Playing basketball at the park is was one of my favorite things to do as a teen and young adult. It's a great way to get exercise and fresh air while having fun and making new friends, and being competitive. Never in my life did I think I would want to write a blog post about the mechanics of a game of ball but here we are. In the following I will describe the decision making process for each aspect of a game of basketball at a park.
1. The first decision to make on a basketball court is what kind of game you are going to play. The most popular games are "21" or evenly divided teams. This decision is subliminally made based on the ages and number of people playing. If only 3 people are present at the court, most likely the game is going to be "21." Evenly divided teams are not selected usually unless there are at least 6 players willing to participate. This decision can be made very fast: someone, anyone, on the court will say "let's shoot up a game of 21" or "let's shoot teams."
2. After the kind of game to play is chosen, the players have to pick a ball to play with, as there are likely several different ones to choose from. Players will take a vote by passing the ball to each other for inspection. The ball with the best grip, best size, and that bounces best usually gets picked. The decision does not have to be unanimous, but when there's the general feeling that most people want a certain ball, that becomes the chosen ball.
3. If the players decide to play 21, the player nearest the free-throw line sets himself up to shoot while the other players gather under the rim waiting for a rebound. Nobody directs players exactly where to stand, everyone finds an empty space that is reasonable in distance from other players and the rim. None of the players under the rim try to gain advantage for a rebound until the moment the ball leaves the shooter's hands. There are no official rules in this game, however, the expected norms still apply. Participants are still expected to dribble the ball when moving and nobody punches or trips or shoves the ball handler on purpose to steal the ball.
4. If players elect to play a game with evenly divided teams, the first decision is to pick teams. Since players often don't know each other, what happens is they line up and take turns shooting from the free-throw line. If there are a total of 6 playing, the first 3 to make the shot will be on a team. Sometimes the same thing is done, only the first 2 to make the shot become "captains", and they take turns picking teams. Once teams are picked, the have to decide whether to play full court or half court basketball. This will depend on how many people are playing; if there are 10 players then full court will probably be the way to go, but with only 6 the game will likely be played on one half of the court.
5. Who gets the ball first in a team game? This one is easy. To get the game started, almost always a player from either team will grab the ball and shoot from the 3-point-line and call out "this is for ball." If he makes the shot, his team gets the ball first. If he misses, the other team gets the ball first.
6. Let's say during game-play there is a dispute over whether or not a rule of basketball was broken. Other players on the court who witnessed the event will chime in. Even players on the offender's team... because everyone on an instinctual wants an honest victory. Nobody wants to win over a cheap call. But what happens when both sides are truly divided over a play? Again, easy. A player will take a shot from the 3 point line "for the ball" or they will simply restart the play in question. Usually a shot is taken only if the decision would change which team gets the ball.
7. If new players arrive during game play, how is it organized? The new players will wait patiently aside the court. When the game is over, they will say "I have next" and choose players from the losing team. The winning team has "earned the right to remain on the court by winning." It's true, some teams dominate the basketball court all afternoon, but everyone recognizes it would not be fair to them to have to quit playing just because they are good.
8. How to choose a victor. Games at public courts do not come with timers, so what happens is the players decide on a point number to play to. Sometimes it's 11, sometimes 11 win by 2, sometimes it's 21, sometimes it's 21 win by 2, sometimes it's 21 with 7 point whitewash (meaning the game is over if either team goes up 7-0), sometimes it's 15 or 13... the general sweet-spot is between 11 and 21; lower scores are reserved for games that appear to be lop-sided, that is, where the best players are on one side and the not so good players on the other, in order to keep from dragging out the game unnecessarily.
The things that happen on public basketball courts can be very complex. Since it is after all just a game, disputes are resolved quickly and grudges are rarely held... the point in all this is, I have never in my life seen or played in a game at a park where players even chose someone as a referee, let alone sit at a table in order to attempt to plan out actions for every conceivable circumstance. It would literally take all day and night to do that and not a single game would be played. Instead, resolutions are decided on the fly. Of course it's not always perfect, but unless you get hurt, you usually go home happy to have gotten to the park and played some ball. Even in games like 21, where the defining feature of the game is there are no official rules, norms like dribbling are still expected to be followed.
Also, again, this is just a game of basketball... some days there are over 20 people at the court wanting to play... more than enough to play full court 5 on 5 ball, and still nobody wants even a referee just to keep the game going. This is a blog about anarchy as well so I have to ask the reader: if 20 people have a shared admission that nothing will get done if decisions and conflicts are not resolved in a timely manner to the point that they forgo even having a referee, and decide to ref the game themselves, how can a few hundred people think they can effectively plan out society with even more complexity as well as more precision?
Showing posts with label Economics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Economics. Show all posts
Tuesday, September 27, 2016
Friday, March 2, 2012
Time For A New Social Contract
The social contract... some say a necessary bond between individuals in society in order to keep it running smoothly, others say a scam used to blind people to the violent reality of the state.
My perception of the social contract, perhaps due to government schooling, went as follows for most of my life:
whenever there is a threat to civil society, the people within it acknowledge that it is necessary to give up a portion of our rights to the government for their protection. This would mean that anyone arguing against the forfeiture of such rights inherently breaks the contract. For example: theft. We need policemen to prevent theft, hence we need the government to lay taxes to pay for policemen to prevent theft. Taxes paid represent freedom given up, prevention of theft represents the government's responsibility of taking care of the threat.
Wikipedia defines the social contract as follows: The social contract or political contract is an intellectual device intended to explain the appropriate relationship between individuals and their governments. Social contract arguments assert that individuals unite into political societies by a process of mutual consent, agreeing to abide by common rules and accept corresponding duties to protect themselves and one another from violence and other kinds of harm.
Now that I am older, and versed in the philosophy of freedom, it is easy to see the problem here. Governments have to encroach on our rights in order to protect them. They must coerce tax funds for police and jails to imprison those who want to do us harm. But failure to pay for the police and prisons leads to imprisonment in itself. The contradiction is obvious.
If what we really want is the lack of aggression committed against peaceful people in any form, it is clear that we need a new social contract. Since applying a social contract to everyone has a variety of problems, most notably the fact that I do not know everyone else's preferences in society, it is necessary to design it to be universally accepted. But what do we know that everyone would agree to, without knowing them personally?
Like economics, there are self-evident facts about human life we can use to format our social contract around. First of all, nobody likes to be coerced to do anything. Everyone has their own goals they want to meet, their own special circumstances in life, etc. Everyone can only be in one place at one time. So right off the bat, the social contract must involve an acknowledgement that the use of force against each other in order to repel an external threat is out of the question. So if there is to be no giving up of liberties in order to obtain security, what remains? Clearly, the inverse of force is voluntarism. There must be an understanding between people that if crime is left unchecked, it eventually turns into a form of organized crime, whether it is a mafia, street gang, or dare I say a government.
Voluntary ways of dealing with crime may involve able individuals coming to assist others when they are being victimized; creating security products (cameras, offering time to act as guards, etc.), or perhaps using jury nullification when dealing with the government.
