Silk Road forums
Discussion => Philosophy, Economics and Justice => Topic started by: DoctaFeelgood on September 28, 2012, 09:24 pm
-
Alright everybody. I am very excited to be a part of this and hope you all enjoy this book club as much as I will. DPR and I have been talking about this for a while and feel the time is finally right, mainly due to the upcoming US election and all the political talk in the air. So, with that said, I present to you the first book we will read: Lew Rockwell's "The Left, the Right, and the State". More specifically, the first three sections of the book, each covering one of the topics in the title respectively. We will split these sections up over the next 6 weeks until the election, which will average about 50 pages a week.
The book is available for purchase or can be downloaded for free at the following website:
https://mises.org/document/3861/The-Left-the-Right-and-the-State
Here is an excerpt about the book from mises.org:
Lew Rockwell's new manifesto is a clarion call—creative and thought-provoking on every page—for a principled liberty in our time. There are very few books in which you can open up any page and immediately find a quotable and inspiring passage that will make you think hard, laugh out loud, or see things a completely new way. This is certainly one of them.
He covers every topic related to economics and politics, from the business cycle, to trade, to the drug war, to environmentalism. His central thesis is that the threat to liberty comes from both the Left and the Right, and that neither really offers a consistent way out. The real problem is much deeper than either the Right or the Left recognizes. It is the institution of the state itself, which everyone seems to want to use to his own philosophical advantage.
The problem, he writes, is not that we have chosen the wrong flavor of public policy but that we have public policy at all. All forms of policy—decisions made by state institutions that affect the uses of private property according to political priorities—amount to invasions of liberty. Relentlessly moving from left-wing to right-wing and back to left-wing policy is not progress; it means continued movement down the road to serfdom.
Beautifully edited and pristinely argued, this is a work in applied Austro-libertarian theory, tracking issues and headlines as they occur and bringing the light of logic and evidence to bear on the question at hand. The articles collected can be read in a matter of five minutes each, and they are organized along topical lines.
He is especially good in dealing with issues of national crisis, such as weather disasters, terrorist attacks, and economic downturns. He shows that liberty is more important in these times than any other. And while others back away during these times, he has consistently been out front, calling for peace when the masses are screaming for war, calling for freedom when the politicians demand a crackdown, and urging a free market when everyone else seems to be clamoring for state solutions.
If you have read Lew Rockwell's articles and speeches over the years and wished for a single collection, it has finally arrived in a beautifully bound hardback that is a real treasure to own and study. It makes a lasting impact.
Rockwell is the founder and president of the Mises Institute, and the editor of his own site LewRockwell.com. He has played an important role in the shaping of libertarian theory for a quarter of a century. This book shows how and why. Subtle, radical, and compelling, Rockwell's book is a great addition to the legendary literature of political dissidents.
For the first week, we will be reading the first four sections of Part I, which ends at the top of page 31. I will put up some discussion topics and questions tonight.
-Doc
-
Legalize drunk driving?!?!?
Ohh boy.. looks like its gonna be interesting!
I can already see the debates!
cant wait..
-
<removed>
-
Meanwhile Limetless is watching "Undercover Boss USA". ::) I'll get started on this right away! ^-^
-
Legalize drunk driving?!?!?
Ohh boy.. looks like its gonna be interesting!
I can already see the debates!
cant wait..
Oh yea! We don't mess around. Controversy is our friend :)
As a request in the interest of security, can the above link to the book be removed and replaced with a generic non-purchasing reference such as Wikipedia or by stating the ISBN & Author & Title. My point is that we should try to ensure nobody purchases through the recommended link as a series of transactions leaves a paper trail for investigators to narrow down people who they may have a suspect list for.
On the whole, looks like a good great read having just flicked through the first few pages scan reading and looking forward to this whole concept. Will discussions of all parts of the book be brought under this topic so that all discussion on a book is within one topic, or are we splitting it as per the assigned week so the same book may be in several topics if it has been chosen to be discussed over more than 1 week.
We put that link so you could have access to the free pdf. I don't know of another place where the pdf is, so if you are concerned about being tracked by mises.org, just buy the book from another venue.
We will make a new thread for each week and try to focus discussion about that week's material in it's corresponding thread. So, any discussion about the first assignment should be in this thread. Next week, we'll start a new thread for the second assignment, and so on.
-
Legalize drunk driving?!?!?
Ohh boy.. looks like its gonna be interesting!
I can already see the debates!
cant wait..
Oh yea! We don't mess around. Controversy is our friend :)
Its gonna be fun, I am out to dinner now, but cant wait to get back to do some reading tonight.
-
This seems interesting...a new way to spend my free time which I have way too much of, worth a shot. Although, I do not plan to actually debate these subjects as I only made it to 7th grade and will not be able to articulate my thoughts, obviously.
-
This seems interesting...a new way to spend my free time which I have way too much of, worth a shot. Although, I do not plan to actually debate these subjects as I only made it to 7th grade and will not be able to articulate my thoughts, obviously.
Those government run brainwashing centers don't give you much of an useful education anyway. Think of this as grown up home-school. :)
-
Legalize drunk driving?!?!?
Ohh boy.. looks like its gonna be interesting!
I can already see the debates!
cant wait..
Let me start by saying I have not read the link yet.
Ill take this one. Why should drunk driving be illegal?
If crime is defined as an act that brings harm to or damages another then the act of drunk driving does not meet the requirement. Many libertarians believe that if no harm or damage is done then it is not the purview of law. To preemptively ban an action because it may cause harm or cause damage is to restrict the freedom of the people in the hopes of providing safety. When this is done, we all loose freedom and none gain safety.
-
Let me start by saying I have not read the link yet.
Ill take this one. Why should drunk driving be illegal?
If crime is defined as an act that brings harm to or damages another then the act of drunk driving does not meet the requirement. Many libertarians believe that if no harm or damage is done then it is not the purview of law. To preemptively ban an action because it may cause harm or cause damage is to restrict the freedom of the people in the hopes of providing safety. When this is done, we all loose freedom and none gain safety.
Well put James. I just finished reading this section and you summarized the author's position pretty well.
-
Thanks DPR, I have been a staunch free market libertarian longer than some members of this board have been alive. Ill get to reading the link in the next couple of days but I am guessing it will be like preaching to the choir. ;)
-
While we're on the Lew Rockwell reading, perhaps some of the forum members who are unfamiliar with him would like to see a wider range of his writing:
IT’S SAFE STREETS VERSUS URBAN TERROR; IN THE ‘50S, RAMPANT CRIME DIDN’T EXIST BECAUSE OFFENDERS FEARED WHAT THE POLICE WOULD DO.
March 10, 1991
Los Angeles Times, Sunday edition
By LLEWELLYN H. ROCKWELL
If you offer a small boy one candy bar now or 10 tomorrow, he’ll grab the one. That’s because children have what economists call a “high time preference.” They want it, and they want it now. The future is a haze.
The punishing of children must take this into account. One good whack on the bottom can have an effect. A threat about no TV all next year will not.
As we grow older, this changes. We care more, and think more, about the future. In fact, this is the very process of maturation. We plan, save, invest and put off today’s gratification until tomorrow.
But street criminals, as economist Murray N. Rothbard points out, have the time preference of depraved infants. The prospect of a jail sentence 12 months from now has virtually no effect.
As recently as the 1950s — when street crime was not rampant in America — the police always operated on this principle: No matter the vagaries of the court system, a mugger or rapist knew he faced a trouncing — proportionate to the offense and the offender — in the back of the paddy wagon, and maybe even a repeat performance at the station house. As a result, criminals were terrified of the cops, and our streets were safe.
Today’s criminals know that they probably won’t be convicted, and that if the are, they face a short sentence — someday. The result is city terrorism, though we are seldom shown videos of old people being mugged, women being raped, gangs shooting drivers at random or store clerks having their throats slit.
What we do see, over and over again, is the tape of some Los Angeles-area cops giving the what-for to an ex-con. It is not a pleasant sight, of course; neither is cancer surgery.
Did they hit him too many times? Sure, but that’s not the issue: It’s safe streets versus urban terror, and why we have moved from one to the other.
Liberals talk about banning guns. As a libertarian, I can’t agree. I am, however, beginning to wonder about video cameras.
Llewellyn H. Rockwell Jr. is president of the Ludwig von Mises Institute, an economics think tank in Auburn, Ala.
-
Thanks DPR, I have been a staunch free market libertarian longer than some members of this board have been alive. Ill get to reading the link in the next couple of days but I am guessing it will be like preaching to the choir. ;)
I have a feeling that there will be a surprising number of well read and well educated philosophical libertarians here. Please, don't let this deter you from reading the material. You can bring so much insight to our discussions and debates. Plus, once everyone is up to speed, and if we are flying through the assignments with no difficulty, then we can pick up the pace and also move on to deeper, more complex, and more mentally stimulating selections in the future. :)
-
i love the mises institute! good stuff, good place.
bad football team..
ROLL TIDE.
and i'll be reading shortly. already purchased all of DPR's linked books.. >.>
/thumbs
-
Wow this sounds like an interesting read, a lot of things that sound crazy to me off the bat but I can definitely appreciate the logic behind it.. I'll keep an open mind until I've read it :)
:) Glad to hear that. Keeping an open mind is the only thing I could possibly ask of anyone here. It's the best attitude to have when approaching such "radical" philosophy. I promise you won't be disappointed. Even if you don't agree, you may start thinking of the big picture on a whole different level.
-
This could be fun. Sadly I'm extremely busy but I definteily want in on this when ever I can :D
I love the feeling of enlightenment.
-
Ok, I'll begin shall I;
On the face of it the argument for legalizing drink driving seems quite reasonable . After all as the author points out, it doesn't in itself cause harm to others. Only crashing the vehicle into pedestrians or other motorists causes harm, and that is already illegal. There is no need to bring the drunkenness of the driver into it at all.
I would say my thoughts on this are of a pragmatic nature: what impact would such a policy have on the number of people killed by drunken drivers?
In the UK, the drink driving laws are based on the level of alcohol in the blood. This leaves little room for doubt; 1 beer=safe to drive, 2beers= maybe 3 beers=definitely over limit. A driver who has had three beer knows he is over the limit and if caught will certainly lose his license. This is aside from any harm he may cause to others. If he hurts someone he will be punished for that also.
In the US in most states, the blood level is not as important as proving the drivers motor skills are sufficiently impaired to make him a dangerous driver; hence the roadside acrobatics of the sobriety tests.
I'm sure to many libertarians the UK system seems draconian; making the contents of blood illegal what next? but let's take a look at the statistics ( from Wikipedia):
"In countries such as the United Kingdom and Australia drunk driving and deaths caused by drunk driving are considerably lower than the USA[citation needed]. Drunk driving deaths in the UK (population 61 million, 31 million cars) were 380 in 2010 (12% of all fatal accidents).[33][34] In California (population 36 million, 32 million cars) there were 1,489 deaths from traffic accidents related to "alcohol or other drugs" in 2007 (22% of all fatal accidents).[35][36] Alcohol consumption per capita in the UK and Australia is higher than the US and the legal age for drinking lower. <http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/roadsafety/alcoholdrugs/bac/index.html>"
Why are the US stats almost 4 times worse?
Because a drunk person is not the best judge of whether he is fit to drive. Since the US system penalizes being unfit to drive rather than blood alcohol level, a drunk is more likely to convince himself he is safe to drive. This level of self delusion is less possible under the UK system where there is a definite cut off point.
How does this fit with the authors proposal?
Well, if only causing death or injury is to be illegal: no one gets into a car when drunk thinking they are going to cause a death! The tendency is to think "aah fuck it it's only a couple of miles I'll be fine" So under the authors system I predict the number of deaths caused by drunk driving will be even worse! He doesn't improve matters by talking about " people who drive better when drunk"!
Here we run into a point that I imagine will recur throughout these discussions: conflicting liberties.
Which freedom takes precedence: The freedom to drive drunk, or the freedom of the pedestrian not to be run over by a drunk driver? And who gets to decide?
This is not a cheap point, but a fundamental question when discussing liberty. Should a free market include the freedom to trade in slaves? The freedom to employ child labour?
You might argue that anything is allowed as long as it doesn't restrict anyone else's freedom. But it's difficult to find any activity that doesn't impose on someone's freedom in some way: my freedom to use fossil fuels affects your freedom to breathe unpolluted air. My freedom to rape against your freedom to remain unraped?
As we can see the concept of freedom is not as straightforward as it might seem, and the choice where we draw the line is arbitrary.
So this ideological commitment to "freedom" and "free markets" is unhelpful. There is no such thing as a "free market" as everyone believes in some restrictions on "freedom" .
-
... apart from the Marquis de Sade and Aleister Crowley. I don't think we should model our society on their ideas.
-
Hungry ghost - don't even bother wasting your time. These right-wing libertarians live in an absolute world of their own...
-
well said Hungry ghost.+1
-
I don't want to give the impression that I'm dismissive of these ideas; its a stimulating book. I agree with his definition of the state as instituted to protect our liberty, and when it ceases to perform that role we are free to discard it. I just don't agree that the state should be as laissez faire as possible, or bow out completely. The part I am up to now ( I have been snatching odd chapters all day) he is talking about Anti-spam laws. I have no problem with market forces taking care of anti-spam measures. But I can think of areas where I can't imagine the market working. I don't wish to immediately sink to this but: what about child porn? How will the market regulate that? There is plenty of demand and plenty unscrupulous people willing to supply that demand. Perhaps the parents of abused children will fund a private task force?
I know I'm picking easy targets but so is the author.
-
Hungry ghost, these are the discussions we are here to have and I honestly thank you for your input. On the topic of drunk driving specifically, I'd like to ask you what you will think when self-driving cars are prevalent and wide-spread, and the technology is in every car on the road. With the progress of Google's self driving cars, I am sure it is not to far away in the future. What happens when the technology comes to make the government provided security and protection obsolete? We are after-all, on an exponential curve in our technological progress, and I think many solutions to support more freedom are right around the corner. More importantly, a society without government doesn't necessarily mean a lawless society. It is just a more effective way for the market to set what standards and rules are accepted by the participants, and more specifically, certain co-op groups and land-owners who feel strongly about a certain way can establish whatever rules for safety they see fit, and if somebody feels more comfortable living somewhere that prohibits drunk driving they have the right to seek out such a place to reside. This simply cuts the government-held puppet strings attached to the entire population's morals.
-
Legalize drunk driving?!?!?
Ohh boy.. looks like its gonna be interesting!
I can already see the debates!
cant wait..
Let me start by saying I have not read the link yet.
Neither have I, but it looks interesting. My reading list is getting pretty long, though.
Ill take this one. Why should drunk driving be illegal?
If crime is defined as an act that brings harm to or damages another then the act of drunk driving does not meet the requirement. Many libertarians believe that if no harm or damage is done then it is not the purview of law. To preemptively ban an action because it may cause harm or cause damage is to restrict the freedom of the people in the hopes of providing safety. When this is done, we all loose freedom and none gain safety.
The corollary is this (while retaining libertarian principles): drunk driver gets in car, drunk driver drives erratically and at me/my family/my friends/pedestrians, I shoot drunk driver in the head in self-defence and/or the defence of others with a large calibre hand-cannon.
So no, it shouldn't be illegal, but drivers need to be aware that cars can be used as weapons just as easily (in some cases more easily) than guns.
-
....Well obviously I have no more problem with drinking in the back of a self driving car than I would a chauffeur driven car.
-
Let me start by saying I have not read the link yet.
Ill take this one. Why should drunk driving be illegal?
If crime is defined as an act that brings harm to or damages another then the act of drunk driving does not meet the requirement. Many libertarians believe that if no harm or damage is done then it is not the purview of law. To preemptively ban an action because it may cause harm or cause damage is to restrict the freedom of the people in the hopes of providing safety. When this is done, we all loose freedom and none gain safety.
Well put James. I just finished reading this section and you summarized the author's position pretty well.
I disagree with this. Imagine man who walks into a crowded room with a bomb which is controlled by a computer system tied to his heart rate. If his heart continues to beat for three minutes the bomb will explode. If his heart does not continue to beat for three minutes, the bomb will disarm itself. It is not a rights violation of the man if he is killed by people in the crowd. The potential to do harm can not be discounted. Drunk driving should not be illegal, in the ideal libertarian world the roads are owned by private industries. These private industries can contract the use of their roads. If people wish to use the roads, they must contract into accepting a legal limit for their BAC. If they go over this limit, they have violated the contract to use the road and thus can be penalized to the extent agreed upon in the contract. If they use the road without entering into the contract, they are trespassers and can rightfully be charged with trespassing and stealing. If a road owner sets no legal limit in their contract for road usage, then people can drive as drunkenly as they wish, and people wishing to avoid drunk drivers will take their business to other road providers or transportation providers. It is not good business to allow drunk driving on the roads, as people who do not want to die will refuse to use these roads. Transportation is one of the most difficult subjects to handle from a libertarian point of view so it is rather a difficult question. However it is insane to think that the potential damages from a person can not be taken into consideration, or do you really think that it is a violation of the bombers rights if he is killed before his bomb explodes?
-
In your example the bomb will go off, but drunk driving does not have a 100% chance of harming someone. Would it still be OK to kill the man with the bomb if the bomb only had a 50% chance of going off? What about a 10% chance, should we still kill him? I don't know what the odds are that you will cause an accident when you are driving drunk, but I suspect they are below 10%.
I disagree with this. Imagine man who walks into a crowded room with a bomb which is controlled by a computer system tied to his heart rate. If his heart continues to beat for three minutes the bomb will explode. If his heart does not continue to beat for three minutes, the bomb will disarm itself. It is not a rights violation of the man if he is killed by people in the crowd. The potential to do harm can not be discounted. Drunk driving should not be illegal, in the ideal libertarian world the roads are owned by private industries. These private industries can contract the use of their roads. If people wish to use the roads, they must contract into accepting a legal limit for their BAC. If they go over this limit, they have violated the contract to use the road and thus can be penalized to the extent agreed upon in the contract. If they use the road without entering into the contract, they are trespassers and can rightfully be charged with trespassing and stealing. If a road owner sets no legal limit in their contract for road usage, then people can drive as drunkenly as they wish, and people wishing to avoid drunk drivers will take their business to other road providers or transportation providers. It is not good business to allow drunk driving on the roads, as people who do not want to die will refuse to use these roads. Transportation is one of the most difficult subjects to handle from a libertarian point of view so it is rather a difficult question. However it is insane to think that the potential damages from a person can not be taken into consideration, or do you really think that it is a violation of the bombers rights if he is killed before his bomb explodes?
-
My thoughts and favorite quotations from part I, section 1.
Rockwell (2008), citing Fukuyama, "It was only the government, and not the market or individuals, that could be depended on to send firemen into buildings, or to fight terrorists, or to screen passengers at airports.” (p. 16) "Clearly, they said, it was excessive liberty that had led to this disaster." (Rockwell, 2008, p. 18) "It turned flying into a massive police operation." (p. 24) [Please assume that all following citations are Rockwell, 2008 unless otherwise specified]
I groaned to think that anyone could claim the TSA is a better alternative to the private screeners that airports employed prior to 9/11. I worry that even if the TSA were disbanded today, the culture of compliance that they have instilled into air travel would persist.
"But that moment [of government dependency/anti-libertarianism] is coming to an end, or already has…Bush is not likely to get his new suspensions of civil liberties passed. The neocons are fearful that they no longer hold enough political capital to start more wars. The public is fed up with the mess in Iraq. The much-vaunted advent of the American global empire is under fire. The propaganda no longer seems to be working." (p. 24)
This sounds incredibly optimistic to me. I realize this book is 4 years old, but I think society has been taking us in the exact opposite direction. Obama may not be waging a traditional war, but citizens in Libya and Pakistan would probably feel like they are extremely under fire from the American global empire. The PATRIOT Act was extended, and few seem to mind that the DEA has seized 7 billion dollars (86 percent of total seizures) without judicial oversight through civil forfeiture or administrative forfeiture. (USDOJ, 2012, http://www.justice.gov/oig/reports/2012/a1240.pdf)
-
Well, it was certainly interesting to read viewpoints that I disagree with, so thanks for bringing this book to my attention. I think my fellow socialists will agree with many of my following points.
First of all, let me start with a general argument against libertarianism, at least economically. When it comes to social issues and foreign policy, libertarians and I completely agree on everything. I was right on board with the reading when he was talking about the USA's overreaction to 9/11, and considering it was written in 2003, I'll say it was pretty ahead of its time as far as predicting the eventual realization by most Americans that the War on Terror was a complete mess. However, I have several issues with the libertarian position of laissez-faire government. I think that the biggest problem is that it assumes we live in a sort of utopian society, one in which the market would in fact regulate itself, and one in which people are at heart good people who want to do the right thing. I disagree with both of these assumptions. People like to point to the Silk Road as a good example of how a free market would work perfectly. Except the Silk Road is a very special case. It's dealing in illegal items, meaning the vendors have to be as careful as possible, and it's a relatively small market in the grand drug industry. I don't think we would see remotely similar results in a large market. In fact, we can look at the history of the free market to see how well that goes. Looking at American history, prior to Teddy Roosevelt instituting anti-trust and pro-labor laws, American corporations on a wide scale were abusing their workers. Someone already brought up the case of child porn. This is my other problem with libertarianism, at least of the anarchist form: on some level, even you probably agree that some sort of regulation is needed. I mean our legal system is corrupt as can be, but can you imagine how much worse it would be if we relied on some sort of mob justice instead? A better goal line for our justice system should be a country like Norway, where recidivism is extraordinarily low. Most believe that it is so low because they focus on rehabilitation instead of punishment. But you need a controlled, logical, regulated justice system to make that happen. This is one of many systems where regulation is needed to keep things running smoothly and fairly for all.
I'm sure you all know about the idea of the social contract. When you grow up in a government-run society that provides for you in many ways, you are abiding by an implied contract that you will give back to your society. This is the way things have been for centuries, because every society has realized that you sometimes need forced cooperation to make things advance. A libertarian society by its nature is aggressive towards the poor. When you are born into a rich family that already controls a portion of the free market, your life becomes easy as you live off the opportunities that your parents gave you, not anything that you necessarily built on your own. When you are born into a poor family, you struggle to leave poverty because there are no systems in place to help you. When one uses society's tools to climb the ladder, it should naturally be expected of them to pay forward so that the next people can climb the ladder too. By encouraging behavior like this, you increase the number of people who can and will climb the ladder, and this leads to economic and technological development. I like to use Bill Gates as a good example. He did indeed drop out of college to pursue his computer projects, but he also had a middle class family to catch him should he fall. Now imagine you're a poor kid with a single mother in the inner city. If you're smart enough to go to college, you think your mom is going to let you drop out to pursue a risky endeavor? Now if there's government assistance in place to help kids like that foster their ideas and let them grow, you'll have more Bill Gates that are able to bring their great ideas to fruition. But you need those systems. The free market is hostile towards people like that, and the people at the top will naturally want to exclude them to ensure their own success. Government assistance and regulation disallows such selfishness. Again, I bring back the point that libertarians seem to think people are at heart good. I disagree. People are at heart greedy, almost every one of us, and we need systems in place to curb that greed. But how will a free market run by greedy people do anything to curb their own greed? The answer is that you have a (preferably) objective government which does it for you. In the 1980s, NYC managed to significantly cut its crime rates, even as the rest of the country stayed stagnant. No private organizations were able to do that; the government had to step in. Do you know how? It wasn't through anything overly complicated. They instead instituted simple measures like cleaning up graffiti or fixing old, ugly-looking houses. It turns out that a neighborhood will have a decreased crime rate simply because it doesn't look like a place you go to commit crimes. Other measures were things like actually arresting people who wouldn't pay subway fare. They made it a huge deal. By cracking down and making criminals think twice, they prevented further crimes. In what free market system would this have been accomplished? They simply had to fight against greed, which is human nature. I mean they fought off criminals simply by fixing up neighborhoods, because that changed a little bit of their greedy nature. So human nature can be stopped, but you need regulation to do so.
