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.
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.
-- My challange stands, unrebuttable.
On the contrary: the answer to my example, as to yours, is it's the owner's private property.
How silly. I'm not denying it's his parking lot; -- I'm saying that; -- my gun in my trunk in no way violates any of his rights; and you cannot show such a violation.
Go ahead an try.
...I just get to tell him what he can and can't do with it, and that's no violation of his property rights.
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.
-- My challange stands, unrebuttable.
On the contrary: the answer to my example, as to yours, is it's the owner's private property.
How silly. I'm not denying it's his parking lot; -- I'm saying that; -- my gun in my trunk in no way violates any of his rights; and you cannot show such a violation.
Go ahead an try.
I just get to tell him what he can and can't do with it, and that's no violation of his property rights.
My gun in my trunk in no way violates any of his rights.
You realize that you simply keep repeating yourself, right? You have no right to set foot on his land, except with his permission. He can impose any conditions he wants on that permission. If you enter his property without complying with his stated terms, you are violating his property rights.
His most basic property right is the right to say who is and who isn't allowed on his property. Continually saying that you "aren't violating his rights" doesn't make it true, when you prevent him from deciding who's allowed on his land.
It doesn't matter what those terms are. He can insist that you bring no guns; he can require that only females use his property; he can specify only Jews, or only non-Jews; he can require everyone entering his property to carry a firearm. He can require that anyone entering his property must be naked--in fact some nudist colonies do exactly that. He can insist that everyone wear a cowboy hat. It's his property.
So instead of dumbly repeating yourself yet again, why don't you explain how you aren't violating his property rights when you enter it without his permission?
You realize that you simply keep repeating yourself, right? You have no right to set foot on his land, except with his permission. He can impose any conditions he wants on that permission. If you enter his property without complying with his stated terms, you are violating his property rights.
His most basic property right is the right to say who is and who isn't allowed on his property. Continually saying that you "aren't violating his rights" doesn't make it true, when you prevent him from deciding who's allowed on his land.
It doesn't matter what those terms are. He can insist that you bring no guns; he can require that only females use his property; he can specify only Jews, or only non-Jews; he can require everyone entering his property to carry a firearm. He can require that anyone entering his property must be naked--in fact some nudist colonies do exactly that. He can insist that everyone wear a cowboy hat. It's his property.
So instead of dumbly repeating yourself yet again, why don't you explain how you aren't violating his property rights when you enter it without his permission?
You have no right to set foot on his land, except with his permission.
I have his permission [in most cases mandated] to park my vehicle on his lot while working.
He can impose any conditions he wants on that permission.
Nope, -- that's where you are wrong. -- My gun in my vehicle trunk in no way violates any of his rights. - Thus his irrational "condition" is a violation of my right to carry.
If you enter his property without complying with his stated terms, you are violating his property rights. His most basic property right is the right to say who is and who isn't allowed on his property. Continually saying that you "aren't violating his rights" doesn't make it true, when you prevent him from deciding who's allowed on his land.
You realize that you simply keep repeating yourself, right?
It doesn't matter what those terms are. He can insist that you bring no guns; he can require that only females use his property; he can specify only Jews, or only non-Jews; he can require everyone entering his property to carry a firearm. He can require that anyone entering his property must be naked--in fact some nudist colonies do exactly that. He can insist that everyone wear a cowboy hat. It's his property. So instead of dumbly repeating yourself yet again,
You realize that you simply keep repeating yourself, right?
why don't you explain how you aren't violating his property rights when you enter it without his permission?
I have his permission [in most cases mandated] to park my vehicle on his lot while working.
My gun in my vehicle trunk in no way violates any of his rights. -- Thus his irrational "condition" is a violation of my right to carry a gun to & from work.
No, you don't. You have his permission to park it with no guns inside.
Thus his irrational "condition" is a violation....
His conditions don't have to be "rational". It's his. When you buy zucchini, it's yours. You can eat it, or carve it into a totem pole, or fall down and worship it, or use it as a baseball bat, or sit on it and rotate. It's yours.
