Why Statists Always Get it Wrong

You are pooh-pooing your allies because you misunderstand their principles.

The basic tenets of libertarianism are inconsistent with human nature, as demonstrated through all of history.

Not true. -- You simply can not refute the fact that:
"-- our Founders were small govt liberals in the classical sense, whose primary purpose was limiting the power of the state to only that which protects our rights that preceded the state. --"

You won't even try.

Not for you, tippy. I gave up on you years ago. -- < / yearly reminder to tippy that I ignore his posts.>

Yep. -- You gave up because you have an irrational 'thing' about our Constitution limiting the power of the state.. A thing you can't explain.

You have 'good' company here on FR. There are a whole group of you now that refuse to actually debate the issues - spending most of your time posting agit-prop from the states perspective. - Big brother tactics.

"The overall point, though, is that coordination isn't nearly as hard as you were suggesting."

I've had some Operations Research training and I understand the complexities of train scheduling. I've also done some air defense work. Theoretically, you can do the coordinating. It's far more complex than it appears. Trains simply move where they're told. They are not hostile entities like a penetrating bomber force.

"Exactly! I'm sure you're as disgusted as I am by that!"

But I'm not disgusted. It was necessary in order to get the system working again. It was not a matter of scoring political points, it was a matter of reassuring the public. While it may have been inefficient, it worked.

"Private defense contractors would go out of business doing idiotic things like that."

Private contractors would have done something quite similar with just as large an investment of time and energy. There simply had to be a 'major show'.

It's far more complex than it appears.

Granted, I didn't claim it was easy. However, it's far from insurmountable. Which leaves you heavy-laden with your burden of proof: you claim that government is necessary to coordinate defense activity. You haven't offered your proof yet, but I await with interest. For my part, I only pointed out that difficult logistical problems have indeed been solved in the past, without the help of a central planning authority.

But I'm not disgusted. It was necessary in order to get the system working again.

You keep begging the question. Expensive, unproductive gestures that accomplish nothing were necessary? To get the "system" working "again"? Here too, I await your proof with interest. But I fear you're going to make some silly claim like, "Without lots of M16s, nobody would ever have flown in another plane."

Private contractors would have done something quite similar with just as large an investment of time and energy.

If I had your gift of prophecy, I'd be another Warren Buffett. You could be right, I spose. I'm only reasoning based on the fact that hugely expensive yet inefficient measures have a way of putting people out of business. The government has an ace in the hole, you see: even if it cost them trillions, they were free to raise taxes, print dollars or sell bonds to cover it. Private industry lacks that luxury.

Were I runing my own airline, instead of dozens of guys with big mean rifles, I'd put a handful of guys with pistols on each plane, and arm the sex stewardesses.

"We aren't prophets to predict the future. They argue that it could be, not that it ever will be. Their proof? It already has been privatized, successfully."

Originally, a significant fraction, if not all fire fighting was private. They've been replaced by public companies for the most part. You could argue that the market worked or, if you believe like VMI, you could argue that this is a government conspiracy.

"The question is whether any other contract would be immoral and wrong. You seem to be saying that it would be."

By no means am I making a moral argument. My arguments are based upon practicality. In fact, VMI is the one arguing morality.

"You mean the "very workable solution" in which people who don't own any flammable property are forced to pay, nevertheless, to fund a department to put out the fires they'll never have? Or in which large property owners underpay, and small owners overpay, but in which the decision not to pay at all will get you jailed?"

Isn't the issue whether you benefit from having fires extinguished? Your ownership may be irrelevent to that.

BTW, you are bordering upon making a moral argument.

"Granted, I didn't claim it was easy. However, it's far from insurmountable. Which leaves you heavy-laden with your burden of proof: you claim that government is necessary to coordinate defense activity. You haven't offered your proof yet, but I await with interest."

That uncoordinated defensive efforts will fall to coordinated offensive efforts is self-evident.

"You keep begging the question. Expensive, unproductive gestures that accomplish nothing were necessary?"

Expensive? Yes. Unproductive? No. You think that the effort had to prevent hijackings to be successful. No, the criteria for success was did it reassure the public and did the public return to the air? In that, it was successful, even necessary.

