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.
As long as I jumped back into the mudbath, you wrote: “…he can ban anything he wants on his property, including his parking lot. Forcing him to do otherwise is a violation of his rights.”
It looks like you’re saying that if he wants he can ban the life and liberty of others; that if they are on his property, the owner can kill someone at will or prevent someone from leaving. If you’re not saying that, then he can’t just ban “anything he wants” on his property. That raises the two part question: Can he ban anything at all and if so what circumstances justify doing so?
We all agree the answer to the first part is “Yes.”
Agreement by all on an answer to the second part seems to be a problem.
“If you insist on violating his rights, he has the right to defend himself using deadly force, and I hope he does.”
And if he insists on violating my rights, I have the right to defend myself using deadly force (but I would add “if necessary”).
What’s in dispute is where the property owner’s rights end and the rights of anyone else begin.
And you contend that this assesment is correct, and that a central government - any central government - would have prevented it?
I can see why it might look that way, but that isn't how it actually works out. As the owner he can refuse you entry; as long as you aren't on his land, he can't touch you. If you attempt to force entry, he can indeed defend himself.
Supposing you are on his property because you were allowed on, he can't defend his property against your "trespassing", because you aren't trespassing. What you're suggesting is that the land owner might now say, "I want you off my land in one second... ONE! OK, now you're a trespasser!" and start shooting. He cannot do that because in allowing you onto his land, he made an implied contract that he would not molest you, including assault or imprisonment. He volunarily waived his right to call you a trespasser when he invited you onto his land.
He can of course order you off his land, but the contract implicit in his originally allowing you in, means that he must give you sufficient time to get off his land. If you're standing right at the property line, he might legitimately give you the count of three before he starts shooting, but if you're deep in his land somewhere, he must allow you to depart.
...then he can’t just ban “anything he wants” on his property.
He can, but only with advance notice. For example, he might invite you onto his land on the condition that you sign a waiver, acknowledging that the landowner will shoot you if he feels like it. You'd be a fool to sign the contract, but if you signed it and entered his land, he'd then be within his rights to shoot you. If, on the other hand, he invites you to dinner and up and kills you, he's a murderer: his invitation implied a contract not to harm you during your visit. That isn't a limitation on his property rights; it's a case of a voluntary contract waiving certain rights.
Can he ban anything at all and if so what circumstances justify doing so?
He can make absolutely any rules he wants, but he can't then change the rules at a whim. This answers your original objection, but leaves open the possibility that he might lawfully organize a "paintball" game using live ammo.
The law doesn't work that way today, however. Courts do not respect the liberty of contract, so for example a contract to provide assisted suicide, or sexual services, would be nullified by the courts. But I think it was already clear to you that we're discussing "shoulds", not current US law.
That's the point: if his rights are properly understood, there is no limitation to them. He doesn't have the right to initiate aggression, and therefore he can't molest you, steal your stuff, vandalise or what have you. If his actions affect nobody's person or property except his own, then anything goes. Or, if all affected parties are consenting, then again anything goes. Those are exactly his rights, and there are no exceptions of any kind.
The only one who can impose limitations on a man's rights is the man himself. He does that by making contracts, whether express or implied. If he marries, he's making a contract whereby his spouse can live in his house without being called a trespasser. If he takes a job, he's making a contract whereby another person can suddenly tell him when to get up in the morning, or what to wear, or whatever else the contract might entail. In our dealings with others we make implicit contracts constantly. The McDonalds, by displaying an "open" sign, offers a contract that we can enter and eat unmolested. By entering, we accept the contract, and in return contract that we'll line up, pay for our food, eat it without bothering the other patrons, and bus our own trays.
What’s in dispute is where the property owner’s rights end and the rights of anyone else begin.
All of our rights begin and end with property and contract. We own ourselves and our stuff, and we can do anything we want to our selves and our stuff, but we can't do anything whatsoever to anyone else's things or stuff without their permission.
