I'm not exactly sure where we left off, but I'm not really going to bust open that twinkie thread (because at this point its 35 feet long and weighs approximately 600 pounds). I vaguely recall we were on different sides of the property question; that is I believe that you get all upset when individuals have to give up property to the government because what they own is theirs - when I responded something along these lines: Individuals own property because they have enough force to keep all comers from taking it; or because they're working within an authoritative system that decrees they own whatever they own and other individuals accept that decree. Ok, I lied, I went ahead and found your post #40 in that thread, but I'm not reading anymore of it! I'll just reply to your thoughts here. Re: State getting involved in economy and property: Given my earlier precept that property is owned by individuals in our society (well civilized society in general) because the State defines ownership - the State should be aware of what is being done with property of all types. Trying to blind the State to its function only increased the ability of individuals or institutions to disrupt the property of other individuals and remove the State protections of ownership. As much as I loathe the idea of eminent domain, the concept in itself is actually a limitation on the power of the State. In the good old USofA the State has to envoke eminent domain in court and through legal channels (even if those are State owned...) in order to claim property from individuals or institutions. There are many places in the world where this is not the case. I would say that collusion between institutions and government caused the problem you described (the 1 dollar problem with a $10,000 solution), I also look at it slightly differently - the State starts involved; it truly has no other choice as it was founded by those who wanted and needed it involved - the problems occur when institutions or individuals (in this day mostly institutions) meddle with State functions to support their own ends and as we barely describe what we as individuals require from the State its pretty easy for institutions or other individuals to manipulate its machinery. That said, we live in a system where the machinery can be manipulated, and I think that is a good thing. As I've pointed out, the Government cannot be considered to have "intervened" when the Government created the market in the first place. "The Market" doesn't even exist without the State. If you have a view of "The Market" that has minimal "dysfunction" (whatever you mean by that) then you have to outline it and cause the State (read: the rest of us) to agree with it. It should be relatively easy to enact legislature around what the State is allowed to impose - we restricted Virginia's ability in a single vote not too long ago; Colorado opened up entirely new markets with one ballot initiative. Define what you mean by "not distorting" (which can't mean "Don't do anything" because property law is far more complicated than non-interference by the State) I simply must disagree here; anyone with half a brain has to disagree here. Individuals coerce each other all the time. Show me that is wrong and then maybe you might just have a point. I'll go so far as to say that the State MUST be involved if only to prevent such coercion. I think anyone who's ever been lied to would agree with me. I also think anyone who profits from lying would disagree with me. Of individuals; I agree. As soon as they Incorporate and have any sort of protections they cease to be individuals and the goverment should be involved. Remove all corporate protections and we might get somewhere; of course it would cripple industry if individuals had to risk ruin to create any business, but you can't have a system built on principles that revolve around the invidual without State interference and then allow the State to interfere to the benefit of "collections of individuals" over "individuals" Re: Economic Freedom Simply, the State has to coordinate the economy at some level. There simply is no other way to go about it if you give the State the ability to determine ownership. Once you've got that down, then we can start crafting how much freedom individuals should have with their property (I'm of the err on the side of individual freedom). However; once individuals pool their resources and enact State protections (if provided, I'm fine for removing them if you like...) then it is a function of the State to ensure such protections aren't used against actual individuals. The EPA exists for a reason, Sorbanes-Oxley exists for a reason, the various bubbles exist for a reason - and that reason isn't because State involvement is bad. Instead these things have all happened because Corporations are allowed to be greedy without fear of repercussions. Strip all that back down to "individual" and you might start winning me over; until then Government protections require government oversight, but do think of the ramifications of removing them. Re: Oligarchy The whole "Too Big to Fail" concept defines Oligarchy to me. You seem to think that there is no such thing while billions are spent on political campaigns and Congressmen leave office to become lobbyists for whatever