excusable. My God, it's a parent's worst nightmare to send your child to school to have him murdered while in class.
But the very worst shooting spree in US history just killed 32 people.
Over 40,000 people are killed every single year on government-built-and-regulated roads and highways, driving cars designed according to government-mandated safety standards. Death by car wreck is the NUMBER ONE cause of death of people under the age of 45.
These deaths are not the subject of massive media attention. No major legislation will be proposed in their wake. No one will produce slick documentaries about them with slow-motion camera work and sad piano music playing in the background. No 2008 presidential candidates will attempt to use these deaths to get attention and donations.
But in this day and age, flashy and unexpected events invariably become the basis for some grotesque, unjustified, indefensible government action. Government thugs will take advantage of ANYTHING to increase their level of control.
Such is life in a socialist mob-ocracy like ours.
Published: April 19, 2007 10:07 AM
What could free markets have possibly done that would have made a world of difference?
A free market university would probably not even have a campus that could have provided a shooting field for the perpetrator. Those big places are obsolete - they exist only because they want the FedGov's handouts, nothing more.
Published: April 19, 2007 11:00 AM
What is being overlooked by almost all concerned is that this student was a product of the psychiatric industry (support is large part by the state). He was institutionalized and on psychotropic drugs. No private company in their right mind would employ the psychiatric community to fix people problems. Why? Because they don't work.
Published: April 19, 2007 12:43 PM
Greg, it will be interesting to learn just what role the pharmaceuticals had in this. I have heard that he was prescribed psychotropic drugs when he was institutionalized, but I don't know if he continued to take them.
Published: April 19, 2007 2:12 PM
I agree with the statements made about what a private institution may have done. It's also clear as George Gaskell pointed out that mortalities on the highway are a much more frequent tragedy and that they might be less frequent in the hands of profit seeking private companies (though still more than 32 a year or even a day, I might think)!
What all of these points have missed is the central point of individual accountability. Clearly, the shooter is accountable for his actions and should be condemned as the chief culprit in this tragedy no matter what the external circumstances (drugs, depression, whatever). But ultimately, the responsibility of each individual (all adults, I think!) on that campus for their security was themselves. They either took no thought for their safety or they put their trust unwisely in campus security.
It's likely that many of you (like me) work in privately owned companies that forbid its non-security employees to bring weapons to work. I trust the security to protect me. At present, I believe that the risk of being fired for being discovered with a weapon is greater than the threat of being harmed while at work. If I have reason to believe that my safety is threatened despite the security provided by my company, I may cease coming to work or I may bring a weapon despite the risk of being fired for violating my company's weapon policy.
If any harm comes to me while at work, I must take the responsibility for failing to act despite all other assurances.
The Va Tech tragedy occurred principally because the students present unwisely trusted their safety to campus security. The left-wing calls to disarm more people are justifiably abhorible. What is encouraging is that most people (including opinion polls that I've seen) state that they do not favor the calls. What we need is more people following up those opinion with action.
I'm not calling for all people to arm themselves. I'm saying that you should arm yourself (laws be damned) if you feel in danger, remove yourself from the place or situation that is dangerous or otherwise provide for your security. The free market (linking now back to Lew's article - which I really did like) is all about individuals providing for their own needs.
Published: April 19, 2007 4:26 PM
I will further rebut to George Gaskell that if I die in an auto accident, I am still at fault for not driving more defensively (or choosing not to drive at all!) despite the actions of other drivers or the poor management of government by their roads.
Published: April 19, 2007 4:28 PM
The market allows 40 000 car deaths per year and nothing is done. Actually we tolerate it because it is a form of necessary social organization. It is all a matter of perception. If it were up to me cars and trucks would move at 25 miles/hour maximum. That would eliminate most deadly crashes but certainly would change the "nature of the market" but we prefer death to lower production and that is our market. We get what we want or at least tolerate. The rest is spin.