LOL......What makes you think I'm young, thin, or single???
Sigh.......I'm none of the above!!!!!!!!
Guess we'd make a good pair....but for that marriage thing.
The "hope he does" was rhetorical (which of course explains everything!). I can prove from scripture that God respects the right to defend self and property. However, Christ in the sermon on the mount apparently commands his followers to waive that right voluntarily. Whether that's a correct interpretation of Matt 5 is subject to some debate, and I have not come to a final conclusion for myself.
The closest I can come at the moment is to suggest that I would not use force to defend myself or my property, but would to defend my wife, child, or another innocent. I almost believe that's consistent with my calling; to the extent that I doubt it, self-honesty forces me to admit that I'd rather grapple with my beliefs standing over the attacker's grave than over my son's.
Kidding. My wife might kill me for even kidding about it, so let's just say I'm delighted to make your acquaintance, ma'am!
Likewise kind Sir......Likewise.
"What you're suggesting is that the land owner might now..."
No I am not suggesting that. I'm saying that the words “…he can ban anything he wants on his property, including his parking lot. Forcing him to do otherwise is a violation of his rights” suggest that.
"...he made an implied contract..."
As a property owner I might quote (with minor changes): "My observation is that the supposed "implied contract" is not in fact a contract. For starters, nobody signed it, least of all me--so this is a contract that binds me against my will."
And also: "You're claiming I'm a party to a contract that I never agreed to, that you can't even state with any certain detail, that provides no clear enumeration of responsibilities nor specific provision of penalties for breach... in other words, a "implied contract" is nothing like a "contract"."
Regarding your first paragraph: That's what's in dispute. Even if you and I totally agreed the paragraph was correct, it would still be in dispute because not everyone believes it to be correct.
Your first paragraph is fine as a statement on your part but it doesn't end any dispute as far as I can see. I see no reason for anyone else to believe it is a true statement as opposed to something you erroniously (from another's view) believe to be true. (Please note that in the preceding I did not dispute your statement. I'm not saying I never will, just that I did not then.)
Now on to something else:
"The only one who can impose limitations on a man's rights is the man himself. He does that by making contracts, whether express or implied." "In our dealings with others we make implicit contracts constantly. "
In other words:
A Implied Contract is an agreement among people, though it’s not necessarily formal (and may even be hypothetical, reached through a sort of consensus). In short, it’s an agreement about what rules to follow in pursuit of whatever goals the people have in mind that they wish to pursue jointly.
You may or may not have realized it, but you are suggesting it: if you're on his property illicitly, you're already a dead man and have no complaint. So "banning your life" on his property means that he allowed you onto his land, but then changed his mind. By allowing you onto his land in the first place, he waived his right to do that.
As a property owner I might quote (with minor changes): "My observation is that the supposed "implied contract" is not in fact a contract. For starters, nobody signed it, least of all me--so this is a contract that binds me against my will."
You'd be mistaken; an implied contract differs from a "social contract" in a critical way. Namely, you did freely and consensually enter into the contract, as proven by your own actions--in this case, inviting me onto your land. Implied contracts are--quite rightly--upheld in court all the time. Not as often as they should be, though, because some laws interfere in the right of contract. Thus many cases are decided on law when in reality the law is improper, and the case should have been decided on fact.
True: some people are quite certain they have the right to impose their will on my person or property. If it's only one person, I'll defend myself, and that's that. If it's many, many people, then I am ultimately defenceless against them, and must simply cope in one way or another. In fact, that's precisely the situation today.
They're all wrong, though. I can demonstrate it from scripture, from reason, and from utilitarian grounds. They're as wrong as the majority that supported slavery, or witch-burning, or [insert here].
Your first paragraph is fine as a statement on your part but it doesn't end any dispute as far as I can see.