industry will pay them. Perhaps I should have used "Plutocracy" instead; but it boils down to pretty much the same thing. As the State has to be involved in the Market, the Market has taken it upon itself to be involved in the State. We (as a nation) barely even try to keep them apart. Re: Moon/Property Well, ok that basically came down to individual preference and most people are selfish. If only we could find some way to let people be as selfish as they wanted but still have some societal benefit from that, I'll have to think more on this. Why is "yours" and "mine" inherently better than "ours"? "Ours" can be incredibly powerful; though I'll admit only when framed in an "ours vs theirs" historically. Why is an endless variety of consumer goods a good thing? AH - you finally admit the State has to be involved!!! Though I disagree with your premise. In fact I'm pretty sure the Preamble disagrees with you as well and you don't get the word "property" until something like the Fifth or Sixth Amendment. You can argue that "Property" is what you think is the best way to get "freedom" or "welfare" but you can't argue that the purpose of society is "Property" - it isn't, property is just a means to and end. Instituations have different protections under the law. Huge difference, as one who argues against State involvement you've got a huge blind spot right here. I like the heady stuff, thanks for discussing. I think in a nutshell we're actually pretty close to the same page; which is Individuals can generally handle themselves pretty well and left to their own devices would likely get along mostly well enough. My problem is that humans don't stay "individual" when working together gets them somewhere; and they will manipulate systems to benefit themselves (and the more the merrier...) We live in a society that is built on individuals forming institutions - we just shouldn't allow said institutions to have undo power over individuals - State controlled or otherwise. But that's been my common theme for years on this board Hope you don't mind that I didn't quote everything, I figured you'd get the gist anyway.
Two thoughts to interject: I think you and Paladin are each personally defining "the State" differently. You seem to apply it broadly to society, while Paladin applies it, more narrowly, to Government. Following from that, your assertion that "the State creates the market" may be true under your application of the term, "the State", but not under Paladin's.
No, we're applying it in the same way. Where I say "society" is where I mean society, I'm pretty sure Paladin will get that. Government does create the Market, I'm sorry if you're confused on that point.
Government can not at all be said to have "created" the market. The market exists whether the government does or not. In fact, anywhere two people exist who are willing to give each other one thing for another, the market exists.
Oh, if you want to elevate it into some mystical realm of fancy sure. Yay! And once any two people start decide to work together we've got the State too! How about we stick to things as they actually exist? Edit > which is to say the modern Western idea of Capitalism isn't based on two fuckers trading in the woods, and if you want it to be based on that idea, then really you've no place in modern Western society.
I'm not confused on that, but I don't agree with it. Which came first, trade or government? I say trade. That eliminates government as the creator of trade, and the market is simply trade writ large.
The State sure as hell preexists before Capitalism. Most historians and economists place even the Merchantalism of the 16th-18th centuries as being before the rise of capitalism. Capitalism arose in the early 19th century in England were competitive labor market was established. The definition of trade overlaps but does not equate to capitalism - that has a far more specific purview. Merchantalism, the concept of organized trade for profit (a slightly broader definition than that of the Merchantalist System), goes back to 200 BCE that we know of, and probably earlier. But the concept of a free market economy didn't exist before the creation of the state - indeed, it could not. The combination of the need for property rights and just as importantly the need for contract law demands it. It was Hobbes that wrote of the concept of property as that which the sovereign who wields power in the land notes as your own. Without the ability to forestall forceful seizure, there is no property. The state had been around for thousands of years before the 'free market' was brought into being. Trade no doubt existed before the state. But trade isn't the same as the market - indeed, the market is defined as a network of trade, and that's almost impossible without rules that define the nature of the trade. I think Fais got some of his terms slightly wrong, but overall he's right. And concept that society's whole purpose is property is an example of the moral bankruptcy. In this case it isn't even posited as the purpose of the state, but of society itself, a different term to be sure. Society is the culmination of human interactions. To think that the only reason to do so is to ensure we divvy up what's yours and mine is a world view bereft of fundamental humanity.