Published: April 19, 2007 4:33 PM
I don't see anything that Libertarianism offers that doesn't run the risk of failure for the same reasons that government fails: I submit that a group of evil citizens, engaging in 'market transactions' will end up destroying one another. individual evil ** is ** the problem ... not 'government' or 'socialism' or 'communism'.
Published: April 19, 2007 5:32 PM
I pretty much agree with G. Gaskell, the main cause of death is heart disease, whereas being shot by a random shooter is extremely small. The reality is we should be more worried about the state of our tickers than worrying about someone else pulling out a gun and shoot us.
Published: April 19, 2007 5:41 PM
I should say not ** just ** government, socialism, communism
re: "individual evil ** is ** the problem ... not 'government' or 'socialism' or 'communism'."
Published: April 19, 2007 6:20 PM
"I don't see anything that Libertarianism offers that doesn't run the risk of failure for the same reasons that government fails: I submit that a group of evil citizens, engaging in 'market transactions' will end up destroying one another. individual evil ** is ** the problem ... not 'government' or 'socialism' or 'communism'."
But doesn't the State maximize individual evil, (especially the larger and more distant and centralized it grows) with more and more laws that create more and more violence and aggression in society, all under the cloak of "the common good", the "rights or needs of society", "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few", or even claiming that those anarchists who oppose the institution of the State are "making the perfect the enemy of the good" (when in reality that's what the call for government itself is) and other such mantras for government.
Published: April 19, 2007 10:58 PM
What, JGS, to stop murder all you have to do is get rid of laws forbidding murder? Only murderers benefit because there are laws against murders just as drug dealers do?
Published: April 19, 2007 11:49 PM
JIMB, you're exactly right. "Individual evil" is the problem. The state as an acting, thinking entity does not exist. It is always individuals acting, and only an individual can commit an act of evil.
On the other side of the coin Libertarianism as an acting, thinking entity doesn't exist any more than than does the state. So I don't think that it makes any sense to say as you did that Libertarianism can fail. It is individuals that fail.
To me, the essence of the Libertarian philosophy is to insist that every individual is responsible for their own actions. So as such, I don't think that Libertarianism has an agenda as you imply to eradicate the state or really to do anything else. It is we acting individuals, believing in this philosophy to adopt the agenda to abolish the state. If we succeed yet introduce another social organization that allows evil to thrive, it is we who have failed.
Published: April 20, 2007 7:48 AM
What all of these points have missed is the central point of individual accountability.
No one is missing it, Mr. Stoutenburg.
Of course "individual evil" is the core problem. After all, there is no other kind of evil, since there is no other kind of action.
But there are different modes by which individuals voluntarily organize themselves, as well as various modes by which people are organized involuntarily. People organize themselves into families, schools, corporations, churches, clubs, comedy troops, musical bands, street gangs, raiding parties, governments, etc.
These modes differ in the terms by which the individual members interact. Some of these modes are better than others. Some produce more aggression than others. Some require more violence to maintain their cohesion than others. Some are better suited to achieve their stated purpose than others.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist (or an Austrian economist) to see that a guy randomly murdering 30 of his schoolmates is an instance of "individual evil."
Economic analysis enables us to see beyond acts of individual evil, and understand the broader social mechanisms and processes in which such evil acts take place.
Individual acts of evil will always happen. We have to assume so, at least. The important question is how this problem is going to be addressed -- is the proposed solution going to be the best of all feasible alternatives? If not, why not? Is it going to cause other problems that are as bad or worse than the original problem?
As people interested in economics, we should be concerned not only with the murders of 32 people, but with the safety and welfare of the HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of people, those alive now AND those in future generations, who will be affected by the way in which we respond to these 32 deaths.
Published: April 20, 2007 8:12 AM
JIMB (Jim Bradley) is in the man-is-inherently-depraved camp big-time, believing that man can only be saved by subservience to (his) god. Accordingly, he refuses to acknowledge the fact that states -- i.e., territorial monopolies on the use of force -- inevitably use that force not only against each other but against their own subjects, murdering them in the tens of millions:
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE1.HTM
Bottom line: the state concentrates evil the way no market ever could. Thus is its eradication the most immediate and proper goals of mankind.
