Cafe Hayek: Orders and Organizations

« For the Exhibit Entitled "Truly Dumb Ideas" | Main | Shift Happens» Don Boudreaux

February 26, 2008

Orders and Organizations

Don Boudreaux

What's the single biggest way that collectivists misunderstand or misinterpret free-market liberals (such as Russ and myself)? The answer, I bet, is the failure to understand that opposition by free-market liberals to government action does not mean that we free-market liberals oppose all of the goals of the well-meaning proponents of government action.

More generally, it seems difficult for some people to grasp the fact that society and government are not identical -- or, more precisely, to grasp the fact that civil society can and does often thrive outside of government influence and, indeed, very often (I would say most often) in spite of such influence.

A friend of mine who is a thoughtful and very intelligent man of the left asked me by e-mail -- in response to this post at the Cafe --

But don't libertarians, or at least some of them, see themselves as part of a movement? I admit that I've always thought that was something of a paradox. But maybe even libertarians can't free themselves from human nature, so much of which evolved, as you point out, when humans, and our ancestors, hunted and gathered in packs. But, for that matter, isn't much productive economic activity carried out collectively by corporate groups?

Good questions. Here's my response:

There is a libertarian intellectual movement, of course. And I admit that I feel deep gratification whenever I reflect that in some small way I work within a tradition enriched, and more or less consciously embraced, by people such as Adam Smith, Frederic Bastiat, Mencken, Hayek, Milton Friedman, Jim Buchanan, and Vernon [Smith].

There is also a libertarian political movement, but it is notoriously undisciplined. (I've gone to a total of two Libertarian-party gatherings. The first was in 1979 in New Orleans -- dull. The second was in 1980 in NYC. At this latter event, the Libertarians decided very ostentatiously to support the Man-Boy Love Association. I thought this a bit much.)

I suppose that it is somewhat ironic that the classical-liberal and libertarian movement (perhaps a better word is "tradition") does prominently deny the myth that there's salvation in the political collective. More specifically, this tradition denies three myths that many people still doggedly believe: (1) that useful social and economic orders only result from of a conscious plan and effort -- or can invariably be improved by such conscious planning and effort; (2) that the nation is economically and morally special - that each of us has a special connection (and should have a special connection) with each and every one of our fellow citizens that we don't have with citizens of other countries; and (3) that personal pursuit of material gain is suspect or, at least, contemptible -- that it's always better to aim for "higher" purposes -- to sacrifice ourselves for others or for some cause that is "larger" than the individual.

About your point regarding private firms: it's true that nearly all private, productive economic activity takes place in organizations consisting of some, often very many, people. It's true also that people often feel loyalty to the organizations they work for or or are otherwise closely associated with. But the motivating force of such organizations in a market economy isn't chiefly these small-scale collective purposes (any one of which is often at odds with the collective purpose of some other organization). The motivating force is individual profit. And, importantly, people are usually aware of this fact, and so they're not duped into sacrificing themselves for others. Gains from trade, rather than commitment to a nebulous higher cause, is the chief motive.

One of the important influences on my thinking about this broad topic is a 1962 essay by Hayek called "Two Kinds of Order." If you ever run across this essay, I do recommend it.

Posted by Don Boudreaux in Complexity and Emergence | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/23120/26551468

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Orders and Organizations:

Comments

It's worth adding Don that the very ability of the smaller organizations that exist within the Great Society to do what they do is very much dependent on the existence of the spontaneous order of the market. As Peter Lewin pointed out a few years back, the collective planning of the firm requires a budget. Budgets require prices. And prices are most reliable when they are truly part of the spontaneous order of the market.

Even the voluntary collectives of civil society function best within the context of a market that produces the wealth necessary to provide people with the time and resources to devote to them.

Or in my own work: the family is one of the best examples we have of a Hayekian "organization" and, despite the strawman created by Jenny Morse, I see no libertarian argument for turning families into complete spontaneous orders (what she calls "the laissez-faire family"). And families have been at their most human when the market has produced the wealth and time for people to devote to really caring for family members. That is, when the market replaced the family's economic functions with psychological ones.

Posted by: Steven Horwitz | Feb 26, 2008 4:02:12 PM

Libertarians act like radicals to make the rest of us seem like moderates. In this way, they move us forward.

Posted by: jorod | Feb 26, 2008 4:14:12 PM

A common misconception I often come across is that 'individualism' somehow equals 'lonerism'.

Not at all. Individualism is about voluntary cooperation. That's what the market is. People helping each other. And that is decidedly what modern liberalism is not.

Modern liberalism is about conscription.

Come November some slight plurality will be celebrating their victory in gaining the power to impose their ideals upon everyone else. That's not a valid purpose of government but that is what it has become. That is the lie of democracy.

Posted by: Marcus | Feb 26, 2008 4:31:43 PM

In fact, we might say one of the things we expect from government is to refrain from obstructing this type of organization.

Bastiat:
Liberty is the mother, not the daughter, of order.

Posted by: Sam Grove | Feb 26, 2008 4:35:07 PM

I like socializing as much as the next guy, but I don't like socialists who want to stick their grubby hands in my wallet.

Posted by: FreedomLover | Feb 26, 2008 5:03:35 PM

Good point, FL, and the reason we don't like it is because it is anti-social behavior.

Posted by: Randy | Feb 26, 2008 5:08:08 PM

opposition by free-market liberals to government action does not mean that we free-market liberals oppose all of the goals of the well-meaning proponents of government action.

What I hear when I read this is "we support government action inconsistenly."

For example, "coercion is fine when it ensures a person's right to property, but not when it ensures a person's right to healthcare." My problem with this is that I fail to see any principled difference between the former and the latter.

Posted by: prestable | Feb 26, 2008 5:35:03 PM

Which of the goals of the well-meaning proponents of government action do you share? Do they know that you share them?

Posted by: Dale Emery | Feb 26, 2008 5:35:37 PM

And libertarians (a minority, mind you) don't want to impose their ideals of individualism upon everyone else?

Posted by: prestable | Feb 26, 2008 5:37:36 PM

No, prestable, we don't want to impose individualism on others. If a bunch of people want to set up programs for social security, or medicare, or public education, or whatever, fine, do it. Just leave me out of it. Is that so hard to understand?

Posted by: Randy | Feb 26, 2008 5:45:18 PM

Marcus,

Please explain exactly what we SHOULD do in November. If we didn't vote then what? How do you want to set up the government? Bring back the King? Let Bernanke make the rules? What exactly do people like you want? You don't like majority rule? Then what minority rule?

Don't you understand that basically to me you seem to be claiming you know exactly how the government should be set up and that it should be the way you want it regardless of what other people want.

No one is imposing this democracy on you. You are free to move to the next country over where they do everything just as you like. But here we do democracy or as best we can we fight for more democracy against the tides of the plutocrats. And we do it with the understanding that indeed liberty will never be completely protected for the individual but it will be maximized as it has in no other place or time in history.

The idea that you can have complete liberty and live in a stable society that won't be overtaken by the thugs from with-in or the raiders from the outside is the delusion and the never to be ended frustration of the liberal believer.

Posted by: muirgeo | Feb 26, 2008 5:47:09 PM

prestable,

You are hearing incorrectly. He did not say he supports some or any government action. He said he does not oppose some of the GOALS of people who promote government action. In fact, I imagine they share most of the same goals. Decreasing poverty, increasing literacy, increasing access to health care while bringing down its cost, etc. They differ on the best means to achieve these goals.

Also, no, they do not want to impose their ideals of individualism on everyone else. They only want to be free from the imposition and conscription of others. If others want to get together that's perfectly fine. Surely there is a fundamental difference there?

Your complaint is like saying peace activists want to use force on others, just like warlords.

Posted by: Cliff | Feb 26, 2008 5:47:25 PM

And libertarians (a minority, mind you) don't want to impose their ideals of individualism upon everyone else?

Nope.

You're free to associate with whoever you please. Go join a commune if you like.

Posted by: Marcus | Feb 26, 2008 5:47:30 PM

Muirgeo,

"What exactly do people like you want?"

We want people like you to get a freakin' life - and leave us the hell out of it.