Eh, it would be more accurate to say that the State recognizes ownership, and plays a role in determining the disposition of property whose ownership is uncertain. Because I dispute your premise, I naturally dispute your conclusion. WHY should the state have any awareness of what people do with their own property? What business is it of the state's? Well, I admit being sentenced to a gulag is better than being shot in the head, but better does not necessarily equal desirable. There's a good argument to be made that the State should have to buy what it wants from free sellers...OR DO WITHOUT. If the State can meddle in economic affairs, it attracts corrupting influences from those who would use that meddling to their own benefit. This is a strong argument against giving the State any kind of authority along those lines...it inevitably entails corruption. My view (and the general libertarian view) is that the State may only legitimately intervene to prevent force or fraud. The State should have no say in what the economy produces, or for whom, or what prices are, or what outcomes should be. The State exists to ensure freedom of the system, not to pick winners. The government did not create the market. Buyers and sellers create the market. Government exists only to make sure the market operates freely. Sure it does. Exchange can occur where there is no state. The arguments against government intervention are presented well in any economics textbook. But to boil it down to a single word: INCENTIVES. Let me give you a proof by example that shows the power of incentives. Suppose a town has a shortage of housing, and rents have gone way up since there are more people trying to rent fewer homes. The town government decides to impose rent control on all the landlords in order to keep the rents lower. "It's unfair to raise the rent so high," the town officials say. So, the law goes into effect and the rents are kept low. But what HASN'T changed? There's still a housing shortage. The number of renters hasn't changed, the number of homes hasn't changed. But now the price commanded (by law) to be lower than the market rate. Good for the renters, you might think. Sure. But what about those who CAN'T rent, EVEN IF they would be willing to pay a higher price to do so? They're still stuck trying to find places to live. But what would really fix the situation for ALL involved? BUILDING MORE HOUSING. Right? Except rents are now held artificially low through State intervention. Who is going to invest in building new rentals if they can't profit from the higher rents? Probably no one. So, in the guise of "fixing" the problem of high rents (which is really a symptom of a housing shortage), the State intervention has made the problems worse for landlords, would-be developers, and those unable to find housing. That's a COMMON example of how a politically expedient solution can have disastrous ramifications for the economy. Let me define "distortion" (rather than the negative). I'm using Wikipedia's because I like its succinctness: And, further... In markets, prices send signals about relative scarcity of goods and services. Players in the market (producers, consumers, investors) use those price signals to make decisions. A distortion causes those price signals to give false indications, leading to faulty decision-making. I'm talking about coercion in economic decision-making, where buyer coerces seller or vice versa. That's what the State SHOULD do. However, the State does not always do that. I've already said the legitimate purpose of government is to prevent/sanction force and fraud. I've never said the State is above using force or fraud itself. Why are three people working together less free than one person? Why should the collective's freedom be any less than the sum of the individuals' freedoms? Some would argue that because corporations have limited liability that they somehow "owe" the State something for that, conveniently forgetting that "liability" is itself an invention of the State. The State doesn't intervene to anyone's "benefit." It isn't the State's role to distribute "benefits." The State's role is to guarantee freedom. Oh no it doesn't. And there's ample evidence to show that people are more prosperous where the government doesn't try to do so. As I said above, the state's role is not to determine ownership, it is to recognize it and protect it. The only time the state has a role in "determining" ownership is when there is contention over ownership. I disagree, but define "against actual individuals." Obviously, a corporation can't have people murdered, but certainly the corporation is free to produce whatever it chooses, to sell it, and to charge whatever price it can get for it. You'd have to give me some examples of usage "against actual individuals." "State involvement" means many things. Just because some state involvement is necessary or good, does not mean ALL of it is. Let's not use the word greedy; it's judgmental. Let's say corporations--like anyone else--act in their own self-interest. But again, interventions can create distortions which prevent economic decisions from being made clearly. Imagine you were an investment banker 10 years ago, and someone came to you and said: "Guess what! Lots of homes are being sold because the government is encouraging it by underwriting loans and is keeping interest rates low. We can buy up home mortgages, and sell shares of them to investors. And, since government is backing them, there's little risk." Now, are you "greedy" if you chose