Published: April 20, 2007 8:32 AM
My horror over this murder spree coupled with the incident of the Holocaust survivor professor who acted against Cho somehow led me to think about Katrina. These three incidents are of man coping with inhumane (or inhuman) attacks. In each, the victims trusted in the State or someone beyond themselves for protection. Just as police almost always appear after the crime is committed (though good police work may avoid further crimes should they catch the perp), there is nothing beyond oneself and those within the immediate vicinity to respond in an effective way.
In the Katrina and Va Tech examples, immediate acts by private persons could have erduced their impact on innocents. However, in the Holocaust scenario for those remaining in Europe too long (and maybe in the American slavery issue as respects those black slaves who would be chained well after 1865), their only chance at being saved was a military response.
So where does the Libertarian find a solution to such crises that seem to require a larger response than individual or small scale action? Should militias have been hired?
Published: April 20, 2007 10:22 AM
Neal: Are you sure that a traditional military response was the only option? What about resistance movements, spies, private armies, selling guns, etc... No one knows what the free market response would have been, but we can make a darn good guess that fewer people would have been killed.
What about all the people Stalin killed, much more than Hitler. Do you think the US state should have invaded the USSR too? Or are only the Jews worth saving? Or is one Jew worth more than one Russian, since there are fewer Jews? Or we should only invade countries without nukes, so if you have a nuke feel free to go on rampages. Out of WW1 came WW2. Out of WW2 came the Cold war. Out of the Cold war came the War of Terrorism, all because of how the state handled it. How could any free market solution possibly be worse?
Published: April 20, 2007 10:42 AM
Mr. Gaskell, I don't disagree with anything you wrote. If there is any misunderstanding between us, I believe that it is only a form of semantics. I will continue to press my point however because I believe that it is important.
I am giving a counter-response to the question posed:
"
What could free markets have possibly done that would have made a world of difference?
"
The responses given were all about what a private institution might have done differently. The messages seemed dangerously close to saying that in a free market someone else would be able to more effectively protect us.
To that I counter: Yes, in a free market you may contract with someone to provide you safety. And if an individual or group of individuals offering the service of protection did it poorly, the market would tend to correct that - those failing to adequately provide the service would experiences losses and eventually go out of business. However, I add that free market or not, we are ultimately responsible for meeting our own needs - including security.
Many of us worry that those seeking power will use tragedies such as the Va Tech shootings to attempt to gain more power. I say they will only do so as long as people in general are willing to abdicate their responsibly for their own well-being.
Published: April 20, 2007 11:29 AM
Neal, I don't think that the free market precludes a large group of people from voluntarily pooling their resources and going to war. It's just that such an action would not attempt to hide the true cost of the war nor to seek the agenda of any single person.
As JSH pointed out however, a solution made without state coercion is probably much less likely to resort to violence of any kind.
Published: April 20, 2007 11:36 AM
1) There is more to libertarianism than "free-market" such as a right to self defense. If others had excercised a free right to provide for their own self defense, acts such as this might not ever get off the ground (while such folk are not operating sanely, they still likely would have enough rationality to not engage in guns blazing if they felt that a significant portion of targets could shoot back) or be mitigated much sooner. Not intended to start a firestorm of debate, just pointing out that oversimplifying libertarianism as "free-market" then asking what its principals could have done to prevent such a massacre has too narrow of definitions.
2) It is telling that Mr. Rockwell's paradigm that Progressives think people are generally good and conservatives think people are generally bad. I've detected a "soft-spot" in previous writings for left/Democratic Statism versus right/Republican Statism.
Both have their own groupings and pairings of who is good and who is bad. Both wish to use the State to foster those who are good and punish those who are bad. They are both Statists, and if it was only conservatives who thought people were bad, then they would take over and kill everyone. Conversely, if progressives think that everyone is good, they wouldn't be so motivated to compel them via the State.
