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 mutual understanding does not carry with it any obligation…”
Of course not. Mutual understanding allows the undertaking of obligation. I’d say it’s a prerequisite to a contract of any sort.
“By contrast, your "social contract" imposes obligations I can't get out of.”
You’ve been told several times you can opt out one way or another.
“I can't notify the IRS that I'm not paying their protection money anymore.”
Well, you could. But most people who opt out of the social contract aren’t quite that blunt.
“If a police officer bashes in my door, I can't shoot him in self defense. “
Actually you can, but if you do it should really be self defense.
“Your little flourish on the end is kinda cute.”
It wasn’t meant to be cute. Take it at face value. Why would I address the matter if it did not please me to do so for some reason? Right now, it does not please me to address why some things are pleasing, others are not and what that all means. (For the casual lurker what I wrote was: I see most of your PS (That’s not a typo, it was a post script.) as containing arguments in favor of the concept of the social contract, but it does not please me to address that right now.)
“…I can always refuse to enter into an implied contract by so stipulating. A "social contract" imposes terms on me that I can't escape by any means, even though I didn't agree to it.”
To over simplify, in the end the basic terms of either contract are the same: You don’t get what you would get if you had entered the contract.
“Cultural norms tell Americans that they should assume they can ring my doorbell; in Gondwanaland, cultural norms tell people that they should stand back six camel-lengths and whistle Dixie instead.”
And
“Deep in the backwoods of Yakutsk the situation is exactly reversed:”
I’d say the two places have different Social Contracts, but I realize you wouldn’t.
“It's important to appreciate this fully.”
Agreed.
“They had social contracts too, you see.”
Agreed. And the Social Contract they had then was different from the one they have now and different from our’s.
(Ummm, I seem to have suddenly lost track of what we’ve been arguing about.)
First some definitions:
COMPACT, n. An agreement; a contract between parties; a word that may be applied, in a general sense, to any covenant or contract between individuals; but it is more generally applied to agreements between nations and states, as treaties and confederacies. So the constitution of the United States is a political contract between the States; a national compact. Or the word is applied to the agreement of the individuals of a community.
CONTRACT, n. 1. An agreement or covenant between two or more persons, in which each party binds himself to do or forbear some act, and each acquires a right to what the other promises; a mutual promise upon lawful consideration or promise upon lawful consideration or cause, which binds the parties to a performance; a bargain; a compact. Contracts are executory or executed.
And now:
“It had been alledged [by Mr. Patterson], that the Confederation having been formed by unanimous consent, could be dissolved by unanimous Consent only. Does this doctrine result from the nature of compacts? does it arise from any particular stipulation in the articles of Confederation? If we consider the federal union as analogous to the fundamental compact by which individuals compose one Society, and which must in its theoretic origin at least, have been the unanimous act of the component members, it can not be said that no dissolution of the compact can be effected without unanimous consent. A breach of the fundamental principles of the compact by a part of the Society would certainly absolve the other part from their obligations to it. If the breach of any article by any of the parties, does not set the others at liberty, it is because, the contrary is implied in the compact itself, and particularly by that law of it, which gives an indifinite authority to the majority to bind the whole in all cases. This latter circumstance shews that we are not to consider the federal Union as analogous to the social compact of individuals: for if it were so, a Majority would have a right to bind the rest, and even to form a new Constitution for the whole, which the Gentn. from N. Jersey would be among the last to admit. If we consider the federal Union as analogous not to the social compacts among individual men: but to the conventions among individual States.” “The Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787 reported by James Madison : June 19”
"The first foundations of the social compact would be broken up were we definitely to refuse to its members the protection of their persons and property while in their lawful pursuits." --Thomas Jefferson to James Maury, 1812. ME 13:145
“Such, then, is the happy Government under which we live--a Government adequate to every purpose for which the social compact is formed;” James Monroe, "First Inaugural Address" (March 4, 1817)
“In unfolding to my countrymen the principles by which I shall be governed in the fulfillment of those duties my first resort will be to that Constitution which I shall swear to the best of my ability to preserve, protect, and defend. That revered instrument enumerates the powers and prescribes the duties of the Executive Magistrate, and in its first words declares the purposes to which these and the whole action of the Government instituted by it should be invariably and sacredly devoted--to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to the people of this Union in their successive generations. Since the adoption of this social compact one of these generations has passed away.” John Quincy Adams," Inaugural Address" (March 4, 1825)
So no matter what else you might say about the words above, it seems evident that our predecessor, people at the time and nearly at the time of the Founding believed in the existence of the social contract. They may have called it a compact, but that meant the same thing. If tpaine and I are wrong they were too.
