Comments (27)

• Mike

  Obviously a statist system is never ideal for law and order, but isn't there still something wrong with filing a false report (be it to police or a private security agency) and wasting thousands of dollars on a wild goose chase?

  Published: October 19, 2009 9:06 AM

• Daniel

  I do wonder how something like this would be so importend that even I as a Ducth person, should be harresed by this story daily...

  FYI, It's on all the dutch (news) blog's and site's...

  Shouldn't there be other important news, something like, central bankers are semi-legally robbing the world blind?
  Or, the global epic fail of government to preserve freedom and/or economic stability...
  (plz don't answer that one =)

  Mind you, I did however find it refreshing to find the story at mises.org, as always

  =)
  

  Published: October 19, 2009 9:52 AM

• Silas Barta

  Agree with Mike. You don't think that in a private law society, if you did something like this, wasting rescue service resources and all, you wouldn't be forced to pay big compensation? Or deal with higher liability insurance rates after you insurer pays compensation too?

  Published: October 19, 2009 10:20 AM

• Justin DeWind

  Ah, but public goods were put to use in order to facilitate the search and rescue of this child. These goods were wasted on a hoax. Therefore, the state feels obligated to justify the waste by punishing the perpetrators.

  Perhaps another reason why public goods are a not-so-good idea. Since the punishment associated with the misuse does not fit the 'crime' itself -- almost always.

  Published: October 19, 2009 10:31 AM

• Gil

  ". . . punishing the perpetrators."

  Who'd have thunk it!

  Published: October 19, 2009 10:50 AM

• HL

  If they have Fox News in hell, I am sure Winston Churchill chuckled. "Ho, ho, ho, you have no idea how far one can carry a hoax, young man."

  Published: October 19, 2009 11:10 AM

• K.C.

  While this has to go down as perhaps the dumbest self-promotional stunts, the real story here is how the government went into the home to seek information to take the kids away (not just information on the hoax for the purpose of just compensation). They even pressured his wife to go to a safe house.

  Now the guy is a moron, apparently has a bit of a temper, and has extremely poor judgment, but at no point were his children in danger other than being publicly ridiculed.

  The hysteria surrounding this media event is surpassed only by the zeal with which big brother seeks to assert its authority. The difference being that when government plays the part of the fool there is real harm done as opposed to media entertainment for the voyeuristic masses.

  Published: October 19, 2009 12:05 PM

• Robby

  If security funds were wasted in investigating what proved to be a hoax, then there should be a civil suit filed against the perpetrators in the amount of the spending predicated on a fraud. What good does it do anyone to shell out even more money to put the guy up in jail?

  Published: October 19, 2009 1:24 PM

• Richard M

  Is not a question to be raised concerning recompense, what other "public good" might the authorities have engaged in during their pursuit of the ballon boy's supposed adventure that would have produced a greater "public good" (whatever that means)?

  Published: October 19, 2009 1:26 PM

• Cortlandt

  ...it's a circus of egos on both sides.

  Note that lowly Colorado sheriff wearing '3 Gold-Stars' as rank insignia on his uniform -- he thinks he's a General Patton, commanding 100,000 troops...

  Published: October 19, 2009 4:51 PM

• Russ

  Robby wrote:

  "What good does it do anyone to shell out even more money to put the guy up in jail?"

  Pour discourager les autres.

  I have to agree with Silas. Even if this guy did what he did in Ancapistan, it would probably be fraud, or breach of contract, or something. The guy wasted tax dollars so he could get on TV. So I don't have a problem with the the cops going after him, as it will hopefully make others with the same idea think twice. Just because the government is going after this guy, that doesn't necessarily mean it's bad.

  Published: October 19, 2009 6:10 PM

• Art

  Russ wrote:

  "I have to agree with Silas. Even if this guy did what he did in Ancapistan, it would probably be fraud, or breach of contract, or something. The guy wasted tax dollars so he could get on TV. So I don't have a problem with the the cops going after him, as it will hopefully make others with the same idea think twice. Just because the government is going after this guy, that doesn't necessarily mean it's bad."

