Semantics, Monopolies, Greed

My friend continued his argument in favor of using government power to better our world:

Whether one labels it a "government," or a "committee" or a "neighborhood watchdog group," doesn't matter.

Much the same as tagging a group of people a "jury," or a "neighborhood group," doesn't matter either. The name is not important when their intended function is the same. This is semantics, not ideas.

Who's arguing semantics? "Intended function" is not what I'm worried about. As I said earlier, intent means very little. It is the method of operation that matters. Actions not words. Means not ends. We all want the same end, we disagree on what means to get to that end.

What matters is whether we're talking about free individuals getting together and acting as an association, or a monopoly of power controlling every human being within the monopoly's claimed territory. That is all government is. "We will be the judge, policeman, and soldier. And you will pay us. And you will not set up your own competing system of courts or protection."

Your left-leaning way of thinking can clearly see that monopolies are dangerous and damaging in the business world, but you think that government MUST BE a monopoly.

There are three important (and non-semantical) differences between "government agents" and a "neighborhood group". First of all, the neighborhood watch organization must respect your property; it can claim no right to trespass on or take possession of your property. Secondly, the neighborhood group does not force you to pay for their "service" if you don't want to participate. Thirdly, the neighborhood watch does not forcefully prevent you from setting up an alternative watch group.

The core evil of government is that one not allowed to opt out. We are told "well, you can move out of the country". That's bullcrap. YOU move out; you're the one who wants to use force on me to monopolize courts and protection "services". You lack imagination, so you want ME to leave the country?

The pet statist arguments are all about force. "Our system won't work if people can opt out". "Our system won't work if there are free-riders". "Our system won't work if there are competing systems". "Our system won't work if people aren't obligated to pay". . .

I agree with all those, only let's shorten it: "Our system won't work".

History proves that the statist system doesn't work. Look around the world. How is government power making things better for everyone? How's that working out for the world?

Your daily life proves that voluntary interaction is what works best for people.

Because there are problems with many marriages, you don't expect the government to regulate your choice of partners. Because there are problems with people eating healthy, you don't expect the government to tell you what to have for lunch. Because people fret over religion, you don't expect the government to assign churches for everyone. There are zillions of choice that you make in your life, completely without reference to government's mandates and regulations.

I know that the pat statist answer is that we can only have freedom in our daily lives because government provides the "framework" of security. That's what Ayn Rand tried to argue. I never bought her "small government" ideas. The "framework" cannot be a monopoly of gun-enforced power. The lunatic fantasy is that we can prevent coercive bullies by creating the biggest coercive "bully of all bullies", the state.

The framework that moves society along is free cooperation and free competition, with most brutish behavior prevented by cultural taboos and norms. Government has all these pompous ceremonies, pronouncements, uniforms, badges, and fancy paperwork... It's all a facade to pretend that the state is what provides for "the public good" and "public safety". But it's political theater for the sheep. The truth doesn't need theaters or churches, uniforms or badges.

Greed, sir. My basic, core belief about all of this is that Greed is the root cause of all problems. (well, that and overpopulation.....) There will always be those who think they "need" more, and more, and more.......... but it's just Greed. And I do not believe that greedy thinking can ever be stopped.

Greed can never be eliminated. It can only be re-channeled by changing individual motivations and social pressures. Greed is an animal instinct, and it's basically a good thing that runs amuck, like any healthy appetite that can slip into gluttony. So the question is "how to control greed and make it as harmless as possible"? The genius of voluntaryism is to let natural greed control over-blown greed. When greed competes, it is self-limiting. Competition is what works wonders, not monopoly.

I know it is a popular idea that competition is nasty and brutish, "red in tooth and claw", but that's wrong. The way of Nature is more about cooperation than it is about competition. There are some undeniably nasty competitive incidents in Nature, but incidents of cooperation outnumber incidents of competition at least one-hundred-to-one.

Greed is minimized and even turned to good use when individuals are left free to pursue their own choices. You and I would not do business with Haliburton or Lear Siegler in a voluntary marketplace, but our money is going into their pockets as we speak. Thanks to the state power that, by statist theory, is supposed to protect me from greedy corporations.