"If I had your gift of prophecy, I'd be another Warren Buffett. You could be right, I spose. I'm only reasoning based on the fact that hugely expensive yet inefficient measures have a way of putting people out of business."

Not prophecy really. Just an observation on how organizations and people react to problems. The private companies would also have gone out of business if they couldn't convince the public that they were doing something to prevent a recurrence. They would also have put on big and expensive shows.

"Were I runing my own airline, instead of dozens of guys with big mean rifles, I'd put a handful of guys with pistols on each plane, and arm the sex stewardesses."

Fine, as a last line of defense, but why not try to keep the enemy team off your airplanes and away from your goal line in the first place?

BTW, you are bordering upon making a moral argument.

Any thoughts on Milsted's arguments?

Milsted takes the case of national defense, which is commonly considered an institution that would face the free rider problem if supplied on the market. Argues Milsted: "suppose the majority assesses a tax on everyone to spread the burden of supporting the new defense system. This is theft of the minority. However, suppose that the economies of scale are such that this tax is less than half of what people would have had to pay for defense on their own."

That's the argument, plain and simple. If it is morally permissible to steal when the victim is compensated double, the equation seems to fit.

Originally, a significant fraction, if not all fire fighting was private. They've been replaced by public companies for the most part. You could argue that the market worked or, if you believe like VMI, you could argue that this is a government conspiracy.

"Conspiracy"? Our local right-wing radio jock likes to say, "It isn't conspiracy, it's consensus!" For example, colleges aren't giant marxist conspiracies--they just act like they are, because the overwhelming majority of professors and amdinistrators are marxist.

By definition, making something public is not "the market working"; government takeover of fire fighting means that fire fighting is no longer a part of the market. If people truly didn't want firefighting, then "the market working" might involve all fire companies going out of business. But if you check the history of firefighting, you will find that this didn't happen. Instead, politicians were happy to take control of this, like any other function, and the fire departments were happy to go along, knowing that tax funding meant larger salaries than the free market would support.

By no means am I making a moral argument. My arguments are based upon practicality.

I'm not sure if you mean the same thing as "utilitarianism," or indeed whether you're familiar with that subject. But the argument is partly moral, and partly legal. The question is: if I start a fire brigade, can I be punished if I refuse to respond to some call? Should I be? Or, put differently: is it right and proper that I should be forced to respond to any and every fire alarm?

We have laws mandating that a physician treat anyone in a medical emergency. We have "good samaritan" laws that punish anyone for failing to obey certain requests for help. Should such laws exist? Would a just society have them? The question is "moral", but its consequences are eminently practical. You could be arrested tonight for walking past a guy having a heart attack.

Isn't the issue whether you benefit from having fires extinguished? Your ownership may be irrelevent to that.

This is a key argument pro statism. You are postulating an intangible benefit. Namely: I have no property to burn; I have no relatives at risk of fire; I personally don't care one way or another about fire departments, I sincerely have no desire to contribute financially to one. Nevertheless, you believe that I personally benefit from their existence, an dso much so that this benefit outweighs any complaint I might have when you force me to pay for it.

Since this "benefit" is intangible, nebulous, and immeasurable, you win. However great I consider the injustice, you can simply reply that this phantom benefit is still greater. Thus, you can say with certainty that you're robbing me for my own good.

(Note: if I "benefit" in not having the local bakery burn down, that's cool; I also pay for that benefit when I buy my bread.)

People, not being stupid, won't permit this to happen.

In other words, instead of acting rationally in the manner that provides them with the greatest benefit - by free riding - people will realize that individual security can only be guaranteed by acting collectively. How about if we give this collective body a catchy name - the "state", perhaps? ;)

For example, you seem to have missed the part where I told you that you and your free-rider ilk will be paying hellacious homeowner's premiums, unless you provide proof of a valid defense contract.

