Society in all its aspects is like any other sport. I bet nobody would like to watch a baseball, football and basketball game without a referee making sure the game played by THE RULES. To ignore this necessity is to ignore basic human psychology and I would ignore any argument against it.
HOWEVER, this gets interesting when we (after accepting the need of a referee) get ourselves involved on “what should be the rules of the game”???
As long as there are at least 2 humans on the table they will differ on what should be the rules of the game. Now comes the third step, how do we device a system to properly assign the rules of the game???
The science that studies this process falls into sociology and economics.
This is a never ending process, game and that makes it human.
Now I must critize AE. I hope I don’t get banned……intolerance is the worst enemy of freedom.
If you are attracted or admire military strategies you probably also admire many of the strategies played by NAZI Germany during WWII. At the same time that does not make the NAZI model positive in any way.
I happen to have the same problem with AE, no other economic school of thought can teach about the role of money in the economy and basic fundamental economic principles. Yet AE manages to ignore basic human psychology and although it provides a wonderful recipe for a real market economy to take place, it fails to form the most basic socioeconomic need…………the referee.
Imagine a doctor who wants to cut your head off because it hurts and tries to convince you that you don’t need it.
I happen to have the same problem with AE, no other economic school of thought can teach about the role of money in the economy and basic fundamental economic principles. Yet AE manages to ignore basic human psychology and although it provides a wonderful recipe for a real market economy to take place, it fails to form the most basic socioeconomic need…………the referee.
I won’t comment on the actual substance of your post, but I’d just like to make clear that your disagreement is not with “Austrian economics”. Austrian economics, like economics in general, is value free and cannot tell you what system should be followed. It can only tell you the consequences of certain actions and systems. All the more, not all Austrian economists are anarchists, and not all anarcho-capitalists are Austrians. Your beef may be with the “Austrian school”, but even this is a bit broad as while the Austrian school contains anarchists, not all anarchists are in the Austrian school.
Now I must critize AE. I hope I don’t get banned……intolerance is the worst enemy of freedom.
Nobody has been banned here for disagreeing with a particular ideology. People are only banned if their form of arguing includes blatant insults.
Now, a comment on the substance of your post.
As long as there are at least 2 humans on the table they will differ on what should be the rules of the game. Now comes the third step, how do we device a system to properly assign the rules of the game???
There is empirical evidence which suggests that the “rules of the game” were developed privately, not by government. These rules were only assimilated by government, once the government realized that most market agents were acting outside the existing law. This is how I believe the concept of property rights came into existence. See a recent post of mine, “Development of Property Rights”. These rules were developed over time by private parties as a form of arbitration, as it became clear that conflict was a subpar method of getting what one wants.
We all support rules here, but the rules apply to all players, including whoever is designated as the state. If it is against the rules to steal, taxation is illegal.
Moreover, sports venues and cups are voluntary associations of people. They agree to join up under certain conditions. If they want to play soccor outside the circuit, they are more than welcome to. The state is not a voluntary association.
Austro-libertarians think there should be rules, but realize it is impossible to have one single objective third party to resolve disputes. Referees in sports are good because there is competition between them; if players and fans do not like his performance, another takes his place. We want the same kind of competition in law to be provided on the market.
Its all about incentives… anything is possible, but we advocate anarchism because we believe it gives humanity its best shot at peace and prosperity.
I don’t think he’s necessarily referring to the extreme dichotomy of anarchy vs. archy, but to the regulated vs. unregulated economy. Where “regulated” implies government regulations.
The dangerous thing about this referee is that it has a monopoly on the use of force and therefore must be restrained. George Washington once said “government is not reason. It is not eloquence. It is force.”
I think the “game” as you refer to it is made more dangerous, chaotic, and unpredictable through government intervention especially when it gets into the business of violating individual private property rights. Just look at the last century of government and Federal Reserve intervention into the economy to see for yourself. I’m not quite sure if I fully understand the anarcho-capitalist ideas so I can’t say if I truly agree with them or not. The anarcho-capitalists believes there should be no existence of a state what so ever. I’m not sure if I agree with this as I am still fairly new to it all. But I think once you allow government to begin intervening however small in the affairs of individuals, property, business, and anything else essential to a free society it is a slippery slope downwards. I think this is what the anarcho-capitalists try to get at and I agree with this premise. Is a stateless society the solution though? I’m not quite sure.
But like the previous poster said, not all AE’s are anarcho-capitalists and vice versa.
wolfman: ““what should be the rules of the game”???”
The basis for the claim of a need for “referee” and the “government needs to set rules” basically implies that there are no a priori laws for human action. It’s basically a denial or a tragic misunderstanding of economic science. There is no other way to rationalize your position, for you are basically suggesting that the “rules” can be arbitrarily set.
Now, there are other kinds of “rules” that are not based on a priori axioms, such as terms of exchange and contractual agreements. Such “rules” are nothing more then “parts” comprising the goods and services being voluntarily exchanged between two parties. By insisting on a government to set the rules, you are basically insisting on interfering between two consenting parties. That is all.
I have yet to seen anyone, including in this thread, make the logical jump from
A: we need to have rules
to
B: those rules need to be set and enforced by a monopoly.
It makes absolutely no sense after you think about it for longer than a few minutes. At least, that’s what made the switch for me to the stateless position. As has already been explained, the need for a referee does not necessitate a monopoly on force.
