Posted on 02/20/2006 6:24:40 AM PST by Shalom Israel
In a recent article, Carl Milsted uses Rothbard to argue it would be permissible to use force to make people pay for a service of which their benefit is at least double its cost. His conclusion is that it is reasonable, and even preferable, to establish a minimalist state if it is to people's advantage.
As has already been argued by N. Stephan Kinsella, he totally misses Rothbard's point. Furthermore, he fails to show why people would not choose to voluntarily pay for services which would benefit them double, as has been pointed out by Bob Kaercher.
Even so, I wish to offer another analysis of Milsted's reasoning. His article is a good example of why statists always seem to get it wrong — and why they always fail to understand what we're talking about. The bottom line is that they fail to realize the costs of force due to their unwillingness to see the state for what it is. I will therefore use Milsted's own example to shed light on his fundamental mistake.
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. Well, let's look into this in more detail and see if it really does.
First, consider a situation where everybody benefits, say, $10,000 on a yearly basis from being protected by a national defense. That would mean, if the premise is correct, that it would be morally permissible to force costs of no more than $5,000 on everybody.
Were it a company supplying a service worth $10,000 to each of its customers paying only $5,000 for it, this would be easy. Anyone willing to pay the $5,000 would get the service, and the costs associated with administration and so forth would have to be covered by the $5,000 paid. But Milsted argues the $5,000 should be taxed, and that makes it much more difficult.
First of all, we know state-run businesses and authorities (especially if they are monopolies) tend to be much less efficient than private enterprises. That means people in Milstedistan would get less than they would in a free market society. But even so, there is still the cost of coercion totally neglected by Milsted in his article.
Forcing people to pay for a service means there will always be someone who tries to avoid paying or even refuses to pay. So "we" (i.e., the state) need to invest in collection services to get the money. Now, let's say Murray, who is one of the people we're trying to coerce, goes out to buy a rifle and then declares that he's "anti-government, so get the hell off my property." Perhaps he even threatens to kill the collection agents. Dealing with him would take a whole lot more out of the budget, meaning there is even less to provide for the defense (which is the reason we're in business in the first place).
But that's not all. Let's say Murray won't give us the money no matter how much we ask or threaten him. We will simply have to take it by force, so we need to invest in the necessary tools and we go out to hire a dozen brutes to do the forcing. (More money down the drain … ) It is already pretty obvious we're in a very expensive business; there will not be much defense left if there are a lot of Murrays in our society.
Now imagine our hired brutes go down the street to Murray's house and knock on his door. He sticks his rifle out the window and shouts something about having the right to his property and that he will shoot to kill. Anyway, the brutes try to open his door only to find it is locked and barred. They will have to break in to finally get their hands on Murray's cash.
Our small army goes back to their van to get their tools, then returns to break down Murray's door. Going inside, they manage to avoid all the bullets Murray is firing and they tie him up and put him in the closet. They eventually find that he does not have any valuables and that he keeps his cash in a locked safe. So they have to break it to get the money.
Now we have a problem. To make this operation morally permissible, the benefit to Murray, which we know is $10,000, must be at least double the cost forced on him. The cost is now a whole lot more than the cost of the national defense; it includes administration and collection costs, hiring the brutes and their tools, as well as the broken door and safe, and the time and suffering (and perhaps medical expenses) Murray has lost while we were stealing from him. How much do you think is left from the original $5,000 to invest in a national defense? Not much.
What if Murray suffers from paranoia and therefore had invested $1,500 in an advanced special security door and $2,000 in an extra security safe? Then the total cost of simply getting into Murray's safe would probably exceed the $5,000 we are "allowed" to steal. What then? Should we break in anyway since it is a mandatory tax, only to give him a check to cover what's above the $5,000 mark? That doesn't sound right.
But on the other hand, if we just let him be, more people would do the same as Murray only to get off, and we would have a huge problem on our hands. This is a typical state dilemma: it costs too much to force money from some people, but it would probably be much more "expensive" in the long run not to. It's a lose-lose situation.
