Source link: http://archive.mises.org/10777/the-production-of-security-by-gustave-de-molinari/
The Production of Security by Gustave de Molinari
Previous post: Liberty and Property by Ludwig von Mises
Next post: The Private Production of Defense by Hans-Hermann Hoppe
{ 13 comments }
My favorite part of the book:
“In reality, we have a choice of two
things:
Either communistic production is superior
to free production, or it is not.
If it is, then it must be for all things, not
just for security.
If not, progress requires that it be
replaced by free production.
Complete communism or complete
liberty: that is the alternative!” pg40
Yup, that’s a good quote Geoffrey. I wander want the limited government defense-socialists think of that.
Very good quote!
Too sad that many Austrian thinkers did not realize that!
A common objection is that security is necessary as a precursor or precondition for free trade to take place. That you must have property rights in place before you can trade.
The problem with this objection is that life is never as clear-cut as all that. Freedom and security are complementary values, not contradictory. These people underestimate the fundamental nature of voluntary trade, and how property rights are derived from trade, not the other way around. They also underestimate the power of the market to provide even security and rights protection, even as people are trading other things.
“A common objection is that security is necessary as a precursor or precondition for free trade to take place. That you must have property rights in place before you can trade.”
That objection in itself is wrong because property rights do not follow out of security and security is no premise for property rights.
After all property rights are either accepted or they are not (because of some assumption, that you have to accept mandatory security services and therefore your property rights are looked over). In the latter case they are violated. That is not libertarian.
The problem with the Geoffrey’s favorite Molinari quote is that it smuggles in that which it wants to prove. The first sentence implicity assumes that one or the other means of production is superior *for all things*, then the second and third sentences point out the implicit assumption. The fourth sentence then concludes from the false premise to make a false dichotomy. This is good polemic, perhaps, but bad logic.
The real question is, *why* must one means of production be better than the other *for all things*? It is not logically necessary that this be so.
The real question is, *why* must one means of production be better than the other *for all things*?
Nice point, and related to the assumption that libertarianism itself has: that of material progress for individuals and society as a whole, and towards the pursuit of happiness in general. Obviously, “free production” or the free market isn’t very good at producing poverty, misery, or large bureaucracies. Thus, it cannot be better for all things.
Michael A. Clem wrote:
“Obviously, “free production” or the free market isn’t very good at producing poverty, misery, or large bureaucracies. Thus, it cannot be better for all things.”
Haha.. OK, allow me to clarify. The real question is, why must one means of production be better than the other for producing all things that are worthwhile? For instance, just because the free market is better at producing widgets, does that mean it must necessarily also be better at producing, say, national defense or a legal system?
For instance, just because the free market is better at producing widgets, does that mean it must necessarily also be better at producing, say, national defense or a legal system?
I thought you were smart enough to get the joke, even without a smiley face.
As for your question, a couple of quick answers come to mind. The production of security, defense, or rights protection, like any other service or good, involves the use of scarce resources. The free market is the best know institution for the efficient utilization of scarce resources. Ergo, the free market would provide the best or most efficient security, defense, or rights protection.
To counter that, you might say that the most efficient use of resources towards that end would not result in the most desirable result, but I’d ask for some kind of proof or example to show that. Or you can say that only a centralized agency like government can provide certain services that consumers might not desire sufficiently, i.e. market failure, but again, you’d need to show how that could be true, and how that justifies forcing it upon people.
Alternately, I could ask you who is more interested in protecting me, an agency that forces me to pay, through taxation, to provide whatever level of service they feel is proper and justified, or a private security force that I willingly pay only if I’m satisfied with their service, or otherwise I go to one of their competitors?
There may be other arguments that I’m not thinking of right off the bat.
Michael A. Clem wrote:
“I thought you were smart enough to get the joke, even without a smiley face.”
I wondered if you were joking, but wasn’t sure. Hey, I’m a computer geek; we’re not good with social subtleties like that. *shrug*
Anyhoo… my main argument would be that most (all?) examples of “free markets” assume a framework of property and contract rights enforced by a government. So, the when people say that the free market works well for producing widgets, they’re really saying that the free market in widgets propped up by a non-free market in legal/defense services works well. But they conveniently forget that.
My second favorite would be the market failure argument you present. Then I wouldn’t necessarily argue about the justification of forcing government on people, I’d just assume that those places that don’t do so get taken over by those that do, showing that not doing so is somewhat lacking in survival value. To back up that assumption, I would point out the dearth of anarcho-capitalist countries.
my main argument would be that most (all?) examples of “free markets” assume a framework of property and contract rights enforced by a government.
I would argue that most examples of free markest assume a framework of property and contract rights, period, with no assumptions about who or what is providing it. The market itself can provide that framework, and there are other, already mentioned reasons for not desiring the government to provide it.
I’d just assume that those places that don’t do so get taken over by those that do,
This assumes that market failure would take place. I don’t think it would, given a sufficient anarchic culture. That is, the idea of liberty and individual rights is a relatively new one in human history, and as such, the cultural bias towards anarchy is still developing. That government still garners such large support and legitimacy by the public at large is no sign of its success in rights protection, but merely historical momentum and cultural bias. As we continue to discuss these ideas on the internet and elsewhere (i.e. The Great Discussion), I think the a greater understanding of and value for liberty will lead to a greater anarchic cultural view.
Alternately, your argument smacks of a “might-makes-right” philosophy. Does someone who didn’t adequately prepare their house against robbery (as evidenced by the fact that their house was robbed, whatever precautions they took or didn’t take) deserve to have their house robbed? While naturally we would want to make sure we have sufficient safeguards, to make that as an argument seems rather amoral.
Michael A. Clem
“The market itself can provide that framework…”
That is quite debatable, and the fact that no anarcho-libertarian country ever evolved is a telling clue that maybe the market cannot provide that framework. The whole concept of a “framework” is that it is something different than that which it holds up.
“This assumes that market failure would take place. I don’t think it would, given a sufficient anarchic culture.”
Again, you have no evidence of this. We’ll just have to agree to disagree here, I guess.
“Alternately, your argument smacks of a “might-makes-right” philosophy. Does someone who didn’t adequately prepare their house against robbery (as evidenced by the fact that their house was robbed, whatever precautions they took or didn’t take) deserve to have their house robbed?”
I was merely saying that I think that a country that does not have a government-provided legal/defense system *will* fall to other countries, not that it *should*. It is in no way a “might-makes-right” philosophy. At most, it’s a might makes *m*ight viewpoint (I can’t even call it a philosophy; it’s merely an assessment of reality).
YAY!
I don’t think I’ve actually ever read this. I’m glad it’s being published.
Any idea when we’ll have e-books of Hyack’s Road to Serfdom available?
TRacy
Comments on this entry are closed.