Glaeser’s remarks imply that people who sit in the corner and criticize the government — without rolling up their sleeves and joining the political process — are out of touch. But that’s the whole point, now isn’t it? The radical libertarian critique of the federal government isn’t simply that it’s inefficient, or that, gee whiz, we really ought to redeploy 3 percent of our troops from Iraq to Afghanistan. No, the radical libertarian critique is that the people in DC are quite literally a bunch of thieves and killers. FULL ARTICLE by Robert P. Murphy
Source link: http://archive.mises.org/13234/the-economics-of-libertarianism-confused/
The Economics of Libertarianism, Confused
Previous post: Krugman (Surprise, Surprise!) Gets It Wrong on Hayek
Next post: Prosperity Strangled by Gold?
{ 165 comments }
Epic image.
Mr. Glaeser takes a rather standard approach to debate – find the most incompetent person that appears to support the counter-argument, use him as the standard bearer, and then “prove” it wrong.
Also known as a classic Straw Man approach.
I agree totally.
Now that Libertarianism is being discussed more widely, I wonder if it’s time to hyphenate our terms again.
Just as the term inflation has been watered down and (in the public mind) means what the government wants it to mean – prices rising, we have been forced, for clarity, to hyphenate this into PRICE-inflation and MONEY-inflation.
I wonder if we need to begin using terms such as, ROTHBARD-libertarianism and FRIEDMAN-libertarianism, to go along with BELTWAY-libertarianism and even PSEDUO-libertarianism.
Some of these hyphenated terms leave a bad taste, but if we don’t clarify what we mean, then the public will likely dismiss libertarianism based on the confusion Murphy speaks of.
This one is good and, frankly, irrefutable. Of course, I have found that most people who congregate at the New York Slimes are incapable of logically thinking through their own arguments. I’m not surprised. I went to high school with two of the Sulzberger offspring (one is a high officer with the NYT and the other is a famous author), and both of them assumed that they were intellectually and morally superior to the rest of us boobs. No amount of logic could refute any of their arguments because, after all, they were associated with the NYT, and nothing more needed to be said.
Those who work at or agree with the NYT, the Cambridge School of Economics and State Socialists, may well be the majority, and have in adherents the greatest amount of wealthy individuals. The fallacy of appeal to authority is powerful and sways many. The ultra-rich though, and their servile press are merely the past of capitalism. Up and coming entrepreneurs experience first hand that free individual employees are more productive than those coerced by state planners and commonwealth bureaucracy. Even if British Mediocracy defeats Austrian Exceptionalism, it will always be a distant second to what the formerly free market once achieved and always perceived as subjugation by the inferior.
Let me first get this out of the way: a great many evils have been known to occur when capitalism and big government get together.
However this does not offer proof that things would be so much better were there NO government. Nor, might one say, would things get much better were there no capitalism. We are large and complex societies, and will be governed by large and complex institutions. To posit a world without such institutions is to be unrealistic. It would be like imagining a world with seven billion bees… but no hive. They’d each just put away their own tiny portions of honey, and never have to share.
At any rate, to the Gulf of Mexico. In this imaginary world, with no exterior controls of any sort, a driller like BP just magically transforms itself into a responsible member of the world community. Why? Because no one is there to force them to comply with anything. The logic is impeccable.
Let’s take a look at a place where such conditions obtain: the Niger Delta. Shell and others have drilled there for years. And the result? A toxic wasteland so vast it can readily be seen from satellite photos. Probably the most environmentally polluted area on earth. A place where there are no laws and no enforcement. The only rules are those set by the drilling companies.
Maybe they haven’t read enough Rothbard.
I highly suggest you spend some time reading the many articles on this web site. It appears you haven’t fully grasped the ideas we share here. Enjoy!
jmorris,
Yeah, he could start with this one. I’m half way done and I run into:
“In order to ‘prove’ that heavy-handed government intervention works — in contrast to a world of libertarian laissez-faire — Glaeser points out that our present system allows massive oil spills and corrupt judges.”
jmorris: I’ve spent several years examining the ideas you share here. That’s why I pose the obvious question about oil producers who would voluntarily clean their sites up if there were only no one telling them to.
Take it that I understand your point. Apply it here. What would make an oil driller in a totally free market clean up after himself? And what is it that prohibits him from doing so in this world?
Yeah, like they read none.
Hey, take a look at the picture of this man:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sani_Abacha
Gangsters and their partners tend to do better for themselves when the front men can get uniforms and titles like this.
Think of the worst case scenario. Under libertarianism, the worst case scenario is that nothing changes, except we pay fewer taxes. Sounds like enough of a reason to drop what we’re doing now.
And you made the same mistake as Mr. Glaeser by bringing up the Niger Delta. No laws? No enforcement? Ha, the entire area is state owned.
The state of Nigeria is complicit in the crime. I repeat: there is no regulatory body in Nigeria with an interest in mitigating environmental damage. Therefore there is damage. Precisely as there would be in any other context where there was no interested environmental watchdog.
In Nigeria there are no laws and no enforcement preventing wholesale environmental destruction. In the US? Such laws and enforcement are merely grossly inadequate. The resulting catastrophes are no different than what one would expect in a free market. But the difference is, in a democracy we can pressure our representatives to improve on the situation. In a laissez faire economy the only thing we can do is bomb them.
Re: Michael,
You are not talking about a failure of the market, Michael, but a failure of government. You undermine your own argument.
So? Maybe that state likes it that way. Who are you to question what the people want through their representatives?
Ah, you’re being intellectually dishonest there, Michael. Just because there’s a failure of government does not mean there is one of the market, nor can you say that one is the other. You cannot presume to know what people will do in the absence of regulation and bureaucratic authoritarianism.
Michael Corleone: Who’s being naive, Kate?
Right. You have the gift of prescience and can know what people will do when left to their own devices. Sure.
Sounds like there is nobody in the area with an interest in mitigating environmental damage *because* it is state owned. If it were privately owned, the private owner would have a strong interest in mitigating (environmental) damage to his own property.
Sounds like this Nigeria case is a case of the tragedy of the commons.
The area in question is home to some millions of people, all with a vital interest in preventing or mitigating environmental damage. But their rights to the traditional use of the land have not been respected. By any sort of natural law they “own” the area. But might, in that part of the world, makes right.
The region is no more state owned than owned by Shell Oil. Rights have been sold by persons backed by military might.
This case is duplicated the world over. Many nations have asserted ownership of dam sites, for example, and have flooded areas with hundreds of thousands of traditional farms. The peasants there similarly have no rights but what their governments allow them.
Sounds like an example of how government is always bad, right? But had there been no governments the same scenario would have happened. Only it would then be corporations taking rights from little people and using them in development schemes.
In every instance it’s the strong and rich taking advantage of the weak and poor.
Had there been no government in those examples then at least any abuse of natural laws would be blatantly illegal as opposed to sanctioned by an elected (democratic?) government.
There’s no certainty that the same scenarios would have occurred without government help. There’s also no guarantee that more regulation would have helped as corporate/government alliances seem pretty ineffective at regulating themselves.
As government claim to regulate and control, consumers take less responsibility for there decisions. “Shell are killing people in Nigeria? So? as long as they’re not breaking the law then surely it’s ok to buy gas from them.”.
Ok… most consumers maybe don’t think that much but with a little education and no government enforced cartel perhaps we could make more ethical choices with regard to our energy use and which companies we choose to make rich?
Consumers (i.e. Individuals) need to be king for any system to work. Government intervention distorts consumer feedback to corporations and messes things up.
In almost every instance government is (perhaps inadvertently) helping to make the strong and rich richer and the weak and poor… poorer.
iain:
“Had there been no government in those examples then at least any abuse of natural laws would be blatantly illegal as opposed to sanctioned by an elected (democratic?) government.”
In the absence of government, there is nothing illegal. Governments create and enforce laws. No government, no laws.
“There’s no certainty that the same scenarios would have occurred without government help.”
Actually there is very strong precedent. Extractive operations are quite active in areas where there is no established government… they love such areas. A good example would be the conflict diamond trade in west Africa, or the col-tan trade in the eastern Congo conflict zone. Not having a government to cut into the deal makes it much easier to retain total control.
“There’s also no guarantee that more regulation would have helped as corporate/government alliances seem pretty ineffective at regulating themselves.”
A fundamentally weak argument. In the absence of regulation (that is, some countervailing force to rapacious behavior) the rapacious behavior will always win. Whereas if there is some countervailing group, like a government, it may either win, lose or draw.
Corporate/government alliances, of course, do not have as their objective the defeat of their purpose. They’re there to prevail.
Of all the alternatives, the only one with a hope of prevailing over the seizure of property by extractive forces would be a concerned and effective government, acting on behalf of the people being aggressed against.
Finally “In almost every instance government is (perhaps inadvertently) helping to make the strong and rich richer and the weak and poor… poorer.”
No. Governments mostly exist to represent the interests of the rich against those of the poor. And it is overtly so, nothing inadvertent about it. A mother and child were once watching a police force violently break a strike at a factory. The child asked “Why do they do that?” And the mother said “They’re there so that thems that have nothing can’t take away from thems that have a lot.”
But from a practical standpoint, I go with the approach taken by our Founding Fathers, that we should instead create and maintain a government that effectuates the will of its people. And ours, admittedly, is rusty. Such a project takes constant work, and the American people have lost sight of the prize.
That’s my view. If you have another way, make sure it’s one that’s going to work.
“In the absence of government, there is nothing illegal. Governments create and enforce laws. No government, no laws.” – It’s only a theoretical point but laws probably developed through an iterative evolutionary process amongst all people. Again, I make the claim that the starting point was social cooperation as opposed to Government. “Roman Jurists worked independently and were not civil servants” – Ch1Pt4 of http://mises.org/books/desoto.pdf.
A fundamentally weak argument… Again, I make the claim that the regulatory feedback to control the actions of a company can and should come directly from it’s customers, employees, and directors. Stop laughing – this is a lot less absurd than expecting/allowing politicians elected every four (or whatever) years and lobbied with billions of dollars to do it. Big Government = Lots of places to hide.
“No. Governments mostly exist to represent the interests of the rich against those of the poor.” You say no but that’s roughly what I wrote.
So… Your view, it seems to me, is that governments mostly exist to represent the interests of the rich against those of the poor BUT that we should rely on them to regulate our economy and any other aspects of our life they see fit. Really? That’s your opinion?
My understanding of libertarians in politics and U.S. history (e.g. Ron Paul?) is that they aim to uphold government in a much more similar way to the intentions of the founding fathers as opposed to today’s media driven hypocritically working-man screwing vile. (p.s. i’m from Scotland so don’t know that much about the founding fathers or today’s U.S. govt)
iain: As you’re from Scotland I’ll have to modify my comments in light of your understanding of our situation over here.
You say “It’s only a theoretical point but laws probably developed through an iterative evolutionary process amongst all people. Again, I make the claim that the starting point was social cooperation as opposed to Government. “Roman Jurists worked independently and were not civil servants”.
The hope that this kind of natural, grass-roots libertarian development will spontaneously arise from the ashes of our society is very likely misplaced. Absent some powerful authority, populations the size of ours (300 million units) will run into a serious obstacle: every individual is going to have his own idea of just what this natural law is. And it will be in conflict with the concept of every other person.
So let’s add something interesting into the mix: guns. Americans love them and turn to them in adversity.
