The Unseen Violation
by Joseph Rowlands
Note: I wrote this years ago. Can't seem to find it published online. Not sure if it was ever published.
In Henry Hazlitt's Economics in One Lesson, he focuses on the different effects that are caused by particular economic policies. Specifically, he shows that some actions are very visible and people tend to look only at those. There's a second class of effects that are unseen. In his broken window example, he explains that by breaking a window, the owner will have to replace it, thus providing additional business to the glass-maker. What's not seen is that the owner of the window would have spent his money on a new suit if the window hadn't been broken, and now the tailor is losing business.
The idea of an unseen effect is important in the realm of politics as well. When someone violates the rights of one man, there's often an unseen victim of this rights abuse. We don't always see it because the victim of the rights violation is always very visible. If the government throws a man in jail, it's clear who they're hurting. Or is it?
Take the issue of minimum wage. In theory, the government makes it illegal for an employer to pay someone below a particular price. The use of force is allegedly directed at the employer because he's the one who would go to jail. But what's really going on is that the government is outlawing a particular kind of trade. And a trade is always between two parties, not one.
The result is that the government is making it illegal for someone to offer their services at less than minimum wage. You're not allowed to take a job unless you convince an employer that you're worth more than some particular amount. This is why some people view minimum wage laws as an attack on the poor. It's like trying to starve out the most unskilled labor. In this case, the potential-employee is the unseen victim of the law. The threat of force is applied to one party, but it's as if they applied it to the second party as well.
Is this unseen victim really having his rights violated? Well, let's change the example to something more clear. What if the government targeted you specifically. They decided they want you to starve. But instead of actually disallowing you to work for people or to buy food, they disallow others from hiring you or selling you food. They have government officials walking around you preventing anyone from giving you food. They incarcerate anyone who tries to provide you a value through charity or trade. Now, who's the victim here? The force is never targeted at you, but isn't it your rights that are being violated as well?
Or to take another example. What if the government passes a law that requires discrimination based on skin color. A restaurant may be forced to legally segregate their customers. Or worse, are required to not provide service to customers of a particular skin color. This could be applied to every customer. Do you really think that people will complain that this is harmful to the businesses, and that they are being forced to give up some of their business? Or would people attack this law for what it does to the people of that skin color? Who's rights are being violated?
Of course it never really happens like this. Usually the victim of this indirect force is less visible. In the case of the minimum wage laws, you can see the people who must obey the law. You don't see the other victims because they're prevented from appearing. Those who can't get jobs at the minimum wage are never seen.
Are there other cases of unseen victims? Naturally. In fact, whenever trade is regulated or outlawed, you have two sets of victims. And almost always, only one of them is the visible target.
Take the case of a tariff. The government charges some fee or percentage to any foreign citizen who attempts to sell good into our country. For a long time, this was seen as only costing the foreigners money. There is an unseen victim, though. In this case, it's the citizens of the country with the tariffs. To pay the tariff, the foreign companies must sell their goods at a higher price. The end result is that the customer must pay more for their goods. The use of force is directed both externally, and internally.
The outright theft of property is another example of the unseen victim. When a country's government decides it wants to give communism a shot (too many well-fed, living people for their taste), and nationalizes all the property, there are plenty of unseen victims. Everyone who could have traded with those people are now cut off. Everyone who would have benefited from cooperation with those people would be hurt.
Are the above examples genuine violations of the rights of the unseen victim? Imagine the consequences if they are. No longer could we look at the violations of rights in other countries with apathy. We'd realize that although the targets are the citizens of other countries, nonetheless we are victims as well. Whenever one man's life or wealth is taken, it should be seen as an indirect attack on our own.
Even if you conclude that these are not actual violations of rights for the unseen victim, you should be aware that an attack on anyone's rights has negative consequences to your own life. There is a harmony of interests, and our lives are intertwined with others. We may not be the immediate victim, but our lives will be negatively impacted by the coercion of others.
Discuss this Article (8 messages)
|