Now I would like to spend the rest of my post attacking the chapter on legalizing drunk driving. I don't mind that it's a controversial opinion; many controversial opinions hold great weight. In fact, after finishing the chapter for the first time, I was thinking, "Hmm, on the surface it's ridiculous, but he makes some good points. Now let me see what I can glean on a second read." So I re-read it, and that's when the holes started popping out. First of all, the notion that we should only punish people who cause direct harm to people or property is absurd on a basic level of a functioning society. If I shoot a rifle into a small crowd and the bullet doesn't hit anyone, I can be arrested for at least reckless endangerment if not attempted murder. Similarly, if I take an action that directly decreases my driving ability, I should be held accountable for reckless endangerment. Society needs to outlaw statistically dangerous activities like that if for no other reason that it should decrease the number of people that commit the crime. This is only anecdotal, but I've been with a lot of drunk people who want to drive home but decide not to. And most of the time, their deciding not to isn't the thought that they'll kill someone (even though this in fact does become more likely), but the thought that if they get pulled over, they'll be screwed. Also, if a person is honestly a normal driver while drunk, then they won't get pulled over in the first place, so that's a fallacious argument to use. The only reason you'll get pulled over for suspicion of DUI is if you are in fact driving like someone who has been drinking, so the law should very rarely affect good drunk drivers.
I will say that on the first read through, his argument about probabilities seemed very well thought out. I am one who does not believe that the police can search a black man simply because he is black and therefore more likely to commit a crime. So how can I say that the police can prosecute a drunk man simply because his drunkenness increases the probability that he will harm someone? Well, it didn't take much reflection to realize that one does not choose to be black. One does not choose to be any sort of identity, and it is immoral to discriminate against someone for something that they cannot control. But a drunk driver wasn't born that way; he made the conscious choice to both drink alcohol, and to drive while intoxicated. The two situations aren't even comparable. The matter of choice is really important here. Our whole justice system is actually centered around state of mind, or "mens rea." That's why we have different degrees of murder. If you planned it out meticulously in advance, first degree. If you walk in on your wife doing the horizontal bump with the mailman and you kill them both, second degree. That is because most people can see why the two differ: instant rage or cold calculation should be punished differently. You need degrees for many types of crimes. So when it comes to killing a person on accident with your car, you can see the difference between a person who accidentally in the moment puts their foot on the gas instead of the brake, and a person who intentionally drove while intoxicated and hit someone as a result of their intoxication. One is a tragic mistake that really couldn't have been prevented in any sense, whereas the other could easily have been prevented if they had not driven. And of course all these arguments are supplemented by the fact that a drunk driver is far more likely to be in a fatal car accident. If you take any conscious action by choice that directly increases the likelihood of you harming someone to a certain degree, you should in fact be punished for taking that likelihood. Take my example of someone firing an assault rifle into a crowd. "Well," the libertarian might say, "he didn't hit anyone and no property was damaged, so he should not be punished. I know his likelihood of killing someone was high, but he did not in fact kill someone, so prosecuting him is wrong. Would you support laws that allow black people to be searched at will because their likelihood of committing crimes is high?" That argument is just as fallacious as the one that supports legalizing drunk driving. On a certain level, they both make some sort of sense. But as with the drunk man who chooses to drive, the man with the assault rifle has chosen to fire it into a crowd, and he should absolutely be held accountable for such an unnecessarily dangerous activity.
-
Imagine a man who walks into a crowded room. He has a bomb that will go off with 99% probability if his heart continues to beat. Is it bad to kill him because there is a 1% chance the bomb will not explode if you do not? The potential for harm is not something to be disregarded.
In your example the bomb will go off, but drunk driving does not have a 100% chance of harming someone. Would it still be OK to kill the man with the bomb if the bomb only had a 50% chance of going off? What about a 10% chance, should we still kill him? I don't know what the odds are that you will cause an accident when you are driving drunk, but I suspect they are below 10%.
I disagree with this. Imagine man who walks into a crowded room with a bomb which is controlled by a computer system tied to his heart rate. If his heart continues to beat for three minutes the bomb will explode. If his heart does not continue to beat for three minutes, the bomb will disarm itself. It is not a rights violation of the man if he is killed by people in the crowd. The potential to do harm can not be discounted. Drunk driving should not be illegal, in the ideal libertarian world the roads are owned by private industries. These private industries can contract the use of their roads. If people wish to use the roads, they must contract into accepting a legal limit for their BAC. If they go over this limit, they have violated the contract to use the road and thus can be penalized to the extent agreed upon in the contract. If they use the road without entering into the contract, they are trespassers and can rightfully be charged with trespassing and stealing. If a road owner sets no legal limit in their contract for road usage, then people can drive as drunkenly as they wish, and people wishing to avoid drunk drivers will take their business to other road providers or transportation providers. It is not good business to allow drunk driving on the roads, as people who do not want to die will refuse to use these roads. Transportation is one of the most difficult subjects to handle from a libertarian point of view so it is rather a difficult question. However it is insane to think that the potential damages from a person can not be taken into consideration, or do you really think that it is a violation of the bombers rights if he is killed before his bomb explodes?
-
To answer a couple of points raised.
In a libertarian society I will deal with a drunk driver careening in my direction by whipping out my gun and firing a well aimed bullet. Let's hope I'm a good shot. I think it's likely I will be dragging him from his car AFTER he has killed my family member, and executing him by the roadside. However I will then need to deal with his friends and relatives who come looking for vengance. Let's hope my clan is larger and better armed. In fairness this is the model of criminal justice used throughout much of history; this is why men used to carry swords. Some of you seem to regard the right to carry a weapon as a fundamental freedom; I consider a society where I am forced to carry a weapon for self defense as less free.
The idea that in the libertarian society I will be free to choose to live in an enclave where the rules will be of my choosing, and presumably enforced by either the citizens or a private security firm. Also I will drive on roads of my choosing. I'm picturing the road signs: Drunk/reckless route keep left, Safe/Autodrive keep right. Presumably this enclave will have armed guards on the entry's and exits to prevent people with different beliefs about freedom entering.
There is a reason most modern society's have chosen to restrict the use of force to the state and it's agents. Humans are extremely aggressive and in any group there will be a sizable minority who are inclined to settle disputes by violence. Without the authority of the state the rest of us ( who might prefer to remain peaceful) would have no choice but to defend our rights and property violently. I say again that this has been the condition of humanity throughout much of history, and we have always found it useful to defer to authority to avoid violence; whether it be an informal group of tribal elders or a fully fledged nation state.
-
if somebody feels more comfortable living somewhere that prohibits drunk driving they have the right to seek out such a place to reside
I see this argument a lot, not just from people on the right, really from people from all walks of life. "Well if you don't like Obama's health care laws, move to China!" "If you think we should have socialized medicine, move to Canada!" Libertarians are generally most guilty of this baseless argument. It assumes that simply packing up and moving elsewhere is a simple task. I hear a lot of conservatives say of gay marriage, "Well let's leave it up to the states. If a gay couple wants to marry, they can move." Except this implies that moving is, as I said, a simple task. It most certainly is not. The USA is not a loose collection of states that should be left to their own devices. It's right there in the name, we are the UNITED states. I understand certain laws being left to the states, but something like drunk driving or gay marriage, a law which naturally affects everyone equally, should be pretty uniform, because they both deal with specific human rights, the right to marry who you want and the right to not share the road with a statistically dangerous person so that your life is not at stake. It would really suck if you lived in a state with legal drunk driving and also had a secure job that prevented you from leaving.
-
I don’t live in the United States. My government is bit more left of center than what my American cousins live under. I only mention this because when I read the first 4 chapters of the material (written by an American) I was astounded at what I’ll call “extreme” views.
It seems that the book is very academic when it presents it arguments. By this I mean the statements are sound, the logic is solid. But if any idea is taken to its logical extreme it will not make sense and I think that is what’s happening here.
My own views on libertarianism are in flux right now since joining this forum. I agree that most governments, if given the chance, will abuse their power. That many laws and regulations in existence today do not accomplish what they were suppose to do and that these failings have an unnecessary cost to us all in terms of our freedom - I’m thinking airport ‘security’ and policing efforts in general. What I don’t agree with is that governments should be abolished altogether, and the message I’m getting from Rockwell is that this is something that should happen (page 20 - .. “Libertarianism doesn’t propose any plan for reorganizing government; it calls for the plan to be abandoned.”)
DivineChemicals and Hungry Ghost both make many good points that poke huge holes in this version of Libertarianism. What I took from their posts was that even though governments aren’t perfect, for all their idiocy, they do try to get it right sometimes when it comes to public policy – a term Rockwell hates. I like D.Chemical’s point about firing a gun into a crowd; on no level is this acceptable even if no one gets hurt. Common sense tells us that this is a very bad thing.
Mostly I was left doubting that Rockwell’s vision – which is anarchy – was any better or worse than what is in place now. It seems to deny that people are capable of doing very bad things and that under anarchy they have the perfect means to be as evil as they can be.
Anyway, I’d love to hear from someone who feels differently or can put a different spin on what Rockwell is communicating.
-
Looking at American history, prior to Teddy Roosevelt instituting anti-trust and pro-labor laws, American corporations on a wide scale were abusing their workers.
The Square Deal was a long, long time after most of the labor rights had been fought for and, in some cases, won by the trade unions. Not to diminish his legacy, but his impact was far greater in reigning in corporations for the sake of the consumer and investor, and to some degree corralling the trade unions that we're becoming as powerful.
The answer is that you have a (preferably) objective government which does it for you. In the 1980s, NYC managed to significantly cut its crime rates, even as the rest of the country stayed stagnant. No private organizations were able to do that; the government had to step in. Do you know how? It wasn't through anything overly complicated. They instead instituted simple measures like cleaning up graffiti or fixing old, ugly-looking houses. It turns out that a neighborhood will have a decreased crime rate simply because it doesn't look like a place you go to commit crimes. Other measures were things like actually arresting people who wouldn't pay subway fare. They made it a huge deal. By cracking down and making criminals think twice, they prevented further crimes. In what free market system would this have been accomplished? They simply had to fight against greed, which is human nature. I mean they fought off criminals simply by fixing up neighborhoods, because that changed a little bit of their greedy nature. So human nature can be stopped, but you need regulation to do so.
Your conclusion that you need regulations, apparently created and enforced by the state, is flawed (and btw, it leans more to fascism than socialism). That's an authoritarian position, and while that approach has shown positive effects in the short-term it generally leads to chaos in the long term. Once you head down the path of demanding more legislation you will inevitably restrict individual freedom. And while that may be fine while there's bread and circuses aplenty, any bump in the road will cause citizens to turn on their nanny-state very quickly. There's countless examples of it.
First of all, the notion that we should only punish people who cause direct harm to people or property is absurd on a basic level of a functioning society. If I shoot a rifle into a small crowd and the bullet doesn't hit anyone, I can be arrested for at least reckless endangerment if not attempted murder. Similarly, if I take an action that directly decreases my driving ability, I should be held accountable for reckless endangerment. Society needs to outlaw statistically dangerous activities like that if for no other reason that it should decrease the number of people that commit the crime.
I think you're missing point here: it's the intent that counts. Mens rea. Arguably, drunk driving laws started us down a slippery slope (logical fallacy, I know) where proving mens rea becomes almost unnecessary. In fact in many jurisdictions in Canada the police can take away your license based on the suspicion of drunk driving alone. The reason this has stood in the higher court is that the argument was made that driving is a privilege, not a right, and thus the state doesn't have to prove mens rea. I'm sure you can spot the slippery slope here: the state can erode rights by defining things as 'privileges'.
While your anecdotal evidence may show that legislation caused the change, it's just as easy to argue that education had a much greater impact. As such, I'm obliged to counter with my own anecdotal evidence. My father, a very intelligent man, would often drive home drunk after meeting with clients, etc. Those habits changed over the years, to the point now where he doesn't drive drunk at all. So why did he, and many of his generation, drive drunk at all? Because they simply didn't comprehend the potential outcome of their actions. In other words, there was no mens rea. You don't need the outcome to be punitive to stop most non-sociopaths - the understanding that their actions could lead to great harm to others is usually sufficient.
Reckless endangerment is another matter altogether, and there are laws in place to deal with it. And mens rea is required in those cases. With sufficient education of drivers and society as a whole, unless the person is living in a cave it should be relatively straightforward to prove mens rea when someone kills someone else while drinking and driving. A specific law covering DUI is not, and never was, required.
-
I'll revisit the rest of your post later when I have time, but intent is not the only thing that counts. Doing reckless activities is enough to get you arrested regardless of what you meant to do. I mean the man firing into the crowd may have no intention of hurting anyone. Maybe he just wanted to piss everyone off. It doesn't matter, he is taken in for reckless endangerment and/or attempted murder. We prosecute dangerous activities because they are risky enough to hurt another. If you want to talk human rights, how about the rights of the people that are now more likely to be injured/killed as a result of the driver?
-
@DOCTOR I LOVE THE WAY U PUT IT ABOUT HOME SCHOOL FOR ADULTS.. The stuff we were giving in school was soo much lies and BS this is gonna be great and look for me to be very active in this.. Discussions, Debates etc..
-
I'll revisit the rest of your post later when I have time, but intent is not the only thing that counts. Doing reckless activities is enough to get you arrested regardless of what you meant to do. I mean the man firing into the crowd may have no intention of hurting anyone. Maybe he just wanted to piss everyone off. It doesn't matter, he is taken in for reckless endangerment and/or attempted murder. We prosecute dangerous activities because they are risky enough to hurt another. If you want to talk human rights, how about the rights of the people that are now more likely to be injured/killed as a result of the driver?
This is a great example. It is strange for me imagining that some people think it is wrong to kill a man who fires a gun into a crowd until one of the bullets he fires hits an innocent person. Having that attitude ensures that damage to innocents will be done and throws away any possible ability to prevent harm from coming needlessly, senselessly and purposelessly to innocents. Clearly risk is reason for aggression, when the risk is high and lacks any credible reason for existing. Sure a man should be able to own a grenade and carry it with him, perhaps the grenade may malfunction and explode, but that potential for risk is coupled with the credibility of having some conceivable reason for owning an explosive device. There is no reason I would accept as legitimate for a man to without provocation fire a gun into a crowd, and it is crazy to think that it is wrong to put a bullet through him until one of his bullets has gone through an innocent person. Waiting for his bullet to go through an innocent person ensures an innocent person will be wounded, I do not see a person who fires a gun into a crowd as being innocent, they are guilty of needlessly greatly increasing the risk to others rights to life and safety.
-
Awesome discussion so far!
It looks like we've quickly gone to the heart of the matter: how much government do we want in our lives and what would it be like if we had none? This may shock some of you to hear coming from me, but we absolutely NEED government, and good government at that. In fact, the services the current governments of the world monopolize or regulate are some of the most demanded and needed: security/defense, law, dispute resolution, education, healthcare, transportation, utilities, quality control etc.
The question I present to you is, do we want a single entity monopolizing the provision of all of these critical goods and services, or do we want a choice?
I really liked kmfkewm's point that the drunk driving issue really comes down to who owns the roads. We really don't know right now if it is best to outlaw drunk driving or not and how to enforce it because there is a massive disconnect between the owners/managers of the roads and the users of them. If we were presented with choices such as "I think I'll take I-80 tonight instead of rout 101 because they don't let drunks drive on their roads even though they charge a little more and it is a little out of my way." I-80 gets more business, and maybe 101 will re-think it's policies to gain more market share. Instant feedback. In today's condition, I'd have to lobby the state transportation board and run a massive public awareness campaign to get enough voters on my side, and if I won, I'd then be shoving my views down the minorities throat. Still no choice. Very inefficient.
-
Doing reckless activities is enough to get you arrested regardless of what you meant to do.
Yes, and I covered recklessness which is separate from DUI and already covered with existing legislation in almost all jurisdictions around the world. With recklessness there is still intent - it's called oblique intent, wherein the individual is aware of the potential outcome of their and by any reasonable test can forsee the consequences but proceeds to do so anyhow. If you kill someone while drunk in most cases that can be argued to be recklessness. There's a law for that, so there's no need to add a law under which people have actually been charged for passing out in their vehicles with no real evidence they intended to drive.
I mean the man firing into the crowd may have no intention of hurting anyone. Maybe he just wanted to piss everyone off. It doesn't matter, he is taken in for reckless endangerment and/or attempted murder.
I'm curious, can you cite any case where someone has fired into a crowd without intent to injure? I'd debate this point, but I think you're positing a bit of an absurd premise.
We prosecute dangerous activities because they are risky enough to hurt another. If you want to talk human rights, how about the rights of the people that are now more likely to be injured/killed as a result of the driver?
Ok, then you drinking a soda, smoking a cig or even listening to the radio should be legislated and punished accordingly. All those things have been found to lead to more accidents. And step out of the car and there's a million other things that we could legislate.
This is where Drinking and Driving laws differ from most in a democratic society - it's one of the few laws where there doesn't need to be a victim, nor intent, and yet there is still a crime. Arguably, drug laws are also under that category.
-
Divinechemicals, I am going to chop this up some and reply. It was very long winded and rambling so I am cutting quite a bit out.
I think that the biggest problem is that it assumes we live in a sort of utopian society, one in which the market would in fact regulate itself, and one in which people are at heart good people who want to do the right thing. I disagree with both of these assumptions.
Socialisms biggest failing is that it assumes we live in a sort of utopian society, one in which the government would in fact regulate itself, and one in which the government, at it's heart, is good and only looking out for the welfare of others.
If, by your own stated belief people are not good at heart and are in fact greedy then what makes you think that people who run the government will be any different? A government is a body of people notably ungoverned.
This is my other problem with libertarianism, at least of the anarchist form: on some level, even you probably agree that some sort of regulation is needed. I mean our legal system is corrupt as can be, but can you imagine how much worse it would be if we relied on some sort of mob justice instead?
Libertarianism is not mob rule, Democracy is mod rule. By it's very nature the idea of the legal system only punishing someone when harm or damage is done, removes the corruption from the system. The corruption occurs when the power to make a non-damaging/harming act illegal is given to the courts and governments. This in and of itself gives the government and courts the power to decided what acts it will punish for. By doing so it leads to simple acts that are none of the governments business becoming illegal. Things such as smoking weed, or even sodomy.
I'm sure you all know about the idea of the social contract. When you grow up in a government-run society that provides for you in many ways, you are abiding by an implied contract that you will give back to your society. This is the way things have been for centuries, because every society has realized that you sometimes need forced cooperation to make things advance.
Do you understand the idea of the social contract? The social contract theory states that that individuals have consented, either explicitly or tacitly, to surrender some of their freedoms and submit to the authority of the ruler, in exchange for protection of their remaining rights.
It does not require that anyone give back to society, and it does not give the government the ability to pass any law it feels like. While living in a territory of a society may be necessary for consent, it does not give implied consent to any rules the society might make regardless of their content. A second condition of consent is that the rules be consistent with underlying principles of justice and the protection of natural and social rights, and have procedures for effective protection of those rights. Forcing cooperation or planned advancement by the government are not functions of the social contract.
A libertarian society by its nature is aggressive towards the poor. When you are born into a rich family that already controls a portion of the free market, your life becomes easy as you live off the opportunities that your parents gave you, not anything that you necessarily built on your own.
The above is based on the assumption that a child of a rich family will properly maintain a business and be profitable at it. History teaches that any group of people who are born into a ruling, governing, or affluent class tend to proceed to squander what they are given because they did not work to obtain it. A house or car given to an individual is rarely cared for with the care one gives to such property when it is required hard work to obtain.
When you are born into a poor family, you struggle to leave poverty because there are no systems in place to help you. When one uses society's tools to climb the ladder, it should naturally be expected of them to pay forward so that the next people can climb the ladder too. By encouraging behavior like this, you increase the number of people who can and will climb the ladder, and this leads to economic and technological development. I like to use Bill Gates as a good example. He did indeed drop out of college to pursue his computer projects, but he also had a middle class family to catch him should he fall.
First, lots of people climbed out of poverty long before there were laws or government systems to help. You are making the assumption that the only thing holding poor people back is there lack of money. Anyone, no matter how rich or poor can start a business and work to better them selves. Government subsidies only seem to work to line the pockets of those that do not have the business knowledge to succeed in the real world.
As to Bill gates, his father was a prominent lawyer, and his mother served on the board of directors for First Interstate BancSystem and the United Way. Gates's maternal grandfather was J. W. Maxwell, a national bank president. Not exactly middle class.
Now imagine you're a poor kid with a single mother in the inner city. If you're smart enough to go to college, you think your mom is going to let you drop out to pursue a risky endeavor? Now if there's government assistance in place to help kids like that foster their ideas and let them grow, you'll have more Bill Gates that are able to bring their great ideas to fruition. But you need those systems.
Poor kid with a single mother in the inner city who is smart enough to start his own business is smart enough to ignore mom telling him to waist time in college. Government assistance does not help create business. If you really think it does try going down to get a SBA Loan as a low income white male.
The free market is hostile towards people like that, and the people at the top will naturally want to exclude them to ensure their own success. Government assistance and regulation disallows such selfishness. Again, I bring back the point that libertarians seem to think people are at heart good. I disagree. People are at heart greedy, almost every one of us, and we need systems in place to curb that greed.
So, giving selfish, greedy people unrestricted power of government will fix the problem and somehow make them kind and selfless? I think there is a flaw in your logic.
Libertarianism accepts that people are selfish and greedy and that they will always do what is in their best interest. The point of business is to make money while reducing the risk of business. Take the tort laws as a great example of bad regulation. People are hurt by a faulty or bad product and sue the company, the outcome is that the jury awards the plaintiff so much money that it bankrupts the business. Along comes government who says "You can not bankrupt a business for putting out a bad product, we are going to limit the amount that can be awarded to stop it" So now the business puts out lots of bad products knowing that there is a limit to the amount that can be awarded and thus an amount that can be figured into the bottom line. Without that limit it is in the best interest of the business to not release bad products.
In the 1980s, NYC managed to significantly cut its crime rates, even as the rest of the country stayed stagnant. No private organizations were able to do that; the government had to step in. Do you know how? It wasn't through anything overly complicated. They instead instituted simple measures like cleaning up graffiti or fixing old, ugly-looking houses. It turns out that a neighborhood will have a decreased crime rate simply because it doesn't look like a place you go to commit crimes.
More like the property values went up because of the government sponsored renovations and the lower income people were displaced as upper income people moved in.
Tell me, how are the projects coming in NYC? Nice, safe housing for the poor... Hows the crime rate there?
Other measures were things like actually arresting people who wouldn't pay subway fare. They made it a huge deal. By cracking down and making criminals think twice, they prevented further crimes. In what free market system would this have been accomplished? They simply had to fight against greed, which is human nature. I mean they fought off criminals simply by fixing up neighborhoods, because that changed a little bit of their greedy nature. So human nature can be stopped, but you need regulation to do so.
If subways were a free market system and not a monopoly run by the government then they would have instigated changes to the system to stop people from riding without paying. As it would be in the subways best interest to have paying customers and not freeloaders.
First of all, the notion that we should only punish people who cause direct harm to people or property is absurd on a basic level of a functioning society. If I shoot a rifle into a small crowd and the bullet doesn't hit anyone, I can be arrested for at least reckless endangerment if not attempted murder. Similarly, if I take an action that directly decreases my driving ability, I should be held accountable for reckless endangerment. Society needs to outlaw statistically dangerous activities like that if for no other reason that it should decrease the number of people that commit the crime. This is only anecdotal, but I've been with a lot of drunk people who want to drive home but decide not to. And most of the time, their deciding not to isn't the thought that they'll kill someone (even though this in fact does become more likely), but the thought that if they get pulled over, they'll be screwed. Also, if a person is honestly a normal driver while drunk, then they won't get pulled over in the first place, so that's a fallacious argument to use. The only reason you'll get pulled over for suspicion of DUI is if you are in fact driving like someone who has been drinking, so the law should very rarely affect good drunk drivers.
If you take any conscious action by choice that directly increases the likelihood of you harming someone to a certain degree, you should in fact be punished for taking that likelihood. Take my example of someone firing an assault rifle into a crowd. "Well," the libertarian might say, "he didn't hit anyone and no property was damaged, so he should not be punished. I know his likelihood of killing someone was high, but he did not in fact kill someone, so prosecuting him is wrong.
They set up road blocks and stop everyone testing for BAC. Good driver or not when drunk is irrelevant as they enforce the law.
So where does it stop? Should you be arrested for Smoking in a park as there is a risk that someone could get cancer? How about skydiving there is a risk that you would kill your self or someone you land on? Wait, I have it 100% of people who drive a car are putting them self as well as others at risk of an accident, we should ban driving. The truth is you are at risk in everything you do from walking down the street to taking a dump on the toilet, it is not the governments job to mitigate risk.
Would you support laws that allow black people to be searched at will because their likelihood of committing crimes is high?" That argument is just as fallacious as the one that supports legalizing drunk driving. On a certain level, they both make some sort of sense. But as with the drunk man who chooses to drive, the man with the assault rifle has chosen to fire it into a crowd, and he should absolutely be held accountable for such an unnecessarily dangerous activity.