  This is a very dangerous line... Following the same reasoning you can justify pretty much anything:

  Taxes - In Ancapistan you would have to pay for police, schools, roads, defense, courts, etc. So, the fact that the state goes after you for taxes to pay for that isn't necessarily bad.

  Driving Licenses - In Ancapistan you would have to get some sort of license to drive on roads, so the fact that the state requires you to have a license is not necessarily bad.

  Professional Licensing (Doctors, Attorneys, etc.) - In Ancapistan there would likely be professional certifications, so the fact that the state doesn't allow you to work in certain professions without their blessing isn't necessarily bad.

  Courts - In Ancapistan people would need judges to resolve their controversies, so the fact that the state has a monopoly on imparting justice is not necessarily bad.

  See, the issue is not the act itself of looking for restitution or what have you (or paying for roads, or getting a professional certification, or going to an arbitrator), but the fact that the state claims a monopoly over those activities and utilizes force to maintain that monopoly. It is precisely the fact that it's the state that is the problem.

  In Ancapistan, balloon boy dad would have huge insurance premiums, and/or would have a huge search and rescue bill coming to him, and/or would have already lost all credibility with rescue agencies. But the key difference is that all those relationships would be based on voluntary exchange, which is the one thing missing with state action.

  IMHO that's exactly where Hoppe goes wrong in his analysis on immigration. He assumes that since there would likely be a comparable control in a stateless society, then the state action is justified. That is the statist argument for the state itself!

  Art

  Published: October 19, 2009 6:46 PM

• Bob Roddis

  If the balloon boy call was fake, it sure sounds like fraud to me. I have a boat on Lake St. Clair near Detroit. The lake is 25 miles across. It looks little on the map but it's BIG.

  If you break down, there's a private company that will tow you back to your marina. If you haven't purchased an annual membership, it costs $1200 for the tow. If you've paid the annual $54 annual membership fee, the tow is free. From personal experience, the service is great. (I also submit that this is how private police agencies might work in our Rothbardian world of the future).

  Suppose you called in a false alarm and the tow boat went 25 miles looking for you. I presume there would be some pre-arranged penalty for such fraudulent behavior. Probably not jail and the loss of your kids, but something that would make you wish you hadn't done it and probably would preclude you from doing it in the first place. Like cancellation and a $1200 fee (I haven't checked out my own policy yet).

  The entire "problem" with this balloon boy episode seems to be caused by the lack of a private agency and a rescue contract.

  Published: October 19, 2009 7:08 PM

• Russ

  Art,

  I *am* a "statist", at least according to the stilted definition used here, where even a classical liberal like Mises must be considered a "statist". (Actually, I'm a minarchist, not a statist.)

  At any rate, I'm not commenting on the monopolistic nature of the state. I'm commenting on the attitude so common here that the State can do no right, even though PDAs in Ancapistan would do the same things that the State does now. It's unthinking, knee-jerk anti-statism.

  Re Hoppe: I don't agree with Hoppe that there would be an agency similar to the INS in an ancap society. That's one of the many reasons why I am not in favor of ancap.

  Published: October 19, 2009 7:26 PM

• Art

  "I *am* a "statist", at least according to the stilted definition used here, where even a classical liberal like Mises must be considered a "statist". (Actually, I'm a minarchist, not a statist.)" Russ

  I considered myself a minarchist for a while as well. But I started applying the non-aggression principle consistently, and eventually came to the dark side of the force, ie anarcho-capitalism. (Also, I like to think of Mises more as an anarchist in progress, but he didn't have time to fully embrace the logical conclusion of his work with regards to the state) - Art :)

  "At any rate, I'm not commenting on the monopolistic nature of the state. I'm commenting on the attitude so common here that the State can do no right, even though PDAs in Ancapistan would do the same things that the State does now. It's unthinking, knee-jerk anti-statism." Russ

  My point was that you can't focus on the act itself, and forget who the actor is if the actor is the state, because that changes everything. Let me try a weird analogy:

  1. Eating broccoli is good for you.
  2. Therefore, parents would do well in giving broccoli to their kids.
  3. Ergo, if a deranged lunatic force feeds you and your kids broccoli at gun point, there is really no harm done.

