A really cool thing is happening in Germany. After decades of strict laws regulating when stores can open and close (Ladenschlussgesetz), the laws are progressively liberalizing. Freedom is working, despite every warning against letting people work out business hours for themselves.
FULL ARTICLE by Jeffrey A. Tucker
{ 94 comments }
I would either be one of those people burdened with ridiculous student loan debt or not have gotten the education that led me to where I am now had the US “enjoyed” closing laws. I was able to pay my way through college, and get work experience, by working night shift jobs for 4 years. No night shift, no education, or an education and crushing debt. Late night employment wasn’t some sort of abuse nor was the employer taking advantage of me. I had other options available and I chose to engage in it. Such laws would have done nothing but strip me, and many like myself, of the means to support themselves.
Jeffrey Tucker is very often a breathless bore on this site. Anything “business” he supports, any gadget is a breakthrough for “feedom”, any dumb music video against something “public” a work of art. And on and on it goes…
I am an American living in one of Europe’s loveliest cities. On Sundays, all the stores are closed. And you know what—I love it that way. It is peaceful, respectful of “Sunday”, intelligent and cultivated. It is nice not to see people buzzing in and out of stores all the time and it inspires one to do better things—to read, to think, to walk ten miles. I am 100% Capitalist in thought, word and deed, but there is much more to a free society than just constant commercialism.
Having said this, I agree with the poster above that late nights/early mornings during the week are perfectly fine, and could help out many who’d appreciate the extra employment
Excellent Job contradicting yourself Anna.
Where do these morons come from?
Religious flim-flam–what is so special about Sundays that it must be “respected” so that workers may not earn a wage to provide for themselves?
So you feel it appropriate to restrict others’ freedoms so you can feel more “cultivated”?
This is the definition of European Progressivism.
Just what I was going to point out. Being European myself, I can’t stand this snobbism and callousness towards others (especially towards the kind of people who NEED to work on Sundays or at night – the ones that need to “protected” against evil employers. “Let them have cake”, huh?) And they pride themselves on their “culture” for it. Bah. And I could go on and on about it; pride of their beautiful monuments built on the blood and sweat of the poorest but despise for “impure” American “commercialism” that actually manages to be esthetic AND useful.
I’ve lived in Germany, and having even food stores closed on Sunday did impose a cost, fortunately if one was near a gas station there was a loophole as the attached convenience store would sell many products (but not all on Sunday.) It’s not fun waking up on Sunday and realizing on this day you can’t go out and buy something to eat at a grocery store.
I was also rather confused as to when working people were supposed to go shopping if shops were only open while workers were at work. Fortunately bars and restaurants weren’t forced to close early.
One thing that is immediately obvious on arriving in Paris: it’s a city that could only have been built on the graves of the private property rights of its citizens. Those beautiful boulevards, wonderful parks and gardens, all that wonderful centrally planned order, that’s all top down etatism.
Bastiat was cultivated but still found it in himself not to try to tell everybody else what to do.
Anna, if it is indeed preferable for most shops to be closed on Sunday, then little will change when shops are free to set their own hours, as customers will mostly be like you, choosing not to shop on Sundays and thus making it unprofitable to be open.
Its not commercialism, its easiness of shaping ones own life. I find that short opening hours and closing on sundays (not all stores though) in Denmark to be quite the pain in the neck. Most of my week days are filled with work and sport or dancing, which means I am fully occupied almost all the time. Saturday is often taken as well, which leaves my only “free” day as Sunday, where I cant get my shopping done either.
Just because some people cant manage to put all these cultured things into their weekdays, so simply no excuse for them to force me to put all that stuff on sundays
You’re not 100% capitalist
But you are 100% aristocratic socialist.
Congratulations.
“This was an extremely rare moment in human history, when good sense actually emerged from a political debate.”
Hahah
Are we better off in cages? NO! So why do we insist on limitations by force? Because we think we need order a priori, because we can’t imagine it to be spontaneous.
Allowing each other to be free and to create our own order spontaneously requires that we trust ourselves and each other. Only the untrustworthy require cages for themselves and each other. The trustworthy do not.
If someone is telling me I need a cage, then I know it is them who cannot be trusted.
“If we leave it to individual stores to set opening and closing times, it is perfectly obvious that stores that open earlier and stay open later will have an advantage over those that do not. This fact alone will inspire a rat race of commercial frenzy that will push profit over quality of life.”
Two stores, next to each other and selling the same products perhaps. But two distant stores selling different products to different markets might not. A farm tools and equipment store, located in a rural setting, might not need to stay opened during night hours but a convenience store in the center of the city might gain to stay opened 24/7.