Posted by: Randy | Feb 26, 2008 5:50:05 PM

Cliff, Good analogy.

Posted by: Randy | Feb 26, 2008 5:51:52 PM

prestable writes: What I hear when I read this is "we support government action inconsistenly."

prestable, I think the key contrast is between goals and methods. As a libertarian, I do not oppose all of the goals of the well-meaning proponents of government action, such as maximizing health. What I oppose is the method they so often propose to achieve those goals, which amounts to one or another violation of rights.

prestable writes: My problem with this is that I fail to see any principled difference between the former and the latter.

prestable, here is a principled difference: if it is wrong (evil) for an individual to do it, then it is wrong for a government to do it, because a government is composed of individuals. For example, it is not wrong for an individual to use violent force (or coercion) to defend himself from a mugger. This is called "self defense". In contrast, it is wrong for an individual to use violent force to rob another individual in order to pay for the first individual's medical bills.

If one person has struck another person violently, a valid defense is that he was defending himself against the other person. In contrast, an invalid defense is that he was trying to take the other person's wallet in order to pay for his own medical bills.

We easily recognize the clear moral difference between self defense (a valid defense if you struck someone) and paying one's medical bills (an invalid defense if you struck someone). Thus, we easily recognize this distinction between when it is, and is not, okay to use coercive force.

Posted by: Constant | Feb 26, 2008 5:57:53 PM

muirgeo,

You are confusing issues.

Liberatarians are not opposed to government or the rule of law. Rather, we see individuals as the sovereign. That's what self-rule means. Each individual is his own ruler.

Nor are we opposed to electing public officials to carry out public functions as are well defined by the contract through which sovereign individuals authorized the power of government.

But that is not what democracy is. Democracy is rule of the majority (or largest plurality). Democracy is the conscription of individuals to the whims of the slight plurality.

Posted by: Marcus | Feb 26, 2008 6:11:24 PM

Constant,

"...if it is wrong... for an individual to do it, then it is wrong for a government to do it..."

That's good. I'm sure the progressives here might like to toss out some possible exceptions, but I can't think of any.

Posted by: Randy | Feb 26, 2008 6:29:21 PM

Marcus said: Liberatarians are not opposed to government or the rule of law. Rather, we see individuals as the sovereign. That's what self-rule means. Each individual is his own ruler.

I've been waiting for months for a real-life example where this is put into practice. Just because you can dream it doesn't mean it's workable.

Posted by: Plac Ebo | Feb 26, 2008 6:46:54 PM

Your complaint is like saying peace activists want to use force on others, just like warlords.

Quite a few "peace activists" (and environmentalists, God save us all) are just as happy imposing their will upon you as any warlord.

Posted by: Bob Smith | Feb 26, 2008 7:22:05 PM

prestable, I think the best way to think of classical liberalism versus modern liberalism is this:

In a classical liberal society, modern liberals are free to be modern liberals. They can practice socialism, Marxism, or any -ism they wish, provided they do so peacefully.

In a modern liberal environment, classical liberals are maced, tased, shot, and/or thrown in small barred rooms for years of their lives.

Negative rights are basis for the positive rights which modern liberals so value, and property rights are the basis for all negative rights. They are needed for a very simple reason: rivalrous goods cannot be used by any number of people at the same time, some system must be used to determine who may make use of what property.

Posted by: Grant | Feb 26, 2008 7:22:19 PM

Plac Ebo, most all of society is an example of self-rule, but the Internet might be the most obvious example. Self-rule doesn't mean one cannot choose a ruler, it just means that rulers are not forced upon them. The Internet is 'run' by voluntary, open-source groups working to create better standards, protocols, etc. No one (with the exception of a little government involvement, I believe mostly with domain names) forces anyone else to adopt any standard or follow any group; its all done voluntarily.

Posted by: Grant | Feb 26, 2008 7:34:29 PM

For example, "coercion is fine when it ensures a person's right to property, but not when it ensures a person's right to healthcare." My problem with this is that I fail to see any principled difference between the former and the latter. - Prestable

This is one of the greatest achievements of totalitarians, convincing so many that any attempt to resist oppression, is itself, a form of oppression. Thus, have managed to depict those who fight for liberty, for freedom from oppression, as being no different from the totalitarians themselves.

It is argued: if oppression is wrong, and any attempt to prevent oppression, is itself, oppression. Then it is impossible to avoid opression, and impossible to avoid doing wrong. Therefore, either, avoidance of oppression is futile, or is not immoral (since moral behaviour must also be possible behaviour i.e. people cannot be held responsible for the unavoidable).

Posted by: Lee Kelly | Feb 26, 2008 7:43:10 PM

Constant, that was an excellent way to draw the distinction for prestable. Well done.

I would only add the corollary of the "democratic fallacy," i.e., that just because the mob says it's OK doesn't make it so in the moral sense.

Posted by: M. Hodak | Feb 26, 2008 8:38:36 PM

Plac Ebo,

This may come as a surprise to you but, assuming you're American, you're living at such a place now. To be sure, the Federal government was a confederacy of states but most of the states took on a similar style of governance so it should suffice as a real world example.

I think your real question is how do we prevent self-appointed moralists such as modern day liberals or right-wing Christians from hijacking the institutions of government for their own purposes? As clearly that is what has happened here.

That, is a good question. I admit, it is problematic. The answer is that it requires people to value their liberty enough to safeguard it.

Posted by: Marcus | Feb 26, 2008 8:49:47 PM

Yes muirgeo it's all a tad confusing isn't it?

Posted by: Gil | Feb 26, 2008 9:03:27 PM

Grant, I was thinking more along the lines of an entire society, not an activity within that society. Also, I'm sure you realize that the internet did not begin without much government involvement. However, back to my request, do you have an example of any prosperous society that meets the libertarian ideal?

Posted by: Plac Ebo | Feb 26, 2008 9:06:16 PM

Marcus, are you calling the current United States a libertarian country? If so, that is contrary to most of the contributors to this site.

Posted by: Plac Ebo | Feb 26, 2008 9:08:52 PM

The United States is a Libertarian country to the extent that many of us would be in jail if it were not. Sad that there are so few who understand that, and that so many are completely attuned to the belief that "Individualism means Tyranny".

http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20080205/cm_csm/ygoldberg

Posted by: Randy | Feb 26, 2008 10:07:02 PM

Plac Ebo,

Right, the initial R&D into packet-switched networks and the like was from DARPA, but I don't think that is very relevant to the current state of things. There were also some European companies developing similar technology to TCP/IP, but I don't remember if they were government-financed or not.

I'm not aware of any society in entirety that meets any ideal at all. I would say that most all of people's daily lives, in work and play, meets the libertarian ideal. Only in modern politics and (more rarely) crime is it strayed from significantly.

Posted by: Grant | Feb 26, 2008 10:10:44 PM

We can argue all kinds of things, but in discussions of markets and governments, libertarians oppose socialism, government management of the economy and government provision of any good or service declared as a right by those same socialists.
In this vein, I suggest that muirgeo is a democratic socialist.

Democratic socialists propose that humans are free as long as they get to participate in collective management via the vote no matter whether they are on the winning side or the losing side. So if 51% of the voters vote for socialized medicine, then the 49% of voters who do not want socialized medicine better get used to it.

In a free market, as libertarians call it, if that 51% want to participate in socialized medicine, then they can organize and contribute to the pot from which their medical benefits will be paid as required, but they may not force the 49% to contribute to their fund. Even if they want the government to administer it, then the same rule would apply.

Of course, the socialist, operating on mercantilist assumptions, will eventually claim when there are problems with their socialized system, that it is because of something that the 49% are doing or not doing. Nothing less than 100% participation will satisfy the socialist.

Posted by: Sam Grove | Feb 26, 2008 10:34:50 PM

The United States is a Libertarian country to the extent that many of us would be in jail if it were not.

The U.S. has the highest incarceration rate on Earth, five times the rate of England and twelve times the rate of Norway. Norway's per capita GDP is higher.

Posted by: Martin Brock | Feb 26, 2008 11:00:30 PM

The U.S. has the highest incarceration rate on Earth, five times the rate of England and twelve times the rate of Norway. Norway's per capita GDP is higher.