I’m thinking your snippet about Roman jurists must have come from the early Republic, when Rome was a small town and everybody knew one another. In such a place a small number of men could have made themselves known as the justice establishment. But since then? We’ve come a long way, baby. You can’t go home again.
“Again, I make the claim that the regulatory feedback to control the actions of a company can and should come directly from it’s customers, employees, and directors.”
Wouldn’t it be nice? But average people everywhere in America, those in the middle of the middle class, are very well aware of WalMart’s reputation. It treats its employees like dirt, it cheats its suppliers, it flouts labor laws and it murders what were previously functioning downtown areas. Yet they all choose to shop there. Why? Price.
And the workforce all choose to stay on. Why? The next stop, once you quit, is often destitution.
“So… Your view, it seems to me, is that governments mostly exist to represent the interests of the rich against those of the poor BUT that we should rely on them to regulate our economy and any other aspects of our life they see fit. Really? That’s your opinion?”
Apparently what I’m trying to get across is a very subtle concept. So I’ll try once more.
(a) Yes, governments inevitably tend to consider the rich and powerful as being the clients they’re there to represent. Those are the people who pay them the most for their services. But (b) the only way to change the picture is to transform the government into something that obeys the people’s will. You should probably read the Federalist Papers, and inquire into into the thinking that led to the creation of our own form of government. Government was considered to be akin to a wild horse, needing to be broken to the saddle and constantly guided by the rider.
In today’s world you just can’t just do without some form of organized government, desirable as that might seem. To eliminate the country’s central nervous system because it is malfunctioning is just to invite aggression and chaos. And so the Founding Fathers sought to create a system whereby an informed and intelligent public could, with constant work, bring its government to heel.
Just bringing down the tone of public discourse, as our Tea Party aspires to do, until the federal government collapses, only leaves us with 300 million bickering humans. It’s not an experiment I’d want to perform. And I don’t think any of us would be any happier once the dollar collapsed.
Right now, whatever systemic malfunctions we’ve gotten used to limping along with, the dollar’s doing pretty well. And most of the world has their life’s savings tied up in it. So let’s keep rocking the boat… maybe one day it’ll tip over and we’ll all have a world of pure reason to deal with. (Irony intended.)
The population of this size is a direct result of the powerful authority.
Who could ever be more subtle than Alexander Hamilton? One would have to go to the Garden of Eden.
Michael,
“Maybe they haven’t read enough Rothbard”
Well, you certainly haven’t.
Michael, my friend. Where in the world, can you point to a time and place where things have gotten a little better when there was no capitalism? Socialism everywhere has shown itself to be capable only of using up the fruits of thousands of years of civilization and destroying any further economic cooperation.
When you speak of your version of a hive, one that rules over “the peoples” resources in the Gulf of Mexico and the Niger river you have in mind your own brand of socialism, your own plan. You are blind to the fact that your planning does not in fact mean preparedness to cooperate peacefully. It means conflict. Your imagined comrades, in fact have quite a different hive envisioned. Like Obama you will end in stalemate while pollution and failures build until such time as a more perfectly murderous and cruel dicatator emerges who will not hesitate to make his plan the reality and kill dissenters.
Libertarians are not gloating with a plan superior to your plan, they are merely attempting to restrict anyone from using the monopoly force of government to implement yours, theirs, or anyone elses plans. Even the bees have millions of individual hives, with many variations among them, there is no central queen bee of a country who regulates all hives and unites all worker bees.
AJ: You’re laboring under erroneous notions of what I’m saying. I’ve never said we must do away with capitalism. In fact in those revolutions that have done away with it, decades have passed before those societies have had to re-adopt some form of it to get back on their feet. Entrepreneurial activity is as essential to the progress of society as is social responsibility.
When you make statements like “your imagined comrades”, I know your thinking is one-dimensional, and populated by stick figures. Our pallette of options holds many more shades than 100% capitalism, of the sort each person is free to imagine, or 100% collective ownership, where you have to pass around the collective’s toothbrush each morning to everyone else in the building.
It’s instructive also to see your low opinion of Obama, who you obviously equate with Marx or the Devil. Meanwhile any glance at the actual record shows that current administration policies are just an extension of the same ones we saw under Bush. Do you, by any chance, go to rallies wearing a funny hat?
You are right that I may misunderstand you. You seem to me to be one who “Lectures Birds on How To Fly” In the end, your good intentions create caged birds and sauteed quail. Socialists never fly in formation, and are easily prey for authoritarian hunters, who always usurp their shortly held power.
I am in favor of all forms of anarchic socialisms thriving except those that attempt to use force. Free market socialisms include Facebook, the penny tray at the cash register, street artists, prostitutes, skateboard kids, tip jars, file sharing, emos and goths, alternate music, drug dealers, may they all prosper and maybe one day, become stable societal elements.
I was actually shamefully fooled by candidate Obama and his hypnotic speeches. This former sheep has fled his sheerers. Like Andrew Napolitano, I’m no big fan of Rs or Ds, Conservatives, or Liberals, I’m a Libertarian who sees only pitiful improvements in politics since the Sumer Civilization.
Unfortunately, wearing tri-cornered hats do not make one as rational, self-sufficient, and fiscally sound as their original wearers. I do though, have great faith in teaparty as a verb A positive synonym for the word nonviolence.
I admire Martin Luther King, Gandhi, Ron Paul, and all boots on the ground philosophers who first speak truth to power and then bring peaceful action against that power, should it not yield to individual sovereignity, private property, and unrestrained liberty.
Testify!
But I should be “Nock” and you should be “Murray”.
Well put, AJ. I also felt our best hope, after eight years of regressive activity in every area of public life, was to elect the well-spoken and hopeful-sounding Mr Obama. I even campaigned for him, as being the superior choice to McCain. Boy did that one turn sour. He’s just a “Bush 2.0″.
It’s also true that Republicans have the tactical advantage of maintaining strict discipline. Like the Spartans, they fight in tight formation. In contrast the hapless Dems are all off like frogs in a meadow, one smelling the flowers, the next urging the troops onward, etcetera.
And their goal, as you will recall, is to downsize and ultimately eliminate government! Isn’t that interesting! Under Bush, regulatory systems were systematically dismantled, and the mission of each department was subverted. Career civil servants were herded into retirement, and were replaced with craven apparatchiks adhering to the Party line. And why? So the unbounded forces of corporate profit could reign untrammeled.
THEY thought that without government, the thieves would be able to prevail. People here on the other hand seem to think without government there’d be peace on earth, and harmony in heaven. Which is correct? I’d be unwilling to perform that experiment.
I think he was a chrisitan neocon? That George W as a baseball owner started the baseball steroid investigations is all I need to know to never vote for him for any office.
“The manner of operation of the social insects – the ants, the
bees and the termites – has been the envy of dictators and wouldbe
dictators; of many well intentioned reformers of varied hues.
In the pattern of these insects is found their ideal of an “orderly
and industrious” society of humans. Every aspiring dictator, both
large and small, would like to ascend to the throne of “queen
bee” of a world-wide human colony, in which every human would
become subservient to the dictator’s own wishes and would serve
his plan with unwavering loyalty.” – F.A. Harper, ‘Liberty: A Path To Its Recovery’
“We are large and complex societies, and will be governed by large and complex institutions. To posit a world without such institutions is to be unrealistic. It would be like imagining a world with seven billion bees… but no hive. They’d each just put away their own tiny portions of honey, and never have to share.”
Hmmm. Where to start.
Sure, by the way we conceive ideas and communicate, we are all animals and an individuals behaviour is a mystery even to themselves. Governance is provided by something, such as our behaviour. IF we decided just to farm/make honey we could organise similarly to bees and follow our prescribed roles in the big governing institutions fun plan; and we’d all live then die.
However, we’re not bees are we Do I have to try and explain that or did I manage to imply that people have rather complex preferences which us libertarians believe can only justly be resolved through property rights and voluntarily trade; as opposed to government planning? One’s civilised, one isn’t.
iain: That’s not a very productive place to start.
Suppose our early ancestors, living in caves, had led solitary lives, never working in concert with other primary families to achieve common goals. Where do you imagine we would be today?
Our success has manifested itself precisely in our ability to cooperate, thereby achieving large gains impossible for a single person to attain. The first large agricultural societies, for example, employed the labor of many thousands to bring large-scale irrigation to the desert, enabling the rise of advanced societies with greater security and a higher standard of living. This was all done under the direction of a government. It didn’t just happen because everyone woke up one day and found themselves building dams and drainage fields.
There is, of course, that other thing. If we all decide that tomorrow morning we’re going to forget cooperation and each go our own ways, it’ll take about six months for some other organized society to conquer us. It never ceases to amaze me that you guys can’t imagine that.
Your half-cocked, idiotic straw men amazing you never ceases to amaze me.
Re: Michael,
We would all be like in L.A.
That would mean that those societies that did not need to bring water to the desert (your words) would have to be backward, like for instance, China.
I would assume that, however, government sages woke up one day knowing about damns and drainage fields. Such potent minds…
Non-hydraulic societies did develop differently. But China’s not one of them. They also harnessed the output of their large rivers to create a densely populated central kingdom. Without that niche they would have just had to develop a militarist society, to protect themselves from neighbors leaner and hungrier than themselves.
Micheal: “It would be like imagining a world with seven billion bees… but no hive. ”
It might surprise Micheal to know that social insects don’t in fact use authoritarian socialism.
There is no Queen Bee giving orders. Similar with ants and ant-hills. Researchers have discovered that these sorts of activities “emerge” from the randomness of the individuals who act with a few simple rules, such as “if I meet lots of food foraging neighbors, then it’s time to switch tasks to minding the babies”. This rule is similar to the human entrepreneur that moves from a crowded business into what he believes is an underdeveloped area – by looking only at what his neighbors are doing. Nobody at the top needs to direct either the humans, bees, or ants.
The study of these systems is sometimes called Emergence Theory.
It seems this is a favorite trick of nature. It is found in many areas, such as flocks of birds, schools of fish, and even in the macro attributes of local chemical reactions. There need be no ruling H or O atoms to get the at-large behavior of a cool glass of water.
However, nature has also discovered that survival can also be accomplished through parasitism. Humans may be alone in their ability to choose which form of society they live in though some primate studies show even warring baboons can live peaceably. But I do have to admit history hasn’t been on the side of human libertarians.
Interesting theory. We should find some laboratory where we can apply the principle of each only for himself, and see where Emergence Theory takes us.
Oh wait. We already have one of those. It’s called Somalia. The government there is smaller than a public library, and the only societal institution is gun-based.
One big criminal gang vs. lots of smaller criminal gangs. Not much to choose from.
It’s true, criminal gangs using guns do tend to take over most everywhere. Libertarians just don’t believe it HAS to always be that way.
Just look at all the ruined lives that have been caused by DC’s wars – including those of it’s own that it jails in its wars of prohibition or enslaves (and thereby kills) in its foreign wars. Then count the number of foreign innocents killed using weapons of mass destruction.
Somalia is small potatoes compared to DC.
At least libertarians are looking for some way out of this mess.
So why is it that libertarians “don’t believe it HAS to always be that way”? In ten thousand years of human history, it always HAS been that way. And human nature has certainly not changed.
