Youtube video Located Here.
For those of you who don’t know Harrison Bergeron is a fantastic short story by Kurt Vonnegut, an author near and dear to most upstate New Yorkers. How many other authors set anything in the city of Schenectady? The general plot of the story is a description of a world where everyone has been made equal, both physically and mentally, by the “Handicapper General” of the United States. Full text available here.
Just playing around with the MIT’s Pantheon and the Development Economics (click on it to enlarge the plot).
Well, I know correlation is not the end of the (hi)story. Maybe it’s just the starting point. The “lpib2000” is the log of the GDP in 2000 (used in several papers, I know) and the “panteon_rank” is just as it says.
So, if you think this is interesting, well, you saw it first here. ^_ ^
Lá, em meu blog, um breve comentário sobre o novo índice da The Economist.
You need your lawn mowed,do you hire the kid down the block who’s saving money for a car, or a surgeon? First off, the kid obviously needs the money more. And that matters. Second, do you really want to pull the doctor away from saving lives? What if he isn’t saving lives? He’s still improving lives. This applies to any productive person (okay, maybe not lawyers). This doctor could be doing things I think are a total waste, but the people paying him disagree with you; as long as they’re paying their own way, who am I to disagree?
What am I getting at here? By world standards (and especially by historical standards) American workers are incredibly productive and wealthy. Yeah, everyone’s got money problems, and the mortgage isn’t paying itself, and prices are rising, and all the rest. But at the end of the day, having an American worker do something a Bangladeshi could is analogous to having a surgeon do something a teenager could. Are working conditions in the third world good? No. Should you be concerned with the well-being of Americans? Yes. Does this justify buying American? No! A resounding no!
The field of “law and economics” applies economic theory to the consequences of law. This branch of economic theory examines the laws that would maximize efficiency and equity. The theory compares, for example, the incentives created by criminal versus tort law to determine the mix of laws that minimize the social cost of wrong-doing. Law and economics studies contract law to determine when a contract is proper, what is the most effective way to enforce contracts, and how best to deal with breach of contract.
The pure market has voluntary exchanges that involve contracts, and so the structure of contract law becomes important. Deficient law and enforcement breeds uncertainty, corruption, and less prosperity. Since contracts are part of the market, contract law is also within the market, and the enforcement and governance that forms the legal infrastructure is part of the market.
Law and economics also deals with external effects, acts that affect others without compensation. The theory examines taxes, regulations, bargaining, and lawsuits as ways to deal with bad effects such as pollution. Another contrast is between property rights and liability rules. A liability rule does not prohibit a trespass, but requires compensation when it happens. And so law and economics contrasts prohibiting an action in advance, versus dealing with the consequences after the act is done.
People think of the market economy as having buying and selling, supply and demand, production and consumption. But there is much more to the market than a customer buying a product. The product may be defective, or the seller might not get paid. There are many legal doctrines that deal with such problems. These are part of the market and part of economics.
A pure free market economy would include the body of law that has evolved over hundreds of years. There are several origins of law: constitutional law, legislated statute law, the common law from decisions by judges, the law merchant of commerce, and natural moral law.
An anarchist society would need much of the law that now applies to marriages and families, lawsuits, crimes, contracts, and uncompensated effects on others. The difference would be that the anarchist society would have voluntary governance, by individual consent, rather than an imposed government. But a network or federation of voluntary communities would need much of the same law that we have today.
One controversial area of law and economics is whether there should be legal monopolies on “intellectual property,” i.e. copyrights on expressions and patents on inventions. Today’s law is mostly utilitarian, providing protection from copying for a limited time in order to provide incentives to creations, although political influence has extended copyright protection for long durations.
The difference between a libertarian society and today’s world is that there would be no laws prohibiting peaceful and honest acts, even if they are offensive. Drugs, prostitution, and gambling would be legal. There would be no restrictions on trade such as with Cuba or on the production, importation, and use of hemp.
Whether in today’s world or a libertarian world, there should be a basic “law of the market” which prescribes that products are presumed to be safe and effective unless stated otherwise. But a pure free market would avoid laws that restrict one’s own use, or consensual use, of property. Lawsuits would mostly adhere to the British system in which the loser of a case would have to pay the legal costs of the winner, which would greatly reduce frivolous law suits, thereby reducing overall litigation costs.
Today’s complex tax laws would be abolished in free-market law and economics, because honest and peaceful transactions would not be hampered by imposed costs. The public finance consistent with a free market would include voluntary user fees, penalties for damage such as pollution, and the land rent that comes from nature or is generated by population and government’s public works. The full employment of a pure free market would provide the job security that comes from employers needing to fill positions, with few idle workers from which to choose.