I think this is largely because the police force, an otherwise legitimate function of government, has been hijacked by self-appointed moralists to wage a 'war' on drugs.

Posted by: Marcus | Feb 26, 2008 11:16:39 PM

"Norway's per capita GDP is higher."

Once again, a brilliant analysis.

I don't know why we keep having posts that compare 2 totally different groups, and draw conclusions that don't take into account the differences. First it was Muirgeo and his Icelandic median income ignorance now it is Martin - hero to the verbose posters.

Why would anyone compare the United States with a homogeneous nation that has 1/80th the population? While we are at it, let's compare China to Seychelles to prove that the Seychelles education system is better.

Posted by: Python | Feb 27, 2008 12:58:29 AM

Norway's big advantage is its oil. Prior to their discovery of oil, its per capita GDP was a lot different.

The "War on Drugs" might as well be named "War on the Poor" or "War on Blacks". I can't fathom how destructive it is.

Posted by: Grant | Feb 27, 2008 1:11:38 AM

there is one libertarian presidential candidate who wants to end the war on drugs, but he is too libertarian for the beltway types.

People like Russ, like collective governmental action when it comes to money and banking system. They worship monopolistic cartel like Federal Reserve and their ability to manipulate and fix interest rates and money supply.

Posted by: Neocon Spin Master | Feb 27, 2008 2:43:56 AM

Mr Boudreaux,

In your entry you mention an essay by Hayek called "Two Kinds of Order". After reading your blog, I have looked for it in the Internet without luck (the only one mentioned by that name is by Michael Polanyi); could you post links to the essay you mention (or to where we can get a copy of it), please?

Posted by: Frederick Davies | Feb 27, 2008 3:15:38 AM

I still disagree in principle. I don't see why rights to property can be called any more legitimate as an inherent right than rights to healthcare. When you say it is wrong for an individual to enforce his right to healthcare but not to enforce his right to property, you're begging the question. In effect, you're saying, "since A is wrong and B is not, A is wrong and B is not."

That's why I don't accept libertarianism as you describe it: it rests on an inconsistent moral basis. It assumes the very thing it is arguing: that some rights are "right" (e.g. to property) and should be enforced with coercion, but others are "wrong" (e.g. to healthcare) and should not. In other words, why is it immoral to kill someone to enforce your right to property but not to enforce your right to healthcare? Yes, one is a negative right and the other is a positive one, but so what? There's no principled difference in why negative rights should be protected over positive ones, since both equally require coercion.

That's why I'm a Milton Friedman-style libertarian/utilitarian. Markets are the best system because they maximize social welfare--not because their process is somehow inherently moral, a proposition that cannot be justified.

Posted by: prestable | Feb 27, 2008 4:50:26 AM

I don't know why we keep having posts that compare 2 totally different groups, and draw conclusions that don't take into account the differences. First it was Muirgeo and his Icelandic median income ignorance now it is Martin - hero to the verbose posters.

Rubbish. I haven't drawn any conclusion from the comparison. How's that for brevity?

Why would anyone compare the United States with a homogeneous nation that has 1/80th the population? While we are at it, let's compare China to Seychelles to prove that the Seychelles education system is better.

Why would anyone change the subject from the world's highest incarceration rate to this irrelevant straw man?

To avoid the issue. Now, that's a conclusion.

Posted by: Martin Brock | Feb 27, 2008 5:28:03 AM

I think this is largely because the police force, an otherwise legitimate function of government, has been hijacked by self-appointed moralists to wage a 'war' on drugs.

The drug war has a lot to do with it. The incarceration rate has quadrupled since 1980, and the U.S. didn't become more violent in this time. It became less violent and likely would have become less violent regardless of the increased incarceration for demographic reasons.

Posted by: Martin Brock | Feb 27, 2008 5:32:24 AM

prestable (& others), do you really not see the difference between aggressive violence & defensive violence?

Do you see no moral distinction between a rapist & his victim fighting him off?

Posted by: Hans Luftner | Feb 27, 2008 7:14:41 AM

Martin,

"The U.S. has the highest incarceration rate on Earth..."

This is not inconsistant with my point. I said that we are libertarian to the extent that many of us are not in jail. Indeed, many are already in jail as a direct result of the belief that "individualism means tyranny". And as that belief grows, many more will be imprisoned, and many more enslaved or conscripted.

Posted by: Randy | Feb 27, 2008 7:21:59 AM

Hans Luftner,

No, I don't think they do see the difference. More precisely, they cannot allow themselves to see the difference when applied to actions of the state, because to acknowledge such a difference would destroy the rationalization by which they defend the actions of the state - from which they profit.

Posted by: Randy | Feb 27, 2008 7:27:36 AM

I said that we are libertarian to the extent that many of us are not in jail.

And I said that, by this standard, the U.S. is among the least libertarian nations on Earth, not the most libertarian. Yet nominally, in common usage, the U.S. is among the most "libertarian". Why is that?

Posted by: Martin Brock | Feb 27, 2008 7:31:10 AM

Prestable,

"There's no principled difference in why negative rights should be protected over positive ones, since both equally require coercion."

Fair enough. But there are consequences. A failure to protect negative rights forces people to turn elsewhere for protection, and the application of positive rights is a de-facto failure to protect negative rights. You don't protect a boat by drilling holes below the water line. Savvy?

Posted by: Randy | Feb 27, 2008 7:35:57 AM

Martin,

I'm not making comparisons. I don't think that the US is particularly libertarian and I think that it is becoming less so with every passing year. I also think that those who believe that liberty is a consequence of facism are making a huge mistake.

Posted by: Randy | Feb 27, 2008 7:41:20 AM

Do you see no moral distinction between a rapist & his victim fighting him off?

I see the conflation of this scenario with what we more commonly call "property". Rape was a crime in the Soviet Union as much it was in the United States in the twentieth century, so the distinction is simply irrelevant. It has nothing to do with the particular coercion you and prestable are discussing, because you're avoiding his point.

In nature, when you fight me off of some parcel of land you claim, you aren't defending the damsel in distress. You're defending your access to her from competitors.

Posted by: Martin Brock | Feb 27, 2008 7:41:59 AM

Philosophy is devoid of meaning. Consequences are not. It means nothing to believe that there is no such thing as property, but applying such a belief has consequences, and the larger the application the larger the consequences.

Posted by: Randy | Feb 27, 2008 8:02:58 AM

Marcus, are you calling the current United States a libertarian country? If so, that is contrary to most of the contributors to this site.

My first paragraph wasn't clear. I meant that you're living where it has been tried.

Posted by: Marcus | Feb 27, 2008 8:10:47 AM

Marcus, are you calling the current United States a libertarian country? If so, that is contrary to most of the contributors to this site.

My first paragraph wasn't clear. I meant that you're living where it has been tried.

Posted by: Marcus | Feb 27, 2008 8:10:48 AM

Quote from prestable: "I don't see why rights to property can be called any more legitimate as an inherent right than rights to healthcare."

The difference is where healthcare comes from. It comes from the labor and knowledge of other humans. If you claim to have a right to healthcare, then you're claiming a right to somebody elses actions.

What would happen if, by coincidence, all the doctors, nurses, hospitals, etc., decided to double their prices tomorrow? In a free market where healthcare is meerly a service not a right, most of them would probably find out that few people will be willing to pay for their services and probably reduce their prices, but there wouldn't be anything inherently wrong with doubling their prices, just not very smart.

But since you've declared healthcare as a right, then how could we allow the healthcare system to double there prices? How could we allow them to raise their prices at all? They're denying us our rights. They have to serve us, and the price is irrelavent. They'll get paid what we want to pay them. And if they quit, then we'll force them to serve. It's our right. And this is where the "right to healthcare" is heading.

Anytime you declare something a right, you're stating that its morally acceptable to use force to get it, to keep it, to take it. When you can explain how you'll do that with healthcare and without somehow coercing or oppressing somebody, then you can make it a right. Otherwise its just thuggery.