In fact, "corporate law" could not exist without government. Under the current idiotic system, if you make a dangerous product, you can file bankruptcy and close your company, but keep your mansion and Mercedes. That's all because of government interference with voluntary action. Without the stupidity of government, Private courts would easily keep greedy business owners from acting like parasites. Under government, businesses are encouraged to be unscrupulous, through all the laws that protect the politically well-connected greed-mongers from true competition and litigation.

Can you say "Limited Liability"? No private court would ever allow "limited liability" to protect a criminal business, the way it is commonly used in today's government courts. And yes, there are private courts in history to prove that this idea is worth looking into as a non-monopoly alternative to government courts whose rulings are determined more by political whim than by justice.

Greed is a favorite bugaboo of left-leaners who argue the necessity of a state monopoly on force. This is the mirror image of the right-leaners who are not afraid of greed, but instead their bugaboo is foreigners and/or sinners. I suggest you read a few articles about Greed. There are people who are smarter than the two of us, and they write articles about these things.

Below are a few short and delightful articles about government and greed.

Where Does Speculation Come From?

http://www.strike-the-root.com/91/lafave/lafave1.html

Seven Sins of Highly Ineffective Government

http://www.strike-the-root.com/4/das/das1.html

Beliefs and Memes

My friend brought up the ubiquitous belief that society can't work well in the absence of government.

I will say without reservation that I believe there are certain functions that a government can carry out a lot more efficiently than the absence of government can.

You can't reasonably believe that statement, because you have never seen what an "absence of government" looks like, or what it can or cannot do. So where are the tests for such a theory? You can only believe that statement if you mean "believe" in a religious sense, i.e., "believe with no proof". There is no empirical evidence for the idea that we need a the monopolized guns of government to fill certain social needs, like courts, utilities, and protection.

When you say "I believe", it is your cultural brain-washing speaking. The people of every time period hold back progress* by believing "without reservation" that the current way of doing things is the best way. The relatively new concept of the "meme" **, coined by Richard Dawkins in 1976, is helping us to study the way knowledge and errors are passed from generation to generation. For what a meme is, start here, and here.

* By "progress" I don't mean economic progress necessarily. I mean overall human progress in the ideas of fairness, justice, peaceful coexistence, health, science, education, and all that good stuff. Economic progress is a good means to these ends, but most of our thinking on economics is severely clouded by our mercantilist / statist culture.

Talking about economics is a lot like fish talking about water - if fish could talk, they wouldn't have a word for "swim" because you take your milieu for granted. We have no word for "walk around on dry land while breathing air". Economics is like that for us. That's why misconceptions abound in the field of economics. Without one-size-fits-all government economic solutions, the damage caused by these errors would be easily-contained local problems, not severe world-wide carnage

** Some bloggers, in an attempt to appear more intelligent than nature intended, are using the word "meme" synonymously with the word "rumor" or "gossip". People! The word "meme" was coined in order to discuss the long-term evolution of ideas, not celebrity gossip or petty political battles.

My beliefs would start from the basis that America's Declaration of Independence and Constitution are basically sound. At their core is the basis for all people to live their lives without coercion and/or exploitation. And sadly, all those good ideas have been exploited, coerced, twisted, perverted, mangled, and corrupted beyond recognition.

I'm not gonna disagree with that too much. Dang it!

The only thing I would add is that every attempt at "good government" has ended up poorly. And, since the best advances in humanity have come from outside, and often directly opposed by, the purview of church and government, ... I conclude that you can't very well defend people from a system of exploitation and coercion by setting up another monopoly of exploitation and coercion. That kind of protection must be set up on the smallest, most local scale, by free individuals who are not hamstrung by government's "protection racket" monopoly.

In a State where the citizens have some voice, it is not the fault of the State when things get perverted and corrupted. It is the fault of the citizens for allowing it.

"Some" voice is right. I'm for 100% democracy - where I get 100% voice in how my life is managed. I get to decide without deference to the ignorant "majority". I decide where I want to compete, and where I want to cooperate. I decide when I need a "neighborhood group" and when I want to go it alone. Government takes this away from everyone, even the so-called "majority". Why do you disparage herd mentality but insist that it's the only way to get certain things done? That seems to be doublethink. Cognitive dissonance.