You are quite right: ultimately, all I can do is try and convince tpaine. If my statement isn't utterly self-evident, then I know lots of things about tpaine--but I'm powerless to change them. By my own principles, I cannot change his mind by force. That's why libertarian thinking isn't, and probably never will be, widely embraced. But to any reasonable person, it should be quite clear how right my statement is.
A Implied Contract is an agreement among people, though it’s not necessarily formal (and may even be hypothetical, reached through a sort of consensus).
False. An "implied" contract is actually "implied" by something--namely, the parties' own voluntary words and actions. There's no way I can bind you by an "implicit contract" against your will. It's in no way analogous to a "social contract", which binds me from birth through no action of mine.
PS:
I'll point out, though, that if you try hard you can come up with thorny questions concerning such contracts. For example, a foreigner might invite you into his house, where you might inadvertantly do something interpreted in his culture as a death threat, upon which he kills you in self defense. I call that sort of thing an "unfortunate misunderstanding," but the correct resolution of such incidents isn't obvious on its face.
Even more interestingly, law has a concept of "quasi" contracts, which are like implied contracts except that there is only one party to them. For example, if a doctor rescues an unconscious accident victim, the victim didn't agree to a contract for services, but the courts will uphold the doctor's right to charge a fee for services anyway. Let me hasten to add, I don't agree with this concept, and find quasi-contracts to be highly problematic. My gut says sometimes the doctor should be paid, but sometimes he should be sued. For example, perhaps he's interfering in a suicide...
This opens an interesting area for continued research, however! Here's a better example: you walk up to my front door and ring the bell; I blow you away. Is this proper? One would argue it isn't: people have front doors and doorbells precisely for strangers' use in requesting entry. In legal terms today, this could be regarded as a "quasi" contract, since two parties never actually met and negotiated terms.
I don't have a formal answer to that hypothetical, but I reject the "one-sided contract" theory. In some sense, the front door represents a contract lying on the sidewalk, signed by the landowner. The visitor, by entering the property, effectively signs that contract. It gives him the right to go knock on the door, but not to borrow the lawn mower.
Culture has a role in this, which would cause tpaine, say, to mistake it for a "social contract". He would say that I'm bound by a social contract to let anyone ring my doorbell who wants to. Culture isn't a "social contract". Culture handles the job of providing a common understanding: it's by virtue of culture that the visitor knows the terms of this invisible contract. And it's by virtue of culture that the homeowner knows what to expect when he leaves his porch light on on Halloween.
The difference is that culture doesn't have binding force. It's purely a matter of communication. If I don't want you knocking on my door, I'll put a gate at the end of my sidewalk with a sign saying, "Absolutely no visitors." I'll do it because I know what people will do if I don't, thanks to the communication medium of culture. I can refuse to enter into any of the implied contracts floating out there, but I must communicate the fact clearly lest I find myself in one of those "unfortunate misunderstandings" that can be so invonvenient.
The distinction between a social contract and an implied contract is sharp and clear, but folks are unused to thinking in terms of contract law because our legal system doesn't really respect it--thanks in large part to O. W. Holmes himself. I invite you to consider this distinction, and see how cleanly it resolves so many seemingly difficult problems today.
Can he [the landowner] ban anything at all and if so what circumstances justify doing so?
Izzy answers, making up his own 'law':
He can, but only with advance notice.
For example, he might invite you onto his land on the condition that you sign a waiver, acknowledging that the landowner will shoot you if he feels like it.
You'd be a fool to sign the contract, but if you signed it and entered his land, he'd then be within his rights to shoot you.
If, on the other hand, he invites you to dinner and up and kills you, he's a murderer: his invitation implied a contract not to harm you during your visit.
That isn't a limitation on his property rights; it's a case of a voluntary contract waiving certain rights.
He can make absolutely any rules he wants, but he can't then change the rules at a whim. This answers your original objection, but leaves open the possibility that he might lawfully organize a "paintball" game using live ammo.
The law doesn't work that way today, however.