Also, see J. Murray’s post above, where the the stores that stay open later improved his quality of life by allowing him to work while getting an education.
For those pondering the unimaginable working in Germany, consider a visit to Berlin, where stores are open rather late, and you can count to get at least the basics in one of the “Späties” (the ubiquitous convenience stores) at anytime.
For the record, Sundays in Germany can be very relaxing, unless of course you happen to need something or forgot to buy it in the regular shopping frenzy before the weekend.
That’s interesting. Richter’s book “Pictures Of The Socialistic Future” (look for it on this site) predicted that a regimented collectivist Germany would make certain minor exceptions for Berlin because, well, that’s where the real Germans lived.
When washington State had a Sunday closing law crime and trouble dropped to the extent on Sunday that the SPD day shift could operate on half the normal staff most Sundays. Some days I could go the entire day without getting a call.
After the law was changed and the taverns opened the day of peace (truce?) was gone. Money was more important than peace and safety to the powers that be. Pragmatically, how would local peace and safety levels change under Libertarian rule? Would money still be king?
Then those closing laws should have been extended to seven days a week.
Best response I’ve read here this month. Bravo!
I’ll second that. One line, one point, one SCORE!
Narrow-minded.
Money does not rule anything. Money is merely a tool for people to execute their freedom. Are you really taking some obscure situation, in which you quote no statistics, and trying to make a proof, that people need to be restricted on when to shop and not to shop?
If what you say even was true, are you saying people’s capacity to do “evil” decreases when freedom of commerce is taking away? Are you aware of what that premise leads to? I don’t believe you thought out what you wrote.
Are you aware of what that premise leads to? I don’t believe you thought out what you wrote.
Yes he did. He wants the entire world to be North Korea.
Money buys power and influence. That’s why people bribe politicians.
There was a sketch once on a British comedy show – I think it was “Alas Smith and Jones”. It was a fake commercial showing a man working hard outside, chopping wood, etc. The narrator says …
The man walks to the pub, finds that the door is locked, looks at his watch and starts cursing and swearing.
Interestingly bars and restaurants don’t all shut down early in Germany. It is unclear how the early closing of English bars may have encouraged binge drinking as many English people will buy tons of drinks before last call at 11 PM because it’s their last chance. If they’d been in no rush the approach would probably be more relaxed. Obviously there are cultural things at work, but the culture’s evolved in a specific legal context that affected it.
That’s what is so funny about restrictive laws. The only people who like them are the ones who are not directly affected, and everyone else finds a work-around that makes the law pointless!
Restriction, Prohibition, Bans etc. simply create new markets for the same things at higher prices. The nature of people is to be free and exercise that freedom. Laws of force just create the need to go around them. They are not anything but in the way.
To be a good or bad person is a choice, and the state’s laws don’t really possess the magical power to influence that decision.
That’s simply not true, and there is nothing magical about it. How many people have ever wanted to kill somebody, or do some other crime, and didn’t do it solely because of fear of the consequences?
I’m all for as much liberty as possible, smallest government possible, etc., but I believe that a certain bare minimum of laws is necessary for large communities to be successful, more so if they are multi-cultural. Mankind is still much more uncivilized than many anarchists make believe. Sadly.
Maybe one day…
Nobody’s for letting people get away with murder, but most laws on the books forbid noncrimes like, in this example, being open at unapproved hours.
Peter,
How many people have ever wanted to kill somebody, or do some other crime, and didn’t do it solely because of fear of the consequences? </p
Your sincere question reminds me of silly responses I have received from people on this topic. Like the person who stated people would have sex with animals or everyone would do crack and drive on our roads etc… if there were no laws. (Of course, my response is people who choose to pursue those activities are already doing so regardless of the law.)
The following is an edited version of a comment I made on another thread. http://blog.mises.org/16960/can-conservatives-be-libertarians/
Peter, the problem with your concern is that that it presupposes a violent and uncooperative world where people are inherently bad.
(You are also making the assumption (in other parts of your comment) that some cultures are more criminal that others.)
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_tot_cri_percap-crime-total-crimes-per-capita
If we look at this broad statistic, which fails to describe non-violent vs. violent crimes and the types of crimes committed -many which wouldn’t be crimes in my anarcho-libertarian society (i.e. drugs, prostitution, etc.), we notice the top ten contains mostly first world countries (with hyper-socialist countries (i.e. countries with lots of laws) like New Zealand, Finland, and Denmark in the top five).