Now, what if Murray is very poor and doesn't have the $5,000? Then we would have to take whatever he's got and make him work off the rest. We need to get the $5,000 to cover our expenses of the national defense, and we have the right to take that amount from him. It could, of course, be argued he couldn't possibly benefit $10,000 from a national defense if he has no money and no property. If we trust Austrian economics, that might very well be correct; the benefit of national defense would, like any other product or service, be valued subjectively and thus the benefit would be different for each and every individual.
If this is true, it means we have an even greater problem: the state can rightfully levy costs of a maximum of half the subjective benefit enjoyed. Well, that's a task that would keep an army of Nobel Prize winners busy for a while. If possible, I wonder how much that would cost in the end.
This is the problem statists face on an everyday basis when discussing philosophy and politics. It is easy to make nice equations and formulas, and theorize on great systems and cheap solutions neatly enforced by the state. But when consistently failing to realize the costs of coercion it makes their reasoning fundamentally flawed. Just scratching the surface reveals they really have no clue whatsoever.
Per Bylund works as a business consultant in Sweden, in preparation for PhD studies. He is the founder of Anarchism.net. Send him mail. Visit his website. Comment on the blog.
The imagined part is the severity of problem, not whether the problem exist at all. A country the size of the U.S., there is no problem that doesn't exist on some level, the debate is always about the severity of each and which should be given priority.
"Must"? You mean, something bad will happen to them if they get dropped off, or take the bus, or walk?
This BS started at a paper mill in the sticks in Oklahoma izzy. You either got to work by driving, parked in the company lot [sans gun] or didn't work; -- but of course, a wise guy brady type like you could care less about our RKBA's.
and some of the employees are being fired for having a gun in their trunk. Those are the facts izzy.
That's perfectly within the property owner's rights. You don't have, and never did have, the right to bring a weapon onto my private property against my will. That you can't grasp this elementary fact is certainly troubling.
Thank you Ms Brady.
America doesn't need roads? -- You're getting weird again. - We're nearly finished.
"America" needs roads? You're anthropomorphizing again. "America" the piece of land has no needs, because it's inanimate. So what sentient being is doing this needing? You seem to think that America is itself an individual with needs. I deny the existence of this individual. People have needs. Many people will say they "need" roads--but not me: where I live, we travel by dogsled. Yet, amazingly, you are comfortable extorting money from me, who doesn't "need" any roads, and handing it over to other people, who want roads, and you justify it by claiming that "America" has a "need" for those roads. Once again, you're confused.
Ho hum.. You're got a pitifully limited 'line' of sarcastic patter izzy. Find some new ways of showing FR your idiocy.
And your individual neighbor may have the right to object, Constitutionally, about how you burn or bury your garbage izzy. -- Think about it.
He may, for example if my handling of garbage sends smoke or stink onto his private property.
Exactly my point izzy.
If I refrain from violating his private property rights with smoke, stink, etc., then he has no grounds to object. For example, he can object that I'm not being "environmentally friendly" all he wants, and it don't mean squat. But you appear to be claiming that this statement of yours justifies forcing me to pay for garbage collection I don't want. This is the heart of the problem: you don't actually believe in private property.
Absurd "yo momma" conclusion.
You believe that some cases justify your violating your neighbor's property rights, for example if you don't like his rules about guns on his land, or if you don't like his method of handling garbage.
Another absurd "yo momma" conclusion.
No, I took an oath to protect & defend the Constitution 51 years ago izzy, one I still honor. -- Obviously, you do not.
Ignoring your ad hominem--what else is new--
In our dialog here you've consistently scorned our Constitutional rule of law my boy. --- Obviously you do not honor many of its principles; -- thus there is no ad homiem in saying so.
I repeat, then that "we the people" passed Jim Crow laws. That makes them okie-dokie to you. Unless you retract your ridiculous claim that a law must be legitimate whenever "we the people" pass that law.
Yet another absurd, [and boring] "yo momma" type conclusion.
I've been a building contractor for 45 years izzy. -- So find someone else to post your BS lectures to about contracts.
Then you're either lying about your experience, or you're lying when you dispute what I say.
Absurd "yo momma" conclusion, that borders on personal insult.
