Is it time to alter or abolish our present form of "government?"

Written by Perry Willis and myself at DownsizeDC.org.

Morality and the Free Market

Check out my latest at the DownsizeDC Foundation. Excerpt:

Even when you're not formally coerced, you might feel compelled to make the exchange for the sake of your own well-being or that of your family. Here are some examples...

• Someone takes a low-wage job in lousy conditions to keep from starving
• Entrepreneurs sell bags of ice at extraordinarily high prices in an area that has lost power due to a hurricane
• A rich man offers a poor man money to donate his kidney to save the life of the rich man's son
• A politician pays hush money (blackmail) to a former mistress

Statists intuitively feel empathy for people caught in such circumstances. Supporters of liberty may feel empathy as well. However, they haven't sufficiently articulated why the Statists are still wrong in favoring State control over market forces.

Are Tax Breaks Really Subsidies?

Check out my latest at The Downsize DC Foundation. Excerpt:

Should the tax code be simplified to get rid of tax "breaks" for certain kinds of behavior?

Or should those of us who want a smaller State demand MORE tax breaks so that more people can keep more money for themselves?

These questions were asked during the debt ceiling debate on ways to "raise revenue."

The underlying problem is that the State does too much. A government with few and limited functions would have low taxes. Once the State moves from justice/enforcement into the complex areas of social and economic policy, however, the tax code will inevitably grow more complex with it

Time to Dissolve the Union?

Check out my latest at The Partial Observer. Excerpt:

[W]hat would happen if the states become independent?

States that go "protectionist" and shut down trade and immigration with other states will fall into poverty, and their crime rates would skyrocket due to smuggling. Indeed, people and businesses in those states would migrate to states with fewer taxes, fewer regulations, and free trade. Even states with few natural resources can, like Hong Kong, become economically wealthy and industrially powerful.

Also, extradition agreements could function between states the same as they do now. Sports leagues could have teams in different independent states, just as they do now in different independent countries.

And most states couldn't afford to be anything but neutral on the world stage. . .

Between God and Man

Check out my latest at the Partial Observer. Excerpt:

Whether it's economic redistribution, the jailing or forced "rehabilitation" of the nonviolent, or forced taxation to build war machines, people of "faith" seem to place their real faith in the State, rather than in their God. And because the State is nothing but a monopoly of the use of force, faith in the State means faith in violence.

Guest Response to "Why I Don't Shun Or Boycott"

Kitty Antonik Wakfer has responded to my post "Why I Don't Shun or Boycott.". This is posted with her consent:

I see this as an example more of how the author appears not to care with whom he associates in a business sense, though most likely James is selective re. who and to what degree he associates in non-business ($ exchanging) situations. However, the word "morality" is a very loaded word and unless specifically defined can be used to convey a wide variance of ideas.

If an individual determines - and this properly needs to be more than reading/hearing some rumor - that a business owner has acted in some way that is in opposition to the individual's fundamental values, then the individual is not consistent with those values if s/he continues to voluntarily interact at all with that business owner. If s/he has been on speaking terms w/ that business owner, then personal questioning is in order and logical persuasion to change if there is truly found to be opposing values. However, if the business owner continues in whatever practices are fundamentally objectionable to (some) others, then those who object are fundamentally consistent to shun him/her (hir). For those who object but continue association, they are hypocritical - and short-range thinkers, pragmatic.

In regard to this poorly constructed example, being open about one's ideas and practices are more of a protection then they are an impediment. With the Internet it allows an individual to make this known to a vast audience (and over time) enabling others to become and stay informed about hir. I wrote about this in some detail in "Anonymity - Hazard, Not Protection; Limitation, not Enhancement", over 6 years ago.

"Would you want to be shunned or boycotted because of how people perceived your personal life, your beliefs, or your business practices?"