Oh by the way, the xenophobic American media propagated crime capital of the world…Mexico, falls in at #39… below Switzerland at #20 and the good ole highly institutionalized USA at #8.
I suppose you will try to convince me that without laws and the institutions to support them these statistics would be higher. Yet, if you look at the bottom 15 countries, a number of them are considered third world which presupposes the laws and institutions that you value as highly necessary for liberty to exist … are underdeveloped or non-existent.
These statistics beg the question-why is there so much crime in the most advanced countries of the world where laws and institutions are well developed and less crime in underdeveloped countries?…hmmmm
Mankind is still much more uncivilized than many anarchists make believe</p
The facts prove otherwise…don’t you think?
@Peter
” How many people have ever wanted to kill somebody, or do some other crime, and didn’t do it solely because of fear of the consequences?”
You still make the choice. If you need a state law to keep you from being a murderer…..You need help, not a law! That is a failure of your conscience, not society or the law, no matter the consequences!
I don’t need the law to keep me from being a murderer. But that’s not the point at all; the reason why I need the law is to keep from being murdereD. And that’s absolutely legitimate, and you can say nothing against that.
First of all, the common and natural law both regard murder as a crime because of the first use of force, ie. agression.
But a law does not stop you from being murdered. It can’t. The law against murder only comes into effect after you are dead, not before. The stop sign does not make you stop. The cop makes you stop, after the fact, or you stop your self.
This general assumption that law changes society is incorrect. People change or not. Law can only reflect upon the people and their behavior, actions, and will and intents. Law does not change people, it changes only their circumstances. Murder has been against the law for millennia. It still happens because law does not stop it.
Without man-made legal code, the exact same thing would make you hesitate before killing someone: fear of the consequences.
If the only thing in your mind that causes you to decide upon the right path is the fear of the consequences of the left path, then you are guided by fear.
If on the other hand, you choose based upon the knowledge and understanding of your rational mind, then you are guided by the cause of reason.
Choose. One path leads to fear and tyranny. The other leads to enlightenment and freedom.
“…There are two paths you can go by, but in the long run, there’s still time to change the road you’re on.”
I need to read more articles like this one. Honest, no strawmen, refuting actual, good arguments in a sympathetic, uncondescending manner. That’s how it’s done.
I agree. Articles like this are where Tucker shines. Others of his, not so much.
I live in the netherlands and over here stores have to keep their doors closed on sundays. Currently only stores in larger cities are allowed to be opened on a sunday. I think that large municipalities have economic incentives to force smaller municipalities to stay closed on sundays, because i can imagine that their regional monopoly on commercial sundays brings in a lot of cash both for the large commercial districts who might lobby for these laws and for the municipalities who enjoy getting all that extra money for parking tickets and what not. I don’t know wether this has any validity, but it sounds plausible to me
OK, there are silly laws. But The Public Interest requires some laws: Murder, age of concent, pedophilia and drug legalization.
Allow drugged or drunk to drive? Of course not.
The problem is to end the silly laws and enforce the needed laws. BUT that requires intellgence amd discriminating taste. Aye! That’s the rub!
Don’t throw the baby out with the bath water. Good Samarians are still needed. Honest libertarians (rara avis) are relatively few.
The is no rub at all. The deciding factor between liberty and not is first use of force. No one has the right to first use of force. Using it is the definition of a crime, such as stealing, murder etc. Legalizing the crime of first use of force and then handing this new “legal” power to a few enforcers is not a recipe for freedom and safety. It is the means of tyranny. It is simply legalized aggression against some in the name of the many others. It’s still wrong.
There is no rub. Only compromised freedom, and a slow decline into tyranny.
How do you concieve of force used to prevent (or punish) stealing or murder as “first use of force”? Why would it be wrong to have laws that prohibit FIRST USE OF FORCE?
@Fabian_CH
I don’t. It is the act of enforcement of laws that assume the state has a right to first use of force that are wrong.
Someone has to move first, for there to be an act against another. Murder, Theft, etc are that act. Bans, prohibitions, restrictions and entitlements are also that act, but by the state.
You have a natural right to sustain and defend your existence. You have a natural right to defend yourself from aggression. Any form of force used to aggress is first use of force against some other person and is criminal. Making it “legal” for the state to “enforce” any law before the fact of any crime, is legalizing crime itself but only for the purposes of the state.
You need a dead body before the state can, lawfully, enforce a law against murder. No dead body, no murder. You do understand cause and effect I’m sure, so I would suggest you re-examine what and where it is logical for the state to act in defense of and in response to a crime.
