For most of my life I believed that if a person generally understood the difference between right and wrong, it meant that they were a moral person. Maybe they did not see the actions they were taking as being immoral for some reason, but the people themselves had good intentions at heart. The best example I can think of of this kind of person would have to be a supporter of say the war on drugs.
Drugs are completely destructive. In my opinion, people become addicted to them because fantasy is preferable to the reality of their lives. The drug replaces the pain of reality with the pleasure of fantasy. It erodes the need for the people to take actions which would make their lives better. Sometimes life changes that are necessary for a person's true happiness can be difficult and perhaps be seen as completely unobtainable; why not take x drug, by the way we are talking prescription or street-drugs, and do it that way?
So the drug warrior is looking at the situation saying "this is awful! we need to get drugs off the street and out of our society." Fine. This is a goal that I believe in as well, though I do not consider myself a supporter of the war on drugs. So "Hooray" for those cops fighting the good fight...
BUT
There is a problem with the drug war. It involves coercing people who have not initiated force against other people. Whenever force is used against someone that is not in the immediate defense of them-self or another person, that force is not justified. Everyone gets this. As a private citizen, I cannot "defend myself" against my neighbor when he is in his home smoking a joint. His actions are not causing me harm. The police, however, claim the moral obligation/right to knock down the door and drag that neighbor out of his house and throw him into a jail cell.
So here we have a violation of principle; using force against someone in a circumstance other than defense, or simply aggressive force. The use of aggressive force is being considered ok, only on the part of cops mind you, to get drugs off the streets.
"Sure", the drug warrior will say, "it is a violation of the non-aggression principle, but look at how harmful the drugs are!"
Yes, we all understand the point about the drugs. What the drug warrior is not doing is putting the aggressive force under the same microscope. He is accepting that which he considers evil (aggressive force) to eliminate that which he considers evil (drugs).
This situation challenges my former theory that a person is ethical so long as they know the difference between right and wrong, for an ethical person cannot by definition accept evil as an acceptable methodology to solve problems.
In hindsight, the person who knows right from wrong AND accepts an evil methodology is worse than the person who does not know. At least the person who does not know has the potential for morality; the person who knowingly accepts evil has sealed their coffin.
Sure, accepting evil methodologies in life can be revised and actions can change so as to reject evil methodologies, but as long as evil is accepted, I for one can no longer accept the proposition that knowledge is enough for morality.
Since we are saying knowledge is not enough and judging the drug warrior based on their actions, we must add a condition of action to what makes a person ethical. The knowledge must be applied.
Note: I am not going to discuss the need for knowledge to determine if a person is ethical. The need for knowledge is too obvious: accidentally doing the right thing is just that, an accident.
Knowledge includes moral principles. Most people get this principle in Kindergarten. Don't steal, don't hit, don't lie... Libertarian circles simply call it the Non Aggression Principle (NAP). The logic behind the NAP is very simple: Man is a limited being. Man does not have perfect knowledge, cannot be everywhere at once, and must choose what endeavors to pursue in his own life. Man deals with reality the best he can. Any person interfering with this reality in others blocks their ability to freely and openly live their lives. If you steal from someone, you rob them of the choice to do what they wish with their own things. If you lie to someone, you distort their perception of reality in order to trick them into doing something they wouldn't otherwise do. If you hit someone, you damage the vessel with which they live. <---Disclaimer: Sometimes people prefer being lied to, sometimes people prefer being stolen from, and sometimes people want to be hit. A boss at work may request that you leave out details of an event so they do not have to take a particular action. A person addicted from heroin may plea with a friend to "please go into my house while I'm at work tomorrow and get all my 'stuff' out, so that if I want to do it, I won't be able to." And a person who takes pleasure out of boxing may jump in the ring with another and spar. These situations are sometimes tricky and each one must be treated as an individual case, as specifics vary, but generally, when someone WANTS to be hit, jumping into the ring and sparring does not constitute a violation of the NAP since they WANT it.