Why? Insurance companies can see just as well as I can that my neighbors on either side have one, and they can see just as well as I can that the Joneses defenders can't effectively defend them without defending me as well. And in any case, that sounds like just the sort of thing that a competitive market for insurance won't have for long. If all the other insurance companies charge triple premiums for the undefended, how long before someone makes a killing in the insurance biz by only charging 10% extra? Between your accidental defense of me, and a competitive market, who's to say there will be much a premium at all, let alone a hellacious one?

Today, the military maintains a separate delivery infrastructure at tremendous cost; tomorrow, FedEx and UPS will play an important role in defense. Namely, they'll deliver supplies, weapons, and all sorts of other things, intact and on time.

Fine, but needless to say, it hardly requires a libertarian state to realize such things, considering that we already have private contractors working with the military. And, of course, there are going to be some deliveries that FedEx can't or won't make - I'm having a bit of trouble imagining them making supply drops to the Wal Mart Special Forces brigade when the brigade is behind enemy lines and under someone else's AA blanket. Forward airbases are not the sort of place that FedEx is likely to equip itself to handle.

Most of the aid that was delivered, was delivered by Wal*Mart.

Yeah, after someone went in and imposed a bit of order on the place. It should be rather obvious, but Wal Mart was not the first set of boots on the ground down there, and they're never going to be the first set of boots on the ground. Not unless they're going to handle the security situation themselves, and given that their core business is selling stuff rather than killing people, what on earth would their incentive be to take on that role?

That uncoordinated defensive efforts will fall to coordinated offensive efforts is self-evident.

THANK YOU! I thought nobody would ever say that!

I reply by citing the most expensive war game the DoD ever conducted, called "Milennium Challenge 2002". Retired Lt. General Paul Van Riper was selected to command the "Red Team", which represented a threat from a generic Middle-Eastern nation, with all the limitations in resources, technology and training that that implied.

When the exercise commenced for the first time, he quickly sank almost the entire Blue navy. He demonstrated that an agile force could indeed defeat a superior, highly organized force. In fact, he demonstrated that the highly structured nature of such a force could effectively be used against it.

Don't worry, though! The DoD response was swift. They imnposed extra rules on the war game, forbade Van Riper to use ceertain weapons and tactics, compelled him to reveal the locations of Red Team units, and also forced him to relocate some of his defenses so they could land a ground assault. After these changes, they won hands-down, and announced that the US was ready for anything.

Fine, as a last line of defense, but why not try to keep the enemy team off your airplanes and away from your goal line in the first place?

You mean, "Why not set up completely ineffective defenses as a gigantic bluff, and hope that the terrorists wet their pants instead of casually bording planes with knives, as so many other people were in fact doing at that time?" (shakes head...)

Herewith follows the text of the Zimmerman Telegram:

"We intend to begin on the first of February unrestricted submarine warfare. We shall endeavor in spite of this to keep the United States of America neutral. In the event of this not succeeding, we make Mexico a proposal or alliance on the following basis: make war together, make peace together, generous financial support and an understanding on our part that Mexico is to reconquer the lost territory in Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona. The settlement in detail is left to you. You will inform the President of the above most secretly as soon as the outbreak of war with the United States of America is certain and add the suggestion that he should, on his own initiative, invite Japan to immediate adherence and at the same time mediate between Japan and ourselves. Please call the President's attention to the fact that the ruthless employment of our submarines now offers the prospect of compelling England in a few months to make peace." Signed, ZIMMERMANN.

To be noted:

1. The telegram expresses hope that the US will remain neutral, but Zimmerman clearly does not anticipate that this will occur. Zimmerman's contingency plan is to exploit Mexican grievances, and Japanese imperial aims, to bring the war directly to the US borders.

2. The resumption of unrestricted submarine warfare has to do with strangling Britain, not any response to Wilson's alleged mishandling of the Lusitania sinking.

Now, let's get back to your argument. You've got a large and militarily extremely powerful nation torpedoing any ship it sees; that same nation is urging your southern neighbor to join in fighting you; and he's making overtures to the Japanese in that context -- and you're going to .... what?

In other words, instead of acting rationally in the manner that provides them with the greatest benefit - by free riding...