There is no way that someone can arrange that "[l]ies are spread about [my] personal life and views, destroying [my] reputation." True, someone could publish something that is false, and some few people might actually believe it. And those who do (even after questioning me publicly), I have no value for them since they obviously are so easily persuaded to conclude something false or we are diametrically opposed on fundamental values, though this last would be apparent already. But "destroy my reputation"?? No way. And the same is true for anyone if s/he has been open about hir ideas and actions (to the degree that government enforcers will not make use of the information to do physical harm).

As for specific fairly recent events where I (and husband Paul Wakfer) have shunned businesses, the WikiLeaks situation resulted in 4. We canceled accounts with PayPal and Amazon and we put our VISA and MasterCard credit cards on emergency usage only. These are explained/discussed in "Libertarians Need less Strategy -- and more Principle!" and "Are Principles Unaffordable?"

We also ceased shopping at WalMart after formal announcement of it partnering with Dept of Homeland Security in the government program, "If You See Something, Say Something" - "checkout video screens...urging people to take an active role in ensuring the safety and security of our nation and our communities." http://walmartstores.com/pressroom/news/10493.aspx

Our actions alone will not make a noticeable ripple in the decisions of these companies. But if hundreds of thousands of USers (?some millions?) who disagree with the practices of these companies also withdrew their association (ceased doing business) and made it publicly clear why they were doing so, the effects on those companies would not be ones easily ignored by management.

For the vast majority of businesses with which I deal, I know very little of the owners and even when some few do espouse religious beliefs (I and Paul are atheists), as long as they do not proselytize they are not interfering with my time. As long as they continue to provide good service/products at prices that we think are a good trade of our $value, and do not act as the companies above have done, we will continue as customers. And I and Paul will choose new businesses for services/products in the same manner - which we did on an application offer by Discover Card, recently started to be used regularly.

Intellectual Property, Contract, and Conscience

I recall chemical detergents and other products having on their back label something like: "It is a violation of federal law to use this product in ways that do not follow these directions."

Now imagine we live in a free-market society, where there are no laws against victimless behavior, and therefore, there are no laws against misusing products (unless they're used as a weapon or poison against others).

Would the producer of a product have the right to dictate the terms of use of the product on the purchaser? For instance, instead of of "It is a violation of federal law . . ." warning on the label, what if there's is, instead, something like this . . .

"It is a violation of the terms of sale of this product to use it in any way other than as directed. If you are unwilling to abide by the these directions, return this product, unopened and unused, for a full refund. Failure to abide by these terms absolves the manufacturer and seller of this product of any liability. It also gives the manufacturer or seller sufficient grounds to refuse any future sales to you. If your failure to use the product as directed reflects poorly on the manufacture or seller, they may demand that you return the the product, or the remaining contents thereof, without compensation."

Would this be enforceable? Probably not. But it would protect the manufacturer from liability. For instance, if the directions said to "Keep out of reach of children, and deny them access" but a child injures himself or others with the product, the parents couldn't sue the manufacturer. Or, if the directions say to spray the cleaning liquid two feet away from the surface, and you spray from six inches away and the the liquid splashes back into your eye, you can't claim the product was dangerous.

You may violate the directions all you want in your personal use of it, and maybe nobody will get hurt or find out. But if it means causing injury to yourself or others, then neither you nor others you injure have anyone but you to blame.

It seems to me that contractual law should allow the seller of the product to dictate any terms to the purchaser. After all, the purchaser isn't compelled to buy. If the terms of use and/or directions are plainly and prominently listed (such as, on the unopened package of the product on the store shelf, or in a terms of use agreement posted BEFORE sale on an e-product) then the seller should be free to dictate any terms she wants.

Perhaps in many cases the terms are not enforceable, in that it would be too easy for the buyer to violate the terms of sale and get away with it. But it is useful to lay out the terms anyway. The terms of sale may be:

• Do not use this product except as directed
• Do not reverse-engineer and replicate this new product/invention for resale
• Do not copy and redistribute this book/recording/movie

And maybe they're not enforceable much of the time. But at least the manufacturer/creator can derive some psychical/spiritual value from dictating the terms of sale. They can enjoy the fact that honorable people use the product honorably.