It doesn't look like we'll ever agree on this simple idea. But that does tell me one thing about you, and if I were your boss I'd probably fire you--not because of the gun in your car, but because I can be sure you will not respect property in other ways. If I lend you a company car to do company business, you would most likely drive it on your errands as well, because "you have my permission to use it."
With similar reasoning, you will routinely violate any of my rules that you don't consider "rational," and will use things I didn't want you to use, in ways I didn't want you to use them, for purposes I didn't want you to use them for. And of course you'll steal. Oh, you won't embezzle or anything, but I already know I'll recognize all sorts of items when I visit your home, such as office supplies. After all, you "have my permission to use office supplies"...
why don't you explain how you aren't violating his property rights when you enter it without his permission?
I have his permission [in most cases mandated by local ordinance's] to park my vehicle on his lot while working.
My gun in my vehicle trunk in no way violates any of his rights. -- Thus his irrational "condition" is a violation of my right to carry a gun to & from work.
No, you don't.
You deny reality. Most local parking ordinance's mandate off street company parking.
You have his permission to park it with no guns inside.
Thus his irrational "condition" is a violation....
His conditions don't have to be "rational".
Quite a few States now differ. They agree that we have a right to carry arms to & from work, and are protecting that right from irrational infringements made by people like you.
It's his. When you buy zucchini, it's yours. You can eat it, or carve it into a totem pole, or fall down and worship it, or use it as a baseball bat, or sit on it and rotate. It's yours. It doesn't look like we'll ever agree on this simple idea. But that does tell me one thing about you, and if I were your boss I'd probably fire you--not because of the gun in your car, but because I can be sure you will not respect property in other ways. If I lend you a company car to do company business, you would most likely drive it on your errands as well, because "you have my permission to use it." With similar reasoning, you will routinely violate any of my rules that you don't consider "rational," and will use things I didn't want you to use, in ways I didn't want you to use them, for purposes I didn't want you to use them for. And of course you'll steal. Oh, you won't embezzle or anything, but I already know I'll recognize all sorts of items when I visit your home, such as office supplies. After all, you "have my permission to use office supplies"...
Another bunch of irrational personal remarks, made because you can't argue your position in a logical manner. Be ashamed izzy.
Irrelevant. Quite a few other states have unconstitutional restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms. What does that prove?
you can't argue your position in a logical manner.
You have not tried once so far to logically argue why a person doesn't actually have the power to decide who does and who doesn't use his property, or how his property is used. Try now.
why don't you explain how you aren't violating his property rights when you enter it without his permission?
I have his permission [in most cases mandated by local ordinance's] to park my vehicle on his lot while working.
My gun in my vehicle trunk in no way violates any of his rights. -- Thus his irrational "condition" is a violation of my right to carry a gun to & from work.
No, you don't.
You deny reality. Most local parking ordinance's mandate off street company parking.
You have his permission to park it with no guns inside.
Thus his irrational "condition" is a violation....
His conditions don't have to be "rational".
Quite a few States now differ.
Irrelevant. Quite a few other states have unconstitutional restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms. What does that prove?
It only proves that a lot of different people like you are irrational about guns, izzy.
States agree that we have a right to carry arms to & from work, and are protecting that right from irrational infringements made by people like you.
It's his. When you buy zucchini, it's yours. You can eat it, or carve it into a totem pole, or fall down and worship it, or use it as a baseball bat, or sit on it and rotate. It's yours. It doesn't look like we'll ever agree on this simple idea. But that does tell me one thing about you, and if I were your boss I'd probably fire you--not because of the gun in your car, but because I can be sure you will not respect property in other ways. If I lend you a company car to do company business, you would most likely drive it on your errands as well, because "you have my permission to use it." With similar reasoning, you will routinely violate any of my rules that you don't consider "rational," and will use things I didn't want you to use, in ways I didn't want you to use them, for purposes I didn't want you to use them for. And of course you'll steal. Oh, you won't embezzle or anything, but I already know I'll recognize all sorts of items when I visit your home, such as office supplies. After all, you "have my permission to use office supplies"...