Posted by: Keith | Feb 27, 2008 8:11:33 AM

prestable said:

"In other words, why is it immoral to kill someone to enforce your right to property but not to enforce your right to healthcare? Yes, one is a negative right and the other is a positive one, but so what? There's no principled difference in why negative rights should be protected over positive ones, since both equally require coercion."

Both do not "equally" require coercion. You understand positive/negative rights, but lets still examine the nature of the requirements/demands being put on each person in each case. The defense of my property requires no positive obligation from anyone else. They simply need to refrain from invading it. My right to health care does require a positive obligation of others to administer the care and pay for it. The "equivalence" stops when we see that one is forced to undertake a positive act (provide healthcare or pay for it). The other is only forced to leave after initiating aggression. Not making these distinctions with respect to the INITIATION of violence puts the aggressive willful murderer in the same league with a homeowner who has killed an intruder via shotgun while breaking into his home. This difference of aggressor/defender is rooted in the history of natural law. This difference IS the essence of Libertarianism.

Posted by: I_am_a_lead_pencil | Feb 27, 2008 8:43:52 AM

It means nothing to believe that there is no such thing as property, but applying such a belief has consequences, and the larger the application the larger the consequences.

Of course, there is such a thing as property, but property certainly is not the absence of force in reality. It is the systematic application force.

Posted by: Martin Brock | Feb 27, 2008 9:05:57 AM

Muirgeo, democracy breeds plutocratic rule. For majority rule you simply need to convince the majority of something, and it takes lots of money to get that message out. Thus Plutocrats thrive in this scenario. Just about every politician is rich in terms of absolute wealth. Now add to that the ease which the plutocrats can implement bribes – like increasing social security benefits. That opens up the government bank account to further perpetrate Plutocratic rule.

I think the better system is to place difficult and strict limits on what the plutocratic rulers can impose. For example, the Iraq war. Why was this so easy for the current administration to undertake? Why doesn’t this type of action require a 2/3 vote in both houses? Why did this action require some piece of crap blank check legislation? Why, because people like you require a simple majority, and place too much power in the hands of government. You get what you ask for.

Most on this board want to limit the ability of government to implement trash programs. I have no problem wit the Federal Reserve, but I do have a problem with the Department of Education, Energy, and many others. I also have a problem with laws that limit the ability to defend oneself, and there are many such laws today.

Posted by: Mcwop | Feb 27, 2008 9:10:59 AM

The defense of my property requires no positive obligation from anyone else. They simply need to refrain from invading it.

The first sentence says there is no positive obligation. The second describes a positive obligation. "Invade" proves nothing but the circular assumption that it's "yours" definitively. Property is not yours definitively. It's yours because you hold it lawfully.

I recognize no "natural" perpetual right of possession. This notion is as unnatural as anything I can imagine.

My right to health care does require a positive obligation of others to administer the care and pay for it.

The "right to health care" is an obligation to carry health insurance. It doesn't imply any transfer, although "universal health insurance" essentially does imply some coercive charity.

The "equivalence" stops when we see that one is forced to undertake a positive act (provide healthcare or pay for it).

Denying me use of some parcel of land you claim is costly to me. I favor your denial of some space to me and my denial of some space to you, but that's beside the point. When you and I accept one another's space, we join forces systematically to deny the space to others. That's property, and that's the state. I'm not saying it's a bad thing, but I will not deny the coercive force. This denial is among the worst sins a libertarian commits.

Posted by: Martin Brock | Feb 27, 2008 9:22:41 AM

This difference of aggressor/defender is rooted in the history of natural law. This difference IS the essence of Libertarianism.

The idea that "defenders" are somehow more entitled to a territory than "aggressors" is not remotely natural. Property is rooted in this idea, but it's not therefore rooted in nature, and this idea is not the essence of liberty.

If "property" is synonymous with "liberty", then "life, liberty and property" is nonsensically redundant. "Liberty" definitively describes freedom within the bounds of propriety. Property is not freedom. It's the extent to which we aren't free. So it had better be useful.

Posted by: Martin Brock | Feb 27, 2008 9:32:04 AM

The 'right to health care' must mean that if I decide of my own cognizance to hire a doctor to provide me treatment that the police are not going to pound down my door and arrest me.

Yet, that is precisely what happens in socialists countries. Socialized medicine is not a 'right to health care' it is the surrender of that right. It is a surrender of that right to politicians and bureaucrats to ration health care for their own purposes.

Posted by: Marcus | Feb 27, 2008 9:51:21 AM

Denying me use of some parcel of land you claim is costly to me.

& on what do you base your claim to my property?

The "right to health care" is an obligation to carry health insurance.

What obligates me to carry health insurance?

If "property" is synonymous with "liberty", then "life, liberty and property" is nonsensically redundant.

Redundant, yes. It sure is. So?

Posted by: Hans Luftner | Feb 27, 2008 9:52:00 AM

I had just posted this on yesterday's blog, but I see it is equally appropriate here:
----
Personally I see the discussion about coercion as having reached the pinnacle of silliness.

That anyone would honestly try to make a case for defensive forceful action being coercive is definitly Orwellian.

Get a grip, go to your dictionary, read the definitions, and think about the meaning of coercion.

Posted by: vidyohs | Feb 27, 2008 9:37:54 AM

Posted by: vidyohs | Feb 27, 2008 9:52:17 AM

Martin,

"Property is not freedom. It's the extent to which we aren't free. So it had better be useful."

And it is nothing if people don't believe in it. Now why do you suppose that the state, or its propagandists, would go to such great lengths to get people to stop believing in property? Perhaps because they are interested in achieving some vision of a greater good? Well, I suppose that's one possibility...

Posted by: Randy | Feb 27, 2008 9:54:12 AM

The 'right to health care' must mean that if I decide of my own cognizance to hire a doctor to provide me treatment that the police are not going to pound down my door and arrest me.

No, in fact, it doesn't. You won't find anyone advocating this "right to health care". It's a straw man argument and has never been anything else.

Posted by: Martin Brock | Feb 27, 2008 9:59:00 AM

From the many comments I guess we could draw the conclusion that the libertarians are indeed the mother of all the “you-could-have-the-cake-and-eat-it-too” movements… “an orderly and cooperative total freedom”; and since this sounds so utterly attractive, I guess I must also declare myself a full libertarian.

But then again I guess someone will spoil my initiation party by reminding me that there are others that with their “collective freedoms” are selling promises that contain the same richness of possible fulfillments.

And then we wake up to the reality that in so many ways these groups are all just the same… all wanting to “eat –our-cake-and-have-our-cake too”.

Posted by: Per Kurowski | Feb 27, 2008 10:01:42 AM

No, in fact, it doesn't.

Of course it does. It is part of the freedom to freely associate with who you choose.

You won't find anyone advocating this "right to health care".

Of course you can find people advocating it.

It's a straw man argument and has never been anything else.

Please, 'straw man' is what your post is.

Posted by: Marcus | Feb 27, 2008 10:03:19 AM

"You won't find anyone advocating this "right to health care"."

Perhaps not here, but elsewhere, that is precisely what they are arguing. See FDRs four freedoms speech - the bill of positive rights.

Posted by: Randy | Feb 27, 2008 10:15:33 AM

& on what do you base your claim to my property?

I haven't claimed your property. When did you stop beating your wife?

What obligates me to carry health insurance?

In my neck of the woods, nothing obligates you at the moment. That's the question. Are you to be obligated or not?

Redundant, yes. It sure is. So?

It's not redundant, because the classical liberals didn't construct a nonsensical system predicated on circular logic. They understood the difference between liberty and property.

Posted by: Martin Brock | Feb 27, 2008 10:15:35 AM

Now why do you suppose that the state, or its propagandists, would go to such great lengths to get people to stop believing in property?

No state in my neck of the woods has ever gone to any lengths to get people to stop believing in property. That's just a rhetorical game that politicians play around here.

Posted by: Martin Brock | Feb 27, 2008 10:25:13 AM

I haven't claimed your property. When did you stop beating your wife?

Idiot. You had said:

Denying me use of some parcel of land you claim is costly to me.

If you have no claim to my property, & thus no right to use my property, how can my failure to provide free access to my property be costing you anything? Costing you what? Use of my property, which you have no claim over?