The harder thing which knowledge includes sometimes is the perception that a certain action violates moral principles. Most of the confusion here rests with government. Government is the only entity in society which may tell people all over the country that they will "pay their taxes or get locked up in jail." Yet many people miss this obvious violation of the NAP. Indeed, any time the government passes a law, the message taken away is "Do x or you will be locked up in jail." When x does not = a restraint from initiating aggressive force against other people, the government IS initiating aggressive force!
Force can only be aggressive or defensive. These two categories are not hard to see at all... Sure, if you turn a corner of a building somewhere and see one person hitting another, it is true that you do not understand the context that warranted, or didn't warrant for that matter, the striking. However, when someone clearly says to people "you will drive how I want you to drive or you will receive tickets from my agents, and if you don't pay those tickets you will eventually be thrown in jail" then the aggressive party is known.
To summarize, what makes a person ethical is they must first have ethical standards. Second, they must consciously try to live up to their ethical standards, and finally, if their attention is brought to the fact that they are doing something that does NOT live up to their ethical standards, they must abandon that action.
Showing posts with label Taxes. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Taxes. Show all posts
Saturday, September 13, 2014
Sunday, January 15, 2012
In Defense of Praxeology as a Science
Praxeology is a study of Human Action based on the axiom of action and the axiom of argumentation. The axiom of action clearly states that man acts in order to fulfill some felt uneasiness; he acts to change the world around him so that it is more in tune with what he feels will make him happier. The axiom of argumentation states that since all people can argue, all people inherently assume a cause and effect world. Neither of these axioms can be denied without proving them. An attempt to prove that human action is not aimed at satisfying some purpose is in itself an action aimed at satisfying a purpose. If I tell you you can argue, and you claim you cannot argue, you are putting up an argument.
This science of human action uses deductive logic from these two axioms in order to explain economic phenomena. "Kris went to the store to buy milk because he wanted milk and did not have any at the time." In that sentence, we see "Kris" acting with a purpose... to get some milk. We can deduce that he wanted milk based on the deduction that if he did not want the milk, he would not have bought it. And finally, if he already had milk, there would have been no need to go out and buy some. This is a pretty simple example of deductions that can be made based on the axioms of action and argumentation, but unfortunately there are many out there who would deny their validity.
The scientific method, which is just a scholarly way to say "trial and error", is used in the natural sciences in order to explain the workings of inanimate objects. The idea is to gather information, form a hypothesis that explains how the object will react to different stimuli, and then test that hypothesis and record the results. A chemist might say to himself, "If I mix A B and C chemicals, X will be the reaction." Then he would proceed with his experiment and mix A B and C, and record the results. If he gets the predicted results, he will proceed to run tests until he is certain that all variables have been accounted for, and there is absolutely no dispute that X is the result every single time A B and C are mixed together. This method is absolutely invaluable when it comes to natural sciences.
But social sciences are much different. A B and C are inanimate chemicals that have no choice but to obey the laws of physics (or the universe if you will). Human beings are different. While it is true that as human beings, we have our own inherent nature specific to us, there is no evidence that humans will react in the same exact way when exposed to the same exact stimuli. For example, it used to be that "I will never read a book. Books are boring, and better suited to fix lop-sided couches and tables." but now days, it is much more likely the case that "if I have the time, I would love to read some more of the classics and maybe something on economics, philosophy, logic, epistemology, mathematics, physics, banking, history, or freedom."
A praxeologist, observing people as thinking and animate beings, would argue that perhaps "kris had simply knocked books before giving them a try, and was persuaded to read a couple books at some point, and has discovered he was wrong about them." whereas a natural scientist, looking at people as though they react to the same stimuli in the same way, would say "somehow Kris likes books now. maybe it was the change in his diet, or maybe when his bed time changed, or perhaps when he tried beer for the first time, he started liking books. We should run some field tests to see what happened."
As it applies to economics, the person applying natural science principles to economics might say: "In case of a depression, the State should take some of everyone's money through taxation and go to war, to fix the economy. After all, some statistics argue that World War II got the U.S. out of the Great Depression." (A praxeologist would say, in the case of a depression, that the State should not take this course of action. Instead, it should relax regulations and cut spending so that people can spend their own money, and production can be directed towards fulfilling people's demands.)