No, the difference in the brand of Statism has more to do with axiomatic induction that what came before is outmoded and must change - by force (progressives) - or what came before was proper, has been incorrectly deviated from, and must be returned to - by force (conservatives). Both are hopeless romantics, watershedded by their own paradigms. But the two come back together in the Statist Realm to dance their particular dance on the backs of the productive and the properly disinterested. So, Statist must conclude that people are bad and must be compelled by force to act differently than they otherwise would. And their evil ways must be mended by force. How Statists differentiate themselves, and fight amongst themselves, is perhaps for another article.
The simplest way I disarm Progressives or Conservatives is to ask "what are we progressing toward?" or "what are we conserving?", specifically. And as the try and define, in real, tangible terms what they want as a result of intervention in other people's lives, they pretty much end up being the same. They just have different conceptions entirely of how to do it. And they both happen to not ask said people their opinion on the matter.
Published: April 20, 2007 1:15 PM
I think the term 'collective' evil, as opposed to 'individual' evil, could make sense. If a guy decides to rob his neighbour, alone, he's taking some chances. On the other hand, when a cop, a lawyer, a politician, a soldier, decide to rob, rape and murder, they know they are supported by a vast group of comrades. They engage in crime because they know they can safely do so. Their actions are individual, but they rely in a 'group' or 'collective' mechanism for protection.
And that's what libertarians are lacking! As long as libertarians refuse to help each other in their quest for security, they (we) would remain in a hopeless situation.
ps: Brad, I don't think Lew has a soft spor for 'liberals'. He seems to believe that they could be useful allies opposing the warfare state. I think he's too optimistic...
Published: April 20, 2007 2:18 PM
On the other hand, when a cop, a lawyer, a politician, a soldier, decide to rob, rape and murder, they know they are supported by a vast group of comrades. They engage in crime because they know they can safely do so. Their actions are individual, but they rely in a 'group' or 'collective' mechanism for protection.
Like any other kind of endeavor, such as the business of producing anything from corn to cars, specialization and the division of labor help criminals increase their productivity, too.
Published: April 21, 2007 3:11 PM
D White - So why are you angry? In my view, any social structure that allows the accumulation of power will result in the misuse of power.
Published: April 23, 2007 5:04 PM
JIMB,
"So why are you angry? In my view, any social structure that allows the accumulation of power will result in the misuse of power."
Well, let's see. EVERY social structure "allows for the accumulation of power," the question being where it accumulates: in the individual or in groups thereof, including and especially those that monopolize the use of force over certain territories.
These are known as STATES that presently RULE THE WORLD and do so with DEVASTATING CONSEQUENCES.
This makes me angry, as my life and the lives of my loved ones depends on what this CONCENTRATION OF EVIL inflicts on society.
But your god is in control, right, and administers this mayhem according to his plan?
Published: April 23, 2007 5:46 PM
D White - It's interesting that the issue is 'how to solve the evil nature inherent in (some?) men'. I.e. it is ** admitted ** that this is the problem (hence the arguments against the state). And any person that believes they can and should hold extreme power has no appreciation for their own fallibility and their own corruptibility and thus is suspect.
Saying the State = Badness, violence, injustice and the Market = Goodness, non-violence, happiness and thus 'defining the problem' as the 'state' just means the state becomes another word for 'sin'. (Don't forget I'm on your side in the anti-state feelings - much to the chagrin of the conservatives I know).
The definitions in this context are nonsensical. The state is 'a territorial monopoly on the use of violence' which always exists unless ** everyone ** simply refuses to use violence. So the argument is in essentials if everyone is non-violent everything will be great.
So what magic wand-waving nonsense is that? Libertarianism is reduced to 'what a nice world we would have if ...' rather than a strategy for emasculating the returns to violence and injustice.
(In fact, libertarians have their own unrealistic fantasies, like Rothbard's Ethics of Liberty starting with "Crusoe Economics" forgetting that the basis of society - as far as we can carry the observed facts - is not an individual man, but a family).