I'm not sure if you're familiar with the prisoners' dilemma or not. It's a non-zero-sum game in which everyone wins a little if nobody cheats, but the first (successful) cheater wins big. It accurately models why thieves often double-cross each other, but it also suggests an explanation why thieves so often don't double-cross each other. Humans are capable of reasoning their way through the prisoners' dilemma.

In this context, they are perfectly capable of comprehending that if too many people try to take a free ride, then everyone loses. Most will respond by (1) paying up, and (2) penalizing the non-payers. If you don't join, your neighbors won't talk to you. Your insurance agent will raise your premiums. The local Pinkertons might refuse to guard your place of business. Such spontaenous organization is in fact common in history, and it's why honor systems often work, even though they sometimes don't.

Fine, but needless to say, it hardly requires a libertarian state to realize such things, considering that we already have private contractors working with the military.

Try to keep up with this thread! I already addressed that matter. These "private contractors" do not represent real privatization, because prices are fixed by legislative action, not by market forces. That's why the Pentagon pays $68 for a hammer.

And, of course, there are going to be some deliveries that FedEx can't or won't make...

Conceivably. Some they will make using a rented armored car and a few Pinkertons. Some they will refuse to make, for example behind enemy lines, and alternative solutions can be improvised easily enough. But one thing you need to remember: I've already conceded that you can't privatize an invasion of Korea! At least, it's far tougher than privatizing a defense of the homeland. In practice, FedEx would refuse to ship to Korea, naturally, but they'd be far more cooperative in shipping vital supplies to occupied Connecticut.

It should be rather obvious, but Wal Mart was not the first set of boots on the ground down there, and they're never going to be the first set of boots on the ground.

If defense were privatized, I fully concede that American boots would pretty much never be on foreign ground in the first place--but in that case, Wal*Mart won't be asked to make deliveries there anyway.

Herewith follows the text of the Zimmerman Telegram:

Schweet! You've switched sides and joined me, and I didn't even have to pay you!

"We intend to begin on the first of February unrestricted submarine warfare. We shall endeavor in spite of this to keep the United States of America neutral. In the event of this not succeeding, we make Mexico a proposal or alliance on the following basis...

The resumption of unrestricted submarine warfare has to do with strangling Britain, not any response to Wilson's alleged mishandling of the Lusitania sinking.

Wilson declared that sinking of any ships, including those flying flags of combatant nations, would be deemed an act of war if so much as one American were on board. Germany knew they could not win a protracted war involving the US, and so they decided that all-out war, and the rapid submission of England, was their only hope. I explained it, and you went and found the proof for me (good boy!). Does that mean you get it now?

Now, let's get back to your argument. You've got a large and militarily extremely powerful nation torpedoing any ship it sees...

Yeah, if you ignore Wilson's efforts to get America into the war, then it becomes quite obvious that Germany is entirely to blame. Similarly, if you poke both your eyes out, it will look like night-time.

Schweet! You've switched sides and joined me

Hardly. I merely posted the telegram, and interpreted it differently from you.

Of course, I've got actual history on my side, and all you've got is some cloud-cuckoo version of events that ignores the real reasons why Germany was returning to unrestricted submarine warfare. In Hindenburg's words:

On the other hand, in view of England's economic situation, the Imperial Admiralty promises us that by the ruthless employment of an increased number of U-boats we shall obtain a speedy victory, which will compel our principal enemy, England, to turn to thoughts of peace in a few months. For that reason, the German General Staff is bound to adopt unrestricted U-boat warfare as one of its war measures, because among other things it will relieve the situation on the Somme front by diminishing the imports of munitions and bring the futility of the Entente's efforts at this point plainly before their eyes. Finally, we could not remain idle spectators while England, realising all the difficulties with which she has to contend, makes the fullest possible use of neutral Powers in order to improve her military and economic situation to our disadvantage.

Where's Wilson in this? Why, he's not even in the picture: the Germans' strategic reasoning was bent on taking England out of the war. They were also hoping to break the very effective British blockade of Germany.

It's obvious that Germany meant to resume this policy regardless of anything Wilson may or may not have done. Wilson was left with a need to respond somehow -- either by doing nothing, or by striking back.

You, apparently, would have had him do nothing.