Assuming you're an honest businesman, you know that you've done lots of things not specifically listed in the contract, because they were part of doing your job in a workmanlike manner. If you're a dishonest contractor--there's certainly no shortage of those--then you have done the opposite: you've failed to clean up the site when you finished, because the contract didn't say you had to; you've painted without proper surface preparation, because the contract said you'd "paint", but didn't detail the surface preparation required; you nailed cleats to the roof, straight through the shingles, because it was easier and the contract didn't specify roof jacks... and if all of that is true, then I know your real name, because you recently "painted" my house. Meanwhile, here's some reading to educate yourself on implied and oral contracts. You'll find it agrees with my summary, though my summary was clearer.
Dream on izzy. You really do think you're some sort of superior 'summarizer', don't you? Get help with such delusions.
You don't have a right to keep and bear arms into my house. Your lack of respect for private property rights speaks for itself.
The rest of your post contains no attempt at argument whatsoever. If you drop this final argument, you will have conceded the entire discussion. Do as you please, of course--but it's a shame. So many subjects have come up, and you seem to have learned nothing about any of them.
Got another email from VMI this morning. I suggest you might want to read this article (link below) to make your own assessment of the attitude of VMI towards government:
http://www.mises.org/story/2066
You'll note the author's kind words for the current state of affairs in Somali despite the loss of a million lives. After all there is no central government.
This BS started at a paper mill in the sticks in Oklahoma izzy. You either got to work by driving, parked in the company lot [sans gun] or didn't work; -- but of course, a wise guy brady type like you could care less about our RKBA's.
You don't have a right to keep and bear arms into my house.
How inane izzy. -- We are discussing the right to carry arms in your trunk, while at work.
Your lack of respect for private property rights speaks for itself.
I respect the property rights of those people that respect mine. It's my trunk & I have a right to keep a gun in it while at work.
The rest of your post contains no attempt at argument whatsoever. If you drop this final argument, you will have conceded the entire discussion. Do as you please, of course--but it's a shame. So many subjects have come up, and you seem to have learned nothing about any of them.
Another silly "Yo' momma" comment.
You are a piece of work kid.. Grow up.
"Let's say"? You mean, for the sake of argument, let's just pretend that my property is my property? Um, OK, let's just pretend...
As an employee forced to park in your lot...
Again with "forced". Frankly, pal, you aren't forced to do nothin'. You aren't forced to work for me, for that matter, if you find my rules so intolerable.
How inane izzy. -- We are discussing the right to carry arms in your trunk, while at work onto someone else's private property.
I fixed that for you. Now think about it. Slowly. Carefully. You can do it.
"Nonetheless, I don't think it would be any different than a sandlot game initially and would work its way into a team structure based upon the members of the team best suited to it calling plays and picking teams.'
But that's the problem. We're not talking 'sandlot'. We're talking about the military making war where people die and nations cease to exist. Pretty big stakes to gamble on sandlot amateurs.
"In fact, it's usually well-balanced teams that are advantaged on the field ..."
That was my point. Centralized player selection results in 'balanced teams'. Allowing different contractos to select players based upon their individual preferences and predjudices may result in 'unbalanced teams'. Want to risk your life, your kids life, our your country on that?
I guess there's just nothing good to be said about not having enough government, and nothing bad to said about having too much.
Can you give an example of a lawsuit in which two parties' "rights" come "into conflict".
Let's say you claim the 'right' to ban arms in your company parking lot. As an employee forced to park in your lot, I claim the right to have a gun in my car trunk. --
"Let's say"? You mean, for the sake of argument, let's just pretend that my property is my property? Um, OK, let's just pretend...
You asked izzy.. Did you 'forget'? --- Or is it possible you need 'rest' again? [about this time last night you made the same weird mistakes]
As an employee forced to park in your lot...
Again with "forced". Frankly, pal, you aren't forced to do nothin'. You aren't forced to work for me, for that matter, if you find my rules so intolerable.
We've went over this before. --
--- This BS started at a paper mill in the sticks in Oklahoma izzy. You either got to work by driving, parked in the company lot [sans gun] or didn't work; -- but of course, a wise guy brady type like you could care less about our RKBA's.
You don't have a right to keep and bear arms into my house.
How inane izzy. -- We are discussing the right to carry arms in your trunk, while at work.
