States & institutions

Economics Political Theory
1

I wanted to tangentially respond to this thread, and especially the argument put forth that it is impossible to change an institution from the inside-out.

I’m not holding my breath for voting alone to reduce government power, but I don’t think this is a defensible position.

Actions within institutions lead to their destruction all the time. It often takes the form of a “hostile takeover”, where an entity purchases shares of a business, basically securing enough votes to wrestle control of the business from whomever had power before. While this entity is often outside the business it does not have to be; one executive, existing shareholders or even the employees could initiate a hostile takeover. Admittedly, the institutional frameworks of business are better set up to do this sort of thing than governments, but both are significantly effected by people outside of their organizations.

Its also not uncommon for the original purposes of any organization to be gradually subverted over time.

I believe Brainpolice’s position mistakes the effects of an institution with the goals of the individuals in an institution. These are often two very different things. In governments, I’d say the effects are negative to nearly everyone involved (save high-up legislators, although in some cases I don’t think that is even clear). The goals of the individuals are a mixture of their own self-interest and altruism. Thus, the effects of the state and those involved in it could in many cases be in conflict. If this conflict is made obvious to the actors involved, the effects of the state might change dramatically. If someone can point out to the individuals involved in an institution that their interests can be better served in some alternative way, they may dramatically alter the effects of their institution in order to better further their own ends. This only seems to be in conflict if one mistakes the effects of an institution for its “goals”, or the goals of those involved in it.

I think a good example of this is here.

The state does not really have a goal or any vested interest in tyranny any more than a market does; the only goals involved are those of the individuals involved in it. It is very common for institutions to produce outcomes which greatly differ from the goals of the people involved in them (markets in private goods being the most obvious example). I don’t believe there is any normative “reason” or stated “goal” for states to pursue harmful policies, that is simply the effect states have.

Many people might respond by saying that there are too many people involved in government who’s goals are furthered by it, so they will resist any attempts to reduce it in size. I think this is correct, but misses one thing (which I think Hoppe also missed in his critique of democracy): democratic governments do not have much of a political “class” as previous systems did. The friends, family and loved-ones of those who do benefit from government often have nothing to do with government, or if they do, do not benefit from it. I think this gives politicians in democratic systems strong incentives not to make laws which only benefit politicians (although they obviously do that as well), and so it should be possible to elect politicians who’s goals are in-step with the general interest of the public.

Again, I’m not trying to argue for political action or any other form of action to reduce government power. I think prediction markets are the proper way to determine that sort of thing.

Voting anarchist dilemma
2

The point isn’t to change the institution, it’s to eliminate it.

A takeover of the state does not equal the elimination of the state. Hasn’t the flaws of marxism taught us this by now? You’re still talking in the context of which group or bereaucracy controls the institution, not doing away with the institution itself.

You’re still talking about changing an institution rather then eliminating it. Furthermore, you seem to neglect that the intent of those within the institution is irrelevant in the sense that there are unintended consequences involved in working within that institution. A bunch of people could join the state with good intentions, but this does not translate into good effects per se. Nor does it necessarily do anything to eliminate the institution (remember, this is the goal, not changing the institution). Nonetheless, once one has joined an institution, one’s goals are within the framework of that institution. One does not join an organization with the goal of eliminating it. It makes no sense whatsoever. Those within the institution have the goals of using the institution for particular ends. Anarchism is not about using the state for particular ends. That’s what statism is about, and this is why political libertarianism is statism as a practise.

You’re neglecting the means of the institution. It does not matter what the goals of those within the institution are when the way that the institution is set up implies that they must persue particular means. Political means. Political means are not compatible with non-political ends. It’s not so much that there is a normative goal for states to persue harmful policies, it’s that the means of the institution itself is harmful regaurdless of the goals in question. You cannot work within the framework of state institutions without employing the means by which they depend upon; means which are diametrically opposed to liberty.

Actually democracies increase the size of the political class. In a monarchy the political class made up of a particular family and/or a small artistocracy. In a democracy the political class is expanded, there is an even larger beureacracy and more bereaucracies and more oppurtunity for private interests to collude with state agents. Democracy involves more of a plurality of rulers then a monarchy does. Furthermore, it is impossible due to the information problem for a politician to be representative of the public at large. It’s trying to concentrate it all at one central point: one person or one single body. Markets comparatively are more representative due to competition (I.E. the existance of separate, independant institutions).

3

In the context of a hostile takeover, the institution is often destroyed and its assets are broken up into smaller institutions or sold off. If a similar thing were to happen to a state (and again, I’m not holding my breath), its assets could be sold off as well. I think this is what you meant by “elimination”, since it would of course be wasteful to eliminate the physical assets and employees of the state. Simply doing away with the state in a flash so that its resources were totally unowned would likely have a similarly effect: assets would not be wasted (excepting looting), but the institution would be gone.

The means of all institution are mutable, just like the institutions themselves. IBM, for example, seems to re-invent itself every decade or so. Likewise, a state could do something similar. Take the post office for example, which nowadays is required to pay for itself. That is a state institution which has, at least somewhat, abandoned political means. The modern military has also abandoned conscription. Modern governments do not exclusively employ coercive means, especially in the rare case where they act to repeal existing legislation.

Put another way, the institutions we know of as states are not 100% statist. No business is 100% voluntary, no state is 100% coercive, and the means of all institutions vary over time.