And, buyers who misuse the product or otherwise violate the terms of sale will know they are acting dishonorably. Their very excuses for violating the terms of sale, attempting to discredit the sellers, actually prove their own dishonor.

They will say something like, "The terms of sale are unreasonable," and justify themselves by saying things like:

• After I buy it, it should be entirely up to me how I use the product
  
• The seller must be greedy for wanting to protect his "intellectual property," especially since "intellectual property" doesn't exist
• The seller must be a moralistic busy-body for telling me what I can or can't do with the product
• The seller must understand that these terms and conditions are virtually unenforceable, so I might as well ignore them

To summarize all these excuses: It's okay to violate a contract if I think I can get away with it.

We've seen that excuse since the beginning of time. People make a vow of fidelity with wedding vows, then break the vow when they think they can get away with it, then rationalize their behavior by saying it's unreasonable to expect a person to have sex with just one other person for the rest of life, and that besides, the spouse is a terrible person.

Perhaps it is unreasonable to have sex with just one person, and maybe the spouse is a terrible person, but you should have thought those things through before taking the wedding vows.

The mere violation of a contract, vow, or any other kind of promise, won't always lead to a legal judgment of financial compensation on behalf of the person who was "wronged" by the broken promise. Often, there aren't any tangible damages, only mere violations of trust and hurt feelings. And even when compensation might be expected, they are almost impossible to know: how do you calculate "lost earnings?"

In the case of "Intellectual Property" (IP) such as patents and copyrights, some libertarians say they don't exist, and others say they're essential. Sheldon Richman makes a strong case for the former side, and Stephan Kinsella and others have done a lot of work on behalf of that position, whereas J. Neil Schulman makes a moving case for the IP side - which is particularly strong since he eschews State-enforcement.

To me, "intellectual property" isn't really the issue at all. It is, rather, about contracts. Creators, inventors, manufacturers, and retail sellers all have the right to set their own terms of sale, including bans on replication or redistribution, and the buyers are then obliged to obey the terms of the contract. If they dislike the terms, they shouldn't buy.

The problem is that it seems almost impossible to police or prevent such contract violations, and no one would want to live in a society where they CAN be effectively policed, because that would mean giving up a lot of privacy and freedom.

I don't think there's a good answer in libertarian theory. I think the answer lies in being who you want to be:

1. Do you want to be the kind of person who keeps your promises, including obeying the terms of sale of the things you purchase -- or would you rather break your promises when you can get away with it, and pray that others don't do the same to you?

2. Do you want to be the kind of person who encourages the creators and inventors of society by respecting their wishes as to how their work is distributed, or would you rather take them for granted, have them go unrewarded, and pray that Atlas doesn't Shrug?

The issue of "Intellectual Property" is less a matter of libertarian theoretical concepts of "property" and "ownership," and more a matter of plain decency and conscience.

Why I Don't Shun or Boycott

Imagine Adam and Bob both sell widgets, in a society where widgets are a must-have product. Adam sells $5 widgets; Bob sells $10 widgets. Lies are spread about Bob's personal life and views, destroying his reputation. Everyone who prefers Bob's high-end, better widgets decide they'd rather purchase Adam's cheap widgets than continue to do business with Bob. Bob is ruined. Then the public finds out that the information about Bob was lies. They weren't even spread by Adam, but by Carl, who is broke and gets his entertainment through perverse delights such as defaming people like Bob. As a result of the slanders against Bob . . .

• Adam doubles his business and more than doubles his profits


• Carl gets his laughs

Meanwhile . . .

• Bob loses everything


• Bob's former customers do not enjoy his superior widgets

Now, who is to blame for Bob losing everything?

Adam isn't at fault, even though he has all the profits that would have gone to Bob.

Adam shouldn't be forced to compensate Bob, because he did nothing wrong. And Carl, who is broke, can't compensate Bob.

