If markets were totally free and unregulated, one type markets which would certainly emerge is slave markets. Slavery can be both profitable and i as old as human history. By slavery, I mean everything from contractual indentured servitude whereby one party voluntarily waives rights for a period of time in an unbreakable contract, to kidnapping and forced labor.
We can imagine other unsavory markets which either exist now and might expand or might come into existence if their markets became unregulated.
One advantage of the socialist (LvM definition) state is that, by using coercion to fund itself, it can afford to protect even those with no material resources, (although often with extreme inefficiency and negative side effects). However, police do respond to reports of human trafficking/slavery for example even if there’s no potential profit or direct benefit to themselves, aside from continued paychecks.
Obviously, slavery is the opposite of liberty, so a libertarian society would have to have a mechanism for disrupting and regulating slave markets out of existence to the largest practical extent, or the society would lose its claim to libertarianism and rights would only be real to those who could afford them. This would imply, however, the necessity of coercive regulation of markets for the preservation of general human liberty.
Slavery comes in degrees, does it not? And while we are tyrannized into paying taxes we have no real role in legislating, which is abominable, we are also not in fear of being beaten, kidnapped and forced to work for free with no recognized rights for the rest of our lives. I mean really, do you worry about that?
But that’s what free-market entrepreneurs used to do off the coast of Africa for quite some time. Are the only two choices a state which enslaves people or free market entrepreneurs who enslave people? If so, you’re arguing that general human liberty is impossible, and you’re very confused if you consider that position libertarian.
That is a law of Nature: Those who have more will have a better ability to get more. Rich get richer etc, that’s how you get a diversity of species in the wild; the strong animals can capture large prey, and the small animals can only obtain the smaller prey.
However, this is not an issue of Predation. In the market (assuming all interactions are voluntary), it is very possible to decline into a slave market, where the desperate “proletariat” choose to work for a wage given to them by the “bourgeoisie”. However, in this case, the proletariat choose to be in this situation, even if their consent is manipulated by desperate situations like paying bills etc. They still have the power to refuse playing into this system and find other means of obtaining wealth. That’s why Marxists rely on workers to unite, because an entire population of workers that refuse to be manipulated at the same time is more effective than having a single worker leave the system.
Besides, there can be forms of regulation that don’t require coercion. I’m sure you have heard of “watchdog” institutions, where the institution “keeps an eye out” for abusive or unfair institutions. Those institutions that are deemed abusive would naturally lose prestige and support, depending on the prestige of the watchdog institution.
If a libertarian society would allow for slavery due to market forces, why wouldn’t it also allow for murder, rape and theft and every other type of violation of rights? Surely people would and do pay for others to engage in the above activities (i.e. hitmen).
I’m sure you have heard of “watchdog” institutions, where the institution “keeps an eye out” for abusive or unfair institutions.
Really? Below is a photograph which I understand to be from a slave market in Atlanta, Georgia, which advertises to the whole world that what goes on inside is the trade of slaves (not contractual slaves, by the way). How would it be possible to shame such an institution? The propietors might even consider allegations of brutality and ruthlessness to be free advertising.
No it isn’t. Slavery is not profitable, or more accurately, not as productive as voluntary wage based and/or for profit labor. That’s just basic economics.
The latter is slavery, while the former is debatable. The former may also prove impracticable to enforce in a free society. But clearly, us current citizens of the State are of the latter type of forced labor. We did not contractually agree to be taxed and regulated, so according to your own definition, we are slaves.
Unless you are going to have the Chutzpa to define “by coercion to fund itself” as “by voluntary contributions to fund itself”, you are basically saying: The advantage of the socialist state is that it can enslave you in order to protect your from slavery.
Your argument is as self contradictory as an argument can possibly be. Are you sure you want to hold on to your argument?
Those who see slavery as wrong may smuggle slaves to freedom in the underground railroad. If a nation respect those slaves as human beings with natural rights, than we would see that the nations with slaves will gradually and slowly see a drain of slave workforce to their neighbor.
Not to mention that paid labrorers probably have more incentives to work better and do not have to be as controlled or watched for any sign of escape. You may also have to watch for possible slave rebellion. Slaves who can’t work is damaged goods after all.
The hidden cost of slavery in your nation may eventually stunt your economic growth and your ability to compete with your neighbors.
Those who see slavery as wrong may smuggle slaves to freedom in the underground railroad. If a nation respect those slaves as human beings with natural rights, than we would see that the nations with slaves will gradually and slowly see a drain of slave workforce to their neighbor.
Not to mention that paid labrorers probably have more incentives to work better and do not have to be as controlled or watched for any sign of escape. You may also have to watch for possible slave rebellion. Slaves who can’t work is damaged goods after all.
The hidden cost of slavery in your nation may eventually stunt your economic growth and your ability to compete with your neighbors.
By the way, freemen also double as a potential milta force in itself. Should you ever want to invade your neighbor, you have to contend with seriously motivated men loyal to their adopted nation.
Slavery actually means a right to punish another person in any way. If you are going to define it incorrectly, as enforcing any contractual obligation, you might as well start talking about “wage slavery” and tell us your vision of the New Communist Man. The slave trade was built upon the initiation of violence. The part of history you are ignoring is where security and justice was provided privately. See here on “thief-takers”.
Sometimes justice is unsavory. Market regulation isn’t just. That a lack of government would lead to widespread slavery is ridiculous.
The poor, more often, are swept under the rug. Criminals owe for “costs of (re)capture” along with whatever was done to the victim. One-third of the take was customary in maritime law, although firms could compete in terms of their rates. Private military toppling “illegitimate states” could be incredibly profitable.So, your idea that nobody would do anything about slavery because it isn’t worth it makes no sense.
The last sentence doesn’t compute. The mechanisms exist, you just don’t know about it apparently.
There is no hidden cost in slavery. There are known costs which exceed the costs of the free laborer.
Ignoring the incentive problem and overhead costs of imprisonment, the market price of the slave would still be equal to his expected marginal value productivity over his lifetime minus the discount rate. Basically under these favorable assumptions for slave labor, a slave’s DMVP is no different then the free laborer’s DMVP. Now add your costs of incentive problems and imprisonment overhead on top of that.
If The advantage of the socialist state is that it can enslave you in order to protect your from slavery
The advantage of an airbag is that it can hit you in the face to prevent you from getting hit in the face.
I’m sure I want to hold onto my argument*.* Do you want to tell me about how you fear an entrepreneur kidnapping you and forcing you to work for free somewhere you don’t speak the language?
Like I said, it proves absolutely nothing dealing with the purpose of this thread. All types of property rights violations can be separated from “state action”, but it doesn’t follow that somehow libertarianism condones those actions.