In my experience in spreading word of the voluntary philosophy to others, I have found that the most common objection to this is the idea that if it's voluntary, there is no guarantee it will happen. This ideology applied to the social contract is a reflection of shallow thinking. When "the people" give up their rights to the government in exchange for security, they COMPLETELY RUIN ANY CHANCE OF GETTING THE SECURITY THEY WANT. That is the catch. Allowing the government to threaten others with jail time for refusing to pay for prisons and police is an act of theft in and of itself... far greater than what any individual criminal could ever dream of achieving by the way. Not to mention the various problems of waste involved when services are provided on a coercive basis (the resources used to track down "tax cheats" and not real thieves, the inflated prices due to the income coming in on a forceful basis rather than a voluntary basis, etc.)
The New Social Contract Must Revolve Around Voluntarism For All.
My perception of the social contract, perhaps due to government schooling, went as follows for most of my life:
whenever there is a threat to civil society, the people within it acknowledge that it is necessary to give up a portion of our rights to the government for their protection. This would mean that anyone arguing against the forfeiture of such rights inherently breaks the contract. For example: theft. We need policemen to prevent theft, hence we need the government to lay taxes to pay for policemen to prevent theft. Taxes paid represent freedom given up, prevention of theft represents the government's responsibility of taking care of the threat.
Wikipedia defines the social contract as follows: The social contract or political contract is an intellectual device intended to explain the appropriate relationship between individuals and their governments. Social contract arguments assert that individuals unite into political societies by a process of mutual consent, agreeing to abide by common rules and accept corresponding duties to protect themselves and one another from violence and other kinds of harm.
Now that I am older, and versed in the philosophy of freedom, it is easy to see the problem here. Governments have to encroach on our rights in order to protect them. They must coerce tax funds for police and jails to imprison those who want to do us harm. But failure to pay for the police and prisons leads to imprisonment in itself. The contradiction is obvious.
If what we really want is the lack of aggression committed against peaceful people in any form, it is clear that we need a new social contract. Since applying a social contract to everyone has a variety of problems, most notably the fact that I do not know everyone else's preferences in society, it is necessary to design it to be universally accepted. But what do we know that everyone would agree to, without knowing them personally?
Like economics, there are self-evident facts about human life we can use to format our social contract around. First of all, nobody likes to be coerced to do anything. Everyone has their own goals they want to meet, their own special circumstances in life, etc. Everyone can only be in one place at one time. So right off the bat, the social contract must involve an acknowledgement that the use of force against each other in order to repel an external threat is out of the question. So if there is to be no giving up of liberties in order to obtain security, what remains? Clearly, the inverse of force is voluntarism. There must be an understanding between people that if crime is left unchecked, it eventually turns into a form of organized crime, whether it is a mafia, street gang, or dare I say a government.
Voluntary ways of dealing with crime may involve able individuals coming to assist others when they are being victimized; creating security products (cameras, offering time to act as guards, etc.), or perhaps using jury nullification when dealing with the government.
In my experience in spreading word of the voluntary philosophy to others, I have found that the most common objection to this is the idea that if it's voluntary, there is no guarantee it will happen. This ideology applied to the social contract is a reflection of shallow thinking. When "the people" give up their rights to the government in exchange for security, they COMPLETELY RUIN ANY CHANCE OF GETTING THE SECURITY THEY WANT. That is the catch. Allowing the government to threaten others with jail time for refusing to pay for prisons and police is an act of theft in and of itself... far greater than what any individual criminal could ever dream of achieving by the way. Not to mention the various problems of waste involved when services are provided on a coercive basis (the resources used to track down "tax cheats" and not real thieves, the inflated prices due to the income coming in on a forceful basis rather than a voluntary basis, etc.)
The New Social Contract Must Revolve Around Voluntarism For All.
Sunday, January 22, 2012
Liberals, Conservatives, and Tension
Where does tension come from, and how does it build? Tension comes from conflict. No matter how big or small the conflict is, with every conflict comes an equal amount of tension. The "size" of the conflict depends on the level of importance the issue is to the parties involved. This is a subjective matter; if you don't think so, look at your partner's list of pet peeves. Most likely you will find something on that list that you think is completely irrelevant.
Escalating such tension is a simple matter. Leave the conflict unresolved and simply add more conflict than there was before. If your partner hates it when you leave your socks on the floor, getting your clean socks out of your dresser drawer and tossing them on the ground randomly is a great way to escalate the level of tension between the two of you. Not only did you not pick up the socks that were there before but you blatantly threw more socks on the ground for the sole purpose of making your partner angry.
I submit that this is what happens between Liberals and Conservatives. They are opposites who argue over the best way to use state power. When liberals are in power, they tell conservatives "not only are you not going to get your way, but you're going to be forced to do what we want for a while", and vice versa when the conservatives are in power. And every time one side wins, that pile of socks on the floor gets bigger and bigger. In fact, this level of tension has become so great that it is less and less common for a liberal and conservative to be friends. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but pay attention to level of tension every time you see a conservative and liberal debate the issues. Personal attacks seem to be inevitable.
And it's only going to get worse. Every "left wing" administration will bring in new "left wing" policies, and every "right wing" administration will bring in new "right wing" policies. The tea party and occupy protests make it clear that we have a divided country.
As a security guard, I have observed that when tension continuously builds between people, it will eventually release in the form of a fight. If I see tensions getting too high in my line of work, my job is to work to defuse such tensions so they are released before a fight happens. I'm not to simply wrangle people for fighting, but to prevent the fight all together. That way, the store I work for can keep its reputation, rather than having it be known as some poorly managed store where people go to fight.
It seems to me that the way to reduce the tensions between liberals and conservatives and to push for voluntary interactions. If liberals want to see people get free health care, they should network with each other to work on ways to accomplish free education and volunteer medical centers. If conservatives want to go out and police the world, they should network together to organize transportation and weapons and go be the heroes they think they are.
I realize that not every issue is this simple, but all that need be done to balance the budget and reduce tensions is to make things voluntary. What has been bankrupting the people in this land mass named the united states is the bailouts, wars, and domestic welfare programs. Well, if you think these big banks should stay operational despite what they have done, cut them a check. If you want to give people money who are struggling, cut them a check. If you want to pay some group of people to attack the government of some foreign country because you see the injustices being committed by them, cut them a check.
But recognize that 1) you have no right spending other people's money, and supporting the state doing it does not mean that you are not guilty of a form of theft and 2) if you want to get along with the people in this country, you have to let them decide for themselves what they support and what they don't, rather than supporting the state's "legitimacy" in making decisions for all of us, with our lives and with our money.
If we do not defuse the tension between these two major groups of people, we just may end up with a civil war like situation on our hands...