Courts do not respect the liberty of contract, so for example a contract to provide assisted suicide, or sexual services, would be nullified by the courts. But I think it was already clear to you that we're discussing "shoulds", not current US law.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Kris, what we have here is 'bold' evidence of a very naive mind. -- Izzy and I started out discussing the 'implied social contract' aspects of the US Constitution. [a very libertarian document, to my mind]
Now izzy wants to claim that all along he has been arguing utopian libertarian theory. --- [IE -- "you {can} ]sign a waiver, acknowledging that the landowner will shoot you if he feels like it."]
Bizarre stuff.
Rational libertarians agree that our US Constitution is a valid social contract based on the free will of everyone who resides in this country. Any individual is free to renounce citizenship and/or leave to avoid honoring our Constitution & its valid laws.
But it is implicit, -- that if you stay here, you play by Constitutional rules. -- [you do not ban guns in your parking lot]
It's the most libertarian document ever produced. That doesn't mean it's perfect, of course--but if we have to have a government at all, I'd take the one Jefferson envisioned. But don't act so surprised that my scope is broader than America as it is! The founders tolerated slavery, yet I call it "wrong," so it's clear from the get-go that I have points of disagreement with the founders' original intent.
Rational libertarians agree that our US Constitution is a valid social contract...
Libertarians deny the existence of "social contracts". You're engaging in special pleading: instead of arguing for social contracts' validity, you're asserting that anyone who questions it is an idiot.
Culture has a role in this, which would cause tpaine, say, to mistake it for a "social contract". He would say that I'm bound by a social contract to let anyone ring my doorbell who wants to.
Insane comment izzy.. -- I would say, just as you did:
"--- If I don't want you knocking on my door, I'll put a gate at the end of my sidewalk with a sign saying, "Absolutely no visitors." ---"
Try to rise above such schoolyard tactics my boy. -- You'll look less foolish.
It's the most libertarian document ever produced. That doesn't mean it's perfect, of course--but if we have to have a government at all, I'd take the one Jefferson envisioned. But don't act so surprised that my scope is broader than America as it is!
Do you think Jeff would have condoned your "broad scope" parking lot gun bans?
The founders tolerated slavery, yet I call it "wrong," so it's clear from the get-go that I have points of disagreement with the founders' original intent.
Hiding behind slavery does not disguise your scorn for our RKBA's.
Now izzy wants to claim that all along he has been arguing utopian libertarian theory. --- [IE -- "you {can} ]sign a waiver, acknowledging that the landowner will shoot you if he feels like it."]
Bizarre stuff.
Rational libertarians agree that our US Constitution is a valid social contract based on the free will of everyone who resides in this country. Any individual is free to renounce citizenship and/or leave to avoid honoring our Constitution & its valid laws.
But it is implicit, -- that if you stay here, you play by Constitutional rules. -- [you do not ban guns in your parking lot]
Libertarians deny the existence of "social contracts".
Not rational ones, izzy. -- Do you really think you speak for libertarians? You're virtually an anarchist in most of your "special pleadings", -- some of the more bizarre of which I 'bolded' in my previous post..
You're engaging in special pleading: instead of arguing for social contracts' validity, you're asserting that anyone who questions it is an idiot.
Another unsupported "yo momma" type comment.
-- I've been arguing all along that you've been ignoring our Constitutions validity as a social contract.
The statement, "Your argument is special pleading," is in no way equivalent to "yo mamma." You can look up special pleading if you don't know what it is. Once you know what it is, you'll see I give adequate proof that it's what you're doing.
I've been arguing all along that you've been ignoring our Constitutions validity as a social contract.
What you're doing here is called "begging the question." You can't argue that the Constitution is a valid social contract, if the very existence of social contracts is itself under dispute. You are assuming that social contracts exist, yet the debate is over whether they exist. That's why "begging the question" is also called "circular reasoning."
Similarly, I can claim that you're a demon from the third ring of hell--but it would be pointless, unless I could first convince people that such demons actually exist.
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.