At root every world-view IS religious (i.e. having no ability to prove the ultimate given) and thus libertarianism IS a religious belief about how to solve the problems of the bad nature in man.
Published: April 24, 2007 1:48 PM
JIMB,
If it's religious to believe, with Proudon, that liberty is, "the Mother, not the Daughter, of Order," then call me religious. And as the state has its source and sustenance in violating the liberty of others, mankind's proper objective in relation to it should be to minimize it if not eradicate it, as the larger the state is, the more evil it perpetrates.
Why is that so difficult to understand what history has gone out of its way to confirm?
Published: April 24, 2007 3:23 PM
D White - The state does nothing that those individuals wouldn't themselves do (or at least have done at their command) had they the chance.
Libertarianism (the ethics part, not the economics part) sounds like nothing more than a new vocabulary for the same problem with the same ** and then a miracle happens ** approach to evil; except for the few thinkers (Lew noted it in his article) that recognize only when the returns to evil are a net loss will evil stop.
I don't see libertarianism - by itself at least - offering any real solution to doing what it claims should be done.
I'd rather like to see the state go away and ** nothing ** rise up in it's place - not any other form of a state (corporate dominance, whatever), just nothing.
In my view, that only happens when the accumulation of large amounts of power over other men is near impossible. I'd like to see a strategy of "spoilage" ... whatever the state tries to accomplish is spoiled; given enough time, the market will take care of a lot of the rest.
Published: April 24, 2007 3:45 PM
JIMB: "I'd rather like to see the state go away and ** nothing ** rise up in it's place - not any other form of a state (corporate dominance, whatever), just nothing."
Funny, that's exactly what the libertarians (and anarcho-capitalists) want as well.
Anyway, opposition to the State is incidental to libertarianism. The important part is to recognize the contradiction in relying on the State, an organization that necessarily practices aggression, to police against aggression. In all other respects the "enemy" is aggression, not the State. The State simply happens to be the primary source of aggression at the moment and thus gathers most of the attention.
Published: April 24, 2007 4:13 PM
Jesse - Whatever anarcho's want, they'll not get it if they end up following a strategy which (perhaps to their dismay) ends up instead re-concentrating power under new rules. If the battleground is the state (i.e. state laws, etc) - that may be better for developed countries with a dispersed power legal system than a free-for-all, especially if the state remains ineffective in capturing it's goals. Private bankers it seems had exactly that goal in mind with the institution of the Federal Reserve.
And if nation-states were dissolved (what apparently many anarchos want), that is more likely a precursor to one-world government, as what stands in the way of that ARE nation states.
So I wonder exactly where that leaves us and what libertarianism has to offer in the way of ** strategy ** and practical advice.
Published: April 24, 2007 6:58 PM
JIMB, are you trying to say that we already have an "optimal" size of government? Curious... According to your argument any change in the size of the state, either larger or smaller, is a move toward one-world government. Larger, because the only way for one of the major governments to increase in size would be by conquest or consolidation; and smaller, because a smaller government would merely be conquered or dissolved into one of the larger governments. Personally I don't buy your assertion that "if nation-states were dissolved . . . that is more likely a precursor to one-world government, as what stands in the way of that ARE nation states", but since I don't think it's relevant I'll let it be.
The power of the State (all States) is in a sense of legitimacy -- the support of the people, not physical strength. Physical resistance, furthermore, is useless against statist ideology (unless, of course, it is your intention to murder everyone on the opposing side, in which case you're hardly advocating libertarianism). My strategy, and my advice, is to undermine the State's false legitimacy by any non-aggressive means available. Social pressure and non-political grass-roots efforts are probably our most important tools, each person working within their own community, letting their neighbors know just how they feel about libertarian issues. Principles are contagious, and libertarians tend to hold some very strong principles, principles most people do believe in deep down even if they don't connect them with the actions of their elected agents.