The complexity of today’s division of labor makes the law that governs relationships necessarily complex, but the clout of lawyers, special interests, and bureaucrats make the law excessively restrictive and needful of attorneys. A truly free society would make the law the servant of the economy and not its master.
What economic theory needs to take into account is that the field of law and economics is not just one of many applications of economics but rather an inherent part of the market economy, and so law has to become more integrated into economic theory. Also, equity is a goal of law and economics, along with efficiency, and an objective application of equity cannot exist without its foundation, natural moral law. “Natural law and economics” needs to become a prominent part of law and economics.
Is Stephen Hawking more machine than man? The author makes an apt comparison between Hawking and other high profile people with assistants. That comparison should show (contrary to the emphasis the author makes elsewhere) that it’s not so much man/machine, so much as distributed cognition (is that the right term?). And understood as such, this phenomenon is one that we all engage in, and increasingly so in the modern world of mass literacy, peaceful coexistence, pens, paper, and smart phones.
Hawking is the focal point of his network. It’s interesting to note that his output is largely the output of his network, but it’s still directed by him. We should be no more disappointed that he doesn’t do his own calculations than we should be that we don’t wash our own laundry by hand. Hawking can’t do the mechanical, he can only do the thinking. Having assistance surely improves the quality of his thinking, but it is still his mind that we are concerned with. Are his assistants getting short shrift? They aren’t getting the sort of celebrity that Hawking gets, but in their own networks they will certainly do well to be part of his team; his students will have valuable letters of recommendation.
It’s an interesting article that provides insight into how Stephen Hawking works, but it ends on an odd note:
Because, surrounded as we are by our world of technology and digital information, aren’t we all disabled? We, like Hawking, like Obama and his brain trust, are unable to think and complete the results of our thoughts without being attached to a network of people, instruments, machines – and the living laboratories through which it is all distributed.
We are all (Hawking included) able to think without assistance. Yes, our thinking is enhanced by cooperation with others (in conversation and debate, consultation, etc.). Yes, we all require some interface between our thoughts and our audience, whether that’s a pen and paper or a computer, but I think the way to think of it is that we are enabled. Enhancing our thinking isn’t cheating.
The violence in Ukraine demonstrates once again the failure of centralized democracy. Whenever we see masses of people protesting and rallying in the city streets and squares, it shows that the structure of government has failed. The prime purpose of democracy is social peace. The mass demonstrations show that the people cannot express their views and make policy decisions through the formal channels of government, so they take to the streets.
When government fails, there is another path towards political change: civil disobedience. Rather than massing in the city square or taking control of government buildings, the protestors can stop obeying the government. They can stop paying taxes and stop obeying unjust rules. Civil disobedience is how India won independence and the US civil rights movement ended segregation. Today, protestors use social media to spread the message. Some activists will be put in prison, but there is not enough room to put half the population in jail.
The conflict in Ukraine originated in the 2010 election for president, in which the opposition accused the winner of fraud. The protests began in November 2013, when the president switched from making a trade agreement with the European Union in favor of a pact with Russia, which provided aid to the government of Ukraine.
The protests in Ukraine were intended to be peaceful, but mass protests often become an attractive nuisance for provocateurs. When a small minority of protesters start throwing rocks or fire bombs at the police, that becomes the signal for the police to use lethal force, and then the protestors return fire, and the result is violence and death. Peaceful civil disobedience is decentralized and does not provide such a venue for the chaos makers.
Ukraine is the largest country that is entirely in Europe. It was in the Russian Empire until the Bolshevik revolution of 1917, when it became an independent state. It soon became a republic within the USSR. The Soviet structure of councils and republics served to preserve the identity of Ukraine, which even had its own membership in the United Nations, and achieved independence with the break-up of the USSR in 1991.
Now, in February 2014, following the failure of government repression, the Ukrainian parliament has dismissed the president, restored the 2004 constitution, freed the previous prime minister, and appointed an acting president. The agreement between the government and the opposition was facilitated by the foreign ministers of France, Germany, Poland and a representative of the president of Russia.
The national anthem of the country is “Ukraine has not yet perished.” Millions of Ukrainians died during the years of forced collectivization under the Soviet Union, and more millions, including many Jews, were slaughtered during World War II, but the Ukrainian identity has persevered. Ukrainians now have a unique opportunity to reshape their future.
Some of the conflict in Ukraine comes from its ethnic mix. The westernmost part of the country was part of Poland prior to World War II, although that territory along other neighboring areas had been Ukrainian previously. In 1954, the Crimea was transferred from the Russian Republic to Ukraine. The eastern half of Ukraine is culturally Russian; the main religion is Eastern Orthodox. The western part is ethnically Ukrainian and Catholic, and the people of western cities such as Lviv identify with Europe. Ukraine needs to restructure its governance as well as its economy in order to achieve social peace and prosperity.