Wait, no one may step in when I am being murdered? Only after the fact? That’s not “non-aggression”, that’s allowing aggression, quite literally so.
Don’t be foolish. Once the aggression is there, defense is allowed.
No, laws against attempted felonies are enforced.
Don’t throw the baby out with the bath water. Good Samarians are still needed. Honest libertarians (rara avis) are relatively few.
———
Very rare. As rare as honest creationists. These two groups defend their theories with similar evangelical fervor. And they have gate keepers in discussion groups that try to steer newbies or the sincerely curious into safe territory for them, by dismissing, belittling, deriding, ridiculing, etc. opposition that dares to advance a well reasoned contra point of view.
I grew up in Germany and have lived in Canada for many years. I believe overall the Sunday closing laws were a wonderful hedge for defending family life and cherishing downtime as Europeans are usually able to do. Germans have a great economy, produce excellent and innovative products, keep their country looking in great shape and travel abroad in huge numbers. They need not succumb to working on all days at all hours. It does not make very many things better. Some things are sacred and availability of quieter time is one of these things.
“Liberty” is not the only great value. Some things need to be weighed. A freedom is only important if it is significant. Someone’s freedom to shop at all hours vs. at restricted hours is not the most important freedom.
But “Liberty” is the greatest value of all because it allows for all the good that is possible to flourish. Besides, the use of force to restrict the hours of a privately owned business is a morally evil act regardless of what is ultimately intended.
“Freedom to shop at all hours” is not the freedom being stifled here, it’s the freedom to keep your own store/restaurant/etc. open when you want to. Obviously you can’t defend the “freedom” to shop at all hours, if by that you mean the “right” or “entitlement” to get what you want at all hours, since where you can shop and when is a matter of voluntary interaction, a matter of there being people willing to sell to you at the times you want.
In the absence of these forced closure laws, consumers are still free to sit around the house or head to the park on a Sunday, stores are still free to close; it’s just that without the laws, stores are free to stay open, as well. And like Jeffrey said, this does happen without these laws, showing that there are people that are deciding a quiet Sunday is more important than shopping/serving shoppers, which is what you prefer. But those people don’t get to force other people to value things the same way.
The freedom to keep the shops open anytime is allegedly leading to a situation where the big, deep-pocketed chains can kill the local mom and pop shops that stick to traditional opening hours. The big chains are said to this to by staying open 24 hours, thereby naturally eating into the share of the traditional shops. The losses the chains absorb for higher labor costs are later recouped when the local shops are out of business.
If these allegations are true, it boils down to the question whether a community wants those local mom and pop shops or not.
Although opening hours are not the only factor affecting local shops vs. chains, wider selection of products probably being more important, it should not be decided by dogma, traditional or anarchistic. It should be purely a matter of pragmatism and whether each community would like to be ruled by chains or retain their local shops. And that is none of anybody else’s business, especially not authoritarian OR anarchistic preachers.
“If these allegations are true, it boils down to the question whether a community wants those local mom and pop shops or not.”
Well, the clear, unequivocal answer to this question is: the community prefers the freedom of shopping whenever they feel like it. Let’s see: who works at the “big chain stores”? People from the community. Who shops at the “big chain stores”? People from the community.
If the community doesn’t want it, it can continue to shop at the mom and pop shops. No one is forcing people to go to the big chain store.
If they want them there then they would shop there.
What makes this so difficult to understand?
In a free society if big chain stores put small stores out of business it is because the big chains are doing a better job catering to the needs and desires of the buying public.
Generally, closing laws are enforced against businesses that operate under business licenses. Holders of business licenses agree to follow business regulations.
Or does anyone wish to argue that since corporations and by extension, all businesses, are humans, that businesses have human rights?
“They need not succumb to working on all days at all hours.”
As if anyone would be forced to work on Sunday.
“Some things are sacred and availability of quieter time is one of these things.”
…and I’ll use government to force others to comply with my wishes — unlike those wanting the freedom of Sunday openings that wouldn’t force anyone to do or not do anything (which my tyrannical nature abhors).
I’m really happy to have hit on a topic that really tests people’s believe in liberty and its supposed limits.
@ Brigitte
“Liberty” is not the only great value. Some things need to be weighed. A freedom is only important if it is significant. Someone’s freedom to shop at all hours vs. at restricted hours is not the most important freedom.”
Significant? To who? Weighed? By who? When?
Freedom is only ever significant to the free person. You say “A Freedom” as though freedoms can be picked and chosen. No. Freedom is a state of being with NO specific act or action to question.