I would not but from your arguments you would. you stated "Society needs to outlaw statistically dangerous activities like that if for no other reason that it should decrease the number of people that commit the crime."
-
I really liked kmfkewm's point that the drunk driving issue really comes down to who owns the roads.
And I will even concede that it should be totally okay for a person who owns a field, to say that it is okay for people to shoot randomly into the field, even if there are crowds of people in the field. Of course it is just as okay for people who own fields to say that if you shoot into the field you will be open to being shot back at and killed. I strongly suspect that people will avoid the killing fields, and the people who go to them understanding the risks involved can shoot at each other all day. If the bloods and the crips want to buy an enormous plot of land and turn it into a free for all gang war territory, let them. However if you own a huge plot of land you should be equally as capable of saying that people who engage in gang wars on your land will be imprisoned.
Recently I was convinced that men should be allowed to say in their wills that if they are murdered in cold blood, the murderer should be able to pay a fine to their families and get no other punishment. At first I hated this idea, after all if a man kills an innocent person they are at a statistically greater chance of killing another innocent person. Originally I thought, regardless of the wishes of the murdered victim, the murderer should be punished to protect other innocents who may not want to be killed even if the killer pays a huge fine to their families. However I see now that this takes away a persons self ownership. Indeed a person should be able to sell to a psychopath who wants to kill them the ability to do so, if we deny this right to a person we say that we own them.
-
@jameslink2
Very well said, more of left-libertarian myself, but often find myself nodding in agreement with much of the reasoning of Libertarians.
-
The question I present to you is, do we want a single entity monopolizing the provision of all of these critical goods and services, or do we want a choice?
The question I present to you is, do we want a single entity monopolizing the provision of all of these critical goods and services, or do we want a choice?
Choice. And I actually believe that's a almost universal conclusion, especially on SR. I think where the disagreement arises, however, is the method by which the choice is made. For example, some would say that representative democracy enables that choice, while others might argue that it's simply tyranny of the masses or, worse yet, a coerced choice between a limited number of representatives beholden to non-elected entities.
I think another problem that we run into when we say we want 'choice' is there's many goods and services that can be effectively monopolized and therefore limit choice. I'd argue that many western governments are also monopolized and artificially limit the choices available for representation.
So I'd say sure, most of us desire choice and the freedom to make that choice. Unfortunately I'm not clever enough to know the best way to ensure that. ;)
-
Oh man this is getting heavy and fast. :D
I agree that as a species, mankind is not yet ready to take the responsibility of an anarchist society. We still have a long way to go, but I truly believe with all my heart that as human beings we are so amazingly intelligent, creative, and so full of ingenuity that slowly but surely we will evolve toward a world with no government. I think eventually we really won't need them when we come up with solutions for providing all the things they provide for us. I don't know what many of those solutions will be or will look like, but I really have faith in humankind to come up with a better solution than what we have today. After difficult problems like poverty and less-than-perfect mental health are only existent in history books, the only fair way for society to operate would be in an anarcho-capitalist way.
-
My thoughts on the remainder of the reading - I will respond to interesting forum posts later.
Section 2
"Teacher salaries would probably plummet. No one would have a right to an education guaranteed by the state. The state could ask for and expect no content or results from education at any level." (p. 35)
I seriously wonder if teacher salaries could fall lower (well, maybe I just don't want to imagine it). Surely in a standards-free libertarian world, teachers would not be required to have a teaching certificate or even a degree, but I do believe that teachers should have education in their subject area and some pedagogical training to be effective, and that training does not come free, especially in a world where K-20 education costs money at every step of the way.
"A huge range of alternatives would exist, but rare among them would be the current system of megaschools that operate as holding tanks for thousands." (p. 28-29)
I disagree completely with this statement. In private business and industry, the tendency for profitable corporations is naturally to expand in order to serve more customers and create more profit. A purely profit-driven school system would seek to maximize returns on their infrastructure by serving more and more students with the resources the school already possesses. One can already see this in action by observing huge for-profit colleges such as University of Phoenix. Teachers are paid as and treated like nothing more than "paper graders", they deliver pre-processed content and evaluate student work using summative evaluations that are simple to grade but do not demonstrate an understanding of the material, only the ability to regurgitate what has been taught. UoP has three times more students enrolled than the next-largest university, despite the questionable quality or value of their educational product.
Section 3
I have read the arguments already presented on this forum, this is surprisingly a very controversial topic. I would expect SR members to be as angry as I am at the thought of "[waiting] for the government to administer a test to tell us whether or not we are criminals" (p. 40) because of the contents of our body. I don't think that the government currently can not prosecute us for simply having drugs in our bloodstream (even when driving), although I understand that is one argument against Washington's upcoming I-502, because it will impose a blood-THC limit for motorists, and that is unfair because one's tolerance to THC can affect your intoxication level (despite a high blood-THC level), and that the testing equipment can be subject to mechanical and user failure. I find it interesting that people who oppose I-502 because of this imposition can still support drunk driving arrests.
We know that one's alcohol tolerance can affect the intoxication level, which can also be affected by body size and metabolism. A 120-lb woman who never drinks will be noticeably more intoxicated on the same set of beverages than a 300-lb woman who drinks a pint daily. If I am driving recklessly because I am angry at my spouse or sleep-deprived, is that more OK than driving recklessly because I am drunk? The only difference between the two situations is that driving non-recklessly while drunk is illegal, but driving non-recklessly while angry/sleep-deprived is not. Prosecute me for my actions, not my potential actions.
Section 4
"It cannot be, and I predict that if we continue to go down the path, we will replace one bad form of central planning with another. Genuine liberty is not just another form of government management. It means the absence of government management. It is this theme that I would like to pursue further." (p. 47)
Fascinating, I can't wait to hear his plan to overthrow the world governments (so I can totally disagree and not support the plan, don't worry LEOs!).
"The movement to gated communities has been condemned across the political spectrum but evidently consumers disagree. The market has provided a form of security that the government has failed to provide." (p. 52)
[tl;dr: I don't know who is more exploitive, government or private industry, but together they seem to perpetuate a cycle of fail. Please forgive the lack of citations below, suburban studies is a pretty small field and I don't want to out myself inadvertently.]
I disagree with this sentiment. I have studied the history of American suburbs and interviewed many people about their decision to purchase property that is part of a homeowner's association (or HOA). One common sentiment observed was that of "All of the homes in desirable neighborhoods or in some suburban areas all of the property available is bound by an HOA." It seems as if this is a phenomenon within newer (15 years old or less) subdevelopments and especially prevalent on the east coast, but it is true that in some suburbs and towns it is very difficult to find any property that is not in an HOA.
Although the initial drive for HOAs (a lack of code enforcement and in some cases law enforcement from local governments) could be called a failing of government, the tendency for private development companies to always require an HOA feels to me like simply replacing one broken system with another. In markets such as realty (where consumer choice is limited by geographical proximity; you can only fit so many single-family homes in an area) there is little incentive for developers to not use an HOA (some consumers genuinely desire to participate, and they are profitable for the developer), and if every developer requires them then consumers who do not wish to belong to an HOA have few choices (they can move away, but that's quite an undertaking) and can only seek one that is less-restrictive.
Some homeowners talked about their "less-restrictive" HOA saying things like, "Some HOAs are crazy and tell you that you can only paint your trim in a pre-approved palette of 6 shades of pastel. Mine only tells homeowners that they can't park cars on the lawn and I'm OK with that, I hate seeing my neighbor park cars on the lawn and it lowers property values of the surrounding homes." I truly fail to see the difference, both examples feel to me like other people telling me what is OK to do on my property.
People also fail to realize (or think it's paranoid to worry) that the HOA can change the bylaws and rules at any time; today's rules banning cars on lawns could become tomorrow's "no bicycles on the lawn". HOAs are also not bound by the First Amendment because they are not the government. It is perfectly within the rights of the HOA to ban only Republican campaign signs from lawns, and most HOAs are able to enforce their rules with sanctions including property seizure, with no recourse for the homeowner. In situations where this happens (they are rare but do occur) I always hear from the internet comment peanut gallery, "They should have bought a home somewhere else" or "They should have sold their home and moved when the rules changed" or "They signed the deed, they should have understood this would happen" but in my view, this is an exploitive (but profitable!) tactic.
"But in what sense has government contributed to it [the web]?" (p. 55)
I don't know, a little thing called ARPANET, and don't forget Al Gore! ;) But seriously, I remember the heated debates over the first spam email, but I felt then and I feel now that neither government nor private companies should seek to restrict internet commerce.
"The same is true for a huge range of activities essential to our civil lives. In education, it is said that the state must impose schooling on all children, else the parents and communities will neglect it. Only the state can make sure that no child is left behind." (p. 64)
Although I have heard this sentiment expressed to dismiss homeschooling, I would say it's a rare sentiment even from extreme liberals. My argument for a free and appropriate education for every child is not to say that I believe the government knows what's best for children. I am simply opposed to child labor even in the face of extreme poverty, and I have a very hard time defending the right of parents to "choose" (it's not much of a choice in places that do not have free education) to send their children to work in the factory.
Rockwell (2008) quotes Ludwig von Mises: "There is an inherent tendency in all governmental power to recognize no restraints on its operation and to extend the sphere of its dominance as much as possible. To control everything, to leave no room for anything to happen of its own accord without the interference of the authorities—this is the goal for which every ruler secretly strives." (p. 70)
I would argue that you can strike the word "government" from that statement. Whether private industry, a monarchy, or a representative democracy, any group of people (or animals, realistically) will seek to increase their sphere of influence. I don't trust either government nor businesses to do what is best for me and mine.
-
My thoughts and favorite quotations from part I, section 1.
Rockwell (2008), citing Fukuyama, "It was only the government, and not the market or individuals, that could be depended on to send firemen into buildings, or to fight terrorists, or to screen passengers at airports.” (p. 16) "Clearly, they said, it was excessive liberty that had led to this disaster." (Rockwell, 2008, p. 18) "It turned flying into a massive police operation." (p. 24) [Please assume that all following citations are Rockwell, 2008 unless otherwise specified]
I groaned to think that anyone could claim the TSA is a better alternative to the private screeners that airports employed prior to 9/11. I worry that even if the TSA were disbanded today, the culture of compliance that they have instilled into air travel would persist.
"But that moment [of government dependency/anti-libertarianism] is coming to an end, or already has…Bush is not likely to get his new suspensions of civil liberties passed. The neocons are fearful that they no longer hold enough political capital to start more wars. The public is fed up with the mess in Iraq. The much-vaunted advent of the American global empire is under fire. The propaganda no longer seems to be working." (p. 24)
This sounds incredibly optimistic to me. I realize this book is 4 years old, but I think society has been taking us in the exact opposite direction. Obama may not be waging a traditional war, but citizens in Libya and Pakistan would probably feel like they are extremely under fire from the American global empire. The PATRIOT Act was extended, and few seem to mind that the DEA has seized 7 billion dollars (86 percent of total seizures) without judicial oversight through civil forfeiture or administrative forfeiture. (USDOJ, 2012, http://www.justice.gov/oig/reports/2012/a1240.pdf)
I thought the same thing when I read that part. He thought that the government wouldn't be brave enough to stomp on our civil liberties any more and here we are today praying the NDAA is ruled unconstitutional so we can't be legally kidnapped in the night with hoods over our heads and held indefinitely with no charge. It seems to be getting a lot scarier and not any more free. And in all honesty it seems at this point that things will only get worse before they get better. But then again, the fact that we are here and that SR exists is a sign of hope. One that I cling to for the sake of staying optimistic. :)
-
My thoughts on the remainder of the reading - I will respond to interesting forum posts later.
Section 2
"Teacher salaries would probably plummet. No one would have a right to an education guaranteed by the state. The state could ask for and expect no content or results from education at any level." (p. 35)
I seriously wonder if teacher salaries could fall lower (well, maybe I just don't want to imagine it). Surely in a standards-free libertarian world, teachers would not be required to have a teaching certificate or even a degree, but I do believe that teachers should have education in their subject area and some pedagogical training to be effective, and that training does not come free, especially in a world where K-20 education costs money at every step of the way.
"A huge range of alternatives would exist, but rare among them would be the current system of megaschools that operate as holding tanks for thousands." (p. 28-29)
I disagree completely with this statement. In private business and industry, the tendency for profitable corporations is naturally to expand in order to serve more customers and create more profit. A purely profit-driven school system would seek to maximize returns on their infrastructure by serving more and more students with the resources the school already possesses. One can already see this in action by observing huge for-profit colleges such as University of Phoenix. Teachers are paid as and treated like nothing more than "paper graders", they deliver pre-processed content and evaluate student work using summative evaluations that are simple to grade but do not demonstrate an understanding of the material, only the ability to regurgitate what has been taught. UoP has three times more students enrolled than the next-largest university, despite the questionable quality or value of their educational product.
I agree, there would be a demand for some education of all children and besides the fancy specialized education facilities I could easily see there being huge mega schools to supply demand for cheaper and more basic education. And with such a fast growing population, I also think teacher salaries would fare pretty well, even better for the better teachers.
-
While your anecdotal evidence may show that legislation caused the change, it's just as easy to argue that education had a much greater impact. As such, I'm obliged to counter with my own anecdotal evidence. My father, a very intelligent man, would often drive home drunk after meeting with clients, etc. Those habits changed over the years, to the point now where he doesn't drive drunk at all. So why did he, and many of his generation, drive drunk at all? Because they simply didn't comprehend the potential outcome of their actions. In other words, there was no mens rea. You don't need the outcome to be punitive to stop most non-sociopaths - the understanding that their actions could lead to great harm to others is usually sufficient.
This logic relies on each person, group, or generation to learn and discover risks and dangers individually, when there is absolutely no need for the additional harm this would inevitably cause. By the same logic, an individual with his own Landscape/Pest Control service could legally use DDT or Agent Orange, simply because he didn't mean to harm anyone, and these things don't ALWAYS cause harm. But hey, maybe he'll change over the years before anyone gets hurt!
Libertarianism is not mob rule, Democracy is mod rule. By it's very nature the idea of the legal system only punishing someone when harm or damage is done, removes the corruption from the system. The corruption occurs when the power to make a non-damaging/harming act illegal is given to the courts and governments. This in and of itself gives the government and courts the power to decided what acts it will punish for. By doing so it leads to simple acts that are none of the governments business becoming illegal. Things such as smoking weed, or even sodomy.
I doubt anyone here wants any acts that cause no harm to others to be illegal. The issue is where the line should be drawn, which obviously needs improvement. For instance: Should all sodomy be illegal? even forced? of course not. Should it be legal to put weed into food and give it to someone without informing them? Of course we could go on and on with examples, but if only actual harm is illegal, we culd be left in a society where some threats and similar actions would be allowed.
Do you understand the idea of the social contract? The social contract theory states that that individuals have consented, either explicitly or tacitly, to surrender some of their freedoms and submit to the authority of the ruler, in exchange for protection of their remaining rights.
It does not require that anyone give back to society, and it does not give the government the ability to pass any law it feels like. While living in a territory of a society may be necessary for consent, it does not give implied consent to any rules the society might make regardless of their content. A second condition of consent is that the rules be consistent with underlying principles of justice and the protection of natural and social rights, and have procedures for effective protection of those rights. Forcing cooperation or planned advancement by the government are not functions of the social contract.
Next time you copypasta Wikipedia, you could at least cite it.
Here's the copy/paste with the important context you decided to leave out:
Legal scholar Randy Barnett has argued that, while presence in the territory of a society may be necessary for consent, it is not consent to any rules the society might make regardless of their content. A second condition of consent is that the rules be consistent with underlying principles of justice and the protection of natural and social rights, and have procedures for effective protection of those rights (or liberties). This has also been discussed by O.A. Brownson, who argued that, in a sense, three "constitutions" are involved: first the constitution of nature that includes all of what the Founders called "natural law"; second the constitution of society, an unwritten and commonly understood set of rules for the society formed by a social contract before it establishes a government; by which it does establish the third, a constitution of government. To consent, a necessary condition is that the rules be constitutional in that sense.
This brings us back to another quote from you
Socialisms biggest failing is that it assumes we live in a sort of utopian society, one in which the government would in fact regulate itself, and one in which the government, at it's heart, is good and only looking out for the welfare of others.
If, by your own stated belief people are not good at heart and are in fact greedy then what makes you think that people who run the government will be any different? A government is a body of people notably ungoverned.
If we look at the context you so wonderfully left out in your description of Social Contract, we can begin to see why a Constitution (which as we know can actually exist as a legal document) is so important, and that it is what governs the "body of people notably ungoverned."
The above is based on the assumption that a child of a rich family will properly maintain a business and be profitable at it. History teaches that any group of people who are born into a ruling, governing, or affluent class tend to proceed to squander what they are given because they did not work to obtain it. A house or car given to an individual is rarely cared for with the care one gives to such property when it is required hard work to obtain.
True as this may be, you seem to be missing the point being made that a Society exist in a way that as many people as possible enter life with the highest equality in rights and priveleges possible. Try to respond to the main point next time, not just the erroneous assumption.
First, lots of people climbed out of poverty long before there were laws or government systems to help. You are making the assumption that the only thing holding poor people back is there [sic] lack of money. Anyone, no matter how rich or poor can start a business and work to better them selves. Government subsidies only seem to work to line the pockets of those that do not have the business knowledge to succeed in the real world.
As to Bill gates, his father was a prominent lawyer, and his mother served on the board of directors for First Interstate BancSystem and the United Way. Gates's maternal grandfather was J. W. Maxwell, a national bank president. Not exactly middle class.
If you acknowledge that people exist "that do not have the business knowledge to succeed in the real world," then your statement that "Anyone[...]can start a business and work to better [themselves]." must be intentionally misleading; as the first statement explains that those people, who apparently are undeserving of subsidies, would also fail at your primary example of financial self-improvement. Then you go on to demonstrate that perhaps the group capable of success might even be smaller than first thought, and in fact be comprised of only the upper class. Yet, you honestly think that removing Government's regulations of trade would allow the underpriveleged to achieve higher success? Where exactly would they get the business knowledge needed to start a business (not to mention capital), if not from Government? Do you really think corporations are going to distribute opportunities in a way that strives for equality, if at all?
Poor kid with a single mother in the inner city who is smart enough to start his own business is smart enough to ignore mom telling him to waist [sic] time in college. Government assistance does not help create business. If you really think it does[,] try going down to get a[n] SBA Loan as a low income white male.
Ok, so perhaps we should strive for a Government that does provide more help. This is not an argument for an Anarcho-Libertarian's economy, but actually against it. Although your "white male" comment seems to be more akin to the Paleo-Libertarian "racial divide" arguments of last resort in the 1990s. (which would be appropriate, considering this is a thread commenting on Lev Rockwell's writings)
So, giving selfish, greedy people unrestricted power of government will fix the problem and somehow make them kind and selfless? I think there is a flaw in your logic.
Perhaps I missed something, but I didn't see Divinechemicals support the idea of an unrestricted government at all, yet you seem stuck on this point. If your mindset is so narrow that you believe there to be only this one form of Socialist government possible, then it's no surprise that you hate it so strongly.
Libertarianism accepts that people are selfish and greedy and that they will always do what is in their best interest. The point of business is to make money while reducing the risk of business. Take the tort laws as a great example of bad regulation. People are hurt by a faulty or bad product and sue the company, the outcome is that the jury awards the plaintiff so much money that it bankrupts the business. Along comes government who says "You can not bankrupt a business for putting out a bad product, we are going to limit the amount that can be awarded to stop it" So now the business puts out lots of bad products knowing that there is a limit to the amount that can be awarded and thus an amount that can be figured into the bottom line. Without that limit it is in the best interest of the business to not release bad products.
Can you provide some direct quotes and examples? This really does interest me. Although, the anecdote on current law does not explain how Libertarianism accounts for greed. Oh, I see, you actually just said "accepts" not "accounts for." So you mean to say that Libertarianism understands that people are greedy, but has decided that nothing should be done to mitigate negative effects of humanity's greed?
More like the property values went up because of the government sponsored renovations and the lower income people were displaced as upper income people moved in.
Tell me, how are the projects coming in NYC? Nice, safe housing for the poor... Hows the crime rate there?
Crime rate is down in NYC compared to the 1980s. There have been numerous articles (multiple in The Atlantic alone) in the past five years, about crime rates now being much higher in middle sized cities (i.e. Orlando, FL, Memphis, TN, Camden, NJ) than it is in the large cities that were associated with high crime in the 1980s.
If subways were a free market system and not a monopoly run by the government then they would have instigated changes to the system to stop people from riding without paying. As it would be in the subways best interest to have paying customers and not freeloaders.
Subways cannot actually be a free market system. They are not an economic system, but actually a common method of mass transit, often seen in larger metropolitan areas. Perhaps you meant "Subways in a free market system would have..." However, that still leaves us with this question: How does a private business prevent theft of free rides on a subway system without government (i.e. Police) assistance?
They set up road blocks and stop everyone testing for BAC. Good driver or not when drunk is irrelevant as they enforce the law.
Agreed. DUI checkpoints should not be allowed. A DUI should still be illegal. As previously explained, if someone does not drive recklessly while drunk, then they will not be pulled over in the first place. To help ensure that this is true, we could also make DUIs not applicable in cases where the driver was stopped for any reason other than unsafe driving. This would be a decent middle ground, rather than waiting for someone to actually be killed or injured.
So where does it stop? Should you be arrested for Smoking in a park as there is a risk that someone could get cancer? How about skydiving there is a risk that you would kill your self or someone you land on? Wait, I have it 100% of people who drive a car are putting them self as well as others at risk of an accident, we should ban driving. The truth is you are at risk in everything you do from walking down the street to taking a dump on the toilet, it is not the governments job to mitigate risk.
So, all violent criminals should roam free, because the government is mitigating risk by keeping them imprisoned, correct?
I would not but from your arguments you would. you stated "Society needs to outlaw statistically dangerous activities like that if for no other reason that it should decrease the number of people that commit the crime."
This is a perfect example of how and why loopholes and so-called "technicalities" exist in our current laws. It is very difficult to create a widespread rule that accomplishes specific incidents in a precise manner, as any programmer here probablty knows.
And I will even concede that it should be totally okay for a person who owns a field, to say that it is okay for people to shoot randomly into the field, even if there are crowds of people in the field. Of course it is just as okay for people who own fields to say that if you shoot into the field you will be open to being shot back at and killed. I strongly suspect that people will avoid the killing fields, and the people who go to them understanding the risks involved can shoot at each other all day. If the bloods and the crips want to buy an enormous plot of land and turn it into a free for all gang war territory, let them. However if you own a huge plot of land you should be equally as capable of saying that people who engage in gang wars on your land will be imprisoned.
What about those who do not own land? Where can they go to be sure they will not fall victim to gunfire? Or are we going back to the idea that only white land owners can vote?
Liberty can not be determined with a basis solely of ownership, be it land or otherwise.
Recently I was convinced that men should be allowed to say in their wills that if they are murdered in cold blood, the murderer should be able to pay a fine to their families and get no other punishment. At first I hated this idea, after all if a man kills an innocent person they are at a statistically greater chance of killing another innocent person. Originally I thought, regardless of the wishes of the murdered victim, the murderer should be punished to protect other innocents who may not want to be killed even if the killer pays a huge fine to their families. However I see now that this takes away a persons self ownership. Indeed a person should be able to sell to a psychopath who wants to kill them the ability to do so, if we deny this right to a person we say that we own them.
I agree. What you have described is essentially the same idea as assisted suicide, but with an extra element of uncertainty. Also, I highly doubt that many people would put this in a will, or that murders would increase due to logic like "I'm going out killing tonight , because the victim might let me go free in their will!"
-
Awesome discussion so far!
It looks like we've quickly gone to the heart of the matter: how much government do we want in our lives and what would it be like if we had none? This may shock some of you to hear coming from me, but we absolutely NEED government, and good government at that. In fact, the services the current governments of the world monopolize or regulate are some of the most demanded and needed: security/defense, law, dispute resolution, education, healthcare, transportation, utilities, quality control etc.
The question I present to you is, do we want a single entity monopolizing the provision of all of these critical goods and services, or do we want a choice?
When put this way it certainly sounds attractive; however, particularly when it comes to roads, I find it difficult to imagine how competition between roads could be set up in practice. In most cases there is going to be 2, or 3 possible routes, or less. Even if sufficient alternate routes could be found to encourage healthy competition, it just seems like a waste of resources. What the world needs now is vastly improved mass transit systems, and it doesn't look like the free market is going to provide them.