Ukraine has a centralized government, but also has 24 provinces, plus the nominally autonomous republic of the Crimea, and two city districts, Kiev and Sevastopol. The democracy of Ukraine can become more authentic by decentralizing the governance into a federation of its subdivisions. An association agreement with the European Union should reduce trade barriers, while the Ukraine should also pursue free trade with Russia and its other neighbors.
The economy of Ukraine suffers from its oppressive tax system. The new tax code adopted in 2011 has 18 national and 5 local taxes. The major taxes include corporate and personal income taxes, a value added tax, and excise taxes. But there is also an economy-friendly, though small, land tax, and royalty taxes on the extraction of natural resources. The current tax rate on corporate gross income is 16 percent. The value-added tax rate of 17 percent is imposed on the sale of goods, including imports. There is also a high social security tax of up to 49.7 percent.
Ukraine’s land tax is paid by the owners and users of land. The tax rates depend on the use of the land. For pastures, the rate is one-tenth percent of the land value, and for farms the rate is three-hundredths of a percent. There are also local real estate taxes per square meter of dwelling space with the tax rate from 1% to 2.7% of the monthly minimum wage.
The Ukranian tax system has been criticized for its complexity, its disincentives to labor and enterprise. and its inducement for tax evasion. Ukraine has the potential to become a great agricultural and industrial economy, but its tax and regulatory policies have been holding it back. The Fraser Institute’s index of economic freedom calculates Ukraine’s level at 6.16 on a range from zero to pure freedom at 10. Out of 152 economies, Ukraine ranks 126 in economic freedom, near the bottom among the countries of the world. The Heritage Foundation index also ranks Ukraine as “repressed,” especially low on investment freedom and freedom from corruption.
If Ukranians seek prosperity, they would be wise to eliminate all their taxes other than the land tax and also enact national and local pollution taxes. The land value tax should be uniform for all land, based on its current market price or rent when put to its best use, regardless of its current use. The elimination of the other taxes would stop tax evasion and liberate the underground economy.
Ukrainians should stop blindly copying the dysfunctional tax system of the European Union and adopt a modern 21st century public finance system suitable to the global economy and Ukraine’s position between Russia and the EU. They can avoid either joining the EU or a Russian-led Eurasian Union by legislating free trade with both regions. They should enact domestic free trade by avoiding the taxation of labor, enterprise, and produced wealth. With rising public revenue from land value, and with rising wages, Ukraine could reduce its social security taxes until the government either funds pensions from land rent or replace government pensions with private retirement accounts.
Land-value taxation would also promote a decentralization of governance and a reduction of corruption. The land of Ukraine is rich and can well support its public finance, and let Ukraine to not just avoid perishing, but to flourish.
Between 1958 and 1980 the number of businesses in the U.S. economy increased from 10.7 million to 16.8 million. But the relative economic importance of small business in the overall economy declined over this period. Between 1958 and 1977 the share of employment accounted for by firms with fewer than 500 employees decreased from 55.5 percent to 52.5 percent. Between 1958 and 1979 the share of business receipts obtained by companies with less than $5 million in receipts declined from 51.5 percent to 28.7 percent. Between 158 and 1977 the share of value added contributed by firms with 500 or fewer employees decreased from 57 percent to 52 percent. (Zoltán J. Ács, Bo Carlsson, and Charlie Karlsson 1999, 7)
That’s an enormous relative increase in the importance of big businesses. Consider that change in light of macroeconomic conditions and political thought at the time. It seems almost like the dark ages. I think it also shows an apparent correlation between business, government, and ideology. Since the mid ’70s, small businesses have gained importance in the U.S. economy while also leaving the dark ages of mid-20th century illiberalism.
My wife and I are discussing our investments. We don’t have investments because we belong to the hated 1% – wish we did – but because neither of us has a pension. She is annoyed because she does not understand some arcane point of finance.
Promise me you will die after me she blurts out. (She does not want to learn new, boring stuff.)
I don’t think so, I say, without missing a beat.
Selfish, self-centered, narcissistic, sexually ambivalent bastard, she throws out across the kitchen table!
The last charge holds no truth at all. I am a straightforward crude T and A guy. She is just doing her best to make me feel the horror of her hatred for me at that moment.
Yes, I know, men and women are almost exactly the same. That’s except when they are not. Would I ever think of calling her the same?
How about that coffee you promised me, I ask innocently?
I won’t prepare it because you refuse to promise that you will die even one second after me and you can put the coffee up your… (Note the illogicality.)
If you keep using this rude language, I threaten, I will put it on my blog.
You wouldn’t dare, she exclaims.
