I'm surprised that I haven't had to deal with this in political discussions more often. One time, when mentioning my HOA I heard, "some libertarian you are, they won't even let your change the color of your mailbox." While this is true, I agreed to it before buying the house. The more difficult question is, how can a majority of homeowners force me to pay more HOA dues simply by a vote? Isn't this just a small scale state? Even more difficult than that question is: if signing an HOA agreement indicates my consent, then buying a house within a state's authority should indicate my consent to be ruled by that state? I knew something was amiss with this argument, but it took me several months to formalize it. The answer came from Albert J. Nock, and I'd like to share it here.
I'll just get straight to the point, "[the state] did not originate in the common understanding and agreement of society; it originated in conquest and confiscation" (Our Enemy the State, by Albert J. Nock, Ch.2). Ownership is derived from the principle of homesteading. Subsequent ownership comes via trade or gifting. The property on which an HOA is established was probably sold by a farmer to a housing development company (HDC). The farmer or his family acquired this property via homesteading. The HDC, by its observations of market activity, wagered that it would be more profitable and attract more clients if they put restrictions on the property. A potential owner like myself has no claim to this property and so cannot make any legal claims about what can or cannot be in the contract. I am free to negotiate, and when the contract is presented I am free to reject or consent to the stipulations of property ownership.
Aside: an interesting agreement I made at time of purchase is that I have no claim on the minerals/metals found on my property. When I asked why, I was told that mining these minerals would ruin the aesthetics of the HOA. That made sense to me and readily agreed.
Notice that the HDC is risking its capital. If the HOA charges too much or is too restrictive then property values will be lower than what the HDC paid for them and will go out of business. If the HDC imposes minor restrictions that everyone agrees to and ultimately beautifies and aesthetically unifies the area, then property values will be higher with the HOA than without it.
What happens when the HDC leaves and homeowners rule the HOA? Well, first and foremost, I've consented to buy property on land that I previously had no claim to and so all contracts made thereafter are binding. Second, the HOA is small, a few hundred families. We all live in the community, we all pay the exact same HOA dues, and all of our home values are at risk when we increase or decrease services provided by the HOA. No member is charged more than any other and so a majority can't rule over a minority without paying the same price. The size is also important because we know the HOA board members and the neighbors that vote. We have much more power to negotiate and convince a neighbor to give up an economically-damaging pipe dream than we do a politician 2000 miles away.
An HOA is an example of government, not the state. It's not perfect... wait, yes it is. It's not utopian; it's an example of how community ought to be established. It's how homesteading, contract, and property rights -- the peaceful and voluntary means of human interaction -- can promote peace, flourishing, and happiness. It may not be for everyone, but it is a perfect solution to deal with the limitation of human nature and limitation of nature itself -- of scarcity.
What about the second part of my question, doesn't my purchase of the home indicate my consent to the state in that geographical territory? No. The state did not homestead the property, the state did not put up its capital to purchase the property, and thus has no claim to the property period. Whatever ownership the state claims is based on it's ability to conquer, not to interact peacefully.
Saturday, May 21, 2011
Friday, May 20, 2011
Traveling to a parallel universe to test the state
The idea of the state is on its face absurd. As I alluded to in a previous post, pro-state indoctrination is a reality of our culture. However, unlike brainwashing, indoctrination is possible to escape with knowledge and logic. The evil and illogic of the state is obvious to anarchists, but for some reason it's difficult for others to understand our position. So in this post I'll attempt to guide readers through a gedunken experiment by traveling to a parallel anarchist universe to see what the indoctrinated anarchists think of instituting a state. Afterwards, you can decide for yourself who is more justified in their skepticism. Click the red book to the left to enter the worm hole (the one with the white strip near the bottom of its binding). See it?
Okay, we're here. Ahhhh! Watch out there's a godless unruled mob of barbarians headed our way to enslave us! haha, just kidding, I love that one.
Since you haven't been here before let me explain what's going on. We have been transported not to a parallel time but to a parallel wealth production. Everything is similar to what we have in our universe. Sure there are fewer roads but new modes of transportation are in development because the auto industry isn't getting massive subsidies via the tax funded road infrastructure. And because savings haven't been systematically stolen through inflation, new cars cost a few hundred dollars and the average income is about $3000 per year. Also, because new money isn't created and handed to benefactors of the state the gap between rich and poor is much smaller than what we know, but it's a healthy gap that promotes hard work, savings, and entrepreneurship. Okay, enough with the utilitarianism, let's ask how these people suffer under freedom.