I guess a way of describing the libertarian stance would be: a system of democracy where the citizens use money to vote; they choose what services and institutions they want by voting with their feet and wallets.
Sounds fair enough, but a better system is one where citizens can vote regardless of their wealth. I would prefer a more representative, truly democratic government, rather than allow the market to decide what my society will look like.
Historically, the market has shown a preference for higher unemployment than we would perhaps like, as it keeps wages low and the workforce keen and subservient.
Also, I am not sure why the author is so down on trade unions? Surely under a free market people selling their labour are entitled to cooperate to demand a higher price for their product?
-
As a request in the interest of security, can the above link to the book be removed and replaced with a generic non-purchasing reference such as Wikipedia or by stating the ISBN & Author & Title. My point is that we should try to ensure nobody purchases through the recommended link as a series of transactions leaves a paper trail for investigators to narrow down people who they may have a suspect list for.
On the whole, looks like a good great read having just flicked through the first few pages scan reading and looking forward to this whole concept. Will discussions of all parts of the book be brought under this topic so that all discussion on a book is within one topic, or are we splitting it as per the assigned week so the same book may be in several topics if it has been chosen to be discussed over more than 1 week.
We put that link so you could have access to the free pdf. I don't know of another place where the pdf is, so if you are concerned about being tracked by mises.org, just buy the book from another venue.
We will make a new thread for each week and try to focus discussion about that week's material in it's corresponding thread. So, any discussion about the first assignment should be in this thread. Next week, we'll start a new thread for the second assignment, and so on.
To your point of being tracked by mises.org, agreed. If done through clearnet, it will probably gets the requesting IP (re)listed into another D.H.S. Watch list. Misguided underwear bombing terrorists aren't a threat to the state, the ideas in this book are what has them shaking.
This is what I consider heavy reading, something I can't pickup unless I get a minute to fully digest. That said, hopefully I can read up and provide more insightful comments soon.
-
WOOHAAA!
We had to rub our eyes 3 times on sight of the New SubForum.
Awesome Idea!
*frantically hand-clapping*
-
Doing reckless activities is enough to get you arrested regardless of what you meant to do.
Yes, and I covered recklessness which is separate from DUI and already covered with existing legislation in almost all jurisdictions around the world. With recklessness there is still intent - it's called oblique intent, wherein the individual is aware of the potential outcome of their and by any reasonable test can forsee the consequences but proceeds to do so anyhow. If you kill someone while drunk in most cases that can be argued to be recklessness. There's a law for that, so there's no need to add a law under which people have actually been charged for passing out in their vehicles with no real evidence they intended to drive.
Recklessness is not defined by actual harm caused,it instead is defined by potential for harm or damage to others' person or property. If recklessness only existed when damage or harm was done, then there would never be a Reckless Endangerment charge without it being accompanied by a more severe charge. Also if that were ture, it would mean that Reckless Endangerment is actually the extra law.
You did touch on what I think is very important: intent to drive. As I mentioned in my previous post, DUI laws should be altered, and that is another example of alteration that is needed: intent to drive should not be grounds for arrest. The law is not IDUI.
I mean the man firing into the crowd may have no intention of hurting anyone. Maybe he just wanted to piss everyone off. It doesn't matter, he is taken in for reckless endangerment and/or attempted murder.
I'm curious, can you cite any case where someone has fired into a crowd without intent to injure? I'd debate this point, but I think you're positing a bit of an absurd premise.
Is it really that absurd? Perhaps the crowd idea is a bit unbelievable, but have you honestly never heard something like this: "I never meant to actually hurt him, I was only trying to scare him!"
We prosecute dangerous activities because they are risky enough to hurt another. If you want to talk human rights, how about the rights of the people that are now more likely to be injured/killed as a result of the driver?
Ok, then you drinking a soda, smoking a cig or even listening to the radio should be legislated and punished accordingly. All those things have been found to lead to more accidents. And step out of the car and there's a million other things that we could legislate.
This is where Drinking and Driving laws differ from most in a democratic society - it's one of the few laws where there doesn't need to be a victim, nor intent, and yet there is still a crime. Arguably, drug laws are also under that category.
Flagrant disregard for the safety of others is, and should be, illegal. The issue at the heart of this argument would be the agreed upon definition of "flagrant." If a person has sex with you, while knowingly infected with HIV, should it be legal if no transmission occurs? Or if a construction company uses materials that can cause
Drug laws are not the same. DUI is not a law regarding possession or sales or production of alcohol causing an increased likelihood of harm to others.
-
Awesome discussion so far!
It looks like we've quickly gone to the heart of the matter: how much government do we want in our lives and what would it be like if we had none? This may shock some of you to hear coming from me, but we absolutely NEED government, and good government at that. In fact, the services the current governments of the world monopolize or regulate are some of the most demanded and needed: security/defense, law, dispute resolution, education, healthcare, transportation, utilities, quality control etc.
The question I present to you is, do we want a single entity monopolizing the provision of all of these critical goods and services, or do we want a choice?
When put this way it certainly sounds attractive; however, particularly when it comes to roads, I find it difficult to imagine how competition between roads could be set up in practice. In most cases there is going to be 2, or 3 possible routes, or less. Even if sufficient alternate routes could be found to encourage healthy competition, it just seems like a waste of resources. What the world needs now is vastly improved mass transit systems, and it doesn't look like the free market is going to provide them.
I guess a way of describing the libertarian stance would be: a system of democracy where the citizens use money to vote; they choose what services and institutions they want by voting with their feet and wallets.
Sounds fair enough, but a better system is one where citizens can vote regardless of their wealth. I would prefer a more representative, truly democratic government, rather than allow the market to decide what my society will look like.
Historically, the market has shown a preference for higher unemployment than we would perhaps like, as it keeps wages low and the workforce keen and subservient.
Also, I am not sure why the author is so down on trade unions? Surely under a free market people selling their labour are entitled to cooperate to demand a higher price for their product?
Let me try to clarify. First off, neither you nor I know if 1, 2, 3 or 100 routs from point A to point B is the most efficient. We also don't know what mix of mass and personal transit systems is best. In fact, no one knows or can know. The problem is too complex and ultimately boils down to what people need and want, which is changing constantly.
This is where central planning falls short and where the market shines. In the absence of a government monopoly, production is left to entrepreneurs and businesspeople seeking profit. They try all manner of different things, most of which fail early on and don't waste too much, but the ones that truly serve people's needs catch on and are profitable. Those profits attract competition, and the correct level of production is discovered, and efficiency is maximized. If 3 roads from Las Vegas to Phoenix is too many, we will know it because the least used road will not make enough revenue to cover its maintenance costs. It will be shut down quickly and the land put to better use leaving the two better routs to serve the demand.
With a government monopoly in control, change happens through consensus and the consensus is forced upon everyone. We have no idea if 3 routs is too many or too little because there is no profit/loss mechanism to kill off the bad ventures and reward the good.
With regard to your comments about labor, systemic unemployment is the result of a government imposed price floor in the labor market. All price floors lead to a surplus (in this case a surplus of unused labor). This price floor is more commonly called the minimum wage. Absent the minimum wage, entrepreneurs and businesspeople would find a way to put valuable, idle labor to use at below minimum wage rates.
There is nothing wrong or immoral about labor unions unless they use their power to bring the force of government to bear on their enemies. Connecting my last point, labor unions are some of the biggest lobbyists for the minimum wage even though they are paid well above it. They do this because it drives out their main competition: cheap labor. In order to maintain their high wages, they doom their underskilled neighbor to unemployment.
I hope that clarifies more than it clouds.
-
But see, that post represents the problem of libertarianism to me. You seem to assume that the market on its own will regulate itself in a way that is fair to all. Yet there has not once been a successful libertarian government. That's not for want of trying: Somalia is a good example of that today, and even the United States in the mid- to late 1800s. Child labor was a problem, pollution and environmental issues was a huge problem, worker abuse was a problem, etc. It took a central government to step in and set up these regulations. There's a reason the minimum wage exists: As it is, someone making just minimum wage most likely sits below the poverty line, despite the fact that they're doing work which is actually really important. You might not think of the guy that makes your McDonalds hamburger as important, but he is contributing to society. If suddenly every fast food worker stopped working, you would see an instant change. If your office or school's custodians simultaneously quit to become entrepreneurs, the building would become a mess. So libertarianism naturally contradicts with how the world works: Libertarians say that anyone can make it, and that therefore the market should be left free. But of course not everyone can make it. We know this to be impossible. You need people at the bottom too, and even though they won't be living lavish lifestyles, they at least need government protection, because otherwise the people at the top have no reason to help them.
In some ways, I find libertarianism to be an arrogant philosophy, although I'll preface that with the disclaimer that people from all over the political spectrum can be arrogant. I just mean the very philosophy behind libertarianism is inherently arrogant. Its the mindset of, "I know what's best for me, and you know what's best for you, so we don't need government help." But again, if you look at reality, that's just not how the world works. Everyone wants different things. It takes people coming together to agree on how those things should happen. That's how you end up with most modern conveniences, such as roads. It wasn't one business in the free market deciding they were going to make transportation easier, it was a group of people in a government realizing that it benefited all. Honestly private business relies on the government. They use their roads, they use their electricity, etc. So it seems silly to think that the free market could just take care of itself with no regulation. It's never been done. So for you to espouse that theory, you have to explain how it will be done now. And I just don't think you can. Many libertarians are very intelligent people. If everyone was really intelligent, maybe it would work as a practical philosophy. But that's not how things are. And we in fact need stupid or physically disabled people to do jobs that we don't want to even think about doing. Libertarianism exists in a utopia, which I already explained at length in my previous post. It's a great idea, but it's not a great practical system. I mean everything logically works out, but it quickly falls apart when enabled. Human nature prevents libertarianism from ever being successful.
Also remember that we're trying to create an efficient society. Look no further than socialist governments if you want an example of efficiency. In countries where health care is nationalized, they're able to run it at half the cost of the USA. Of course you could privatize everything, even roads if you wanted to. But the government is the entity that can run such conveniences with the greatest efficiency. I have a feeling that most libertarians are fine with a government-run police force. That's not to say that you agree with everything the police does (obviously not, or what would you be doing here?), but I doubt any of you would feel comfortable with privatized crime-fighting forces. That would scare the hell out of me. So you're fine with the government hiring police forces that fight crime related to you, but when it comes to regulatory agencies which do exactly the same thing but at the corporate level, it's suddenly government intrusion. Isn't this a contradiction as well? There are certainly times in your life where you agree that the government is best for that system, so where do you draw the line? Where does the government suddenly become too intrusive and why? If I am mugged in an alley and all my money is stolen, the average libertarian will agree that I should expect government-run police protection. Yet if the CEO of a company makes a stupid financial decision and his company goes under, leaving me unemployed, they won't agree that I should expect government-run financial protection, such as social welfare. Why? Either way it's out of my control, and in both cases the government regulation is meant to help me get back what I lost to a reasonable degree.
-
This brings us back to another quote from you
Socialisms biggest failing is that it assumes we live in a sort of utopian society, one in which the government would in fact regulate itself, and one in which the government, at it's heart, is good and only looking out for the welfare of others.
If, by your own stated belief people are not good at heart and are in fact greedy then what makes you think that people who run the government will be any different? A government is a body of people notably ungoverned.
If we look at the context you so wonderfully left out in your description of Social Contract, we can begin to see why a Constitution (which as we know can actually exist as a legal document) is so important, and that it is what governs the "body of people notably ungoverned."
So, the first sentence that you quoted from me was a rewording of the original posters comment about libertarianism. Intended to bring to lite the point that what he said of libertarianism could also be said of socialism. If you do not trust humans because of the inherent belief that all people are selfish and greedy then how can you trust them to run a government that is not selfish and greedy. You are basically taking a small number of people and giving them power. Then trusting that they will do the right thing and not what is in there best interest.
As to your comment about the constitution nullifying the statement that "a government is a body of people notably ungoverned" Tell me, how is that working out. Lets see
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
The government has Suspended Habeas corpus, Created "Free Speach Zones" to make sure the people who wish to protest are not seen, Initiated Faith based initiatives, and dont even get me started with the whole Wiki leaks crap and it's violations.
Ok, so the first amendment is ignored, but they follow the others right?
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
There are lots of gun laws, kind of throws that one out the window as well
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Unless you are in an airport or near (Within 200 miles of) a border, then they do what ever they want.
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
and
"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence."
Do I even need to point out Guantanamo bay or the guy that leaked stuff to Wiki Leaks?
I could go on but I think I have made the point. Although they should be governed by the constution they are not thus they are "notably ungoverned"
Also remember that we're trying to create an efficient society. Look no further than socialist governments if you want an example of efficiency. In countries where health care is nationalized, they're able to run it at half the cost of the USA.
Looking at the 4 remaining socialist governments seems to contradict your statement.
I believe that if the US had a true free market healthcare system we would see huge drops in the cost of healthcare. As it stands the AMA controls the healthcare system. They have pushed state and federal laws that require doctors to complete their training in AMA approved schools and then artificially restrict the size of the classes to control the numbers of doctors on the market. It is more difficult to become a Medical General practitioner that it is to become a veterinarian. Yet a veterinarian has to be trained in multiple species as well as humans.
-
The second amendment is a really tricky case. Kind of like the oft-ignored third amendment, the second amendment has to be looked at in the context of history. First of all, it does say that it is to establish a "well regulated militia." So well regulated is right there in the text, and that can be interpreted a number of ways. Plus back when it was written, the guns were one-shot muskets that had to be reloaded for a fairly long period of time before being fired again. The Constitution is a living document, meaning we can change interpretations of it over time. As it is the government does in fact have the ability to infringe on a right guaranteed by the Constitution, as long as they can convince the Supreme Court that their is a just case for doing so. For example, the first amendment right of free speech does not apply to someone who calls their business rival and says "I'm going to come over to your house and kill you tonight!" Nor does it apply to someone who yells "FIRE!" in a crowded movie theater. Likewise, you can have restrictive guns laws in place IF you can determine that their is a just cause for doing so. I'm not here to argue over how restrictive gun laws should be or whatever, but it's a pointless argument to make on your end either way. Even showing cases where the government does badly does nothing to help your position that the free market would do it better. Of course the government makes mistakes. No one claims it's perfect. But you likewise cannot claim that the free market is perfect. Some things would be better, sure. Drugs would be legalized and that sort of thing, But the number of detriments would far surpass the number of benefits. I want you to imagine a world where there are corporate regulatory laws in effect. What would stop child labor from being used again? Or terrible wages for long working hours?
The big flaw of libertarianism, and partly with capitalism in general, is that it allows the rich and powerful to control everything. The top 10% have more power than the bottom 90%. Without government interference, what change does the bottom have against the top? You can look at social mobility statistics to see how unlikely it is for someone at the bottom to ever rise to the top. In America, around 66% of people born into the bottom 20% income level ever make it past the bottom 40% income level. Similarly, 66% of those born into the top 20% of income stay within the top 40%. I don't have any particular problems with the second statistic, since I never think success needs to be discouraged. But that first statistic is disheartening. In what free market system are those bottom feeders able to get out? It's hard enough as it is. Again, you can look at countries who have more socialist policies to see the difference, and it's outstanding. America ranks near the bottom of countries with high social mobility. It's great at letting the rich get richer, but it's terrible at letting the poor break free. This really shouldn't be that surprising to anyone who has been poor in their lives. There are a number of disadvantages that you now have to face from birth. Everyone knows that it takes money to make money. Well in a libertarian society, the only people that have money are the ones born with it. Libertarians love to praise the great economic climbers like Andrew Carnegie or Richard Nixon. Yet people like that are the exception, not the norm. The norm is that you live and die in the class you were born into. Government regulation can help that. Getting out of poverty is tough, but it can be done if the economic and social programs are there. But the free market isn't going to provide those. Only the government can, because the government is about helping people achieve a certain standard of living. The free market is about making as much profit as possible, the people be damned. It's also terribly inefficient for the consumers, laborers, and many conveniences like roads, where one unified body controlling them is just easier. This is the importance of government in society. On social issues, I totally agree with libertarians. Let people put what they want in their bodies, let people have their privacy, allow people to act as they wish if it doesn't harm anyone else. But unfortunately, being rich without paying back into the system that made you rich is somewhat indirectly harming others. This is where the social contract is important. You entered society, you played by its rules, you used its programs, and you got to the top. Well the next people that want to play by its rules, they need those programs too, and you now have the obligation to pay back in. Ultimately libertarianism is going to remain an unpopular ideology because civilizations going back thousands of years have understood the importance of government. Libertarians are trying to fight for a philosophy that was disregarded long, long ago.
-
I hope you all enjoy reading this as much as I enjoyed writing it. Thank you to divinechemicals for engaging in the debate :)
But see, that post represents the problem of libertarianism to me. You seem to assume that the market on its own will regulate itself in a way that is fair to all. Yet there has not once been a successful libertarian government. That's not for want of trying: Somalia is a good example of that today, and even the United States in the mid- to late 1800s. Child labor was a problem, pollution and environmental issues was a huge problem, worker abuse was a problem, etc. It took a central government to step in and set up these regulations. There's a reason the minimum wage exists: As it is, someone making just minimum wage most likely sits below the poverty line, despite the fact that they're doing work which is actually really important. You might not think of the guy that makes your McDonalds hamburger as important, but he is contributing to society. If suddenly every fast food worker stopped working, you would see an instant change. If your office or school's custodians simultaneously quit to become entrepreneurs, the building would become a mess. So libertarianism naturally contradicts with how the world works: Libertarians say that anyone can make it, and that therefore the market should be left free. But of course not everyone can make it. We know this to be impossible. You need people at the bottom too, and even though they won't be living lavish lifestyles, they at least need government protection, because otherwise the people at the top have no reason to help them.
In some ways, I find libertarianism to be an arrogant philosophy, although I'll preface that with the disclaimer that people from all over the political spectrum can be arrogant. I just mean the very philosophy behind libertarianism is inherently arrogant. Its the mindset of, "I know what's best for me, and you know what's best for you, so we don't need government help." But again, if you look at reality, that's just not how the world works. Everyone wants different things. It takes people coming together to agree on how those things should happen. That's how you end up with most modern conveniences, such as roads. It wasn't one business in the free market deciding they were going to make transportation easier, it was a group of people in a government realizing that it benefited all. Honestly private business relies on the government. They use their roads, they use their electricity, etc. So it seems silly to think that the free market could just take care of itself with no regulation. It's never been done. So for you to espouse that theory, you have to explain how it will be done now. And I just don't think you can. Many libertarians are very intelligent people. If everyone was really intelligent, maybe it would work as a practical philosophy. But that's not how things are. And we in fact need stupid or physically disabled people to do jobs that we don't want to even think about doing. Libertarianism exists in a utopia, which I already explained at length in my previous post. It's a great idea, but it's not a great practical system. I mean everything logically works out, but it quickly falls apart when enabled. Human nature prevents libertarianism from ever being successful.
Also remember that we're trying to create an efficient society. Look no further than socialist governments if you want an example of efficiency. In countries where health care is nationalized, they're able to run it at half the cost of the USA. Of course you could privatize everything, even roads if you wanted to. But the government is the entity that can run such conveniences with the greatest efficiency. I have a feeling that most libertarians are fine with a government-run police force. That's not to say that you agree with everything the police does (obviously not, or what would you be doing here?), but I doubt any of you would feel comfortable with privatized crime-fighting forces. That would scare the hell out of me. So you're fine with the government hiring police forces that fight crime related to you, but when it comes to regulatory agencies which do exactly the same thing but at the corporate level, it's suddenly government intrusion. Isn't this a contradiction as well? There are certainly times in your life where you agree that the government is best for that system, so where do you draw the line? Where does the government suddenly become too intrusive and why? If I am mugged in an alley and all my money is stolen, the average libertarian will agree that I should expect government-run police protection. Yet if the CEO of a company makes a stupid financial decision and his company goes under, leaving me unemployed, they won't agree that I should expect government-run financial protection, such as social welfare. Why? Either way it's out of my control, and in both cases the government regulation is meant to help me get back what I lost to a reasonable degree.
You seem to assume that the market on its own will regulate itself in a way that is fair to all.
I said nothing about fairness. If I did have to say something about fairness, I'd say it is unfair to force someone to do anything they do not want to or prevent them from acting if they are not harming another. Didn't your mama ever tell you that life isn't fair?
Yet there has not once been a successful libertarian government. That's not for want of trying: Somalia is a good example of that today,
We're getting away from the material, but since there aren't any other posts today, I'll go with it. What exactly is your problem with Somalia? It is hard to debate if you aren't specific :)
the United States in the mid- to late 1800s. Child labor was a problem, pollution and environmental issues was a huge problem, worker abuse was a problem, etc. It took a central government to step in and set up these regulations.
If a child wants to work, he or she should be allowed. Preventing a child from working and thereby forcing them into a lower standard of living is abusive. If they are forced to work, then that is slavery and obviously not libertarian. Pollution is equivalent to damaging a neighbor's property. If property rights are upheld, then that neighbor would have a right to restitution. Polluters in the late 1800s were actually protected from lawsuits by the government courts. If they had been forced to compensate those they hurt, their actions would have been uneconomical and they would have had to find non-polluting ways to produce their goods. Same argument for child labor goes for worker abuse.
There's a reason the minimum wage exists: As it is, someone making just minimum wage most likely sits below the poverty line
How about someone who's labor is worth less than minimum wage? These people are not allowed to work even if they are willing and able. They wind up homeless or in govt programs where they get no productive skills. They don't benefit, and the rest of us don't benefit. If they were allowed to work, they could gain productive skills and work their way up above the "poverty line", enriching themselves and others. Give them a chance.
Everyone wants different things. It takes people coming together to agree on how those things should happen.
We couldn't agree more :) The real question is, are those people going to come together voluntarily and on mutually agreeable terms, or are the going to come together, arm themselves, and then force anyone who disagrees to do what they've decided is best. Cooperation and coordination are some of a human being's greatest assets, but if you have to resort to force to get people's support, then maybe your ideas aren't so great after all? If a single government monopoly is so great, wouldn't we gladly give up our money for their services? Why do they have to hold a gun in one hand as they reach into our earnings to tax them with the other?
So it seems silly to think that the free market could just take care of itself with no regulation. It's never been done. So for you to espouse that theory, you have to explain how it will be done now. And I just don't think you can. Many libertarians are very intelligent people. If everyone was really intelligent, maybe it would work as a practical philosophy. But that's not how things are. And we in fact need stupid or physically disabled people to do jobs that we don't want to even think about doing. Libertarianism exists in a utopia, which I already explained at length in my previous post. It's a great idea, but it's not a great practical system. I mean everything logically works out, but it quickly falls apart when enabled. Human nature prevents libertarianism from ever being successful.
Silk Road was founded on libertarian principles and continues to be operated on them. It is a great idea and a great practical system. Not everyone here is intelligent. It is not a utopia. It is regulated by market forces, not a central power (even I am subject to market forces by my competition. No one is forced to be here). The same principles that have allowed Silk Road to flourish can and do work anywhere human beings come together. The only difference is that the State is unable to get its thieving murderous mits on it.
Also remember that we're trying to create an efficient society. Look no further than socialist governments if you want an example of efficiency. In countries where health care is nationalized, they're able to run it at half the cost of the USA. Of course you could privatize everything, even roads if you wanted to. But the government is the entity that can run such conveniences with the greatest efficiency.
Efficiency is the booby prize of a free society, and most definitely not a hallmark of central planning. The real prize is freedom itself. Slavery actually was more efficient for tobacco farmers in colonial America, for example. It was efficient in reaching the goals of the tobacco farmers, but not the goals of the slaves. In the same way, a socialist planner might get what he and his constituents want efficiently through the mechanisms of the state, but the people forced to produce what they want are not getting what they want. If they did want the same thing, they would gladly pay for it. As it is they must be taxed.
I have a feeling that most libertarians are fine with a government-run police force.
False. State police scare the hell out of me. Who would you trust more, someone who you paid to protect you and who's livelihood depends on your continuing to pay them, or someone who steals from you (taxes), buys guns with the money (FBI, DEA, ATF, Military, local and state police, etc.), and then forces you to do things against your will when you are not hurting anyone else?
Where does the government suddenly become too intrusive and why?
As soon as it initiates force (taxation, regulation, wars of agression, etc.), because bullies are bad and should be spanked :)
If I am mugged in an alley and all my money is stolen, the average libertarian will agree that I should expect government-run police protection. Yet if the CEO of a company makes a stupid financial decision and his company goes under, leaving me unemployed, they won't agree that I should expect government-run financial protection, such as social welfare. Why?