An Observation by L.A. Repucci
It has been proposed that there exists a state in which property — whether defined in the physical sense such as objects, products, buildings, roads, etc, or financial instruments such as monetary instruments, corporate title, or deed to land ownership — may be owned or possessed in common; that is to say, that property may be possessed of multiple rightful claimants simultaneously. This suggestion, when examined rationally and exhaustively, is untenable from the perspective of any logical school of economic, social, and indeed physical school of thought, and balks at simple scrutiny.
In law, Property may be defined as the tangible product of enterprise and resources, or the gain of capital wealth which it may create. To ‘hold’ Property, a Party, or private, sentient entity, must have rightful claim to it and be capable of using it freely as they see fit, in keeping with natural law.
Natural resources, including land, are said to be owned either jurisdictionally by State, privately by party, or in common to the natural world. If property may be legally defined only as a product, then natural resources may be excluded from all laws pertaining to legal property. If property also may be further defined by the ability of it’s owner to use it as they see fit, in keeping with Ius Naturale, then any property claimed jurisdictionally by the State and said to be held in common amongst the citizenry must meet the article of usage to be legally owned. Consider Hardin’s tragedy of the commons as an argument for the conservation of private property over a state of nature, rather than an appeal to the economic law of scarcity or an appeal to the second law of thermodynamics ,
In Physics: Property may be defined as either an observable state of physical being. The universe of Einstein, Kepler, and Newton rests soundly on the tenet that physical bodies cannot occupy multiple physical locations simultaneously. The laws that govern the macro-physical world do not operate in the same way on the quantum level. At that comparatively tiny level, the rules of our known universe break down, and matter may exhibit the observed property of being at multiple locations simultaneously — bully and chalk 1 point for common property on the theoretically-quantum scale.
Currency: The attempt to simultaneously possess and use currency as defined above would result in praxeologic market-hilarity in the best case, and imprisonment or physical injury in the worst. Observe: Two friends in common possession of 1$ walk into a corner shop to buy a pack of chewing gum, which costs 1$. They each place a pack on the counter, and present the cashier with their single dollar bill. “It’s both of ours! We earned it in business together!” they beam as the cashier calls the cops and racks a shotgun under the register…
The two friends above may not use the paper currency simultaneously — while the concept of a dollar representing two, exclusively owned fifty-percent equity shares may be widely and innately understood — the single bill is represented in specie among the parties would still be 2 pairs of quarters. While they could pool their resources and ‘both’ purchase a single pack of gum, they would continue to own a 50% equity share in the pack — resulting in a division yet again of title equally between the dozen-or-so sticks of gum contained therein. This reduction and division of ownership can proceed ad quantum.
This simple reason is applicable within and demonstrated by current and universal economic realities, including all claims of joint title, common property law, jurisdictional issues, corporate law, and financial liability. A joint bank account is simply the sum of the parties’ individual interest in that account — claims to hold legal property in common are bunk.
The human condition is marked by the sovereignty, independence and isolation of one’s own thought. Praxeological thought-experiments like John Searle’s Chinese Room Argument and Alan Turing’s Test would not be possible to pose in a human reality that was other than a state of individual mental separation. As we are alone in our thoughts, our experience of reality can only be communicated to one another. It is therefore not possible to ever ‘share’ an experience with any other sentient being, because it is not possible to perceive reality as another person…even if the technology should develop such that multiple individuals can network and share the information within their minds, that information must still filter through another individual consciousness in order to be experienced simultaneously. The physical separation of two minds is reinforced by the rationally-necessary separation of distinct individuals. There may exist a potential hive-mind collectivist state, but it would require such a radical change to that which constitutes the human condition, that it would violate the tenets of what it is to be human.
In conclusion, logically, the most plausible circumstance in which property could exist in common would be on the quantum level within a hive-minded non-human collective, and the laws that govern men are and should be an accurate extension of the laws that govern nature — not through Social Darwinism, but rather anthropology. Humans, as an adaptation, work interdependently to thrive, which often includes the voluntary sharing and trading of resources and property…none of which are held in common.
Ad Quantum,
L.A. Repucci
Or is it that they’re both?
As a young libertarian first exposed to economics (actually it was my third exposure where it took) I was struck with an exciting proposition: people don’t need the government to look after them because (we’ve assumed that) they’re rational! In that case, government can almost only ever do harm. Add in some public choice and Austrian insights and you’ve got a water tight defense of liberty.
But actually you don’t. Because as it turns out, people might actually be complete morons. I’ll bet if you marketed a brand of bottled water as having never been warm–cleaned with pre-chilled filters made in iceland, and never poured into room temperature bottles–it would sell. But if that’s the case, the world should be a scary place. People would be doing ridiculous things and electing ridiculous politicians to help them act even more absurdly.