(Liberals and Conservatives are not the only political groups who feel tensions and get upset, but they are the most prevalent. This has not been intended to suggest that they are the only ones alienated by the state... as an anarchist, I'm sure you can appreciate my sincerity in that)
Escalating such tension is a simple matter. Leave the conflict unresolved and simply add more conflict than there was before. If your partner hates it when you leave your socks on the floor, getting your clean socks out of your dresser drawer and tossing them on the ground randomly is a great way to escalate the level of tension between the two of you. Not only did you not pick up the socks that were there before but you blatantly threw more socks on the ground for the sole purpose of making your partner angry.
I submit that this is what happens between Liberals and Conservatives. They are opposites who argue over the best way to use state power. When liberals are in power, they tell conservatives "not only are you not going to get your way, but you're going to be forced to do what we want for a while", and vice versa when the conservatives are in power. And every time one side wins, that pile of socks on the floor gets bigger and bigger. In fact, this level of tension has become so great that it is less and less common for a liberal and conservative to be friends. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but pay attention to level of tension every time you see a conservative and liberal debate the issues. Personal attacks seem to be inevitable.
And it's only going to get worse. Every "left wing" administration will bring in new "left wing" policies, and every "right wing" administration will bring in new "right wing" policies. The tea party and occupy protests make it clear that we have a divided country.
As a security guard, I have observed that when tension continuously builds between people, it will eventually release in the form of a fight. If I see tensions getting too high in my line of work, my job is to work to defuse such tensions so they are released before a fight happens. I'm not to simply wrangle people for fighting, but to prevent the fight all together. That way, the store I work for can keep its reputation, rather than having it be known as some poorly managed store where people go to fight.
It seems to me that the way to reduce the tensions between liberals and conservatives and to push for voluntary interactions. If liberals want to see people get free health care, they should network with each other to work on ways to accomplish free education and volunteer medical centers. If conservatives want to go out and police the world, they should network together to organize transportation and weapons and go be the heroes they think they are.
I realize that not every issue is this simple, but all that need be done to balance the budget and reduce tensions is to make things voluntary. What has been bankrupting the people in this land mass named the united states is the bailouts, wars, and domestic welfare programs. Well, if you think these big banks should stay operational despite what they have done, cut them a check. If you want to give people money who are struggling, cut them a check. If you want to pay some group of people to attack the government of some foreign country because you see the injustices being committed by them, cut them a check.
But recognize that 1) you have no right spending other people's money, and supporting the state doing it does not mean that you are not guilty of a form of theft and 2) if you want to get along with the people in this country, you have to let them decide for themselves what they support and what they don't, rather than supporting the state's "legitimacy" in making decisions for all of us, with our lives and with our money.
If we do not defuse the tension between these two major groups of people, we just may end up with a civil war like situation on our hands...
(Liberals and Conservatives are not the only political groups who feel tensions and get upset, but they are the most prevalent. This has not been intended to suggest that they are the only ones alienated by the state... as an anarchist, I'm sure you can appreciate my sincerity in that)
Saturday, January 14, 2012
A Little Something To Consider About Jesus
At best I consider myself to be a Quaker. I believe there is goodness in each and every person, and following that goodness is a simple decision. But since the dominant religion in the United States is Christianity, and the story of Jesus, whether true or not true, holds an enormous value to me, here are my thoughts.
Statists tend to believe that "if only people were forced to do A, B, or C, we would live in a much better world than we do now." or perhaps even just "if only people did A, B, or C..." and then go on passively accepting legislation to make it happen. (ex: If only people paid a higher wage... well, I'm not for actively forcing people to pay a higher wage, but if the state should pass a law to make it happen, I will not interfere with it.)
What I don't understand is, why don't more people look to Jesus' example when it comes to force?
Disclaimer: Jesus' name has been introduced to justify just about any political idea one can think of, so what I am going to do here is present the audience with a few simple facts to make my case... and I think it's one that is hard to ignore.
Here is a list of some of the miracles performed by Jesus:
After all, if God is all powerful, why doesn't He just force us to do as he wishes? The answer is hopefully obvious at this point. That particular method of solving problems is wrong.
So, when it comes to advocating state intervention to solve problems, why don't more people follow Jesus' example and choose peaceful methods over the state?
I thought about writing this blog because I see a man who comes by my work every single day, telling people about how they need to find Jesus. This man had the nerve to tell me, when I suggested that Barack Obama likes to kill people (see the acknowledged innocents who are dying because of our drones) his response wasn't that "that's part of war" or some other cliche, but it was "if it spreads the gospel, it is justified."
In other words, he thinks that BLOWING PEOPLE UP IS JUSTIFIED IF IT SPREADS CHRISTIANITY!! Again, Jesus could have forced people to follow him without harming a soul and he chose not to... does anyone honestly believe He would have said "bomb people until they choose to follow me"? The problem is, I know this man is not the only "Christian" who thinks this way.
If Christianity is about saving souls, what is the point of blowing up people engaged in blasphemy? Blowing them up would not save their soul, it would damn them (and perhaps your own in the process). If Christians want to save souls, it is clear that they should use the power of persuasion/reason and not force, as religious beliefs cannot be forced on a man; and blowing up blasphemers destroys their chance for repentance. It simply makes no sense to use force to spread a religion of peace.
I just want to wrap this up by being clear: it is not my intention to make an enemy out of Christianity. I think there are very good things about the religion... the 10 commandments are great, the message of love that I take from it is invaluable. My intention is to question the strategy of using force to spread the gospel, and any other good for that matter, and question whether or not people who advocate using violence to spread the gospel ought to be considered Christians at all.
Statists tend to believe that "if only people were forced to do A, B, or C, we would live in a much better world than we do now." or perhaps even just "if only people did A, B, or C..." and then go on passively accepting legislation to make it happen. (ex: If only people paid a higher wage... well, I'm not for actively forcing people to pay a higher wage, but if the state should pass a law to make it happen, I will not interfere with it.)
What I don't understand is, why don't more people look to Jesus' example when it comes to force?
Disclaimer: Jesus' name has been introduced to justify just about any political idea one can think of, so what I am going to do here is present the audience with a few simple facts to make my case... and I think it's one that is hard to ignore.
Here is a list of some of the miracles performed by Jesus:
- Turning Water into Wine
- The miracle of draught of fishes
- The Feeding of the 5000 and of the 4000 men
- Walking on water
- Transfiguration of Jesus
- Calming the storm
- Finding a Coin in the fish's mouth
- The Cursing of the Fig Tree
- He knew he was going to be betrayed
- Raising of Lazarus
- His own Resurrection
After all, if God is all powerful, why doesn't He just force us to do as he wishes? The answer is hopefully obvious at this point. That particular method of solving problems is wrong.
So, when it comes to advocating state intervention to solve problems, why don't more people follow Jesus' example and choose peaceful methods over the state?
I thought about writing this blog because I see a man who comes by my work every single day, telling people about how they need to find Jesus. This man had the nerve to tell me, when I suggested that Barack Obama likes to kill people (see the acknowledged innocents who are dying because of our drones) his response wasn't that "that's part of war" or some other cliche, but it was "if it spreads the gospel, it is justified."