Because your body and wallet are your property while a job is not, that belongs to your employer. Go get another job or make your own.
-
divinechemicals, Your remarks about the second amendment are in my opinion wrong. When it was written "well regulated" meant well trained. It is in that context that we should examine the constitution. Your comment about single shot muskets is a strawman argument. It was the most advanced weapons of the time, If it really did not me what it said then why was it that the first national gun laws did not hit the books for over 150 years after the signing. They had Gatling guns by the 1860's and automatic weapons by the early 1900's but the first national gun law was not enacted until the 1930's and then it was a tax and not a ban on weapons.
The constitution is the document that states what the government can and can not do, it does not grant or guarantee rights. The Bill of rights only states that the government can not infringe on these rights.
As to your comments about telling some one you are going to kill them or yelling fire in a crowded theater, again these are straw man arguments as there is no law prohibiting doing that. If there is a fire in the theater, you can scream FIRE! Just are you can see lots of "Im going to kill you" on reality TV, or ESPN when referring to teams. The laws deal with your actual actions and not the words you use.
The overall point was that if you can not trust men with a free market because you do not believe that a man is good at heart then why would you trust them with the power of a nuclear weapon and an army.
This is exactly what you are trying to say is that you do not trust your fellow man and think government will do better. All while ignoring the fact that governments are just a collection of men with more power than any corporation. The fact that you believe that the constitution is a "Living document" that can be changed provided the government "can convince the Supreme Court that their is a just case for doing so." Just proves that they are "notably ungoverned" The Supreme Court is just another branch of government run by the same selfish and greedy people.
You ask "what change does the bottom have against the top?" That is simple enough, Colt gun company once used the slogan "God made man, but Samuel Colt made them equal," Business and corporations come and go, the major corporations of the 1700's, 1800's, and even the bulk of corporations from the 1900's are gone. If corporations were as evil and all powerful as you believe then explain why they go under and vanish from the face of the earth instead of spending the vast amount of money to get laws passed to protect them? Hell, the families that were in the top 10% in the late 1700's are not the same as the ones in the 1800's or 1900's or even the first half of the 2000's
So, How about a little history. My family came to this country in the mid 1700's by the late 1700's they were one of the top 2% in wealth. By the mid 1800's the wealth was gone and all that was left was a hand full of things named after them. So, being in the top 10% or top 2% or even the top 1% is no guarantee that you and your family will rule or even control your destiny.
-
I hope you all enjoy reading this as much as I enjoyed writing it. Thank you to divinechemicals for engaging in the debate :)
Big thank you and a big thumbs up. To both you and devinechemicals, I look forward to reading and debating this every day! ;)
I have a question for DPR, You comment about Slavery not being Libertarian and I will say that slavery is libertarian with some minor caveats, those being contractual and between two consenting adults. Do you disagree?
-
I hope you all enjoy reading this as much as I enjoyed writing it. Thank you to divinechemicals for engaging in the debate :)
Big thank you and a big thumbs up. To both you and devinechemicals, I look forward to reading and debating this every day! ;)
I have a question for DPR, You comment about Slavery not being Libertarian and I will say that slavery is libertarian with some minor caveats, those being contractual and between two consenting adults. Do you disagree?
That's a very interesting question, and one I've given some thought before now, but don't have a strong opinion on because I can see both sides of the argument. If I understand your question, you are asking if someone can sell themselves into slavery and still be consistent with libertarian morality. Or maybe put another way, can the person who bought that slavery contract morally enforce it. Rothbard's position is that this is not moral and you cannot sell your life-force or will or sovereignty whatever you want to call it because it is inseparable from you. If you later change your mind, then you should be able to abandon whatever contract you made. I can see the other side though. If you truly own yourself, then you should be able to sell yourself. What if your child needs a $100k medical procedure to survive and your only asset is your labor. Let's say 5 years of your labor is worth $100k. Shouldn't you be able to sell the next 5 years of your labor to help your child? Would it not be violent interference to prevent you from pursuing that path? How about someone that borrows $100k? Does the lender not have a right to be repaid and would be justified in confiscating that persons wages, effectively owning their labor, to regain their property and enforce the contract?
If I had to choose a side to this question, I think it would be the latter, which might be the first point I've disagreed with Rothbard on :P
You mention consenting adults though. If someone is actively consenting to slavery, then it's not really slavery is it? I think the difficult situation is when the jameslink of today promises his future labor and effectively sells into slavery his future self. What are your thoughts on the matter?
-
Just finished the first assignment. The author doesn't mince words and is quite confrontational in his tone. Hopefully this doesn't scare too many of you off or polarize the debate too much. My favorite quote from this week is
The only thing a government does well: nothing at all.
-
You mention consenting adults though. If someone is actively consenting to slavery, then it's not really slavery is it? I think the difficult situation is when the jameslink of today promises his future labor and effectively sells into slavery his future self. What are your thoughts on the matter?
My only intent in using the word consenting was that both parties entering the contract consent to the deal. Meaning that one would not be able to sell the contract with out the salve consenting to the sale.
I think what you are asking, and I could be wrong here, is How would I feel about a slavery contract where I sell my self to start in the future. Again, If it is a contract that I agree with and has been negotiated and I feel that the compensation is fair then I would not have an issue with it. However this does open up some interesting questions. One who sells himself into slavery to start in 18 months then wins the lottery or his life situation changes and he no-longer needs the money or property that the contract was to pay. To me this is a simple matter of the value of the contract, I would expect that a contract would cover these situations and have a buyout with a reasonable penalty.
The best example of this I can come up with is called Military Service, as with any contract you have ways out of the contract but if you attempt to break the contract they will come get you and toss you in a cell.
-
I hope you all enjoy reading this as much as I enjoyed writing it. Thank you to divinechemicals for engaging in the debate :)
Big thank you and a big thumbs up. To both you and devinechemicals, I look forward to reading and debating this every day! ;)
I have a question for DPR, You comment about Slavery not being Libertarian and I will say that slavery is libertarian with some minor caveats, those being contractual and between two consenting adults. Do you disagree?
That's a very interesting question, and one I've given some thought before now, but don't have a strong opinion on because I can see both sides of the argument. If I understand your question, you are asking if someone can sell themselves into slavery and still be consistent with libertarian morality. Or maybe put another way, can the person who bought that slavery contract morally enforce it. Rothbard's position is that this is not moral and you cannot sell your life-force or will or sovereignty whatever you want to call it because it is inseparable from you. If you later change your mind, then you should be able to abandon whatever contract you made. I can see the other side though. If you truly own yourself, then you should be able to sell yourself. What if your child needs a $100k medical procedure to survive and your only asset is your labor. Let's say 5 years of your labor is worth $100k. Shouldn't you be able to sell the next 5 years of your labor to help your child? Would it not be violent interference to prevent you from pursuing that path? How about someone that borrows $100k? Does the lender not have a right to be repaid and would be justified in confiscating that persons wages, effectively owning their labor, to regain their property and enforce the contract?
If I had to choose a side to this question, I think it would be the latter, which might be the first point I've disagreed with Rothbard on :P
You mention consenting adults though. If someone is actively consenting to slavery, then it's not really slavery is it? I think the difficult situation is when the jameslink of today promises his future labor and effectively sells into slavery his future self. What are your thoughts on the matter?
If you sell yourself into 'slavery' you are not a slave.
-
My opinion is that, paradoxically, in order to have truly free markets there needs to be 1 important rule which does violate the 'voluntary transaction' rule. That is: you cannot sell yourself. You can rent your labor. We call that a contract or a salary. But you can't sell yourself. Sale of yourself implies that all production henceforth from yourself is no longer a dividend that you have access to, your choices are now somebody else's choices, i.e. your owner.
Yourself, is of course, the ultimate in private property. You own you. The paradox is that this item of private property has to be unsaleable for free markets. Once you give up your property rights to yourself, then everything else, every other free choice has been completely compromised. Maybe it wouldn't start out that way, but you know it'd end up that way.
As it is said: The exception proves the rule.
-
If you tell a person that they can not sell themselves then you claim to own them.
-
Think of it like this:
Many of our ancestors on the ships to American would have sold themselves as indentured servants. That means they had to work for X years until they were freed. Usually five or seven years, and to other people who had done the same thing before they arrived in America. After all, getting across the Atlantic was no mean feat back then, I don't think it would be too mad to suggest it'd be similar to mass space travel today. It was hugely expensive.
Becoming an indentured servant is extraordinary, but acceptable in a free market if those agents chose that without coersion. It is similar to a long term employment contract, albeit a drastic one. Indentured servants no longer exist in the majority of the West, but we do have credit card companies and mortgages which essentially perform the same function by supplying bonded labor, albeit this is much much better than being an indentured servant.
However, the Negros that were coercively shipped across for labor purposes, and anybody who permanently sold themselves as an indentured servant, these people were not free agents.
Without free agents, you cannot have free markets. Unless it applies to all participants universally, it doesn't work as a voluntary transaction.
That means you cannot sell yourself, even if you want to, because this is the exception to the rule or the entire system becomes logically inconsistent.
I'll say it again: In order for voluntary exchange to be a universal principal, it is required that there be one unique exception to that rule.
-
If you tell a person that they can not sell themselves then you claim to own them.
perfect summary. I think you brought up the point earlier, could I sell someone the right to kill me? You could argue that killing someone is an even greater breach of their rights than enslaving them. But is killing someone with their consent moral? Is preventing it immoral? I think that's a tough pill to swallow for some, but really gets to the heart of the matter.
-
If you tell a person that they can not sell themselves then you claim to own them.
I don't claim to own them per se, since nobody is receiving a benefit from this directly, the labor dividend of course being the entire point of enslaving somebody.
But I do claim they cannot have 'the right' to sell themselves, even if they want to.
It is not so much I'm 'taking their right' or 'owning their right', since I don't receive a benefit from that. I am instead denying that this is a valid right at all. It is a null right. It cannot be transacted. (I'm aware it can, and was, I'm saying it should not be for a free market to function consistently)
Metaphorically is similar to dividing numbers by each other. In order for the division rule to apply, the rule must be itself violated because you cannot divide one by zero.
-
If you tell a person that they can not sell themselves then you claim to own them.
perfect summary. I think you brought up the point earlier, could I sell someone the right to kill me? You could argue that killing someone is an even greater breach of their rights than enslaving them. But is killing someone with their consent moral? Is preventing it immoral? I think that's a tough pill to swallow for some, but really gets to the heart of the matter.
Enslavement is immoral because it denies that others the ability to be free agents. Let us say that we adopt the approach that people may enslave themselves. What happens to the children when they born? They are a dividend. Now I own them and they never had any choice in the matter. Their choices are irrelevant because I own the mother. Unless I owe all her labor, all her, then she is not truly a slave. In order to prevent this, you yourself have to make a logical contradiction or paradox, which is that some things my slave produces are not owned by me.
-
I like my logical contradiction better than yours ;)
-
awesome, 2 of my fav things put together! silk road and reading! this will be awesome....
-
If you tell a person that they can not sell themselves then you claim to own them.
perfect summary. I think you brought up the point earlier, could I sell someone the right to kill me? You could argue that killing someone is an even greater breach of their rights than enslaving them. But is killing someone with their consent moral? Is preventing it immoral? I think that's a tough pill to swallow for some, but really gets to the heart of the matter.
Enslavement is immoral because it denies that others the ability to be free agents. Let us say that we adopt the approach that people may enslave themselves. What happens to the children when they born? They are a dividend. Now I own them and they never had any choice in the matter. Their choices are irrelevant because I own the mother. Unless I owe all her labor, all her, then she is not truly a slave. In order to prevent this, you yourself have to make a logical contradiction or paradox, which is that some things my slave produces are not owned by me.
denying someone the right to sell themselves into slavery denies them the ability to be a free agent, if someone freely chooses to sell themselves into slavery then they have acted as a free agent in becoming a slave.
-
If you tell a person that they can not sell themselves then you claim to own them.
perfect summary. I think you brought up the point earlier, could I sell someone the right to kill me? You could argue that killing someone is an even greater breach of their rights than enslaving them. But is killing someone with their consent moral? Is preventing it immoral? I think that's a tough pill to swallow for some, but really gets to the heart of the matter.
Enslavement is immoral because it denies that others the ability to be free agents. Let us say that we adopt the approach that people may enslave themselves. What happens to the children when they born? They are a dividend. Now I own them and they never had any choice in the matter. Their choices are irrelevant because I own the mother. Unless I owe all her labor, all her, then she is not truly a slave. In order to prevent this, you yourself have to make a logical contradiction or paradox, which is that some things my slave produces are not owned by me.
denying someone the right to sell themselves into slavery denies them the ability to be a free agent, if someone freely chooses to sell themselves into slavery then they have acted as a free agent in becoming a slave.
Yes. That is exactly so. That's my logical contradiction. The kernel of free markets then, is based on some form of coercion (not beneficial to myself as I said, but still a form of coercive action nonetheless).
The reason for this is as follows. I am fortunate to be pine the slave owner. I acquire slaves with my capital. Then I breed them geometrically. Eventually I have millions of people under my control who pay dividends to myself. Eventually I die and pass my ownership to my own offspring. Then after a generation or so, the vast majority of people in the world are some kind of slave to my dynasty. I and my family might do this, not really because we wish for fortune, since using up dividends in this manner actually is adverse to the direct production of wealth (the opportunity cost of having our slave cattle mostly doing little but producing babies), but because we wish for all the power in the world.
This is simplistic, but it illustrates that unless this 'right' as you entitled it, is denied, then it becomes possible to subvert the free market into a monster if voluntary transaction is an absolute universal right. Absolute right to voluntary transaction is in fact extremely suboptimal due to my diabolical plan to take over the world. I benefit enormously, but society would turn to ash. Obviously in practice my dynasty would be murdered long enough it reached completion since other folk would figure out what we're up to, but in principal we could do it.
So then I reach the conclusion that in order for voluntary exchange to be a right in practice/theory, you will need to violate the right of self ownership.
Some of these ideas are strange and unsettling, but I believe we're getting somewhere.
-
Actually this fits in with my world view that capitalism and socialism are a bit like legos or cinder blocks, in order to construct a civilization you need to build both components on top of each other to produce optimal outcomes.
That is not to say that capitalism and socialism are the same, or that they are compatible. They are most certainly not compatible. They are diametrically opposed in every way. In fact, society works best when they are separated into their purest forms. Left wing people doing left wing things, right wing people doing right wing things. We are like two tribes that have co-existed alongside each other pretty much since forever. In fact I believe the interaction between our tribes is the reason for humanity's dominance over the earth. This is our information technology as a species, I believe it was a logical consequence of being capable of complex communication.
Perhaps this is dead wrong, but I'll just throw it out there anyway. I don't think a left wing person could have built something like SR. I just don't think their brains are wired in the correct configuration. I don't believe it's an accident that the people who built Bitcoin are strongly right wing economically. There are plenty of socialists that support Bitcoin, but I've never met one of them that understands how it works and much more importantly I don't believe they are capable of building such systems as these. I also think they are mistaken in their support of cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin, because making taxation impossible is not exactly compatible with most socialist ideals I think of. I am aware that some of them are issuing currencies like FreeCoin which have redistributive properties, but I believe they will fail dismally. I am willing to admit I could be completely wrong here, but right now that is my thought.
-
If you tell a person that they can not sell themselves then you claim to own them.
perfect summary. I think you brought up the point earlier, could I sell someone the right to kill me? You could argue that killing someone is an even greater breach of their rights than enslaving them. But is killing someone with their consent moral? Is preventing it immoral? I think that's a tough pill to swallow for some, but really gets to the heart of the matter.
Enslavement is immoral because it denies that others the ability to be free agents. Let us say that we adopt the approach that people may enslave themselves. What happens to the children when they born? They are a dividend. Now I own them and they never had any choice in the matter. Their choices are irrelevant because I own the mother. Unless I owe all her labor, all her, then she is not truly a slave. In order to prevent this, you yourself have to make a logical contradiction or paradox, which is that some things my slave produces are not owned by me.
denying someone the right to sell themselves into slavery denies them the ability to be a free agent, if someone freely chooses to sell themselves into slavery then they have acted as a free agent in becoming a slave.
Yes. That is exactly so. That's my logical contradiction. The kernel of free markets then, is based on some form of coercion (not beneficial to myself as I said, but still a form of coercive action nonetheless).
The reason for this is as follows. I am fortunate to be pine the slave owner. I acquire slaves with my capital. Then I breed them geometrically. Eventually I have millions of people under my control who pay dividends to myself. Eventually I die and pass my ownership to my own offspring. Then after a generation or so, the vast majority of people in the world are some kind of slave to my dynasty. I and my family might do this, not really because we wish for fortune, since using up dividends in this manner actually is adverse to the direct production of wealth (the opportunity cost of having our slave cattle mostly doing little but producing babies), but because we wish for all the power in the world.
This is simplistic, but it illustrates that unless this 'right' as you entitled it, is denied, then it becomes possible to subvert the free market into a monster if voluntary transaction is an absolute universal right. Absolute right to voluntary transaction is in fact extremely suboptimal due to my diabolical plan to take over the world. I benefit enormously, but society would turn to ash. Obviously in practice my dynasty would be murdered long enough it reached completion since other folk would figure out what we're up to, but in principal we could do it.
So then I reach the conclusion that in order for voluntary exchange to be a right in practice/theory, you will need to violate the right of self ownership.
Some of these ideas are strange and unsettling, but I believe we're getting somewhere.
You would only 'own' the child of a slave until the child is old enough to say they want to be free. Also what makes you so certain that so many people would desire to sell themselves into slavery? Perhaps a person in a third world extremely poor country would be willing to sign a contract saying that in return for food and shelter they will do whatever is asked of them by the master they sign themselves over to. But I would have no reason to sign such a contract. Additionally, in return for their slavery the example person would receive a higher quality of life. Why would someone voluntarily sell themselves into slavery unless they get a large benefit out of it? So really it is hardly even slavery. Slavery means that you force a person against their will to be your servant. There is no such thing as voluntary slavery, so it is a bit of a misnomer.
-
You would only 'own' the child of a slave until the child is old enough to say they want to be free.
Why? A child would be a drain on resources until it's old enough to be put to productive use, so unless it is also a slave I'd just kill it. We are treating people like commodities now, like a chicken or a cow. That's what slavery is, or it is not slavery of any kind that is recognizable to me. If I do not own the product of my slave's labors, including the offspring dividend they produce, then the whole thing stops making sense. In fact historically speaking what I'm describing, how children were either born into chains or disposed of, did occur.
Yes, enslaving the children is cruel almost beyond imagining, but the point I'm making is sound. When you have ownership of any domestic animal, you own it's products, like meat, eggs, butter, and so forth. The same principal must apply to people too.
Your caveat of "the child must be old enough to make a choice" doesn't make sense practically, because I'd put it down for wasting my resources and in theory because ownership means you get dividends. You own a cow for its milk. You own a chicken for its eggs. You own a stock for its dividends. There is no point in ownership if you don't get to own the production.
Indentured labor is different because there is a time limit after which you are a freeman/freewoman. Thus the 'owner' and 'servant' will have a symbiotic relationship that is productive for them both. With indentured labor, your idea of freedom for the child makes more sense to me.
Also what makes you so certain that so many people would desire to sell themselves into slavery? Perhaps a person in a third world extremely poor country would be willing to sign a contract saying that in return for food and shelter they will do whatever is asked of them by the master they sign themselves over to. But I would have no reason to sign such a contract.
I am not certain. But I only require a small number of 'stock' in order to accumulate more via sexual reproduction. The humans are treated like cattle, made to constantly produce children which are then forced to work for myself at the first possibility. So I don't need very many people to accomplish my evil plan. Like you say, I could import some desperately poor souls from the Third World.
You yourself may never sign yourself over to my ownership. Most people wouldn't. And that's the kicker. Eventually you guys are completely outnumbered by myself and my hordes of slaves. Eventually I can use geometric progression to kick your ass. If I had 1000 female slaves imported and set them to work, I would have something like half a million slaves working for me within 50 years. With just 1 generation in my evil dynasty we'd control the world and the number of people with free market freedoms would be inconsequential, they could be brushed off very easily with those kinds of numbers on my side.
Additionally, in return for their slavery the example person would receive a higher quality of life. Why would someone voluntarily sell themselves into slavery unless they get a large benefit out of it? So really it is hardly even slavery. Slavery means that you force a person against their will to be your servant. There is no such thing as voluntary slavery, so it is a bit of a misnomer.
That is not what slavery means kmfkewm! Slavery is defined as the ownership of people. It can involve coercion and most often does. But in principal people could sign themselves over permanently due to stupidity, an ideological framework similar to religion, and so on. Once they are in, there is no escape, there is no way out. You cannot recover from a mistake. Direct coercion would not be necessary kmfkewm, look at Scientology, look at how the Russian communist elite manipulated the common people. In fact until the markets came, a small number of people dominating the rest was the norm for thousands of years. Property ownership of this widespread kind is a new paradigm (an overused word, but appropriate here).
tldr; in order for free markets to exist, the right to sell oneself must be prohibited without exception. You may only rent or contract yourself out, but never to sell proper.
Voluntary transaction is a near universal rule in my view, but it cannot be completely universal or it shall eat itself up in the way I described or some other fashion.
some wiki quotes:
In pre-industrial societies, slaves and their labour were economically extremely important. Slaves and serfs made up around three-quarters of the world's population at the beginning of the 19th century (i.e. pine's evil plan, albeit by > 1 entity. I think today it would be logistically possible for 1 person to do this though, with databases and biometrics and whatnot).
Slavery is a system under which people are treated as property to be bought and sold, and are forced to work. Slaves can be held against their will from the time of their capture, purchase or birth, and deprived of the right to leave, to refuse to work, or to demand compensation.
-
You would only 'own' the child of a slave until the child is old enough to say they want to be free.
Why?
Because the child did not enter into a contract with you. Even in a libertarian society, only free agents who are capable of rational thought are capable of entering into a contact, as no coercive contracts are considered binding. For this same reason it is not a legitimate contact if you hold a gun to someones head while they sign themselves into slavery. As a child is not a rational being it can not legitimately enter into a contract of self slavery with you.
A child would be a drain on resources until it's old enough to be put to productive use, so unless it is also a slave I'd just kill it.
I am not sure how that would be dealt with. Clearly a child is incapable of entering into a legitimate contract, so it can not be born into slavery. However you are not required to care for the child of your slave if this is not part of the original contract signed by the slave. This would result in the child dying of malnutrition eventually if you forbid the slave from caring for it. Some anarchists believe that children are the property of their parents until they are old enough to make a claim to their own independence, following this line of thought you would legitimately be able to kill the baby as it would be the property of your slave. I disagree with this though, I think that children own themselves as much as adults do, but as they can not fend for themselves it brings up some interesting problems. I do not believe that you have the right to kill your slaves baby, but perhaps you do have the right to order your slave to not care for its child. Certainly you do not own the baby as a slave. I suppose I would hope that some charitable defense agency would act on behalf of such babies by taking them from you and raising them to adulthood, in the hopes that the adult will pay them back for saving its life. As the baby is not owned by you and also not owned by its parent, I believe it would be acceptable for a third party to take parental control of the child, especially as that would be in the best interests of such a child and indeed is what one would likely imagine the child would choose if it had the ability for rational thought.
We are treating people like commodities now, like a chicken or a cow. That's what slavery is, or it is not slavery of any kind that is recognizable to me. If I do not own the product of my slave's labors, including the offspring dividend they produce, then the whole thing stops making sense. In fact historically speaking what I'm describing, how children were either born into chains or disposed of, did occur.
You can own the product of your slaves labor, but that does not include its children. Your freedom ends where another persons begins. You are free to contract people into slavery and people are free to contract themselves into slavery, however one person can not contract another person into slavery. Thus a parent can not contract its child into slavery anymore than I can contract you into slavery.
Yes, enslaving the children is cruel almost beyond imagining, but the point I'm making is sound. When you have ownership of any domestic animal, you own it's products, like meat, eggs, butter, and so forth. The same principal must apply to people too.
People and livestock are different.
Your caveat of "the child must be old enough to make a choice" doesn't make sense practically, because I'd put it down for wasting my resources and in theory because ownership means you get dividends. You own a cow for its milk. You own a chicken for its eggs. You own a stock for its dividends. There is no point in ownership if you don't get to own the production.
As you do not own the child, putting it down would be murder imo. I certainly would not object to a defense agency assassinating you anyway. Not caring for the child would be more acceptable, even though that would certainly result in its death. I believe that you could rightfully force the slave to abort the fetus if it has not developed substantially. However, after the child is born you can either care for it or ignore it. Better yet, some agency could offer to pay you in order to enter onto your property long enough to remove the child (as you do not own the child you can not strictly speaking sell it to them, but you could sell the right to obtaining the child from your land).