I’m an economist and I still do plenty of irrational things. But it turns out that first taste of economics was econ of a particular variety: the study of what is rational. Not the study of how people rationally act. That’s not to say it’s worthless. David Friedman put it well in Hidden Order: if people are rational some times and act randomly other times, then we can still make useful predictions about their behavior. But I don’t think that economics is some sort of half-science that assumes away randomness in order to study some portion of people’s actions.
Mostly, I think the study of rationality lays a foundation, and offers a puzzle, to allow further study of ecological rationality. The world is orderly and roughly follows the predictions we make when we assume individuals are rational. And yet people seem far from rational. What gives?!
It turns out we have to pay attention to institutions. These often hidden rules of the game direct our actions and embed our learning in social rules. Those crazy (probably imaginary) sociologists might have been on to something when they said that individuals’ actions are shaped by social forces. It’s not that people don’t have autonomy, it’s that people don’t exist in a vacuum.
What’s my point? Learning a little bit of economics goes a long way to making good arguments for liberty, but it doesn’t go far enough. We live in an a much more interesting world than the one we learn about in econ 101.
Below are some more thoughts on “total liberty” and bad faith.
My argument in the threads with Marvin has intended to be one that displays two points of view, rather than to be one of persuasion. Due to his responses to Dr Foldvary’s argument, I realized that he was uninterested in having an honest debate. I also realized that persuading him would be futile. So I instead have tried to illustrate – to readers and curious passersby – how Marvin’s arguments are fallacious (dishonest) and what to do about them by exploiting Marvin’s position. In order to do this I have kept it simple and tried to argue on Marvin’s terms (“speaking past one another”). Rick has an insightful, must-read summary of our arguments, and he also furthers our understanding of freedom in the process.
I am not quite done, though. I am still unsure if I have accomplished my task of exposing Marvin’s arguments as fallacious. I want to be sure that readers don’t take him seriously in the future should he decide to continue trolling the ‘comments’ section. Marvin states matter-of-factly that:
The problem is that I have a better handle on the truth than you do.
Now, in the interest of honest debate, I hope that everyone can see how Marvin’s assertion shows how he is being dishonest. I have pointed out his straw man fallacies for a while now, and I want to get the point across that Marvin’s characterizations of libertarian ethics are based upon the above-quoted viewpoint.
Given that Marvin believes he has a better handle on truth than I, how can I (or you as a reader) expect to get an even-handed argument from him? If you believe that I have mischaracterized Marvin’s arguments (as he has done to mine and Dr Foldvary’s and soon-to-be [?] Dr Weber’s), please point out where in the ‘comments’ thread.
Again, my task is much more simple than Rick’s. I wish to merely show how Marvin’s argument is based on falsehoods. I think his comments elsewhere suggest my hunch is right. (Rick, by the way, has been much more generous to Marvin than I, a position for which he has been rewarded by being called a homosexual with an unhealthy obsession for Marvin (“My name can’t stay off of Rick’s lips,” according to Marvin the Truthspeaker).)
Marvin’s main error in reasoning, in my judgement, is that he creates positions that nobody has made and then draws conclusions from those created positions. Sometimes he restates arguments that nobody has contested as if they were contested and then proceeds to explain why libertarians should not (or do) contest such an argument. This is sophistry at its most vulgar.
Does everybody follow? Dr Amburgey?
His last response to me in the ‘comments’ is a good example of what I mean. Marvin writes:
Brandon [quoting me]: “Society A (the one with no rules prohibiting murder) does not have total liberty because its members do not have freedom from unwarranted aggression.”
[Marvin:] If a society has a consensus that murder should be punished then it effectively has a rule prohibiting murder whether the rule is explicitly written down or not.
Yes, and what exactly does this have to do with my argument? With Fred’s? With Rick’s? With Hank’s? Marvin continues:
If a society has no agreement that murder is wrong then its sense of justice either presumes any murder is justified or is indifferent to it until it affects them personally.
Again, this may be true, but what exactly does this have to do with my argument that “Society A (the one with no rules prohibiting murder) does not have total liberty because its members do not have freedom from unwarranted aggression”? Where does it follow from this statement that rules prohibit total liberty? It’s almost as if Marvin is talking to himself rather than to a group of people. There is nothing wrong with thinking out loud, but it seems to me – based on this response and on past responses – that Marvin thinks he is replying to an argument somebody else has made rather than thinking out loud.
Marvin continues to pummel me:
(b) The meaning of “liberty” is “freedom to”, not “freedom from”. “Freedom to” means you can pursue your happiness with minimal restrictions (“total freedom” would imply no restrictions at all, a liberty to do what you please without fear of punishment).