In other words, he thinks that BLOWING PEOPLE UP IS JUSTIFIED IF IT SPREADS CHRISTIANITY!! Again, Jesus could have forced people to follow him without harming a soul and he chose not to... does anyone honestly believe He would have said "bomb people until they choose to follow me"? The problem is, I know this man is not the only "Christian" who thinks this way.
If Christianity is about saving souls, what is the point of blowing up people engaged in blasphemy? Blowing them up would not save their soul, it would damn them (and perhaps your own in the process). If Christians want to save souls, it is clear that they should use the power of persuasion/reason and not force, as religious beliefs cannot be forced on a man; and blowing up blasphemers destroys their chance for repentance. It simply makes no sense to use force to spread a religion of peace.
I just want to wrap this up by being clear: it is not my intention to make an enemy out of Christianity. I think there are very good things about the religion... the 10 commandments are great, the message of love that I take from it is invaluable. My intention is to question the strategy of using force to spread the gospel, and any other good for that matter, and question whether or not people who advocate using violence to spread the gospel ought to be considered Christians at all.
Friday, January 13, 2012
Why Limited Government Inevitably Grows
Since we are in a minority, I don't make it a hobby of arguing with other libertarians, but I feel this is something I must share.
The concept of limited government in libertarianism is the philosophy that Government should be limited to the protection of private property. Assuming that this is possible while at the same time collecting taxes, this system of government will inevitably grow in the long run, and here is why.
Austrian economists and other philosophical libertarians often make the case that the state doesn't produce anything of any value. This is not entirely accurate. What the state provides is the feeling of security, or anxiety relief, seemingly regardless of its excessive failure in reality. After all, the product is in the eye of the consumer. (This analysis leaves out the people who support statism simply in order to make money through subsidy or some other form of state preference)
The feeling of anxiety can be seen in every little thing the state does. "who will protect us from criminals?" "who will provide retirement when I'm too old to work?" "who will see to it the elderly and poor receive medical care?" "drugs will run rampant if the state does not outlaw them!" and you can do this with literally every other service the state provides...
Logically it follows that those who say "who will protect private property if not the state" are consuming the exact same product as the person who says "who will protect the sanctity of marriage if not the state." Both people are consumers of anxiety relief. And we can see this with the unofficial axioms that have come about when describing state action. "when seconds count, the police are only minutes away" - It is most likely the case that people who use this phrase still support the state to provide security. Or, even after shown all the data as to why the war on drugs will always be a failure, the state is still supported in its prohibition efforts. Or, despite the TSA's constant failures at its own tests when it comes to screening for weapons at the airport, the state is still seen as the best source of airport security; even despite the fact they were in charge of security on 9/11/01.
Any government limited to helping people overcome the anxiety that someone might infringe on their property rights will inevitably fine some other issue people have anxiety about and work to relieve it from that source. The product is not the protection of private property, it is anxiety relief... and the list of things that gives us anxiety when we think about them hard enough is probably endless. While it is true that this is not enough to suggest the libertarian in question would support state growth to protect against all sources of anxiety, it is inevitable that the agency of the state will keep pressing different issues until support for its expansion is gained; and since it's all the same product, the libertarian in question would be somewhat at a loss to tell others the state power is ok for his purposes, but not for theirs.
If this is you, seeking anxiety relief, take the time to look past your anxiety and imagine alternatives to the obvious failures of the state. An institution that thrives from coercing you cannot possibly protect you. The feeling of anxiety relief, or security, is nowhere near as good a product as security in reality.
The concept of limited government in libertarianism is the philosophy that Government should be limited to the protection of private property. Assuming that this is possible while at the same time collecting taxes, this system of government will inevitably grow in the long run, and here is why.
Austrian economists and other philosophical libertarians often make the case that the state doesn't produce anything of any value. This is not entirely accurate. What the state provides is the feeling of security, or anxiety relief, seemingly regardless of its excessive failure in reality. After all, the product is in the eye of the consumer. (This analysis leaves out the people who support statism simply in order to make money through subsidy or some other form of state preference)
The feeling of anxiety can be seen in every little thing the state does. "who will protect us from criminals?" "who will provide retirement when I'm too old to work?" "who will see to it the elderly and poor receive medical care?" "drugs will run rampant if the state does not outlaw them!" and you can do this with literally every other service the state provides...
Logically it follows that those who say "who will protect private property if not the state" are consuming the exact same product as the person who says "who will protect the sanctity of marriage if not the state." Both people are consumers of anxiety relief. And we can see this with the unofficial axioms that have come about when describing state action. "when seconds count, the police are only minutes away" - It is most likely the case that people who use this phrase still support the state to provide security. Or, even after shown all the data as to why the war on drugs will always be a failure, the state is still supported in its prohibition efforts. Or, despite the TSA's constant failures at its own tests when it comes to screening for weapons at the airport, the state is still seen as the best source of airport security; even despite the fact they were in charge of security on 9/11/01.
Any government limited to helping people overcome the anxiety that someone might infringe on their property rights will inevitably fine some other issue people have anxiety about and work to relieve it from that source. The product is not the protection of private property, it is anxiety relief... and the list of things that gives us anxiety when we think about them hard enough is probably endless. While it is true that this is not enough to suggest the libertarian in question would support state growth to protect against all sources of anxiety, it is inevitable that the agency of the state will keep pressing different issues until support for its expansion is gained; and since it's all the same product, the libertarian in question would be somewhat at a loss to tell others the state power is ok for his purposes, but not for theirs.
If this is you, seeking anxiety relief, take the time to look past your anxiety and imagine alternatives to the obvious failures of the state. An institution that thrives from coercing you cannot possibly protect you. The feeling of anxiety relief, or security, is nowhere near as good a product as security in reality.
Monday, December 19, 2011
The Economy is Organic!
In this blog I intend to go over the basics of how an economy works, and how some of the interventions from the state affect it. To begin with, I will write a brief analysis of all the market actors (Consumers, Laborers, Capitalists, and Entrepreneurs). It should be noted that a single person does not have to be limited to just one of these functions.
Consumers- For example, all people are consumers. Consumption merely means enjoying the product of the other three functions, Labor, Capital investment, and economic development. Everyone starts out as a consumer, and it is for the consumer that all market activity is directed. This may seem trivial, but there are schools of thought that teach what is called the Labor theory of Value, which indicates that a thing has value simply because work was put in to it (and not because consumers choose to purchase it). It is the labor theory of value that have lead people like John Maynard Keynes to suggest paying people to dig holes as a policy for economic recovery. It has also lead some to fail to understand how a person could have gotten rich selling pet rocks. If the labor theory of value were accurate, there would be no such thing as a bankruptcy. Consumers would not ask what the use value of an item is at the store, but they would ask things like "how hard did the person who made this work?" or "how long did it take to make?" Clearly, this is absurd. Nobody is buying the hole I dig just because I spend time and energy doing it.
