In this image I am essentially highlighting the biggest intellectual hypocrisy inherent with the left and their war on “selfishness.”
Of course, the reflexive response to this parody is that the money she intends to spend does not legitimately belong to the people she is taking it from. To which I ask the following question:
Which is a more legitamite way of acquiring wealth – by convincing a consumer that you have a product or service that is valuable enough to exchange wealth for, or insisting that someone must have a significant portion of their income/wealth confiscated and face imprisonment if they resist?
Quite a bit to wrap one’s mind around – especially if you found Warren’s reasoning sound (in it’s original euphemistic context of course). Perhaps this may explain the widespread acceptance of allowing an institution the privilege of initiating force (through forced wealth confiscation) against the very citizenry it claims to protect.
As participants in a free market, we would only buy or sell goods and services if both the buyer and seller felt they would be better off. If that is an immoral way of acquiring wealth, then I see no reason to think that confiscating that wealth for what you deem to be desirable is any better.
UPDATE: This post is nowwas a sticky. Because of the relevance this post has for my book and wish to receive input on the matter, I have also allowed comments on this post, though I did not want that enabled until this November.
Starting this September I will attempt to write the first draft of this segment as a submission to Libertarian Papers. But for now here is the original post as it would have appeared on DA:
If you have ever debated the merits of having a stateless society, you should probably know by now that the most frequent counter-argument thrown your way will be the notion that Anarchy leads to chaos.
For whatever reason we are supposed to believe that giving a group of people the power to initiate force within a given territory is necessary to sustain civilization. It is so cliche that people do little to justify the claim aside from pointing to Somalia as evidence. Ask those same people what the situation was like when it was under a government (especially during the civil war sparked by Siad Barre), and you can easily see how far people will go to dodge the burden of proof. (see note below**)
A couple years ago I came across what I am now convinced is probably the best introduction to Anarcho-Capitalism around. Robert P. Murphy wrote an article for Mises Daily that summed up the argument for anarchy as follows:
“What the anarchist does claim is that, for any given population, the imposition of a coercive government will make things worse.”
Society without government need not be perfect to be desirable – but better than other alternatives people have to offer. My system cannot guarantee utopia but neither can any other.
In his article, Murphy makes an excellent point regarding the incentives of private defense agencies. Bill Clinton would have been far less likely to fire off dozens of cruise missiles into third world countries if he had the option of selling those on the open market. So what are the factors that make market protection services less chaotic than government ones?
Enter ACES, a short and simply way of explaining why private protection agencies or individual contractors are less inclined to start war – the simple reason being that they must pay the cost of it themselves. This is an acronym that sums up the following:
Customers – You need a salary for assets, but no one wants to pay you to turn their home into a warzone.
Employees – Would you work for a company or client that insisted you get into meaningless shootouts?
Suppliers – Why would anyone sell guns and ammo to you if you might use it against them or their customers?
These four factors all come into play to make armed aggression a costly endeavor indeed.
When the cost of assets come into account we can see that protection agencies/contractors would think twice before firing millions of dollars worth of cruise missiles since they have to foot the bill themselves. This assumes of course that there would be as much of a demand for such things at all. Even worse, if you establish yourself as an aggressive protection agent or even a criminal, the result of having every potential victim mobilizing against you will cost you dearly.
To attract customers private providers will only use force when the consequences of not doing so would be worse (such as a robbery or home invasion) instead of making enemies with everyone they meet. Starting a gunfight with everyone you come across does not fly well with potential clients that would rather not have bullets fly past their head when they come home from work.
No potential employees would want to work for anyone that insisted they put their life on the line without just cause. You would have to really pay up to persuade anyone to do so, which transfers costs back onto those that hire you. So what we end up with is employees of clients/companies demanding higher pay (which increases what you have to charge clients – putting you at a competitive disadvantage), or quitting to work for someone else altogether.
What kind of weapons supplier would knowingly sell munitions to someone that might kill some potential customers or come back and use those assets against him or her personally? It can be pretty hard to maintain business when you are dead. Not to mention the reaction of the surrounding population who will now see the supplier as an extension to the rogue protection agency or criminal.
With all of this in mind, consider how government responds to these incentives.
Recently in Libya government demonstrated just how resistant it is to the four factors mentioned above. Within a short time the asset costs went through the roof:
Nearly 200 Tomahawk missiles ($1,500,000 each) were fired into Libya; a total cost of three-hundred million dollars.
Keeping a fighter jet in the air for an hour: $10,000
500+ one-ton bombs dropped: $40,000 each for a total cost of twenty million dollars.
One downed F-15 cost the government sixty million alone.
Maintaining a no-fly zone cost anywhere from thirty to a hundred million per week depending on how aggressive we are in the process.
And arming rebels is estimated to cost a hundred billion per year; and we all know how accurate spending “estimates” turn out.
Why is government so careless about all this and why would private protection firms be less violent? The simple answer is that the government’s cost of assets is simply passed down to unwilling tax payers such as you and me.
Does government stand a chance of losing customers? No, we are stuck with the protection we have because government claims a right to the incomes of everyone in the territory it covers. Even if we think bureaucrats turn our homeland into a war zone (such as the blow back we faced on 9/11), we cannot switch to a less aggressive protector.
Now what about employees? If those in power deemed it necessary, they could draft us to fight in whatever conflict they felt was worth fighting. Or at the very least they could lure in potential recruits and use them for whatever causes they desired while they remain in the service.
Suppliers in the long run can always face the threat of being forced to produce the tools of war whether they like it or not. Such was the case in World War II when resources were diverted to making bombs, planes, tanks, you name it. Aside from having more revenue than any other group to buy the weapons of war, government as a supplier also cares little about the consequences of handing over weapons to foreign fighters to promote “necessary” conflicts in other regions – which is precisely what had happened when it indirectly gave money and weapons to the mujahideen in order to fight the Soviets. Did the politicians that authorized such actions have to pay out of their own pocket?