  Your point is (and I understand I'm stretching this, but bear with me) that you are not focusing on who is doing the feeding, but in the feeding of broccoli itself, which is a good thing.

  My point is that nothing the deranged lunatic does at the point of a gun can be good. Everything the lunatic touches it perverts, because it bases its action on forced compliance.

  So, back to balloon boy, I absolutely agree that in a libertarian society, the dad would have to face the consequences of his foolish act, and those consequences would likely be restitution to the search and rescue personnel, and maybe a surcharge on top of that. But the state will not be content with that, they will probably want to take his kids away and give them to the heartless "child protective services", and through him in jail... - Art

  "Re Hoppe: I don't agree with Hoppe that there would be an agency similar to the INS in an ancap society. That's one of the many reasons why I am not in favor of ancap." Russ

  Agree with you on the first part, but not on the conclusion. It seems to me the appropriate conclusion is: Hoppe is wrong, and therefore I don't agree with Hoppe's version of a libertarian society as far as immigration goes... But why throw away everything else? - Art

  Regards

  Published: October 19, 2009 7:47 PM

• Bob Roddis

  Re: INS in Ancapistan

  Wouldn't an INS be moot? The "foreign intruder" would just be a trespasser.

  Also, there probably would be rules against defamation here and there in Ancapistan. Does that justify our current "analog" statist defamation laws? I also presume that there would be many areas where drugs, promiscuity, strip clubs and such would be banned by contract and agreement. Does that justify "analog" statist anti-drug and anti-vice laws? Indeed, I presume there would be myriad private rules dealing with most common issues that vex us now.

  Published: October 19, 2009 7:49 PM

• Russ

  Bob Roddis wrote:

  "Re: INS in Ancapistan

  Wouldn't an INS be moot? The "foreign intruder" would just be a trespasser."

  There would possibly (probably?) be no such thing as "border control" in Ancapistan. There would be only private property, and if people from another country buy into your neighborhood, there would be nothing you could do about it. So if those people happen to be Satan worshippers who believe that child sacrifice is a wholesome and laudatory practice, let's say, good luck trying to keep them out of your neighborhood.

  Art wrote:

  "I considered myself a minarchist for a while as well. But I started applying the non-aggression principle consistently, and eventually came to the dark side of the force, ie anarcho-capitalism."

  Funny, I considered myself an anarchist for a while. I was attracted to it precisely because it is so consistent. But I started to look at the possible consequences of ancap, without saying to myself "The market will take care of it" every time I hit a speed bump, and eventually I came to the conclusion that maybe a perfectly consistent political theory doesn't fit well with a species that is not perfectly consistent.

  "Also, I like to think of Mises more as an anarchist in progress, but he didn't have time to fully embrace the logical conclusion of his work with regards to the state"

  Yeah, lot's of people here like to take Mises as their own. The fact of the matter is, though, that Mises lived to the ripe old age of 92, and died in 1973. I cannot say with certainty, but I would not be at all surprised if Mises were well aware of Rothbard's works and opinions, where Rothbard espoused anarchism. For instance, in Power and Market Rothbard argues for private defense production. Power and Market was published in 1962. And yet Mises never recanted his classical liberalism in favor of anarchic liberalism.

  "Let me try a weird analogy:

  1. Eating broccoli is good for you.
  2. Therefore, parents would do well in giving broccoli to their kids.
  3. Ergo, if a deranged lunatic force feeds you and your kids broccoli at gun point, there is really no harm done."

  You're right... it is a weird analogy. *grin*

  I understand your point, but the fact is, we currently live in a world with states. And some of the functions that states fulfill are actually necessary (although perhaps it's not necessary that they be provided by states). So, making like Chicken Little and crying that the sky is falling every time a state does something relatively innocuous seems ... counter-productive.

  "It seems to me the appropriate conclusion is: Hoppe is wrong, and therefore I don't agree with Hoppe's version of a libertarian society as far as immigration goes... But why throw away everything else?"

