Yesterday, someone pointed out to me that there is at least one case where the greatest good is not served by the absense of the coercion of the state. Consider two neighboring cities. An entrepreneur wants to build a railway between these two cities, to the great benefit of all inhabitants of both cities. But there’s one problem: the farmers located between the two cities don’t want a railway in their back yard.
In an anarchist society, the entrepreneur would have to buy up all the ground to connect the cities. But if one farmer cannot be bought, the construction of the railway cannot take place. (Or a bridge or tunnel has to be built, but that may make the endeavor unprofitable.)
In a society with a state, the state intervenes and evicts the farmer and the railway is built anyway. That farmer loses, but society in general benefits.
I had to concede that in this case, the utilitarian solution does not coincide with the moral solution.
For me, still, the moral argument primes. But this is the first argument I encountered that illustrates that an anarchist society does not necessarily lead to the greatest good.
So my question is twofold: Is this argument flawed and if so, why? If it not flawed, are there any other cases in which the utilitarian optimum can only be achieved through coercion?
There are better solutions to stealing the property of another person. How about the entrepreneur selects 3 possible routes and offers the land owners the option that if one holds out then the deal is off for that route? How about not going ahead with the project?
The argument you gave into is the argument for massive government by the late Harry Browne: I really am against aggression EXCEPT in this circumstance: . Even if it is one area, you will end up with massive aggression as people trade aggressions with one another. For example, I want the farmer kicked off of his property and you want to tax money from young people and give it to people over the age of 65. So if you support me, I will support you and we both win and liberty loses.
Really, the first? How about killing Bill Gates, taking his billions, and paying everyone $100? Or us, the non-redheads, killing all the redheads and eating them for dinner? As Autolykos, asked, how is the “greatest good” defined/measured/quantified and who does the measuring? Ordinal individual subjective values/preferences can not be aggregated into an objective number/measure of “total” value or goodness.
I think the real question is whether the greatest good is right. No, it is not. The farmer has the right to keep his land that he purchased, whether it be a regular capiptalist society or an anarcho-capitalist society. Utilitarianism is just another flawed theory, and imo it leads to communism, which is another flawed theory.
It can’t, which is scary since someone will inevitably try to calculate it with “government charts from established experts” or some other crap. Socialism is all about utilitarianism at its whole imo. The greatest good can come from everyone producing goods that the all-knowing government disperses supplies evenly so everyone can have enough.
Like everyone else has said, intersubjective utility comparisons aren’t really possible. There is no measure of utils which we can count up to determine something like "the farmer gets 10,000 utils of satisfaction from keeping the farm, the surrounding town of 100,000 each get 10 utils of satisfaction from the railway, therefore the railway serves the greatest good.’
However, even if it were possible to meaningfully analyze the situation in those terms, the argument completely neglects the disutility caused by the government intervention. The type of institution needed to enforce eminent domain (namely, the state) is large, burdensome, and expensive. It’s concievable that there would actually be a net loss in aggregate utility (if it could be measured) once you include taxes, fear of seizure of your own property, other economic interventions.
Yeah. Government to me is an eternal pendulum, in a way. All throughout history, people have become oppressed and revolted, had it good, then gradually had government shoved down their throats, and it seems to be an endless cycle. Obviously there has never been a perfect form of government because societies are constantly being replaced and changing. I’m not even sure that there is just enough of government to pacify everyone. It almost seems like an eternal struggle, back and forth.
You know me, I’m not one to believe in fate or prescribed, teleological validation for historical theories. I have just noticed it’s the nature of man to paradoxically want to be free and, with some, to enslave others, and it seems to be an eternal pattern. That’s all.
I am not convinced that property rights can be justified by utility in all cases. Utilitarian arguments are often used to justify violations of property rights. Is it OK to kill the farmer if he resists being removed from the property? If many people benefit and just one stubborn farmer’s life is in the way of progress for the masses, what is the greater good? Do I have the right to kill one innocent person to save the lives’ of 20 people?
Walter Block addresses the hold-out argument in his various writing and lectures.
Right there you’re claiming that violating the rights of one person who has not violated anyone else’s rights is justified because everyone else agrees they are better off. This is called “democracy”, aka “mob rule”. To be logically consistent, you would have to say that this is true in all cases. Otherwise, this demostration is useless.
This is the kind of mess you get into when you start to purport to be promoting “the greater good” or “fairness”…those things imply someone has to decide what’s the greatest good and what is fair. And who gets to decide? And why is that fair? There’s no way to do it.
And if you’re concerned about roads in particular, see here.
We could invoke the peaceful power of social ostracism upon the withholding farmer. (i.e., We won’t trade with you until you permit the railway to be built). If everyone else desires the railway so much, then the peaceful solution indeed would simply be not trading with the farmer, thus inducing him to change his mind. For if the farmer values his business, then he shall almost indubitably be inclined to relent; if not, he values the property even above his trade, which is a perfectly reasonable, though unlikely, decision.
After using ostracism, however, there is not much other individuals can do. Well, the entrepreneur could consider other building routes, of course.
P.S. If the other individuals do not want to use ostracism, that indicates their valuation of the farmer’s service is higher than the value of the railway.
This man actually built an intercontinental railway without using eminent domain or other government favors.
Holdouts are not an argument for violation of property rights. To evict a farmer who simply will not sell rights to build a railroad across his land is a travesty of justice. Utility is subjective (to the individual) so there’s no way to say that utility is higher if the farmer is evicted than if he is not. It’s just a bullshit argument all the way around.
Duh. That’s the whole point. If there had happened to be an insurmountable mountain range between the two cities, no one would consider it a travesty that a railway can’t be built between the two cities. There just happens to be a mountain in the way, what can be done about it? Similarly, if a lone farmer wants to hold out and not sell, too bad for everybody in the two cities. They just have to find a different way. Maybe build some airports, it doesn’t really matter. The number of people who would benefit from violating one man’s property rights is irrelevant to justifying the violation of his property rights.
Of course I agree. I was merely pointing out that, if other individuals desire a railway so much in that particular spot (as OP claims), then they could use peaceful ostracism. Nothing wrong with that, right?
Also, there is one strictly pragmatic argument that no one has pointed out yet. Let us say that entrepreneur A wants to use a farmer’s land for his railway, offering him 40 ounces of gold. At this price, the farmer’s value scale may be thus:
Property
(40 ounces of gold)
Now, let us say individuals B & C also want the railway in this particular spot, badly. Both invest 40 more ounces of gold into the offering. Hence, the farmer’s value scale might change thus:
(120 ounces of gold)
Property
(40 ounces of gold)
Or it might turn out to be this:
(137.5 ounces of gold)
Property
(120 ounces of gold)
(40 ounces of gold)
Or even this:
Property
(Any amount of money)
Either way, the farmer ultimately makes the decision. I just wanted to point out the (seemingly obvious) fact that the farmer could feasibly be bought off for more money, if the other individual(s) value the railway, in this particular spot, very highly.