One has to organize a group to oppose the efforts of the other groups, when they are inimical to your well being, and to trade with other groups and increase the prosperity of both, when they are of a cooperative nature. That’s very basic stuff. You can’t run a world with seven billion human units if there is no society. What you get in such an event is every neighbor preying on every other. Not bliss and harmony.
It’s the persistent failure to understand this that just makes me shake my head in amazement.
I have no idea what michael is talking about. Do you suppose that libertarians are somehow opposed to groups cooperating to get things done? Nothing could be further from the truth.
I second Peter’s comment.
There’s a reason Libertarians harp on about property rights and the importance of respecting them. That is where social cooperation and civilisation comes from (not government).
If you’ve time, take a look at this. http://mises.org/resources/3091/The-Rise-and-Fall-of-Society
I love Chodorov and somehow I hadn’t even heard of that one. Thanks, iain.
iain: Thanks. I’m starting in on it now. Hopefully this will lead to a better undertanding of our differences. Of course, framing it in that way sort of obviates the fact that you guys are always RIGHT… while I, of course, must perpetually be in the WRONG.
I note in the foreword that Chodorov writes from an absolutist perspective, in opposition to all relativists. I, naturally, think all things are relative. I do, however, believe there is always such a thing as absolute, objective and demonstrable FACT. And so the majority of my arguments relate to Fact, rather than to some Platonic ideal conceptual reality, the True. My (little-’t') truths are all evidence-based and subject to change in light of fuller data.
So maybe I’ll find what I’m looking for in the book. It would’ve been quicker, I’d have thought, for you to just tell me how you expect to convince the takers of the world to respect your property. Or, how you might convince the public that justice has been served when, as in the age we now live in, more and more of all the property everywhere is ‘owned’ by an increasingly narrow segment of society. After a certain point, the losers in that round are bound to call for a redistribution of the cards, and a new hand to be dealt.
Or, how you might convince the public that justice has been served when, as in the age we now live in, more and more of all the property everywhere is ‘owned’ by an increasingly narrow segment of society.
We don’t want to convince the public of that. We don’t support “the age we now live in”. We support a free society (hence the name “libertarian”, duh!), so what happens in a non-free “age” is not something we try to convince people of the justice of — quite the contrary!
After a certain point, the losers in that round are bound to call for a redistribution of the cards, and a new hand to be dealt.
Let’s hope so. A free hand!
I hope you guys enjoy it.
I truly appreciate you coming here and trying to talk us round. You never know, it might happen. My apologies if i’m ever rude or (arrogantly) snide – I do try not to be. I’m here to learn not abuse!
It takes me a long time to think I understand sentences with absolutist and relativist in them so I’ll leave that for later.
That would take ME longer and you’re probably way better off reading Chodorov. I’ll start though… “property everywhere is ‘owned’ by an increasingly narrow segment of society.” – That’s the fault of Government, silly.
eric: I’ve given your comment some more thought, about Emergence Theory. And we do have a test lab to see what emerges when a group of individuals is put into a situation where no one is in charge: prison.
Forget the guards and administration. Just concentrate on the prisoners. Each occupies an identical status, and each stands in the same relationship to the powers that run the place. So how do they organize their efforts?
Don’t they establish a pecking order? Don’t the strong exercise hegemony over the weak? Isn’t it all based on personal power, both that of the strong individual and that of the gangs these alpha individuals attract around them?
Is this the kind of society we should hope to emulate?
“Forget the guards and administration.” I will not! They are responsible! They let the criminals run the place! They have lots of rules for the convicts but don’t enforce them!
I don’t know where you learned your 10,000 years of history, but in my understanding virtually all the homes, farms, factories, food, clothes and anything else good came from private individuals trying to better themselves by producing something of value and using or exchanging it with others. Virtually all the wars came from governments. Individuals who steal and use violence are resisted by the productive population. Government has been justified by the need to resist crime and defend us from other governments. But power corrupts and the only effective limit on government tyranny has been economic collapse. Which is always the result of governments trying to consume faster than the people can produce. Businesses are limited by their customers. If we don’t buy, they fail. Government, however, imposes taxes which are an eternal debt for the populace.
Hobbs was wrong. Most people are peaceful and cooperative. Criminals and tax collectors are the problem, not the solution.
Ron, I guess it’s been a while (meaning never) since you’ve seen the inside of an actual prison. The guards do enforce the rules, and very strictly. For the obvious reasons.
But they do not impact prison society to any great degree. And so prison life, exclusive of guard/prisoner interactions, is a good microcosm from which to study human behavior when there is no hierarchy (that is, an established order). And what you get, as in any jungle, is a pecking order. The strong find ways to prey on the weak. That’s what happens after the count is over and the guards go back to sleep.
Above, some other person noted that libertarians are not above organizing to meet collectively challenges they cannot meet individually. If so, that’s a smart thing. If our government ever does fall, you’ll want to build a high wall and set guards at the perimeter… for self protection.
Most people really are “peaceful and cooperative”. Or, as some know them, the sheep. But it only takes a dozen armed men who are anything but peaceful and cooperative to ruin your day.
I had no idea the Niger Delta was governed strictly by laissez-faire. You learn something new every day.
DX: You’d be twisting my words a bit to say I thought Nigeria was governed by laissez faire. What I said was this:
“Shell and others have drilled there for years. And the result? A toxic wasteland so vast it can readily be seen from satellite photos. Probably the most environmentally polluted area on earth. A place where there are no laws and no enforcement. The only rules are those set by the drilling companies.”
Nigeria’s government consists of thieves. It is a rigid kleptocracy, conducting a confluence of interests between the armed forces and the people with drilling savvy and equipment. Anyone threatening the status quo, which is the sharing of oil wealth between the drilling companies and the men who hold the guns, is eliminated by swift military action. That makes for some tough protestors.
It is also the same in effect as what we might think of as a ‘free’ market. That is, there is no countervailing force other than local villagers to the designs of the people making money from oil extraction. To call this system of exploitation ‘laisez faire’ would be to mischaracterise it.
Michael,
I hope you at least see the point being made here. You are pointing to a clear example of the failure of government, particularly a failure to recognize private property rights and the principle of homesteading, and you use this to argue against laissez faire. The lynchpin of your argument is that a government failure is the same as laissez faire.
There is a certain facile logic in this, but only if you omit consideration of causation. You also omit any exploration into the nature of the State. Consider a few arguments:
(1) that the government failed because it has no other modus operandi but to fail, due to the economic realities discussed on this website (i.e., the failure to calculate, incentive and knowledge problems);
(2) a “failed” State is quite different from a state of laissez faire, as the latter creates the conditions for the production of local traditional authorities, natural elites and voluntary authorities, which in turn creates the conditions for a culture of responsbility; and
(3) if you accept the logic of the democratic state, and the state decides not to “protect” the environment to a standard you want, on what objective grounds do you challenge the will of the hallowed democracy?
I will reiterate: it is a fundamental mistake of category to say one single word, ‘government’, and simultaneously mean any group of individuals banding together to organize the efforts of the society they live in (say, our own Founding Fathers) and a criminal gang of thieves and exploiters (say, the Nigerian government). It makes for sloppy thinking to equate the two.
What you have in the Niger Delta is two groups conducting a joint venture. One is the enforcement arm, while the other provides technical expertise. It muddies the waters to separate the two by saying that one is, well, a government, while the other is merely a corporation. They both a re highly organized predators, dismantling their prey.
Now let’s address the concept of laissez faire. This, for the purposes of our discussion, would I think denote a hypothetical government that takes no interest in financial or economic affairs. And I can’t think of an example of such anywhere on earth. Certainly as a concept, it’s irrelevant to any discussion of resource exploitation in undeveloped countries.
If you want to discuss examples of governments who are total bad guys, Burma (Myanmar) is a good one. But it would be relevant only to the Burmese. Not to Americans with our different situation.
Neither of these nations, Burma or Nigeria are either ‘failed’ states, ‘democratic’ states or ‘laissez faire’ states. Let’s find some new words with which to describe them. For instance ‘predator’ states. That would distinguish them from our own failing democracy.
A government is a criminal gang with the power to tax and having the wherewithal to pay sophists like you to convince its livestock that “they (the livestock) are the government.” That’s in a “Democracy”; in the old scam they just needed the firepower and the court intellectuals to convince the slaves that they (the masters) were Gods on Earth.
- – — – - – - – - – -
“Failed States”:
How about we call them “Meteoric States”, “Pure States” or “Naked States”, or “States Not Useful For Your Propaganda”
mpolz: Most of us make the distinction between those governments that take all our stuff and keep it for themselves, and those that take only a portion and return it to us in valuable services. If allegiance to the USG is voluntary (and in fact it is) I would choose to belong here. In fact I do so choose.
I really don’t expect our current government to fall any time soon. If you’re unhappy with it, I would suggest that Antarctica has a near-complete absence of dues and fees. Not to mention no cumbersome rules and regs. Best of all, they don’t require a visa.
BTW that ‘sophist’ really hurts!
How many times over the same ground, always ignoring what doesn’t suit you? I’ve had enough whack-a-mole for awhile, dishonest person…after these messages:
I already covered this, some gangs husband their herds in a more clever and sustainable fashion than other gangs.
There is nothing of value that your government does that couldn’t be done better by individuals working together voluntarily.
You may keep your government, I wouldn’t rip away a child’s security blanket (try to talk to him though). Kindly stop threatening me in your woeful ignorance.
Your government owns nothing.
“But the state lies in all languages of good and evil; and whatever it says, it lies – and whatever it has, it has stolen.
Everything about it is false; it bites with stolen teeth. Even its belly is false.
Confusion of the language of good and evil; I offer you this sign of the state. Truly, this sign indicates the will to death! Truly, it beckons to the preachers of death!”
- – - – – - – - – - – -
I’m not unhappy with your State for about the same reason I’m not unhappy with Illness; it does only what it can do according to the level of underdevelopment or corruption of its subjects. If you are not in fact one of its agents, I’m unhappy with you. If you are one of its agents, you are beyond the pale right now. Repent.
And I know “sophist” doesn’t hurt, you are a prodigious liar. You may be such a colossal a liar from a long line of liars, such a well-trained liar from such an early age that you’ve lost your way and hardly ever know when you’re lying.
Good day, Yankee.
“Now let’s address the concept of laissez faire. This, for the purposes of our discussion, would I think denote a hypothetical government that takes no interest in financial or economic affairs. And I can’t think of an example of such anywhere on earth. Certainly as a concept, it’s irrelevant to any discussion of resource exploitation in undeveloped countries.”
This is where we disagree, I think. What is today the continental United States was stateless for centuries. When white men settled in with the native Indian population it was still stateless but not lawless. Development of the US west is the best, most recent example of the power of free people to exploit resources in an undeveloped country. And it was the US Government through the US Army that launched an unnecessary war of genocide against the native Indian population. Now the Feds are trying to destroy the rest of us with debt and taxes that they use to buy our votes. It does not have to be this way.
I would suggest that Antarctica has a near-complete absence of dues and fees. Not to mention no cumbersome rules and regs. Best of all, they don’t require a visa.
You clearly know even less about Antarctica than about libertarianism.
Omigosh, Peter! You mean Antarctica really does have dues? And fees? And they require a visa to come there? And they also have cumbersome rules and regs? I sincerely didn’t know that.
Thanks for enlightening me.
Incredibly cumbersome rules and regs, silly person.
What’s your next idea for us? You’re ever so concerned about us, I know. Mars?