I’d like to have found more quotes from the past time, but the present time presses me. And if the ones I found don’t suffice more would not have either.
If we can ever agree on the existence of the Social Contract (or Compact as they used to say) perhaps someday we can discuss its nature.
No, I'm making an assumption about your location. Please stick to the topic. The starting premise is that we're really talking about his land, not a piece of property whose ownership is in dispute. So you didn't "agree" that you weren't on his land; you really, honest-to-goodness weren't standing on his property.
I put no conditions on “he can ban.” Without conditions it doesn’t matter if one is on his property in the beginning or not.
Yes, it does, because he can't issue a ban if he has already waived the right to issue it. Inviting you on his land is just such a waiver.
But I already understand that you regard your statement “…he can ban anything he wants on his property…” as a little too broad and all encompassing.
No. You merely misunderstand the statement, because you fail to appreciate the fact that every contract is a limited waiver of certain rights.
Um, er, uh, Yes. A contract is an agreement. The parties must enter into it voluntarily and willfully. A so-called "implicit" contract must also be entered willfully; the only difference is that some of its terms were not stated expressly, but were implied in what was done or spoken.
I meant to do no more than refute your assertion that there was only one possible adhesing party for you to deny entering a contract with.
You failed. An adhesing party must, in particular, be a party to the contract. Pointing to someone else who never entered the agreement, and claiming that they are in some mystical way "the other party", is nonsense.
We have also chosen not to require all the obligations of the contract from minors...
"We"? Meaning, "we the people", or some specific "we" including yourself? There you go again, assuming the existence of a contract even though neither party actually agreed to it.
"The obvious ad hominem aside,"
My comment was not 'ad hominen'. It was clearly directed at VMI and if you take the time to read a few of the articles found at VMI you'll see that my comment is entirely factual.
"...can you in fact prove that the "collapse of government" caused "the death of millions"?"
I've not argued that the collapse of the government caused the deaths. Only that the writer at VMI seemed to think that Somalia was better off without the central government even if one of the results was the deaths.
Another Freeper and I were having a discussion of my perception of a very anti-government bias at VMI when I received this article by email from VMI. I linked to it as an example, a rather mild example BTW.
The point is, based upon my reading of many VMI articles, that this institute is very anti-government. I've been receiving their daily email for three or four years now. While I find their economic analysis rather sound, I do have issues with articles of this type. Just a caveat, I do like their economic analysis except when they get into the abolition of the central banking system and the return to the gold standard stuff.
FYI, VMI is associated with Lew Rockwell. I think he is President of the institute. Lew Rockwell is associated with Justin Raimondo of antiwar.com.
As further evidence of the overall bias against any form of central government, the author of the article you posted is the founder of a website 'anarchism.net' and is dedicated to the dissolution of all forms of government? BTW, Have you visited that website? Rockwells? Raimondo's?
No, my comment was not a personal attack, it was based upon facts.
Glad to hear we agreed that the prevention of these deaths would be a valid function of government. Now, in the context of the article posted at the beginning of this thread, would the central government have the right or obligation or moral responsibility to force it's citizens or residents to bear a portion of the cost of preventing these deaths? Also, would that government's citizens or residents have a moral responsibility to willingly pay their share of that cost? What should the government do if a citizen or resident refuse to pay (ie a free rider)? What if there were no direct benefit to a particular citizen, would the state still be morally correct in taking his assets to assist in this effort?
I know he did, but he's wrong. Contracts are created all the time with a word or a handshake. If you read up on contract law, you'll be surprised to learn that the signature is not in fact what creates a contract. A contract is made when a party makes an offer, and another party accepts the offer. A signature is optional, and does not play an integral role. Rather, the signature constitutes evidence that you accepted the offer.
So when I speak of "signing a contract," I'm using the term in its colloquial sense of meaning "agree to." My "humorous" statement is only funny because you don't understand the actual role of signature in contracts.
Responding to that by attributing one meaning of the word sign to the first part and another to the second part may be humorous but it is not truly responsive.
It is if you understand contract law: an implied contract is an agreement which, although not explcitly stated, nevertheless exists between the two parties. To prove that it exists, you must prove that there's an agreement between us. To prove that, you look at whatever explicit agreements we've made, and at our interactions.
So, for example, if I point to someone, a passer-by then shoots him and holds his hand out, and I place $100 in his hand, then a contract killing has just taken place even though no words were spoken.
Conversely, you can't select two people at random and claim that they have an "implicit contract" between them. There must be evidence of the existence of an agreement.