In my neck of the woods, nothing obligates you at the moment. That's the question. Are you to be obligated or not?

I'm not. That was easy.

They understood the difference between liberty and property.

They weren't gods, you know. Perhaps they had an incomplete understanding of this, as they had of other things.

Posted by: Hans Luftner | Feb 27, 2008 10:30:55 AM

Perhaps not here, but elsewhere, that is precisely what they are arguing. See FDRs four freedoms speech - the bill of positive rights.

As Martin was replying to my post perhaps you can help me out here. In what way is the 'four freedoms' speech related to my post?

Posted by: Marcus | Feb 27, 2008 10:32:22 AM

Freedom, free will, and individual choice are the natural right of each individual human.

An intelligent man realizes that natural rights only work, or exist, if each free individual exercises self discipline, self restraint, self responsiblity, and self sufficiency.

Freedom, free will, and individual choice are not given up when one voluntarily blends ones actions or activities in with those of his fellow man. The act of blending is an expression of that freedom, free will, and individual choice. Any restrictions upon personal actions or expression by the one voluntarily offering to blend are, and should be, self administered and self enforced.

One who blends with "society" in that manner is one who is, and remains, truly free.

What the individual has freely offered may equally be

freely withdrawn if, and when, "society" indicates coercive behavior towards the individual(s).

I believe that this is the ultimate goal of intelligent men.

And, I also believe that people who are free and know it is what terrifies the socialist/communist/liberal/progressive/democrat the most.

Posted by: vidyohs | Feb 27, 2008 10:33:26 AM

Martin Brock pithily writes "Why would anyone change the subject from the world's highest incarceration rate to this irrelevant straw man?"

This thread's subject is NOT high incarceration rates. And YOU are the one who brought up Norway's GDP.

Brilliant analysis. Keep it up.

Posted by: Python | Feb 27, 2008 10:35:59 AM

Of course it does. It is part of the freedom to freely associate with who you choose.

Above, you write, "The 'right to health care' must mean that if I decide of my own cognizance to hire a doctor to provide me treatment that the police are not going to pound down my door and arrest me." This statement is the actual point of contention here.

Of course you can find people advocating it.

In reality, real people don't really advocate policemen pounding down your door and arresting you if you decide of your own cognizance to hire a doctor. Even in the U.K., where the N.H.S. is a state agency employing doctors directly (a system unique to the U.K. in Europe and rarely even proposed in the U.S.), you may employ doctors outside the system.

Please, 'straw man' is what your post is.

Please, 'straw man' is what your post is.

Posted by: Martin Brock | Feb 27, 2008 10:39:54 AM

From the many comments I guess we could draw the conclusion that the libertarians are indeed the mother of all the “you-could-have-the-cake-and-eat-it-too” movements…

How so? Could you explain how you've reached this conclusion?

Posted by: Hans Luftner | Feb 27, 2008 10:39:57 AM

Not to change any direction or subject, but I wouldn't want martinduck to miss this that I sent late last evening:
-------------
Hey martinduck,

I just got home from a loooong day of work and a nice Indian dinner with some friends.

Okay, buddy, are you ready? Please bend over and take a big gob of vaseoline and rub it over the hidden parts that are about to be stuffed, don't want you to squeal too loudly.

http://www.constitution.org/uslaw/coinage1792.txt

The coinage act of 1792, my sad sad friend.
--------

Still want to insist that moeny is not defined in U.S. law, plus its weight and purity established by same law?

Posted by: vidyohs | Feb 27, 2008 10:43:11 AM

This thread's subject is NOT high incarceration rates. And YOU are the one who brought up Norway's GDP.

My reference to incarceration immediately follows Randy's. My reference to Norway's GDP immediately follows my reference to Norway's incarceration rate. I draw no conclusions from Norway's GDP, only noting that it's higher than U.S. GDP per capita despite the much lower incarceration rate. You then accuse me of drawing unspecified conclusions.

Posted by: Martin Brock | Feb 27, 2008 10:46:23 AM

OK, I misunderstood your post, thanks.

Yet, socialized countries do forbid private practice. I believe that was the case in Canada though my understanding is that they are relaxing those rules.

There was a recent article on cases in England where patients may not supplement their socialized care with private care. Apparently, it is all or nothing.

Posted by: Marcus | Feb 27, 2008 10:51:27 AM

We recognize that rights in land property is more productive than otherwise. Otherwise government would end up owning all the land.

Oh.

What was the original post about?

Oh yeah, it stemmed from the earlier post on tribal instincts and cults. In our constitutional republic, we see that we have formed personality cults with interchangeable personalities.

So the Democratic cult is deciding which of two will be their offering for the next Great Leader and the Republican cult is waiting to see how many delegates John McCain will have by the convention to offer him up as the next Great Leader.

Peace and harmony (relatively speaking) will reign as long as the losing cult knows they will get another chance.

BTW, 'coercive charity' is an oxymoron.

Posted by: Sam Grove | Feb 27, 2008 10:55:19 AM

Marcus,

Sorry, not sure which post Martin was referring to. It was just the statement that caught my eye. I visit left blogs too and they routinely refer to a "right to healthcare". FDR's "Freedom from want" is just one of the most well known expressions of the idea of positive rights.

Posted by: Randy | Feb 27, 2008 10:58:49 AM

Randy, that's OK. I misunderstood his post. Now that I have it straight in my mind both his post and your post make more sense. Thanks.

Posted by: Marcus | Feb 27, 2008 11:00:54 AM

Martin,

"No state in my neck of the woods has ever gone to any lengths to get people to stop believing in property."

Denial ain't just a river in Egypt, buddy.

Posted by: Randy | Feb 27, 2008 11:08:26 AM

I haven't claimed your property. When did you stop beating your wife?

Idiot. You had said:

Denying me use of some parcel of land you claim is costly to me.

You are rather begging the question here - the point is that your claim to property denies others the use of that property. That, I believe, is the cost referred to. I think the fundamental question lies in the right to property - i.e. the right to deny others the use of certain resources.

Unless we can establish a right to property, then state defence of property rights is just as coercive as any other state intervention.

A man with a gun preventing starving peasants from reaching the only apple tree is surely being oppressive. On what grounds (apart from his monopoly of violence) does he have a right to access the tree that others do not share?

Perhaps - and here I am speculating, since I am not well versed in libertarian thought - a pragmatic acceptance that some form of property rights are necessary for any form of functioning society (whether the property is held by the individual or the state) precededs all other arguments about state intervention?

Posted by: John | Feb 27, 2008 11:10:15 AM

I'm not arguing for state intervention. The state can shove it.

Posted by: Hans Luftner | Feb 27, 2008 11:18:15 AM

Martin Brock says "My reference to incarceration immediately follows Randy's."

And my reference to Norway immediately followed yours.

Your point is what again? That you can go follow up on tangents and I can't?

Posted by: Python | Feb 27, 2008 11:21:40 AM

Without property there cannot be trade. What would we trade?

Property rights are what allow me to enjoy the fruits of my labor. How does me having the right to enjoy the fruits of my labor cost you anything at all?

Posted by: Marcus | Feb 27, 2008 11:22:07 AM

prestable writes: That's why I don't accept libertarianism as you describe it: it rests on an inconsistent moral basis. It assumes the very thing it is arguing: that some rights are "right" (e.g. to property) and should be enforced with coercion, but others are "wrong" (e.g. to healthcare) and should not.

prestable, circularity is not the same as inconsistency. Many trivial proofs in mathematics can reasonably be called circular (e.g. the derivation of axioms from themselves), but this does not make them inconsistent, or the theory they reside in inconsistent.

prestable writes: That's why I'm a Milton Friedman-style libertarian/utilitarian. Markets are the best system because they maximize social welfare--not because their process is somehow inherently moral, a proposition that cannot be justified.

prestable, if you are a libertarian utilitarian, then you yourself already derive libertarian conclusions from utilitarian principles, and therefore from principles, which is the challenge you put to us. So you have already met your own challenge. And yet, you claim that the challenge cannot be met. Either your own position is incoherent or your description of yourself as a utilitarian libertarian is not quite accurate.