Rather than making the obvious economic arguments here, I'm going to take a different route. The main thing that exists with both methods, that is the "trial and error" method and the "deductions based on axioms" method is that they are both based strongly in logic. Logic is about making arguments in the following format: "if A then B." In the natural sciences, the equation put into words would read "If my hypothesis is correct, then the outcome will be the same every time." A praxeological equation put into words would read something like "If Kris wants to write a blog post then he will set time aside to write it."
But why are experiments not included in the praxeological method? That is simple. The logical statement that makes experimentation the best way to study the natural sciences runs as the following: "If all variables can be controlled, and all characteristics in the object(s) under study can be known, never change then I should be able to determine how the object(s) will react to any given stimuli in every instance." With human beings - "all variables cannot be controlled, all characteristics change and cannot be known, therefore I should NOT be able to determine how they will react to a given stimuli in every instance."
The variables are endless; how clean was the air you breathed today? What have you thought about from the beginning of the day through now? What did you eat for breakfast and in what quantity? What time did you take your shower? Did you happen to see anything that would make you change your mind about jumping in front of a bus in order to save that squirrel? As it applies to economics, the necessary data is neither observable or quantifiable: "How bad do you want that glass of water? Would you rather have that five dollar bill, or that glass of water? Would you make the same decision if you were in the desert about to die of thirst? What would you pay for oxygen? Would say the same if you were on a shuttle in outer space, and oxygen was running low? Of course, therefore, this methodology is not justified to apply to human beings.
But what makes deductions from the axioms of argumentation and action a justified method? As stated above, every action is purposeful, and that purpose is to relieve one's uneasiness. "Yes, I wanted a glass of water, but then I discovered they also have Pepsi." <-- Here it must have been the case that new information changed my mind. My aim, however, never changed. I simply decided that Pepsi would remove more uneasiness I had than water.
The praxeological may be limited, since we assume (or I would say admit) that there are no constants in human actions or desires, but at least praxeology has with it the logic of admitting this truth. Those who want to use the scientific method to conduct social science are at a loss, since they approach the situation assuming that knowledge about how everyone will act and react and what their desires are can be quantified, measured, and used to conduct social engineering. This is precisely what F.A. Hayek referred to as "The Pretense of Knowledge." The humble scientist who is willing to admit that since there are no constants pertaining to the subject under study, such a methodology will only lead to mistakes. It is quite clear who the real scientist is... the person who is willing to admit there are limitations to we know when constants are non-existent.
If you are not convinced here, then by all means, use the trial-and-error method when conducting social science. But, keep in mind that in order to be honest with yourself, you should not propose any engineering until you have absolutely all the information you need, lest you want to make grave errors. If you are an honest natural scientist in this respect, you will never propose any sort of engineering, as you will never have all the information you need (since it is not quantifiable, and since it is literally always changing).
Thank You.
This science of human action uses deductive logic from these two axioms in order to explain economic phenomena. "Kris went to the store to buy milk because he wanted milk and did not have any at the time." In that sentence, we see "Kris" acting with a purpose... to get some milk. We can deduce that he wanted milk based on the deduction that if he did not want the milk, he would not have bought it. And finally, if he already had milk, there would have been no need to go out and buy some. This is a pretty simple example of deductions that can be made based on the axioms of action and argumentation, but unfortunately there are many out there who would deny their validity.
The scientific method, which is just a scholarly way to say "trial and error", is used in the natural sciences in order to explain the workings of inanimate objects. The idea is to gather information, form a hypothesis that explains how the object will react to different stimuli, and then test that hypothesis and record the results. A chemist might say to himself, "If I mix A B and C chemicals, X will be the reaction." Then he would proceed with his experiment and mix A B and C, and record the results. If he gets the predicted results, he will proceed to run tests until he is certain that all variables have been accounted for, and there is absolutely no dispute that X is the result every single time A B and C are mixed together. This method is absolutely invaluable when it comes to natural sciences.