Each individual must do the weighing themselves. No other weight is significant to the freedom. the liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. You do not do the weighing for anyone but yourself, at any time, unless you hold some positive right to use force against others. In that case, you are the reason for the lack of freedom and liberty.
If you like Sundays at home, stay home. If you like shopping on Sundays, shop. If you like making a living on the weekends and at night, open your doors then.
In Bastiat’s “The Law” he describes people who think like you as “Manufacturers of Law” and shows that one law favoring a few leads to many laws favoring no one. He’s right. Law is only lawful if it applies equally to all and does not limit freedom. Manufacturing law for “your own good”, creates an inequality from the start, and leads to more and more inequality. There is no “good” way to manufacture law, but a whole world full of “good” reasons.
How does Bastiat define “freedom?”
@billwald
Read his stuff and find out.
Wow, a short while on the blog, and already I have a label, a “manufacturer of law.” We all know that freedom is not absolute and simple, but a complex matter. Your freedom may interfere with mine, so we have to decide together whose issue is weightier.
How does my freedom to keep my hypothetical store open later interfere with your freedom to sit around at home on Sunday?
The same way that condo associations ban specified activities. If you don’t like the condo rules, don’t buy the condo. In the same way, if you don’t like the community rules, don’t start the business.
Now there is a recipe for progress. Codify in the law everyone’s desires and watch the society fall apart and die. Very good.
You should read up on the May Flower experience of social “engineering” and collective society. It was a glorious and righteous grand scheme in the beginning, but it nearly killed them. It was when they fell back to the natural rights of property and personal respocibility that saved them. We celebrate that salvation in this country as “Thanks Giving”.
Had these people realized what the first three commandments really mean, they would never had tried to be gods and engineer their society. Foolish notions of greater-than-thou know-how and “you should be thinking of us, not yourself” justifications for the greater-than-thou thinking.
There is only one relationship between you and the world-at-large. That is your relationship with the creator and the created environment. To place anyone between yourself and that creator is to raise the specter of a king, even if that “king” is the collective!
Individual rights are not additive. Two people with a right to live do not trump one person with his right to live. Natural rights are derived from the creator directly, and are equally applied in the reality created. Collectivism and even democracy is often guilty of trying to overwhelm the rights of the few with the additive rights of the many. But negative rights, natural rights, are not additive. You don’t get more rights because you are “with” others with the same rights. A right only has a value to the rights holder. You can’t hand it over to someone else and add it to theirs to make a greater version of the same EQUAL right!
Any attempt to hand a right over to the collective or the democracy results in the complete loss of the right to yourself. Any acceptance of collective right in yourself on behalf of others is equally wrong. You cannot assume the rights of others, even if they say so. It’s not just their mistake, it is also yours.
Ultimately, some ONE must exercize the rights “collected”. That person never has any more right than any ONE else. The act of representation is an act as an individual no matter what. That is equality. So the State cannot and never really does represent a larger and greater right.
Say the Constitution had not been ratified. Under the Articles of Confederation the Sovereign State Of Utah could have specified an LDS government in there constitution. As a citizen of the Sovereign State of Washington, what business is that of mine? I don’t have to go there.
Do tell, which freedom of yours could interfere with mine?
Also how can we possible decide which is a weightier freedom? I dont get how we can assign a value like that to anything.
You are the only one who holds the rights that give you freedom. You are the only one who can evaluate their worth. Nobody else can do that for you. Nobody else can aquire your rights and your freedoms. You can give them away, but nobody can accept them when you do. The loss of freedom is the acceptance of the notion that you can give your rights away or that they can be taken. Once you go there in your thinking, you are lost.
God or the creator gave you that freedom and those equal and inalienable rights. Inalienable means you can’t alienate yourself from them, and nobody can alienate you from them. Any attempt to alienate yourself from the rights given to you by granting them to someone else, is to place those persons to whom you gave the “power” of your inalienable right, between yourself and your creator. Bad thing to do! Now you have a king between yourself and God! You have absolved yourself of you freedom and your rights that were your gift from your creator. In the acts of collectivism there is an act of collective denial of the divine rights of you own creation and existence. Nothing could be more abominable before God. The first three commandments are the template of the natural relationship between God/Creator and Man. Follow the rules and you are free. Break them and you are either a king or a slave. Naturally you are free. Unnaturally you are either a king or a slave.
Choose.
As a fellow night-owl, it completely appals me that such laws even exist.
Yes, let’s simplify this down to “the night-owl” vs. those who want to “sit around” on “Sunday”. Great work!