Labor- The function of labor is quite easily understood. The Capitalist and Entrepreneur are the ones who have the resources to open up a production line, and they employ labor to get that production line going. But labor doesn't always mean some sort of construction. It can be much easier things; for example, football players and other athletes are considered laborers.
Capitalists- This function is somewhat ignored within the general public when it comes to the economy today, but it certainly is not unimportant. In order to apply resources in the production of consumer goods, one must come up with capital (that is, one always must be a consumer, and in order to spend time producing rather than consuming, it is necessary to save and forgo consumption). For example, suppose you were stranded on an island in the middle of the ocean. If you wish to consume as fast as humanly possible, you would try to catch a fish with your bare hands and hope you catch one quickly. If you hold off your plans to consume, you can try to find a pointy stick first, or still farther, you could spend time making a net. The reason for production is clear; you will catch fish faster and easier with the stick or the net. In this example, the stick and the net are called capital goods (tools that increase the production ability of the laborer, you)
Entrepreneurs- This is the function of economic calculation. The business owner who decides what is to be made, at what quantity, sold at such and such price, etc. As stated in the "Consumers" section, all economic activity is directed at consumption. What entrepreneurs do is try to figure out a product people would buy, and determine if it could be produced at a lower price than it could sell for. If the entrepreneur is correct in his calculations, he will make profits (which means the capitalists will as well, and the laborers will continue to have work), if he is wrong, the business will go bankrupt.
It should be pretty clear that all these functions are interrelated. The entrepreneur makes a forecast; the capitalist decides to give a loan to the entrepreneur for a percentage back in return; Laborers are then hired to carry out the production process; but it is ultimately the consumers who decide if the line of production is worthy of existence (not to mention how much money labor will make and exactly how profitable it will be for the capitalists and entrepreneurs) and the entire thing can be looked at as the workings of time preference.
Time preference refers to how long a person is willing to wait to consume. If you are the type of person who says "I must spend all my money now because I like to, I need to", whatever the reason, your time preference is high. And the more you are willing to wait and save rather than consume now, the lower your time preference is. (This should also show that investment cannot go up while consumption remains the same in an economy. This fact was one of they key elements that lead the Austrian economists in realizing housing was indeed in a bubble almost a decade before it hit mainstream.) So, if investment leads to more capital goods, which makes it easier and more profitable to make consumer goods, the clear way to grow an economy is to adopt a lower time preference.
Time preference also determines interest rates and profits in equilibrium. This is quite obvious when you think about it. It is quite natural to want to consume all the money one makes... so if I am going to forgo consumption now in order to make interest/profits later, then the money I expect in return must be enough to rank higher on my demand schedule to be worth more than spending now. Why would anyone go through the trouble of entrepreneurial risk and forgoing consumption, if only to break even? It's simple, they wouldn't.
The role money plays in all this is obvious. Money flows where actors want it to, indicating their wishes. If consumption is wanted, with a very high time preference, money will flow into consumption goods, and only to those goods consumers want. If there are consumers with a lower time preference, projects will be invested in and the calculation process will be undertaken by an entrepreneur. How much money exactly will determine the length of the process, the wages for laborers, etc. Without money communicating time preference and demands, the entire process would be reduced a primitive situation where people trade goods directly (a fish net for a lighter or something, rather than determining how many fish nets should be made, and sold at what price, and then mass producing them)
So what happens when the state intervenes and say lowers interest rates? A facade of investment and lower time preference is created. And entrepreneurs go through the process of calculation and hiring labor to take on new projects, based on false signals. True preferences will prevail in the end, when nobody is purchasing the final product these new projects were aimed at creating. This went on in the housing sector for almost 2 decades. It happens because consumers/labor/entrepreneurs/and capitalists do not communicate by talking to each other. The capitalists do not find the consumers and ask them what they want, nor the entrepreneurs and any other group. Money and interest rates are the means of communication. When the government and the federal reserve interrupt that conversation, they throw off the entire thing. To clarify, suppose you are the parent of a ten year old boy. You send him to the store one day to pick up some bread and milk, but the boy instead spends the money you gave him on a candy bar and a yoohoo. You said bread and milk, but the boy told the clerk candy bar and yoohoo. The market was saying "we want to consume now" (because these days Americans do not save and invest much, so we have a high time preference) and the banks took that message, and under the direction of the government and the central bank, said "uh ya, they're investing and want to hold off on consumption."
There are really only 3 ways this situation can work itself out. 1) Everyone could become aware of what has happened and change their preferences to match the bad message sent by the fed, so a lot of people don't lose their jobs and wealth. This situation is absolutely unlikely to happen. 2) The bad investments will be liquidated and the production process will go back to reflecting what people ACTUALLY prefer, which is a completely necessary step for any bubble, since the preferences are not real, but falsified by poor communication. 3) When the liquidation of the bad investments begins, the government and the fed will step in and keep throwing money at those same bad investments. This is the most dangerous situation because since those investments are not ACTUALLY preferred, the amount of money that can be spent on keeping those production lines going is literally endless. It is dangerous because when the government spends money, they spend tax-payer money... that is, they spend your money. Bush and Obama, and any others, are not spending all this money out of their own pockets. When the fed spends money, they do 1 of 2 things. They either simply type a number into a computer screen, or order new money to be printed from the treasury dept. Either way, the money they spend gets its value from all existing money, and lowers the value thereof (making prices raise. essentially, a more sophisticated way of taxing). If it is the fed creating new money to make up the losses, and they never stop doing it, the end result is the destruction of the currency through a hyper-inflation, which brings the value of all money to zero. This is how a loaf of bread in the Weimar republic came to cost billions...
Again, this is a very simplex example of how an economy is organic, and a brief analysis of what happens when the government and its central bank interferes with just 1 aspect of that process. The process gets infinitely complex when you consider that everyone is a consumer, but laborers can be capitalists and entrepreneurs as well, capitalists are usually entrepreneurs... 1 person may perform all 3 functions... and then you must consider how many lines of production there must be, how long they take, etc. Indeed, the complexity of the situation is the very reason no one person could ever run it all by himself... This is obvious even before we consider that demand cannot be measured in any way. Are you thirsty right now? How badly do you want something to drink? Shall I get out my tape measure to see how badly you want a glass of water? These questions are pretty bizarre to ask. Yet, when we assume the government can intervene and run the economy by performing mathematical functions (ironically, functions for which no constants exist, for you will not always want that glass of water), we do so under the pretense that politicians can possibly know these things for every single line of production in existence, as well as every single demand (which, demands are themselves endless). In essence, we must assume politicians to be gods if we believe they have the knowledge necessary to pass laws and force everyone to do what politicians claim to know they want to do. Bizarre indeed.