But social sciences are much different. A B and C are inanimate chemicals that have no choice but to obey the laws of physics (or the universe if you will). Human beings are different. While it is true that as human beings, we have our own inherent nature specific to us, there is no evidence that humans will react in the same exact way when exposed to the same exact stimuli. For example, it used to be that "I will never read a book. Books are boring, and better suited to fix lop-sided couches and tables." but now days, it is much more likely the case that "if I have the time, I would love to read some more of the classics and maybe something on economics, philosophy, logic, epistemology, mathematics, physics, banking, history, or freedom."
A praxeologist, observing people as thinking and animate beings, would argue that perhaps "kris had simply knocked books before giving them a try, and was persuaded to read a couple books at some point, and has discovered he was wrong about them." whereas a natural scientist, looking at people as though they react to the same stimuli in the same way, would say "somehow Kris likes books now. maybe it was the change in his diet, or maybe when his bed time changed, or perhaps when he tried beer for the first time, he started liking books. We should run some field tests to see what happened."
As it applies to economics, the person applying natural science principles to economics might say: "In case of a depression, the State should take some of everyone's money through taxation and go to war, to fix the economy. After all, some statistics argue that World War II got the U.S. out of the Great Depression." (A praxeologist would say, in the case of a depression, that the State should not take this course of action. Instead, it should relax regulations and cut spending so that people can spend their own money, and production can be directed towards fulfilling people's demands.)
Rather than making the obvious economic arguments here, I'm going to take a different route. The main thing that exists with both methods, that is the "trial and error" method and the "deductions based on axioms" method is that they are both based strongly in logic. Logic is about making arguments in the following format: "if A then B." In the natural sciences, the equation put into words would read "If my hypothesis is correct, then the outcome will be the same every time." A praxeological equation put into words would read something like "If Kris wants to write a blog post then he will set time aside to write it."
But why are experiments not included in the praxeological method? That is simple. The logical statement that makes experimentation the best way to study the natural sciences runs as the following: "If all variables can be controlled, and all characteristics in the object(s) under study can be known, never change then I should be able to determine how the object(s) will react to any given stimuli in every instance." With human beings - "all variables cannot be controlled, all characteristics change and cannot be known, therefore I should NOT be able to determine how they will react to a given stimuli in every instance."
The variables are endless; how clean was the air you breathed today? What have you thought about from the beginning of the day through now? What did you eat for breakfast and in what quantity? What time did you take your shower? Did you happen to see anything that would make you change your mind about jumping in front of a bus in order to save that squirrel? As it applies to economics, the necessary data is neither observable or quantifiable: "How bad do you want that glass of water? Would you rather have that five dollar bill, or that glass of water? Would you make the same decision if you were in the desert about to die of thirst? What would you pay for oxygen? Would say the same if you were on a shuttle in outer space, and oxygen was running low? Of course, therefore, this methodology is not justified to apply to human beings.
But what makes deductions from the axioms of argumentation and action a justified method? As stated above, every action is purposeful, and that purpose is to relieve one's uneasiness. "Yes, I wanted a glass of water, but then I discovered they also have Pepsi." <-- Here it must have been the case that new information changed my mind. My aim, however, never changed. I simply decided that Pepsi would remove more uneasiness I had than water.
The praxeological may be limited, since we assume (or I would say admit) that there are no constants in human actions or desires, but at least praxeology has with it the logic of admitting this truth. Those who want to use the scientific method to conduct social science are at a loss, since they approach the situation assuming that knowledge about how everyone will act and react and what their desires are can be quantified, measured, and used to conduct social engineering. This is precisely what F.A. Hayek referred to as "The Pretense of Knowledge." The humble scientist who is willing to admit that since there are no constants pertaining to the subject under study, such a methodology will only lead to mistakes. It is quite clear who the real scientist is... the person who is willing to admit there are limitations to we know when constants are non-existent.
If you are not convinced here, then by all means, use the trial-and-error method when conducting social science. But, keep in mind that in order to be honest with yourself, you should not propose any engineering until you have absolutely all the information you need, lest you want to make grave errors. If you are an honest natural scientist in this respect, you will never propose any sort of engineering, as you will never have all the information you need (since it is not quantifiable, and since it is literally always changing).
Thank You.
