this was in a reply to a post where some guy in an email list. it went like this. at first it was about corporate employers discriminating against social liberties, such as testing for alcohol use. they seemed to agree that it was a slippery slope towards the destruction of many other social liberties, such as smoking (cigs), or even diet. someone made the argument that that’s why we have government. i responded that it would be ironic to use state power to tell corporations how to operate their property, when the reason corporations are so prevalent and monopolistic is due to state power in the first place. then this dude went on a diatribe that basically said cooperative and competitive forces (he called them government and corporations) must form a balance for society to be best, and that’s why we had government. this is my reply:
i understand where you are going with this. competition vs. cooperation. some aspects of cooperation allow competition to operate in a manner that proves beneficial to most society.
let me give an example: property rights. obviously, if competition has no respect for property rights, we will end up with a scenario where only the most powerful cartel of thieves survives. this is not in the best interest of the whole society. rather, in establishing property rights, division of labor and free trade can occur between competitive business interests that will generally create prosperity for most to all people.
i fundamentally agree with this; however, i think these things are quite different from economic freedom balancing with state force. i do not believe the state will remain the enforcer of a system of perfect cooperation, where the competitive elements are properly balanced, always making their competitive struggle a net benefit for society.
i believe the opposite principle also applies: competition can serve to best determine the most effective means of cooperation.
I think the best means of finding the balance between these two entities does not lie in some monopolistic government system used to create cooperation. Obviously, the best governments have shown to be flexible, allowing the law and government itself to change with the “collective will” of the people - this is a mild form of competition, similar to the democrats vs the republicans. however, even systems like democracy can be perverted into a competition - tyranny of the majority. our republic suffers from the principle-agent problem. constitutional restraints and checks and balances are eventually overcome. people figure out how to rig the system. the more powerful some centralized institution becomes, the more likely that some competitive interest will corrupt or assume control over it, and use it for its own competitive interests rather than some cooperative interest.
this has happened to every government in the history of mankind. typically, the cooperative interests of man who noticed that the state is no longer attempting to create a cooperative environment take matters into their own hands and revolt. Revolution and war are the typical means of changing or replacing non-cooperative government. I think these things are more avoidable than history presumes, and I think the loss of life and destruction of property that go hand in hand with such things are, as a whole, negative to all society.
all i am saying is this: law and its executive authorities cannot be excepted from the balance of cooperation vs. competition. the state attempts to implement a singular code of law, without any competition. the law itself is supposed to define or at least provide a mechanism to create cooperation. well, what if the law is written and enacted by a competitive interest, who attempts to benefit himself at the expense of the rest of society? We see this in totalitarian communism and fascism, but we also see it in our state capitalism. Why is it that a cartel of banks have the power to buy debt with money that didn’t previously exist? Why can’t you do the same thing? An obvious perversion of law as a cooperative rulebook is inequality under the law.
Faith in singular institutions for the best system of law is folly, even if such a system permits the people to change it. look at what has happened to our limitations of power in the constitution. the more the state disobeys them, the more special interests lobby to control government. the only means against the inevitability of revolution or the acceptance of outright tyranny is anarchy. Only in anarchy does the law have to compete to gain individuals’ support.
Many believe anarchy is lawlessness. It is not. Anarchy effectively breaks government down to its individual services, in separate, distinct units. For example, in anarchy, no one organization provides energy, education, food, armed defense, business regulations, police actions, and welfarism. Rather than choose between a government of foreign warfare or a government of domestic welfare, or a government of personal liberty vs economic liberty, individuals are free to choose how every aspect of cooperation ought to be implemented. when “cooperative” elements become conflicting, competition determines which ones are more important to the society.
I happen to believe the law should be based upon the libertarian non-aggression principle, which simply means any initiation of violence should be persecuted with violence or some other negative consequence, to exact justice. i support classical liberal regulation of business - respect for property rights, the right to life, and the right to liberty. i support a free market, where as long as one doesn’t violate the principles i just laid down, they can do whatever they want with their property, including their businesses. this would allow companies to discriminate against their employees social behavior. i simply think this generates demand for alternative work environments, which the market will produce, if people actually value such liberties more than some increase in pay…if the employment restrictions actually make the restrictive firms more productive.
so how do we choose what law is best in my ideal society? we let those institutions compete, based upon profitability. you’ll notice our military is the most powerful in the world. was this because we have a great, singular government armament manufacturer? no - our arms industries compete for private gain. we have a lot of private gain to offer, as our mostly free economy has created more wealth than less free systems. capitalism and free trade are powerful forces in satisfying consumer demands, provided those consumers can satisfy the supplier’s consumer demands. the most cooperative system should also be the most productive, which is not only powerful in satisfying economic demands, but powerful in defense, as war is less a numbers game but a technology game these days. even armies that use knives require food. again, more economic power means more capability of forceful power.
If any protection agency decided to start jailing people who didn’t pay them, most people would give their business to that agency’s rival. people tend not to enjoy being taxed…or going to jail. and the rival agency should be used to protect people from paying this tax, eventually overpowering the original agency and repaying the people who were taxed. the free market is very, very powerful. I believe anarchy would allow the closest thing to a free market to happen - nearly ALL exchange of property or service would occur voluntarily to mutually benefit both parties. This is the culmination of the power of division of labor.
if you look at monopolies throughout history, you’ll notice they all depend on either state privilege, or the unpunished initiation of violence. this is what i was referring to when i said that the only way you can guarantee civil rights destruction through employer ultimatums is to use the state to limit competition. usually, we don’t see this - rather the state simply outlaws social freedoms. many leftists believe the modern corporation is bad because it leads to corporate consolidation and monopoly. but corporations’ tax laws and limitations on liability allow them to raise capital and expand faster than any other forms of business. it allows them to out-compete smaller businesses, even when there are no efficiencies of scale, etc. combine this with our fiat money system which encourages massive credit creation, and saving and investment is always better sought in corporate stock over private loans, small businesses, currency, and commodities. then combine this with the regressive costs of compliance with regulation and lobbying to create further regulation.
my position would be termed anarcho-capitalism, which i believe is great because it is a super set of anarcho-syndicalism, which allows leftism and rightism to co-exist. it allows the creators of property to license their property for private use or gains, as in capitalism, or public use, as it would be used in socialism. what it doesn’t allow is everyone to be forced under threat of violence to be one commune, or union. even socialistic communes would be forced to compete amongst each other for members. thus, the best workers in an unproductive commune, who are getting a raw deal, will tend to move to the commune where everyone is capable of similar production capacity. if you notice the laws about leaving socialist nations, you’ll see why socialism doesn’t work very well on large scales. of course, individual goals aren’t necessary only good to the individual. The folly of socialists is to think that capitalism will only allow behavior that benefits oneself. Look at Mother Theresa, or a charitable organization. They exist freely, without law to force their cooperative behavior. It is often an individual’s personal goal to have a cooperative society. I think eliminating force and violence from society is a goal most people believe is cooperative.
Anything that requires a singular system or institution is a folly. To think that a couple of choices every couple years can guarantee the proper arrangements of all cooperative policies of society through a single institution is insanity to me. The only singular entity is the individual. The only public good is that which benefits all individuals. Cooperation can only be maintained as a public good when individuals can allow systems of law to compete.