Michael, I know that your reading list (or skimming list) is already gigantic and it probably cuts into your blabbering time dreadfully, but this one (if you have an ounce of integrity), might at least get you to stop some of your most misguided tacks. Ones like, “I feel sorry for you poor, strange pilgrims”, or “you just hate society” (which to your cult is the same thing as “you just hate the government”)
I ran into it this morning because I was searching Lew Rockwell’s site for articles on lead paint. It seems my girlfriend would have to pay to have testing for lead in order to get her 85 year old ceiling redone by a contractor. If she is unlucky and lead’s found, it will double her costs. If her contractor were one of us poor pilgrims (that is a man with brains and dignity, a filmic representation of one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eosrujtjJHA ) and attempts an end-run on your Yankee comrades, and gets caught, he’ll receive a 35,000 dollar fine.
I know, I know, your only concern is the welfare of some hypothetical paint eating kid with even more idiotic parents. And your wonderful Constitution has that oh-so-subtle clause, so it’s all legal. But this article shows quite well where you are going wrong if its really “the poor’s” welfare you’re interested in:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rozeff/rozeff142.html
We have an irrational hatred for the government? No a burning irritation with, among other things (number one for me is having my money stolen to murder women and children in your satrapies):
“The problems of government regulation of health and safety…[: the bureaucrats and technocrats making the rules are distant from our wants and don’t know them. They hold secure positions no matter how poorly they regulate and behave. They are not directly accountable to us. They do not report to us what they are doing. We, in any event, do not monitor them. They have no incentive to improve over time or economize on costs. Indeed their incentive is to provide the worst possible service at the highest possible price because they are government monopolists. They impose costs on us whether we like it or not. They are insensitive to our changing wants. They are subject to political forces and the influence of groups they regulate. They are subject to corruption.”
mpolz: You’re barking up the wrong tree when you think I support the current government. (Your comment: “number one for me is having my money stolen to murder women and children in your satrapies”). Didn’t I just finish saying we agree that the wars we’re now in were begun to promote personal goals of profit and power? I believe I did.
No, what I’ve been supporting is the idea that we need to have a government to order our affairs. But, just as our Founding Fathers advised, we need to keep that government under close control. So that it serves our purposes.
And I do not see that happening any time soon, as half the population is at cross purposes with the other half… and the issues are such that there cannot be compromise. So I am pessimistic that any good solution can be achieved.
But I am dead set against the abolition of government as an approach toward a solution, because I have seen places where government has fallen. And it’s not a pretty sight. It gets replaced by contending mafias, and the most ruthless one normally wins. Next step: they set up a new government. And you are far more excluded from that one than you ever have been from our current one.
So I’m an advocate of incremental change, unsexy though that may sound. That’s just my position. Feel free to call me a liar.
A point on honesty, mr mpolz: It’s considered to be deception when you attribute to someone remarks they’ve never made, through the use of quotes. As in this passage:
“..might at least get you to stop some of your most misguided tacks. Ones like, “I feel sorry for you poor, strange pilgrims”, or “you just hate society” (which to your cult is the same thing as “you just hate the government”)”
Those are not my ‘tacks’. Nor are they my words. If you want to paraphrase something I’ve said so that it sounds more like what you think I must have said, feel free. But do not use quotation marks. That’s a deceptive practise.
You’ve done nothing on this site but support this government. Mouthing fantasies about how you’re going to change it does not cancel that out. You can’t say, [PARAPHRASE, "ARTISTIC" LISCENSE IN USE]: “aw shucks, that slickster Obama sure took me for a ride. Sorry Afghan widows and orphans”. He is YOUR AGENT, you are responsible (as a piece of the “en masse”). (And btw, he certainly never fooled me, now why would that be, braniac?) You’re covered in blood my boyo (there’s enough to go around). Obama in Congress voted for the continuation of these idiotic wars of aggression, why did you support him? He promised the money men he would play ball, that’s how he got past Hillary, why did you vote for him? And that’s my basic point: if you go to Vegas, plan on losing.
No one is abolishing anything here. Human kind will evolve or die.
- – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – -
“That’s a deceptive practise”
I do apologize (really, sincerely) if the two people reading this took it that I was quoting you there. I’m unschooled, and I toss these posts off less than imperfectly. I meant for the word “like” to indicate that I was caricaturing one of your caricature jobs. The (silly) record stands here, in any case.
Omigosh, Peter! You mean Antarctica really does have dues? And fees? And they require a visa to come there? And they also have cumbersome rules and regs? I sincerely didn’t know that.
It doesn’t surprise me at all, at this point, to know that you say things without knowing what you’re talking about. It does surprise me that you admit to it, however! Maybe there is hope. (FWIW, no, you don’t need a visa, but you do need permission from one of the treaty states, and there are very severe rules and regulations about what you can do there — moreso than any “real” country; in particular, you can NOT take up residence, grow your own food or catch any local wildlife, garbage has to be shipped out, etc.; and you’re always automatically under the jurisdiction of some state)
Re: Michael,
Irrelevant. The philosophy of freedom does not stand on pragmatic principles or a “Brand Y vs Brand X” logic. It stems from the logical proposition that freedom is the ultimate political and moral goal. Even if a group of individuals decided to live an ascetic and deprived life, the moral choice is not to MAKE them live in comfort but to let them be.
Michael is making the common presumption that the absence of a monopoly state that exercises exclusive jurisdiction over disputes and the definition of property rights, and coercively taxes the innocent, would mean “no government.”
Michael, there are numerous historical examples of societies that flourished which contained very little of what we would consider a modern monopoly state. Instead disputes and property matters were dealt with through custom and various traditional authorities to which jurisdiction was largely voluntary. Failure to follow through on such customs was more often met with shunning and shame than the imprisonment that would result today. Some examples come right from the West (high middle ages France & Spain, near-anarchistic Ireland) at a time of great development.
An interesting thought experiment in Michael’s logic would be to consider the domination of the Native Americans. After all, there was no modern democratic government that restricted their way of life to help them “cooperate.” Perhaps it was a just act to impose such a government when they refused it adopt it voluntarily. For their own good of course.
Perry: Take us through a real-world example of a state consisting of 300 million people that conducted its affairs on the village green.
At a certain population level, societies take one of two paths. Either they have a strong man who forces his will on the rest of the group, enforcing it with a handful of goons, or they have a village democracy, where each speaks his mind and they arrive at agreement by common consent.
This is the traditional way in Afghanistan, for instance: the loya jirga. Ignorantly, the US has discouraged this basis for a developmental model, preferring (as we always do) to run the place through hand picked warlords. It’s a good example of what’s wrong with having strong states who don’t represent your people interfering in your business.
But the loya jirga method just doesn’t scale up. Even in a small town, say one with 20,000 people, it becomes impossibly cumbersome. Try it, and see how town council meetings go when the seats fill up with just 200 concerned citizens. With 300 million impossibly contentious people, none willing to consider the opinions of others, it’s just a sad circus. Really.
Why do all 300 million people have to decide the same thing? National borders are just arbitrary lines on a map. Draw a line dividing the 300 million into two groups of 150 million each. Keep drawing lines until there are few enough people for your system to “work”. Congratulations, you’re now a minarchist or something. Draw a few more lines, and you have libertarianism!
Peter, I’m not trying to impose some system from above. As a libertarian, you should know that doesn’t work. My point was that we are all mixed up together. It’s not like you can draw a couple of lines on a map and all the libs live on one side while all the liberal Democrats live on another and all the corporate Republicans live on yet another. We are a unitary society, and have to have some organizing principles that all either agree to or are subject to. And those who just don’t want to subject themselves to those rules? I think they’ll have to find their own place to move to. Just like the Pilgrims did.
Don’t tell me I’m trying to ‘force’ you to move. I’m just giving you your options here. Either be happy where you are or go someplace else. Or, if you think some day a majority here will all start to think the way you do, work toward change. Those are three options.
Some of us are trying to work toward change. It doesn’t look that way to you because this isn’t the way your cult works. Your Hobbseian-American cult of 300,000,000, or so. It’s actually too late to even turn this thing around now. More than anything we are trying to educate future generations who have to deal with the even more horrible situations that your ignorance (en masse) is going to leave them. You, btw, are a joke and hardly anyone is taking you seriously here.
The only way this rapidly dying society (like Rome on steroids) is a unit is under the sword (and inertia plays a role, as well).
I can’t tell if you’re the most disingenuous person I’ve ever met or just suffering from the worst case of Newspeak I’ve ever heard. Just look at the forums for the last few days as you’ve been driven from pillar to post! Sometimes saying completely opposite things both in the same paragraph.
My point was that we are all mixed up together. It’s not like you can draw a couple of lines on a map and all the libs live on one side while all the liberal Democrats live on another and all the corporate Republicans live on yet another.
I didn’t suggest that. Take any country smaller than the US: there are people from all over the political spectrum there, too, but it doesn’t have to merge with its neighbours: there’s nothing special about the “300 million” population figure. Draw the lines wherever you like. Just draw a line across the US that roughly divides it 50/50 by population, for starters. Or divide by current state boundaries. Whatever.
We are a unitary society, and have to have some organizing principles that all either agree to or are subject to.
Why? The same could be said of, say, Switzerland and Austria. Yet they don’t “have to have some organizing principles that all either agree to or are subject to” (i.e., a single government), do they?
secession, secession, secession…
Awesome post. Peter, I get giddy before I realize we are outnumbered a thousand to one.
Peter, the easy way to allow the country to fall apart would be just to let it go back to the states. That way you’d have fifty choices of how you wanted to live.
Do you have any idea how much trouble it would be to get a majority of voters in each state to approve of a voluntary disbanding of the union?
BTW thanks again for the info about Antarctica. I had my bags all packed, too. Just in time.
Re: Michael,
If there’s a “world community” as you mention, then there ARE external controls, mainly: The world community. Otherwise what you posit would be the same as having BP drill on an uninhabited planet.
And so, you conclude, Nigeria must be a libertarian paradise, right?
Oh, there ARE laws and there IS enforcement. Nigeria HAS a government. You just conclude (erroneously) that because the oil companies pollute, then the place lives in anarchy, but in fact the opposite is true: There is pollution BECAUSE there’s a government.
Well, there could be pollution there without the government. Are you saying, O.M. that without the corrupt Nigerian government Shell wouldn’t have had anyone to bribe and get then get in there and make such a mess? That free Nigerian people wouldn’t have made such a mess? They might, but I’d give them the benefit of the doubt.
Re: mpolzkill,
Just as there could be anything else.
No, because I cannot presume to know what the people of Nigeria would have wanted: oil and jobs or a clean delta. It’s THEIR property. The problem is that one cannot know precisely because there is a corrupt state that decided for all.
They might have made such a mess. And? It’s their land, not yours or mine. The problem (again) is that we cannot know what the people of the Niger delta would have wanted because a group of [corrupt] notables decided for them. Just like we have here a group of notables deciding OUR fate for us.
OM: I hate to bother you again. But you say that “I cannot presume to know what the people of Nigeria would have wanted: oil and jobs or a clean delta. It’s THEIR property. The problem is that one cannot know precisely because there is a corrupt state that decided for all.”
Very true, the choice was never theirs. But if they’d had no government whatsoever, the choice STILL would not have been theirs. Large outside forces would’ve moved in and done their will on the place, taking what they wanted and getting rid of the rest. Protesting locals would have still been shot… by private security forces.