I merely posted the telegram, and interpreted it differently from you.

Um, the telegram said, "We shall endeavor... to keep the United States... neutral. In the event of this not succeeding..." This isn't tarot cards. It states quite clearly that they were undertaking negotiations in case the US did not remain neutral--which they had reason to fear, since Wilson raised the bar to the point that anything they did against England could be interpreted as an act of war against the US.

... some cloud-cuckoo...

This is FR, FRiend. Everyone reading this thread knows how to interpret your abuse: it means that you aren't confident in your arguments, such as they are, and use rough talk to fortify your lack of conviction. Stick to your argument. Win or lose, you'll look better than you do indulging in this kind of behavior.

In Hindenburg's words:

On the other hand, in view of England's economic situation, the Imperial Admiralty promises us that by the ruthless employment of an increased number of U-boats we shall obtain a speedy victory, which will compel our principal enemy, England, to turn to thoughts of peace in a few months. For that reason, the German General Staff is bound to adopt unrestricted U-boat warfare as one of its war measures, because among other things it will relieve the situation on the Somme front by diminishing the imports of munitions and bring the futility of the Entente's efforts at this point plainly before their eyes. Finally, we could not remain idle spectators while England, realising all the difficulties with which she has to contend, makes the fullest possible use of neutral Powers in order to improve her military and economic situation to our disadvantage.

Awww, you're so sweet. Again you decide to support my side instead of yours! As I said, they were compelled to pursue a speedy victory against England, and one of the primary reason was to prevent her use of "neutral powers" against Germany.

Where's Wilson in this?

If you learn to read, and then go ahead and learn some history, you'll discover that the US was a neutral power at the time. Unless you believe that they were mainly afraid of Sweden, and didn't give a rat's patoot about the US... (chuckle)

It accurately models why thieves often double-cross each other, but it also suggests an explanation why thieves so often don't double-cross each other.

Sit in on some plea-bargain discussions some time, and you'll be amazed at how quickly co-conspirators race to the bottom in order to be that first guy to do the double-crossing. The Prisoner's Dilemma is eminently logical in its thinking - the problem is, people quite often aren't ;)

Most will respond by (1) paying up, and (2) penalizing the non-payers.

Penalizing the non-payers? Well, we can certainly be grateful that coercion is a thing of the past. Oh, I know, we'd like to define "coercion" as the exclusive province of the state, but the reality is that actions designed to cause people to behave differently through the threat of some penalty are inherently coercive, by definition. Boycotts are coercive actions. Strikes are coercive actions. If they weren't, they wouldn't be effective in getting someone else to behave in a manner you find acceptable.

Anyway, how will the neighbors know? I think I've addressed the insurance premium thing, but I don't see why I'm not given an incentive to simply lie to the neighbors about my insurrection coverage.

Such spontaenous organization is in fact common in history....

Sure, like lynch mobs. Spontaneous organization outside the purview of any legitimate state power or authority. We can argue all day long about how jobs are an employer's to give or not give as they see fit, for whatever reason they please, but I'm having trouble seeing how telling you "do what I say or you're fired" is somehow non-coercive. Only now, instead of a formal system with rules and procedures and consequences spelled out in advance - the state - we substitute the ad hoc judgments of the mob as to what sorts of behaviors are acceptable or not. And you find this attractive, do you?

Some they will make using a rented armored car and a few Pinkertons.

Sure, and you, as a subscriber to the services of whomever they are delivering to, will pay the cost of that car and those guards. Just like you do now, so what's the advantage again?

In practice, FedEx would refuse to ship to Korea, naturally, but they'd be far more cooperative in shipping vital supplies to occupied Connecticut.

Why, because they're nice people? Maybe they will, and maybe they won't - it'll depend on whether they feel like the benefits of delivering fuses to Radio Free Stamford outweigh the risks, won't it? That is, unless you're going to rely on them always behaving altruistically because they have some emotional attachment to the place, which would be, you know, bad. Or something. Anyway, Randian Express isn't supposed to behave in any manner except that which is in accord with their own rational self-interest, and I don't think you're in a position to make that determination for them.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.