You agree that most states were conceived for evil purposes, but not here in the good old USA. At the same time, you are telling me that you aren't guided by emotions when you reason this out for yourself. Do you think in Saudi Arabia, in China, in Cuba, in Japan, in Israel, you pick a country, ... that "reasonable" people think that most other governments are bad, but theirs is pretty good? After all, their state has been fine-tuned by people with "good intentions" and "ideals".

You don't see any bias that you might have picked up from American schools and American culture? My "bias detector" is going off. It's a tricky thing to disregard bias, prejudice and conditioning while searching for reasonable and fair solutions.

I don't claim to be free from bias - Thinking back to my early teens, I may not have had these exact words in my head, but I have always had some basic assumptions that I start from:

that there is a fundamental "wrongness" to war even if you're the "good guys",

that stealing is wrong no matter how rich your victim is,

that fairness needs to be applied to creepy people as well as attractive people,

that force used in self-defense should be the minimum necessary to repel an attack,

that religion gives people excuses to hate strangers,

that the majority doesn't usually know what is right,

that we lose much in the long-term by compromising for the short-term, ...

I'm sure that I have general concepts in my head that are hardened by time and habit, not necessarily by logic and reasoning. The best I can do is examine these premises and throw away the small errors. I don't think I can throw away big chunks of my "attitude" all in one fell swoop. I "unlearn" things in small bites.

I've always been skeptical and inquisitive, wanting to turn rocks over to see what's underneath. I've always wanted to pull the curtain back to see the man operating the puppet strings. I'm not content until I find out how a magic trick is performed. I want to see past the illusions. But, I know that my understanding of the illusion might contain further illusions. I am skeptical of my skepticism. I think it's a blessing and a curse, and not always a good thing. But that's how I am, and I don't deny the assumptions that are contained in my reasoning.

All reasoning starts with assumptions, but anyone who claims to be reasonable needs to keep returning to examine their core assumptions (which mainly come from the culture that we grow up in). So we keep critically examining our culture; even if we can't change the mistakes immediately, we can point out the defective meme.

Another deeply held belief of mine is that most people are, at their core, sheep. They want to be told what to do, and what to think. They want to be led somewhere and don't care where as long as it's not "ere.

Amen to that. We evolved as "herd" critters. "Going against the group" got weeded out because those going against the group didn't take to the trees when someone yelled "Tiger"! Non-conformists died if they were too radical. We have lots of good reasons for going along to get along; it's called "culture". Culture is how we transfer lots of information from one generation to the next, without having to re-learn and re-invent everything.

There's nothing wrong with this "sheep" mentality, as long as we occasionally check the core premises to see if we're passing along outdated information to subsequent generations. Cultural information can be adjusted and corrected, but it takes several generations for corrections to take hold. That's where long-term commitment to principles trumps short-term compromise "to go along to get along".

"I believe that all government is evil, and that trying to improve it is largely a waste of time."

-H. L. Mencken

http://theanarchistalternative.info/

US Founders and "Original Intent"

On Dec 13, 2009, my friend wrote a reply to my signature quote: "No State known to history originated for any other purpose than to enable the continuous economic exploitation of one class by another" - Albert Jay Nock:

Yes, there were those who wished to create yet another State to exploit the masses for their own good. (Sadly, this is how America turned out to be,) but the original intent is clear to any who read and understand ALL of the discussions from that time and place.

I think you're going by what was written, and not by what actually happened. Governments are always as big as they can get away with. At the time of "the founding", Americans were sick of government interference in their daily affairs, so the constitution had to be kept very modest. Politicians' words also had to be kept quite moderate, as far as any call for state power. But we shouldn't judge government by what politicians say openly or what politicians write, we should judge government by what politicians do. Actions not words.

The very first US government immediately twisted the constitution to its needs. The Whiskey Rebellion illustrates this perfectly. Politicians interfered with local commerce, taxed one group unequally (the tax rate was lower for big producers), used martial law and federal troops on civilians during peacetime, - that adds up to at least 4 violations of the constitution by my accounting.

In promoting the taxes and urging Washington to lead troops to put down the insurrection, Hamilton admitted that he wanted this tax "more as a measure of social discipline than as a source of revenue." Hamilton also admitted that he "wanted the tax imposed to advance and secure the power of the new federal government." So much for that "original intent" of which you speak so glowingly. Their words were one thing; their "intent" was another. And even when politicians' intent is honorable and fair, they throw away honor and fairness by their compromises. And why do they feel compelled to compromise? Like all politicians, they don't want to lose the upper hand, so they have to compromise.

