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.
Seven Sins of Highly Ineffective Government
http://www.strike-the-root.com/4/das/das1.html
No comments:
Post a Comment