I am about a fourth of the way through this book, and have just one question. I understand how taking money from the private sector and giving it to the public via taxes is inefficient, but Hazlitt seems to imply, albeit unwittingly, that it is POSSIBLE for money to be effectively allocated to the public sector. I believe he implies this when speaking of a bridge that is needed for private transportation.
Before you yell at me, I do realize that the private sector could just as easily build a bridge that accomplish the same ends through different and perhaps preferable means, but is it not true that the taxes used to build a useful bridge might have been squandered on failed projects in the private sector?
He also seems to believe in some government, which contrasts with most of the people here who, in my limited week here, I have noticed seem to prefer no government at all.
Thoughts please, as I am trying to forget years of Keynesian economic study.
As for the preference for government, libertarians that are okay with a limited government are also okay with limited enslavement. Die hard Libertarians that believe in zero government believe in zero enslavement. Being forced to pay taxes or have your wages garnish beyond your will (which means your must share the fruit of your labor with gov’t) is a form of slavery.
To listen to a bunch of zero gov’t Libertarians, Listen to the radio broadcast here: Free Talk Live
If gov’t is building a bridge, if part of their objective is employment, less efficiency will employ more labor. If the project exceeds its budget (which it often does) then it’s okay because they just tax or borrow more to fill the gap. Efficiency is not the main concern. On the other hand, if the project is a private venture where the owner expects to profit to pay for the bridge by charging a tole, and must also pay for service/maintenance/upkeep of the structure and factor in depreciation, then the bridge will be built as efficient as possible at the lowest cost, while using acceptable material to meet the projected life of the project . Building the bridge at a lower cost benefits the entire economy.
A potential project that does not have sufficient demand where potential users are not willing to pay to use it should not be developed. If it isn’t profitable it means the cost of production is too high. Materials and Labor are in limited supply. Costs are too high to make the project profitable because the economy has higher demands elsewhere for that same material and labor. The profitable sectors of the economy (where products are in higher demand) can therefore afford the materials and means of production. Highest demand projects/products get developed. If gov’t enters and dictates it will build a bridge, regardless of cost or profitability or demand, the materials and labor they secure for the bridge will mean some other project in higher demand will not be developed.
but is it not true that the taxes used to build a useful bridge might have been squandered on failed projects in the private sector?
If the private sector squanders money on a failed project it is not the same as if gov’t does it. In the private sector it is private money and private debt. If my private business fails who suffers the loss? I do or the private individual or institution who loaned me their savings do. The tax payer suffers no financial loss. Only the economy suffers a loss of squandered material wealth. Unless of course I get a gov’t bailout to keep my failed business operating with other people’s money.
Gov’t projects don’t go unfinished or fail, unless gov’t goes broke.
To say that people that support limited government are supporting limited enslavement is false IMO. You just assert it without reasons or taking into account voluntary contributions or a a very minuscule sales tax. If you are saying that anarchism is freedom i disagree. All you are doing in the end is replacing the government with mob rule and that is more tyrannical then a government limited to the protection of individual rights.
A statist would then reply what is the basis, speaking of the actual basis of an anarcho-capitalist community rather than the philosophical basis of the philosophy, of establishing anarcho-capitalism? For if anarcho-capitalism cannot be established, then it remains just as utopian as the Jeffersonian vision for a limited government.
As is it says in our Declaration the purpose is to secure man’s individual rights.
In order to do so there must be a monopoly on the retaliatory use of force and OBJECTIVE laws. If you have no government you are at the whim of the first thug that decides to be immoral. What would that lead to? Everyone armed with guns designing their homes to be a fortress? If my neighbor barges into my house because his radio was stolen and he shoots me for giving him a dirty look that is not the rational use of retaliatory force. He has violated my rights without proving anything to any legitimate authority. All anarchism is is tribal warfare or gang warfare. People will start joining groups for protection and it would lead to chaos. There wold be no way to settle disputes OBJECTIVELY because there are no laws.
It’s not that anarcho-capitalism isn’t realistic or possible one way or another, it’s the fact that anarcho-capitalism, as well as other alternatives to statism, are actively being prevented & worked against, to prevent any possible alternatives being tested by reality.
We’re pretty much right outside the laboratory, but we don’t “own” the lab, so aside from doing continual theoretical work (which while valuable, is still theoretical), & delegating ourselves to smaller experiments in lesser than ideal conditions, we can’t even even see if our ideologies are verifiable per reality, because we don’t have the damn keys to open the door!
(Keys representing the ability to conduct the experiment long enough to derive useful data from, without it getting shutting down, but this risk will have to faced eventually).
On a more optimistic note, I’m beginning to suspect that what allow the door to open (if not all the way, at least long enough to allow for more meaningful testing & sucess of further activism on the parts of minarchists & anarchist) would be panarchism. It’s on this that I think that minarchists are not as futile as anarchists believe, & that anarchists are not as anxious & radical as minarchists believe.
Then again, I am differentiating between minarchists & partyarchs (whom are an actual threat, because they implicitly encourage the tribalistic nature of the political parties, & exert little to no effort at either reducing politicization or de-politicization), as I’ve often observed they are not one & the same (not always, at least).
It is in this note that is of utmost importance that the state continues to manipulate social reality, in order to limit what is percieved as possible in physical reality.
Lenin was once perceived as a “revolutionary”, but when he attained power, he actively worked against other revolutionaries from achieving their goal.
The same can be said of any successful political revolution, in which the revolution becomes the new establishment, a new anti-establishment eventually is born & becomes the new establishment by tearing down the previous establishment, etc. etc. etc.