Of course not. Government simply subsidized the whole thing at the expense of the very people it claimed to be protecting. Because market alternatives to the military and police we have today must use their own wealth to pay for conflicts they engage in, why should we expect them to be just as violent?
**What do I mean by “burden of proof?”The vast majority of all skeptics of Market Anarchy hold that giving anyone the right to force out competitors in an area and allow them to coerce (initiate force) others in that territory is wrong and unnecessary. No one I know thinks that you should allow a business to force people to pay for goods and services exclusively from them and imprison them if they refuse.If that is the way they think of market institutions but feel that government deserves to be exempt from the same standard, I conclude that the burden of proof is on the skeptic of anarchy to explain why government deserves to be an exception to the rule and how it improves the situation for any geographic location. This especially goes for those who claim Somalia was better under a government.
Procrastination is a stupid lapse in time where the separation of inspiration and initiative persists. And it’s always for worse. Hopefully my lapse of this sort is over now, and if all goes well it should stay that way for some time to come.
For the past several days I’ve pondered what keystrokes would best mark the first signs of life on this lonely sector of the world wide web. Actually, several months might be a more accurate way of putting it. But recently with the introduction of some new aesthetics to this site (namely the installation of WordPress) – as well as being content with what I already had – the gates have opened at last.
Yeah, this is a political site set up for a political book that seems to have it’s estimated date of completion pushed back by a year every, uh… year or so. My views are not about what politician would do best in office or for what level, which legislation needs to be passed or why, or what government ought to do or how. Rather, they are a wholesale rejection of the political system we have altogether. Anyone can profess to be an advocate for freedom – only those who do so with the goal that I (and a growing number of others) have in mind can affirm this for every issue government has attempted to get involved in.
While there are many who think laws against choices and behaviors that harm no one but those that initiate them should be taken off the books, I don’t think that goes far enough.
While there are some who feel government should be substantially smaller than it is today – to the point where it is limited to protecting use from waste, fraud, and abuse both domestically and internationally – I take that platform a step further.
This is not a conclusion that I accepted suddenly out of nowhere; for me it was a process that began years ago. Nor is this something that I, or anyone else can persuade you to adopt in this post alone, there are much better attempts by like-minded individuals at doing that already. Even reading those probably won’t be enough. Being the first post of what I hope will one day number in the thousands – this is only meant to state the intentions of this blog.
I am a market anarchist – an advocate of what is better known as Anarcho-Capitalism. I hold that all functions of government should be replaced with market solutions to all the necessary services it provides, namely security and dispute resolution. Operationally a government generally** differs from a market institution in three ways:
It excludes other persons or institutions from providing certain services within a given territory.
Within that territory it is permitted to express a wide variety of privileges ordinary citizens are prohibited from doing – taxation (wealth confiscation) being one of them.
No one is permitted to opt out from this scheme unless they want to change locations altogether – nor is explicit consent given to be part of it.
As I will defend in the years to come, I doubt there is a single case in which a good or service can be better handled by a group that has extended privileges over everyone else without undesirable consequences – nor do see any reason why such a group would want to. To say an institution with such traits is what sustains civilization itself is to reject the very standards we use to evaluate every other group entity that has ever existed.
To me, government is often the exception to every rule we apply to every other institution or individual. If I told you we should give a corporation a monopoly within a given region, as well as the power to take and do what it wants to the populace that surrounds it, you most likely would object to such circumstances. Highlight the fact that this is precisely the means by which governments operate (and that electoral incentives don’t fix much), and suddenly I start hearing a variety of circular arguments for why it’s “different” if government is the one doing the monopolizing.
Basic Rationale for my Views and This Blog (I know what you’re thinking)
Most who stumble upon this blog will likely dismiss the views I express here on the grounds of popular opinion alone. The desirability of government is no lesser or greater based upon how many people approve of it or not. If it was then we should refrain from objecting to the actions of every democratically elected dictator that ever lived for the same reasons.
While I think it would fill in the room for improvement over our current political/economic system, by no means do I believe in utopia. Let me state this in simple terms:
It’s not that I think we have no say whatsoever in how the government we live under treats it’s own citizens, rather I see no need for imposing the policies of a politician on others because you outnumber them every 2-4 years.
It’s not that I think businesses strive to be perfectly ethical all the time, I simply see no way a food or drug company could raise revenue by killing their own customers instead of getting repeat business from serving them well.
It’s not that I think people shouldn’t be allowed to own property (trust me, I’m all for it), I just don’t see how we can promote innovation by giving someone an absolute monopoly on an idea – especially when it limits how others can use property they already own.
It’s not that I think there would be no free riders under any circumstances that would arise under market anarchy, I just doubt that government can handle this issue without creating an even bigger problem: When taxing the hell out of people, how do we decide that enough is enough?
For the time being, I intend for this blog to serve as a foxhole for market anarchist thought, a place where every post has some food for thought that will help others change the way they see even the most basic of political policies. While intended mainly as an extension to a book I have in the works, I think this blog will have a life of it’s own.
I will update this blog with enough posts to just barely last a couple years – the reason being that this is not the only ideological venture I am trying to surmount. In the meantime I have some other writing to do…
Privatize + Legalize + Decentralize
**I say “generally” because I am speaking in reference to most governments in existence today. At a bare minimum, a government is an institution that can initiate force within a given territory without the surrounding populace objecting to the practice altogether. In practice, this minimalist definition means anyone living in it’s territory is forced to financially contribute a portion of wealth while excluding the choice of using that same wealth for a different “provider” or something else altogether. I will go into greater detail how I define government in a different post.