to pursue that idea? I would argue no, because packaging investments and spreading risks IS YOUR BUSINESS. So, 4 years ago, everything crashes. What part of that initial belief was WRONG? That the loans were low risk BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT WAS INSURING THEM. I'd ask "what government protection?" If you say "liability," I'd say that the government is only offering protection from a threat the government itself creates. Then you should read what I write more carefully. Let me give you my 11th Commandment: I would've GLADLY wrecked General Motors and parted it out to its creditors. GLADLY. We should try very, very hard to keep them apart. State meddling in the market does little good and often tremendous harm, and politicians shouldn't be able to sell their influence to players in the market. I'd say "self-interested" not "selfish." And we do have a system for that: capitalism, the economic system where every player seeks to maximize his own well-being. Because "ours" and "neither yours nor mine" are the same thing. I do not want my freedom of action controlled or dependent on you. No one does. That's why "ours" doesn't work. I don't work long hard hours for "ours." I do it for "mine." If we're going to go to "ours," I'll let YOU work the long hard hours. Try not having them and seeing how it suits you. Never said it didn't. I only said its legitimate involvement is limited to preventing force and fraud. Since the Bill of Rights was drafted to guarantee EXPLICITLY the rights of individuals, I'm not surprised. There's no reason why the word "property" should appear in the main body, which is simply the structure of government and its functions. Notice that nowhere is the government given the power to "control" the economy. Sure I can, and many will agree with me. If society does not protect what is rightfully mine, what use would I have for it? None of my possession would be definitely mine, nor the roof over my head or the land that my house is on. If society isn't going to protect my property, I may as well take my chances with the Huns and the Tatars. You'll have to give me some examples. Agreed, but history gives me every reason to worry more about the State (which is that which oppresses, represses, suppresses, and wages war) than the corporation (which either provides a useful good or service, or goes away).
For the state to achieve the role you describe in the second paragraph it must take on the role you decry in the first.
No time to go through everything now. But the idea that private property is anything other than an institution imposed by states (beneficially to a degree) is wrong. Human beings for most of their history lived in nomadic bands and simply did not have the concept.
Yeah that's pretty thin, you may have a point but I can only imagine what it is, would you mind elaborating a tad?
To Rick's point, if a nomad has a flock of sheep, does he not consider that flock his property? Is it not his property?
Okay. He's talking about enforcement in the second part (see the bit about force and fraud). How does the state determine a circumstance exists requiring intervention? It can only determine this by meddling in economic affairs -- requiring accounting data, registration of purchase and sale agreements, mandating transparency of financial transactions, etc. Without such meddling, it cannot detect fraud.
Said nomads did not have flocks of sheep. Farming is a relatively recent innovation, dating to about 10,000 years ago, whereas homo sapiens have been around for 20 times as long. Of course, even when we did start to farm, such property was generally collective, not private.
Taking things back to hunting and gathering pretty much invalidates your opinion when discussing modern society, no?
Yep. When such notions appeared, who was declared to have property? How did they and their ancestors acquire what would become known as such?
Glad people are jumping in this thread! (On all sides, because I think there's more than two) Unfortunately the wife is dragging me to a craft fair in Maryland today, so I'm not sure I'll be able to write anything coherent until tomorrow...if I surive the the fair without strangling myself with some vendor's undyed alpaca wool yarn or something. Till then!
Usually the guy who killed the other guy in order to take it. By forming alliances of other guys-who-killed-other-guys which, at base, is Conservatarianforge's definition of "government." Surprised they can't figure that out.
When someone operating in the market informs them. Let me make clear what I mean by meddling. Not everything the government imposes on the market qualifies. Those things that legitimately are part of preventing fraud aren't what I'm talking about. When I say meddling, I mean acting in a way to cause distortions of the market. These would include: 1. Mandating who the company can hire to do its work. 2. Mandating what the company must pay its workers. 3. Mandating what the company should or should not produce. 4. Instituting taxes on a particular product. 5. Restricting a company's ability to advertise. And so forth. Environmental laws and regulation, so long as they are uniform and rational (i.e., not tailored to specifically harm or benefit anyone) are acceptable, as are worker safety laws (again, as long as they are rational). Many government regulations ARE and SHOULD BE permissible provided they apply to all players in the game, actually accomplish some significant social goal, are non-distorting, and, of course, are Constitutional.
