Re: Mayoral race
Daniel C. Burton (dan@antispam.autobahn.org)
9 Feb 1998 07:44:14 GMT
Kevin Dempsey Peterson <peterson@ocf.Berkeley.EDU> wrote in article
<Pine.SOL.3.96.980208203715.9573D-100000@apocalypse>...
> >The incentives are themselves incentives to do things that are
inefficient
> >in fulfilling the desires of society. This can result in nothing but
> >inefficiency.
>
> They are incentives to do things which are economically inefficient.
> They may or may not be outweighed by non-econimic results. An economic
> incentive to preserve old buildings may be outweighed by the
> non-economic result of a more beautiful city. (Whether the city has the
> right to make such determinations has yet to be decided, though)
A more beautiful city is an economic result. It relates to relative value
of various uses of the resources of society -- which practically economic
by definition. Whatever other things people could have by doing things
that result in a less beautiful city are no less tangible and should only
be discarded if their relative value to society is less. The only real
standard by which we can judge this is how much these things are worth to
people individually and we should not tell them they are simply wrong to
want affordable housing more than a beautiful city, if for example that was
the tradeoff.
The best way to balance such opposing considerations is the free market.
If someone values having old buildings, they'll be willing to pay to keep
them around. If they can't pay this cost it simply means that the other
uses were worth more to society.
> >The legitimacy of anarcho-capitalist protection agencies only stems from
> >their ability to protect our liberty better than anything else
available.
> >The moment one of them became a government (which is more likely than
not
> >after about 300 years), all their legitimacy would be gone and no
> >protection agencies would be better than any at all. It would be time
for
> >another political revolution.
>
> Why is a government inherently illegitimate? I think we need to define
> "government."
Government is an institution with a monopoly of force. Even if there was a
single anarcho-capitalist protection agency, there would still be anarchy
as long as any individual non-customer enjoyed the same practical rights as
the protection agency, as well as the right to start their own.
> >Even if the few people who didn't choose to sign up couldn't manage to
> >protect their land from theft, they would still be the ones with the
moral
> >claim to it. That's why it's extremeley unlikely that something like a
> >city government could ever have the kind of moral claim you say.... And
> >even if it did, it would be beneficial to break it up for practical
> >reasons.
>
> What if someone later comes along and buys the land from a protection
> agency which has taken over the property of a predatory protection
> agency? It seems to me they would have a moral claim to the land, but
> the original owner would have a claim to it as well. I think that
> whoever stole the land has no claim to it, but everyone who legitimately
> acquired it does. This leaves a method for a legitmate government to
> arise from an illegitmate government.
If a protection agency took land from a predatory agency (let's not even
call it proteciton now) and kept it for itself, it would be stealing it as
well, and it would also be a predatory agency. Anyone who bought the
property from them would be fencing stolen goods.
> >That's funny. I wouldn't agree to something as inefficient as a
> >government. Oh well, everyone's entitled to their own opinion.
>
> Well, not government as we have now. Just in general, government is
> more efficient than private bargaining because it reduces transaction
> costs. Protection agencies are a form of government, though they don't
> have the monopoly. There may be areas where the monopoly and economies
> of scale outway the cost of lost rights.
Government also faciltates redistributions of wealth almost inevitably once
it has authority over any other economic activities.
Protection agencies would not be a government because they don't have any
rights beyond those of an individual. Individuals have the right to defend
themselves through coercion and make mutual agreements for binding
arbitration over disputes. An agreement for protection is merely an
agreement to delegate this to somebody else. Taxation that you can't opt
out of, on the other hand, is something only a government can achieve.
Protection agencies would probably not be the only form of defense in an
anarcho-capitalist society. They're merely the one civilized
businesspeople who don't carry guns would prefer. I'm sure there would
also be lone hermits would plenty of ammo, walled cities and communes,
motorcycle gangs, and all sorts of other things.
As far as the economy of scale goes, this is essential to why
anarcho-capitalism would even be a good thing. It would have to be
non-monopolistic, and this is probably the case. Looking at other
service-oriented businesses that are not involved in the production of
physical goods, like dentists, attorneys and, private security companies,
you find countless examples of small local practices, often with 10 or 20
in the immediate area, and nothing huge like General Motors anywhere.
> >You have to remember that there would be no government to enforce
> >contracts. The protection agencies would have to do it themselves, and
> >other agencies would not want to honor ones that kept potential
customers
> >captive to their competitors. Practically speaking, you could not
enslave
> >someone for failure to pay, because it's more profitable to serve a free
> >man than to own a slave, and if you won't do this, someone else will --
and
> >they'll stand up for their right to do so with the threat of force.