Your rebuttal would be greatly enhanced if you had a clear knowledge of what you were rebutting: specifically, that so far only two definitions have been put on the table--both by me, and none by tpaine--and you've posted multiple versions of those same two definitions.
So your rebuttal efforts can be streamlined by focusing on exactly two points. If you accept the contractarians idea of the origin of society, you face the uphill battle of proving that apes can make contracts. Second, if you accept that "members of society" are "implicitly" part of a contract, you must prove that they intentionally entered into an agreement.
Yes, exactly. That's why cultural assumptions aren't "contractual" in nature.
You’ve been told several times you can opt out one way or another.
The only way I can opt out is by submitting to a violation of my property rights. I own land. It's mine. If I want to "opt out" of this contract I never opted into in the first place, then I must allow my land to be stolen from me.
This time I was being humorous: in Japanese culture, a person of higher standing had the authority to kill anyone of lower social standing for any reason that pleased him. That's not a "contract"; the peasants in this case most certainly never agreed to anything. But if they don't like it, their only choice is to flee Japan. So this obviously unjust institution fits your idea of a "social contract", and the "social contract" in the US has similarly bad implications--for example, that policemen can break into a house, shoot the occupants, explain that they meant to raid the "crack house" next door, and get away with murder. I can't escape this injustice without fleeing the country.
Um, yes: that's exactly the subject under debate. The founders were quite mistaken in that they did believe in this notion. I can prove that no actual contract was involved, though! When the Constitutional convention was over, Mrs. Powel approached Benjie Franklin and asked, "Well Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?" In other words, she didn't even know what the new government was--and yet, inside the convention, the founders glibly spoke of a "compact" to which Mrs. Powel was supposedly a signatory.
Please don't be childish: you were addressing me, not the "VMI", none of whose representatives are actually on this thread. Instead of answering my question, you dismissed it as unworthy of consideration by associating it with the (implicitly villified) von Mises Institute.
I've not argued that the collapse of the government caused the deaths. Only that the writer at VMI seemed to think that Somalia was better off without the central government even if one of the results was the deaths.
The writer did not believe that these deaths were caused by lack of central government. Your accusation to the contrary carries no weight unless you can prove the deaths were attributable to lack of government.
Glad to hear we agreed that the prevention of these deaths would be a valid function of government.
Now don't misunderstand. Protecting the lives of Jews is a valid function for the government of the Third Reich, too. And protection of the kulaks is a valid function of Stalin's government. So what? Government doesn't fulfill those functions in the first place: government has killed some hundred million people in the 20th century alone. I suggest the abolishment of government precisely because it consistently fails to fulfil this "valid function," and in fact can be proven incapable of ever doing so.
I think I need to expand a bit on my comments relative to VMI/Rockwell/Raimondo that I made in my last post to you.
I just noticed that you joined this site in 2005. That is not intended as a criticism in any form. I think you might find some Free Republic history interesting.
We used to get a lot of articles posted here from Rockwell and Raimondo was a frequent poster here on free republic. That changed shortly after 9/11. All articles from Rockwell were banned and Raimondo was banned several times. I'm not sure the ban on Rockwell's site is still in place but I'm fairly certain that Raimondo's site is still banned.
Part of the ban may have been the result of some legal issues (I seem to remember that after he was banned, Raimondo may have asked not to have any of his articles posted here.)
The main reason for this ban was the profusion of articles from Rockwell's site and Raimondo's in particular blaming 9/11 and our involvement in Iraq on a Jewish/military industrial complex conspiracy. As you are well aware, Jim Rob doesn't allow even the mildest forms of anti-semiticism here.
For example, Raimondo really bought into the nut case conspiracy theories that cruise missiles brought down the twin towers, that the government of Israel knew about the attacks before hand, etc., etc. Rockwell frequently posted articles of this nature as well, many of them authored by Raimondo or posted on his website.
If you visit these websites, you'll find that Rockwell, VMI, and Raimondo's sites are really a part of the same. Rockwell is president of VMI for example. Follow the links and you'll find they are subsidiaries of the same foundations, etc. You really can't separate them.
All of this is specifically relevent to my point that VMI is a very biased source.
I never heard that before. I'm aware that they blame American foreign policy for 9/11, and I disagree--nor should my agreement with them on this or that libertarian issue be taken to imply agreement on everything! But I was never aware of any antisemitic theories from either of those sources. I strongly favor the banning of antisemites.
But I reject, and resent, what looks like an attempt to color others with antisemitic views that Rockwell or Raimondo may have. As pertains to this thread discussion, it still seems you're making an objectionable ad hominem.
As a practical matter, I think plain common sense indicates that 'national defense' is not something that can be addressed individually. It is collective by it's nature.