Consumers- For example, all people are consumers. Consumption merely means enjoying the product of the other three functions, Labor, Capital investment, and economic development. Everyone starts out as a consumer, and it is for the consumer that all market activity is directed. This may seem trivial, but there are schools of thought that teach what is called the Labor theory of Value, which indicates that a thing has value simply because work was put in to it (and not because consumers choose to purchase it). It is the labor theory of value that have lead people like John Maynard Keynes to suggest paying people to dig holes as a policy for economic recovery. It has also lead some to fail to understand how a person could have gotten rich selling pet rocks. If the labor theory of value were accurate, there would be no such thing as a bankruptcy. Consumers would not ask what the use value of an item is at the store, but they would ask things like "how hard did the person who made this work?" or "how long did it take to make?" Clearly, this is absurd. Nobody is buying the hole I dig just because I spend time and energy doing it.
Labor- The function of labor is quite easily understood. The Capitalist and Entrepreneur are the ones who have the resources to open up a production line, and they employ labor to get that production line going. But labor doesn't always mean some sort of construction. It can be much easier things; for example, football players and other athletes are considered laborers.
Capitalists- This function is somewhat ignored within the general public when it comes to the economy today, but it certainly is not unimportant. In order to apply resources in the production of consumer goods, one must come up with capital (that is, one always must be a consumer, and in order to spend time producing rather than consuming, it is necessary to save and forgo consumption). For example, suppose you were stranded on an island in the middle of the ocean. If you wish to consume as fast as humanly possible, you would try to catch a fish with your bare hands and hope you catch one quickly. If you hold off your plans to consume, you can try to find a pointy stick first, or still farther, you could spend time making a net. The reason for production is clear; you will catch fish faster and easier with the stick or the net. In this example, the stick and the net are called capital goods (tools that increase the production ability of the laborer, you)
Entrepreneurs- This is the function of economic calculation. The business owner who decides what is to be made, at what quantity, sold at such and such price, etc. As stated in the "Consumers" section, all economic activity is directed at consumption. What entrepreneurs do is try to figure out a product people would buy, and determine if it could be produced at a lower price than it could sell for. If the entrepreneur is correct in his calculations, he will make profits (which means the capitalists will as well, and the laborers will continue to have work), if he is wrong, the business will go bankrupt.
It should be pretty clear that all these functions are interrelated. The entrepreneur makes a forecast; the capitalist decides to give a loan to the entrepreneur for a percentage back in return; Laborers are then hired to carry out the production process; but it is ultimately the consumers who decide if the line of production is worthy of existence (not to mention how much money labor will make and exactly how profitable it will be for the capitalists and entrepreneurs) and the entire thing can be looked at as the workings of time preference.
Time preference refers to how long a person is willing to wait to consume. If you are the type of person who says "I must spend all my money now because I like to, I need to", whatever the reason, your time preference is high. And the more you are willing to wait and save rather than consume now, the lower your time preference is. (This should also show that investment cannot go up while consumption remains the same in an economy. This fact was one of they key elements that lead the Austrian economists in realizing housing was indeed in a bubble almost a decade before it hit mainstream.) So, if investment leads to more capital goods, which makes it easier and more profitable to make consumer goods, the clear way to grow an economy is to adopt a lower time preference.
Time preference also determines interest rates and profits in equilibrium. This is quite obvious when you think about it. It is quite natural to want to consume all the money one makes... so if I am going to forgo consumption now in order to make interest/profits later, then the money I expect in return must be enough to rank higher on my demand schedule to be worth more than spending now. Why would anyone go through the trouble of entrepreneurial risk and forgoing consumption, if only to break even? It's simple, they wouldn't.
The role money plays in all this is obvious. Money flows where actors want it to, indicating their wishes. If consumption is wanted, with a very high time preference, money will flow into consumption goods, and only to those goods consumers want. If there are consumers with a lower time preference, projects will be invested in and the calculation process will be undertaken by an entrepreneur. How much money exactly will determine the length of the process, the wages for laborers, etc. Without money communicating time preference and demands, the entire process would be reduced a primitive situation where people trade goods directly (a fish net for a lighter or something, rather than determining how many fish nets should be made, and sold at what price, and then mass producing them)
So what happens when the state intervenes and say lowers interest rates? A facade of investment and lower time preference is created. And entrepreneurs go through the process of calculation and hiring labor to take on new projects, based on false signals. True preferences will prevail in the end, when nobody is purchasing the final product these new projects were aimed at creating. This went on in the housing sector for almost 2 decades. It happens because consumers/labor/entrepreneurs/and capitalists do not communicate by talking to each other. The capitalists do not find the consumers and ask them what they want, nor the entrepreneurs and any other group. Money and interest rates are the means of communication. When the government and the federal reserve interrupt that conversation, they throw off the entire thing. To clarify, suppose you are the parent of a ten year old boy. You send him to the store one day to pick up some bread and milk, but the boy instead spends the money you gave him on a candy bar and a yoohoo. You said bread and milk, but the boy told the clerk candy bar and yoohoo. The market was saying "we want to consume now" (because these days Americans do not save and invest much, so we have a high time preference) and the banks took that message, and under the direction of the government and the central bank, said "uh ya, they're investing and want to hold off on consumption."
There are really only 3 ways this situation can work itself out. 1) Everyone could become aware of what has happened and change their preferences to match the bad message sent by the fed, so a lot of people don't lose their jobs and wealth. This situation is absolutely unlikely to happen. 2) The bad investments will be liquidated and the production process will go back to reflecting what people ACTUALLY prefer, which is a completely necessary step for any bubble, since the preferences are not real, but falsified by poor communication. 3) When the liquidation of the bad investments begins, the government and the fed will step in and keep throwing money at those same bad investments. This is the most dangerous situation because since those investments are not ACTUALLY preferred, the amount of money that can be spent on keeping those production lines going is literally endless. It is dangerous because when the government spends money, they spend tax-payer money... that is, they spend your money. Bush and Obama, and any others, are not spending all this money out of their own pockets. When the fed spends money, they do 1 of 2 things. They either simply type a number into a computer screen, or order new money to be printed from the treasury dept. Either way, the money they spend gets its value from all existing money, and lowers the value thereof (making prices raise. essentially, a more sophisticated way of taxing). If it is the fed creating new money to make up the losses, and they never stop doing it, the end result is the destruction of the currency through a hyper-inflation, which brings the value of all money to zero. This is how a loaf of bread in the Weimar republic came to cost billions...
Again, this is a very simplex example of how an economy is organic, and a brief analysis of what happens when the government and its central bank interferes with just 1 aspect of that process. The process gets infinitely complex when you consider that everyone is a consumer, but laborers can be capitalists and entrepreneurs as well, capitalists are usually entrepreneurs... 1 person may perform all 3 functions... and then you must consider how many lines of production there must be, how long they take, etc. Indeed, the complexity of the situation is the very reason no one person could ever run it all by himself... This is obvious even before we consider that demand cannot be measured in any way. Are you thirsty right now? How badly do you want something to drink? Shall I get out my tape measure to see how badly you want a glass of water? These questions are pretty bizarre to ask. Yet, when we assume the government can intervene and run the economy by performing mathematical functions (ironically, functions for which no constants exist, for you will not always want that glass of water), we do so under the pretense that politicians can possibly know these things for every single line of production in existence, as well as every single demand (which, demands are themselves endless). In essence, we must assume politicians to be gods if we believe they have the knowledge necessary to pass laws and force everyone to do what politicians claim to know they want to do. Bizarre indeed.