Monday, January 9, 2012
Statism breeds violence, Anarchy breeds peace
The most popular thought on Anarchy is that everyone would act like savages and civilization would literally crumble before our feet. I have been sort of a student of human nature for a while now (I have a BS in Criminal Justice and am a student of the "Austrian" school of economics, which relies heavily on Praxeology in its methodology) and wish to offer an different perspective.
All human actions are ultimately directed by human thoughts and valuations. That is to say, it is psychological.
I have observed that most people are polite in civilized society. Please and Thank You are quite common, holding doors open for handicapped and the elderly... hell, just to be polite, is something I observe on a daily basis. Obeying the wishes of property owners is also something that happens with almost automatic reflex.
Indeed, if anyone needs to hear a testimony of how much embedded manners and good conduct are in society, ask anyone who works retail about their customers. They will most likely complain about all the pet peeves they have seen during the day, all the little things they find annoying that people do, and they may even talk about how badly they wanted to quit or tell someone to leave their store. However, in the vast majority of cases, they respond by treating all their customers with respect. True, the incentive is not to get fired, but interaction with such people and under such circumstances is something that only happens during the work day. Nobody is forced to spend time with people they find particularly annoying, so this is not evidence that chaos would breakout without the state, but it is evidence of incentive to be polite when you have to.
Approximately 1/3 of income taxes are implemented to give out welfare benefits. That is an enormous amount of money being stolen from people. Are we to believe that a polite society would be reduced to the a massive amount of people taking up arms against others in order to fund their welfare benefits? There is no reason to suspect such a thing would happen. I have not observed a movement of people on food stamps picking up weapons and going to maybe some of the nicer areas closeby and attempting to set up a forceful system of more benefits.
It is clear that what really happens is the State operates as a conduit for people to support the use of force, who otherwise would not. Most supporters of welfare programs are not people who would themselves pick up a gun and go to the homes of others and demand some of their money, yet this is precisely what the state does in their name.
It is the state that justifies violence, with the help of people who support the it. Most believe the state is a necessary evil... and that is how it is justified; through the notion that evil is necessary... that force can be justified somehow. Without this justification, the amount of violence in society would clearly diminish. To say that all evil is unnecessary and unjustified, the amount of evil would shrink, because actions follow thoughts... and since actions follow thoughts, the thought that evil is unjustified would lead to less evil actions.
Statism is unnecessary, unjustified, and unwanted.
All human actions are ultimately directed by human thoughts and valuations. That is to say, it is psychological.
I have observed that most people are polite in civilized society. Please and Thank You are quite common, holding doors open for handicapped and the elderly... hell, just to be polite, is something I observe on a daily basis. Obeying the wishes of property owners is also something that happens with almost automatic reflex.
Indeed, if anyone needs to hear a testimony of how much embedded manners and good conduct are in society, ask anyone who works retail about their customers. They will most likely complain about all the pet peeves they have seen during the day, all the little things they find annoying that people do, and they may even talk about how badly they wanted to quit or tell someone to leave their store. However, in the vast majority of cases, they respond by treating all their customers with respect. True, the incentive is not to get fired, but interaction with such people and under such circumstances is something that only happens during the work day. Nobody is forced to spend time with people they find particularly annoying, so this is not evidence that chaos would breakout without the state, but it is evidence of incentive to be polite when you have to.
Approximately 1/3 of income taxes are implemented to give out welfare benefits. That is an enormous amount of money being stolen from people. Are we to believe that a polite society would be reduced to the a massive amount of people taking up arms against others in order to fund their welfare benefits? There is no reason to suspect such a thing would happen. I have not observed a movement of people on food stamps picking up weapons and going to maybe some of the nicer areas closeby and attempting to set up a forceful system of more benefits.
It is clear that what really happens is the State operates as a conduit for people to support the use of force, who otherwise would not. Most supporters of welfare programs are not people who would themselves pick up a gun and go to the homes of others and demand some of their money, yet this is precisely what the state does in their name.
It is the state that justifies violence, with the help of people who support the it. Most believe the state is a necessary evil... and that is how it is justified; through the notion that evil is necessary... that force can be justified somehow. Without this justification, the amount of violence in society would clearly diminish. To say that all evil is unnecessary and unjustified, the amount of evil would shrink, because actions follow thoughts... and since actions follow thoughts, the thought that evil is unjustified would lead to less evil actions.