Brigitte,
You obviously seem sincere in your comments and from your link I see you have value system of which you follow.
Libertarians have a value system. It’s very simple and eloquent. We believe in non-aggression towards others. From that principle, I cannot aggress against someone’s property (i.e. possessions, their body, land, etc.) which, by the way, fits neatly into your value system.
Because we respect people’s right to their property, it is implied that people have free will to do as they choose with their property. That free will can be expressed in infinite ways.
And the only expression of ones free will that creates concern is if it violates someone else’s property and thus becomes an act of aggression.
So…
If you choose to worship on your property as an expression of your free will and perhaps others join you as an act of their free will, in a libertarian society you are allowed to do so.
On the other hand, if my expression of free will is to run a 24 hour strip club and as an act of free will the patrons and employees wish to attend my establishment, they too would be allowed to do so.
It’s not to say that you couldn’t deny me entrance to your place of worship nor I deny you entrance to my club to convert the patrons and employees. Then again, who’s to say I’m not a God fearing club owner whose business slogan is “beers, bodies, and the bible” because I believe the female form is derived from God. In a free society anything is possible.
Brigitte, you see, freedom is “absolute and simple” and not a “complex matter”.
I suggest you watch this video with Gerard Casey. He is a Christian and Libertarian. He is entertaining for an intellectual and a very cool dude. I don’t know if you have the patience, but his lecture on religion concludes with an interesting analysis of free will.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YoQ6vQf3X6Q
I wish you the best of luck on your spiritual and intellectual journey.
Dagnytg,
This is a great response, thanks.
This has nothing to do with my religion or value system. I’ve been a conservative and business owner and a boss for all of my adult life, via administering my husband’s professional office. At times we have had extended hours and we were always available for emergencies at all hours of day and weekend. I consider this going straight to religion as an ad hominem. I came to this site because my money manager suggested it for reading and he handed us all a book on Austrian money management. I have lived on both sides of the fence in terms of store hours speak from experience and from principle.
@ Brigitte
Fair enough. I don’t think anyone is labeling you or attacking. But you did take a position that is counter to free principle.
That said, Welcome to the forums! Please download the Bastiat Collection from this site in the ebooks section. Bastiat is a master of simplifying the apparently complex, as is Rothbard. You won’t be disappointed. You will see how creating restricting law for all the “right” reasons leads to “Manufacturing Law” and the law “factory” that DC has become.
I apologize if my words seemed aggressive.
I am a blogger, I am used to the rough and tumble of discussions. The “ad hominem” I cited because it is a logical falacy and this needs to be pointed out.
@ Brigitte
Be careful about throwing around accusations of logical fallacies and ad hominems. I doubt any regular readers would say that the comments directed at you were out of line.
You’ll find that the readers here tend to be very accepting so long as the person doesn’t initiate an attack, and backs up their reasoning. On the other hand, they can be bluntly honest which is what seems to have surprised you a bit. Don’t take it personally, they were merely trying to help you understand what you were doing. Based on your blog profile, you should fit in relatively well, but it’ll probably be a few weeks before you understand a few of the finer points that are frequently mentioned.
Peace,
Drigan
Brigitte,
“ad hominem”
Wow….That’s the best you can do?
Did you read any of my comment? Did you think about anything I wrote?
When I take the time to write a lengthy reply to someone, it’s a compliment. It means I respect that person enough to take the time to think, research, and write a creative and intelligent response. I do so because I believe they are sincere in wanting to learn and participate in an Austro-libertarian discussion.
This has nothing to do with my religion or value system… The “ad hominem” I cited because it is a logical falacy and this needs to be pointed out.
This statement shows your ignorance. Not allowing a store to be open 24hr is a question of ethics. (Ethics = value system…like the libertarian ethics I so simply put forth not to mention the numerous replies from other people.)
Since your blog states, “I like to read and write about Christian faith, theology, music, family…” I assumed that you were intelligent enough to make the connection between Libertarian ethics and your Christian beliefs or Christian ethics. Obviously, I was wrong.
My other mistake was assuming you were sincere about understanding libertarian ideas.
This is not a yahoo message board. This is not a place to dabble or have idle conversation. This is (or was) an intellectual site dedicated to Austrian economics and Libertarian ethics.
Brigitte, educate yourself by taking take a year or two to read the articles and blogs on this site… until then… keep your comments to yourself.
Thanks…
Brigitte,
Dagnytg made an earnest response to your position that he felt you might appreciate… I believe that he intended no attack.