Besides, few decent jobs have been added. In the oilfields there are openings for goons with guns and a few for unskilled labor. But any good positions are filled from outside the country… and the miserable handful of low-paying grunt positions do not make up for the loss of livelihood suffered by some millions of Delta inhabitants. They used to be able to live by fishing and farming. No more. It’s all full of oil.
It makes one wish they were able to form a just government, and drive out their oppressors. But Biafra, sadly, was never able to break away.
Would, dishonest person, Shell’s private security forces ever have been as effective at this as the Nigerian government’s has been?
I’m sad that no one can ever form a just government, but that’s the way it is.
Re: Michael,
You presume too much.
You mean another State? Or do you mean a company? Because I have to wonder how come Standard Oil did not simply grab people’s lands on the Wild West instead of giving them shares of the production. Maybe they did not have the same forward thinking as you do.
Somehow the vision of private security forces shooting ARMED civilians defies the mind – you are still thinking of unarmed, pliable sheeple like the modern Europeans.
You’re begging the question.
And this is because it’s a libertarian paradise, right? Because this hopeful “Oh, if just the right people were in power” sounds too quaint to be taken seriously.
You voted for Obama, didn’t you, troll? Are you sad that the Afghans haven’t driven you out yet?
“Would, dishonest person, Shell’s private security forces ever have been as effective at this as the Nigerian government’s has been?”
Nigeria’s military is the largest military force in the area. So it takes precedence in matters of security. Were that not the case, company-owned security forces, or outside contractors, would run security.
In many places the national government is either weak or nonexistent. There, it has been replaced by militias. There is little distinction to be made between a government bases solely on force and a militia. So your use of the concept ‘government’ is in error. The distinction to be made is between governing forces that uphold the interests of their citizenry and those that are purely predatory. All civil and military forces act in some sense as a ‘government’.
“I’m sad that no one can ever form a just government, but that’s the way it is.”
That is absolutely false. Overwhelmingly, most governments operate for the benefit of the public. They succeed to a greater or a lesser degree. But if you just think they’re all bad, and one is equal to another, try doing business in any of the former Soviet republics. Or in any African country. Or in fact just about anywhere outside the USA and western Europe. It will make you appreciate freshly those governments that achieve and sustain a bit of what we really require from a governing organization. The rule of law, for example, when properly administered for the benefit of all.
Some manage their livestock more wisely than others, of course.
The places that *were* great countries were the ones in which the citizenry distrusted the government the most and relied on it the least.
I’ve run out of time to respond to your public school learned mantras for now, sorry. See ya a bit later, chump.
Re: mpolzkill,
The point is that the very reason there’s pollution is because of a government that decided for millions. One cannot say what would have happened if communities had more direct control: maybe some would have allowed drilling, others would not had. The presence of the State, however, ASSURED the pollution, the same way the presence of the State assured the pollution of the Soviet-controlled Baku oil fields.
Old Mex, these comments of yours shed no light at all. In fact they’re just plain crazy (I have not said, for example, that Nigeria is a ‘libertarian paradise’). Whether in the Gulf of Mexico or in the Nigerian oil fields, there is collusion between government and industry. It’s the individual having to live there who gets shafted.
In a hypothetical universe of free agents and no ‘force’, it would be precisely the same. Those who gather together to take action in their own interests would defeat the efforts of unorganized individuals to oppose them. So your proposed cure offers no cure. In fact it would make things easier for them. At least in the US and in Nigeria the possibility exists that the people might some day replace their government with one that represented their interests more equitably.
Re: Michael,
This makes absolutely no sense, Michael, when you already accept that “there is collusion between government and industry”. Sans the government, how can you then conclude that the result would be exactly the same? Where do you get this from?
You mean that this is not happening right now with the Fedgov taking action against unorganized individuals?What makes you think that individuals cannot organize without a government?
What is that supposed to mean? And what makes you think that a self-described “representative” government would not act the same way as the previous one?You don’t seem to understand, Michael. The problem is that the State holds the monopoly of violence. A community with individuals enforcing their property rights individually would be a far more formidable force to contend with than bureaucrats.
I’ll give you credit for persistence, Mex. But the fact remains, those who gather together to take action in their own interests inevitably defeat the efforts of unorganized individuals to oppose them. That’s why organized action and concentrated power always prevail over the efforts of individual motes. If you want to erase the USG you’re going to have to form another government, one more powerful and more persuasive to the public. You can’t just declare you don’t want to play any more.
Also, if it makes you feel any better, the USG does NOT hold a monopoly on violence. I think you should just take all your guns and move to some isolated spot on the map. Put a sign up at the gate, reading “Old Mexico”. You’ll feel a lot better.
PS, don’t pay taxes. And don’t accept dollars. They’re the Devil’s flypaper.
Michael, it’s a sign you are losing the argument when you make irrelevant pithy comments that serve as a textbook example of a non-sequitur.
The USG most certainly does hold a monopoly on violence when considered with state and local authorities. The limited right of an individual to use violence in cases of self-defense is quite eroded and overwhelmingly insignificant compared to the State’s power.
You also have an odd presumption that individuals can only organize through a government. You are surrounded every day by large, complex and incredibly effective voluntary organizations and enterprises whose existence owes little to nothing to the State, and yet if one of them misbehaves, you surmise that only the government can fix the problem.
I am curious to know what your solution would be for the Niger delta. Would you have a foreign power invade and “make things right” and “make them do the things you want them to do”? Is this somehow different from the Anakin Skywalker school of political economy? How do you get a culture to immediately create a noble democracy that repels the alleged looters? Can culture be changed from the top? Has this ever worked in history?
It is impossible to say what would happen in a particular instance at a particular time in the conditions of laissez faire, Niger Delta included. Ultimately, laissez requires a culture that respects property rights and has low time preferences. It is, however, very possible to say that it is only in laissez faire that civlized behavior truly arises and individuals have the ability to calculate via the profit and loss system and have every incentive to acquire, create and protect wealth and property. In a culture dominated by the State, the foregoing precepts of civilization become impossible or exceedingly difficult.
Perry: You don’t think that dollars are the Devil’s flypaper? You don’t think that when you take The Man’s money you have to dance to The Man’s tune?
No one’s holding you down and forcing you to take the money. You may not have come here of your own accord… but you’re certainly staying on of your own accord. So don’t bitch about the rules.
As for the supposed monopoly on violence, you do reserve the right at any time to become violent and disturb your neighbors. Just as the mighty State reserves the right to smack you down for it.
“You also have an odd presumption that individuals can only organize through a government.”
When have I ever said that? In fact one of my themes is that the various governments are composed of the same people as other groups, such corporations or those precursors of established governments, militias run by warlords. And that these groups are all motivated by self-interest. One of the things I like about the USG is that it was founded to reflect the consent of the governed. I think that’s a step forward, and that our reps should be reminded that they’re there to execute our will.
The only thing making that impractical is that our people are hopelessly divided. Were the public ever to unite it would be child’s play to bring our government back under our control.
“You are surrounded every day by large, complex and incredibly effective voluntary organizations and enterprises whose existence owes little to nothing to the State, and yet if one of them misbehaves, you surmise that only the government can fix the problem.”
When very large organizations misbehave, the only institution large and powerful enough to constrain them would be a government answerable to the interests of its people, yes.
“I am curious to know what your solution would be for the Niger delta. Would you have a foreign power invade and “make things right” and “make them do the things you want them to do”?”
No. Decidedly not. Interventions from outside always make things worse. The US has a terrible record in that regard, subverting the will of countless independence groups on the grounds that they are ‘terrorists’. And preferring that power remain in the hands of despots friendly to our interests.
Nigeria has a military problem. And the only solutions would be either military (unfeasible) or the slow passage of time and evolution. The damage was done thirty years ago. But the answer has to come from the people, acting in concert.
Bottom up. Not top down. In that, I agree with you. But I doubt the atomistic approach, of individuals, each acting alone, is ever going to change the world. That’s a strategy more suitable to changing the oil in your crank case.
Re your final para, what is the concept of laissez faire doing in this discussion? Isn’t it a basic fact that in this world, events are set in motion by people who DON’T respect your property rights? Wishing it weren’t so is not going to ever change that.
That’s why we need governments. Leave those people alone and they’ll eat you up.
There is no arguing against your fantasies of what the government is, could be or should be.
Remarkable individuals create (Galileo, Beethoven, Ford, Ellington, Malcolm X, etc…), and change the world, usually fighting your goons and the conditions they create every step of the way. Others willingly help them distribute their creations. Others enjoy their efforts, and all should win.
Government is only a gun, it only exists because of evil. Its business is evil, it thrives on evil. When most people think that it is anything other than that, business booms. Ignore the State; try to educate its victims or agents, like you (I don’t know which, I guess both together would be valid), or anyone foolish enough to have ever believed people like you.
Re: Michael,
I guess I will have to explain it to you, more slowly:
You have described to the T the modus operandi of a government: A group of individuals who gather together to take action based on their own interests against unorganized individuals; so, I do not understand what point you’re trying to make. Is it that, somehow, governments are less insidious than private organizations? That defies reason.
The most important aspect that defines a private organization is that it does not have the monopoly of force; it can only engage in voluntary exchange in order to obtain profit. An organization that relies on violence to force an exchange is no different than a criminal organization. If what you suggest is that, in a free market, private organizations will act like criminal enterprises invariably, I would have to ask you: How would that work? WHy would a private organization or company that has so far obtained profits through voluntary exchage suddenly change into a criminal enterprise? You simply assume that would happen, but not explain why.
Again, I don’t understand your point. Why would it be different to have a criminal organization acting on private individuals than having a government that behaves the same way? Why would you worry more about one versus the other? Makes no sense.
Of course it does, Michael. It has the LEGAL, UNCHECKED monopoly on violence. It is the ONLY organization that can take and kill with legal consent. Criminal organizations may commit violence but they do not have an exclusive right to commit violence: They either face the competition from other criminal enterprises or from the ultimate criminal enterprise, which is the government. You are either confused or are being disingenuous (i.e. a liar.)
Mex: As usual, your best efforts in trying to figure out what I’m saying have been entirely off base. So, having given it my best shot, and with communication unaccomplished, I’ll retire for a while with haranguing you.
The only thing I can say about my philosophy is that it has served me well in every kind of situation. When dealing with strangers or savages, I extend to them the best while preparing for the worst. I try to emphasize reason and analysis over belief. And I sincerely wish them well, so long as their endeavors don’t include having me for lunch.
Meanwhile your philosophy may satisfy you. But it serves little practical purpose that I can see. You need to associate with like-minded individuals, shunning the company of social people. (And by imposing my presence here, I see I’ve done you a disservice.) We, the others, have a differing understanding of what life on earth is about. Best just that we both recognize it.
Maybe you’re destined to wander the earth, like the Jews… because every place is already taken by someone. And if you ever do find your promised Land, I’m sure it will already have plenty of resident Palestinians to object to your takeover. Were I a resident of New Hampshire, for example, and found one day that organized squads of Libertarians were in process of taking the place over, I would shoot you. Recognizing all the while the nature of your personal tragedy, not having a place of one’s own.
Life’s like that.
I want to know which Libertarians have faith in the court system to protect human rights in general and private property rights more specifically. Look at the Kelo decision or how about the differences between political speech and business speech? Look at the watering down of the 4th amendment. All of this was done by the courts directly.