This is all true, but friends and family of politicians in democracies are much less likely to become members of the political class than in aristocracies. A modern-day politician will likely find his sons and daughters entering private, not public, life, whereas an aristocrat would have his offspring all become aristocrats as well. Nepotism in political appointments is of course possible, but generally frowned upon by voters. This isn’t really relevant to the topic at hand, but I believe the blurring between the political and private classes in a democracy is a lot of what keeps them from being more tyrannical. The less blurry they are, the less incentives politicians have to even try to serve the public (and I do think trying and failing is a better deal than purposeful oppression).

Well, this isn’t quite true. I was referring to the possibility that a politician could have the public’s best interest at heart and so act to reduce or impeded state power. He can allow the public to serve themselves.*

Its easy to look at the history of liberalism and say that political means never work. But they do sometimes work, and have almost undoubtebly saved countless lives in some instances. I think whether or not the opportunity cost of investments into politics are worthwhile is something a market would have to answer. If I had to guess, I’d say the best approach to liberty would be for individuals to pursue opportunities as they see them, and not to ascribe to any one plan for achieving liberty. What is clear to me is that liberal policies are wildly unpopular among voters.

  • I do slightly disagree that it is impossible for political action to directly serve the public. I think its very unlikely that it does. However in cases where the state has already assumed control over something (such as roads or the banking system), I think it is possible for the state to direct resources towards better uses than is currently being done. Without price signals it is nigh-impossible to direct resources to their most efficient use, but improvements can still likely be made over how things are now. This is why I don’t really quibble about voters fighting over how tax dollars are spent or new regulations in already-regulated areas: I see the problem as being state control itself, while fighting over how the state controls things is a rational response to that control (and indeed, its better than letting the state take things and not caring about what it does with them!).
4

The problem is that you’re using market-based explainations of how states work. It’s fallacious. States do not function the same as a competitive market. You can’t use market processes to describe how states work.

Unless a state abandoned taxation, tariffs, monetary inflation and other such devices altogether (at which point they would essentially cease to be states in any rational definition of the term), then they will always rely on coercive means for their very existance. The very nature of a state relies on such coercive/political means. There is no such thing as a state that does not. As for the military, the military contracts are set up so that it still is coercive for one cannot opt out of it. That is, one can’t quit once one has joined. One cannot “desert” and one cannot defy orders. Soldiers are still effectively enslaved.

We obviously have very different views of the state as an institution. I understand the state as an institution as inherently being coercive, as inherently relying on coercive means in order to come into existance and maintain that existance. A “voluntary state” is a contradiction in terms. There is nothing voluntary about how a state functions. Period.

How then do you explain two Bush adminstrations, a Bush governorship of Florida, the possibility of two Clinton adminstrations and the existance of Kennedies and Rockefellers all over government at all levels. Just to name a few examples. There is quite a bit of aristocracy in our “democracy”. You see the same families in power for many generations. As for trying and failing or good intentions, see the classic “The Humanitarian With The Guillotine” by Isabel Paterson.

I think one could only argue this by using a utilitarian standard, which I reject. Sure, a lesser degree of coercion can theoretically be used to potentially stop a greater degree of coercion. That doesn’t justify coercion. Such means cannot work if the goal is to eliminate those means in and of themselves. It’s like murdering people in the name of anti-murder or stealing from people in the name of anti-theft. It contradictary at a fundamental level. Minarchism is ethically self-contradictary at a fundamental level, and I don’t understand why so many anarcho-capitalists wish to still function as minarchists while simultaneously preaching anarchism. Because that’s exactly what’s going on here: anarchists are functioning as minarchists.

5

Imagine it as a group of people either inside or outside of an institution siezing control of it; the means can be violent or the purchasing of shares, its irrelivent in the context of mutating institutions. In the case of a business, those who purchase shares expect a monetary profit. In the case of a revolution, the revolutionaries expect a profit in the forms of reduced or different governance.

I agree that the military’s hiring practices are cruel. They are agreed to by contract, but the military’s status and own little form of law mean it can get away with things businesses cannot. They are, however, more voluntary than they were under conscription.

I’m not exactly sure how you are defining a state; I generally assume Weber’s definition. But as states as generally thought of, there are always voluntary exchanges. A business, for example, might get all of its funds through voluntary exchange. Does that mean it is 100% voluntary? No, not if it uses those funds to hire thugs. Similarly, when a state acquires funds through taxation, the crime is in the theft itself, not necessarily how those funds are used. For instance: Is a Canadian doctor’s practice unjust because he accepts state funds? Would it be better if all Canadian doctors stopped practicing? I think the answer is clearly not; the problem lies with the taxation.

Yes, but not as much as is in a true aristocracy :wink: I don’t claim that America is free from that sort of thing at all.

I didn’t mean to suggest that it does. However, one can run for office without acting coercively, just as one can walk down a sidewalk without doing so. The coercion has already been committed by past and present state employees; a candidate is not being coercive by using stolen resources any more than a cab driver is. Again, I think the crime is in the appropriation of roads and political power, not in the administration of the things the state has already stolen. Admittedly its unlikely that anyone would run for office without ever expanding state control, but its also rare for normal people to go about their lives without employing coercion now and then.

They do it because purposeful actors arrange their goals ordinally. For example, mine could be the following concerning the government:

  1. No government

  2. Less government

  3. “Good” government

  4. The status quo

  5. “Bad” government

  6. More government

I don’t think its likely that all anarchists would be indifferent to goals 2 through 6.