RoR: Forum

The continuation of the Rothbard passage above:

"Suppose, for example, that there are many competing cantaloupe stores in a particular neighborhood. One of the cantaloupe dealers, Smith, then uses violence to drive all of his competitors out of the neighborhood; he has thereby employed violence to establish a coerced monopoly over the sale of cantaloupes in a given territorial area. Does that mean that Smith’s use of violence to establish and maintain his monopoly was essential to the provision of cantaloupes in the neighborhood? Certainly not, for there were existing competitors as well as potential rivals should Smith ever relax his use and threat of violence; moreover, economics demonstrates that Smith, as a coercive monopolist will tend to perform his service badly and inefficiently. Protected from competition by the use of force, Smith can afford to provide his service in a costly and inefficient manner, since the consumers are deprived of any possible range of alternative choice.1 Furthermore, should a group arise to call for the abolition of Smith’s coercive monopoly there would be very few protesters with the temerity to accuse these “abolitionists” of wishing to deprive the consumers of their much desired cantaloupes.
And yet, the State is only our hypothetical Smith on a gigantic and all-encompassing scale."

Post 21

Monday, February 22, 2010 - 3:38pm

Jim, you said,

So, if you have a monopoly grocery store that provides fresh bread and other produce, would you conclude that there was no need to go any further, and allow competing grocers, because you've already arrived at grocery provision? Would efficiency and efficacy and innovation and customer service not really matter? Do you really believe competition does not produce better outcomes, and that avoiding the messy complexity of competition is justification for maintaining a forceable monopoly?

Only force should be restricted to a monopoly (a single set of laws for a given geographical area) - and that is why you don't have competing governments. Find one single place where I have advocated anything other than Capitalism. You can't. The 'messy' complexity of free competition produces choices. A 'messy' complexity of competing laws/force reduces choice. It is the difference between force and choice.

Minarchy is the container within which competition can be at its most robust. Stray from minarchy (including into any bizarre competing governments scheme and you reduce freedom and competition.

Post 22

Monday, February 22, 2010 - 3:52pm

Jim, if that is the heart of Rothbard's argument for anarchy, then it is truly pathetic.
-----------------

I said, "You can't do things like this incrementally - when you subscribe to a government it has to handle all things. Unless you are a member of a single government where you can just pick from a menu for some things (which also won't work in most areas)." My meaning was that you can't have one government do social security and another do health care and another do military. If you look at your post, that is exactly what your phrasing suggests. In other posts you call it government services instead of competing governments.

Don't blame me for your sloppy writing. We still don't know what you meant. And then you engage in sloppy thinking by jumping, in an erratic, irrational fashion, to accusing me of being in favor government running everything. You are either so upset that you have lost control, or you have no shame and are willing to say anything, however untrue, just to continue an attack.

I am in favor of incrementalism - in dismantling today's government till we reach minarchy - and the faster the increments are torn free and liberty restored, the happier I'd be. But it doesn't happen with your complex, non-workable, unnecessary competing governments scheme.

Post 23

Tuesday, February 23, 2010 - 9:11am

Steve -- Re: your post 22, perhaps I was unclear in my phrasing, and if so I apologize.

What I was talking about was having different, competing governmental service providers offering taxpayers a choice between them for providing the SAME bucket of services.

Let me give you a concrete example. In Hawaii, the state government runs ALL the non-charter public schools in the entire state -- badly. Very, very badly. The public teachers' union, the HSTA, thus gets to negotiate contracts for ALL the public schools, and wields immense near-monopoly power, and basically owns almost all of the 90% of the legislature who are Democrats.

The consequence? The huge state government budget gap was partly closed by implementing "Furlough Fridays". So, most Fridays, the public school teachers are sitting at home, not getting paid, and any kid enrolled in the public school system -- which is perhaps 85% or 90% of the kids in the state -- are also sitting at home on Fridays, not getting educated.

This is the Democrats' idea of public education. It is a joke.

The handful of Republicans in the legislature have ideas for prioritizing state finances that would eliminate Furlough Fridays. Being just 10% of the legislature, their ideas are completely ignored. None of the Democrats listens to them, even though about 40% of the state votes Republican, on average.

So, competing governmental services here would work this way: anyone who thinks the Democrats are doing a good job of not educating kids on Fridays could continue to enroll them in a Democratic-run school system dominated by the HSTA union.