"You, sir! Don't you hate it when your police break down your door looking for drugs, shoot your dogs and your wife and then realize they have the wrong house? And then the bastards get put on paid administrative leave?" (that doesn't happen, right? Ask google and see prolibertate). Some time passes while we stare at each other, "sir?", "yeah, I heard you, but who would pay for that kind of 'service'? I've never seen that." The man has a point, but I know human nature so I respond, "are you kidding me? There are always evil men who want to use guns to get what they want, they're probably even wealthy and could hire other men. That's why we have state run police." The man looks perplexed not knowing how to respond. After about 30 seconds he begins to speak, "so with this state police, everyone has to pay for it? Even me who has had his wife killed in an illegal raid?"
"Of course, we wouldn't want anarchy."
The man shakes his head and widens his eyes in disbelief. "And if I don't pay, I'll be locked up?"
"Yep"
"And if I rightfully refuse to be locked up..."
"They'll kill you if you sufficiently resist."
"And then the murderers will be captured and prosecuted by other law enforcement companies interested in protecting natural rights and garnering customer support?"
"Whoa whoa whoa, that's crazy talk, you want a competing law enforcement agency!? No, there must be a monopoly of violence in a geographic territory or else we'd just have shoot outs between different agencies"
The man is irritated now, "look" he says "law enforcement is dangerous enough as is, if one agency goes around stirring up trouble and getting their officers killed then they'll have to pay more to individuals willing to work there. Also, if they unjustly kill a man they are tried for their crimes. The officer and the hiring company will pay making it prohibitively expensive to continue imposing violence on others. And most importantly, no one, except perhaps for a small few would pay for this injustice. The shear numbers of courts, competing agencies, and citizens that desire justice will push this corrupt entity out of business."
I've got him cornered now, "but isn't it plausible that a man like Warren Buffett or some Saudi Sheik could make it his primary goal to destroy justice by the wealth you've let him accumulate?" There's not much of a pause this time, "First, we don't have anyone with those means, we don't print dollars and give them to privileged people like your Warren Buffett. And we don't give people land they have not homesteaded like your Sheik -- plus isn't he out of your 'geographical region'?
"More importantly, if these men were responsible for colluding to commit injustice, do you realize how easy it would be to send a special forces team to surgically extract them or to stop their small army. And because we have not legitimized aggression, they could not get your funding and resources or lock up dissenters. Their system would quickly collapse, they'd be taken out of power, and their wealth destroyed. Contrast this with your governor or your president or even your police captain, what's stopping the evil men you worry about from seeking these positions where they can do orders of magnitude more harm." A little red in the face he exclaims, "have you even thought about your concerns past knee-jerk emotional reactions!?
"Fundamentally, why in the world would we give some men -- who are as flawed and morally depraved as I am -- rights that no other individual has, why would we let some men be above natural law? And again, these evil men you talk about -- instead of being hampered by this political monopoly -- are empowered by an essentially unaccountable organization. "
Something all of a sudden dawns on the man,
"... And why the hell were they after drugs in the first place!? Who would pay the extremely high price that would go along with barging into homes looking for substances they disapprove of? You guys need to leave this universe. Your 'logic', if it can be called that, is completely backwards."
I have a feeling statists like ourselves aren't welcomed in this universe. We'll have to come back later to talk to them about their courts, defense, and welfare systems. Jumping through the worm hole we find ourselves back in our universe. Watch out! The state is after your money so it can give foreign "aid" to a regime that in 3 months we'll bombard with cruise missiles and drone attacks! Ah, home sweet statist home.
Saturday, May 14, 2011
Myopic Statism
It's redundant, but at least it clarifies the topic: myopic statism.
I hide facebook friends from my news feed for a reason. Unfortunately, today I was using Amy's computer and was reminded of why facebook's hide feature is vital to my health and wellbeing. A friend posted this story where Harry Reid uses that wonderful political tool and argumentative fallacy (again, redundant) of the red herring: divert attention from the spending problem to the revenue problem. Reid wants to eliminate tax breaks for oil companies. For this post I'm going to step through the utilitarian and basic economic arguments against this idea.
As of yesterday afternoon at the Kroger around the corner, gas was selling for $3.899/gallon. Taxing oil companies would push this up further. In case this is your introduction to basic sense this might be a shocker, but companies don't pay taxes the consumers do. Increased taxes means increased prices so that the consumer can't afford as much of the producer's good and the producer won't produce as much. The net result is that society is poorer; less wealth is created.
Second, every government car, tank, and jet is powered by... wait for it... the oil companies!!! So if the price of oil goes up so does the cost of government which means spending goes up which means taxes go up, which means there'll be a call to further tax oil companies, which means... get it? This is the opposite of both Boehner and Reid's goals (not really though, politicians live for power and to rule over others, they just have to put up a front).