An important part is language. When you allow an action to be given different names -- one for the "commoners", one for the State -- you encourage people to partition their minds and avoid connecting their personal morals with the actions of their State. Name the actions of the State by their proper names, and be ready to explain why you call them such when people ask.
Finally, teach economics. If people truly understood economics today, I believe the State would be gone by tomorrow (allowing for transition time and the slightest bit of hyperbole). Teach supply and demand, marginal return, the value of free trade, the dangers of price manipulation, and the economic fact that cartels and monopolies are unstable in the absence of unchecked aggression. Teach about the common law, arbitration, diplomacy -- all the ways in which sovereign and civilized individuals resolve their disputes without violence and without the State.
Published: April 24, 2007 8:06 PM
An interesting PDF I read here was Walter Block writing about the issue of punishing people of the crime of 'Statism'. I thought it was quite good inasmuchas he pointed out that in many modern democratic societies: most people support the government at some sort of level and therefore see it legitimate in some sort of way. Therefore if support for the State is a crime and most people support some function for the government then most people in society are therefore guilty. Hence, in a Democratic society, Libertarians are looking at million upon million of thieves, robbers and murderers . . .
Published: April 24, 2007 10:00 PM
Jesse - I can't relate your last post to the subject. Libertarians frequently advocate counter-productive action. Dissolve states and we lose a barrier to one-world government. Example: Dissolve the power of the states and we have the "Federalist Union of the U.S.": that's what the U.S. Civil War was about: centralizing power into the U.S. Federal Govt. Same concept only bigger if nation-states were gotten rid of.
I can't relate your last post to the subject: The issue is, if the world went the way many libertarians want (the cause-effect, not the 'fantasy') it would have the opposite effect as intended.
Example: As recommended by Rothbard and advocated by many libertarians : the Federal Reserve be immediately dissoved. The result would be massive depression, world war, chaos, a complete and utter economic collapse with millions (if not billions) perhaps starving because the division of labor had completely broken down without what was money (the U.S. dollar) as the entire world banking system is pyramided on the dollar (are you aware the DTC cleared more than 1.4 ** quadrillion ** in trading in 2006)? That is only one of the many stupid idiotic things advocated.
But a "spoilage" strategy would work well: for example on the money issue: let's have private money legal tender alongside public money and let them compete (or an off-shore option to store savings which is free of capital gains tax -- the major impediment to competing currencies).
Is it perfect? No -- but compared to Rothbard's hellish recommendation it's heaven (not that Rothbard didn't contribute hugely, just that he did ** contribute ** : he did not engage in Holy Writing that is under all conditions true and infallible and complete in and of itself). There's is, in my view, no balanced or nuanced identification of strategy, or pratical recommendation.
Published: April 25, 2007 8:45 AM
JIMB - I can't relate your last post to the subject. Were you disagreeing with the strategy(s) I proposed? I would think our strategies are very similar: both call for private actions over time instead of large-scale disruptions like abolishing the Federal Reserve. In other words, gradually eliminate any dependence on the State, and thus make it as irrelevant as possible, while simultaneously encouraging people to see the aggressive actions of the State for what they really are -- theft, murder, fraud, and enslavement.
If I could eliminate the aggressive actions themselves forever I would do it in a heartbeat -- after which there would probably be no need to eliminate the Fed, as it would most likely collapse all on its own without taxation to pay the interest -- but that is not likely to be within my power at any point in the near future. Short of that, the State can only really be eliminated by making it and its supporters social outcasts, and it was a strategy for doing just that which I outlined in my previous post. One can only permanently eliminate the State by eliminating statism itself, and the desire to employ the "political means" of achieving one's ends.
Published: April 25, 2007 9:43 AM
I seems to me that Lew was saying that if the free market couldn't provide an answer to preventing the VT murders, the state couldn't do better. I have to agree. The VT murders were one of those rare, hard to predict events. In quality control lingo, we would call it a "special cause". Everyone is looking what what is called the "systemic cause," but there isn't one and such events are so rare that no system could prevent them. For more on this type of reasoning check out the excellent book "Fooled by Randomness".