But, anyone who thinks this sucks could opt out of that dysfuctional system, and enroll their kids in a parallel public school system run by Republicans, and take that portion of their taxes for public education with them.

And anyone who doesn't like either of these systems could opt out of both, check the box on their tax form saying "I decline to pay for or use public schools", and make alternate arrangements.

How long do you think the Furlough Fridays program would last if parents had this new choice of pulling their kids and tax dollars out of the Democratic union-run Furlough Fridays system?

I'd give it a week. And such a setup would never happen again. Why? Because people would have a CHOICE. Between GOVERNMENT service providers. Who COMPETED against each other, and raised the bar, and broke the power of the unions.

Post 24

Tuesday, February 23, 2010 - 11:21am

Jim,

My former accountant went to work for Linda Lingle when she was elected. I talked to her one day about a proposal for enhancing Charter Schools with an Internet interface to further empower the parents and teachers.

I like what you wrote in post #23. The idea of options where the cost and the service can be bundled like that would indeed be a good way to make clear the value of free enterprise alternatives. It is difficult to get people to make the shift from public schools to totally privatized schools - anything, including Charter schools that moves in this direction is good.

But many services won't fit this paradigm because they are about one group stealing money, via government, from another group (like welfare) - or they are about Nanny State schemes that are not going to be easy to figure out have an alternative.

And these should always be put forth as incremental steps towards freedom - and never let anyone think that some people have a right to sign up for a service that violates rights of others. In other words, they can sign up for public school only because it already exists and not because it is right, and only because this is seen as step towards freedom.

Post 25

Tuesday, February 23, 2010 - 7:10pm

Steve -- I agree with the notion that some governmental services are more obviously targets for such an incremental approach to implementing competing governments than others.

Actually, the services that consist of one group stealing from another, such as welfare, would be nearly ideal candidates for competing governmental providers.

Imagine if all the existing welfare programs in Hawaii state government were part of a Democratic government welfare system, and the Republicans were allowed to set up their own welfare system (which, since most of the 8 Republicans in the legislature are RINOs, would still probably be fairly extensive).

Then, on my state income tax return, I could choose:

a) a large tax to pay for an extensive Democratic welfare redistribution system

b) a smaller, but still extensive, tax to pay for a Republican welfare redistribution system

c) a "none of the above" option to opt out of paying for any welfare benefits at all, and also being ineligible for such benefits

The net result? Almost everyone, including very liberal Democrats, who is not currently a net consumer of welfare benefits would go for option c (because liberal Democrats are, statistically, on average actually much stingier than Republicans or Independents with charitable contributions when those contributions are voluntary and coming out of their own pockets). You might still have a majority of voters opting for options a) or b), but those voters would likely contribute a single-digit percentage of the current welfare funding. The welfare state would undergo an immediate, drastic shrinkage.

The problem is not administering competing governmental services for this particular service. That's actually quite straightforward. The real problem is getting a sufficient number of voters to agree to this setup, because most voters know in their heart that if they aren't forced to contribute to such altruism, they won't, and rightly suspect their fellow citizens share this same parsimionous view toward uncoerced charity.

OK, next objection?

We're making great progress here!

Oh, and sanctioned post 24, natch.

Post 26

Tuesday, February 23, 2010 - 7:28pm

Deleted accidental duplication of post #25.
(Edited by Jim Henshaw on 2/23, 7:29pm)

Post 27

Wednesday, February 24, 2010 - 8:40am

Steve: "or they are about Nanny State schemes that are not going to be easy to figure out have an alternative."

I agree that such nanny state schemes would be some of the most difficult cases to tackle for competing governmental services, and would likely be deferred until the easier stuff had been implemented and we were closing in on a minarchist regime.

The problem is that support for such nanny state schemes indicates a large percentage of the population doesn't embrace the NIOF principle, and you need a critical mass of people holding libertarian or Objectivist views on this to get voters to agree to try competing governments.

One possible solution to this situation:

Have the local libertarian party identify everything in the law that they consider nannystatism.

Have the Republicans in the legislature identify the things on the list that they feel strongly about imposing on others nonetheless, and the things they strongly agree about repealing.

Have the Democrats do the same.

Identify the areas of complete non-overlap: the list of things the Republicans strongly want repealed that the Democrats strongly want to impose on others, and vice-versa.

Now: have the two sides agree to disagree. The Republicans agree that law enforcement will only enforce the Republican wish list of nanny statism upon people who sign up for the Republican governmental services, and grit their teeth and permit everyone else to be legally immune from prosecution for that, in exchange for the Democrats not imposing their list of nannystatism upon the Republican subscribers.