If you ever have been on a committee, you'll recognize this as a universal principle of human "group behavior". The loudest, often the most ignorant voices get heard, while there is no time or patience for the quiet, more contemplative suggestions. At the rock and roll show, when you say "what do you want, a slow one or a fast one?" - who do you think always wins? The ones who want "loud and fast". People who want slow and quiet might even be in the majority, but they're not the ones shouting out. This is politics 101 in action. Every defect of the "big organization" is multiplied up the ladder of political power. It reaches it's zenith in Washington D.C., where no one knows what the hell is going on, but everyone pretends to have "the" answer. And, they will compromise that "answer" in order to maintain their position of power.

I was always a closet anarchist (though the word has horrible baggage, and I prefer "voluntaryist", or the adjective "a-political"). But, I didn't get radically and openly anarchistic until I read a couple little books (1 2) about the history of the US Constitution and its Amendments, and the court decisions that twisted the meaning of the Constitution and its Amendments. I also read this small book, twice in a row. That was only about 10 years ago.

The "founders" of the USA did not have consent from any kind of majority. It was mostly "greedy" businessmen. The "patriot" founders were some of the biggest property owners, bankers, and businessmen of the time. As far as the fraction of the populace who were politically involved; it was white protestant males over 21. There was no popular mandate or consent, much less agreement on the details.

Morality doesn't look at intentions, morality looks at actions. Hitler wanted to make a better world for the "best of the best". His ends did not justify his means. Lots of the most evil geniuses in history had great ideals and intentions. Everyone can get behind "good intentions" and "ideals"; I'm sure we have very little disagreement over that. Our disagreement is in the methods that ought to be used to implement those ideals. I also think we probably disagree on some word definitions. And, we probably disagree to what degree long-term ideals should be compromised in defending ourselves from short-term effects.

And that is what is wrong with ALL politics; people justify their brutal methods by holding up their "intentions". That's a road to hell I don't want to continue on. If there were no better ways to interact socially, there might be some sense to arguing that intentions are the primary "good" that we should consider in making our future choices, but I doubt it.

There ARE better ways. We find examples in our daily lives, in other cultures, and in history. We can use persuasion, the scientific method, education, fairness, free association, freedom of movement, freedom of speech, property rights, and civil rights to interact. We don't need to add "taxes", "government mandates", "wars", "more prisons for potheads", "more barbed wire at the borders", ... as if those things are a "last resort" because we've exhausted our attempts at using those non-government means. We've barely started using those things, and we can't claim to need "lifeboat scenario" measures.

I won't quote or give links here- you've heard all the words before. I will say that I see very little difference between current Anarchist thought and the original American Ideals. Point out the differences to me, Sir?

It doesn't matter what the "ideals" were. It matters what actions were taken to compromise those ideals.

The bigger question for me is "how did all these 'original American ideals' work out for us"? It has grown into a state whose brutality towers above every other brutal regime in history. So we have it good here in our little lives? - Teetering on the lower edge of the middle class; so what? What is the cost? Millions dead overseas, millions displaced by wars under both Republican and Democrat administrations, hundreds of thousands of wounded, hundreds of thousands of families torn apart by US wars, millions languishing in US prisons because they did "politically incorrect" drugs, gambled, or paid for sex. And on and on.

The part of the cost that we don't see is all of the lost opportunities from the heavy burden of taxes, regulations, licensing, silly laws, quotas, mandates, tariffs, fees, and paperwork, that the state puts on each individual and every business. I can't hold these lost opportunities in front of you to show you that part of the cost. Every time the state adds an expense to the cost of business, all in the name of "controlling" greed, those costs are passed on to customers, tenants, and employees. Much of the cost of using state power to "do good things" is hidden and unable to be tallied.

This is what it boils down to: You can't do long-term good with violent force, so statism is impractical and inefficient. You can justify the means by the ends, so statism is morally wrong.

"Government doesn't create order out of chaos. The order of social life is already here."

-- Michael Coughlin

http://tmh.floonet.net/articles/object_i.shtml