So who are the people who ruined Bob?

The people, his former customers, who judged him for things that had nothing to do with the widgets.

If you're in jail, I wouldn't be able to do business with you anyway. If you're not in jail, why should I let things that have nothing to do with making a deal, keep me from making a deal?

I have heard it said that shunning and boycotts is a superior way to enforce ethical standards in a libertarian or anarchist society. For instance, perhaps the business-owner is strongly suspected to have sexist and racist policies, or exploits foreign labor. The proper method is shunning or boycott. (The difference I make between the two is, for instance, last year if you were upset about the Gulf oil spill: if you avoided the BP gas station and there was another gas station on the next block, you shun BP; if you avoid the BP station and the next gas station is 30 miles away, you're BOYCOTTING BP; boycotts involve an actual sacrifice of some sort.)

To be sure, shuns and boycotts are better than the Regulatory-Police State.

But here's something else to think about: Maybe things about the personal life of the widget-maker, or even the businesses practices of the the widget-maker, might even seem to be true on the surface. And yet if they're not being obvious about it, such as putting up signs saying "Blacks need not apply," how do you know they're in the wrong? Sure, if such a sign existed, I would shun the establishment. But you can be sure that no one's going to be that obvious about it. And, by definition, when things aren't obvious, there is room for doubt.

The economist Friedrich Hayek is famous for pointing out that governmental central banks will always lack enough information about the economy to determine the suppy of money or allocate it correctly.

Equally so, you don't really know what's going on with your neighbor's widget business. You may think you know a lot about it, but rarely do you know for certain. Maybe he is actually improving the lives of people that YOU, with incomplete information, think he is exploiting. Maybe his hiring and firing decisions, once you know the fuller context, make more sense than you realize.

Would you want to be shunned or boycotted because of how people perceived your personal life, your beliefs, or your business practices?

I certainly wouldn't. The shun/boycott route for enforcing morality seems to smack of too much division and condemnation from people who have insufficient information to judge.

A better route might be to foster virtues such as humility, grace, honor, and good manners. Otherwise known as, Mind Your Own Business. Try to be the person you want to be, rather than look for the flaws in others.

Abolish the Popular Vote

My latest at the Partial Observer, where I argue that the Electoral College isn't the problem.

The Essence of Just War Theory

Check out my latest at the Partial Observer. Excerpt:

If more people adopted the Just War Tradition, we would almost definitely have fewer wars.

That said, perhaps even Just War Theory, while simple in principle, is too complicated in practice.

The question I would ask myself is, when wouldI go to war?

There is one plain answer: when the alternative is starvation or certain death for me and my family. I'd fight a war to survive.

The Democracy Fallacy

Check out my latest piece at the Downsize DC Foundation. Excerpt:

People who embrace the Democracy Fallacy think that the "right to vote" is the most precious and, perhaps, only right you have. Your vote makes the government legitimate, and the "will of the people" expressed through elections makes the actions of the government legitimate.

And what about the citizens who didn't vote because they found all candidates to be distasteful? "If they don't like the system, they should move to another country!"

What You Can Do For Your Country, and What Your Country Can Do For You

Check out my latest at the Partial Observer: "The best thing to do for your country is to mind your own business, and the best thing your country can do for you is let you mind your own business."

Producers, Consumers, and The State

Two weeks ago, Steven Horwitz quoted J.B. Say:

[T]he encouragement of mere consumption is no benefit to commerce; for the difficulty lies in supplying the means, not in stimulating the desire of consumption; and we have seen that production alone furnishes those means. Thus it is the aim of good government to stimulate production, of bad government to encourage consumption.

Horwitz clarifies this by saying:

Of course “stimulating production” need mean nothing more than leaving producers free to seek out profits as they see fit within the standard classical-liberal framework of law. It does not mean government should artificially benefit producers any more than it should encourage consumption.

Horwitz is probably correct as to Say's meaning. But why should the producer view the government that way?