As an aside, utilitarianism is anathema to me. I consider it a hasty and ultimately erroneous foundation for morality. I have an alternative basis of morality, which is however too involved to explain in a comment.

Posted by: Constant | Feb 27, 2008 11:40:52 AM

I'm not arguing for state intervention. The state can shove it.

Do you perhaps intend to enforce your own property rights? Seriously, I'm quite interested in libertarianism, but can someone please explain to me the philosophical underpinnings of property rights?

Without property there cannot be trade. What would we trade?

I quite agree - but that merely presents a further question - who gets to trade? Why does person A get to trade resource 'X', whilst person 'B' does not?

Property rights are what allow me to enjoy the fruits of my labor. How does me having the right to enjoy the fruits of my labor cost you anything at all?

By denying me, or someone else, access to the resources you use to create the fruits of your labour.

Surely property rights are merely a form of pragmatic, implicit agreement between people . They are perpetuated and exploited by those whom they benefit, to the exclusion of the dispossessed. As such, in what way are they qualitatively different from, say, an explicit agreement between people to provide universal healthcare?

Posted by: John | Feb 27, 2008 11:47:57 AM

Martin Brock writes: I see the conflation of this scenario with what we more commonly call "property". Rape was a crime in the Soviet Union as much it was in the United States in the twentieth century, so the distinction is simply irrelevant.

Martin, it is relevant to prestable's argument. Prestable's position is that "There's no principled difference in why negative rights should be protected over positive ones, since both equally require coercion."

This applies equally well to rape and to robbery, and so both rape and robbery are equally good cases to use in challenging prestable's view.

Posted by: Constant | Feb 27, 2008 11:57:39 AM

And my reference to Norway immediately followed yours.

And I haven't accused you of straying too far from the topic.

Your point is what again? That you can go follow up on tangents and I can't?

We're discussing your point now, whatever it is. My point following Randy's was that the U.S. has the world's highest incarcerate rate. I made this point following Randy's assertion that we're free insofar as many of us are not in jail. This standard of "freedom" is Randy's, not mine, but I do think we jail far too many people. It's a terrible, tragic waste.

Without property there cannot be trade. What would we trade?

I never anywhere oppose property or trade.

Property rights are what allow me to enjoy the fruits of my labor. How does me having the right to enjoy the fruits of my labor cost you anything at all?

Property is not only the fruits of labor, but I don't oppose trading other property either.

Forcible propriety is always costly to subjects of the force. In nature, lions often take the prey of cheetahs, because the cheetah is faster, but the lion is stronger, and the cheetah is not faster carrying its prey. Prohibiting this taking would be costly to lions, just as the cheetah's taking is costly to gazelles. Gazelles also take things. Men take most of all, because we have all of these guns and other technology.

Posted by: Martin Brock | Feb 27, 2008 12:05:57 PM

Do you perhaps intend to enforce your own property rights?

Yes, or those I contract to do so. A kindly neighbor is welcome to help out too. Good people look after each other, if they chose.

By denying me, or someone else, access to the resources you use to create the fruits of your labour.

That assumes that you, or someone else, has a claim to those resources. To assume such a claim is to affirm the idea of property rights in the first place.

As such, in what way are they qualitatively different from, say, an explicit agreement between people to provide universal healthcare?

Nothing, unless your universal health care plan requires I contribute against my will, or impedes my freedom to associate with whomever agrees to associate with me.

Posted by: Hans Luftner | Feb 27, 2008 12:06:26 PM

prestable:

Markets are the best system because they maximize social welfare--not because their process is somehow inherently moral, a proposition that cannot be justified.

Constant:

... you yourself already derive libertarian conclusions from utilitarian principles, and therefore from principles, which is the challenge you put to us. So you have already met your own challenge. And yet, you claim that the challenge cannot be met.

The challenge that can't be met is a demonstration that libertarian principles are "inherently moral", not a demonstration that utilitarian principles imply libertarian principles. Utilitarianism itself is an ethical system that is not derived but rests on assumptions that utilitarians share, namely that human satisfaction or happiness is the goal of social organization. Other goals, like profit in commerce, are means to this end. Utilitarians don't say that optimal happiness is "inherently moral", but it is how I define "morality" essentially.

Clearly, the ignorance of central authorities severely limits their ability to plan an optimal organization. Maybe Mill understood this point better than Bentham.

I have an alternative basis of morality, which is however too involved to explain in a comment.

Do tell. My father has one too, but I'm essentially still a utilitarian with caveats.

Posted by: Martin Brock | Feb 27, 2008 12:34:03 PM

Martin,

You sound like the kind of person that I have tried very carefully to avoid. Your method of communication is both snide and illogical.

"We're discussing your point now, whatever it is."

That is the point!! You only discuss what you want to discuss. You are the X@#*$ who brought up Norway and you don't have the stones to defend why you did. You say you weren't making a point. Then why did you bring it up?

Why didn't you just say: "We jail more than the French. And French wine is better."

You failed in a miserable attempt to link incarceration with something else. Your comment was the pointless part. I called you on it. First you said I was changing the subject, but wait that was you. Then you say I don't have a point, but wait that was you.

Ever since you had no clue why forced thermostat setting was a bad idea I have observed from a distance you trying to muck up this board with your narrow mind. If you have something to say, try to it without the unabashed arrogance that shows you aren't trying to communicate but only to lecture.

If you have any etiquette at all, please explain why you brought up Norway in the first place.

Posted by: Python | Feb 27, 2008 12:34:59 PM

Hans, we seem to be having a problem with definitions. As I see it, if you have a claim on a resource, you deny that resource to another person. That other person does not need to make any explicit claim on that property for your claim to deny them access.

For example, you claim to own the land situated at 110 Acacia Avenue. By making this claim you are presumably preventing others from exploiting that land as a resource, whether or not they ever had any intention of using it. It is your claim which expropriates the land - the very concept of property denies others the (potential) use of that resource.

I, an innocent, with no concept of property rights, could come along and sit on the land you claim. By what right do you (or the state, on your behalf) remove me?

Nothing, unless your universal health care plan requires I contribute against my will, or impedes my freedom to associate with whomever agrees to associate with me.

And what is the qualitative difference between using coercion to make you contribute against your will and coercion to prevent the dispossessed from gaining access to resources - when we have not yet established that you have a greater right to those resources than they do?

Incidentally, as a practical matter, do you think that you would be able to muster a sufficient monopoly of force to enforce your property rights without the aid of some form of state?

Posted by: John | Feb 27, 2008 12:46:02 PM

What is 'moral'?

Perhaps it's best illustrated by the golden rule.

"Treat others as you want to be treated."

So for libertarians, the society we work for is one were property rights aren't enforced, they're respected.

Yes, I know, we have a long way to go.

Posted by: Sam Grove | Feb 27, 2008 12:46:45 PM

What is a claim to property if not a right to access & use that property?

If two people wish to use the same resource, assuming it's scarce, then there is a conflict. The one with the right to use the resource as he sees fit is the owner of that resource. Whether his claim to ownership is valid depends on how he acquires this resource. If no one else had a valid claim, he can homestead it. If a previous owner trades it, or gives it to him, that is also valid. We can debate what constitutes a valid claim to property, but to suggest that to own property is to initiate violence against everyone else is to suggest that there is no such thing as scarcity, or that merely sitting quietly in a field is violent because no one else can sit where you're sitting. It's silly.

Incidentally, as a practical matter, do you think that you would be able to muster a sufficient monopoly of force to enforce your property rights without the aid of some form of state?

So far, in my entire life, I've managed to do so, with one exception: the state repeatedly violates my property rights.

Posted by: Hans Luftner | Feb 27, 2008 1:11:47 PM

Muirgeo,

You've been posting here too long to ask such clueless questions.

Posted by: John V | Feb 27, 2008 1:13:57 PM

Please John V, which clueless question were you referring to?

Posted by: Sam Grove | Feb 27, 2008 1:27:13 PM

Hans - thank you, now I'm getting somewhere.

The one with the right to use the resource as he sees fit is the owner of that resource. Whether his claim to ownership is valid depends on how he acquires this resource.

In this case 'owner' is just a placeholder for 'he who has the right to the property'. So I agree that how such a right is acquired is paramount.