Why? Other rights that I value--freedom of speech, the right to bear arms--have origins much, much later than the dawn of civilization. I doubt very much a tribesman 50,000 years ago had the right to free speech that I do or the freedom to worship or not as he wished. Even if primitive property rights were "collective," that does not in any way mean they should be now.
I'm actually a bit surprised by this response, and want to drill in deeper where I see some potential flaws. We will start with point #2. Is it okay for a company to not pay at all? Or would that constitute fraud or undue force? If it is fraud or undue force, how much must the company pay before it no longer meets that condition? On item 4, what if that product causes harm or other externalities that require a cost for government? Is taxing the product an appropriate response? I'm thinking in particular about tobacco and gasoline taxes. Are all environmental laws and worker safety rules, if evenly applied acceptable? Or is there a limit, even though the impact is fairly distributed? I'm not asking these questions to be argumentative, but because I want to know where you reside on the continuum between no interference ever, and government can dictate as it pleases.
Like I say, around 10,000 years ago, small kin-based bands of people coalesced into larger (but still kin-based) tribes, who started to farm and do other things like that. Property, at first, would have been tribal, with elites eventually arising who used their power to stake a personal claim, through the power of the chief. It's not really until the last few hundred years that we get anything like the modern notion of property rights, and the absolutist views that Paladin and others have are even more recent.
I am not addressing what "should" be the case. It is obvious that modern innovations are very often more valuable than their primitive forbears. However, it is important to realise that these are recent innovations, intimately connected with the development of the state over the last few hundred years, and are in no way an extension of natural law or human nature, as your oft-repeated notion that the state exists to protect already-extant rights would seem to suggest. They therefore need to be justified on their own merits rather than by such appeals.
Is it okay for someone to volunteer to work? Any price that is agreeable both to the buyer (the company) and to the seller (the employee) is acceptable. An example of force would be holding a gun to someone's head and saying "Accept the offered wage or else!" An example of fraud would be saying that the job is light office work when it really involves operating a jackhammer. Freedom has external costs for government, so too bad. Government exists to protect our freedom, we don't exist to keep government's costs down. My view is this: if a product is harmful only to its users, then the government's obligations are done when it makes sure the buyer is informed. Now, if a product has potential greater harm to others, some government regulation might be permissible. Taxing a product simply because we don't like it and want people not to choose it? Unacceptable, in my view. Government should not (and is not, in my view) instituted to make our choices for us. Reminder: I AM NOT SAYING THIS IS HOW IT IS. THIS IS ONLY MY VIEW OF HOW IT SHOULD BE. My take on environmental laws and worker safety rules is that they are fine, so long as they accomplish some identifiable goal and that their costs aren't excessive for the goal intended. I believe the environmental laws should be uniform, because tailoring of laws towards individuals or corporations leads to misuse of them. If I had to summarize: it's no interference in the transactional part of the marketplace, and intervention elsewhere only (1) to prevent force or fraud or (2) to accomplish significant, very narrowly defined social goals. We can argue about what "significant" means and I'll admit it's a gray area. If it weren't so uncommon, common sense would be the criterion. I'll illustrate with a couple of (contrived) examples: 1. Worker Safety A law that says a worker can't work around high-voltage electricity unless trained to do so and unless certain safety precautions are followed would be perfectly fine. It's nothing more than what common sense would dictate. A law that says a worker can't operate a pair of scissors without training would be an unnecessary burden and therefore invalid. 2. Environmental Law A scientific study has shown that 500 parts per trillion of mercury in streams is a safe limit. A law that regulates wastewater flows into a river so that the 500 parts per trillion level is maintained would be perfectly fine, even if it costs manufacturers to install new equipment to meet the goal. A law that demands 5 parts per trillion of mercury--because cleaner is better, right?--would NOT be acceptable if the cost of compliance were much more significant than the 500 parts per million.