Assuming by "government" Say means "The State" (i.e., a coercive monopoly) as opposed to a voluntary government, his statement:

Thus it is the aim of good government to stimulate production, of bad government to encourage consumption.

might as well be read as:

The most tolerable State is one that stimulates production; the least tolerable State encourages consumption.

The State does not produce directly; it only consumes what the producers produce and acts against their interests. The State:

• Takes resources producers may have otherwise used
• Taxes the means of production
• Taxes producer profits
• Taxes consumers in various ways, leaving them with less purchasing power, which reduces corporate profits

Why, then, would producers even tolerate The State? There could be many historical reasons, but through most of history, conquest was a common means of devouring wealth and resources, and it was much wiser to let the King tax and protect you than to have no King and see the King from a nearby country invade, kill you, and enslave your family.

But as the State "evolved" into quasi-democratic forms, there was no self-interest on the part of producers to adhere to classical liberalism. As their wealth was confiscated by the State, it was only natural to use the political process to get something back - to "stimulate production" artificially.

For example: producers could ask themselves, "Why should we build and maintain roads to facilitate commerce and enlarge our markets? This would be costly if we did it ourselves, but if it was funded by just a small hike in taxes on everyone, the pain would be minimal and the benefits to us would be enormous!" Hence road-building, which they would have to do themselves in the absence of The State, is something that is "naturally" part of The State's role, and is seen as a "public good" rather than as a subsidy to producers.

Producers are naturally inclined to lobby for trade protections for themselves when that is most beneficial to them, and to lobby to use threats and military force to "open" the markets of other countries, when that is beneficial.

They will call for tax cuts for themselves, and for subsidies for their industries.

All of this "stimulates production," while the costs, which are relatively small for each form of favoritism, are spread throughout the entire tax base.

Call them "special interests," or call them prudent. In the eyes of the producers, they are doing nothing wrong given the reality of The State.

Consumers - "the people" - behave in exactly the same way when they call on The State to provide income security, health care, education grants, labor laws, "consumer protection" laws, and even restrictions on "offensive" behavior. They are using The State to make their own lives as satisfactory as possible.

Call it parasitical or call it democracy. In the people's eyes, they are doing nothing wrong given the reality of The State.

Because of The State, civil society is dog-eat-dog. It's "every man for himself" to get as much out of The State as he can - whether in the role as producer or consumer.

Maybe this is human nature. Maybe it is "corrupt." But if it is corrupt, it is the result of the existence of State power. Lord Acton is credited for saying "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely," but the corruption doesn't reside only in the officeholders who formally wield State power. In a representative democracy where most people can vote and be eligible for office in an unlimited State, the corruption pervades us all, because we focus less on what producers and consumers can give each other in free exchange, and focus more on how we can use The State for our advantage.

Faith in Authority

Check out my latest at The Partial Observer. Excerpt:

And yet people who have the authority, without your personal consent, to discipline your children in school, to pull you over on a highway, to inspect your business establishment, or to review your financial records, are really your masters – even if they are called "public servants." Their "right" to do these things is just assumed. It is taken on faith, even though there is no evidence whatsoever that any of these intrusions on your life, liberty, and property serves "the common good." The only people who really benefit are those in authority who are paid to do these things to you.

The Undiscovered Island

Check out my latest at The Partial Observer:

Imagine there was a large island, previously undiscovered because it is situated in a place with a strange rip in the electro-magnetic field that created the illusion of open sea.

In fact, almost nobody knows it is there. It is only recently detected by government scientists, although no one has set foot on it. As President, you are told of its existence. . .

Withholding Judgment

This is a response in agreement to Tom Knapp's post in response to Roderick Long's post about the Tennessee story of the government fire service that supposedly "failed" this past week.

I already responded to Long in the comments section of his post. The point I made there was, regardless of the injustice of current systems, there is a personal responsibility component in getting your bills paid on time. But I want to make a bigger point here.

