October 21, 2009
-
On libertarianism
The most extreme libertarians, the anarcho-capitalists, hold that all government is inherently evil. What they seem to fail to understand is that government is only as evil as the people who run it—and anarchy is as evil as the worst person in the system. If there were 0 bad people in the world, anarchy would work—but so would any government. If there is even 1 bad person in the world, we need government to protect the rest of us.
Anarcho-syndicalism says that all governments should be voluntary associations—that would be nice, and perhaps we should work toward it. But it’s still government—there is still going to be coercion involved in defending the voluntary assocation against aggressors. Without that violence, we are back to anarchy.
Then there are libertarians of the Objectivist mold, who follow Ayn Rand’s contention that government should have the power to enforce contracts, to enforce laws and protect life, liberty, and property. This seems far more reasonable, but once we agree that we need government for something, why should we stop at basic law enforcement?
Indeed, it is provable that under the control of such semi-rational beings as we, the free market is self-destructive. Monopolies form, advertisers manipulate people into buying products that will harm them (tobacco, anyone?), short-sighted companies pollute air and water, financial speculation collapses economies. Perhaps these things wouldn’t happen if everyone was perfectly rational, but no one is perfectly rational, and we need to build societies in the real world, not in some utopian fantasy world. So, then, why not use government to rein in capitalism against destroying itself? Why not enact anti-trust laws to prevent monopoly, restrictions on advertising, regulations on food and drugs, caps on pollution, limits on interest rates?
Indeed, why not? Adam Smith would have. It only makes sense. Of course, if you do all these things that it makes perfect sense to do, you’re considered a Democrat. Basic restrictions to protect capitalism from itself are considered “liberal” in this society.
And then we must ask, why not go further? Why stop at securing capitalism and actually ask what is in the common interest? Why not tax to build roads and schools, provide food, shelter, and medicine to all? Yes, this is socialism. Socialism is coercive. But sometimes coercion is justified!
I offer a parable. There are three men on a desert island. Adam has 2000 apples. Bob has 12 apples. Carl has only 3 apples. There is reason to think that all three men could survive to be rescued, if each has at least 10 apples to feed himself until the rescue arrives. If things remain the same, Adam will obviously survive; Bob would also most likely survive. But Carl would definitely die. Bob could give up 2 of his apples to Carl, but then he’d be at more risk and Carl would still most likely die–or he could give up 7 of his apples and Carl would live but Bob would die. So, Bob and Carl make a contract: They will take 7 of Adam’s apples so that Carl will have 10. Adam resists, saying, “This is coercion! This is socialism! You have no right!” They do it anyway; everyone lives—but Adam is angry.
Was Adam’s complaint really legitimate? I don’t think so! Adam has plenty of apples, he’ll barely miss the ones he would have to give up. Carl on the other hand will die if he doesn’t get more apples. It’s only fair that Adam should lose some of his apples to save Carl.
Think the numbers are ridiculous? They are quite conservative actually. If an apple is equal to $5,000—so that Bob has $60,000, making him middle class in the United States; then the poorest people in the world actually have about $200, which is actually about 1/250 of an apple. Meanwhile the richest people in the world have $10 billion each—that’s 2 million apples. Of course, there are a lot more poor people than rich people, but still—in a world where poverty can mean death, does anyone have the right to have 5 million times as much money as anyone else?
Yes, I am a socialist. I think government should provide basic needs—food, shelter, housing—for every person in the world, and should tax the rest of us as much as is necessary to make that happen.
Comments (6)
I think your analogy fails to address the obvious question of why Adam has so many more apples in the first place. I agree that something is very wrong in a system where so much money belongs to so few, but I disagree that taxation is the solution. If people are consistently in possession of more than they are entitled to, then something is wrong at a more basic level.
To use an extreme example, it’s nice to have a police service regularly returning my stolen possessions, but it would make a lot more sense if they would stop them from being stolen in the first place.
@The_Brink_of_Omniscience -
Well, as in the analogy, it is unclear where exactly rich people got all their wealth. It seems to depend upon so many contingencies of history that it’s hard to see who exactly is responsible for it.
@pnrj -
My point is just that capitalism functions on the philosophy that people should have what they earn. If people are getting things they don’t deserve, then something is wrong with the system. If, however, Carl is just a lazy apple-picker, he probably deserves starvation.
@The_Brink_of_Omniscience -
Except that it is not at all clear what people “earn”—anything I have is dependent in large part upon the rest of society—and there are no really compelling philosophical theories of private property.
And clearly Carl isn’t just lazy; no one dies out of laziness. Bob might be lazy—he has what he needs, so why work? But in order for people to be so poor they can barely survive, there must be something other than pure laziness at work.
I’ve decided I don’t like Bob.
It would have gone better for Adam if he had refused to pick more than Bob’s 12 apples, and pretended not to know how to pick them. Adam could let Bob bear the wrath of Carl while Adam spends his extra time lounging in the sun. That’s how I see Bob’s role in this.
Another point here is that with 2000 apples, Adam could hire Carl (who’s clearly the worst at apple husbandry) to go row out and catch fish. Adam and Carl then both have apples and fish between them – Bob is then shown up as the slacker he is.
Under your system, those 2000 apples won’t be picked and nobody gets protein, either. Everyone works just enough to stay under the radar. (Except maybe for Carl, who will probably be drowned in the middle of the night, poor slob.)
Is it my Asperger’s acting up? Because I can’t see how your post is anything but ridiculous.
Great points.
Because Americans did NOT give $300 billion to charity in 2008 despite gov’t sucking up ~30% of GDP, which would have been enough to give 30 million people (~10%) $10,000 a year. If this was the case, then the anarcho-capitalist could just say,
“Given the current tax rate, Americans were charitable enough to give $300 billion, and remember taxes siphon off the discretionary funds first – because people who are just staying afloat don’t give to charity. But in an an-cap society where the privatized formerly gov’t functions only suck up, lets say 5% of GDP, not only do people have 25% more income, but each one of those now-discretionary dollars is much more likely to be given to charity. Combine this with 1. The compounding effects of material growth in a free market and 2. the fact that everything is cheaper because there’s no “regulation”, and it all converges on the conclusion that a stateless society would be better for the bottom third of the world within about 10 years, maybe sooner. And given the current state of affairs, some major changes ARE going to happen, be it a change in socio-economic organization or an economic catastrophe.”
Hold on… americans did give $300 billion in 2008. And so an an-cap could and should say that.
Your argument amounts to, “we want a humane society, thus we should appoint people to seize resources from others at gunpoint, but it’s okay because the largest voting blocs will decide who gets their resources seized, how much and to whom it goes to. And if you oppose this arrangement, well then you just don’t live in the real world and have a polly-anna view of human nature.”
Go here:
http://fee.org/audio
http://mises.org/media.aspx
And here:
http://fringeelements.ning.com/page/the-wall
http://www.lulu.com/items/volume_66/7855000/7855614/1/source/ForAnEmergentGovernance.pdf