Next, consider what the oil companies do. They invest in billion dollar projects that produce oil and gas for a few years. When their wells stop being profitable they have to kill the wells. Oil and gas may still be in the reservoir, but it makes no sense to continue using more resources to extract the oil than it will return. Prices are the way to measure resources consumed vs. resources produced. When the government comes in and adds a tax on the oil companies their price signal to kill wells comes earlier than it otherwise would. The effect of eliminating tax breaks for oil companies means more resources will go unused sitting in subsea reservoirs.
It's important to note that oil companies are great enablers of life and prosperity. Without them billions of people would die. If this is not obvious then you don't grasp the degree to which petroleum has made civilization and our well being possible. Contrast this with government that killed over 100 million people in the 20th century and continues to kill thousands in the 21st. Statists are promoting the wrong organization unless they're sadistic homicidal maniacs... some are.
The statist has a great distrust in so called "big business". It's understandable, I mean a company that wields billions of dollars a year has great power to create or abuse the stored potential in dollars. If this is true, then how much more suspicious should we be of an organization that wields trillions and claims the right to violate property, civil, and human rights!!?? Companies are not above the law unless the government gives them special privileges (such as corporate personhood and limited liability). Considering our founded fears of largeness and since this post is full of utilitarianism then let me propose this: the government should have no right to tax a company that has less revenue than the federal budget. Seems like a good rule of thumb to me.
I recently attended the Offshore Technology Conference where I got a glimpse of the scope of human cooperation that goes into every drill site. (again appealing to utilitarianism and the political obsession with jobs for jobs sake) the oil industry creates millions of jobs, most are extremely specialized and highly skilled. Every part in the chain from the geologist to the rupture disc engineer to the subsea modeler (that's me) to the platform operators and the millions in between are an incredible testament to human achievement and cooperation. Government on the other hand works on a very different premise; it's only resource is coercion. It does not engage in cooperation without force. It is anti-humanitarian, anti-progress, and anti-wealth. Destroy the state and promote mankind!
"Tax the oil companies" is as myopic as the statist solution to "tax the rich" i.e. "majority tyranny over the minority". Luckily, that utilitarian response has been done for me:
I hide facebook friends from my news feed for a reason. Unfortunately, today I was using Amy's computer and was reminded of why facebook's hide feature is vital to my health and wellbeing. A friend posted this story where Harry Reid uses that wonderful political tool and argumentative fallacy (again, redundant) of the red herring: divert attention from the spending problem to the revenue problem. Reid wants to eliminate tax breaks for oil companies. For this post I'm going to step through the utilitarian and basic economic arguments against this idea.
As of yesterday afternoon at the Kroger around the corner, gas was selling for $3.899/gallon. Taxing oil companies would push this up further. In case this is your introduction to basic sense this might be a shocker, but companies don't pay taxes the consumers do. Increased taxes means increased prices so that the consumer can't afford as much of the producer's good and the producer won't produce as much. The net result is that society is poorer; less wealth is created.
Second, every government car, tank, and jet is powered by... wait for it... the oil companies!!! So if the price of oil goes up so does the cost of government which means spending goes up which means taxes go up, which means there'll be a call to further tax oil companies, which means... get it? This is the opposite of both Boehner and Reid's goals (not really though, politicians live for power and to rule over others, they just have to put up a front).
Next, consider what the oil companies do. They invest in billion dollar projects that produce oil and gas for a few years. When their wells stop being profitable they have to kill the wells. Oil and gas may still be in the reservoir, but it makes no sense to continue using more resources to extract the oil than it will return. Prices are the way to measure resources consumed vs. resources produced. When the government comes in and adds a tax on the oil companies their price signal to kill wells comes earlier than it otherwise would. The effect of eliminating tax breaks for oil companies means more resources will go unused sitting in subsea reservoirs.
It's important to note that oil companies are great enablers of life and prosperity. Without them billions of people would die. If this is not obvious then you don't grasp the degree to which petroleum has made civilization and our well being possible. Contrast this with government that killed over 100 million people in the 20th century and continues to kill thousands in the 21st. Statists are promoting the wrong organization unless they're sadistic homicidal maniacs... some are.
The statist has a great distrust in so called "big business". It's understandable, I mean a company that wields billions of dollars a year has great power to create or abuse the stored potential in dollars. If this is true, then how much more suspicious should we be of an organization that wields trillions and claims the right to violate property, civil, and human rights!!?? Companies are not above the law unless the government gives them special privileges (such as corporate personhood and limited liability). Considering our founded fears of largeness and since this post is full of utilitarianism then let me propose this: the government should have no right to tax a company that has less revenue than the federal budget. Seems like a good rule of thumb to me.