-- We are discussing the right to carry arms in your trunk, while at work onto someone else's private property. I fixed that for you. Now think about it. Slowly. Carefully. You can do it.
No need to think about your idiocy izzy; -- you demonstrate it with every post.
Now why don't you be a good boy and get lost? I think I hear "yo' momma" calling.
I invoke Israel's law and declare you the loser. However, I will leave you with one thought you'll apparently find mind-blowing: that parking lot is your boss's land. It isn't yours. He's in charge of it. You aren't. Very simple, really.
"I guess there's just nothing good to be said about not having enough government, and nothing bad to said about having too much."
Do you think a million deaths would be a 'small price to pay' for doing away with government? Remember, Somali has a far smaller population than the US. Wonder what the percentage of deaths would be too large to pay for VMI?
What do you think the price would be for making all your decisions based on strawman arguments?
Alaska anti-gun-control law goes into effect Wednesday
Address:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1503545/posts
"-- Gun owners will be allowed to keep their firearms in their vehicle, even if the car is parked on private property where the owner has a no-gun policy. --"
Hooray. Yet another advance for property rights in America. You should be pleased, comrade.
Every statist communitarian on FR somehow wants to use 'property rights' to trump our right to carry arms. -- And you agree.
"-- My leanings are libertarian, generally speaking. --" [ my leanings on guns? don't ask]
On the contrary, comrade, I will die to protect your right to bear arms. I will also die to defend your neighbor's right to kick you off his land for any reason he wishes, whether it be your arms, your race, your ugly mug, or his secret passion for your wife. Your rights and his are compatible. If you insist on violating his rights, he has the right to defend himself using deadly force, and I hope he does.
I will die to protect your right to bear arms.
Except when I'm bearing them in my car trunk in the company parking lot. -- Bold words, but obviously specious.
I will also die to defend your neighbor's right to kick you off his land for any reason he wishes, whether it be your arms, your race, your ugly mug, or his secret passion for your wife.
Gotta love your 'defense' of irrationality.
Your rights and his are compatible.
They should be, but he irrationally wants me disarmed at work.
If you insist on violating his rights,
My gun in my trunk in no way violate his rights; and you cannot show such a violation. -- Can you try?
he has the right to defend himself using deadly force, and I hope he does.
Straw man. -- No one here has questioned his right to self defense, as you well know.
In other words, you don't believe in private property rights. You are comfortable imposing your will on the property owner whenever it seems like a good idea to you. Which is exactly the trouble. You probably believe in "limited" government, but when you come right down to it, the difference between you and a dictator is only one of degree.
They should be, but he irrationally wants me disarmed at work.
Apparently nothing will get it through your head that "your" work is actually his property. You have no rights to dictate how he uses his property. The problem is that you believe you do.
My gun in my trunk in no way violate his rights; and you cannot show such a violation. -- Can you try?
My sleeping in your house whenever I please in no way violates your rights. I welcome you to try to prove otherwise.
Straw man.
No. If you attack him and he kills you, that's self defense. If you trespass on his property and he kills you, that's self defense. If he invites you onto his property under certain conditions, and you violate those conditions and attempt to force your way onto his property anyway, then he has the right to kill you in self defense. It's his property.
Something tells me you'd suddenly lose all your thick-headedness if you invited me to your house, where your wife is allergic to peanuts, and I insist on entering with a big bag of them; of if you simply don't like smoke, but I insist on smoking a cigar in your living room; or if you're raising young children, but I insist on bringing dirty movies with me; or if you hate rap, but I insist on playing it loudly in your guest room. Your head will suddenly clear, and you'll realize that it's your house, and in your house, you make the rules.
Your rights and his [the employer] are compatible.
They should be, but he irrationally wants me disarmed at work.
If you insist on violating his rights,
My gun in my trunk in no way violates his rights; and you cannot show such a violation. -- Can you try?
My sleeping in your house whenever I please in no way violates your rights.
Thats it? -- Thats your "try"?
-- Like the rest of your comments in that post, you make no rational arguments to counter.
On the contrary: the answer to my example, as to yours, is it's the owner's private property. You don't believe that the owner is in charge of his own property; you think you are. The burden is on you to prove that you're in charge.
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.