For example, the Republicans might forego imposing their views on abortion, drug use, etc. on everyone else in exchange for the Democrats not imposing their views on gun control and tobacco smoking on everyone else.

Republicans would be able to define penalties for engaging in abortion or illegal drug use -- but those penalties would only be applied to people signing up for the Republican governmental services.

Likewise for Democratic governmental service subscribers -- they would be prohibited from owning any guns at all, couldn't eat foie gras or smoke tobacco.

Like I said, this wouldn't be an easy thing to do -- it would require both sides to realize that in order to get the freedoms they desire, to quit being harassed about values they cherish and want to exercise, they will have to grudgingly concede to others the right to indulge in freedoms they view as pernicious.

Post 28

Wednesday, February 24, 2010 - 9:29am

Jim,

You did it again... you said, "competing governments" - that is a complete misnomer for what you are advocating. What you are calling for is a single government offering multiple options in different areas.
-------------

What you are calling for should not be seen as major proponent in getting us to where we want to go. It is a technique that, at best, would apply to only a small number of areas. The goal has to be defined in terms getting to minarchy as the moral end demanded by rational egoism. I say that because the way you have written about this often makes it look like you advocate a form of anarchy (competing agencies or organizations of some sort that are not under a single set of laws)
-----------------

Attempting to apply your appoach would run into the problem of the dishonesty of the opponents. They will say up front that they support the common, basic principles of democracy and representative government but in fact they want collectivism and will oppose your approach, even where it would fit well, because they know it would move government away from where they want to take it.
------------

I still disagree with one aspect of the incrementalism. When you get the Republicans and the Democrats to agree to disagree with each other and have their lists (which isn't likely to ever happen), you find yourself working to win support for a system where people are legitimizing the violation of rights as a valid choice. I could never agree to support a system that will introduce a new rights violation or strengthen an existing one. For example, currently women have the right to get an abortion. You could win over a great deal of political support from the religious right by legitimizing a list that lets them begin to prohibit abortions. And if the far left has some form of single payer health system that they could get onto a list, they would be ecstatic. In one quick move both those positions could acquire great strength. Do you see that if anything allows a new rights violation to come into existence, or to gain strength, that the incrementalism will go the wrong direction! And who is running it, and shaping it? The politicians - collectivists all.
--------------

Now, here is a another issues: You have either that menu that you mentioned before (each item can be chosen separately) or you have to choose a political party and go along with all of their choices. That is a GIANT difference. The individual, ala carte approach works best with this as a limited method, carefully used to work things away from the government. The other mechanism will end up just being used by the parties and those in power will use it stay in power and to stop anything that will diminish their power, and then pervert it to increase their power.
---------------

There is a lot of fantasy going on in imagining group of Republicans, Democrats and Libertarians sitting down and agreeing to submitting the set of menu lists to the public. Reality says that the Libertarians are never, ever allowed at the table until our culture is such that there will be too few Republicans or Democrats with enough power to have to give them anything.

Second, the party in power (R or D) will join with a few of those closest to it's views (blue dogs or liberal Republicans) and work up a compromise list (only if they are forced into this in some way) and the result will be a diminishing of freedom coming out of a rigged game.

This isn't me being cynical - it is just saying that the Tea Party movement - or something like it - is where real change of kind we want is going to occur. A grass roots drive for decreasing taxing, spending, entitlements, etc. When it comes from a deeper level of philosophical/economical understanding, it will get a more consistent result.

Post 29

Thursday, February 25, 2010 - 9:18am

an interesting commentary on law and legislation -
http://mises.org/daily/4147

Post 30

Thursday, February 25, 2010 - 10:45am

Robert,

Stephen Kinsella is an anarcho-capitalist and a lawyer. (Make what you will out of that combination :-)

I take any pronouncements on the value of legislation or a central government, when coming from an anarchist, with a grain of salt. Mr. Kinsella is opposed to Objectivism for its support of minarchy and intellectual property rights and has decided that no matter how small the government that it is impossible to support it with voluntary funds. Having so decided, he claims that all governments are therefore going to tax and therefore are in violation of NIOF and therefore unethical.

Post 31

Thursday, February 25, 2010 - 11:41am

Ah - didn't know.......

Post 32

Thursday, February 25, 2010 - 11:45pm