Sunday, December 4, 2011
Free-Market-Security
Recently I began reading a book dealing with security in an anarcho-capitalist world. The author, whom I will not reveal, was writing as if he had to make the case that security would be better in a market setting due to competition and peaceful incentives inherent in the marketplace. While this is all good, it got me wondering: why do libertarians/voluntaryists/anarchists feel the need to make the case for SUPERIOR security in the marketplace at all?
The case against the state rests on the fact that it does not provide security at all, but at best protects itself from others who would like to loot you. Police investigate robberies, burglaries, murders, etc. while being engaged in imminent domain, coercive taxation, and using force up to the point of murder if necessary to get compliance. If you don't think this is so, refuse to pay taxes for a while. Should any government agent ever come to you face-to-face, resist their infringement upon your property as you would any "private" thief, and see what happens. Or for that matter, resist the police officer who stops you for driving too fast as you would a private person. Without the uniform and badge, these people would appear absolutely insane for trying to stop people for driving faster than what they believe to be safe. But should you resist the person who wears a badge, they get to do whatever is necessary to control you in the name of self-defense.
So why are we more scared of police officers than we are average citizens? After all, a badge is not anything special, and it is possible to drive carrying a weapon of our own. The answer clearly is because the state will send an endless army after you should you escape, in the name of justice and defense of course.
So to sum up, the state does not provide security. The state, as Spooner pointed out, is worse than the highwayman who continually robs you at gun point, since its members believe its force is justified. Any "protective" measures provided are simply measures against their competition in controlling you. What other conclusion could one come up with when analyzing an organization that both claims the right to control you, and claims the want to protect you from people who wish to control you...?
So if you believe in a free market setting for government protection services, don't forget to argue that such services wouldn't only be better in a marketplace setting, but they are non-existent within the state.
I have also noticed a second inherent fallacy in those who argue against a marketplace for security. When the idea of competing insurance companies comes up, almost inevitably the case against it includes the idea that these insurance companies would become states themselves. So the worry about abolishing the state is that private companies might one day take on the characteristics of the state. In other words, the big worry is we might get what we have today. What a completely absurd thing to argue indeed! And to protect against getting what we already have, I suppose to this line of reasoning, is for everyone to submit to a monopolistic state, cutting out the road from freedom to serfdom, and just accepting serfdom from the get-g0!
The case against the state rests on the fact that it does not provide security at all, but at best protects itself from others who would like to loot you. Police investigate robberies, burglaries, murders, etc. while being engaged in imminent domain, coercive taxation, and using force up to the point of murder if necessary to get compliance. If you don't think this is so, refuse to pay taxes for a while. Should any government agent ever come to you face-to-face, resist their infringement upon your property as you would any "private" thief, and see what happens. Or for that matter, resist the police officer who stops you for driving too fast as you would a private person. Without the uniform and badge, these people would appear absolutely insane for trying to stop people for driving faster than what they believe to be safe. But should you resist the person who wears a badge, they get to do whatever is necessary to control you in the name of self-defense.
So why are we more scared of police officers than we are average citizens? After all, a badge is not anything special, and it is possible to drive carrying a weapon of our own. The answer clearly is because the state will send an endless army after you should you escape, in the name of justice and defense of course.
So to sum up, the state does not provide security. The state, as Spooner pointed out, is worse than the highwayman who continually robs you at gun point, since its members believe its force is justified. Any "protective" measures provided are simply measures against their competition in controlling you. What other conclusion could one come up with when analyzing an organization that both claims the right to control you, and claims the want to protect you from people who wish to control you...?
So if you believe in a free market setting for government protection services, don't forget to argue that such services wouldn't only be better in a marketplace setting, but they are non-existent within the state.
I have also noticed a second inherent fallacy in those who argue against a marketplace for security. When the idea of competing insurance companies comes up, almost inevitably the case against it includes the idea that these insurance companies would become states themselves. So the worry about abolishing the state is that private companies might one day take on the characteristics of the state. In other words, the big worry is we might get what we have today. What a completely absurd thing to argue indeed! And to protect against getting what we already have, I suppose to this line of reasoning, is for everyone to submit to a monopolistic state, cutting out the road from freedom to serfdom, and just accepting serfdom from the get-g0!
Bruce Lee was an 'Austrian'
For those of you who don't know, I admire Bruce Lee for his philosophy, as well as his skills. I wrote this little article to be posted at mises.org but Jeff Tucker said that they don't really want to get into metaphor too much, so I am posting it here for the heck of it. No, it's not cited properly since it is an unfinished work, but that's ok. This is just a blog post. Just know that I did not come up with all this information without looking into several books on Bruce Lee and on Austrian philosophy. Enjoy.
"Bruce Lee Was an 'Austrian'"
Bruce Lee is the most underrated individualist in libertarian circles. I wish to rectify this issue because it was Bruce who first exposed me to the individualist philosophy. Having been in high school at the time and later joining the Army, I can honestly say that if not for his influence, I would not have been attracted to the ideas of liberty and would likely be in the Middle East at this time. While this debt cannot be fully repaid, I can attempt to shine light on what many of his fans are missing out on.No, Bruce Lee was not an economist; however, he did include many of the same philosophical and even praxeological ideas in his "style" of martial arts which the great Austrian economists use when building economic theory. "Those who think of Bruce Lee simply as a 'karate guy' will learn just how far off base such an assumption is."
"Boards don't hit back" (Bruce Lee, Enter the Dragon)
While it may seem self evident that people are not inanimate objects, and actually do possess a will of their own, the Austrian school is the only school of economics that puts emphasis on this point. It is one of the key fundamentals in understanding the basis of economic logic and the Austrian method. And just as the Austrians would criticize other schools of thought for believing it is possible for central planners to map out the economy just right because of all the subjectivity involved, Lee was equally critical of those forms of karate that made a habit seeing people as being boards and bricks. He made this point clear when he said "Now I ask you, did you ever see a brick or a board pick a fight with anybody? This is gimmick stuff. A human being doesn't just stand there and wait to be hit." That was not the limit of Bruce's thinking about this issue. Indeed, he studied philosophy, and wished to include it into his style of Jeet Kune Do. One could take the following statement and replace "martial arts" with "economics", and successfully convince others that it is a quote from Ludwig von Mises himself:
"Every action should have its why and wherefore; and there ought to be a complete and proficient theory to back up the whole concept of Chinese martial arts. I wish to infuse the spirit of philosophy into martial arts, therefore I insist on studying philosophy."
While the Austrian economist would argue "demand and want satisfaction cannot be weighed, as there is no unit of measure to even make an attempt to do so", Bruce Lee parallels this statement in his theory of martial arts in stating "To stand on the outside and try to look inside is futile; whatever was there will go away. This also applies to a nebulous thing described as 'happiness.' To try to identify is like turning on a light to look at darkness. Analyze it, and it is gone."