I think some libertarians want to reserve the right to hold a grudge against, or condemn, other people who were acting within their rights. "You left my wife to drown!" "You let my son to starve to death!" "You let my dog to burn to death in that fire!"

The message being, you were "wrong" to exercise your "right" to not get involved. Therefore, while I wouldn't put you in prison, I still reserve the right to hate you. Many libertarians claim you should have this legal right to non-aid, but would also desire that there was a God condemning you to a cosmic hell for actually exercising this right to non-aid. They want to be "non-judgmental" and "full of hate" at the same time.

But another argument could be that the accuser telling you that you were "wrong" simply didn't have enough information to issue a condemnation.

* Maybe you were not a professional rescuer or a good swimmer, and wouldn't have known how to save the wife. If you tried to save her, you both would have drowned.
* You fed your own family first, and then your friends who were in need. You had none leftover even for the children of others.
* You didn't know there was a dog was in the burning house; in any case, dogs are property, not persons. You weren't about to put your own life at risk, or that of any other firefighter, when the owner didn't even pay the fire protection fee.

The fact is, no one has enough information about other people's lives, property, or circumstances to issue blanket moral condemnation. We just don't know all the facts and all the motives.

We'd be a lot more peaceful and civil society if we recognized that not only is aggression misguided and ignorant, but moralistic finger-wagging is almost as equally misguided and ignorant. Either way, we just don't have enough information to judge other people.

If anything, the serenity that comes with not judging other people has been more beneficial to my health and happiness than the formal legal rules that strict libertarianism provides. I can judge your actions if you commit (or advocate) violence, theft, or fraud against me or others, but I can't judge your motives for your refusal to help me when I'm in need. I don't have all the information to hold a grudge against you. You may have good reasons for not helping me.

In the same way, I wouldn't expect you to judge me if I don't feel like I'm in a position to help you.

By recognizing that we each aren't under any legal or moral law to help each other, we might be inclined to help each other all the more.

Treating others with as much non-judgment as you can bear is probably the most effective and persuasive way toward achieving the libertarian society that we want. Every other route will lead to acrimony, dispute, and possibly violence.

What We Tolerate in a Democracy

Check out my latest at The Partial Observer. Excerpt:

In the United States of America, up to 240 million people are unhappy because of the votes of 70 million.

And yet, we think it is "fair" that Obama and a majority Congress, all elected by less than a quarter of the population, have the right to run roughshod over our rights, steal our wealth, and undermine our national security by waging wars against countries that didn't attack us.

The Myth of the Common Good

Check out my latest at The Partial Observer. Excerpt:

Not even the preservation of life and health is a "common good." And if even the preservation of life isn't, then what is?

The fact is, nobody knows what is best for other people. Some people may be healthiest if they went vegan; some others if the went paleolithic. Some may get well using unpatented, illegal substances; others may get well using FDA-approved drugs.

It is also true that many people don't know what is good for themselves, but that is the purpose of a free society: to let them find out for themselves.

Roads and Money

My latest at The Partial Observer: Roads and Money - Why government control isn't necessary.

Excerpt:

I live in the country. There are half-a-dozen routes to the town where I do most of my business. Anyone willing to cut down some trees, pave over a little cropland, and build a small bridge over a narrow river could produce any number of even more direct routes.

St. Louis and Atlanta are roughly 550 miles from each other. David D. Friedman writes in The Machinery of Freedom that in the late 19th Century, there were 20 different railroad routes between St. Louis and Atlanta. This undermines the idea that roads or railroads form some kind of natural monopoly.

Better Than Money

Check out my latest at The Partial Observer. Excerpt:

As I've previously written recently (1, 2) I fully support free competition in currency. This is normally interpreted as a longing for a national gold standard. But let's focus on the benefit to your neighborhood.

The E.F. Schumacher Society promotes local currencies. On this week's Invisible Hand podcast, Tracy Twyman directs us to one such experiment, the Cascadia Hour Exchange, inspired in part by the Ithaca Hours.

These experiments prompted me to suggest something similar . . .