In this article I identify a problem statists face on an everyday basis when discussing philosophy and politics. It is easy to make nice equations and formulas, and theorize on great systems and cheap solutions neatly enforced by the state. But when consistently failing to realize the costs of coercion it makes their reasoning fundamentally flawed. Just scratching the surface reveals they really have no clue whatsoever. FULL ARTICLE
Source link: http://archive.mises.org/4705/why-statists-always-get-it-wrong/
Why Statists Always Get It Wrong
Previous post: Flu Frenzy
Next post: Thomas Woods, New in the Store
{ 66 comments }
← Previous Comments
“Anyway, why initiate force? Why would YOU want to be like that; like a criminal? Peter, I’m betting you wouldn’t be.” Sione Vatu
I’m sure he wouldn’t, but there are tens of millions, perhaps hundreds of millions who would.
“If you risk so much in dealing with a business that you feel compelled to rely on the taken-by-force resources of others to get payback from the business, then I suppose the best thing to do is accept that you screwed up and educate others about the individuals involved in the business that has failed to pay you what it owes you. Learn to accept failure. Failing teaches us how to succeed. Have you gone through collections agencies?” Curt
There are many crooks who fail to make good on contracts. Saying, “Oh, well, I won’t deal with those people again” and telling others to do the same is little or no penalty to commercial crooks, who simply start up in another state, under another name, etc. If this is to be the penalty for such criminal behavior, wouldn’t that simply encourage even more commercial crimes.
Brian, David H., Sione,
Thank you for your responses. My question was too general, so I’ll be more specific.
Why should I be guided by libertarian ethics with it’s IOF principle as opposed to other systems of ethics, which may not have it? What are the consequences of my not doing so?
I live among people who do not seem to judge others by the libertarian standards, so it is unlikely that my breaching the IOF, in and of itself would result in ostracism.
Peter,
Well, I think this is kind of what I was addressing. Given that the initiation of aggression is criminal by natural law, various societies may or may not recognize this, in that societal laws either will or will not conform. Now, simply because you don’t live in a society where the initiation of aggression is considered wrong, doesn’t mean that there are no consequences to engaging in it.
I pointed out the effect of immoral behaviour on a person’s soul and character. This is a consequence you can’t escape from (unless you’re one of the psychopaths I mentioned).
“I pointed out the effect of immoral behaviour on a person’s soul and character. This is a consequence you can’t escape from (unless you’re one of the psychopaths I mentioned).” David J. Heinrich
David, there is a sizable percentage of the population who feel no effect on their soul and character of various types of behavior that you and I would regard as immoral. This is especially true in the relm of commercial activity (commercial contracts). A huge number of people do not accept the fact that they should not break contracts, simply because they prefer the outcome that results from breaking the contract. I’m not sure you have ever seen the TV show “Judge Judy”. If you have, you will see that the judge goes to some lengths to explain with logic of equity and law why the defendant should compensate the plaintiff. A total idiot could understand the logic used and how the judge’s conclusion follows from the logic. However, time and time again (most of the time) the defendant simply rejects the conclusion. Why? Is it because they are less than total idiots? No, it is simply because they don’t like the conclusion. They want a particular outcome that is favorable to them and they plain don’t care, and certainly don’t feel badly about rejecting any argument or law that doesn’t yield them this outcome. Only force will make these people accept certain legal and equitable outcomes that are unfavorable to them.
Well, I am late to the thread (Damned government declared holidays!), but what the hell.
An earlier commenter wrote that it is an impossibility to stop the growth of the state beyond the minimalist state described by Eriks. The point was made that history demonstrates this conclusively. While I agree with this assertion, I must point out that stateless society has also never lasted, but has “devolved” into states using various levels of coercion. I think it simplistic to declare that the choice is either stateless or stateful, and naive to think stateless is some barrier to the alternatives. As Eriks has pointed out, contracts must be enforced, the violent, when identified, must be controlled by something. What is this something in the anarchistic world? I submit this something, as described by the anarchists on this site, greatly resembles the beginnings of a state. Indeed, I think anarchy and total state control to be the extremes along the political spectrum, a spectrum without gaps or barriers to cultural shift. It is no more difficult or easy to stop state growth at the constitutional republic stage than it is to stop private enforcement agencies to become de facto states in the “anarcho-capitalism” model. Vigilance is always going to be a requirement, and its lack will always be the failure. I think human beings are destined to forever move from one extreme to the other, in cycles.