I recently attended the Offshore Technology Conference where I got a glimpse of the scope of human cooperation that goes into every drill site. (again appealing to utilitarianism and the political obsession with jobs for jobs sake) the oil industry creates millions of jobs, most are extremely specialized and highly skilled. Every part in the chain from the geologist to the rupture disc engineer to the subsea modeler (that's me) to the platform operators and the millions in between are an incredible testament to human achievement and cooperation. Government on the other hand works on a very different premise; it's only resource is coercion. It does not engage in cooperation without force. It is anti-humanitarian, anti-progress, and anti-wealth. Destroy the state and promote mankind!
"Tax the oil companies" is as myopic as the statist solution to "tax the rich" i.e. "majority tyranny over the minority". Luckily, that utilitarian response has been done for me:
Wednesday, May 4, 2011
Your worst fears of business are already realized in the state
I don't make a habit of appealing to conspiracy theories, but it seems that public schools has some 'splainin' to do. The logic of my fellow American and fellow earthling is lacking severely in the realm of political thought. When you take a step back and view the world and its inhabitants for what they are you realize what a waste of time high school civics was. Who needs a theory of legislating when the concept of the state is inconsistent with and a revolt against nature and humanitarianism?
Saying that we were brainwashed would discredit what I have to say, but I have not yet been able to come up with a better way to explain the absurd arguments for the state and against freedom. For it seems to me that all the objections I hear opposing free markets are tens times more applicable to the state. Here are a few examples.
1) "If roads were private we'd have corporations buying up all the roads and charging whatever they want"
So to avoid a monopoly of road ownership we need to establish from the onset a monopoly of road ownership given to the government. This new monopoly has the power to extract funds from everyone, even those that rarely use the road or do not use the road at all. This monopoly has the right to claim whatever land it wants to build new roads, and it gets to determine what the "fair" price of this land is.
With privatized roads perhaps a monopoly would arise, but competition would not be outlawed, eminent domain would not trample private property, and opting out of road use and thus road funding would be possible and legal. Government is not liable for deaths that occur on their roads and they are less accountable in general because roads are bundled into a thousands of other government functions many of which (such as war) overshadow the inefficiencies of roads. Is there any doubt that government roads are the worst possible solution?
2) "You want corporations to run the military? You're an idiot"
Ad hominem attacks are all I ever get in this situation so this is the best I can do at representing the argument. My same response about roads applies to this but it is even more important to have a private military than private roads. Why? Our military (or foreign presence in general), believe it or not, is responsible for a lot of bad stuff. They assassinate, torture, murder, and provoke. The first time I hear that my defense contractor is torturing people I cancel my subscription as I'm sure many others would. We wouldn't have to wait 8 years to elect a new president who promises our war money back only to betray us when he takes office. Such a military leader is liable for fraud and would be prosecuted.
The current military is funded by coercion, not consent. Drafts add in the element of kidnapping by conscription. Politicians are kept in power by the massive military industrial complex. The synergy that exists with publicly funded military interests such as Blackwater, Ratheon, Halliburton, Boeing, etc. could not exist as they do today with private defense. Defense companies that try to spend a trillion dollars in a year would find it impossible to find a customer base willing to agree to such a ridiculous scope of foreign entanglement.
I also hear that our defense is only as good as it is because people are forced to pay for it. My response is (a) there's so much "defense" that we endanger ourselves by putting troops where they don't belong (b) there's far too much potential for abuse (see comments of torture above) and (c) a free society would be so prosperous that defense costs would be minimal expenditures and would most likely be handled by insurance companies.
3) "Without the FDA we'd be eating poisoned food"
No one says this, right? Sigh, I'm afraid they do. Chris Mathews said it about two weeks ago. Guess what? Businesses don't want to kill their customers! It's bad for business! I'm all for private regulation and of course competition in private regulation. Why would we think a monopoly on regulation would be a good thing? They can't go out of business, if they do a bad job they can say it's because they had insufficient funding and get more money... why would we expect this to be a good solution?
I might continue this to another post. Other topics would include money creation, courts, police, banking and the FDIC, healthcare, social security, parks, and I'm also open to suggestions.
Saying that we were brainwashed would discredit what I have to say, but I have not yet been able to come up with a better way to explain the absurd arguments for the state and against freedom. For it seems to me that all the objections I hear opposing free markets are tens times more applicable to the state. Here are a few examples.
