Law and Economics.

[I_Ryan]

@Clayton

Because governments - or, at least, all the necessary ingredients for governments - exist in every culture. This suggests that the condition of acquiescence of a subject population which is a prerequisite for the existence of government is dispositional, not cultural or ideological.

The first necessary ingredient - in my theory of the origin of government - is the ethical vestige of our ancestors who existed in an alpha-male social structure. This vestige is the in-built tolerance for dual-morality. The primary distinguishing attribute of alpha-male social structure is the existence of two sets of social norms, one set of social norms applies to non-alphas and another set of social norms applies to the alpha (and those who act on his behalf). Mating, food, association, rank and other social factors may be controlled by the alpha. Mating is almost invariably monopolized by the alpha (this appears to be the primary purpose of alpha mating where the costs of reproduction are borne by the entire group, necessitating that only the best genes be permitted to propagate). The alpha pattern is itself a biological fact about the group in that species. That is, the alpha does not hold his status because he created the idea of alpha status, rather he holds it because every member of the group understands and accepts that someone has to be the alpha, the only question is who.

Similarly, kings and emperors do not exist solely by dint of will and conquest of their subject population despite its best efforts to repel their rule. An acquiescence on the part of the governed is requisite and it is this acquiescence that is puzzling, particularly if we begin our analysis with an assumption of economic rationality on the part of individuals in the subject population.

I think that you are correct about that disposition, but it is clear simply from the fact that we are having this discussion that it is only a disposition. I don’t think that we will need to see a change in our biology to be able to move closer to freedom, because we already apparently have the chance to overcome those problems. I know what you are saying, that we are the few, and that it is hopeless to think that we could convince a critical mass of the idiots to accept our arguments, so will will end up having most people wanting statism regardless of whether or not we can reach some, or even most, of the intelligent people.

But it don’t think that it matters whether most people want statism. I think that we will see a transition from statism to non-statism while the idiots on the streets keep yelling about needing whatever part of statism that is the fad at that time. It will happen whether or not the ordinary people accept it in theory, because they will accept it in practice. They might not know what they are doing, or what part of history they are a part of, but it doesn’t matter. It will happen regardless of what they argue for in debates.

It is a relic from back when our science didn’t embrace non-statism to care about whether the ordinary people accept our theories. It is just a vestige of the evolution of our science from back when it still split its theory into two parts, (1) the part condemning monopoly providers as bad for consumers, and (2) the part carelessly forgetting about those insights when faced with the question of what we should want to government to do.

@Ludwig von Mises in Human Action

In the market economy the realization of technological innovations does not require anything more than the cognizance of their reasonableness by one or a few enlightened spirits. No dullness and clumsiness on the part of the masses can stop the pioneers of improvement. There is no need for them to win the approval of inert people beforehand. They are free to embark upon their projects even if everyone else laughs at them. Later, when the new, better and cheaper products appear on the market, these scoffers will scramble for them. However dull a man may be, he knows how to tell the difference between a cheaper shoe and a more expensive one, and to appreciate the usefulness of new products.

But it is different in the field of social organization and economic policies. Here the best theories are useless if not supported by public opinion. They cannot work if not accepted by a majority of the people. Whatever the system of government may be, there cannot be any question of ruling a nation lastingly on the ground of doctrines at variance with public opinion. In the end the philosophy of the majority prevails. In the long run there cannot be any such thing as an unpopular system of government. The difference between democracy and despotism does not affect the final outcome. It refers only to the method by which the adjustment of the system of government to the ideology held by public opinion is brought about. Unpopular autocrats can only be dethroned by revolutionary upheavals, while unpopular democratic rulers are peacefully ousted in the next election.

It should immediately be clear that we don’t accept that split anymore. We don’t think that law and law enforcement are subject to different laws than all of the other goods. We don’t break up our theory into two parts, (1) one about law and law enforcement, and (2) the other about the rest of the goods. We have what we think is a unified theory, where we apply the principles of the market to every corner of the map, and don’t make any arbitrary concessions to central planning. We don’t think that “it is different in the field of social organization and economic policies” anymore. We think that it is the same.

What happens when we take what he was saying in those two paragraphs, and repair the split? What happens when we bring the two pieces back together?

What happens is that we notice that the transitions of the practices in providing law and law enforcement, among anything else that the government does right now, isn’t going to be subject to the mystical, other side of economic theory, but is going to be subject to the same laws as anything else, to the laws of the market. We should see that the transition from the government providing certain goods, such as law, law enforcement, bridges, or whatever, to voluntary businesses providing those goods, doesn’t have to be a political process, but could be a market process. We won’t need to play by their rules to take them down.

We are already seeing this happening around us. It doesn’t matter that most of the ordinary people can’t even think of an alternative to the government copyright and patent systems. It doesn’t matter that most of the ordinary people would argue that we need copyrights, because musicians, writers, and so on wouldn’t ever do anything without them, because they wouldn’t be able to get a return on their work. It doesn’t matter that most of them would argue that we need patents, because inventers wouldn’t ever do give the world anything without them, because other, less inventive people would just steal their ideas right out of the gates. It doesn’t matter, simply because those same people eagerly pirate music, video games, and so on, right after an extended debate about the merits of copyrights. The people making pirating possible, and the people downloading the pirated stuff, are different people. We only need the former to be against copyrights in theory. It doesn’t matter whether the latter are, because they will be for it in practice, whatever they argue at their job or with their friends. Government copyrights are falling apart, and I don’t think that it has anything to do with the ordinary people changing their views about them.

We will see the destruction of everything that the government does happen like this. We don’t need to win the approval of inert people beforehand. No dullness and clumsiness on the part of the masses can stop the pioneers of improvement.

(Also see this post.)