  I believe that Hoppe is wrong that an ancap society can provide immigration control, but I do believe that it is necessary. (I am not part of the multi-culti cult, I'm afraid. I don't believe that all cultures are mutually compatible.) So, for me, that is one reason (among several) to reject ancap.

  Published: October 19, 2009 8:29 PM

• mpolzkill

  "without saying to myself 'The market will take care of it" every time'"

  That's when he switched over in those cases to saying to himself "the State will take care of it." He took that so far that he now calls for domestic "HUMINT" with no apparent worries about these characters who somehow rise above we less perfect of the species.

  Published: October 19, 2009 9:18 PM

• Russ

  Is the market taking care of keeping an eye on Islamic mosques and organizations like CAIR that have ties to terrorist organizations, Mr. Polzkill?

  Published: October 19, 2009 10:12 PM

• mpolzkill

  These thing always get pulled off topic (I wanted to hear more about beating the fear of God into hoaxers, and how your "libertarian" position might have brought you to believing it's a valid function of the State to chase balloons and then imprison the first imbeciles in the farce all at my expense), but OK:

  Is your State and its actions the reason why these groups have ties to terrorists and aren't these terrorist groups only interested in America because of your State, Mr. Libertarian? In a fantasy world with many more intelligent and knowledgeable people, let's imagine that after 9/11 enough Americans came to the realization that your State was the cause of it all and we demanded that they disband. Damned straight we could have paid Afghanis to send us bin Laden's head. And they also would have gone for it because of our withdrawal, reparations to Iraq and the ditching of the 51st state in Palestine. There's the end of most worries, as to wacky Muslim neighbors: if it were not for your beloved State we would still have neighborhoods, and neighbors keep an eye on neighbors. I can't explain how the world works to you in these little boxes, Russ.

  Published: October 19, 2009 10:35 PM

• mpolzkill

  * These things

  * I can't explain to you how the world works

  (tired. probably can't keep up with you tonight. just wanted to post one piece of libertarian propaganda against your state propaganda. nighty, night; you get to sleep sound, I know, with your rough men standing ready)

  Published: October 19, 2009 10:59 PM

• Trey Grayson

  What if (non-)balloon boy’s parents hadn’t been able to foist the cost of the unnecessary search-and-rescue mission onto their fellow citizens but had to pay the costs themselves? Socialism, as usual, has negative unintended consequences.

  Tracy

  Published: October 20, 2009 12:19 AM

• Gil

  The scenario turned out to be a hoax therefore there was nothing 'unintended' about it.

  Published: October 20, 2009 1:03 AM

• Lee

  There's no excuse for what this guy did. You can bemoan the state all you want, but at the end of the day this man lied about his son being in peril and it consequently lead to a rescue operation that wasted time and money.

  He understood what institutions were in place, (police, military, media) and tried to take advantage of them. He understood that if he were caught he'd be in trouble (otherwise he wouldn't have lied). It doesn't surprise me that they're upset, and I can't blame them for wanting compensation for rescue operations.

  I think if you're going to begrudge the state for excessive charges this story isn't one you'd want to run with.It's truly difficult to have sympathy for any of them, except maybe the children, for having such D-Bag parents.

  Published: October 20, 2009 8:11 AM

• Harry

  Someone should fine the sheriff for stupidity. Too bad we can't do the same for the news organizations.

  A few minutes of simple calculation would have shown that a six-year old could not have been inside of that balloon. It just didn't have enough lift. Heating the air hot enough to (maybe, maybe not) get the child off of the ground would have cooked the child, and the balloon still wouldn't have reached the altitude that it did.

  Cable channels wasted hours on this non-news story instead of reporting on ample real news around the world. They played "dumber" to the cops' "dumb."

  Published: October 20, 2009 9:14 AM

• Gil

  Oh yes, wasn't it those at Mythbusters who showed the amount of helium balloons to get a child off the ground would be the size of a standard hot air balloon.

  So the hoaxers are off the hook then?

  Published: October 20, 2009 9:39 AM

• Shay

  "But the state will not be content with that, they will probably want to take his kids away and give them to the heartless "child protective services", and through him in jail..." - Art

  And now apparently the FAA as well.

  Published: October 20, 2009 4:45 PM