Here’s the problem (again), you can’t use the failure of the current system as an argument against a different one. The failure of today’s courts is basically the worst case scenario under libertarian philosophy. Again, it is superior simply because we are no longer being forced to provide resources for that court system to operate. Same result, fewer resources. If all the worst comes to pass, all we get is a cheaper version of the reality we’re already living in.
A cheaper version with more dignity.
I am not arguing for any system. I just am interested in the arguments of how a court could possibly be a Libertarian institution when it is funded through force, setup by a political process and does not hold the judges responsible for their actions or the actions of the court?
Re: Bogart,
I don’t. The best way to protect your rights is to learn how to shoot, and you better get started…
Nice article.
I think Glaeser actually pulled the “Government is good because government judges are corrupt” gambit. We have them on the ropes!
Just one brief comment: Government doesn´t even need taxpayers that much…thanks to the printing press.
Actually, taxes are still necessary (for the people running the system) even then, as they are needed to give value to the money that is printed. If people didn’t have that artificial need for it to pay their taxes, it would rapidly lose all value and the government wouldn’t find any takers for it. It’s what is called Chartalism.
It’s also a ridiculous theory, since exchange value is decided based on the market unless the government institutes legal tender laws and forces people to use it’s currency.
No, the value gets determined by a market-like process, with people “freely” valuing it according to how much they value not being punished for failing to pay taxes. This happens regardless of any regulations compelling them to accept the money, and even if there are no legal tender laws at all. That was the whole point of the approach, that it didn’t require any detailed bureaucratic enforcement machinery (mandating acceptance) but worked even when only high level steps were taken (taxes) – the money was given value even for people who couldn’t be got at directly to make them take it, so they accepted it too. One case in point was colonial Madagascar:-
Glaeser is probably under the spell of socialists who think that since the Reagan presidency we have enjoyed totally unfettered laissez-fair economics. I read that a lot from socialists. The fact that the National Register, the publication of all NEW federal regulations, has averaged 10,000 pages per year since 1970 doesn’t seem to frustrate their delusions. Socialists desperately need to maintain the delusion that the US is a laissez-fair economy because the people would be mad as hell at them if they ever learned that we have nothing but a socialist economy.
In disagree with Murphy only about one thing: “Once you admit that the government can tax for some purposes (such as national defense), and is justified in establishing some monopolies (in police and judicial services, for example), then you can’t object on principle to the other things it currently does.” Sure you can. Libertarians have been doing it since the writings of the Late Scholastics. The Scholastics wrote that the king had the right to tax but only for legit purposes. Some things are legit for the state to do and some are not. The state has the duty to protect life, liberty and property; anything else is not legit.
I could turn the tables on anarchists and use a similar argument that if you allow violence for retrieving stolen property, or self-defense, you open the door to all kinds of violence as being justifiable.
There is no argument bewteen anarchists and minarchists. I don’t argue with 4-year-olds about Santa Claus. There will never be any State that can be limited to only protecting life, liberty and property.
You never answer this question, Fundamentalist. Why on earth are you a minarchist? Didn’t Paul tell you that while the State is evil it is being allowed to exist temporarily; that your Kingdom is nigh? What do you care about the form of Satan’s Kingdom?
Right Myxyzptlk, The actual gospel message is that Jesus initiated a new kingdom (for those who aren’t used to biblical language: a kingdom is a government) and we have very few obligations toward any other ruler. Most Christians are schizoid, claiming to obey Jesus while propping up the status quo. If there is one thing we should have learned from Jesus, it is that he did not go with the flow.
I don’t know why the anarchists argue with the minarchists, to be honest. Neither has a real-world example, so both sides are talking out of their ass, and minarchy is compatible with anarchy, so long as it is voluntarily entered into, so minarchic areas can exist within an anarchic world, with no issues.
You’re exactly right, George. Just for fun and propaganda purposes do we argue.
I’m a panarchist, too, btw. I don’t hear from any others very often.
Your other comment recently was very important:
“Anarcho-capitalism isn’t the undoing of all governments and leaving a huge void in place; it is an evolution”
Thank you
I wonder how Glaeser and his ilk would explain the environmental disaster known as the Soviet Union. Was Cherynobyl the result of too much laissez-faire capitalism? Were libertarians running the Kremlin the whole time, and I missed it?
Wow, Michael really got destroyed this time. You know it’s bad when he’s trotting out the “free market Africa” argument. I run into that one a lot. It’s always fun! First, it is so easy to prove wrong – like with one or two Wikipedia clicks, as mpolzkill showed above. Most people that trot out this straw man know absolutely NOTHING about Africa. Then they usually follow up by telling you how things work in the real world, which of course according to them includes a free market Africa.
Take care, Michael. You’ve been a fun troll.
Haha, good stuff, David. Yes, always the best when they think the Africa card is their trump card. Not even Russia can compare as an example of the horrors Statism will bring to a land. You might be interested in this book if you don’t already know it:
http://www.amazon.com/Exterminate-All-Brutes-Darkness-European/dp/1565843592
I also really liked the talk about insects above. So many humans are haunted by visions of clockwork oranges unfortunately.
mpolz: Maybe you could explain to me the difference between exploitation on the part of a company, such as the British East India Company (an independent corporation) and that undertaken directly by the trading envoys of a predatory state. Aren’t they the same?
Since you’ve cited Exterminate All the Brutes, we could take a look at the Belgian Congo, the example par excellence of rapacious destruction. Wasn’t that a private enterprise put into place by one man, Leopold of Belgium? Don’t you recall that the nation of Belgium had nothing to do with the old Congo Free State?
If we are to draw up sides in this kind of showdown, I don’t see any relevance in the degree to which an exploiting entity calls itself ‘the government’, ‘a corporation’ or just ‘a gang of thieves’. The point is, they swoop down from outside one day, kill people, take what they want, and move out when they’re finished. To me, that makes one want to form an organization to oppose their aims. In other words, something like a government answerable to the dictates of its people.
Re: Michael,
The British East Indian Company was not an independent corporation. It had the total support of the British state, which had a BIG stake in it.
They may have had a stake in it, and certainly had an interest. But they had no operational control. The East India Company was an independent gang of freebooters. The fealty they pledged to the Crown was a very loose one. What they received was merely a license to conquer.
Rubbish. At first, the BEIC was a private trading company, and acted as one; it didn’t exploit or conquer anyone. Eventually, it became essentially an arm of the British government, and acted like that, too.
Peter, I think you’re just being querulous. The BEIC was a private trading company that conquered an empire. The tools they used to gain control of India were adept politics, savvy trading skills and more than a bit of muscle.
Once they seized the Jewel, they offered it to the Crown. Or, alternately, you can say the Crown muscled its way in. There was no way you could keep all of India under control without the resources of a very large navy and land force.
“Rubbish. At first, the BEIC was a private trading company, and acted as one; it didn’t exploit or conquer anyone.”
Er… it certainly was a private trading company, and it certainly did act as one. But that means it did exploit or conquer rather than trade peacefully, whenever that turned out more cost effective – it followed the old “raid or trade” mixed strategy, much like the Vikings (similar stuff comes up in passing in the Odyssey, it’s that old). I have somewhere heard that the first two ships it sent to India (before it was the British East India Company but only English) didn’t even get there, but returned home with a profit from pirate activities in the Indian Ocean.
I don’t pretend to be an expert on the issue, but according to Wikipedia the company existed for 150 years under the rule of the Indian government (i.e., not exploiting anyone; at least, no moreso than the local government — it existed in a statist monopoly, not a free market, after all), and the British government took control at about the same time they started to rule on their own account (depending when you consider their rule to have begun: the “Company rule in India” article lists three different dates, respectively 16 years, 8 years, and some months, before the East India Company Act 1773, which “clearly established its [Parliament's] sovereignty and ultimate control over the Company”)
Peter: This appears to be a misreading of the Wikipedia article:
“I don’t pretend to be an expert on the issue, but according to Wikipedia the company existed for 150 years under the rule of the Indian government (i.e., not exploiting anyone; at least, no moreso than the local government..)” etc.
Actually there was no “Indian government” until the British created one, in 1858. Before that there was an array of princely states and minor kingdoms, each brought under control, one by one, by the wily snares of the BEIC. They left the nominal heads of petty kingdoms in place, not wanting to have to take responsibility for the conduct of governmental affairs. All they were there for was the profit from such enterprises as they wanted to become engaged in. When they did finally assume political control, it was only to find their role in India nationalized by the Crown.
Here’s the relevant passage:
“The East India Company traded mainly in cotton, silk, indigo dye, saltpetre, tea, and opium. However, it also came to rule large swathes of India, exercising military power and assuming administrative functions, to the exclusion, gradually, of its commercial pursuits. Company rule in India, which effectively began in 1757 after the Battle of Plassey, lasted until 1858, when, following the events of the Indian Rebellion of 1857, and under the Government of India Act 1858, the British Crown assumed direct administration of India in the new British Raj. The Company itself was finally dissolved on 1 January 1874, as a result of the East India Stock Dividend Redemption Act.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_India_Company
Or, as the article you cite states:
“The Company did not commence ruling any region until after Robert Clive’s victory in the 1757 Battle of Plassey.”
and
“The rule lasted until 1858, when, after the Indian rebellion of 1857 and consequent of the Government of India Act 1858, the British government assumed the task of directly administering India in the new British Raj.”
No, there is no difference, other than governments are more effective.
That was “par excellence” for a company. And for rapaciousness, I suppose so, up there with Hitler in the Ukraine and Cheney in Iraq. Most destruction though has got to be Mao or Stalin.
Your last sentence: calling Santa Claus again.
He’s a statist cultist tbh.
David: Subsaharan Africa is in fact a good example of what happens when you have weak or corrupt governments. There’s no one there able or willing to restrain extractive forces.
And isn’t that precisely what you’re complaining of? Governments that get in the way of profits? You don’t find that in the poor African nations. The ‘government’ is merely the biggest gang of crooks in the country. And they invite extractors to come in and do their will… for a share in the spoils.
But you tell me you can prove all that wrong in one or two Wikipedia clicks. Okay, go ahead. Give me the clicks. The only one offered so far has been about Sani Abacha, and he’s the prime example of just what I’ve been commenting on. He was no regulatory ogre making life difficult for the poor entrepreneurs down at Shell with all his confining rules, or his socialist dreams of social justice. Far from it. He was part of the process, killing the Delta in the pursuit of untrammeled profit.
“he’s the prime example of just what I’ve been commenting on. He was no regulatory ogre making life difficult for the poor entrepreneurs down at Shell with all his confining rules, or his socialist dreams of social justice. Far from it. He was part of the process, killing the Delta in the pursuit of untrammeled profit.”
I thought you liked Obama?!? Oh, wait, missed that name, and it’s *BP* in *the Gulf*. My bad.
I was speaking of your own reference, Sani Abacha.
I’m starting to think your biggest problem is that you’re witless. No, it’s probably that you think you’re better than most everyone else. That joke was a toughie to write though, I might have done better.
Re: Michael,
Actually, it is what happens when white European socialist states impose artificial political divisions in a land where people are mostly nomadic and highly tribal. The corrupt governments (weak or not) are nothing more than the undesirable consequence of well-intended but foolhardy intervention.
michael:
1) There was no one in the United States government able or willing to restrain BP either. So your argument even applies to the big governments.