If no one else had a valid claim, he can homestead it

I think you may have to expand upon this - homesteading has long passed from the collective consciousness in my homeland :-)
How does sitting on a piece of land entitle you not only to the immediate fruits of your labour, but the right to assign all future rights to the land?

If a previous owner trades it, or gives it to him, that is also valid.

That merely sends the question back one generation. How do we ground these property rights?

to suggest that to own property is to initiate violence against everyone else

I don't think I did - I am suggesting that without some other justification of property rights, excluding the dispossessed by use of coercive force or the threat of such force is the use force as a justification.

So far, in my entire life, I've managed to do so, with one exception: the state repeatedly violates my property rights.

Do you then live in a society without any property laws, courts, judiciary, police or armed forces with the monopoly on violence that generally discourages individuals who might otherwise consider seperating you from the property you claim?

Posted by: John | Feb 27, 2008 1:34:26 PM

Marcus,

Posted by: muirgeo | Feb 26, 2008 5:47:09 PM

You are only posting this because YOUR dictator would be winning(Obama). If it were my guy, you'd cry dictatorship and say let's bring down the republic. At least be honest.

Posted by: FreedomLover | Feb 27, 2008 1:54:45 PM

Posted by: Lee Kelly | Feb 26, 2008 7:43:10 PM

You've read 1984 I see, and learned its lessons well. Those that control the media, can redefine all the terminology to suit their agenda. Newspeak is upon us.

Posted by: FreedomLover | Feb 27, 2008 1:57:03 PM

You sound like the kind of person that I have tried very carefully to avoid. Your method of communication is both snide and illogical.

Like you avoid me in this post? I'll take my logic lessons elsewhere, but I don't want to make you unhappy.

Posted by: Martin Brock | Feb 27, 2008 1:58:37 PM

Posted by: Sam Grove | Feb 26, 2008 10:34:50 PM

Ah Sam, but they can and they will that you and I must "contribute" to the pot of national health care. That's the tyranny that's soon to befall us. I weep for America.

Posted by: FreedomLover | Feb 27, 2008 1:59:01 PM

When Martin goes on about the coerciveness of modern property rights, he's not telling the truth. America in 2008 is not the Wild, Wild West where you have many potentially legitimate claims on a parcel of land. 100% of the land is deeded now, and the only legitimate way to obtain it is to pay the market price. Now if Martin will dispute that fact, he's really insane.

Posted by: FreedomLover | Feb 27, 2008 2:06:32 PM

Sam Grove,

Take your pick. I'm just not going there. No worth it.

Posted by: John V | Feb 27, 2008 2:22:03 PM

If you have any etiquette at all, please explain why you brought up Norway in the first place.

Review the record.

Randy raises incarceration. He says, "we are libertarian to the extent that many of us are not in jail."

I note that the U.S. has the highest incarceration rate of any nation and give two other nations for comparison, the U.K. and Norway. I give Norway, because Norway has one of the lowest incarceration rates. Thus by Randy's standard (not mine), Norway is far more libertarian than the U.S. and also has comparable productivity

Also because Wikipedia compares incarceration rates in the U.K. and Norway to the U.S rate, but that sounds so much less snide.

I thought that was clear from the context. I hope my etiquette is acceptable now.

Posted by: Martin Brock | Feb 27, 2008 2:26:18 PM

When Martin goes on about the coerciveness of modern property rights, he's not telling the truth.

Property rights are coercive because they're forcible proprieties. I do not oppose property rights. I favor property rights. It's just that I don't pretend to be an anarchist, because denying force is counterproductive for someone who values liberty.

America in 2008 is not the Wild, Wild West where you have many potentially legitimate claims on a parcel of land.

Irrelevant. The very fact that you qualify "claim" with "potentially legitimate" shows that you don't mean what you say. How do I know which claim is legitimate? I ask you?

100% of the land is deeded now, and the only legitimate way to obtain it is to pay the market price.

As John Locke clearly understood, the fact I may not simply go out on the frontier and start farming somewhere is evidence that titles to property are coercive. You somehow reach the opposite conclusion. I'll stick with Locke.

Now if Martin will dispute that fact, he's really insane.

You assert no fact. You define terms to make your preconceived tautologies "true". Never mind that uniformed men walk around with guns largely to remind me that violating your lawful claim subjects me to harm. That's not "coercion" in your lexicon, because you write "legitimate" here, like all statesmen don't declare every one of their enactments "legitimate".

Posted by: Martin Brock | Feb 27, 2008 2:51:04 PM

So what Randy was saying, is that in some regard, the U.S. is not very libertarian.

Posted by: Sam Grove | Feb 27, 2008 2:52:12 PM

Nothing less than 100% participation will satisfy the socialist.

This 100% participation rule is precisely why property rights imply a state. No one gets to opt out of the collective compact whereby title holders declare and defend their proprietary rights.

But a 100% participation rule clearly does not imply "socialism".

Posted by: Martin Brock | Feb 27, 2008 3:04:28 PM

But a 100% participation rule clearly does not imply "socialism".

But socialism does imply 100% participation.

Posted by: Sam Grove | Feb 27, 2008 3:07:49 PM

Yes, Sam

It's implies 100% participation by those who want to engage in it.

Posted by: John V | Feb 27, 2008 3:20:05 PM

Sam Grove,

Yes, that's pretty much what I'm saying. But also that the few freedoms we still have are a measure of the extent to which we are still libertarian. How long this will last... I don't know. We can resist but I fear we are heavily outnumbered.

P.S. I was just thinking on my walk today, that socialism is what people with no faith in themselves think they want, and facism is what they get - and what they deserve.

Posted by: Randy | Feb 27, 2008 3:33:43 PM

It's implies 100% participation by those who want to engage in it.

And when it is government policy, participation by those who don't want to engage in it.

Posted by: Sam Grove | Feb 27, 2008 3:43:19 PM

But socialism does imply 100% participation.

I'll go along with that. "Socialism" has described a critique of capitalism more than a well defined alternative, but I understand it to mean "central planning of the economy" broadly.

Posted by: Martin Brock | Feb 27, 2008 3:58:34 PM

Martin Brock writes: The challenge that can't be met is a demonstration that libertarian principles are "inherently moral", not a demonstration that utilitarian principles imply libertarian principles.

Martin, the task you and prestable set up is a logically impossible one for anyone to meet, let alone libertarians, and so in the end it shows nothing against libertarianism. If libertarians defend their principles without deriving them from something that stands outside of their principles, then they are accused of circularity, and it is implied that this a problem with libertarianism. But if, to address this objection, they derive their principles from something that stands outside of their principles, then their principles are said not to be "inherently moral", and it is implied that this is a problem with libertarianism.

You and prestable have set up a challenge that no one could logically meet. Your attack is thus shown to be empty (unless you want to be understood as attacking all of human knowledge).

Posted by: Constant | Feb 27, 2008 3:59:24 PM

Martin,

Anyone who says "Norway jails less, Norway has a higher GDP" then claims to be basing that sentence on someone else's concepts is just a whack job. Good luck with your unfounded arrogance, I'm sure your friends love it.

Posted by: Python | Feb 27, 2008 4:03:32 PM

The challenge that can't be met is a demonstration that libertarian principles are "inherently moral"

First we must define 'moral'.

I define morality as those internalized principles of behavior that produce social harmony.

The goal - social harmony
the means - moral principles

Posted by: Sam Grove | Feb 27, 2008 4:08:55 PM

I haven't claimed your property. When did you stop beating your wife?
Idiot. You had said:

Denying me use of some parcel of land you claim is costly to me.

Denying me use of some parcel of land you claim is costly to me, and I haven't claimed your property. This conjunction is not a contradiction.

If you have no claim to my property, & thus no right to use my property, how can my failure to provide free access to my property be costing you anything? Costing you what? Use of my property, which you have no claim over?

That you may deny me use of a parcel land is simply what "your property" in the parcel means. The cost is the same cost a statesman imposes on you by simply handing the title to me instead. You then call the statesmen a "thief" or an "idiot", and he smiles and raises his weapon, and you're off. It happens all the time.