Another bunch of irrational personal remarks, made because you can't argue your position in a logical manner. Be ashamed izzy.
You have not tried once so far to logically argue why a person doesn't actually have the power to decide who does and who doesn't use his property, or how his property is used. Try now.
Why should I argue against our property rights? My car trunk is my property, and I have the power to use it to store a weapon while I'm working. -- My employer has no power to infringe on that right by using irrational reasoning about his own rights being 'violated'.. My trunk is not his property, and nothing in it can 'violate' his property.
Get it yet izzy?
Your trunk is your property. You can put anything in it you please. Your employer's parking lot is his property, and he gets to say whether your car is allowed there. He said it is, as long as there are no guns in it. If you can't get that through your head, then further discussion is fruitless.
Curiously, I notice you have conspicuously avoided claiming you can bring your gun into the building, even though a weapon carried on your person is your constitutional right. Why not? Simple: you do realize that your employer can ban personal firearms in the work place. If you pondered that, you would realize that he can ban anything he wants on his property, including his parking lot. Forcing him to do otherwise is a violation of his rights.
His rule isn't a violation of your rights, because you have no right to enter his property at all. It's a privilege granted, or not, by the property owner.
Why should I argue against our property rights? My car trunk is my property, and I have the power to use it to store a weapon while I'm working. -- My employer has no power to infringe on that right by using irrational reasoning about his own rights being 'violated'.. My trunk is not his property, and nothing in it can 'violate' his property.
Your trunk is your property. You can put anything in it you please.
Thank you for that 'concession' izzy.
Your employer's parking lot is his property, and he gets to say whether your car is allowed there.
Again, -- you deny the reality of local parking laws. -- Fruitless repetition.
He said it is, as long as there are no guns in it. If you can't get that through your head,
You're fruitlessly repeating yourself.
then further discussion is fruitless.
Curiously, I notice you have conspicuously avoided claiming you can bring your gun into the building, even though a weapon carried on your person is your constitutional right. Why not? Simple: you do realize that your employer can ban personal firearms in the work place. If you pondered that, you would realize that he can ban anything he wants on his property, including his parking lot.
A political compromise has been made with irrational anti-gun nuts, izzy. They can keep guns out of their buildings, but they can't ban them altogether.
Forcing him to do otherwise is a violation of his rights.
There you go again, -- a gun in a car trunk violates no ones 'right'.
His rule isn't a violation of your rights, because you have no right to enter his property at all. It's a privilege granted, or not, by the property owner.
You're fruitlessly repeating old points.
"You just said, "You're wrong! You're right..."
No I didn't. i said the premise is absurd.
Because you have never answered them. I keep repeating them, in hopes that you'll either (1) realize they're correct, or (2) actually attempt to prove them wrong.
Strawman argument? Do you dispute that VMI argued that the dissolution of the Somali government was a good thing and dismissed the cost of 1,000,000 lives?
I find no reference to the figure of 1,000,000 lives at all.
Where do you get that figure, and upon what basis to you attribute that loss to the lack of formal government? How many lives do you think it's cost countries like Zimbabwe to have the government they've got?
"The BBC's country profile of Somalia sums up this view as widely publicized by the mainstream media: "Somalia has been without an effective central government since President Siad Barre was overthrown in 1991. Fighting between rival warlords and an inability to deal with famine and disease led to the deaths of up to one million people.""
From the link to the article I posted.
You had a double post at 304 and 305 starting out : “You realize that you simply keep repeating yourself, right?” and ending “So instead of dumbly repeating…”
I had to comment ‘cause like the man said “That’s funny, I don’t care who you are.”
(No offense intended by any of the above, it just struck me as humorous.)
I almost commented on your Post 296 statement to tpaine: “If you insist on violating his rights, he has the right to defend himself using deadly force, and I hope he does.”
That caught my eye because the “…and I hope he does” seems to conflict with the “I'm a Bible-believing Christian…” from your home page. But you don’t need to explain it unless you feel the need to practice an explanation you might need to give in the future.
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.