I am not certain. But I only require a small number of 'stock' in order to accumulate more via sexual reproduction. The humans are treated like cattle, made to constantly produce children which are then forced to work for myself at the first possibility. So I don't need very many people to accomplish my evil plan. Like you say, I could import some desperately poor souls from the Third World.
Except that assumes that you own your slaves children and I would disagree with this so the point is moot. The most you could do is deny care to the child and let it die of dehydration.
You yourself may never sign yourself over to my ownership. Most people wouldn't. And that's the kicker. Eventually you guys are completely outnumbered by myself and my hordes of slaves. Eventually I can use geometric progression to kick your ass. If I had 1000 female slaves imported and set them to work, I would have something like half a million slaves working for me within 50 years. With just 1 generation in my evil dynasty we'd control the world and the number of people with free market freedoms would be inconsequential, they could be brushed off very easily with those kinds of numbers on my side.
You will not have hordes of slaves, because if you raise the children up to the point that they are rational beings, if they choose freedom and you detain them you will be holding prisoners. At that point it will be moral for defense agencies to storm your property and release your prisoners, as well as to hold you to some form of justice for false imprisonment. If you do not raise the children up, they will die very quickly after they are born. So you can not force your slaves to produce massive armies for you.
That is not what slavery means kmfkewm! Slavery is defined as the ownership of people. It can involve coercion and most often does. But in principal people could sign themselves over permanently due to stupidity, an ideological framework similar to religion, and so on. Once they are in, there is no escape, there is no way out. You cannot recover from a mistake. Direct coercion would not be necessary kmfkewm, look at Scientology, look at how the Russian communist elite manipulated the common people. In fact until the markets came, a small number of people dominating the rest was the norm for thousands of years. Property ownership of this widespread kind is a new paradigm (an overused word, but appropriate here).
Slavery must involve coercion. There is no such thing as a person who willing chooses to be a slave.
tldr; in order for free markets to exist, the right to sell oneself must be prohibited without exception. You may only rent or contract yourself out, but never to sell proper.
If you deny people the right to sell themselves then you claim to own that right yourself. Essentially you claim that you must own the right to selling humans, which you deny to everybody, in order for a free market to exist.
-
I will engage in 'round 2' when i set up a vpn (too cautious to download the pdf).
But ffs, Pine, and others, download the book first before spouting you opinions. This can be a great debate if it doesn't get sidetracked, there will be plenty of time to discuss of whole range of issues. First topic was regarding drunk driving right?
-
Pine, you have changed the type of slavery to a slavery that is immoral and would be illegal.
We are not talking about generational bonded servitude, That would be wrong. We are talking about contractual servitude or indentured servitude.
You ask about a child born to the slave, the child is born free and not the property of anyone. S/He is endowed by there creator with rights of a free person and until they are an adult and can consent to the contract they can not be a slave. That is unless the contract was to produce a child, however that would be a surrogate mother or sperm donor contract. lol
-
Pine, you have changed the type of slavery to a slavery that is immoral and would be illegal.
We are not talking about generational bonded servitude, That would be wrong. We are talking about contractual servitude or indentured servitude.
You ask about a child born to the slave, the child is born free and not the property of anyone. S/He is endowed by there creator with rights of a free person and until they are an adult and can consent to the contract they can not be a slave. That is unless the contract was to produce a child, however that would be a surrogate mother or sperm donor contract. lol
I think we should probably veer the topic back to the book in case we get even more off tangent, but suffice to say I think my idea of slavery is not only the one defined in the dictionary, but that more importantly it is the one operated in practice. Temporary bonding such as indentured servants shouldn't be described as slavery. It is an extreme form of a salaried person, where the contract is longer than normal, but it is not slavery.
I agree that kmfkewm's idea of voluntary exchange being universal would imply a person could sell themselves in a free market. This is logically consistent. But I am saying that despite that consistency that it leads to dramatically worse logical contradiction, a dystopian world where the free market is completely corrupted because of the implications of that non reversible yet still voluntary action. That is why I am saying that the sale of oneself is and should be an illegal operation in a free market, even though this could be a voluntary exchange.
Slavery means the ownership of people. There are no caveats in theory or practice such as the ones kmfkewm and yourself describe. There are no institutional protections against evil pine. If you are not conceptualizing human beings as cattle, to be worked, slaughtered, bred and otherwise used, then they are not slaves and the word has been redefined into something more appealing to a 21st century perspective, but very much detached from how the institution of slavery operated in it's heyday. FWIW the UN's definition of slavery is overly broad, I think that confuses discussions like these.
But I'll say no more. I already made a long post to kmfkewm but I deleted it since I felt we were getting away from the core material. I think we understand each other's point of view, it is just that we disagree with it, it can't be reconciled by further debate.
Back later with more, different free market/state caveats! :)
-
Pine, I think this cuts directly to the heart of the assignment and discussion of a true free market as well as the governments view of a person.
Slavery is defined as "The state of one bound in servitude as the property of a slaveholder or household." (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/slavery)
So the question is Who owns the people? In a free market we are sovereign and are owned by no one unless we sell ourselves. Most governments believe they own the people and are thus entitled to a percentage of the work a person does (Income Tax), the right to take property away from that person, and the right to tell that person how they can live there lives. If we can not sell ourselves then we have no sovereignty and must acknowledge that we are already owned and our life is not our own.
-
Pine, you have changed the type of slavery to a slavery that is immoral and would be illegal.
We are not talking about generational bonded servitude, That would be wrong. We are talking about contractual servitude or indentured servitude.
You ask about a child born to the slave, the child is born free and not the property of anyone. S/He is endowed by there creator with rights of a free person and until they are an adult and can consent to the contract they can not be a slave. That is unless the contract was to produce a child, however that would be a surrogate mother or sperm donor contract. lol
I think we should probably veer the topic back to the book in case we get even more off tangent, but suffice to say I think my idea of slavery is not only the one defined in the dictionary, but that more importantly it is the one operated in practice. Temporary bonding such as indentured servants shouldn't be described as slavery. It is an extreme form of a salaried person, where the contract is longer than normal, but it is not slavery.
I agree that kmfkewm's idea of voluntary exchange being universal would imply a person could sell themselves in a free market. This is logically consistent. But I am saying that despite that consistency that it leads to dramatically worse logical contradiction, a dystopian world where the free market is completely corrupted because of the implications of that non reversible yet still voluntary action. That is why I am saying that the sale of oneself is and should be an illegal operation in a free market, even though this could be a voluntary exchange.
Slavery means the ownership of people. There are no caveats in theory or practice such as the ones kmfkewm and yourself describe. There are no institutional protections against evil pine. If you are not conceptualizing human beings as cattle, to be worked, slaughtered, bred and otherwise used, then they are not slaves and the word has been redefined into something more appealing to a 21st century perspective, but very much detached from how the institution of slavery operated in it's heyday. FWIW the UN's definition of slavery is overly broad, I think that confuses discussions like these.
But I'll say no more. I already made a long post to kmfkewm but I deleted it since I felt we were getting away from the core material. I think we understand each other's point of view, it is just that we disagree with it, it can't be reconciled by further debate.
Back later with more, different free market/state caveats! :)
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/slave
1. One bound in servitude as the property of a person or household.
2. One who is abjectly subservient to a specified person or influence: "I was still the slave of education and prejudice" (Edward Gibbon).
3. One who works extremely hard.
4. A machine or component controlled by another machine or component
1. (Law) a person legally owned by another and having no freedom of action or right to property
2. (Business / Industrial Relations & HR Terms) a person who is forced to work for another against his will
3. a person under the domination of another person or some habit or influence a slave to television
4. (Business / Industrial Relations & HR Terms) a person who works in harsh conditions for low pay
5. (Engineering / Mechanical Engineering)
a. a device that is controlled by or that duplicates the action of another similar device (the master device)
b. (as modifier) slave cylinder
I believe that most people use definition 2 from the second block of definitions. At least I have always thought of slavery as being involuntary servitude.
-
Pine, I think this cuts directly to the heart of the assignment and discussion of a true free market as well as the governments view of a person.
Slavery is defined as "The state of one bound in servitude as the property of a slaveholder or household." (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/slavery)
So the question is Who owns the people? In a free market we are sovereign and are owned by no one unless we sell ourselves. Most governments believe they own the people and are thus entitled to a percentage of the work a person does (Income Tax), the right to take property away from that person, and the right to tell that person how they can live there lives.
Well governments do use coercion all the time but we were talking about how voluntary transactions of this sort can lead to coercion.
If we can not sell ourselves then we have no sovereignty and must acknowledge that we are already owned and our life is not our own.
No. Selling yourself (according to pine) is a null right. It cannot exist in a free market. You and kmfkewm assume that because I prevent you using that right, that I then take that right from you. This doesn't make sense to me because I am not availing of that right in any way. Rights are not physical units like commodities, they are activities or actions. So if your rights are not used, then they for all intents and purposes are non existent. You have no right. But neither do I. Nobody has it, it's just gone. Nullified.
Property on the other hand, *is* transferable. If you are a programmer, you could think of Property as an 'Object' and rights as a 'Method'. I can control your rights if I own you. If I do this then kmfkewm and jameslink are correct to say I have taken your rights. But if my action of preventing you exercising your right to sell yourself into slavery is the case then I don't own you, it's a logical contradiction to say pine owns you when pine has explicitly made it impossible for anybody to own you except yourself.
2. (Business / Industrial Relations & HR Terms) a person who is forced to work for another against his will
I believe that most people use definition 2 from the second block of definitions. At least I have always thought of slavery as being involuntary servitude.
Yes, that is what slavery is. Owning somebody == involuntary servitude, they are the exact same thing. That's why selling yourself into slavery isn't a legitimate voluntary transaction. The transaction itself is voluntary, yes. Everything that follows is completely coercive since you aren't a free agent. Even if you agreed with every single thing your owner told you to do and think, you still aren't a free agent because there were no choices.
The institution of slavery does not recognize humans a special category. The idea of some benevolent agency to look after the children of slaves or some slave union to send hit squads after evil pine just cannot happen because there is no reason for those institutions to exist. Those operations are in fact illegal when slavery is an institution. The benevolent agency has kidnapped my labor and the assassination attempt would have police attempting to foil it because everything evil pine is doing is completely legal.
Anyway, I said I'd stop, so this time I shall really stop! :D
-
You and kmfkewm assume that because I prevent you using that right, that I then take that right from you. This doesn't make sense to me because I am not availing of that right in any way.
I do not benefit from denying you the right to oxygen, so is it not immoral for me to suffocate you?
-
Yep he's got you there!
Anyway;
My thoughts on slavery are that if you sell your self into slavery you are not a slave; you have merely entered into a rather onerous employment contract. You cannot include your future offspring in the deal as children are not property.
Enslaving by force I would have thought is not permitted even by the most extravagant libertarian.
I have continued reading this book ( skipping over his constant crude mischaracterisations of socialism) with interest. I must admit to difficulty in understanding why the author is so idealogically committed to the market as the absolute and only judge of human endevour. To me, the market is a natural force; an extremely complex system of counterbalancing forces that has a tendency to self regulate. But to claim that it always creates the best outcome for society seems willfully ignorant.
An analogy: the human body is a similarly complex network of systems that constantly feedback into each other. By and large it regulates itself and maintains equilibrium.
But when the human body succumbs to disease we don't stand back and declare that 'the body knows best' We intervene when it becomes obvious that the body is failing to address a problem.
The market was made for man. It should not be master.
Several of you have said in this debate, with reference to child labour regulations, that " if a child wants to work it should be free to". But we are not talking about teenagers earning spending money here. Child labour regulations were brought in after the industrial revolution, when unbridled capitalism amongst the factories and mills of northern England had driven wages for the "hands" below subsistence level. The children of these working families "wanted" the "freedom" to work, as the alternative was hunger. This to me seems a poor kind of freedom.
You all seem to agree that to force a child to work against his will was wrong. But what if the economic system you have established leaves a child with this kind of choice? Where is the freedom for this child? Work or starve?
Sadly there are many children in the world today faced with this choice. But god forbid we should interfere with the sacred motions of the market.
I feel about the market a similar way that I feel about government: when it ceases to serve our purpose we may freely discard it in favor of a better system.
The author has many valid criticisms of large government.
However, am I alone in noticing a tendency amongst company's to join together in ever larger multinational corporations. In many industries there are 3-4 main players offering roughly the same range of products for the same price, and this tends to lessen the benefits of competition for the consumer. And even when the customer benefits, the suppliers don't.
Large companies suffer many of the same faults as large governments: a tendency to seek nothing but a continuation of their own power. We would be in danger of replacing one leviathan with several smaller beasts.
Lastly, DPR, you say that you would trust a private security force, whose wages you pay, to defend your interests better than a state run police force. With all due respect, that's kind of the problem with private police forces! I have difficulty seeing how such a system could work peacefully to resolve disputes.
If I assault my neighbor, who's police force deals with the complaint? His or mine? Or do we both have the same one, being neighbors.
If I am paying a private force, do they take my side automatically. Or do they arrest me if I do something wrong?
I'm genuinely interested in how it is proposed this will work.
Ninthly and finally, none of this free marketry addresses the problem of how all the economies of the world are going to continue growing indefinitely on a planet of finite resources. This is something that noone really wants to deal with, and the free market is supremely unfitted to face.
-
I'm replying to kmfkewm via PM to prevent thread digression going further than it has done!
@HG
Large companies suffer many of the same faults as large governments: a tendency to seek nothing but a continuation of their own power. We would be in danger of replacing one leviathan with several smaller beasts.
I believe you'll find "The nature of the firm" by Ronald Coarse an interesting read, it was most illuminating for me at least.
Here is the wiki synopsis: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Nature_of_the_Firm
-
Yep he's got you there!
Anyway;
My thoughts on slavery are that if you sell your self into slavery you are not a slave; you have merely entered into a rather onerous employment contract. You cannot include your future offspring in the deal as children are not property.
Enslaving by force I would have thought is not permitted even by the most extravagant libertarian.
I have continued reading this book ( skipping over his constant crude mischaracterisations of socialism) with interest. I must admit to difficulty in understanding why the author is so idealogically committed to the market as the absolute and only judge of human endevour. To me, the market is a natural force; an extremely complex system of counterbalancing forces that has a tendency to self regulate. But to claim that it always creates the best outcome for society seems willfully ignorant.
An analogy: the human body is a similarly complex network of systems that constantly feedback into each other. By and large it regulates itself and maintains equilibrium.
But when the human body succumbs to disease we don't stand back and declare that 'the body knows best' We intervene when it becomes obvious that the body is failing to address a problem.
The market was made for man. It should not be master.
Several of you have said in this debate, with reference to child labour regulations, that " if a child wants to work it should be free to". But we are not talking about teenagers earning spending money here. Child labour regulations were brought in after the industrial revolution, when unbridled capitalism amongst the factories and mills of northern England had driven wages for the "hands" below subsistence level. The children of these working families "wanted" the "freedom" to work, as the alternative was hunger. This to me seems a poor kind of freedom.
You all seem to agree that to force a child to work against his will was wrong. But what if the economic system you have established leaves a child with this kind of choice? Where is the freedom for this child? Work or starve?
Sadly there are many children in the world today faced with this choice. But god forbid we should interfere with the sacred motions of the market.
I feel about the market a similar way that I feel about government: when it ceases to serve our purpose we may freely discard it in favor of a better system.
The author has many valid criticisms of large government.
However, am I alone in noticing a tendency amongst company's to join together in ever larger multinational corporations. In many industries there are 3-4 main players offering roughly the same range of products for the same price, and this tends to lessen the benefits of competition for the consumer. And even when the customer benefits, the suppliers don't.
Large companies suffer many of the same faults as large governments: a tendency to seek nothing but a continuation of their own power. We would be in danger of replacing one leviathan with several smaller beasts.
Lastly, DPR, you say that you would trust a private security force, whose wages you pay, to defend your interests better than a state run police force. With all due respect, that's kind of the problem with private police forces! I have difficulty seeing how such a system could work peacefully to resolve disputes.
If I assault my neighbor, who's police force deals with the complaint? His or mine? Or do we both have the same one, being neighbors.
If I am paying a private force, do they take my side automatically. Or do they arrest me if I do something wrong?
I'm genuinely interested in how it is proposed this will work.
Ninthly and finally, none of this free marketry addresses the problem of how all the economies of the world are going to continue growing indefinitely on a planet of finite resources. This is something that noone really wants to deal with, and the free market is supremely unfitted to face.
Some good points ghost, and thanks for not taking offense when the author criticizes your views.
An analogy: the human body is a similarly complex network of systems that constantly feedback into each other. By and large it regulates itself and maintains equilibrium.
But when the human body succumbs to disease we don't stand back and declare that 'the body knows best' We intervene when it becomes obvious that the body is failing to address a problem.
This gave me pause, because I can see your point. I think I see where your analogy breaks down though. There are no competing interests within your self. You are a unit, an indivisible will or being. The choices you make to achieve your ends are yours alone. If your body is ailing and you take medicine, the outcome is your responsibility. Human civilization on the other hand is made up of many beings, each with their own interests. What one perceives as good, another may perceive as bad.
The market was made for man. It should not be master.
As described in section 2 of the reading, the market is not yet another policy prescription enforced by government, it is the absence of such force. It is the absence of one party imposing their view of good and bad on another. So, the market is not made, it emerges from the multitude of voluntary interactions between individuals.
Several of you have said in this debate, with reference to child labour regulations, that " if a child wants to work it should be free to". But we are not talking about teenagers earning spending money here. Child labour regulations were brought in after the industrial revolution, when unbridled capitalism amongst the factories and mills of northern England had driven wages for the "hands" below subsistence level. The children of these working families "wanted" the "freedom" to work, as the alternative was hunger. This to me seems a poor kind of freedom.
You all seem to agree that to force a child to work against his will was wrong. But what if the economic system you have established leaves a child with this kind of choice? Where is the freedom for this child? Work or starve?
Sadly there are many children in the world today faced with this choice. But god forbid we should interfere with the sacred motions of the market.
I'm not sure how we disagree here. If the options available to a person are work or starve, why would you take away the work option? If people are voluntarily choosing to work in a factory under terrible conditions, it means the alternatives available to them are even worse. That work is an opportunity for them to better themselves. Child labour regulations only hampered the development and expansion of the industries that were providing these opportunities.
Had they been allowed to develop freely, only under the constrains of supply, demand and property rights, they would have had to provide a safe work environment for their employees, if that's what the employees wanted. Let me give you a quick example. Nike and Reebok both have shoe factories in the same city. All of their resources and external conditions are effectively identical. The only thing they can vary is the quality of the work environment for their employees. Nike chooses to spend $1 per man-hour maintaining an improved work environment for its employees, while Reebok keeps that dollar as profit. Reebok will quickly find itself unable to attract the employee base it needs to produce its shoes as Nike takes its employees and market share. So, Reebok, instead of improving the work conditions, simply passes the extra $1 per hour on to their employees. Now we are seeing the market at work. Employees are now faced with the option of a safe work environment, or an extra dollar per hour. Some will choose safety while others will choose the extra pay.
And this is exactly what has happened eventually, where now employers do all they can to attract good employees away from their competitors.
The author has many valid criticisms of large government.
However, am I alone in noticing a tendency amongst company's to join together in ever larger multinational corporations. In many industries there are 3-4 main players offering roughly the same range of products for the same price, and this tends to lessen the benefits of competition for the consumer. And even when the customer benefits, the suppliers don't.
Large companies suffer many of the same faults as large governments: a tendency to seek nothing but a continuation of their own power. We would be in danger of replacing one leviathan with several smaller beasts.
I have also noticed this tendency. The people who run corporations, heads of state, the person selling you food, you, me and every human being are all fallible and capable of using power to dominate other people. Liberty is not a pill that makes men angels. What it does do is limit the extent to which evil can be expressed in the world. Right now, in any given geographic area, we have a monopoly on many of the most vital social institutions that is maintained through violence. If voluntary organizations consolidate their power and turn on their customers and start stealing from them, putting them in cages, killing them, spying on them and telling them what they can and can't do, well then we're back to where we started, the present day state. But, if I am correct, and the pressure for those firms to compete with one another for our favor leads them to serve us, then we can have freedom and prosperity the likes of which the world has never known.
Lastly, DPR, you say that you would trust a private security force, whose wages you pay, to defend your interests better than a state run police force. With all due respect, that's kind of the problem with private police forces! I have difficulty seeing how such a system could work peacefully to resolve disputes.
If I assault my neighbor, who's police force deals with the complaint? His or mine? Or do we both have the same one, being neighbors.
If I am paying a private force, do they take my side automatically. Or do they arrest me if I do something wrong?
I'm genuinely interested in how it is proposed this will work.
Maybe we can read this essay next, but check out Chaos Theory by Robert Murphy. He speculates how a free market in security services might organize itself, but his most important point is that no one knows ahead of time how an industry will organize. The security industry has been insulated from market conditions for so long and is so out of touch with the needs of its customers, that I suspect it would be unrecognizable after a transition to its optimal form. There are ten thousand questions that we could muse about similar to the one you posed, but the point is that, if we do our best to adhere to the non-aggression principle, then we can quickly move in the right direction without having to know ahead of time exactly how the final form of such an institution would look.
Ninthly and finally, none of this free marketry addresses the problem of how all the economies of the world are going to continue growing indefinitely on a planet of finite resources. This is something that noone really wants to deal with, and the free market is supremely unfitted to face.
This is where the institution of private property and markets really shine. Markets curb unsustainable growth through the price mechanism. As a needed resource is depleted, its supply drops and, assuming constant or rising demand, its price will rise. Rising prices force people to consume LESS of the resource and save more of it. Private property also incentivizes people to maximize the value of it. People tend to preserve and improve their land and capital. Free enterprise and private property, when honored, are an environmentalists dream. These institutions maximize the efficiency with which scarce resources are used to satisfy people's desires, and have natural rationing mechanisms built in to keep people from over consuming. If we ever get into some economic theory in this club, we can talk about the concept of the evenly rotating economy, which really drives the point home how only a free society can ever have a hope at sustainability.
to claim that it always creates the best outcome for society seems willfully ignorant.
I can assure you that I am not willfully ignorant. I have a very open mind and if an argument that can stand up to reason and be shown to accurately describe reality is presented to me, then I would gladly change my mind. My views have been forged by a search for the truth that has lasted my entire adult life and continues to this day. I started this club because I think the pursuit of truth is one of the most noble human endeavors. Debating these issues is critical for us to construct a world-view that is grounded in reason and can guide us forward. Assuming great success for Silk Road, how easily could it become another blood thirsty cartel seeking profit at all costs? We must maintain our integrity and be true to our principles, the opportunity to make a lasting difference is too great not to.
-
reebok.
/thumbs.
-
reebok.
/thumbs.
edited, thanks :)
-
reebok.
/thumbs.
edited, thanks :)
haha.. no problem, my friend.
no disrespect meant. :) carry on my wayward son! -starts singing-.....
/thumbs
-
Seems like I'm a little late for the drunk driving debate, but figure I'll throw in my two cents.
I'm very much libertarian, but there is a perfectly valid (and freedom friendly) logical reason why drunk driving should be illegal.
Complex systems that require formalized rules to ensure efficiency/safety are established in several areas of our lives. Most of these involve some form of certification or license. While I don't believe it should be illegal to "practice law" without having passed the bar, not anyone should be allowed to claim to be a professional lawyer. Practicing medicine shouldn't be illegal without having gone to med school and obtained a license to practice medicine, but it should be illegal to claim to be a Doctor of Medicine without it. Or a Registered Nurse, etc.
Public areas designated for automobile transportation (the roadways) likewise have regulations to ensure safety/efficiency. One must obtain proper training, and prove the training to operate a motor vehicle on public road ways. If you want to drive drunk anywhere else, I'll agree that it should be legal. However to say it should be legal to drive drunk on public roadways, is the same (to me) as saying it should be legal to practice law or medicine in a negligent manner without repercussions. Technically it may be, but you will lose your license to do so and may suffer heavy fines and possibly even jail time in the case of a negligent homicide due to medical malpractice. Not much different than driving already, except in medical/legal it's kept pretty exclusively to civil rather than criminal courts.