I don't understand why Lew has to build straw dogs to kick, such as this one:
"This is the thinking of the group generally known as conservatives. And what do they suggest? That we always and everywhere prepare for total war."
That's such an extreme characterization of conservatives, worthy only of a Dunesbury cartoon (or is it Doonesbury?).
Published: April 25, 2007 3:03 PM
Jesse - You haven't any control over whether people want to be taught nor do you have any control over language ... while the other guy has a gun. In my view, the "returns to violence" dominate the strategy, and not anything else. But maybe over time, I will be proved wrong...
Published: April 25, 2007 3:07 PM
JIMB, perhaps you're right and people are inherently evil and there is no strategy that can get us to a free society. You know what? I don't care. It's irrelevant. I refuse to be part of the problem by advocating or participating in aggression, even "lesser" aggression. That leaves only one option -- libertarianism / anarcho-capitalism. The more people I can convince to join me the better, but my choice does not depend upon theirs. Libertarianism is about how I choose to act, not a way of controlling the actions of others.
Published: April 25, 2007 3:48 PM
Most people are not inherently evil. The existence and evolution of society by definition shows that to be so. The division of labor and free trade increase material wealth for all parties to trade. This is THE *reason* (which all political philosphers of the likes of Plato, Rousseau et al failed to discern) society exists. Too often "society" is convuluted with "nation" or "State", or more locally with "gangs" or violent rogue lunatic criminals.
The VT shooting is strange because it seems motivated by suicidal anti-materialism, motivated by jealousy and rejection. Hence, why Epicurianism is the only surviving ancient Greek philosophy. But on the other hand, the VT shooting is not so strange, because that's the deluded motivation behind socialism, and under communism such violence was routinely carried out with deaf ears to pleas. We've just become somewhat emotionally dulled to everyday socialism.
But don't underestimate the impact of communication and truth. The advent of the internet may well be a downfall of the Berlin Wall global event.
Published: April 25, 2007 4:22 PM
Jesse - You're bringing words to a gunfight. I'd rather have a gun and defend myself. On the one hand is the argument we need to dissolve states - handily refuted above (they stand in the way of greater concentration of global power). On the other hand is the argument we need to proliferate states ... which can and sometimes does devolve into continuous terrorism and ethnic cleansing. You want anarchy? Try Sudan or Somalia. What a disaster. All those people are "free" in every sense of the libertarian terms (they can take whatever action they personally want) - except that libertarians like to define away the problem (the actions other people take in doing evil) ... "oh that's not the anarchy we are talking about: we mean no one does anything violent".
You see, the ** old-style conservatives ** are right. It's not that man is evil, he is a mix of good and evil - and there are enough with a balance on the wrong side of the ledger so that centralized AND decentralized power are a disaster -- that's an observed FACT. So we end up where we started: a division of powers, with the majority united in their belief of a religion that instructs men to their best activities. Libertarianism offers nothing at all. Literally nothing. In fact, it should make the effort to br more attractive to non-purists (old style conservatives) because those are the principals on which the country was successfully founded.
Published: April 26, 2007 9:12 AM
JIMB: "Jesse - You're bringing words to a gunfight. I'd rather have a gun and defend myself."
Fine -- defend yourself. I never said anything against self-defense. In my opinion words are far more powerful than guns when it comes to influencing people's behavior -- not to mention a whole lot more civilized -- but to each its own. In any event I'm not here to tell you what to do; you'll have to decide that for yourself. Consider for a moment, however, that you're the one advocating the use of aggression, of the initiation of violent coercion. In other words, you're the one advocating the perpetration of evil acts against non-aggressors. Is that really a stand you want to take?
JIMB: "On the one hand is the argument we need to dissolve states - handily refuted above (they stand in the way of greater concentration of global power)."
That wasn't a refutation; it was merely an excuse, and a poor one at that. First, even if the present States are all that stands in the way of a single, global State, that still doesn't justify their existance any more than the existance of a single, global State would be justified. Second, your "refutation" is nothing more than an unfounded assertion; you have no evidence that the elimination of nation-states would be likely to result in a global State.