Quite dreadfully, propaganda propagates itself, so you are not just fighting against doctrine or an abstraction of institutes: you are literally fighting against an assumed position of human nature per every individual that believes it, & acts accordingly.
Not exactly an easy task, but hey, neither is anything else that’s worth doing.
Why do you think society would be without laws and law enforcement if there were no government? Why would there be anarchy?
The police would be de-monopolized and private police and security would be permitted to compete for profit. They also would not gang up and control society either.
I didn’t make the above up. I read it. If you would like to understand more on this you can take the red pill here or read it here.
First off how can one be against one very small government committed to rights protection (properly understood) but be for multiple competing governments? One government bad? many governments good? If the poster above is correct and limited government that only protects individual rights is accepting “a little enslavement” than how is advocating MANY little governments not accepting a whole lot of enslavement? not to mention it accepts the statist premise that there is no difference between the function of government and business. how does competition for forcible restraint seem good to you? Business and government are two different things. Production and force are not the same thing.
Secondly the functions of government and private enterprise are different to say you can have competing governments in my opinion means one doesn’t understand the concept competition. Competition amongst government is a bad thing not a good thing especially it it were for profit. The whole notion that you can put rights protection on the market is misguided at best.
There is no market without rights protection. A free market where individuals can trade, produce, and compete PRESUPPOSES rights protection. There is no market to speak of without having property rights, the right to trade, and the right to act and think. You are misusing the term market or free market. its what Ayn Rand called the stolen concept if i remember correctly. you are advocating something while denying what makes it possible.
Lastly the whole concept of justice would be removed from society. How can there be impartiality when you have competing governments. its like saying Lawyers would be impartial. In a trial one sides lawyer is committed to a certain outcome for their client. They have no incentive to be impartial often times they knowingly disregard the facts to defend or prosecute an individual. How would competing governments be any different. If i have government A and you have Government B and they are dependent on our profit no less what interest do they have in objectivity, impartiality and justice? If they lose a case or a gun battle over the color of someone’s house they would be viewed as not “efficient” or effective and lose market share. They only have an interest in winning just like when any other governments go to war. Business and government are two fundamentally different things and two try and combine the two is misguided.
You lost me at the concept of competing governments. How can two governments compete over the same land or property? Government is a monopoly. Gov’t would have to offer something to the public that the public can choose to buy or not to buy along side with other entities that offer that same something, for there to be competition.
Why would justice be removed from a gov’t less society? If the courts are ethical and make decisions “independent of government” today, why do the courts need gov’t or the protection & enforcement of government run police or military? If there is a market demand for laws and justice (and there will be market demand for order) then the free market will pay for it. If there is a demand for police and order then the free market will pay for privately run police departments that enforce the laws ruled by the courts, laid down by the constitution.
I think you may have drunk too much gov’t propaganda cool-aid that gov’t is a necessity for orderly life. I don’t have the capacity to argue with you all the philosophy on how/why a utopian libertarian society can work. All that logic has been written down in books. If you’re interest in those ideas then you can read it if you want. I personally don’t believe we will ever have the luxary of a non-gov’t libertarian society.
These governments won’t have enforced monopoly on any given piece of land (not to be confused with the natural monopoly). Therefore, they have to compete for clients just like any normal businesses. Thus, the’ll have far more incentives be more efficient than any government, even the limited one, that can simply fund itself by taxes. If you admit that competition is good for any other industry, why should it be different for security and defense?
You also assume that people can never agree on some set of common rules or voluntarily submit to private court’s rulings. That is simply untrue and has been disproved by historical examples. If you don’t believe me, check out Lex Mercatoria or Old West Dispute resolution, or, more recently, international commercial laws and Internet courts. Seriously, if medieval merchants from different parts of Europe lacking modern communications managed to develop a satisfactory codex of laws and a court system which is far more fair and efficient that government justice today, why is so incomprehensible to supposedly more pro-freedom modern people?
Why do you want to serve one government instead of having competing agencies serving you? Not to mention that you don’t even have to pay anyone and choose to protect yourself.
"How can two governments compete over the same land or property? "
You said there should be multiple governments competing for market share. why are you asking me how they would compete? They can’t compete because the concept of competition doesn’t apply to government it applies to business. They would just wage war on one another because there would be no peaceful means of dispute resolution.
“Government is a monopoly.”
Not if there are multiple competing governments. Not to mention the reason you say you want competing governments is so there is no monopoly on rights protection. You’re contradicting yourself.
“Why would justice be removed from a gov’t less society?”
Because there would be no objective laws and no impartial body to make decisions and enforce anything.
“f there is a market demand for laws and justice (and there will be market demand for order) then the free market will pay for it.”
Again you are mis using the term market. There is no market to speak of under your system. The market presupposes rights protection. Rights protection is the pre condition of a free market. You can’t start off with a free market and then move on to rights protection if you take words to have meaning. You are putting the cart before the horse. This whole anarcho capitalism stuff comes from a misunderstanding of what the concept market and competiion means.
“I think you may have drunk too much gov’t propaganda cool-aid that gov’t is a necessity for orderly life.”
well i think you don’t know what a market is.
“All that logic has been written down in books.”
Many of the arguments are logical but they are false because they flow from faulty premises.
Indeed, stop doing it and stop denying the obvious: with respect to the provision of law, order and defence you wish the state to perform the job you (mistakenly) believe the market cannot. Saying the concept of competition doesn’t “apply” to government is just special pleading; really, nonsense at its core. And then there’s the whole “objective” laws nonsense, objectively enforced according to the state’s subjective interpretations of its decrees. Very “objective”…