Monday, November 3, 2008
Vote
My initial comment about the importance of voting was going to be something along the lines of having an ethical responsibility to do it because we can, and the vast majority of people in the world can't, etc., but so far that argument has moved people less than I expected. But I got into a conversation with a colleague recently. The colleague is a dedicated anarchist, in the sense that he believes that government has no purpose (not even a minimal purpose as I believe) and that all spheres of human endeavor, including criminal justice, are best handled privately. It is a fascinating viewpoint, far better researched and supported than one might assume, but that's a topic for another day. The relevant point here is that he does not vote for the obvious reason that the concept of voting is meaningless to him. One of the things we got to discussing is how, starting with an imperfect but functional democracy such as ours, a system of the sort he advocates could come about. Discounting instant and total consensus (really a form of a unanimous vote), we agreed on two possibilities – violent revolution, and democratic process. I don't think I need to remind anyone how I feel about violent revolutions and why. The democratic process, on the other hand, could be used to abolish itself, annul the Constitution and dissolve the US government. In other words, his system could be brought about by a vote. Conclusion: go vote tomorrow, even if you believe it is meaningless or would prefer a world where voting is unnecessary. Philosophical principles are at stake.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
Ah, the trap is laid, and the trap is sprung.
But there is at least one other way to a society without government - my preferred way, in fact, though its likelihood is not any higher than those you mention: if enough people were to simply start ignoring government at every level, and withdrawing their sanction and support for it, eventually it would wither on the vine. The constitution, e.g., would still be technically in force, but people would take it no more seriously than they took Joshua Norton's claims of empire.
Sadly, the U.S. constitution is not amended by popular vote. But I admit that if there were a proposed amendment to my state constitution to the effect that "This constitution is now and henceforth null and void" I'd be tempted to shelve my dignity and vote for it, if it made it to the general ballot.
Yes, I see what you're saying, if the people do this in sufficiently large numbers to make criminal prosecution by the existing justice system utterly impractical. History tells us, however, that even that path is highly likely to bifurcate. Either it will eventually result in violence (if the government is not amenable to being ignored), or the government must already have some sense of its own irrelevance and take the people's actions as a signal to accelerate its own removal, as it did in colonial India for example.
It seems to me that this government-free variety of civilization existed once. Thomas Hobbes calls it the State of Nature, in which life is nasty, brutish and short. Romantics in the tradition of Rousseau maintain that free of rule, man returns to a state of peace with others and with nature ... but I think a more accurate vision of unrestricted human behavior can be observed in the social tendencies of the bull elephant seal. Call me a fatalist, but I'll take impersonal tyranny over personal, local tyranny any day of the week.
Gareth commits the very common error of confusing lack of government with lack of law and/or lack of order. This article by economics professor David Friedman presents one argument for why the one does not imply the other.
There's good reason to think there would be injustices and perhaps even "tyranny" in a system such as Friedman proposes - which, BTW, looks very little like "unrestricted human behavior" - but then, we have tyranny and injustice now. The question is, under which system are they minimized? The linked article provides strong reasons to believe - although short of proof, of course - that law and justice, just like all other private goods, are more efficiently provided by the free market than by central control.
There is one advantage of liberal democratic government over “anarcho-capitalism” described in the Friedman article- economy of scale. If I depended on one of many private security firms for the protection of my life and property, would I need to pay another similar entity to ensure my food and medicine are free from poisons? Or industrial chemicals are not dumped next to my house? Or whether an investment firm is skimming my accounts? I simply don’t buy the argument that, say, food producers have a natural incentive not to cut their products with poison because people would stop buying it. If you’re one of only a few cheese makers in a village of a hundred people, sure, but the anonymity of a global economy leaves too many incentives to go for the quick buck. Just look at the melamine scandal in China, and the current global financial problems. Wouldn’t it make sense for all such organizations to consolidate to offer comprehensive services, without me having to manage each individually? Such an agency sounds an awful lot like government to me.