1) "If roads were private we'd have corporations buying up all the roads and charging whatever they want"
So to avoid a monopoly of road ownership we need to establish from the onset a monopoly of road ownership given to the government. This new monopoly has the power to extract funds from everyone, even those that rarely use the road or do not use the road at all. This monopoly has the right to claim whatever land it wants to build new roads, and it gets to determine what the "fair" price of this land is.
With privatized roads perhaps a monopoly would arise, but competition would not be outlawed, eminent domain would not trample private property, and opting out of road use and thus road funding would be possible and legal. Government is not liable for deaths that occur on their roads and they are less accountable in general because roads are bundled into a thousands of other government functions many of which (such as war) overshadow the inefficiencies of roads. Is there any doubt that government roads are the worst possible solution?
2) "You want corporations to run the military? You're an idiot"
Ad hominem attacks are all I ever get in this situation so this is the best I can do at representing the argument. My same response about roads applies to this but it is even more important to have a private military than private roads. Why? Our military (or foreign presence in general), believe it or not, is responsible for a lot of bad stuff. They assassinate, torture, murder, and provoke. The first time I hear that my defense contractor is torturing people I cancel my subscription as I'm sure many others would. We wouldn't have to wait 8 years to elect a new president who promises our war money back only to betray us when he takes office. Such a military leader is liable for fraud and would be prosecuted.
The current military is funded by coercion, not consent. Drafts add in the element of kidnapping by conscription. Politicians are kept in power by the massive military industrial complex. The synergy that exists with publicly funded military interests such as Blackwater, Ratheon, Halliburton, Boeing, etc. could not exist as they do today with private defense. Defense companies that try to spend a trillion dollars in a year would find it impossible to find a customer base willing to agree to such a ridiculous scope of foreign entanglement.
I also hear that our defense is only as good as it is because people are forced to pay for it. My response is (a) there's so much "defense" that we endanger ourselves by putting troops where they don't belong (b) there's far too much potential for abuse (see comments of torture above) and (c) a free society would be so prosperous that defense costs would be minimal expenditures and would most likely be handled by insurance companies.
3) "Without the FDA we'd be eating poisoned food"
No one says this, right? Sigh, I'm afraid they do. Chris Mathews said it about two weeks ago. Guess what? Businesses don't want to kill their customers! It's bad for business! I'm all for private regulation and of course competition in private regulation. Why would we think a monopoly on regulation would be a good thing? They can't go out of business, if they do a bad job they can say it's because they had insufficient funding and get more money... why would we expect this to be a good solution?
4) "All that business cares about is the bottom line."
Lew Rockwell has said that "profits are an indication that services are being rendered on a voluntary basis". "The Bottom Line" is how business calculates whether or not it is putting its resources to good use and serving people. In this sense, all businesses should care about is it's bottom line; it provides a metric of how they benefit society.
How does this apply to government? "All politicians care about is a vote". While businesses daily have to fight for your vote, for your confidence, politicians only have to do it every 2, 4, or 6 years. But more importantly than this is that politicians can be elected by benefiting the majority at the expense of the minority. Businesses are putting their own resources on the line while politicians confiscate others' resources for the benefit of their constituents. Businesses do not pander to the majority because profits are often found by serving a minor niche in society previously unfulfilled. It is a far more efficient and ethical way of human interaction and cooperation.
5) "Business pollutes and destroys the environment"
Yes, some businesses pollute, but government is in charge of upholding private property rights. The US government has, since the industrial revolution, found that it was in the public's interest to allow producers to pollute family farms and households. For over a hundred years the individual has had little recourse when it comes to polluted land. Businesses that pollute should be fined and these fines will make it prohibitively expensive to continue doing business.
The tragedy of the commons is not a problem of the free market it's the problem of collectivism. Consider a basket of shared resources. Human nature and scarcity being what they are, it is only natural to consume as much of these resources as possible because not doing so results in someone else consuming the scarce resources. Only through property rights can resources be conserved, replinished, and rationed. Today's modern and most disturbing examples of pollution and tragedy of the commons are found in our water ways. Government does not allow ownership of the oceans, rivers, lakes etc. and so we have massive pollution and over fishing. Buffalo were nearly wiped out because the US government opened the middle of the country to every cowboy (real ones, driving cattle) which used up the vegetation and left the land barren. The buffalo were hunted for meat and this open country was in bad sorts. The establishment of property rights in the plain states saved the buffalo and it can save our oceans, lakes, and rivers.
I might continue this to another post. Other topics would include money creation, courts, police, banking and the FDIC, healthcare, social security, parks, and I'm also open to suggestions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)