Published: April 26, 2007 9:56 AM
Jesse- The issue is whether libertarians are offering (in ethics) anything new or useful whatsoever at all, whether it just isn't vapor, and whether what is promoted is counterproductive. In fact your response (I am advocating aggression against innocents) is alarming - where did that come from? Seems might aggressive ...
The Civil War (plus many other wars) appear conclusive that the destruction of power in smaller states is necessary for the 'great state'. I'd like that not to happen. But maybe you're right and states will yield their authority to a great state for some reason and we should attempt to dissolve states. In my view, it's probably better to proliferate them instead.
There's a lot to be optimistic about as states are now in the position where they cannot compete with one another except to have a free market (unfortunately it ends up as fascism). So are you *** sure *** that dissolving states is a good idea? I am not so sure.
Plus, do you actually take serious stuff like Rothbard's "Ethics" where he starts with a single guy on an island to develop a theory of morality? That's just question begging: starting where you want to end - an atomized individual with no connections to family and no positive responsibilty to anyone else ...
Published: April 26, 2007 5:42 PM
JIMB, you know what? I had a long response written out to counter your last comment, but I'm not going to post it after all. What would be the point? You certainly didn't come here looking for a rational discussion, and I'm not worried that you might have any lingering credibility or influence with the other participants on this discussion board. I have no idea why you persist in coming here, unless perhaps you simply enjoy provoking people. There are hundreds of other sites out there dedicated to principle more in line with your beliefs; I suggest you go bother one of them for a change. (Oh, and consider yourself invisible. I won't be seeing your posts in the future.)
Published: April 26, 2007 6:56 PM
Jesse - And this is a thread on ethics? Talk about going on the personal attack ...
I guess all I can do is repost the challenge:
What libertarianism offers that is true, useful and new in ethics (and not question-begging)
Whether libertarianism isn't just "wishing away evil" and therefore is nothing more than a new terminology with no real solution to personal human evil
Whether libertarians aren't advocating the wrong and impossible thing (immediate anarchy by the dissolving of states)
Whether that idea wouldn't result in a worse situation (a super-state)
I post here because I get some interesting and thoughtful replies which are not reflected in the common writings - probably because quite a few smart people participate - but like a lot of other sites, it's hit and miss.
Published: April 27, 2007 7:41 AM
I have pretty much asked the same question too JIMB. The whole world with some 6500 million people across 100+ countries acts a one giant real example of how people interact with other people. Even though no one might admit in court, there must be plenty of people who are quite happy to impose their ways onto others for profit for the world to be the way it is. I personally find 'don't go using force & fraud' as a moral imperative but not some sort 'natural instinct' that we all share'. Hence I'm not foreseeing any particular 'golden age of peace and prosperity' anytime soon.
Published: April 27, 2007 10:37 AM
TLWP - What Q? You answer mine and I'll answer yours...
A pro-libertarian cannot take the market as it is today and insist it would be non-violent after all the parameters have changed (dissolving of the state, etc). What nonsense is that? Where's the geniune alternative?
What determines the level of violence is the perceived returns to violence on the margin for those inclined (unfortunately). Really a market can only exist when a collection of people come to the common defense of their members against aggression - and insist - sometimes violently - that people "follow the rules" (or some sort of indemnification against losses).
The fact that there is not ** agreement ** in our system is a (very) serious ethical problem (and agreement is probably the basis of universal morality).
But again, we aren't discussing only what is wrong, but what system needs to replace it, the practical strategy - the real alternative libertarianism offers.
The above questions remain, don't they ?
Published: April 27, 2007 11:23 AM
TLWP - Oops. I think I read your post wrong: the first sentence as saying "I have asked JIMB this as well" addressed to the general participants ... Reading it again, it doesn't look like that was how you meant it. Sorry. Getting on one track here ...
I agree with your sentiment.
Published: April 27, 2007 11:44 AM