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.
My choices are: accept the "contract" I never agreed to; leave the country; or become an "outlaw". Leaving the country implies the loss of my property rights. Becoming an "outlaw" implies the continual risk that I'll be caught and puished for breaching a "contract" I never signed in the first place.
So the terms are "sign it, flee or live in fear". That's a textbook example of duress.
Because you failed to understand my original statement. He can't ban gravity, either. Yeesh you can be dense sometimes.
My choices are: accept the "contract" I never agreed to;
Your parents agreed to live under our Constitutional contract, and you were obligated as a child to honor your parents wishes till your own maturity. -- Correct izzy?
[My choice is] leave the country; or become an "outlaw".
No, you have the option to stay in the USA, and honor our Constitutions rule of law. In return, your own rights would be honored by your peers. Correct?
-- Instead, you want to argue that this option violates some 'right'. -- Which right izzy?
Leaving the country implies the loss of my property rights.
Not at all. Many expatriates own property in the US.
Becoming an "outlaw" implies the continual risk that I'll be caught and puished for breaching a "contract" I never signed in the first place.
Outlaws are caught and punished for their criminal acts izzy. Whereas millions of people in the USA ignore our Constitutional contract, -- every day, - and go unpunished. [except for the scorn of their peers]
So the terms are "sign it, flee or live in fear". That's a textbook example of duress.
Are you living now in duress & fear izzy? Why?
-- Or are you simply complaining about some aspects of our Constitutions contract that don't suit you? -- Which ones?
Why not work with the rest of us to effect political change?
"'Outlaw'" implies that the ones who imposed their will on my without my consent were somehow acting legitimately."
An implication which may be correct.
"Try "freedom fighter" maybe."
Maybe is correct.
One could be outside the law without being a freedom fighter or be a freedom fighter while working inside the law.
So you believe it's sometimes acceptable to initiate force against another. That's what makes people like you so scary.
True enough as I admitted in post 48 in which I wrote: “I never took a position one way or the other on the statement: For Hobbes, the contract was an agreement between society and its government.”
However, in my post 234 I responded to “Conversely, the other party to this "social contract" is presumably government.” with:
No. (I was going to go do other things but I can’t let that one go.)
Government is only a tool, an agency, an artifice, a construct, a means “to secure these rights.”
A Social 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. It is the basis for legitimate government and the basis for the legitimate use of government.
And from your post 449”
I believe it was you who criticized my statement, much earlier, that "presumably, the other party is the government." If it was you, then you stand corrected: I was indeed quoting Hobbes faithfully. I was alluding to something much earlier in the conversation.
I wasn't debunking Hobbes definition at that time, because I'd already done so. Try to keep up.”
That indicates you were aware of my post at 234.
I assumed that your advice to me “Try to keep up” meant you were keeping up and that you are capable of making the connection that I was in disagreement with Hobbes on the point in question.
I was wrong.
You said that my statement revealed ignorance of the subject.
I haven’t “kept up” with where I said that. Would you please refer to the specific post?
You stand corrected.
Correct in so far as I admitted above I was wrong, but not as you seem to have meant.
Again: Have you got a reason I should say another word we'd disagree over?
And to: "So the terms are "sign it, flee or live in fear". That's a textbook example of duress."
Which text book?
"Because you failed to understand my original statement"
I understood your original statement which was overbroad.
"He can't ban gravity, either."
Like I keep telling you, he can't just ban anything he wants.
You take my statement "An implication which may be correct," (a statement which also means the implication may not be correct)as a foundation to attribute to me a belief that I did not claim and use that as justification to say that I am scary. Is that a subtle strawman, a subtle ad hominem or a waste of time?
He also can't ban angels or ghosts. Your quibble is ridiculous.
Your claimed "social contract" implies that the government can arrest be for turning "outlaw". I can be punished for breaching an agreement I never made. But that's only one example; please don't try and take the ridiculous position that you don't believe force can be initiated against me. Taxation, victimless crimes, and plenty more examples come to mind.
Can you attack libertarianism without implicitly advocating socialism?
"He also can't ban angels or ghosts."
Like I keep telling you, he can't just ban anything he wants.
But why do you say he can't ban angels or ghosts?
Do you mean to say angels and ghosts don't exist or do you mean to say that he has no property rights where angels and ghosts are concerned?