2) For someone who seems genuinely frustrated when I take your points the wrong way you have a fantastic way of putting the libertarian position as someone who has supposedly studied our ideas for years. Even though I’ve only studied the ideas for a few months, I already know that you aren’t even phrasing the argument remotely close to correctly. It is not that libertarians believe government shouldn’t “get in the way of profits.” It is instead that libertarians believe that government is innately corruptible, coercive, destructive, and inefficient.
It doesn’t protect land or anything well because of these reasons. People are better left to protecting their own property, which none of your so called “weak government” nations allow.
Matthew: It’s PEOPLE who are “innately corruptible, coercive, destructive, and inefficient.” People make governments, just like they make corporations and criminal gangs. The problem I have here is with people who think there’s something qualitatively different about a government when it’s just any large organization. The individuals that constitute any purposive group are bounded by their own human nature.
There are people who hate religion, just based on the fact that the Catholic Church has had a very long history of mind control and coercive oppression. If any group’s about power, this is it. But would it be right to then condemn every form of religion, just because some have been prone to abuse? Catholicism is also responsible for Liberation Theology, a very fine humanist conception of why God put us here on earth (let’s for the moment make that assumption). So some Catholics believe in the sanctity of every life God made, while others happily slaughtered Albigensians by the thousands, for daring to decide their own beliefs.
Similarly anyone who puts all governments in the same basket is being a fool. This can’t be emphasized too frequently.
I also have travelled outside the Big Baby Carriage, which is what many well travelled people call the USA. I would like to see you defend your personal property successfully in any rural area from Turkey to Thailand. Alone, you’d be well out of your league. And without a strong government imposing its will on the mob, the US would be the same in a mere handful of years. We may not LIKE government. But we do need it. Otherwise the country would quickly be overrun by Crips, Bloods, Colombians, Jamaicans, Russians and everyone else who knew a thing or two about concentrated firepower.
And ultimately the victor in those wars would declare itself to be “the government”. And we’d start over. My guess would be the Russians would come out on top– they know how to be truly ruthless. I’ve seen the picture already.
Ah, now the fear mongering. Funny how the Vietnamese seem to be less afraid of us then are so many Americans afraid of Russia, or a few radical Muslims in caves.
“The Big Baby Carriage”
Finally, you’re on to something, of course your point is that we should be more grateful to our betters. I use a different name for American sheep: “House Slaves.” And you always bring to mind my favorite quote on that:
“…America…the heart of totalitarianism..the masses; the vast aggregates who are never tortured, flogged, or imprisoned, or humiliated; who instead are cajoled, flattered, stimulated by the rulers; who are nonetheless relentlessly destroyed as human beings, ground down into mere shells of humanity.”
- Robert Nisbet
You’re a little off base. My comment went to the fact that people growing up in an ultra-safe, protected environment take such safety for granted. And may come to believe they don’t really need civilization… they can take care of themselves, if need be, with their trusty popgun.
That’s very naive. Without a well established government enforcing law and order we’d deteriorate into the kind of place where your pistola would be of no use to you. So I think this aspect of your world view is unrealistic.
Are we “ground down” as individuals by being brought up in a civilized society? To some degree, certainly. You can see that whenever you place a well-bred child in the company of one who’s grown up on the street. The one is polite and helpful, the other devious and opportunistic. It’s the distinction between the house cat and the jungle cat.
Which one is better? I would offer that you should first know which one you are. Then learn how to deal with the other kind. I would also counsel that if you hold a core belief that all government is worse than all alternative places, with no established source for order, you visit a contested area. Rural northern Mexico, perhaps. Or the Colombian north coast. See how people get along without a Big Brother nagging them all the time.
Wow, your most clueless and repulsive comment yet, I think. Bizarre…your last sentence completely confirms my statement, which you denied in your first two sentences! Dr. Orwell, call your office. I’m speechless; now that’s a feat, congrats.
“Matthew: It’s PEOPLE who are “innately corruptible, coercive, destructive, and inefficient.” People make governments, just like they make corporations and criminal gangs. The problem I have here is with people who think there’s something qualitatively different about a government when it’s just any large organization. The individuals that constitute any purposive group are bounded by their own human nature.”
This is correct. However, it’s all about the incentives, and what do you think happens when you have bad incentives and bad choices? If a monopoly is bad, why is a monopoly of force good? The whole point is about distributing this force by not enshrining one single entity with a magical consent to control all others.
Anarcho-capitalism isn’t the undoing of all governments and leaving a huge void in place; it is an evolution beyond the current world order into one that does not contain a territorial monopoly of force, and one that recognizes valid relationships and contracts as those based on consent, not by force.
“Matthew: It’s PEOPLE”
People are individuals, but incentives and the nature of organizations they choose to collaborate with certainly can corrupt them. Indeed, governments are made up of people, so I don’t deny your essential point at all. If I didn’t believe that, how could I believe governments are so corruptible? But the reason governments are worse is clearly the incentives and the monopolization of force.
The difference between governments and any other organizations is that governments monopolize the use of force by being the most powerful. How they retain their power varies greatly, in areas of poverty they maintain their power primarily through fear. They act no different than criminal gangs. Even the democratic societies have a great tendency to be destructive outside their own sphere. They are not as imposing to their own people only because their own people won’t put up with them.
Populist revolts occurred in Europe and the US because of the success of liberty in promoting individual well being and prosperity. In Africa, people have never had such power, and the governments of nations there largely like it that way. It is hardly that their governments are “weak” but that the people themselves are poor and the culture provides idealogies that don’t promote individual liberty.
“There are people who hate religion…”
I’m not one, and I don’t agree with this analogy because religion is fundamentally a different matter. I’ll only note that religions do their worst when they are tied to states. Those religions not tied to states are generally peaceful. Religions not tied to states promote charity; religions tied to states promote theft for re-distributive purposes.
“I would like to see you defend your personal property successfully in any rural area from Turkey to Thailand.”
Last I checked there was no state of general anarchy between those nations, and knowing the nature of many countries throughout the Middle East/South Asia one could hardly declare them in any way libertarian societies.
“Alone, you’d be well out of your league. And without a strong government imposing its will on the mob, the US would be the same in a mere handful of years.”
Explain the beginning of the United States. Government generally was small, unobtrusive, hardly thought of in daily life. Problems existed, certainly, but there was still much greater poverty then than now, being that the industrial revolution hadn’t occurred yet.
“We may not LIKE government. But we do need it. Otherwise the country would quickly be overrun by Crips, Bloods, Colombians, Jamaicans, Russians and everyone else who knew a thing or two about concentrated firepower.”
Many of these groups exist almost entirely because of laws preventing otherwise normal economic activities like drug sales or prostitution. In a free market system they might continue to exist if they were able to provide sufficient service to fulfill desires of their customers (security, lower prices, etc.) Prohibition saw many criminal gangs come to power and the end of it put those people back into productive lines of work.
I suppose they could attempt to become the new government but how many would accept that? I’m pretty sure we’d see organized militias arise to combat them, which might become voluntary private security forces. The only way this wouldn’t occur is if someone decided we just had to have a state to tell them what to do, but I’d rather pay them a fair rate myself than “vote” and be involuntarily taxed some arbitrary amount.
Michael,
Grow up. I love when you lecture people about places you have no knowledge of.
I happened to have lived in South Africa for two years. But even I’m not a big enough jack*ss to claim special knowledge. It doesn’t stop you however from telling us all how sub saharan politics works. Thanks for clearing it all up for us.
Perhaps you should actually go there.
The young Afrikaaners, when confronted by my questions about apartheid and racism would reply “I am not my government.”
They were a heck of a lot smarter than Obamonots, eh?
David: South Africa is hardly an example of the kind of place I was referring to. I has virtually nothing in common with Nigerian realities. Or the kinds of lives that are lived in the conflict area centering on eastern Congo.
If you queried Afrikaaners about their racism and apartheid when you were there, they were being polite when they told you what they did. That was their government, not them. But that’s a place very far removed from even Senegal, a peaceful, quiet place in comparison with most of the continent. What I point to is the fact that unlike either of those two places, much of the continent is a land with no social insurance. The government does not place itself between you and harm’s way. And as a result, occasionally bands of neighbors with machetes will come to you, to contest the validity of your life.
Michael:
Libertarians don’t advocate “no regulation”, but rather, a different KIND of regulation: regulation by property owners, rather than regulation by government. If the property owners in the damaged areas of the Gulf could threaten BP with a lawsuit, BP would have been forced to purchase some type of liability insurance prior to drilling, and the insurer would make sure BP was following strict safety standards (lest they be forced to foot the multi-billion dollar bill in the event of a spill).
Contrast this with government regulation, which capped BP’s liability at $75 million and put the utterly-inept MMS in charge of regulating BP’s safety procedures.
Thanks, bobby, that’s refreshing. You show that there are all kinds of people holding all sorts of opinions, calling themselves by the same name: libertarians.
We can point to egregious errors all day long in the manner in which we govern ourselves. And it’s reassuring to know that you and I are basically on the same side: we’re those who would try to improve government rather than destroy it. I’ve seen the results when a government gets destroyed. And believe me, it’s not FREEdom.
My own idea for judicial equity would be to replace our overly specific laws with looser guidelines for behavior, and give maximum latitude for interpretation to the judges. When we place too much emphasis on the letter of the law, the thieves have to hire expensive lawyers to figure out how to break them. Which they do, then steal your money.
Instead I’d just have something like the Ten Commandments, a short list of general guidelines. And if someone cheated someone else in a sleazy business deal, the judge would just be able to say “In my opinion, you stole from that man.” And find him guilty. In short, I prefer the spirit of the law.
There used to be tribal societies with this approach. And you could reasonably be assured that if things went wrong, principles of fairness would be applied in setting them right. But mostly, that was a long time ago.
That once worked in the Old Testament in the period of the judges. It can’t work as a one size fits all solution though. As a hard core libertarian, most petitioners would be disappointed by my court, I see very few actions as crimes unless they involve the initiation of force against a person or their property. Christian conservatives, 60′s liberals, Hasids, Muslims, would all have to segregate themselves and have different judges.
A better more robust way is to have only objective laws. Every action should be known in advance to a typical citizen to be either legal or illegal. This means insider trading, antitrust, pornography, must be either exhaustively defined or decriminalized.
It sounds like you know this one already, AJ:
http://mises.org/daily/3867
Yes, Mpolzkill, I think Watner, Spooner, & Rothbard are all great. Are we children of the state or are we men of manifest destinies, accountable for being overly viceful and ready to suffer our own ruin privately should our human actions bring it upon us.
“http://www.constitution.org/hs/ignore_state.htm”
Thanks for sharing this.
P.S. Mises blog search needs to offer an option for searching the comments as well; would be helpful
British law also tends to emphasize the spirit of the law over the mere letter. So if one has transgressed the intention of the lawmakers, no amount of fancy footwork can save him from judgment. His intention to get around the law will betray him. Or at least, to a greater degree than is the case here in the US, where scoundrels can base entire careers outside the intent of the law.
I’d like to see the concept applied, for instance, in the realm of lobbying. Here the intent is obvious: to pay money in the service of influencing legislation. It’s an area where the American conception clearly doesn’t work… no matter how well you word a campaign financing law, it’s child’s play to make an end run around the rules as written. Instead, a short law saying that people found to be attempting to influence legislation in return for contributions will be barred from the political process would work wonders. And it would be up to a judge, a panel or a jury to determine whether this had taken place.