Marvin goes on and on (and on) from there. However, this is simply wrong. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy has a good summary of the ‘freedom to’ versus ‘freedom from’ distinction. Basically, the ‘freedom from’ folks look at external factors (such as government) that inhibit liberty, whereas the ‘freedom to’ folks look at factors that are internal to individuals (such as class). I don’t want to get into the details here, but suffice it to say this is not Marvin’s understanding of the distinction. Normally I wouldn’t have a problem explaining this misunderstanding, but given Marvin’s track record I’m going to skip out on doing so (unless somebody wants me to).
I’ve got one more example I’d like to use to hammer home my point that Marvin is not interested in having an honest debate. He writes:
Brandon [quoting me]: “Your attempt at distinguishing “private punishments” within Society A from “punishments of society” is also fallacious. Is society composed of numerous factions – most of them private – or is it a monolithic, dissent-free, homogeneous unit.”
[Marvin:] A consensus is not monolithic. If everyone had to agree to everything then nothing would be possible. To make cooperation possible, we created a democratically elected government with many checks and balances. And we agreed to respect the authority of the laws it creates, even laws we may disagree with, because we would expect others to respect the laws that we do agree with that they don’t. And the democratic process may correct or remove an unsuccessful law in the future. I may win the case today and you may win the case tomorrow.
My argument is that Marvin’s assumption about society is monolithic, not society itself. If you read my argument with an eye for understanding it you can easily see that. If you read my argument from a position of Truthspeaker it may be harder to do so.
One last point I’d like to mention is that Marvin also has a habit of changing definitions to suit his argument. Often he simply provides his own. This, of course, helps him to have that “better handle on truth” that nobody else at NOL seems to have.
Has this cleared anything up? Muddled it further? Am I coming off as an ideologue or somebody who is trying to weed out falsehoods?
There are plenty of rules in a libertarian society. The fact that there are rules does not mean that ‘total liberty’ is lost because of it. Such a characterization is the epitome of a straw man. Rick takes the idea of total freedom to the next level (so read up!), so all I’m trying to do here is make sure that everybody understands Marvin’s sophistry. I think understanding sophistry is important because it tends to mellow people out: If you can understand the falsehoods in an argument you can craft up a cooler response.
Addendum: I’m sure Marvin is sick of Marvin the Martian references by this point in his life but I’m keeping the picture because Marvin the Martian my favorite WB character, and is apropos enough…
Other than that, please understand that this post is made with respect to Marvin, and made public in order to offer an organized presentation of some recent exchanges here on Notes On Liberty.
Man, things are really heating up on NoL!
I suspect the totally free society is where all civilizations started. Then someone stole something from someone else, and the people got together to deal with the problem of theft. The consensus decided that there should be a right to property, and they reached an agreement with each other to respect that right for each other and to come to each other’s aid when necessary to defend that right.
… with Marvin contemplating Buchanan’s constitutional moment. He continues with an amusing story of a quasi-voluntary provision of police, and an ad hoc ideological opposition from the first hold-out. He continued with a near analogous argument by a would be thief.
But I’m not going to follow that argument. For me, the interesting thing here, the pivotal term that tells us something meaningful about Marvin is “totally free”.
For Marvin, freedom means a lack of punishment for a given action. Therefore total freedom means no socially sanctioned punishment for any action. That state of affairs is one lacking in governance. The only person who remotely approaches that is Kim Jong-Un, but even he is ultimately constrained by (the apparently unlikely) possibility of revolution, and his near-total freedom is only within his borders. This contrasts with Brandon’s idea of mutually consistent freedom which depends on individuals having the right to not be subject to coercion.
Following Marvin’s commentary has been confusion over the terms liberty, freedom, and rights. What we all think of when we hear the term “free society” would not have what Marvin calls total freedom. This in turn has lead to dispute over the term law. Let me offer my own clarifications, focusing on the issue of law and rules.
When Dr. Foldvary used the term “truly free” he had in mind a situation with governance, but without top-down intervention. Marvin, I suspect, has confused this for a situation entirely lacking governance, or at least effective governance. I think this has roots in his belief that competition for scarce resources, as directed through the profit and loss system, will lead to unchecked cheating (e.g. pollution) in the absence of some disinterested third-party to enforce rules that reasonable people, if they’re being honest, would agree to. There are two problems with this:
First, the unmentioned one, is that the government isn’t a disinterested third-party and rules aren’t set behind a veil of ignorance (ensuring honest agreement among reasonable people). Marvin starts with the Hobbesian Jungle and arrives at the position that there is something like a social contract whereby we all (implicitly) agree to rules (restrictions on our choice set) for our mutual betterment. I don’t disagree that rules restrict our choice set and can (can!) be for our mutual betterment. What’s missing is the appreciation for the distinction between constitutional and post-constitutional rules (but that a can of worms unto itself). Beyond issues of incompatible incentives, there are also significant information problems.