Alex, I think I see why you’re not able to assimilate the answers being given to you. Like many other people, you have been taught to think that without the Sword of Damoclese hanging over their heads, other people will act in ways with which you disagree.
The statement that you wouldn’t want to live in a society which will leave broken and helpless people on the ground until they answer who provides their insurance is an excellent example.
The answer to this is that such a society does not exist, and not because of the existence of coercive government. Such a society exists because of you, me, and everyone else who believes that broken and helpless people are worth our exertions and attention merely because they are people.
When a cow gets stuck in a well, people gather to help the owner save the cow. They do it, when they could be out making themselves wealthier, without any expectation of profit.
The “tsunami” donations by private individuals dwarfed what was donated by governments, and the same thing happens in every disaster. There are still volunteer fire departments, demonstrating this spirit.
Fact is, the individuals who would leave broken and helpless people in the streets are few and far between. They are not “hundreds of millions”, as the governments want you to believe.
And if such a person walks by as I lay dying? Let them go! If such an individual requires coercion to do a “good deed”, then I am better off without their help.
Curt,
My “hundreds of millions” phrase was pertaining to commercial crooks who feel little or no remorse about breaking contracts, committing fraud, etc. These “crooks” are ordinary people, not mafia-types. And yes, force of the courts is necessary to limit the harmful activities of these people. And, contrary to what you suggest, the government, whose activities I would dearly love to restrict greatly, has not brain-washed me into believing this. Instead, this is a world-wide estimate I have made from observation of people’s behavior over (unfortunately) many years. I wish I could be as optimistic as you about people’s altruism to take care of those in trouble, but I’m afraid this optimism conflicts greatly with my observations.(In spite of people occasionally pulling children out of wells for no pay and the charities you and I and millions of others support.)
Do you think that private altruism covers the gaps in the current system of U.S. privately insured health care?
Alex, of course there are private criminals, but the actions of these criminals is negligible compared with the crimes committed by governments. Do you need the numbers?
Also most crimes committed are actually not crimes at all under common-law and libertarian ideology.
It is precisely the fact that there are evil people, that you do not want to give power to them in the first place.
“Do you think that private altruism covers the gaps in the current system of U.S. privately insured health care? ”
I think your problem is that you are getting it backwards: The current system of U.S. privately insured health care creates the gap in private altruism. How can I be generous after I get robbed continuously? Also, Why should I pay for health services for the desperately needy, when I can’t afford to have it myself! (again, because I’m being robbed).
Alex, you mistake me. Altruism is a lousy way to do anything. People give because they wish to, and they give in numbers that bureaucrats cannot achieve, because they give willingly of their own money while bureaucrats give what doesn’t belong to them.
As far as insurance goes, please show me where in America there is any “free market” in insurance. Last I looked every state has insurance regulation boards to complement the Federal insurance regulations, thus creating a nightmare of regulation.
I don’t know how it works elsewhere, but in New York state, insurance regulations are merely 500+ pages of wacky stuff like negotiating ‘fair prices’ with the Insurance Board Czars, negotiating ‘fair price’ increases, time-limits of various mundane paper work (in triplicate) and generally stating the manner in which things MUST be insured among the different types of insurance. Oh, and that is not to mention the fact that there is so much contradiction – that one has to consult with a professional as to what is and is not enforced these days. In fact, I just realized that one needs insurance against insurance regulation!
If insurance was actually allowed to function freely, it would become obvious that it is a better way to minimize risk – thereby reducing the patronage of the state, and improving society. And we obviously can’t have that, so we must deal with intervention on intervention on intervention … ad nauseum.
David J. Heinrich,
I don’t believe that it is and I don’t assume it. That is not to say that I reject any idea of Natural Law, just the idea that an IOF, however that may be defined, necessarily violates it.
I agree with you that immoral behaviour has its negative consequences, but I am skeptical of the idea that an IOF is categorically immoral and must lead to them.
My experience is that most people do not turn into psychos or become “animals” by ignoring this principle and acting according to the guidance of alternative ethical principles.
Are there any other consequences to a violation of the IOF principle?
Quincux and Curt:
Thank you for your responses. I am relatively new to the line of thinking espoused at this site and I find it very interesting. I find many things with which I agree. Government as a thief, for one! Not sure I am ready to buy all the assumptions about human behavior at this point, however. I find it interesting that Marxists argue people are led by the private enterprise system to be selfish, whereas one message here seems to be that government leads people to be selfish. I believe both presumptions have elements of truth.