I'm trying to get through to you that your interpretation of "anything he wants" is asinine. Did you really think I meant he could ban gravity? Think about it.
"Your claimed "social contract" implies..."
Ok. The foundation you used to attribute to me a belief that I did not claim was based on more than my statement "An implication which may be correct."
I'll grant you that.
Now as to "please don't try and take the ridiculous position that you don't believe force can be initiated against me."
I probably believe that to the same degree you appear to believe it, but in regard to different things.
Back in post 371 you wrote:
I can avoid any and all of the many implied contracts embodied in our culture. I don't have to let you ring my doorbell: I can put a sign up that says, "No visitors: violators will be shot." I can invite you to lunch by saying, "Yo, Kris, come on over for lunch--but if you tick me off, I promise I'll shoot you. Matter of fact, sign this, in case the police want some proof..."
Nobody but you would be initiating force in those instances. And you said people like me are "so scary."
And someplace in this mess you said that you told your boss you’d throw him out of your house if he spoke in therein in a manner of which you disapproved.
Granting that when you said "throw him out" you were using a figure of speech, what are you going to do if he goes limp on the living room floor and refuses to leave? How will you get him out without inititating force?
I believe that force may never be initiated against anyone for any reason, with no exceptions. Is that what you believe?
And someplace in this mess you said that you told your boss you’d throw him out of your house if he spoke in therein in a manner of which you disapproved.
Sigh--it's endless. Now I have to try and get through to you what "initiation of force" means. Hint: self-defense is not an initiation of force.
How will you get him out without inititating force?
A trespasser has initiated the use of force by trespassing. Pumping him full of lead is defense of one's self and/or property.
As long as you keep the term "social" in the proper context
. In this case, "civil contract" might be a more appropriate term.
The idea that there is an implicit constitutional authorization for the federal government to pursue "social justice" seems to stem from the failure to maintain that context.
I don't see that anyone here is advocating the -- "idea that there is an implicit constitutional authorization for the federal government to pursue "social justice".
Do you?
In fact, one of the biggest problems on this thread with the whole 'social contract' issue, - is the pejorative assumption being used, -- that the word 'social' somehow implies condoning socialism.
tacticalogic asks:
Can you attack libertarianism without implicitly advocating socialism?
Probably not.
However, -- observing that our Constitution is a 'social contract' is not in any way an attack on libertarian principles.
If our Constitution were complied with strictly as written, we would be living in a libertarian country.
'One Who Knows' had this same obsession about Spooner type anti-constitutional theory. -- Under his theories, no men could ever agree to act as a group without ongoing complete agreement within the group.
- If any member of a group disagreed, at any time for any reason, he was free to ignore his prior agreement.
No one was ever able to make OWK understand that anarchy does not work. Men must be held to honor prior commitments.
Our most important prior commitment was agreed to on Dec 15, 1791.
"Did you really think I meant he could ban gravity?"
Certainly not. I started out writing about banning life and liberty. You're the one who went off sideways with gravity and angels and ghosts and such.
"I'm trying to get through to you that your interpretation of 'anything he wants'..."
What interpretation? The words seem simple and clear:
anyhing: A thing of any kind.
he: the property owner
wants: desires greatly
So "he can ban anything he wants (to ban)" stated another way is "the property owner can ban a thing of any kind the property owner desires greatly (to ban)." "To ban" is assumed to follow "wants" and "desires greatly" in both cases. (There's a term for that but it slips my mind at the moment.)
Given the context I don't see room for interpretation.
"Think about it."
I'm glad you brought that subject up again.
You ought to consider putting a little more thought into your posts. It can be a great source of satisfaction but it too often degrades quality to pound on the keys and quickly send off that riposte, if that's what you're doing. Whatever you're doing would be better done with more thought. That way the reader (me or the lurkers) doesn't have to sort through the chaff looking for grains of wheat that turn out to not be there.
I only offer my comments because, as I wrote above, you're the one who brought the subject up.
"..self-defense is not an initiation of force"
Reminds me of the old ploy: "I hit him back first."
"A trespasser has initiated the use of force by trespassing. "
I deny signing by any means any kind of contract or agreement with those blanket terms, therefore I am not obligated to accept those blanket terms.
By what I understand to be your standards, I don't see how you can disagree with that unless you try to prove I did sign up which I'm sure you'll try.
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.