Second, the government isn’t the only source of governance. Brandon and Marvin both use the term “law” in an all-encompassing way. I prefer Hayek’s distinction between law and legislation. Law, is the set of informal institutions that underlie (we hope) formal legislation. Law is emergent, but legislation is static (although it does change, just in punctuated equilibria). When government is responsive legislation will simply codify law, but when the two diverge it sets the stage for upheaval.
With that in mind, let me briefly respond to Marvin’s question:
In response to the loss of lives in the mining and manufacturing industries, government regulation requires safety precautions and inspections, like under OSHA. Should this type of regulation be eliminated to make the market “truly free”?
First off, nobody here is advocating for an unbound choice set. “Truly free” should be understood to mean “free from external [i.e. government] coercion, rule-setting, and back-room politics that are enforced at gun point.” With that in mind, the basic regulatory framework will be based on property rights and voluntary choice. Mines that acquire a reputation for being unsafe will soon be unable to find workers, unless they increase their wages. If we see poor working conditions at low pay, it doesn’t mean an injustice is being done, it means that the people working there see it as their best available option.
I think Brandon and Marvin have been largely talking past each other, but despite that the conversation has been interesting. I would like to see them engage in a debate on some particular topic. I propose that we find a topic agreeable to both, they both respond to that topic, open comments ensue for a few days, then each writes their final thoughts in a second blog post. I will summarize their points here.
In response to a comment, here’s an excerpt from The Moon is a Harsh Mistress.
“But–Professor, what *are* your political beliefs?”
“I’m a rational anarchist.”
“I don’t know that brand. Anarchist individualist, anarchist Communist, Christian anarchist, philosophical anarchist, syndicalist, libertarian–those I know. But what’s this? Randite?”
“I can get along with a Randite. A rational anarchist believe that concepts such as ‘state’ and ‘society’ and ‘government’ have no existence save as physically exemplified in the acts of self-responsible individuals. He believes that it is impossible to shift blame, share blame, distribute blame…as blame, guilt, responsibility are matters taking place inside human beings singly and *nowhere else*. But being rational, he knows that not all individuals hold his evaluations, so
he tries to live perfectly in an imperfect world…aware that his effort will be less than perfect yet undismayed by self-knowledge of self-failure.”
“Hear, hear!” I said. “‘Less than perfect.’ What I’ve been aiming for all my life.”
“You’ve achieved it,” said Wyoh. “Professor, your words sound good but there is something slippery about them. Too much power in the hands of individuals–surely you would not want…well, H-missiles for example–to be controlled by one irresponsible person?”
“My point is that one person *is* responsible. Always. If H-bombs exist–and they do–some *man* controls them. In terms of morals *there is no such thing as ‘state.’* Just men. Individuals. Each responsible for his own acts.”
…
Wyoh plowed doggedly into Prof, certain she had all answers.But Prof was interested in questions rather than answers, which baffled her. Finally she said “Professor, I can’t understand you. I don’t insist that you call it ‘government’–I just want you to state what rules you think are necessary to ensure equal freedom for all.”
“Dear lady, I’ll happily accept your rules.”
“But you don’t seem to want *any* rules.”
“True, but I will accept any rules *you* feel necessary to *your* freedom. *I* am free no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I *alone* am morally responsible for everything I do.”
“You would not abide by a law that the majority felt was necessary?”
“Tell me what law, dear lady, and I will tell you whether I will obey it.”
…Prof bowed and left, Stu and I followed him. Once in an otherwise empty capsule I tackled him. “Prof, I liked much that you said…but about taxation aren’t you going to pay for all this spending we’re doing?”
He was silent long moments, then said, “Manuel, my only ambition is to reach the day when I can stop pretending to be a chief executive.”
“Is no answer!”
“You have put your finger on the dilemma of all government–and the reason I am an anarchist. The power to tax, once conceded, has no limits; it contains until it destroys. I was not joking when I told them to dig into their own pouches. It may not be possible to do away with government–sometimes I think that government is an inescapable disease of human beings. But it may be possible to keep it small and starved and inoffensive-and can you think of a better way than by
requiring the governors themselves to pay the costs of their antisocial hobby?”
“Still doesn’t say how to pay for what we are doing now.”
“‘How,’ Manuel? You *know* how we are doing it. We’re *stealing* it. I’m neither proud of it nor ashamed; it’s the means we have. If they ever catch on, they may eliminate us–and that I am prepared to face. At least, in stealing, we have not created the villainous precedent of taxation.”
“Prof, I hate to say this–”
“Then why say it?”
“Because, damn it, I’m in it as deeply as you are…and want to see that money paid back! Hate to say it but what you just said sounds like hypocrisy.”
He chuckled. “Dear Manuel! Has it taken you all these years to decide that I am a hypocrite?”
“Then you admit it?”