As for your argument, you say “your freedom may interfere with mine” and to an extent you are right. That is why it is important to distinguish real freedoms that can be consistently applied to everyone from entitlements which can not.
The only true freedoms are the freedom to use your body and your property as you feel is best. Any other freedom is valid only insofar as it is derived from the essential freedom of your person and property. This freedom need be limited only by the non aggression principle; you have no right to initiate aggression against another person or their property (though you can use force to defend yourself).
My freedom to sell things on my property in no way restricts your freedom to do whatever it is you like with your body or your property. It is only when you think that you are entitled to something like peaceful Sundays or “quiet time” (meaning everyone else must be quiet for your benefit) that a conflict emerges. To have a peaceful Sunday you need to take away everyone else’s freedom to engage in the activities they would freely choose, and your freedom is NOT more important then theirs.
If you want quiet time on a Sunday (or any day) then stay home and listen to music, or go to the park, or hike in the forest, or do whatever else it is you want to do. Please don’t say to me “I want quiet on Sundays so I forbid you to work, or sell things, or shop, no matter how much you need the money/item”. Before you object that you never said that, that is exactly what Sunday closing laws say and you seem to be defending them.
Freedom is not complicated when it is defined properly.
Thank you, Anthony.
My freedom to sell things on my property in no way restricts your freedom to do whatever it is you like with your body or your property. It is only when you think that you are entitled to something like peaceful Sundays or “quiet time” (meaning everyone else must be quiet for your benefit) that a conflict emerges. To have a peaceful Sunday you need to take away everyone else’s freedom to engage in the activities they would freely choose, and your freedom is NOT more important then theirs.
Speaking simply from common sense: your freedom to sell whenever you want compels your competitor to keep similar hours and ways of conducting business. This is elementary and limits your competitors freedom to do what he thinks best. This is inherent in the situation. It also compels your employees and those of your competitor. If these things are regulated by consensus or a reasonable government we have the greatest amount of “freedom” overall . Nor is the system necessarily more efficient or effective by not limiting the conduct of business.
“Entitled to a quiet Sunday”. I believe what I said was that society needs some more sacred and “quieter” times. For all I care it could be Friday. (Maybe it will soon be Friday.) Quieter is not “quiet”. My “quieter” time is that I can do something together with the people I love, and this is certainly not “quiet”, just more reflective, containing more relaxed conversation, sharing, thoughtful time via exchange of ideas. This quiet time is not “quiet”; it is what others have called the “sharpening of the saw.” It is a different kind of “activity” through community. The “nightowl” wishes to do this in a local establishment with some liquid encouragement; I think he will be able to find a place, certainly in Germany.
Your freedom to do as you chose is not significantly limited. You can shop for your stuff on Saturday or any other day that you get yourself organized. I think the unlimited hours often encourage a lack of planning, foresight or co-ordination which works also against the cohesiveness of the community.
Not everything is closed on Sundays. These regulations can be worked on, adjusted, etc. to be reasonable to most people. We are not talking about not being able to do anything.
These things seem elementary and self-evident to me. In Canada this store hour issue has gone to complete insanity. Every grocery store seems to need to be open practically around the clock. For what? Please, for what significant purpose?
Example: I sing in a little community choir in a little town. In Canada, unlike in Germany, not may people sing in choirs. Hockey is the national obsession. So this little choir which beautifies Remembrance Day ceremonies, museum openings, brightens senior’s homes pays for its own conductor via fees and raffle tickets, etc. It sure would be nice if the government could pay for some of that, but, yes, indeed, the government should not have to pay for everything. Oh well. Now the organist, mother of many children, now mostly grown, has taken a job with a grocery store. Well, as of late, this store is open till with wee hours. Why? Do we not have enough positions where people have to work around the clock: our hospitals, our petro-chemical industry… Now the organist has to work around the clock in the grocery store? I am sorry. I am simply furious.
So when she plays for us, she goes to work in another town, gets a little time off, plays, and drives back to work all this in local conditions where it is often dark and the roads dangerous. (I lost my 18 year old on an icy road.)
In any case, your freedom to keep your store how you want affects plenty of people. And the shopper should find another way. If he takes a little time, he might get to know his neighbor on the street and the building and might actually get him to pick something up for him if needed and then return the favor. This is civility. People used to borrow sugar and things from each other. Now, if you go somewhere and ask someone: Can I pick up something for them, they say, no, no, no, I’ll go later…
You think that I’m going off the rails; but think about it. Thanks.
This is only scratching the surface, but I think I will let it go here.
Since your posts have nothing to do with your religion, perhaps you’d also be willing to put up with a law forcing all stores and all churches must remain closed on Sunday.