You are rather begging the question here - the point is that your claim to property denies others the use of that property. That, I believe, is the cost referred to. I think the fundamental question lies in the right to property - i.e. the right to deny others the use of certain resources.

I beg no question, and it's not simply the claim. It's the denial of use.

Unless we can establish a right to property, then state defence of property rights is just as coercive as any other state intervention.

States establish forcible rights. That's what states do. Your assertion of some "property" not established by a state is just your assertion. Assert anything you like. You're no different than people claiming that health care is an "inalienable right".

You and I might agree on certain standards governing exclusive rights to parcels of land. If we manage to establish these standards forcibly despite contrary claims, then we are the statutory authorities.

A man with a gun preventing starving peasants from reaching the only apple tree is surely being oppressive. On what grounds (apart from his monopoly of violence) does he have a right to access the tree that others do not share?

"What right?" is a question for a lawyer in this man's jurisdiction. If you're asking me what I would do personally as a starving peasant, I'd get together with a few of the other starving peasants, carry some pitchforks onto the man's land and pick some apples. With our bellies full, we might sit down with the man and discuss a truce, and we might divide his parcel or discuss some other governance, like fiefs or shares or rents. The we'd let the lawyers know.

You know that property developed this way. Right?

Perhaps - and here I am speculating, since I am not well versed in libertarian thought - a pragmatic acceptance that some form of property rights are necessary for any form of functioning society (whether the property is held by the individual or the state) precededs all other arguments about state intervention?

In my way of thinking, property rights are themselves a state intervention. Until we have a state, we don't have any property rights. We have various natural patterns, like territoriality, but that's not a property right. There is nothing fundamentally "improper" about a lion eating the gazelle that a cheetah runs down and kills.

Posted by: Martin Brock | Feb 27, 2008 4:40:24 PM

Martin:

It's pretty clear you are invoking the "law of the jungle" to invalidate our modern system of law. Just being clear here. I can't see what point you're trying to make other then it used to be like that, and it's not anymore.

Posted by: FreedomLover | Feb 27, 2008 4:59:56 PM

Martin, the task you and prestable set up is a logically impossible one for anyone to meet, let alone libertarians, and so in the end it shows nothing against libertarianism.

I haven't set any task for you, and I'm a libertarian myself.

If libertarians defend their principles without deriving them from something that stands outside of their principles, then they are accused of circularity, and it is implied that this a problem with libertarianism.

A libertarianism as an axiomatic system is not fundamentally circular. Murray Rothbard may be completely consistent and never argue in circles, but I needn't accept all of his assumptions. His understanding of money never impressed me.

Various arguments in this thread are circular.

But if, to address this objection, they derive their principles from something that stands outside of their principles, then their principles are said not to be "inherently moral", and it is implied that this is a problem with libertarianism.

For me, libertarianism is not an ethical system. It's a political system. Rights to life, liberty and property are rules I want enforced, not the ethical rationale for enforcing them. "Property" particularly begs a lot of questions.

If you want to specify a set of rules governing forcible propriety and call these rules your "ethics" definitively, you can do that, and the rules need not be circular. I might specify different rules. Unless one of us is a monarch, the difference is academic.

Posted by: Martin Brock | Feb 27, 2008 5:02:05 PM

Martin:

I just want to understand one thing, do you disapprove of our current rule of law governing property rights? You clearly did say before that you are glad that your property is protected.

Posted by: FreedomLover | Feb 27, 2008 5:05:03 PM

It's pretty clear you are invoking the "law of the jungle" to invalidate our modern system of law. Just being clear here.

You aren't being clear at all. I've done no such thing. I don't believe our modern system of law to be invalid.

I can't see what point you're trying to make other then it used to be like that, and it's not anymore.

My point is that it used to be like that before men developed standard systems of forcible propriety, and these systems imply a state, because they are standard.

Posted by: Martin Brock | Feb 27, 2008 5:05:51 PM

I just want to understand one thing, do you disapprove of our current rule of law governing property rights? You clearly did say before that you are glad that your property is protected.

I feel I have answered this question dozens of times now. All I'm saying here is that I'm not an anarchist. Anarcho-capitalism or "market anarchy" or "property anarchy" makes no sense systematically, because these systems always presume standards of propriety that are not agreeable to everyone just because their proponents declare them so. I'm a minarchist. I do advocate a limited state enforcing particular proprieties.

Posted by: Martin Brock | Feb 27, 2008 5:11:32 PM

Martin wrote, "You're no different than people claiming that health care is an "inalienable right".

I'm going to pick this one sentence out of your post to reply to.

Earlier I wrote that if their is a 'right' to health care then it must mean that if I decide of my own cognizance to hire a doctor to provide me with treatment that the police are not going to pound down my door and arrest me.

Now compare that right to the right of property. The right of private property does not mean that you can expect to have property given to you. You have to buy it, in the market.

Yet, that's what liberals are asking for when they say 'right to health care'.

Of course they have they right to health care, the right to buy it.

Posted by: Marcus | Feb 27, 2008 5:13:52 PM

And "current rule of law governing property rights" describes a hell of a lot, including all of the taxes we pay. No, I don't approve of all of these laws.

Posted by: Martin Brock | Feb 27, 2008 5:14:03 PM

Re-reading my previous post I see I really mangled it in the editing. I'll try again.

There is a difference between the right to private property as it's practiced and the 'right' to health care as liberals are asking for it.

The right to private property is not a right to have property given to you. Yet, that is what liberals are asking for with the 'right' to health care.

Posted by: Marcus | Feb 27, 2008 5:30:58 PM

Earlier I wrote that if their is a 'right' to health care then it must mean that if I decide of my own cognizance to hire a doctor to provide me with treatment that the police are not going to pound down my door and arrest me.

O.K. That's one construction of a "right" to health care. I don't advocate a "right" to health care myself.

Now compare that right to the right of property. The right of private property does not mean that you can expect to have property given to you. You have to buy it, in the market.

Treasury notes are property, and when I hold one, I expect to have more property given to me as long as I hold it.

Yet, that's what liberals are asking for when they say 'right to health care'.
Of course they have they right to health care, the right to buy it.

They advocate an obligation to be insured plus some obligatory charity toward people who can't afford a policy. Again, the obligation is not fundamentally different from the obligation of a driver to carry liability insurance, which I support. The risk of accident is real and costly. Expecting drivers to bear this cost is no more fundamentally unreasonable than expecting them to bear the cost of roads. If someone damages my property with a car, I expect compensation.

The obligatory charity is nothing new, because emergency rooms are already required by law to provide health care to the indigent, and hospitals simply pass this cost on to other patients. What's new is the obligation.

Posted by: Martin Brock | Feb 27, 2008 5:31:30 PM

What I think Martin is saying is that property (likewise territory) involves the cost of security and a common system for delineating securing property is a state, in the sense of the term; the way things are.

So if we don't want to live in a state of nature, then we must live in a civil state; an organized and universally accepted method for establishing property rights which may involve the threat of force against those who disregard the property rights of others.

In this regard, the problem for libertarians is to distinguish between a civil state; one established to protect everyone's property rights, and a predatory state in which the enforcement mechanism of the state is used violate the property rights of some for the benefit of others, that is, a mercantilist state.

Then, a free market requires a civil state (whatever form it may take), while a socialist state necessarily is mercantilist and effectively totalitarian.

Posted by: Sam Grove | Feb 27, 2008 5:37:25 PM

Martin,

Treasury notes are property, and when I hold one, I expect to have more property given to me as long as I hold it.

No, you don't hold it, you lend it. You are letting somebody else use that property to generate more wealth for them and you.

Again, the obligation is not fundamentally different from the obligation of a driver to carry liability insurance, which I support.

Yet, when those laws were passed one of the arguments was that driving is a priviledge, not right.

The risk of accident is real and costly. Expecting drivers to bear this cost is no more fundamentally unreasonable than expecting them to bear the cost of roads.

Before the those laws were passed I could protect myself with 'uninsured motorists' coverage. Now that the la

Cafe Hayek

where orders emerge

Links

Econtalk

Blogroll

Categories

February 26, 2008

Orders and Organizations

TrackBack

Comments