When a prosperous Murray's home is invaded (or tax withheld from his paycheck) to take his property and redistribute it to his less prosperous (lazier, stupider, unlucky) neighbor so as to make the two more equal, then the real problem arises!
"Please don't be childish: you were addressing me, not the "VMI", none of whose representatives are actually on this thread. Instead of answering my question, you dismissed it as unworthy of consideration by associating it with the (implicitly villified) von Mises Institute."
I pointed out that your comment was indistinguishable from the philosophy prominent in many articles from VMI. As for 'villifying VMI', please read my post #413 which expands upon VMI's relationships.
"The writer did not believe that these deaths were caused by lack of central government. Your accusation to the contrary carries no weight unless you can prove the deaths were attributable to lack of government."
I do not know what the writer believes caused the deaths, only that he brushed them aside as relatively unimportant since Somolia had been able to establish a libertarian form of government. Whether the government could have prevented or even caused these deaths is irrelevent to the writer's perception that Somolia was better off without a central government.
"I suggest the abolishment of government precisely because it consistently fails to fulfil this "valid function," and in fact can be proven incapable of ever doing so."
Consistently fails to protect it's citizens? Really? Sure, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot used the power of government to kill hundreds of millions, but that does not invalidate government as a whole. What do you think about the power of government to protect lives? Has not the power of Isreal protected lives? Has not the support provided by the US government aided in this? What about the power of government used to defeat Hitler, contain Mao and Stalin, and ultimately to overthrow Pol Pot? Aren't you 'throwing out the baby with the bath water'?
Government power is a tool and like any other tool it could be used for good or for evil. That does not justify it's abolition. BTW, how would you defend yourself if this philosophy were to be extended to all forms of power? Surely, firearms can be used for good or for evil. Would you abolish them as well?
"But I reject, and resent, what looks like an attempt to color others with antisemitic views that Rockwell or Raimondo may have. As pertains to this thread discussion, it still seems you're making an objectionable ad hominem."
The argument is not ad hominem if it can be backed with facts.
I would not interject these arguments except for the association of the source of this article (VMI) with these other sites. Do some research, you'll find that these claims of mine are based upon fact. Go to these sites and follow the links to their parent foundations, etc.
I have healthy respect for the possibility that you're right on that score. Having grown up more-or-less and originalist, I would for most have my life have agreed wholeheartedly. Today I agree halfheartedly; I think that the subject is worthy of discussion, precisely because privatization of some or all of defense has never honestly been tried in history. Historically, the defensive army is the tool of the dictator, who uses it not only to defend, but but also to control his subjects.
When a prosperous Murray's home is invaded (or tax withheld from his paycheck) to take his property and redistribute it to his less prosperous (lazier, stupider, unlucky) neighbor so as to make the two more equal, then the real problem arises!
Agreed.
You keep trying to place me in the position of opposing Israel, which you know full well is against my principles. I don't consider that to be an honest debate tactic, and have almost made up my mind not to discuss anything further with you.
Israel is interesting, as pertains the national defense issue, because its efforts to be humane on the one hand, and not to initiate aggression, on the other, is rather unique. The invasion of Lebanon is the only case I know of that might not be purely defensive in nature. Indeed, Israel is humane to a fault, and non-aggressive to a fault.
The creation of the state of Israel was also non-aggressive: the territory inside the 1948 borders was already a majority-Jewish region, and the creation of the state merely gave it self-rule in the wake of a vaccum created by the British pullout. The expansion in 1967 was the result of a war instigated by Nasser, and fought defensively by Israel, so she is entitled to those lands as legitimate spoils of defensive war, even on (minarchist) libertarian principles.
Israel's government has all the same pros and cons as most western governments, and mostly comes out looking better. There is a strong socialist party in Israel, and the government's many socialist measures have hampered the Israeli economy, just as its decisions concerning Judea, Samaria and Gaza have resulted in the uprooting of Jewish lives and the violation of Jewish property rights.
In short, all governments are tyrannical; some more than others. Israel is one of the best of a bad lot.
It's a fact that Raimondo is anti-semitic. At least, I'll take your word for it; I don't visit antiwar.com and haven't read much of his stuff. But that fact has nothing to do with me, and nothing to do with Somalia. Inserting it into the discussion looks like an attempt to slander me with someone else's antisemitism, and I won't stand for it. Your insistence, despite my replies on the subject, tends to prove that it really is your intent.
That being the case, I'm done discussing with you. I don't like ad hominem in the first place, but i really don't like the kind you're indulging in. I love Israel far to much to see charges of antisemitism tossed around so casually to score points in debates.
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.