RoR: Forum

Adam Reed wrote: "... Michael Radziwill, who spent the last 40 years of his life in the Radziwill family dungeon, because he exercised his constitutional right to change his religion."

(Radziwill... I thought this was going to be a Kennedy yarn.) OK, Adam, what about my grandmother who spent the last 80 years of her life in America because she wanted to marry a Protestant? Was her problem the fact that Austria-Hungary was an apostolic monarchy or that her father was narrow-minded -- as apparently was the Radziwill scion.

Look, Adam, these historical anecdotes do nothing for the truth. As von Mises pointed out, we agree on the time and the place and the price level. What we disagree about is what they mean.

Was the problem one of constitution, or of religion -- or of something deeper? You talk of Michael Radziwill, and I hear about the the young princes, Edward and Richard, killed by Richard III. Do you think that the problem was that Richard III violated their constitutional rights? You cannot know so little about human nature.

I freely stipulate that in an anarcho-capitalist utopia of my own device, it would still be possible for a corporate Richard III to imprison and kill two young merchant princes, regardless of how the chief of security viewed his obligations to the stockholders. Can you tell me how a limited constitutional republic created according to Objectivist principles would have prevented the Bush Family from taking a whack at Reagan? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neil_Bush)

Post 41

Thursday, November 10, 2005 - 8:43pm

Michael,

Yes, the problem is with the whole proprietary model for government. We know that people who own a government - or an equivalent, such as a "market government agency" - can get away with murder. It is in my interest that there be as few of them as possible.

Or are you claiming that having several dozen magnaci, each with his own dungeons and private army, would be an improvement?

Post 42

Friday, November 11, 2005 - 8:08am

Adam Reed wrote: "Yes, the problem is with the whole proprietary model for government."

That is a different matter, entirely. One of the problems with this discussion -- not just here on SOLO, but historically -- is that these different threads get woven into one skein. How can you approve of capitialism when the business leaders lined up behind Hitler and Mussolini? Well, you can approve of capitalism because you tease the conceptually correct thread out of the twisted skein.

A proprietary model for government has some advantages over tyranny, monarchy, democracy, etc., etc. Under a proprietary model for government, you could buy more votes for yourself, for instance. That would need some checks and balances, perhaps, but that is government -- and I am discussing something else entirely.

AR: We know that people who own a government - or an equivalent, such as a "market government agency" can get away with murder ...

As we agree the people who own anything always will maximize their opportunities.

1. I question the validity of "market government agency." It is a contradiction in terms. My point through all of this is that protection is not government. A locksmith is not a detective, or a bailiff, or a jury foreman or a judge or a warden or an executioner. A locksmith is a free market solution to your perceived need to protect your property.

1.b. As a corollary, you agree that socialism does not work. So, you will not be surprised to discover that according to the latest statistics, police detectives solve only 15% of the cases brought to trial. The other 85% are solved by the people in the area of the crime. Those people tell the police what the detective fails to discover in six cases out of seven.

1.c. If you disappear, do not look to the police to figure out what happened to Adam Reed.

2. The questions come down to what it is that the organization does and who it is that these people are. In many ways, organizations seem to take on lives of their own. I think they would do that whether or not corporations were "eternal artificial individuals" under the law. Why do corporations dump toxic wastes in streams and rivers? (I know that you are opposed to this, but that is not my question.) They do it because they can. (But not everyone does -- in fact, very few do. As it so happens that on a tangent The Hallcrest Report cites Mobil Oil for engaging its own environmental protection policies in 1956.) Even today, few police agencies are equipped or trained to handle such a violation of your rights. You have to go to a state or federal agency. You know what that is like.

On the other hand, the American Arbitration Association -- using many contractors and a small staff -- rendered 2 million separate decisions at an average cost of $30 each.

Obviously, the free market is superior to the government. You grant that. This means that even such excesses as must occur from human fraility and folly must be mitigated better by agoric alternatives better than by socialist solutions. And they are. This is not theory. It is practice. The number of uniformed patrollers in private agencies surpassed government cops sometime in the 1960s. The dollar market size of private protection surpassed tax dollars spent on police in 1977. This is how the world works. The government just continues to propagandize through its schools and television stations.

AR: It is in my interest that there be as few of them as possible.

One of the reasons that before 1870, Germany and Italy were areas of culture and learning is that they were not states. You could move from one locale to another. If you did not like the prince or duke, you could go live next door. Rulers competed with each other for artisans and artists -- at least some did. Others did not like them and drove them out. Fortunately, with a plurality of polities, they had someplace to go. Pluralism is generally more conducive to the values we share than is "iron unity through blood and strength" or asking not what your leaders really are good for but asking how you can be good for them.

Post 43

Friday, November 11, 2005 - 11:32am

"One of the reasons that before 1870, Germany and Italy were areas of culture and learning is that they were not states. You could move from one locale to another. If you did not like the prince or duke, you could go live next door."

That's a very interesting example. I know there is a dearth of examples of true anarchocapitalism - ie. involving competing justice agencies distributed throughout the same geographic area. What sounds like competing governments in very small-grained geographical areas and freedom of movement between sounds like a very intriguing combination.

I'll have to look up more about pre-unification Germany and Italy, how they worked and why they fell (unified). Do you have any particularly good references you'd recommend?

Post 44

Friday, November 11, 2005 - 12:24pm

Michael,

Up to 1870, Germany and Italy were far behind unified countries such as France and England in science, technology, and even music (Wagner spent the first years of his creative life in Paris; Offenbach all.) Germany became a world center of science and technology after unification. Music re-emerged in Italy and Germany during unification. I am less certain of the visual arts, but I cannot offhand think of any German or Italian artists of that period to equal David or Bougereau.