Statism is unnecessary, unjustified, and unwanted.
Thoughts on Criminology Part II - Measuring Crime and an Alternative to Authoritarian Law
In the first part, I stated that a crime ought be defined as any forcible
exertion of will against another's property. Although the state operates as the monopoly of force in a given geographical location (border), not everything the state does need be considered a crime.
I defined crime as a matter of forcing one's will against another and their property because it interferes with the right of a person to live their life. It logically follows that during the time the action of the crime is taking place that the victim of the crime has the right to use defensive force to protect his life against the unwanted intrusion of the criminal. Therefore, when members of the state, or anyone in general for that matter, operate in such a way that protects a victim from a criminal (such as apprehending a thief in a store or preventing a rapist from attacking someone, and all other criminal acts against innocent people) a noble deed has been done.
However, the state itself infringes on the lives of innocent people. Taxation is just another word for theft committed at large by the state. Wars that involve "collateral damage" define the state as an entity of people who commit murder (even assuming the war is justified in some way). The state is also known for what is called eminent domain; an action that involves members of the state seizing land from innocent people for the ends the government has in mind. The drug war has lead to force being used against people who have done nothing more than use or possess things members of the state do not think they should, regardless of whether the user has actually harmed anyone else.
Logically, it goes to show that multiple crimes are being committed at every second of every day, by the state alone. every arrest made against someone who has not committed a crime against another (popularly referred to as a victimless crime) is a crime. Every sales tax paid, income tax collected, contraband arrest, speeding ticket given... the amount of crime and force in society by the state alone is off the chart.
To realistically measure the amount of crime, one must take the number of forceful acts against peaceful people committed by the state in conjunction with acts against peaceful people committed by private citizens.
Most people I have met often say "but what is the alternative" when confronted with the criminal nature of the state. Or say "it's not perfect, but that's life" to the same issue.
True, it's not perfect, and there will never be a perfect system of government... but do we really want an entity like the state, who's job is to monopolize and magnify the imperfections of humanity?
To the second problem, finding an alternative, I have found that most people like to sound like they're being logical in making this complaint, but when the alternative is presented, they prove that they are usually just acting out of anxiety. Nevertheless, if you truly are interested in alternatives to top-down authroitarian law, I would recommend looking into customary law.
Customary law, being an alternative to authoritarian law, is essentially a voluntary form of law. Private arbitrators make decisions in which the plaintiff pays for, whereas the defendant can choose to show up or not show up, comply or not comply. The check on the defendant is the rest of society. As ALREADY HAPPENS with merchant law, still practiced today, those who are unwilling to comply are ostracized by the rest of the community. Imagine trying to go the market place and buy goods, only to find nobody will trade with you. Could you imagine being a business man and having everyone whom you trade with turn their backs on you? In such a situation, failure to comply would mean failure to get gas for your car, food for your stomach, etc.
There also remains the idea that Insurance companies, due to their profession in risk assessment and asset protection, would provide policing/security, and the idea of private communities forming where the property owners make the funding of protective services as a requirement of living in the neighborhood. Let's not forget neighborhood watch programs.
Perhaps the most important thing in all these situations is that the community really does have to be much more together in the decision making. There would be much more solidarity than what exists when the state steps in and makes laws and forces everyone to behave in this or that way. Not to mention the complete lack of all the corrupt things we do not want with authoritarian law (the taxes, eminent domain issues, arbitrarily locking people up for possessing the wrong things, etc.) AND, due to the voluntary nature, members of society COULD sort of ostracize unwanted people who haven't committed crimes, such as drug users.
Customary/voluntary law is the true socialized man's choice. Authoritarian law in many cases only demands a minority of politically engaged people bind together and tell everyone else in society what to do. Customary law is based on the feelings of those in society as a whole, and how they interact, and more importantly, what they think. Who has more virtue; Those who want to force others to do the right thing, or those who wish to convince others of the virtue of doing the right thing?