“No. But if it makes you feel better to think that I am one, you are welcome to use me as your scapegoat. But I am not a hypocrite to myself because I was aware the day we declared the Revolution that we would need much money and would have to steal it. It did not trouble me because I considered it better than food riots six years hence, cannibalism in eight. I made my choice and have no regrets.”
We don’t get as many trolls here as we used to, but every once in a while somebody will throw their garbage out the window as they drive by our humble consortium. Marvin’s comments in Dr Foldvary’s recent post on myths about libertarianism is a case in point. Attempting to take me to task for committing a logical fallacy, he writes:
Brandon [quoting me]: “Dr Foldvary quit arguing with you because he has seen your fallacies over and over again throughout a long and distinguished career as an academic economist.”
Again, appealing to authority is not making a reasoned argument. You seem to be taking offense that anyone who would dare to disagree with or question anything he or you have said. Taking offense where none has been given is also rhetoric, not reason.
Just two things:
There is a reason Marvin has done this (I doubt it was a conscious one). He writes:
Brandon [again, quoting me]: “What exactly are you trying to refute, and which aspect of your argument refutes Dr Foldvary’s?”
First, it’s not Dr. Foldvary that I am having difficulty with. It is rather the unsubstantiated myths promoted by Libertarians generally that are the problem. For example, “In my judgment, when most people recognize natural moral law as the proper basis for governance, we will be able to have a truly free society.”
It is nothing but a rhetorical claim to say that my personal collection of moral laws are “natural”, “God given”, or “inherent”. Jefferson was speaking rhetorically (to sway emotional support) when he said “endowed by their Creator”. But when he said, “to secure these rights, governments are instituted” he was speaking of practical rights.
Can you spot the fallacy? I ask for an example of what Marvin is arguing against and he replies by changing the subject (from Fred’s argument to “Libertarians generally”). This particular fallacy is known as a red herring fallacy. In it, Marvin goes from ignoring Fred’s original argument to knocking down a “general” argument that he attributes to libertarians. How convenient!
Now, that’s two separate fallacies in one reply. Is it worth my time to respond? A fallacy is defined as being either a false or mistaken idea, or as possessing a deceptive appearance. Marvin’s fallacies are a mixture of both, I think, and it would seem, based on his reasoning and on his dogmatic beliefs, that he is, in the words of alcoholics everywhere, fundamentally incapable of being honest with himself.
Nevertheless, I’d like to think that Marvin’s fallacies are based more on a false idea than on deception (I think the deception is largely for himself, anyway). So I’ll humor him one last time:
Brandon [quoting me]: “Being prohibited from killing another human being is not a restriction on freedom (same goes for stealing) because killing restricts the freedom of others.”
Actually, being prohibited from doing anything is a restriction upon the freedom of the person who wants to do that thing. The OD says, for example, freedom is “the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants”. Obviously if someone wants to steal and is prohibited from stealing, then his freedom is restricted.
You seem to have adopted a different definition, in which a rule against stealing is not really a restriction on freedom because it promotes the optimal freedom for everyone. I don’t think you’ll find that in the OD.
On the other hand, I do agree that all rules are intended to improve the total good and reduce the total harm for everyone. But to achieve that benefit, the rule diminishes the total liberty of everyone.
This is a much more sophisticated fallacy, but it is a fallacy nonetheless. Marvin is trying to discredit libertarianism by arguing that total freedom allows for individuals to steal and kill as they please. This is utterly false, and I’ll get to why in just a minute, but first I think it is important to highlight Marvin’s underlying logic behind this fallacy so that in the future we can all do a better job of rooting out dishonesty from our debates on liberty.
Marvin argues that total freedom must allow for killing and stealing, and only restrictions upon killing and stealing are able to prevent such occurrences from happening regularly. By framing the debate in this way, it then follows that restrictions upon other freedoms (ones that may come to be deemed harmful to society by some) are a logical and beneficial response to social problems. Do you follow? If not, you know where the ‘comments’ section is.
Marvin’s fallacious reasoning in this regard is on full display throughout the thread (please read it yourself).
Yet killing and stealing are not actions that can be found in total freedom (“the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants”). Killing and stealing are actions that can be found throughout the animal kingdom. Does this make animals free?
Of course not, and this is because freedom is a distinctly human notion. Rules and agreements do not diminish total liberty. There is the possibility that total liberty can be diminished by rules. Nobody disputes this. To suggest that (capital-L) “Libertarians generally” do dispute this is disingenuous. It’s also convenient for Marvin’s fallacy.
Total freedom will not be achieved in our lifetimes. It will not be achieved in our grandchildren’s lifetimes. This doesn’t mean it should not be held up as an ideal to aspire to. Ignoring or ceding the ideal of total freedom means that the Marvins of the world will continue to get their Social Security checks in the mail.
Notes On Liberty 