Or argue that Sunday closing laws discriminate against “Jewish” businesses?
I stopped reading after the list of argument in favor of shop-closing laws because the case was so strong. I don’t think there’s anything else to be said about them. Ever.
Something which is not taken into account in this article is that in the modern world, almost everybody works, and most people cannot afford to have more than one or two day’s of non-work per week, or more than one shift on non-work per day. A forced closure, either at night or on Sundays, means that I am forced to have my one period of rest per day or per week at the same time as everybody else, but it also means I’m forced to be at work at the same time as everybody else. Without forced closures, it’s entirely feasible that I get a job where I can work evenings and have afternoons to myself, or have Thursdays off for hobbies, or anything. That’s the one side of the coin.
The other side is that, being synchronised by forced closures, means that we are synchronised in everything else – everyone tries to fight traffic at the same time every morning and every night, everybody does their rush shopping at the same time, everybody visits the park on the same day off, every office has their air-conditioners on at the same time.
I live near a park which is almost entirely empty for 5 days a week, and completely overcrowded for 2. My electricity provider has to be able to accomodate wild surges in power usage when everybody turns their appliances and office equipment on at the same time. Over-synchronisation leads to these wild fluctuations, requiring that businesses build the capacity to handle all their customers on their busiest day (or lose most business), and then lose money on maintaining that excess capacity during slack hours/days.
Forced synchronization also impedes many service-type businesses. For medical services, any kind of home delivery or repair service, and others, to engage in them forces individuals to utilize medical or vacation time from work, reducing productivity and reducing leisure time. A more flexible business environment would allow companies to significantly reduce sick leave provisions and people to actually enjoy their vacation time instead of using it to wait around the house for the guy to show up and fix your lousy Energy Star dryer.
My hours are off hours because I do computer repair and IT for several 9-5 businesses. I can’t do my work during the same hours or I shut down the whole business!
The cost to the business if I show up is Me + all the employees + the lost revenue of those employees. That is very expensive time, unless it is off hour time, then it’s just me.
Sunday closing laws are mostly about storefront retail sales businesses.
@billwald
So the enforcement is only against “some” individuals, but not “us”. Collective greatness over individual liberty. Use of the collective as justification for the alienation of the rights and freedoms of the few. Enforcement must be a first use of force in that case, and is collective criminality by definition. The law cannot be righteous if it is written to require enforcement.
The law specifies which businesses are to be closed or which may remain open.
There have been “wet” and “dry” communities since the end of Prohibition. Big deal. Why should Libertarians care? The freedom to associate is the freedom to not associate. If I buy an entire incorporated ghost town and decide to only rent to businesses who agree to close on Sunday, is that not my “Libertarian” right?
Yes. When you own the property. The state does not own the businesses, nor the property.
In Brazil, several municipalities have adopted strict shop-closing laws for bars and restaurants. The idea was, “if people cannot buy alcohol, they can’t get drunk. If they can’t get drunk, they won’t cause trouble. If they don’t cause trouble, we don’t need so many policemen on the streets at night, and we can reduce the night-shift staff at the hospital.”
All municipalities that adopted such laws reported crime and domestic violence decreased.
I never read anything about the workers who are now making less money or are outright unemployed because the law doesn’t allow them to work. But who cares about them?
@augusto
Only us heartless, dog-eat-dog capitalists do. =(
Great article! The hours in your hypothetical were a bit off. I lived in Germany in 2002 and the hours were more like 7 am – 8 pm (10 am – 4 pm on Saturdays). I’m not sure how family values are served by forcing people into very inconvenient shopping schedules. It was sometimes all I could do to do almost all of my shopping on Saturday, because I was busy during the week. So my day off usually consisted of jamming myself into a grocery store with the rest of the city.
It made no sense why gas stations, restaurants, and bus drivers did not experience the value of home life, but grocery store workers did.
I am really glad they’re doing away with those laws, and that Jeffrey Tucker wrote such a great piece on their demise.
Libertarians and right wingers make such a big deal over some words! Buying a residence in a gated community and following community association rules is good but buying a house that is outside the gated community and following the township rules is bad. (Say) The gated community has a rule about acceptable house colors and the township has a rule about loud noise. The color rule is good but the noise rule is bad. If the association passed an identically worded noise rule then the noise rule would be good. I think you are all “closet” Orthodox Presbyterian.
What the hell are you talking about billwald???!!
Anyway…great article.
I’m a Social Contract Libertarian. Don’t like the social contract? leave.
Comments on this entry are closed.