Do you have any data to the contrary?

Post 45

Friday, November 11, 2005 - 1:57pm

Adam Reed wrote: "Up to 1870, Germany and Italy were far behind unified countries ... Germany became a world center of science and technology after unification. ...
Do you have any data to the contrary?"

Apparently not. Goethe, Schiller, Heine, Volta, Schiaparelli, ... the Renaissance itself, ... If none of that swings much weight, then I guess that I do not have any data. Also, as Ayn Rand would have pointed out, the "achievements" of the nationalist eras were the result of momentum from the previous times of greater freedom.

But, if you believe in the efficacy of centralized states, then this discussion has nothing to do with maximizing my freedom and everything to do with maximizing your security.

Post 46

Friday, November 11, 2005 - 5:16pm

Michael,

Sorry, I thought that we were talking about the 19th century. In earlier times (the Renaissance!) there was little difference in centralization among European countries. When differences emerged they were not favorable to the de-centralized.

Post 47

Friday, November 11, 2005 - 6:52pm

Adam, we were not just talking about the nineteenth century. I perceive a principle in how polities come into existence and associate as independent entities.

Ionia, 500 BC. The Ionian Confederation of 13 cities shares a common language and religion but have no central government. Philosophy was invented here, as was popular government, called tyranny. The mechant class supplanted the farmers in control. Citizens hired themselves out as mercenary armies, another invention, made possible by the hoplite style of warfare. They united long enough to revolt against the Persians. The revolt was crushed. Refugees flooded the Greek world with their new ideas. Athens became "the school of Hellas" because of this. Aspasia taught "the Milesian way" to Socrates and the others at symposia.

Athens flourished.

Athens got headstrong. Having defeated the Persians, Athens imposed its rule on its allies, even taking their perogatives to strike their own coins. The Athenian hegemony marked the ossification of that corner Hellas. Syracuse and the west were lively, producing some of the greatest utilitarian art of the ancient world, stunning coins that have been the standard of achievement ever since. In all, even with Alexander, the Greek world was a social matrix where people shared a common language, etc., but for which there was no central authority.

The next Golden Age came with the construction of the Library of Alexandria -- but not in the way you think. It was not so much bringing them all together that created the new age of learning. It was when Ptolemy the Next in Line could no longer afford to keep them. So, he turned them out. The librarians took learning all over the Greek world. Aristarchos of Samos and Hipparchos of Rhodes were consequences of that.

I could find parallels in Chinese history. The rules derived are the same. They apply to Germany and Italy before unification.

A common culture with no central govrnment is more vibrant than a common culture with a central government. Central governments look strong, but they rest on a previous age whose intellectual capital they consume.

(Edited by Michael E. Marotta on 11/11, 6:57pm)

Post 48

Friday, November 11, 2005 - 7:52pm

Michael,

I'd like to see something more than vigorous assertion in the way of empirical evidence. Consider the instances that you selected...

Goethe, Schiller, Heine, - all three were Prussian subjects, at a time when Prussia was a great centralized state, the model for all European centralized states for centuries to come.

Volta, - most of his scientific work was done when he was, like most Italians, a subject of Napoleon.

Schiaparelli, - did most of his after the unification of Italy, lived until 1910.

... the Renaissance itself, - when the Venetian Republic was the most centralized maritime empire since Rome.

You proposed, as an empirical test of your thesis, that we pick 1820-1870, a time when some nations of Western Europe were highly centralized (Great Britain, France) and some had a plethora of competing sovereignties (Germany, Italy.) So far, all the evidence seems to disfavor your thesis. If you wish that your thesis continue to be seriously considered, then some comparative evidence in its favor would be helpful.

(Edited by Adam Reed
on 11/11, 7:53pm)

Post 49

Friday, November 11, 2005 - 8:14pm

Perhaps using Charles Murray's Human Achievement would help clarify that, one way or another... he quantified that kind of data by country, sex,age,century - graphs and names all over the place - shouldnt be hard to see from that which is what here...

Post 50

Saturday, November 12, 2005 - 11:32am

Frankfurt (am Main), Weimar, and even Vienna, all claim a piece of Goethe. Schiller also lived in Weimar and later Jena and other towns, after fleering Wuerttemberg. That he might have lived in Prussia after The Robbers seems miraculous. All of that, and more, is unimportant, Adam, becaue you miss (or ignore) the point.

The close proximity of other, similar (but different) polities creates a matrix of pluralism that allows new ideas to flourish. That was true in ancient Greece, the Renaissance, the Age of Reason, and so on. Of course, none of these took first place compared to the United States, a vast, open society which drew millions of people from Europe.

Here and now, in America, and the world, we have a 30-year trend in which private police and private adjudication have overtaken the public sector. Anarcho-Libertarians and Archo-Objectivists are arguing strawmen while the world has changed.

Again, there is no amount of empirical data that will change your mind. You want a strong central government that is constitutionally limited to protecting your rights. To me, that is a contradiction in terms. But I do not care about that.

You will wait for your rights to be violated, and then you will call the government. You will sue someone in court, or you will call the police, and maybe both. Before my property is threatened, I turn to market providers (plural) of security services, and my most serious contracts already specified AAA adjudication in lieu of government courts. It is in tjhe metaphysical nature of government to attempt to repair the past. It is the metaphysical nature of business to predict and prepare for the future.

Power or Market, Adam, either-or -- the choice is yours.

Post 51

Saturday, November 12, 2005 - 5:27pm