It should be noted that this is an imperfect and abbreviated description of customary law, so if you think of something here or there that would not be attended to, consider doing more research rather than just relying on my blog. But keep in mind, other people are thinking people too, and things may be better if they are free to think and act on what you believe to be just, rather than being restrained by arbitrary authoritarian laws.
I defined crime as a matter of forcing one's will against another and their property because it interferes with the right of a person to live their life. It logically follows that during the time the action of the crime is taking place that the victim of the crime has the right to use defensive force to protect his life against the unwanted intrusion of the criminal. Therefore, when members of the state, or anyone in general for that matter, operate in such a way that protects a victim from a criminal (such as apprehending a thief in a store or preventing a rapist from attacking someone, and all other criminal acts against innocent people) a noble deed has been done.
However, the state itself infringes on the lives of innocent people. Taxation is just another word for theft committed at large by the state. Wars that involve "collateral damage" define the state as an entity of people who commit murder (even assuming the war is justified in some way). The state is also known for what is called eminent domain; an action that involves members of the state seizing land from innocent people for the ends the government has in mind. The drug war has lead to force being used against people who have done nothing more than use or possess things members of the state do not think they should, regardless of whether the user has actually harmed anyone else.
Logically, it goes to show that multiple crimes are being committed at every second of every day, by the state alone. every arrest made against someone who has not committed a crime against another (popularly referred to as a victimless crime) is a crime. Every sales tax paid, income tax collected, contraband arrest, speeding ticket given... the amount of crime and force in society by the state alone is off the chart.
To realistically measure the amount of crime, one must take the number of forceful acts against peaceful people committed by the state in conjunction with acts against peaceful people committed by private citizens.
Most people I have met often say "but what is the alternative" when confronted with the criminal nature of the state. Or say "it's not perfect, but that's life" to the same issue.
True, it's not perfect, and there will never be a perfect system of government... but do we really want an entity like the state, who's job is to monopolize and magnify the imperfections of humanity?
To the second problem, finding an alternative, I have found that most people like to sound like they're being logical in making this complaint, but when the alternative is presented, they prove that they are usually just acting out of anxiety. Nevertheless, if you truly are interested in alternatives to top-down authroitarian law, I would recommend looking into customary law.
Customary law, being an alternative to authoritarian law, is essentially a voluntary form of law. Private arbitrators make decisions in which the plaintiff pays for, whereas the defendant can choose to show up or not show up, comply or not comply. The check on the defendant is the rest of society. As ALREADY HAPPENS with merchant law, still practiced today, those who are unwilling to comply are ostracized by the rest of the community. Imagine trying to go the market place and buy goods, only to find nobody will trade with you. Could you imagine being a business man and having everyone whom you trade with turn their backs on you? In such a situation, failure to comply would mean failure to get gas for your car, food for your stomach, etc.
There also remains the idea that Insurance companies, due to their profession in risk assessment and asset protection, would provide policing/security, and the idea of private communities forming where the property owners make the funding of protective services as a requirement of living in the neighborhood. Let's not forget neighborhood watch programs.
Perhaps the most important thing in all these situations is that the community really does have to be much more together in the decision making. There would be much more solidarity than what exists when the state steps in and makes laws and forces everyone to behave in this or that way. Not to mention the complete lack of all the corrupt things we do not want with authoritarian law (the taxes, eminent domain issues, arbitrarily locking people up for possessing the wrong things, etc.) AND, due to the voluntary nature, members of society COULD sort of ostracize unwanted people who haven't committed crimes, such as drug users.
Customary/voluntary law is the true socialized man's choice. Authoritarian law in many cases only demands a minority of politically engaged people bind together and tell everyone else in society what to do. Customary law is based on the feelings of those in society as a whole, and how they interact, and more importantly, what they think. Who has more virtue; Those who want to force others to do the right thing, or those who wish to convince others of the virtue of doing the right thing?
It should be noted that this is an imperfect and abbreviated description of customary law, so if you think of something here or there that would not be attended to, consider doing more research rather than just relying on my blog. But keep in mind, other people are thinking people too, and things may be better if they are free to think and act on what you believe to be just, rather than being restrained by arbitrary authoritarian laws.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)