Perhaps that should be the change. Legalization of driving drunk, but penalties still remain, albeit in civil proceedings rather than criminal. Without the law enforcement element, I'd hazard to guess insurance companies would be pressured by market forces to require automobiles have alcohol sensors and constitute some contractual agreement by their use that you will be the one driving the vehicle until someone else uses the sensor. Blowing for someone else would be a violation of the contract, subjecting yourself to full liability of whatever actions the driver takes.
Interesting thought experiment, a world where drunk driving is legal. However there would still need to be some form of regulation, and it would just fall upon the corporations that take liability and the administrative bodies that regulate in a similar manner as other industries do.
-
Hello again, I'm a little disappointed the debate hasn't moved on in my absence. Mostly because it means I have to try and answer your convincing arguments!
Firstly, the charge of willful ignorance: I was referring more generally to the libertarian position; it was not intended as a personal attack. I think I was just carried away with my own rhetoric. What I was trying to say though is, it's one thing to offer a picture of how the economics of a particular situation might play out; it's important also to consider ways in which the reality might differ from the theory. Like the scientific method; a theory must be strongly tested before it is accepted. More of this later.
Similarly, in my eagerness to paraphrase Jesus I may have chosen my words poorly! I agree that the market is not an imposed system, but is what happens in the absence of any interference. This is what I was meaning to convey by describing the market as a force of nature.
Again, I agree that the analogy of the human body is not perfect. I think it was Carl Sagan who pointed out that, while the ability to see analogies is a vital part of human creativity, to see analogies in everything is a symptom of mania.
Perhaps a better comparison is with natural selection. (I assume that you accept evolution; if not please let me know now so I don't waste any more time!) Evolution by natural selection is working on all living things constantly. It allows what is inefficient to die out while allowing the efficient to predominate. If we allowed evolution to take its course among humans, many common genetic diseases and infirmities would be less common. Many humans would not reach breeding age without medical intervention. However it would be monstrous to suggest that we allow nature to take its course in these situations. Eugenics and social Darwinism are dirty words these days.
Evolution is also blind, and limited in its abilities. It cant " see the bigger picture" but can only work within the constraints of the immediate situation. For example, the recurrent pharyngeal nerve in mammals runs from the neck down into the chest cavity and back up to the cheek. In giraffes this is an unnecessary diversion of twenty feet or so. In our fish ancestors this route was a straight line, but as evolution took place the relative position of skeletal parts etc has changed. Similarly the upright posture of humans, having been developed from our quadruped ancestors, causes severe back problems and other difficulties.
In both these cases evolution cannot "step back" and offer a better design; natural selection can only act contingently, in response to the circumstances. Similarly the market can only react to the conditions it finds. For instance; in the case of our hypothetical starving children. The market has offered them the choice between work and starvation ( the market having set their parents wages below subsistence level.) As far as the market is concerned those are the two choices. It cannot step back and say 'well obviously children needing to earn to survive instead of going to school is unacceptable' (no doubt the markets children are attending a good fee paying school!)
It's not clear to me that the market will automatically act to raise the wages of the shoe factory workers to the point where their children can afford to attend school instead of working. In the world today, and during the industrial revolution, low wages for factory workers are due to the supply of labour exceeding demand. A major cause of this is overpopulation. Poor people in countries that lack a welfare safety net are often inclined to regard offspring as a kind of pension, to care for them in old age.
Where supply of labour is greater than demand, the competition for workers you describe does not take place. Instead wages are pushed down. It might be argued that the low wages will encourage other companies to open factories in the area, until eventually supply=demand, and wages begin to rise. But this is not the only factor. Cost of raw materials, transport etc also affect the situation. It's not obvious that the balance point when reached will be favorable to the workers. It's more likely that the factory building will cease BEFORE the supply and demand of labour has equalized. ( think about the incentives as the balance approaches and wages begin to rise)
In the real world shoe factories in India and china, and in the cotton mills of industrial 18th century England, child labour persisted for generations. The market showed/shows little inclination to improve conditions.
In fact, improved working conditions in the real world are strongly correlated with strong labour unions, good regulations, a welfare state and minimum wage ( contrary to the predictions of industry, introducing minimum wages doesn't seem to cause an increase in unemployment). Look at the difference between the US and the UK. Historically the UK has had a stronger welfare system, and more active trade unions. Workers in the UK get a statutory 6 weeks paid holiday every year, compared to 2 weeks in the US. Our American cousins are expected to work harder for longer hours for less pay.
When I reached the chapter on the environment, it seems the author is attacking a straw man. Eco sentimentalism and the naturalistic fallacy are of course ridiculous. However our planet does have some problems and I am not convinced that the market is the best custodian of our dwindling resources. Take oil:
I used to cherish the fond belief that, as oil stocks ran low and the price of oil rose, the market would cause alternative sources of energy such as nuclear and renewables to take over ( as they became cheaper than oil) What seems to be happening instead is that, as the price of oil rises, it becomes more viable to extract oil from less concentrated sources such as oil shales and sands. Unfortunately these sources are much more polluting ( again, there is no market mechanism to prevent pollution. The consumer gets the benefit of the oil, but the pollution cost is shared by everyone, hence no incentive not to pollute) The rising oil price seems to be incentivizing a ever more frantic scramble for the remaining reserves. This is another illustration of the markets inability to take a long term view. It can only respond to the immediate situation.
It seems to me that the market will not stop until oil is too expensive to be useful. Of course as the price increases there will be an incentive to develop alternatives, but what damage will be done to the environment in the meantime. I am not being sentimental about nature. If the global temperature rises by a few degrees and the sea level rises, many highly populated areas will become uninhabitable. If agricultural land migrates north and south, ( and chinas good rice growing land ends up in Russia), the market will make adjustments, but the adjustment process will be traumatic.
Anyway, I don't want you to think I am close minded to these ideas. I think the author takes something of an extremist stance, but he makes many interesting points.
Certainly the market is the only game in town. Regardless of what I might think, it is going to remain the dominant force in human society. I have no problem with this, I just think we need some other authority to mitigate problems the market may create. This doesn't necessarily have to be leviathan like government. I noted with interest that the author seems to have a quiet admiration for feudalism. The concept of a society governed by competing authorities is an interesting one.
Clearly, any movement to change society for the better is going to need to prove itself through competition. It cannot be imposed from above. For a while now, I have been thinking about the idea of worker owned companies. I would be interested to hear critiques of the following:
The standard model for a business is employees under a hierarchy of managers, who take care of the day to day running of the company. The company is owned by the shareholders, who appoint a board of directors. The two sides of the business are seperate. The responsibility of the directors is to maximize profits for the shareholders. Usually the interest of the shareholders coincide with the employees but not always.
Now consider the case of a company where the employees own all the shares. It will work just the same way, they can employ directors etc. BUT such a company will not need to show a profit. It will only need to break even. As long as it makes enough to cover all costs and pay everyones wages, it can continue to trade. Freed from the pressure to make profit, surely such a company could undercut its competitors, while paying its suppliers and employees better. Would a business arranged along these lines come to dominate its sector?
Since this doesnt seem to be happening, perhaps I have missed something. I would be interested in people's thoughts on this.
-
Evolution is also blind, and limited in its abilities. It cant " see the bigger picture" but can only work within the constraints of the immediate situation. For example, the recurrent pharyngeal nerve in mammals runs from the neck down into the chest cavity and back up to the cheek. In giraffes this is an unnecessary diversion of twenty feet or so. In our fish ancestors this route was a straight line, but as evolution took place the relative position of skeletal parts etc has changed. Similarly the upright posture of humans, having been developed from our quadruped ancestors, causes severe back problems and other difficulties.
In both these cases evolution cannot "step back" and offer a better design; natural selection can only act contingently, in response to the circumstances. Similarly the market can only react to the conditions it finds.
The problem with that view of the market is the following.
Yes, markets have evolutionary characteristics, beyond question. But... the kinds of inefficiencies you are describing remain unsolved in evolution because a 'just suits' solution exists. It's not optimal, but it works.
In markets however, the suboptimal design of your "giraffe" can be arbitraged into a better giraffe. In a market, something that "works" doesn't' mean a company has a guaranteed place on the food chain. My point is that if you can see an inefficiency, then there is the possibility of a corporation to exploit that inefficiency. Market evolution is not blind. That is a misconception. It is filled with agents (millions of intelligent designers if you will, coordinated by the price system) searching for inefficiencies. You are one of those agents my friend. When you obtain milk from the shop, you try to choose perhaps the milk you feel is superior, or the cheapest milk, but you don't choose mediocre milk for a higher price when there is an alternative. The exact same algorithm applies to each level of capitalism, whether it's consumers, workers, employers or investors.
The inefficiencies in markets, which do exist, come from either the things that nobody thought of, or else they come from things we have thought of, but which we can't do anything about e.g. it is impossible to build a nuclear power station, even though demand exists for cheap electric, for political reasons because certain regulations create a bar too high to leap over for market participants.
Side Note: the bust and boom cycle of the stock market is not representative of the overall market economy, this is a widespread idea, as widespread as it is fallacious. Bust and boom cycles are largely mass psychology at work. They do not reflect underlying businesses in the short term. At all. The stock market represents something like 1% - 5% of all the capital in capitalism at the most, and is therefore just one part of the picture. When the stock market declines by 50%, it is not as if half the companies literally go bust, otherwise the unemployment rate would be instantly around 75% or more. What I'm trying to say is that a lot of this railing against the market is based on a misconception of the relationship between the market and corporations, in the short term it doesn't make a jot of difference to a corporation if it's share price declines by 50%. People forget (I'm being too nice, they are merely ignorant of the facts) that the stock market is a secondary market, that corporations raise capital from investment banks and not the stock market directly where share trading takes place. A low P/E ratio will make it difficult for a corporation to borrow capital (because the bank will believe they are less likely to repay the debt as they have lower profits), but we're talking about a process that takes years and years to culminate, not weeks or months.
For instance; in the case of our hypothetical starving children. The market has offered them the choice between work and starvation ( the market having set their parents wages below subsistence level.) As far as the market is concerned those are the two choices. It cannot step back and say 'well obviously children needing to earn to survive instead of going to school is unacceptable' (no doubt the markets children are attending a good fee paying school!)
Wages cannot be below subsistence level, that's economically impossible.
You are also discounting something important here. If the children cannot go to school in the market, that is because there is no resources available for such a thing.
You cannot just wish schools out of thin air. The resources for teachers, equipment and organization has to come from somewhere. If those resources don't physically exist, then it is because the market is not yet powerful enough to provide them. But when it is powerful enough, they spontaneously appear. If you are using the government as a tool to enable some poor kids to get to school instead of coal mining or something, then you may think you're doing a great and noble thing. But actually you are just slowing down progress, you've created a tiny island of progress in the midst of an ocean of less advantaged souls that didn't have your eye pass over them. In fact, in a great irony, you are generating inequality.
This would be very difficult to see, because although perhaps you've changed the lives of a several hundred pupils, you've taken away a pencil and paper away from hundreds of thousands.
I'm not even saying it's as simple as this. I am saying this is where you have to start from. There is a fixed amount of energy to play with, and unless you generate more energy somehow through greater efficiency, then you are just in the business of reallocation. Things change, but the net result is at best identical to what would have happened had you done nothing at all.
It's not clear to me that the market will automatically act to raise the wages of the shoe factory workers to the point where their children can afford to attend school instead of working. In the world today, and during the industrial revolution, low wages for factory workers are due to the supply of labour exceeding demand.
Blake's 'satanic mills'. Always wheeled out. HG, there was immense demand for work and workers in England during the industrial revolution. Wages were higher in the factories than on the land. If they were not then it wouldn't have worked. I can quote you Adam Smith, where he explains how workers were migrating from A to B because wages were three or four times higher. There was enormous disparities between regions in England in fact, which was arbitraged by migrant labor, canals and shipping.
In practice your idea of 'eternal factory labor' is incorrect. I suggest you watch a short film on this exact subject by Johan Norberg called "Globalization is Good", because it is difficult to put into words why, but it is so. Things do get better for the poor under capitalism. When the market is being allowed to be productive it is a rising tide that lifts all boats.
What you are doing, is creating normative metrics. You believe a wage is too low, or lower than it should be, but you have not explained why you believe this. This is the great sin of socialism. They come up with completely arbitrary ideas about what prices should be, but without any explanation of why it is $3.76 and not $3.77. Just because you believe people deserve better, does not mean anything substantive. I mean, are you willing to be wrong about this?
To put it another way. Unless you can help everybody, unless your ideas for raising wages for shoe factor workers affect all the workers, then they are unsustainable at best and even create poverty at worst. You see what you see, but you don't see what you don't see. Let's say we double the price of labor for all shoe factory laborers. Now shoes are twice as expensive.
You have advantaged one class of people, over everybody else. No more capital was generated by your generosity.
A major cause of this is overpopulation. Poor people in countries that lack a welfare safety net are often inclined to regard offspring as a kind of pension, to care for them in old age.
Where supply of labour is greater than demand, the competition for workers you describe does not take place. Instead wages are pushed down. It might be argued that the low wages will encourage other companies to open factories in the area, until eventually supply=demand, and wages begin to rise. But this is not the only factor. Cost of raw materials, transport etc also affect the situation. It's not obvious that the balance point when reached will be favorable to the workers. It's more likely that the factory building will cease BEFORE the supply and demand of labour has equalized. ( think about the incentives as the balance approaches and wages begin to rise)
In the real world shoe factories in India and china, and in the cotton mills of industrial 18th century England, child labour persisted for generations. The market showed/shows little inclination to improve conditions.
HG, the only important thing is that more capital is created. And in practice wages increase, as they have always done in capitalist economies. Seriously! There is no 'balance point' such as that to which you're referring, this is a too simple abstraction. Look at the cotton mills during the Industrial Revolution. It's not as if all that cotton was for the upper classes or something, it was for the same people working in the factories and on the land.
The idea the market "shows no inclination to improve conditions" is so completely wrong I don't know where to begin. In that time period you're referring to, people began to live 5, 10, 15 years longer on average than previously! In that time period you're referring to, England and Holland were the first countries to become developed, to escape the Malthusian Trap of endless famines once and for all. Less starvation, less disease because of the cotton clothing vs woolen clothing (disease carrying pests don't like cotton, it wasn't just about having extra clothes or something).
See here!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbkSRLYSojo
Things changed in the 18th century. Things changed a lot.
Part 1 of a 2 Part Pine WOT Series...
-
Part 2 of a 2 Part Pine WOT Series!
In fact, improved working conditions in the real world are strongly correlated with strong labour unions, good regulations, a welfare state and minimum wage ( contrary to the predictions of industry, introducing minimum wages doesn't seem to cause an increase in unemployment). Look at the difference between the US and the UK. Historically the UK has had a stronger welfare system, and more active trade unions. Workers in the UK get a statutory 6 weeks paid holiday every year, compared to 2 weeks in the US. Our American cousins are expected to work harder for longer hours for less pay.
Here I nearly rage-quit, but I continue!
1. Workers in the UK don't actually get paid as well as their American counterparts. Median household income (the "big picture" as opposed to straight wages since that wouldn't factor in people not working directly) was 25k (UK) and 31k (USA). Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_household_income
2. It is true that the US has shorter holiday time on average (five days according to one chart), but then again the unemployment in the US is lower and taxes are considerably lower, partly because there is no VAT tax but also more generally. The result is that purchasing power parity is such that a US citizen living in the UK would have to spend 34% more in order to attain a comparable standard of living. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purchasing_power_parity#OECD_comparative_price_levels
So don't start feeling sorry for us just yet, thanks.
--
I'm not going to discuss trade unions and whatnot, because it's a whole other discussion, but on the issue of the min wage, you manage to make pine scowl. The majority of economists, for a long time now, have agreed that the minimum wage, if made higher, increases unemployment. There are technicalities and caveats to go along with that assessment of course, but that's the general picture.
I mean, this is so widely accepted among economists that it's not even a left/right thing. Depending on what survey you're looking at, 50% - 90% of economists agree with this. It's only a big controversy politically, not economically.
The minimum wage is a horrible horrible idea.
I much prefer the idea of a basic income, (as was Hayek and Friedman). A basic income is where everybody receives, non income assessed (you can of course hand it back if you don't want it) quantity of money per citizen, sufficient to feed, clothe etc.
The quantity of tax necessary to make that work is absolutely tiny, but the social advantage is clear and it prevents disruption to the labor market. This is contrary to the insanity that is your UK welfare system, where if you add up all the income taxes and subtract all the welfare entitlements paid out, you generate a negative number. :o
It is not that the welfare apparatus is especially benevolent to UK citizens either. It is that the entire thing is so hugely expensive that it swallows up more capital than it processes. You have the most inefficient model of welfare in the world.
When I reached the chapter on the environment, it seems the author is attacking a straw man. Eco sentimentalism and the naturalistic fallacy are of course ridiculous. However our planet does have some problems and I am not convinced that the market is the best custodian of our dwindling resources. Take oil:
I used to cherish the fond belief that, as oil stocks ran low and the price of oil rose, the market would cause alternative sources of energy such as nuclear and renewables to take over ( as they became cheaper than oil) What seems to be happening instead is that, as the price of oil rises, it becomes more viable to extract oil from less concentrated sources such as oil shales and sands. Unfortunately these sources are much more polluting ( again, there is no market mechanism to prevent pollution. The consumer gets the benefit of the oil, but the pollution cost is shared by everyone, hence no incentive not to pollute) The rising oil price seems to be incentivizing a ever more frantic scramble for the remaining reserves. This is another illustration of the markets inability to take a long term view. It can only respond to the immediate situation.
The central reason why nuclear didn't develop in the last half century or so is solely down to politics. I don't think there's even a nuclear facility built in the US for 35 years because of it, it is such a political hot potato.
Anyway, the problem I have with your idea here, is that you believe renewable energy is the solution. Don't get me wrong! I love the idea of having an energy independent system, I mean it fits in perfectly with my libertarian ideas. The problem is that it is expensive, really really expensive. Like if we try really really hard in the US to make renewables work, then it'll still only be 5% of our entire energy requirements in a few decades.
I mean never mind oil for a second. A huge number of the power we use is from coal, still! I believe that the market is looking for a solution, and that one of those solutions is probably going to be scale gas. That is a big improvement on both oil and coal. It can be used for transport, it is cheaper than oil/gas to power stations. There is more of it around. It has less carbon footprint widget thing that I don't particularly care about, but still, it's a perk.
And you know what? People are turning out in droves to prevent scale gas being extracted because of a stupid pseudoscientific documentary called Gasland, which is a beautiful piece of propaganda, but has absolutely no truth in it. Literally the entire movie is a lie. It is very compelling though, which is easy when you're fast and free with the facts instead of actually explaining the entire story, and let us be frank, just making shit up.
I'm not ranting at you here, it is just that once again, we have the market vs political populism. I don't think the market is the primary cause of this short sightedness you believe you're seeing.
Secondly, apart from politics causing problems, you have to recognize that coal and oil, dirty they may be, are powerful and cheap sources of energy. Price is important. To put my point in the words of the Big Lebowski "Well, like, that's just your opinion man". Plenty of people agree with you (and I) that going to other energy solutions is important for various reasons. But... That's just our opinion. It doesn't negate that lots more people may not be able to afford our opinions in practice, however wonderful they may be.
tldr; what you're calling "The Long View" that you're saying the market doesn't take and should take, could merely be completely wrong. Maybe we'll be using methane hydrates as a form of fuel instead in 50 years, since there's about a trillion times more of that than all the oil, gas, coal and every other form of non-renewable energy put together. There are other options, maybe we don't see them yet.
Maybe... just maybe... this is not a giant big emergency that you think it is.
It seems to me that the market will not stop until oil is too expensive to be useful. Of course as the price increases there will be an incentive to develop alternatives, but what damage will be done to the environment in the meantime. I am not being sentimental about nature. If the global temperature rises by a few degrees and the sea level rises, many highly populated areas will become uninhabitable. If agricultural land migrates north and south, ( and chinas good rice growing land ends up in Russia), the market will make adjustments, but the adjustment process will be traumatic.
Yeah... I don't believe that's going to happen at all. Do you remember "The Population Bomb" by Ehrlich? Every so often a popular idea takes over everything for a while with claims of catastrophe. In practice such people almost always turn out to be wrong. I have actually talked to a number of climate scientists about this, involved in a famous project that shall go unnamed here. I won't go into it here, but let's just say that "their" ideas are not the "public's ideas" about climate change. I mean these are real live scientists working in this field, and they are pretty far away from "and then the world became uninhabitable and we swam with the polar bear" vision that the media are running with. Climate change, yes, most likely. Catastrophe, not by a long shot, such claims are incredibly, incredibly speculative.
I think the reason that I don't take the "we got to save the world" people seriously is because literally 9/10s of the people I've met with that frame of mind are not scientists, and not only are they not scientists, but when I question them, I find out they believe that if the North Pole melted completely that the sea levels would rise. (!)
At that point I just stop taking anything else they say seriously. These people are scientifically illiterate about the most elementary aspects of the subject.
Anyway, I don't want you to think I am close minded to these ideas. I think the author takes something of an extremist stance, but he makes many interesting points.
Certainly the market is the only game in town. Regardless of what I might think, it is going to remain the dominant force in human society. I have no problem with this, I just think we need some other authority to mitigate problems the market may create. This doesn't necessarily have to be leviathan like government. I noted with interest that the author seems to have a quiet admiration for feudalism. The concept of a society governed by competing authorities is an interesting one.
I like the idea of confederations. This is where city states compete (non violently, they are tied by trade to each other) for labor/capital etc and have their own currencies for their economic sphere of influence. Countries are incapable of such a thing, but individual cities can do this. People have different ideas about this, but I believe this is likely to be our future. It makes more sense when you think that the countryside and towns are pretty much going to be completely emptied of people within a few decades, and this looks to be an accelerating trend.
Clearly, any movement to change society for the better is going to need to prove itself through competition. It cannot be imposed from above. For a while now, I have been thinking about the idea of worker owned companies. I would be interested to hear critiques of the following:
The standard model for a business is employees under a hierarchy of managers, who take care of the day to day running of the company. The company is owned by the shareholders, who appoint a board of directors. The two sides of the business are seperate. The responsibility of the directors is to maximize profits for the shareholders. Usually the interest of the shareholders coincide with the employees but not always.
Now consider the case of a company where the employees own all the shares. It will work just the same way, they can employ directors etc. BUT such a company will not need to show a profit. It will only need to break even. As long as it makes enough to cover all costs and pay everyones wages, it can continue to trade. Freed from the pressure to make profit, surely such a company could undercut its competitors, while paying its suppliers and employees better. Would a business arranged along these lines come to dominate its sector?
Since this doesnt seem to be happening, perhaps I have missed something. I would be interested in people's thoughts on this.
Actually HG, you'll be happy to know it is happening. I was reading the WSJ a while back, they were talking about exactly that in the UK, where John Lewis (I think it's a kind of chain store?) has each employee with shares of ownership. I don't know the details, but it is definitely going on.
Similarly, there is another company near NY state, I forget the name, I think they are a big biotech label, and they are super serious about each employee obtaining ownership.
Now, these are both very successful companies in very different areas with consistently high profit margins, so it can and does work. Employees are highly motivated for sure.
The only caveat I have about this concept, is that if the company goes bankrupt then the employees lose their ownership of investment capital simultaneously along with their jobs. Kind of sucks.
But, I can think of a few ways around that using special capital allocation instruments, won't discuss them here, but it's not insurmountable that's for sure, it's not even difficult if it's arranged correctly.
By the way, there is no dichotomy between "profits" and "wages" in the situation you describe. They are actually the same thing. Higher profits means higher income from dividends on the shares, which is the exact same thing as giving the workers higher wages.
-
Aah the rising tide that lifts all boats. Always wheeled out....
It seems the new reading assignment has arrived, but I feel I need to answer some of your assertions. ( basically I'm going to say the same things in a slightly different way, then you can do the same again!)
Firstly the minimum wage. I have to admit your basic wage idea sounds great; let's do it. I'm not clear on how giving everyone a living wage whether they work or not will avoid distorting the labour market. Surely some people will choose not to work; also employers will be able to pay lower wages ( as any amount will be in addition to basic wage, not instead) I'm not saying it wouldn't be a better idea, it certainly makes the incentives to work better.( perhaps that's what you mean by not distorting labour market) The Liberal party in the Uk have been pushing for this for years; now they are in coalition they are introducing a Universal Credit to replace all current benefits. I don't think it will be paid in full to wage earners tho, it will reduce on a sliding scale with earnings . We 'll have to see how this works out.