What does this have to do with martial arts? Lee believed that the best way to teach martial arts to others did not lie in style or form, but rather within the soul of the student. In the only surviving interview, he explains:
"To me, ok, ultimately martial art means honestly expressing yourself. It is easy for me to put on a show and be cocky, and be flooded with a cocky feeling, and then feel like pretty cool and all that. Or I can show you some phony things, blinded by it though; I can show you some really fancy movement, but to express oneself honestly, not lying to oneself, and to express myself honestly, that my friend is very hard to do"
Of course, the only possible way to meet this goal of self expression is to do away with style. As the Austrian economist sees laws and regulations restricting the outcome of market activity, Lee saw style as restricting the truth of human self-expression; or as Mises would say, man's teleological contribution to the universe. And as the Austrians would argue that a completely government dominated economy could never work out with the complex division of labor in the industrialist society due to the lack of a pricing mechanism to conduct economic calculation, Bruce Lee once said of martial arts styles "you can't organize truth. That is like putting a pound of water into wrapping paper and trying to organize it."
Using no way as way. Having no limitation as limitation. (Bruce Lee's motto)
So where is the parallel between pushing for a free market economy, and not restricting one-self to a set style of martial arts? Spontaneity. The argument of free market philosophers is that entrepreneurship is spontaneous activity directed at meeting the demands of individuals. If one sees an unmet demand lingering in society, he or she should be free to utilize whatever resources at their disposal to attempt to meet those demands, as long as no aggressive acts against others are committed. That is nothing more than common sense cause and effect; entrepreneurs see a demand that has not been satisfied as an opportunity to make money, and take up the challenge. Lee's motto reflects this exact same attitude in combat. On the topic, Linda Lee Cadwell, Bruce's wife for nine years, said that under his philosophy "it's just two people who are being aware of their own movements, who are observing the other person's movements, and being able to fit in with that person's movements, so that there's no set pattern of movements; no well when he does this, then I do this (as a style would teach). It's just a total freedom to react to what the other person does."
The point? Perhaps there is an argument in Bruce Lee's ideas that can communicate to students of Austrian economics to take that philosophy beyond the objective level of the optimum organization of society, and apply it to their personal lives. We do not believe in any form of government telling everyone how to run their business, or where and when we can invest, or anything else beyond respecting the person and property of other. The next logical step is to apply such philosophy to more personal aspects of life. Rather than crystallizing the style of others, explore yourself. If it is individual liberation we seek, we can learn a lot from Bruce's example. He argued that while learning the fundamentals of martial arts is important, just be yourself. "The main thing is teaching a man to do his thing, just being himself. The individual is more important than style. If a person is awkward he should not try to be agile. I'm against trying to impose a style on a man. This is an art, an expression of man's own self."
Open letter to Occupy Wall Street
Perhaps the biggest reason I take issue with the idea that any of you speak for me is this ludicrous list of demands that you claim 99% are in favor of. From what I can gather, you simply want the state to solve all your problems. A living wage... a trillion dollars for this or that, debt forgiveness, free college, extended union rights, rights based on gender or race... you know the list. The only thing you do propose that I am in agreement with is your proposal for open borders.
If you truly want living standards to raise in this country, then from my point of view, you should want more investment in capital goods. If you want wage rates to raise, again, more investment, since investment capital is used to pay for wages during the production process prior to the consumer good hitting the market. The only way for an economy to grow is through savings and investment; that is the reality of living in a world of scarcity. Forgoing consumption in the present in order to invest in tools (capital goods) that make production of consumer demands quicker and easier. All this government manipulation of the market place will only make us all impoverished in the long run. Hence, if you really want the end to fossil fuels, you should be investing in alternatives and refusing to use fossil fuels. I wonder how many people out there who hate oil have actually refused to use it? I wonder how many people out there who think cars are causing global warming or climate change, and constantly complain about their existence, have stopped using cars themselves?
Why? because everything the government does is through force. Any proposal for a "living wage" neglects the very purpose of the pricing system to begin with. Housing, cars, healthcare, and every other good out there, does not come out of thin air. Labor, mixed with land and capital, is needed for it all. This is because we live in a world of scarcity. The affect of a living wage would simply be widespread unemployment and a situation in which big business has even more of a strangle hold on everyone else, since they would be the only ones capable of paying this living wage, and after all, not everyone can work for big business.
Rather than going through your complete list of demands, and how most of it would go a long way towards wrecking our economy and making everyone poor, I will finish off by a discussion of justice. I wanted to be a police officer once, but then I realized that all the government is is a monopoly of force in a given geographic area, marked by political borders. It's not that the government wants to end injustice, it wants a monopoly on injustice. Their theft is called taxation, their murders are called wars, their blackmail is called regulation, you get the picture. Why would anyone want to work for an entity that survives by stealing money from people who have done no wrong? This is what the mafia does... yet when the state does it, it is just. Taxes are supposed to be just a part of life, getting licenses to do anything you want to do is just another part i suppose... but my question is, where is the justice in having government in the form of a state? (state meaning a monopoly of force) What would you say if the people stopping you from driving too fast did not wear a uniform and have a badge on their chest? If the tax collector did not work for the state, what would separate that person from any other extortionist? If I cannot go to my neighbor's house and demand at gun point that he pay for my college debt, or to my boss and demand that he pay me my arbitrary estimate of a living wage, why should a person claiming to be a member of the state be able to do it??
If you can't tell by now, I am an anarchist. I do not believe the state is capable of providing justice since it thrives on committing injustices. And here you are, claiming to represent me and my voice, asking the state to inflict society with whatever injustices needed to get you what you want. Unfortunately for all of you who support the OWS list of demands, natural law cannot be repealed. Justice will be served. If, like a robber in the night, you wish to survive by inflicting injustices on everyone in society, whether it's to force them to pay for your debts or to extort money from your bosses, etc., the result will be more impoverishment. If force is your tool, in my point of view you do not deserve to attain your goals, and basic economics proves that you will not. Socialism doesn't work because the state in reality is not god. It has no possible way of turning the qualitative reality of human existence into quantitative measurements, let alone implementing a plan to keep up with the constant changes in human demands. That is to say nothing about building higher productivity through savings and investment. A society, like ours, that spends all its money on consumer goods, cannot possibly hope to develop the necessary capital goods required for the expansion of an economy. Socialism is by definition the elimination of such capital.
So please, don't claim to represent me. I am but a security guard, barely making enough money to attain subsistence. But I don't support your goals, because I find them to be evil in nature, acts of gross injustice, and quite frankly, a contradiction in their own terms. Using state power to obtain better living standards is akin to burning your home in order to maintain shelter.
***I realize not everyone in the OWS movement agrees with the list of demands, indeed there are those in the movement who are anarchists like myself... this is directed towards those who want the government to step in and control everything for them. Please do everyone a favor and at least read Human Action by Ludwig von Mises before claiming to represent 99% and thinking the state can solve all your problems***
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)