-CM
CM raises some interesting and good points, but I think there are good answers. Briefly:
"would I need to pay another similar entity to ensure my food and medicine are free from poisons?"
Yes, sure. More likely would be that a company, perhaps multiple companies, with (a) good reputation(s) would perform a function much like UL does now for electric appliances, or like the various kosher certifying organizations do: food producers would submit (or not) to various inspections, put their seal on the products (or not), and consumers could choose to buy uncertified products if they wish. Most likely very few would take that route.
Or industrial chemicals are not dumped next to my house?
This is of course trickier. As I understand it, the main anarcho proposal is strong property rights along with some kind of scheme for making tort claims marketable. I.e., it may not be feasible for me to sue Mutations R Us for making me grow a third arm, but I and all my neighbors could sell the rights to collect our damages to Sue Your Ass, Inc. which would then pursue the much more valuable consolidated lawsuit.
This is far from perfect, of course, not least because even if I'm compensated I'm still mutated/poisoned. But of course, people get poisoned now, and the result is usually a modest fine. Either system has flaws.
Or whether an investment firm is skimming my accounts?
Sure, this would be enforced by reputation. Much as it is now. I tend to think some degree of restitution would be likelier in lieu of the state's preference for fines (payable to the state) and punishment.
I simply don’t buy the argument that, say, food producers have a natural incentive not to cut their products with poison because people would stop buying it. If you’re one of only a few cheese makers in a village of a hundred people, sure, but the anonymity of a global economy leaves too many incentives to go for the quick buck. look at the melamine scandal in China.
Yeah, exactly, look at China. They have a pretty intrusive government, which didn't prevent that tragedy from happening. A market can't prevent it, and a government can't prevent it, but it seems to me that the greater efficiency and competition of market solutions to food safety would produce the better result (although tragedies could not be entirely prevented, of course).
I'd actually be more worried about the local cheese guys than the big conglomerates. Once you're big enough to go global, it seems to me there's no reason to go for a quick buck; you're already raking in mad jack, and why risk that?
Wouldn’t it make sense for all such organizations to consolidate to offer comprehensive services, without me having to manage each individually?
I don't really see why. Does it make sense for one organization to sell books and CDs, and electronics and ... err, wait a minute - scratch that. But on the other hand, amazon, e.g., doesn't look much like a government. Of course, they sell physical goods instead of services, but we don't see, say, legal services, health insurance agencies, and travel services getting conglomerated up under one umbrella, either.
And for the most part I don't think the things you mention are things you'd have to take time to manage - they'd mostly be bundled up in the costs of goods and invisible to you at point of sale, just like the current cost of regulation is.
I don't think there would be a huge cost savings in privatizing all current government functions - my seat-of-my-ass estimate is somewhere between 10-20%. But I also think people would more nearly get what they want, on average, from these services than they do now (this is roughly the economic concept of "efficiency"). And I think a society with less coercion is attractive in itself.
Oh, and let me add that even in the case that you did have a large firm subsuming various individual protection functions under its umbrella, the fundamental difference with government is that government arrogates unto itself the right to a protected monopoly in these areas - you can't just set up shop and compete with the FDA, for example.
Our hypothetical mega-corp would not have this advantage. If it became too bloated and complacent, a smaller company could come in and eat its lunch in one area. And a reasonably large company could compete in all of them. Even if there wound up being only two or three alternatives to choose from, that would still be better than a protected monopoly.
Ignoring Ray's crazy philosophical bating, I can say that I participated in exactly the kind of activity that is described in the original post.
When I was growing up in Texas, a libertarian ran for the office of Public Weigher on the platform that if he was elected he would abolish the office. I voted for him, along with pretty much everyone else, and the last public weigher was gone.
A Public Weigher?!?! That is almost better than Boston's public censor, now mercifully gone. What, exactly, did this official weigh?
Post a Comment