However I have just been doing a quick calculation. The benefits bill for uk is 150 billion a year; as you say about 10 billion more than income tax take( not total tax). Let's say your basic wage is £60/ week; a fairly frugal starting figure. Uk population is 60 billion, let's round that down to 50 to take into account kids( unless they will get basic wage too? Maybe they could?) This =£3 billion a week=156 billion a year; a comparable figure.
In any case this constitutes a fairly large interference with the free market; I can't see how the market will provide a basic wage. I agree that this method will not harm prosperity in the way a minimum wage is accused of. So here we have an interference with the market that DOESN'T cause businesses to spit out their dummies and throw down tools in disgust " Fuck this! We're moving our factories to China. There's non of this shit there!"
You assert that the link between minimum wage and unemployment is so widely accepted that only my ignorance of current economic theory would allow me to make such a wild claim. You quote a figure of between 50-90% of economists. To me this kind of sounds like: " if we listen to the ones I agree with its 90% if we take a more balanced view it's 50%" There is a big difference there.
The reason I take so long to reply to posts is that I like to research my claims before I make them. I was genuinely interested to know whether there was a link between unemployment and minimum wage. I had spent an hour or so googling and what I came up with was very much inconclusive. I found plenty of stuff on both sides. What I was looking for was real world examples of where the introduction of a minimum wage has been correlated with a following increase in unemployment. I couldn't find it. If you have some concrete data here I'd be glad to read it.
Certainly in the UK the introduction of the minimum wage had no effect on unemployment.
Now, let's consider our unfortunate shoemakers some more. You say that if we double their wages by legislative fiat. The price of the shoes would double(?), the factory would lay off employees, the firm would become uncompetitive and be driven from the market by its less scrupulous rivals.
Firstly, doubling the wages bill would not double the production costs of shoes. Raw material, electricity, transport among other things all go into the cost of production. So let's use a more realistic figure: doubling the lowest paid workers wages perhaps increase the unit cost of production by 15%. The company can either add this to the price or swallow this loss and take less profit. Either way this harms prosperity; slows the rising tide, and everyone's boat rises that bit slower.
But here is the important point. That money we took from the companies pockets and gave to the low paid workers is not gone from the local economy; it hasn't disappeared down some bottomless glory hole , never to emerge. It is in the pocket of one of the lower paid, who will spend it locally immediately. Perhaps they will buy food from a local market trader. Or maybe they club together to fund a teacher and set up a school for their children who are freed from work. Possibly they may even save up for a pair of trainers.
The point is that you have taken money from one place and put it somewhere else. It's not gone; and net prosperity remains the same. So the consequences of a minimum wage are not as straightforwardly disastrous as you suggest.
I don't want to harp on about the minimum wage too much though; it's not a key part of my platform! My fundamental point is that interfering with the market is ok. The free market advocates insist that any interference with the market is always harmful. But the market is resilient. It will deal with any alteration in conditions. It doesn't matter whether the change in conditions is man made or natural. The consequences of our interference may not always be what we expect. But I really can't get this ideological insistence that any interference is bad.
You say that below subsistence wages are economically impossible; I suppose technically you are correct. I was referring to families where the adults wages alone are insufficient to support the family; forcing the children to work also. Taking the family as a whole the wages are at subsistence level.
What I am proposing is not that we march into our single shoe factory and send all the children home. Nor that we send in the troops to enforce our decree. Rather we in western europe and the US can refuse to buy any product that a child has helped manufacture( I appreciate 100% compliance will be hard to achieve. But I am talking about whether it is theoretically acceptable to interfere)
This will apply to all countries equally. If children were no longer allowed to work then, as below subsistence wages are economically impossible, the adults wages would be lifted by the market; the rest of the market would adjust minutely to these new conditions. Perhaps schools for the children could be funded by taxes? I know this is anathema to you guys. But again; when you take money through taxation and put it back into the market somewhere else, the money is not lost. I know, I know I can hear you " but you aren't allowing the market to provide schools, you are setting up an artificial situation it's unsustainable" I really don't see the problem. The teachers wages get paid back into the economy, the rest of the market goes about its business. The children who now get educated are literate and able to do more useful work or perhaps start their own businesses, increasing prosperity. It's ok to have these little islands, it's a way of jump starting a more prosperous society. The idea that by just allowing the shoe factory to carry on making more and more money, until eventually the society is so prosperous that the workers will be better off is an extremely biased one. Even if true, it doesn't help the current crop of kids. I always get the impression, when someone expresses this idea, they aren't imagining themselves or their children in this position. These are real peoples lives. It's unacceptable to just say " well clearly there are no resources to provide schools yet"
You free marketers talk as if Keynsian economics have been totally discredited. It's because you all read the same books that all agree , you act as if the ideas of the Chicago school are the final word on economics. It's not the case.
A free market will never remain free for long. Left unchecked, companies will actively seek to achieve monopolies, and then use their dominance to distort the market. Workers will collaborate to form trade unions. If you try and stop this you are interfering yourself!
Climate change; you are pretty much beating on a straw man there. I wasn't suggesting that it was going to be catastrophic or that the sky was falling, merely that a change of climate will disrupt agriculture and possibly impact on the usually heavily populated coastal areas. You mention your insider knowledge of the climate science community, and that their measured judgement is different from public opinion. It was my understanding that public perception of climate change ranges from " not happening" all the way up to "Kevin Costners Waterworld" whereas all climate scientists agree it is occurring, while they may differ on how serious it's effects will be. The point I wanted to get across is that the market has no mechanism to deal with it. You describe renewables as too expensive. This is exactly what I mean, as long as they are more expensive than our lovely cheap fossil fuels the market has no way of providing them. We encounter this strange circular argument from free marketeers constantly.
"if there was a real need for X the market would provide it; since the market is not providing X we don't need it and anyway there is no way of getting X"
You are right to point out the many false predictions of ice ages etc in the past, but these were fringe speculations, none had the same level of scientific evidence and agreement as climate change.
Of particular note is overpopulation. Yes people have been worrying about overpopulation for centuries and yet we haven't run out of resources yet. This is the --man falling from building passes each floor says " SO FAR SO GOOD SO FAR SO GOOD"-- argument. Do you seriously think that the worlds population can continue to grow indefinitely? At present the worlds population is supported at an artificially high level by means of cheap energy and agriculture boosted by fertilizers derived from fossil fuels. These same are digging carbon out of the ground where it has been locked away for millions of years and putting it in the atmosphere where it is slowly altering the climate. Again I say, the market has no mechanism to deal with this.
At some point there will have to be an adjustment ( back to Malthus again) One way or another we will be brought back to living within our means. It can be done hard or done easier.
The author makes a laughable point about trees: " people act as if trees are not a crop that can be harvested and regrown". Noone is disputing that, the problem comes when trees are felled and consumed at a faster rate than they are replaced. Again, if the market finds clear cutting virgin forest more cost effective than carefully managed forestry, and such timber is cheaper, then that's what happens.
Time and time again when reading this book I thought " Really? You can't see the gaping hole in that
I am assuming that since this book was the first choice for assignment, that it's thought highly of in your circles. I can't say I'm impressed; the style and content appears to have been copied directly from right wing "shock jocks" like Bill O'Reilly.
I'm not some rabid tree hugger; I share your contempt for Gasland. And no doubt you are right about nuclear power... I think Chernobyl spoilt it for everyone.
Im only concerned with the environment insofar as it affects humanity.
Anyway, we aren't going to convince each other. I'm just glad I was able to incite you to refer to yourself in the third person. Every time you do this, hungry ghost smiles.
I'm going to move over to the new reading assignment now. I haven't looked at it yet. I'm guessing it will be something by Marx, John Maynard Keynes, or Joseph Steiglitz, so we get a balanced view right?
-
From wikipedia ( you will note that in interest of fairness I have included the preceding paragraph which supports your view. Someone of your wide knowledge will appreciate the power of statistical meta analysis however I'm sure):
Neumark and Wascher
In a 2008 book, David Neumark and William L. Wascher described their analysis of studies on the minimum wage, from several countries covering a period of over 50 years (but primarily from the 1990s onward).[3] According to the Neumark and Wascher, a large majority of the studies show negative effects for the minimum wage; those showing positive effects are few, questionable, and disproportionately discussed.
Based on the published studies they considered, Neumark and Wascher conclude that the minimum wage is not good social policy. They emphasize three conclusions: First, while acknowledging Card and Krueger, they found that studies since the early 1990s have strongly pointed to a "reduction in employment opportunities for low-skilled and directly affected workers." Second, they found some evidence that the minimum wage is harmful to poverty-stricken families, and "virtually no evidence" that it helps them. Third, they found that the minimum wage lowers adult wages of young workers who encounter it, by reducing their ultimate level of education.
Statistical meta-analyses
Several researchers have conducted statistical meta-analyses of the employment effects of the minimum wage. In 1995, Card and Krueger analyzed 14 earlier time-series studies on minimum wages and concluded that there was clear evidence of publication bias (in favor of studies that found a statistically significant negative employment effect). They point out that later studies, which had more data and lower standard errors, did not show the expected increase in t-statistic (almost all the studies had a t-statistic of about two, just above the level of statistical significance at the .05 level).[73] Though a serious methodological indictment, opponents of the minimum wage largely ignored this issue; as Thomas C. Leonard noted, "The silence is fairly deafening."[74]
In 2005, T.D. Stanley showed that Card and Krueger's results could signify either publication bias or the absence of a minimum wage effect. However, using a different methodology, Stanley concludes that there is evidence of publication bias, and that correction of this bias shows no relationship between the minimum wage and unemployment.[75] In 2008, Hristos Doucouliagos and T.D. Stanley conducted a similar meta-analysis of 64 U.S. studies on dis-employment effects and concluded that Card and Krueger's initial claim of publication bias is still correct. Moreover, they concluded, "Once this publication selection is corrected, little or no evidence of a negative association between minimum wages and employment remains."
-
Hmm just been re reading my post; I'm not sure now that Bill O'Reilly is who I meant... If you would be so kind as to imagine the appropriate name in that position it would help me out.
-
Hungry Ghost, as the most articulate leftist to critique our ideas so far in this book club, I respect you enough to know that if the wisdom of Pine cannot change your mind, then I don't stand a chance in stepping up to the debate podium. BUT, I would like to hear your thoughts on an article I recently read that really takes the concepts of Marx and other popular socialist authors and pokes holes in them so wide that IMHO really cements free market ideas as superior. The article is an excerpt from Money, Method, and the Market Process by Ludwig von Mises. If Mises cannot cause you to question your beliefs, then I doubt anyone ever will.
Link to the article: http://mises.org/daily/2179
Forgive me if this isn't entirely relevant to the specific arguments you and pine have been discussing, but as practice for all my future debates, I would appreciate to hear your rebuttal to Mises' critiques of socialism.
-
I don't really consider myself a socialist; although as you can probably tell I lean more in that direction perhaps than y'all (English really needs a second person plural distinct from singular 'you'. I propose we adopt 'y'all').
I'm taking that side of the debate because these free market ideas ( is that the right phrase? I was going to say "Agorism" but that refers to a particular branch does it?) need careful examination. As DPR says, the free market happens of its own accord, and it's undoubtedly going to be a major force in our future. I just have reservations about whether we should surrender ourselves completely with it.
I was composing another wall of text about the industrial revolution in my part of the world, and how after a century of successful economic development, at the height of British power and wealth, the 'rising tide' had failed to lift the conditions of the working class in England to such an extent that Engels was inspired to write a book cataloging their woeful condition, and imminent revolution was expected. I was going to write about how the spectre of the revolution so terrified the ruling class that they effectively outsourced the working class to their colonies, while pacifying the domestic working class with a slight amelioration in their condition, and how Germanys lack of foreign colonies forced it to seek a different solution, leading to the first world war, and subsequent increase in demand for remaining labour, further improving things for the working class.
But then I realized that this would further cement your opinion of me as some kind of communist, and I'm really not.
I have another question, which I am genuinely interested to hear your ideas on. If we do away with nation states and governments, how will we decide who owns the raw materials such as oil, iron ore, and indeed agricultural land. John Locke suggested that possession of goods comes through " mixing our labour with them" so that apples on the tree belong to everyone, but once someone picks them, he aquires ownership by the labour expended in doing so. This is a good starting point when dealing with 'a state of nature' but the modern situation is more complex. How would the transition be managed. We have an example of how badly the handover can be managed in the collapse of the USSR.
I'm going to go and read the article you suggest now.
-
Have to run but am going to bookmark this for later comment. I'll read through and come with my own anarchist communist argument. I am glad to see political/economic discussion amongst people who have decided unjust laws are not to be followed and the threat of the state is not enough to keep them from entering into voluntary associations with others. To the poster above, syndicalism would be a good starting point for reading about how we would handle raw resources, but a point that is made by "our" side is that we really only need to be using a small percentage of those raw resources that are being used now. Most resources are being burned up for the sole benefit of the capitalist owning class and are not needed for human happiness and survival. A lot more on this to come. But basically, the people working a certain factory or enterprise should be in control of what is produced while understanding that voluntary association with all of us outside that particular venture is beneficial to them and us. Always remember, when we think of alternative ways of managing resources, that the assumption that the current capitalist system is "working" is something very few of us believe. We are proposing alternatives to a system that breeds war and inequality not based on effort or who deserves what but based on coercion and outright force. We are not proposing alternatives to a system that serves the best interests of the majority of humanity.
As a libertarian socialist I do not consider the USSR to be communist, it was not, and the ruling class did not do much to achieve full communism. Marx was wrong when he proposed the need to seize the state before dismantling it, we need to skip to smashing the state right off the bat. Preparing for this by builindg alternatives to capitalism right now will help in the much spoken about "transition" phase from the nation state to a federation of willing communes. Read about the Ukrainian Free Territories, note that the soviet red army crushed the anarchists who were already enjoying a stateless, full communist life. Damn soviets! lol
-
I don't really consider myself a socialist; although as you can probably tell I lean more in that direction perhaps than y'all (English really needs a second person plural distinct from singular 'you'. I propose we adopt 'y'all').
Agreed. Y'all is a word I'm quite fond of. In my neck of the woods that's the plural form we adopted a LONG time ago, and its been working just fine for us. :D
I'm taking that side of the debate because these free market ideas ( is that the right phrase? I was going to say "Agorism" but that refers to a particular branch does it?)
As I just learned, Agorism is basically a means to an end, a path of libertarianism that encourages black market participation to take money out of the state controlled economy.
I have another question, which I am genuinely interested to hear your ideas on. If we do away with nation states and governments, how will we decide who owns the raw materials such as oil, iron ore, and indeed agricultural land. John Locke suggested that possession of goods comes through " mixing our labour with them" so that apples on the tree belong to everyone, but once someone picks them, he aquires ownership by the labour expended in doing so. This is a good starting point when dealing with 'a state of nature' but the modern situation is more complex. How would the transition be managed.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't much if not most of the land from which those resources are drilled, mined, or harvested already privately owned by oil companies, mining companies, and farmers? I don't see anything wrong with the government auctioning off any resources they own to the highest bidder, or even to a buyer that the taxpayers vote to approve of. The money from those sales could maybe be returned to the taxpayers, or even better, used to help ease the transition in other problematic sectors such as defense from foreign invasion while a free-market military solution is in its infancy.
I'm going to go and read the article you suggest now.
Excellent. Looking forward to your thoughts. :)
-
Ok, an interesting read. I particularly like the description of the capitalist society where the only way a superior man has of utilizing his superiority is by attending to the needs of his inferiors. It's a nice image.
I first assumed that this was written in the 1930s, before the Nazis made talk of naturally superior and inferior men deeply unfashionable, until I came upon reference to 'big brother' so I guess it was written in the 50s?
Firstly, he makes a pretty good job of putting to bed the totalitarian system in the USSR; he is comparing a complete command economy to a capitalist democracy. Certainly in the context of our discussion this goes someway beyond a straw man all the way into a gigantic burning wicker man containing Edward Woodward screaming "No!! For the love of God! Noooooooo!".
I'd like to make it clear that I am no way advocating complete state control of all aspects of the economy. I am simply arguing against the proposition we can do without government altogether. I guess my position could be characterized as Keynsian rather than Marxist, although I am happy to explore new ideas. A largely private capitalist economy, but where the representative government raises taxes to fund infrastructure, intervention to protect the poorer, weaker members of society, and, as far as possible, ensure equality of oppurtunity.( to lessen the disadvantage of being born into poverty, and the advantage of being born into wealth.)
Having said that, I felt that the picture he presents of capitalism is incomplete. In the first parts of his essay, he deals in the relationship between businesses and consumers. No mention is made of the relationship between business and employees. Since most of us, not having the 'superiority' to become entrepreneurs, will be both consumer and employee in a capitalist society, this is a fairly large omission. I think people experience more difficulties in their role as an employee, than as a consumer.
Again, when he comes to characterize his opponents position, he shows a regrettable tendency to resort to grotesque parody, while blithely ignoring their genuine concerns. So, he describes the socialists view of capitalism, where the crafty wiles of Madison avenue persuade the bovine idiots of the proletariat to purchase worthless baubles, while failing to buy the basic necessities of existence. I don't think anyone has disputed the ability of capitalism to provide the necessities to those who can pay; but it's also true that consumerism can often create a desire for goods we didn't know we needed until they were invented!
When he comes to schools, he mischaracterises the socialist position as enforced academic education for all, regardless of their ability to benefit from it. I would instead describe the socialist position (NB While I have previously stated that I am not a socialist, I have little doubt that old Ludwig Von would have no problem identifying me as such. It is to this I refer) as making education available to all children, regardless of their parents ability to pay for it. I have no difficulty with the idea that some students may benefit from different types of education; streaming ( called tracking in US) is a dirty word in educational circles these days but I think it's fine as long as there is oppurtunity for students to change tracks through high achievement.
His assertion that some children are genetically more suited to education than others is undoubtedly true; but how are we to select them? IQ test the parents? Or are we simply to assume that the children of wealthy parents have inherited their parents ' superiority'? I have met enough living contradictions of that theory.
There follows an odd interlude where he discusses the difference between majority rule and representative government. I agree with what he says but I'm not sure what it's relevance is here. I have read it several times but I think I haven't understood it properly.
Here, and throughout, he utilities a classic misapprehension of socialism: that Socialists believe all people are literally equal in potential, and given a level playing field would rise to equal status and success. We dont believe that but we DO want the level playing field, as far as can be reasonably achieved.
There is a thread of social Darwinism running through this text; the idea that the wealthy and successful in society are where they are due to their own merits, and the poor are poor due to their lack of such qualities.
I am reminded of an episode of "The Secret Millionaire" (for those who haven't seen this it's a programme where a successful businessman goes undercover in a deprived area of his city and after a few weeks decides on which community groups to bestow some of his personal cash) In this particular episode the SM was a twenty something man who on his 18th birthday was given £1 million by his wealthy father with the proviso that there were to be no more handouts, he could sink or swim. By investing in student properties( this was before the bubble burst) the canny lad had made another £million, and was able to repay his father. He seem to regard this as an equivalent feat to making a million from scratch.
I dare say that given a million start up cash I could make another million. ( in fairness if I d been given it age 18 I would now either be a) dead or b) skint with a serious habit!)
The suggestion comes again, with the unfortunate Trotsky quote, that socialists believe that if the inequalities of birth under capitalism could be removed, all men could attain the heights of " Aristotle, Goethe or even Marx". If we can ignore Trotskys hyperbole, all that socialists really believe is that since being born into wealth and property confers certain advantages on a person: the capital to start a business, the leisure to develop ones ideas and interests and freedom from the pressure to earn enough to feed and clothe oneself, then, it is reasonable for society to attempt to help people born without these advantages, by providing them with a subsistence, schooling and healthcare etc. You may not agree with this idea but the conflation of it with more extreme beliefs about human equality is misleading.
In this essay, Ludwig Von Mises makes a reasonably convincing critique of totalitarianism, whether communist or fascist. He shows that a free market society is better for consumers. I have no argument with him thus far. However I don't think he really makes the case for the superiority of laissez faire free market economics over say a free market economy with a socialist democracy. I don't think that was his intention; he was writing at a time when numerous communists states under the tutelage of the USSR and China were vying for control of the world with western democracy. He is arguing that the free market capitalism of the west is innately more efficient and serves the material needs of its people better than the totalitarian systems on the other side of the iron curtain. It's unlikely that many people would disagree.
I'd like now to make a distinction between the free market, and capitalism. The two terms are often treated as if they are interchangeable. But the free market refers to the economic system where prices are determined by supply and demand ( to put it simply, you might be able to provide a better definition).
Capitalism is a method of funding production, where someone who already owns wealth( often a group of investors) uses to buy raw materials and pay for the labour and tools to manufacture them into goods which are sold for profit in the free market. More generally a system where trade and industry is operated by private concerns for profit.
While capitalism is the predominant form of production in our society, I am very much interested in what other models might be developed. These alternate forms of business would still have to compete in the free market of course.
I'm imagining some kind of cooperative, worker owned businesses. As I said in my earlier post, I wonder if these type of enterprises could out compete capitalist businesses? I'd be interested to hear anyone's thoughts on this.
I know it's somewhat a cliche, but it's interesting how extreme ideologies at either end of the spectrum share certain features. The communists believed that once their system overcame its initial problems the state would wither away, leaving a system of mutually cooperating industries. The miners would mine, the steel workers would smelt, factories would produce consumer goods, all without supervision. Unfortunately this version of utopia relied too much on the goodwill of all concerned; it was always going to be open to exploitation by freeloaders.
The full on free marketers also believe that the state will eventually be rendered unnecessary as the market comes to provide everything society needs. However they base their hope on the mutual self interest of the parties involved, which as we know from Adam Smith, is much more reliable.
I merely offer this as an observation; I'm working through a lot of this stuff myself. I think it's important to test ideas to destruction, to examine their weaknesses and strengths.
I think that's enough now, I could go on but it's late and I'm aware I'm becoming less coherent. Starting to ramble....
-
I've joined late and only read the first 50 pages or so - looking forward to participating in more recent discussions.
Just reading the discussion relating to the first part though... I think we're conflating two very different positions:
a) That there should be no government, and
b) that Government should stay out of public policy.
Clearly the author thinks Government should stay out of public policy, but I don't think he supports the idea of no Government.
On pages 43-44, Rockwell is frustrated at reinterpretations of the Declaration of Independence and asks us to go back to the original text. The relevant part is:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
It is in order to secure these rights that Rockwell values that the Government is instituted. His position is therefore not "no State", but "a State to secure our natural rights, and no more". That is, he doesn't want the State imposing values or being paternalistic. It's not a King like in the old days, looking out for the souls of his subjects. It's the result of a social contract that hands over power only for the purpose of securing our natural rights.
I think we're sometimes interpreting the author to mean that the State should be abolished. (The State is defined by the author as the entity with the monopoly over the use of force... under that definition, you can't get rid of the State in the same way you can't get rid of the top most position on a stick).
The drink driving example is a good illustration. The alternative solutions mentioned were to do with private owners of roads allowing / disallowing drink driving on their roads. The alternatives raised were still to do with prohibition - albeit prohibition by a corporation rather than the State - and if there were multiple corporations owning multiple roads, we could choose to pick the road that has the rules we prefer. That only works in abstraction - if you think about how much a quiet suburban road might cost, whether that would be feasible at all, let alone having a choice of multiple roads from multiple providers... it doesn't seem like something a reasonable person would endorse, and I have to wonder if that position was reached by considering the issue, or if it arose by robotically applying an ideology. Even Newtonian physics turned out to be wrong (who would have thunk it?!). Surely we have to be cautious of taking an ideology and applying it blindly to everything.
I think the author isn't saying that there must be no State. I think roads might suitably be one of the public goods the State ought to handle.
With respect to drink driving, I think the author was thinking more along the lines of a solution arising in the domain of free individuals / culture / morals - I think the author would prefer if drink driving were an issue to be mitigated against on those terms, in those spheres, rather than through the coercive power of the State.
-
Legalize drunk driving?!?!?
Ohh boy.. looks like its gonna be interesting!
I can already see the debates!
cant wait..
Let me start by saying I have not read the link yet.
Ill take this one. Why should drunk driving be illegal?
If crime is defined as an act that brings harm to or damages another then the act of drunk driving does not meet the requirement. Many libertarians believe that if no harm or damage is done then it is not the purview of law. To preemptively ban an action because it may cause harm or cause damage is to restrict the freedom of the people in the hopes of providing safety. When this is done, we all loose freedom and none gain safety.
I was just in the process of telling you how awful an idea this is; and then I really thought about it. You should be given the choice to drive drunk, but the penalties should be greatly increased if you injure someone. For instance, crashing into someone and killing them isn't manslaughter, it's homicide. Or something along the lines of that.