“Society in all its aspects is like any other sport. I bet nobody would like to watch a baseball, football and basketball game without a referee making sure the game played by THE RULES.”
Where this fails remarkably is the omission / ignorance / misunderstanding that in the *“*game of life” the “referee” (government) is also playing the game. It’s the kind of ‘referee’ who trips the player, then awards his ‘side’ a penalty.
To go from a need for rules, to a need for rulers is a complete non sequitur.
The market solves the dilemma of “Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?” (Who watches the watchers?).
A game with no referee is as bad as the referee being a player or taking sides.
Thank you.
Conza88 wrote the following post at Thu, Jul 1 2010 10:01 AM:
“Society in all its aspects is like any other sport. I bet nobody would like to watch a baseball, football and basketball game without a referee making sure the game played by THE RULES.”
Where this fails remarkably is the omission / ignorance / misunderstanding that in the *“*game of life” the “referee” (government) is also playing the game. It’s the kind of ‘referee’ who trips the player, then awards his ‘side’ a penalty.
To go from a need for rules, to a need for rulers is a complete non sequitur.
The market solves the dilemma of “Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?” (Who watches the watchers?).
Well not quite a monopoly. In a federation type of goernement you have more than 1 governement in place.
Jonathan Nebel wrote the following post at Wed, Jun 30 2010 10:45 PM:
I have yet to seen anyone, including in this thread, make the logical jump from
A: we need to have rules
to
B: those rules need to be set and enforced by a monopoly.
It makes absolutely no sense after you think about it for longer than a few minutes. At least, that’s what made the switch for me to the stateless position. As has already been explained, the need for a referee does not necessitate a monopoly on force.
DD5 wrote the following post at Wed, Jun 30 2010 9:43 PM:
wolfman: ““what should be the rules of the game”???”
The basis for the claim of a need for “referee” and the “government needs to set rules” basically implies that there are no a priori laws for human action. It’s basically a denial or a tragic misunderstanding of economic science. There is no other way to rationalize your position, for you are basically suggesting that the “rules” can be arbitrarily set.
You won’t find many (any?) here who support the idea of no law enforcement (no referee). What they will disagree with is that the referee should also be able to force you to play his game and not some other.
cporter wrote the following post at Thu, Jul 1 2010 10:35 AM:
You won’t find many (any?) here who support the idea of no law enforcement (no referee). What they will disagree with is that the referee should also be able to force you to play his game and not some other.
States, within a federation or isolated and subject to ius gentium, are nonetheless in a state of anarchy amongst themselves. What you are incapable of disproving is the right to secession down to the individual level.
“A game with no referee is as bad as the referee being a player or taking sides.”
Actually no, soccer is tons more fun with no “referee”. That way the bs of ‘diving’ and people trying to obtain special privledges is negligable.
But really your starting metaphor is terrible and contains its own demise. If you’re agreeing with me, I think its because either you didn’t understand or I wasn’t clear enough.
If two individuals, or two sports teams as you use in your example, agree to compete with one another in a game then it is likely that both sides can agree upon a set of rules for the game, or else they would not agree to compete with one another.
However, if it is as you suggest, that the two parties can not agree upon rules then there is a need for a referee. However, that referee need not be a State (whose monopoly on the enforcement of the rules is permanent) but could instead be an independent thrid party arbitrator that will assure the rules are played by and insure against any cheating during the game.
Let’s assume that two indivduals, A and B, agree to a foot race. Furthermore, they agree that the distance will be one mile of trail that both agree upon. Coming to this agreement, the rules are pretty much set. However, if either side is in doubt of the other following the rules–or if any interested party wants to ensure that the race is run “fair and square”–an independent arbitrator, Z, could be hired to assure the rules are followed. This would keep A from showing up to the race and attempting to compete in the race by using a Ferrari sports car; likewise, Z would also ensure that B does not boobytrapp the path ahead so that A is entangled or snared and thus unable to win.
The same can occur in a stateless society. The use of insurance companies or independent arbitrators could ensure adherence to the rules of the competition and arbitrate any grievances from other parties involved. Once the competition is over, and the winner is announced, the validity for the use of Z is over until Z is again contracted to perform those smae duties in another competition.
What keeps Z from cheating and naming a preferred participant as the winner? Z also has competition. Insurers/arbitrators X and Y will gladly take on the contract to uphold the rules and monitor the activities of the participants for as long as the competition goes on.
I wish I could be more articulate and express these thoughts better, but my lunchtime is short and I need to run an errand prior to getting back to my cubicle.
The analogy of the state to the referee Is deeply flawed. Referee services in sports are voluntary, states are involuntary–there could be no more dramatic distinction.
As a soccer referee myself, I object to being compared to state agents. Players consent to the league’s rules before the fact and sign a contract agreeing to accept my authority and arbitration over the games. If someone breaks the rules, I can send them to the bench with a card because they broke their contract (which stated that they would abide by the rules of the game). If they consistently break the rules, they can be banned from the league.
In stark contrast, I signed no contrast with the City of Tallahassee, State of Florida, or United States. They impose themselves on me.
Moreover, there are other soccer leagues that players can play in if they don’t like this one. There are no other protection agencies I can contract with if I don’t like the government monopoly. In addition, if I do a bad job, the league is incentivized to fire me. If a government bureaucrat does a bad job, the government is incentivized to give him more money.
I expect the next pro-state argument to make use of the “social contract” concept.