“Saying, ‘Oh, well, I won’t deal with those people again’ and telling others to do the same is little or no penalty to commercial crooks, who simply start up in another state, under another name, etc. If this is to be the penalty for such criminal behavior, wouldn’t that simply encourage even more commercial crimes. … Only force will make these people accept certain legal and equitable outcomes that are unfavorable to them.”
– Alex
It was my input you quoted, not Curt’s, but I see that it is easy to mix us up because we seem to agree on a lot. In any case, you are correct that the penalty – publication of their transgressions – is very weak. But I do not think it wise to (attempt to) control the behavior of others by penalizing for acting in whatever way they decide to act when you don’t like it. Rather, I think it much wiser to foresee that they will act this way and therefore avoid doing business with them. Hence, my suggestion to “accept that you screwed up”. Notifying others of the problem is merely a service you can provide to them to make yourself more valuable. Government intervention encourages very risky behavior under the pretense that government force can correct any problems that come about.
“…contracts must be enforced, the violent, when identified, must be controlled by something.”
– Yancey
Why must they be enforced, and who should pay for the enforcement? My very first understanding of “contract” was much like the etymology of the word – to pull together – it’s an agreement. If one side ceases to hold to it, then so does the other side. No enforcement should be necessary. Then I learned of this disgusting invention called “illegal breach of contract.” Suddenly the world is full of things that everyone must be forced to pay for.
I would much rather have an insurance company help me control the violent peolpe around me that be forced to pay a government to do it. Under a government, my recourse for bad service is the ineffective whining and complaining and the more effective moving to another country. As a customer of an insurance company, I can simply switch companies. I could also take upon myself to control violent people around me. If I were free, that is.
“I think human beings are destined to forever move from one extreme to the other, in cycles.”
– Yancey
Yancey was discussing total state control and total lack of state control. Except for the word ‘forever,’ I must agree, but there are ideas which have, for the most part, taken over our planet, such as the idea that sex produces children. When the same percentage of people understand that acquiescing to authority produces parasitic communities that eventually destroy themselves, there will remain very few states. Of course that could take millenia, but with the ever more ubiquitous global economy, it could take decades.
“I find it interesting that Marxists argue people are led by the private enterprise system to be selfish, whereas one message here seems to be that government leads people to be selfish. I believe both presumptions have elements of truth.”
– Alex
Alex, your judgment of selfishness is apparent. You may want to read Ayn Rand’s “The Virtue of Selfishness”, or consider that most people are not stupid enough to do for themeselves at the expense of those around them – that they are much more likely – especially as they become more free – to do for themselves in a way which also benefits others.
By the way, I have to say that this article goes a very long way in explaining to me the thinking of the oxymoronic anarchist socialist. Until this article, the term socialist anarchist was just a ridiculous contradiction in terms without explanation. I did not have any inkling as to how someone who believed in anarchy could be so confused as to believe in anything but free markets. And naturally, it is hard to conceive of someone advocating free markets, not seeing that socialism and free markets are opposites, and that anything resembling socialism would require a state to enforce it. This is the case because socialism is against the nature of things, or more specifically, the nature of free men.
But Per’s explanation of how the socialist fails to understand the concept of time preference, explains with crystal clarity, how the socialist can fail to see the justice in the capitalist taking his profits, while employing labor as well. The socialist anarchist will never be able to address this simple question: how does one prevent labor from freely contracting with the profit seeking capitalist? Nor will he ever understand why such a contract would be freely undertaken in the first place. Time preference is the answer. They really should get a grip on this because, as Per reminds us, it is a fundamental feature of being human.
There is only one true form of anarchy, and it is free market, anarcho-capitalism. All others boil down to some form of statist tyranny. And how anarchistic is that?
This was a truly insightful and helpful article.
My comment was actually in connection with this article:
http://mises.org/daily/2096
The Trouble With Socialist Anarchism
by Per Bylund
[Posted on Friday, March 24, 2006]
Which i don’t seem to be able to comment on in the blog directly.
Good article though, i recommend it.
Nice rant and full of educated phrases…but still no subsatnce. You offer no solutions. Your only goal is to fault the present systems of government. Want a world without taxes…live in Brazil where taxation is practically optional. The problem with your position is that it is unfeasible, arrogant and immature.
← Previous Comments
Comments on this entry are closed.