Spirit of the law, in the context of the United States tends to create “living constitution” type situations. Regulators get new laws and desire to extend their reach as far as it can go. The FTC wants to regulate the internet with it’s broad powers, and the EPA wants to expand it’s mission beyond it’s original goals on basis beyond the intentions of those who wrote the laws.
The problem is that there is no single arbiter who knows all intentions for those who write laws. And the laws are just generally bad, centralizing authority and rules for circumstances which vary greatly. Even if I believed in government the way you do I’d say it should govern as close as possible and the central government should pass as few laws as possible. It’s completely unreasonable to the average human being to not know what laws there are that govern so many different actions, when there is no natural reason to believe many of those things should require special permission or license.
“A better more robust way is to have only objective laws.”
This is as impossible as believing that governments will never exploit their power, and is completely against the whole idea and spirit of voluntarism and panarchy.
@George _ The essence of tyranny is random unpredictable state action. Transparent cut and dried rules are essential to regaining liberty and free markets. This will tend to a legal minarchy because many current laws are not reducible to a consistent algorithm. I am a student of Voluntarism and have heard of Panarchy (dismissed by A. Rand) but I’m not sure who, if anyone has devised a way for these to lead a Western Republic. The less Archy the better, but can you even have a Tour De France if tricycles, unicycles, shopping carts and so forth are all permitted? Vol & Pan do belong on the seas, in the wilds, and maybe as an available option to contiguous consenting land owners.
http://www.constitution.org/hs/ignore_state.htm
Good post. Let me say, I advocate all nonviolent action necessary to turn the car around on this road to serfdom. Once it’s starts driving in the general direction of freedom, I intend to stay in the car all the way to the destination of freedom. At a certain point, if things aren’t to my liking, I may wish to exit the vehicle before reaching anarchy, panarchy, or voluntaryism if it turns out that is what freedom truly is.
I would even prefer to be stranded in lands ruled by those, than where I currently am under democrat, republican, liberal, conservative, and moderate flavors of tyranny.
I score a perfect 100 on the libertarian diamond quiz/nolan chart.
Since I’m off that chart, maybe there’s a Libertarian/Anarchy/Panarchy/Voluntaryist political quiz that I can take so I can see how chart there. http://www.friesian.com/images/2-d-quiz.gif
To be clear, I actually do want to abolish government. I don’t think it can be “improved”, either in a moral or a pragmatic sense. My point was simply that anarcho-capitalists don’t assume that BP would simply “do the right thing” in the absence of government regulation, which is obviously an absurd belief — they would be forced to by property owners and a private court system.
Provided they affected others’ property. If the spill had only affected the ‘commons’ then BP wouldn’t be obliged to anyone else.
The ‘commons’ is a greatly diminished field once you believe property rights should be held everywhere.
“After giving up the notion of sacrosanct property rights, the minarchist has to fall back on pragmatic arguments. But then the minarchist needs to explain why politicians can’t be trusted with health care or the printing press, but they can be trusted with nuclear weapons and wiretaps.”
People are not logical. We chose our ideas the same way we chose our music, food, clothes and friends. We pick the things we like and avoid the things we dislike. The opposition is not completely logical and consistent either.
“…mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.” That is, we just let it go if we can. Why risk your life, your fortune or your sacred honor?
I think that Jefferson and the other revolutionary fathers assumed that the USA would fail and dissolve, as it did, over slavery. I think that civil war and the central government that resulted was on the worst case path if envisioned at all.
I sum up the anti-federalist insight this way. They realized that regulatory bureaucracies do not work. Taxes are heavy and little good results. Indeed, govt intervention seems to make things worse. One is better off with no central govt and adjudicating problems as they arise.
It does not mean we (and they) approve of govt or fail to recognize that Taxation is Theft. The anti-federalists saw the smallest govt ever. And the USA went from a small nation of scattered farmers to the greatest economic power in about a century. It does not have to be ideal to be really, really good. Freedom with Responsibility is all you need.
But people do not like freedom for others. Freedom means I can not control you. I do not know what you might do. People would rather be fenced in than fear the uncertainty of an open field.
Ron, I think the reason that the opposition and minarchists aren’t completely logical and consistent is that they are both essentially utilitarian.
I say this as someone who hasn’t completely decided on the matter of anarchy and minarchy, because I’m also just not sure how the replacements would work fundamentally. I am not adamant on this issue because I feel like if anarchy is viable it will naturally evolve. It certainly cannot occur through some kind of violent revolution because the non-aggression principle is an absolute necessity for it to function.
I think your reasoning is correct, it’s that they are afraid of the uncertainty that comes from not having state police, courts, etc.
Anarchists would point to these things and say, why be afraid when you know that the state courts and police suck, even in the best of states? Why believe that the state is efficient for prosecuting crimes when you know it gets it wrong on everything else? I think those are both valid points.
is utility a human thing? is utilitarian some how wrong compared to something else???
i have said there may be a need to distinguish us politcal libertarianism from the rothbardit libertarianism.
political libertarianism is i have understood it is adherence to language in the constitution..its original meaning. some schmus-tices have become the activist types with broad meanings. it is here and the level of direct taxation that i see us political libertarianism doing whatever it supposedly does. agitating against some supreme court rulings that arent in teh original intent of consitution and fighting against taxes and encroachment on personal freedoms…drugs, homosexual laws, etc.
the rothbardit type libertairin (so i have read…probably not altogether true..lies, iow) will just call
that govt support of a different level. and thats fine, that is what us political libertarianism is. philosophical libertarianism would be more akin to anarchy i suppose.
no govt and various property interests interacting (hopefyully) peacefuylly with each other.
if there is an economics of us political libertarianism to me it would have to be an adherence to the constitution and its statements on money and personal trade and taxation and govt borrowing.
anything else is free for all money and the failures become apparent in a broad non-govt system.
Oddly, Bob, Glaeser and everyone else here misses the REAL libertarian approaches to problems of pollution in the Gulf and elsewhere regarding resources that the state purports to own: first, having government transfer ownership to either fishermen or oil companies, and let them engage in Coasean bargaining that would allow them to express their preferences in market transactions. Development would certainly be more responsible, since fishermen would have an ability to pay oil companies to be responsible (and to monitor and penalize them for pollution), and oil companies would not wish to damage fishery revenues. The government has made steps in this direction by starting to move towards ITQs and “catch share” quasi-property rights systems for fisheries.
A further libertarian approach would be to start ending shareholder limited liability, which encourages shareholders to turn a blind eye to the damage that their firms cause to third parties.
TT
PS: While newcomer “Michael” has not seemed to learn that discretion may be the better part of valor, I am more than a little disappointed with the hostile “welcome” that he has received, even though he clearly favors moving our society in a more libertarian direction. He’s obviously here because he finds the libertarian message worth engaging and learning more about. Too bad one of man’s easiest evils is reflexive tribal suspicion and hostility!
He doesn’t sound like any student I ever heard, Tom. Any student acts even half as badly, they get the living crap kicked out of them. I thought you were a great sympathizer regarding human nature.
Sure; I sympathize with you guys, too! I am just suggesting that if you could rein in your understandable urges to kick butt and leaven your lessons with a little kindness, you might have a potential convert.
Though he comes off a bit impudent and in-your-face, that’s a tribal reaction to ANY newcomer with balls.
This tribal stuff is understandable, but IMHO handicaps the libertarian message:
http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/search.aspx?q=tribal (And, of course, is something I’ve been encountering for years, even before I got here.)
In any event, is he arguing for MORE government?
Tom
OK, you try having it out with him and when he ignores you whenever you drill into the details to show where he is wrong, see if you think the same then.
Right, it’s called “exasperation”. What’s clear is that he’s here because his entire life he was told that we are simpletons. Libertarians are ascending a bit on the horizon of the cultural conciousness, so he thought he’d come over here and humiliate us with his genius. Not working out quite like he imagined, but his massive ego won’t allow him to quit while he’s behind.
What appears to be libertarian leanings to you, Tom, are really just desperate maneuvers before he completely abandons one of his whuppings.
Oh wait!!! He thinks the action axiom is not an axiom after all. So much for his readiness to “learn”. As one of those responsible for the “hostility” refers to, I should say it is very exasperating to hear that.
I understand exasperation, but we all have thick skulls (speaking strictly for myself)!
Your understanding is shared (with full acknowledgement of the “we”). That’s why I still keep trying to go deeper with him. I am happy I was able to get as far as the action axiom. Let’ see if something comes out of it.
As libertarians, we should be absolutely thrilled this michael fellow is taking the time to come here and insult the movement. Why? Just imagine, 4 years ago the libertarians were mostly ignored. No one would bother to go out of their way to troll Mises.org. That’s because no one was taking us seriously.
When I was writing for a review site, I said this to my editor when he questioned why I got so much hate mail on my reviews:
“I see trolling as a badge of honor. When I get hate mail, I know that means I have truly hit at the heart of the product and gave it the best opinion possible. It’s especially notable given that the rebuttals rarely talk about the content itself and make personal attacks. It shows that my substance can’t be attacked.”
So, I had him run a poll the next time we ran a controversial, against the grain review. The result? 80% of the readers found it to be a high quality and helpful write-up. After comparing it to the readership numbers, I came up with a distinction. For every 1 troll you get on your site, you have 1,000 people who read the review and 800 of them find what you just wrote to be valuable information. This means that michael’s existence has generated at least 800 visitors who read the article, don’t bother commenting, and have been influenced by what was written.
Trolling means we’re making a difference and starting to become influential. That’s why I never see a problem with it.
Most assuredly, Murray. Well, you mean that he’s a sign, not a cause, right? Or are you saying that people read comments first and trolls make them read articles? I don’t quite understand, sorry.
So is there nothing wrong with slapping the holy hell out of the trolls once they get here, or should they be humored because they draw people to the articles?
It’s not the exasperation, but the penchant to see newcomers who don’t completely agree as hostile “trolls” that bothers me. It’s natural, but how is a hostile reaction helpful? Are we trying to chase people away, or convert them (open their eyes, I mean)?
TT,
We *are* talking about the same Michael, right? You’d need a ball bat to open his eyes. Completely agree?!? He seems pathologically incapable of agreeing with anything that doesn’t suit him except as a forced temporary position before the worst case of Doublethink I’ve ever seen kicks in. He really is hilarious, he’s lies like a not-particularly-bright 4-year-old.
“In any event, is he arguing for MORE government?”
Yep. Not nearly big enough. Don’t you know that all that’s wrong with government is that “We the People” have fallen down on the job? It’s all just a matter of getting the right “public servants” on those levers. Oh, were not all lefties who want what Michael wants? Well, he’ll straighten us out, he’s ever so convincing.
A brand newcomer can’t be positively identified as a troll. I read Michael’s comments for at least a month before I spoke to him, and I didn’t call him a troll until hours of inane, insulting (from both sides, admittedly; I’m pathologically incapable of not giving as good as I get) conversations later. He has learned nothing in all this time, except new ways to insult, obfuscate and propagandize=troll.
Some people *are* hopeless cases and when they’re not incredibly and persistently insulting I actually feel sorry for them (I still almost feel sorry for Michael). Finally, some people are very gentle with him, like Don. That’s Don’s gig, and I admire him, but what I’m trying to do is destroy Statist memes and give third parties a laugh and helpful links.
Comments on this entry are closed.