>
> But it's more profitable to own a slave than to lose a customer to
> someone else. (possibly)
The other person also has a lot more to gain by gaining a customer than you
do by gaining a slave, and therefore, they would probably be more vehement
in their threats to use force to protect this right.
Besides, who would sign a contract that might put them in slavery when
other things were available on the market? The moment a protection agency
had their first slave, people would get scared, and they'd lose all their
business.
> "Coercion" seems pretty
> meaningless when you consider that there is nothing to stop a
> protection agency from exerting coercion. It may be protection agencies
> would be better off without using coercion, but this just makes it a
> practical matter, not the main principle behind limiting government.
Protection agencies are supposed to use coercion -- specifically to protect
people from the initiation of force and in retaliation against it. Of
course, it would probably be more beneficial to them to make arrangements
so that the coercion, if necessary, is deferred to an agency in charge of
binding arbitration.
There is something stopping protection agencies from using certain kinds of
coercion -- other protection agencies. If they try to steal from you
instead of protect you, you can instantly switch to another agency that
will jump in and coerce the other agency into not using coercion.
I don't understand the last part there. This is neither a practical matter
nor a reason for anything -- it's merely the outcome of a theory. Using
this knowledge, either moral or practical considerations should lead you to
the conclusion that anarchy is a good thing, but it's a description --
that's all.
> So you are saying that a "right" is something that someone may morally
> do, and no one may morally prevent them from doing so. Rights being an
> outcome of morality is the same as the natural rights argument, though
> rephrased.
>
> Either people have natural rights, derived from some moral system, or
> "rights" is just a term used to phrase the powers of a government. Or,
> there is a third option. I don't see how rights arise from society,
> though.
I am saying that rights come from a system of ethics, AND that systems of
ethics gain their legitimacy based on practical considerations -- their
historical track records and the consequences of whatever ideas might grow
out of them in the future. I'm considering systems of ethics as "public
policy" in and of themselves, except a kind that will far outlast the
immediate policies of the government.
Basically, I'm saying that if societal norms were to allow government to
erode certain fundamental rights, it would set the precedent for future
social interactions that would be far more destructive to our individual
goals than the immediate government policy. Just as I do not consider
public policy separately from political institutions, I do no consider
political institutions separately from societal norms.
By the way, it doesn't surprise me at all that moral and practical
considerations could always be in sync, because it's probably by design
that that which fulfills our individual conscience also leads to betterment
of our entire species.
> Okay, make that, "Can a hypothetical 'right to govern' be tied to land
> in such a way that the land can only sold subject to the condition that
> the buyer agree to cede certain rights to some agency, or can rights
> only be ceded as a requirement of a voluntary and explicit contract?"
Nobody has the right to govern, because governing someone involves rights
above and beyond any voluntary agreements. You can legitimately do what
you said, but it wouldn't be a government. It would merely be a
contractual arrangement between private parties. The owner of the land
would be your landlord, not your government, and in order to transfer the
lease over to somebody else and hold them personally responsible for any
obligations, they would have to sign an explicit contract as well.
Otherwise, the only person who would have any legal obligation to you would
be the original tenant.
Without an explicit contract people would be squatters and you would have
the right to kick them off your land, but your failure to provide notice
for them to leave or to provide them with a contract waives any claim you
had for past damages.
If your landlord comes and says "pay your taxes or I'll send my police
force" this doesn't give them any legitimate cliam, but if he says, "pay
your rent or your evicted," it does. The exact meaning of the request is
important, because one is something you're responsible for, and the other
is something you aren't.
> >Maybe there are certain inherant moral responsibilities people have, but
> >this certainly doesn't qualify as a contract -- and these
responsibilities
> >really have to be inherant. They can't be some kind of implicit
agreement.
> > I would put respecting other peoples' choices at the top of the list.
>
> I'm not sure that I can legitimately expect others to adhere to my moral
> system. Most moral systems are mutually contradictory, and I don't
> think that mine has any inherent superiority.
Any claim of the legitimacy of government at all must be based on morality
because legitimacy is a moral judgement. Ultimately, you have to decide
that some things are right and others are wrong, and this in and of itself
is a claim that certain moral systems are superior to others.
With out this first basic step, the only thing possible is complete moral
relativism, and then it doesn't even make sense to ask whether government
is legitimate or not: It's legitimate from some people's position and
illegitimate from others. I don't think this is the answer you wanted....