Laissez-faire Capitalism

Bridget, welcome back! It's been quite a while since I've seen you.

I would personally like to see most government agencies and regulations disappear, along with their licensing laws and taxes and spending. I would like to see fee based government services as much as possible, along with a representative style of government. It's hard to say exactly how this would work if it is never tried. I think a constitution for a truly free republic has yet to be written. But I wouldn't call myself an anarchist. I struggled with anarchist arguments for years. One of the reasons I searched out and started participating in this forum (2004?) was to resolve the anarchist/minarchist problem in my mind. That and the problem of rights. I have resolved these questions in my mind thanks to the discussions here, much thanks to Robert Bidinotto, Bill Dwyer, Ed Thompson and others for arguing these issues at length.

Post 21

Sunday, January 4, 2009 - 12:58pm

Jeff S,

I think I know the reason why we're talking past each other. It has to do with some basic assumptions about man, nature, and what's called the "state of nature" (the human interaction which occured before human civilization grew). You, Jeff, seem to be "Hobbesian" in your assumption of the state of nature. In Hobbes' view, men lived by slitting each other's throats. Another view of pre-civilized man -- forwarded by John Locke -- involves rudimentary trade (instead of "sustainable", cut-throat betrayal), a rudimentary trade held together by a "natural law" which derives from human nature.

Hobbes said that agreeing to live under law was a sacrifice, but that it was a choice of the lesser of two evils -- the other option being waking up with your throat slit by your own people. He said fear drives men to live under law, and that if they weren't so afraid, then they'd rather live without law -- slitting throats and plundering their own friends, their own family ... anyone in their way.

Is it true, Jeff? Do you have a Hobbesian view of man and nature and the "state of nature"?

Here is an exposition of the Lockean view of a state of nature held together and peaceful by a natural law deriving from human nature. Pay particular attention to the bullet-points near the top:

http://jim.com/rights.html

What do you think of those bullet-points, Jeff?

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 1/04, 3:31pm)

Post 22

Sunday, January 4, 2009 - 1:14pm

Bridget,

If opposition to the wrongs you listed were all there were to anarchy... Or, if it made any sense to refer to the founding fathers as anarchists, then I'd be one too. But that is NOT the case at all. The founding fathers believed in laws - believed deeply.

Anyone who persists in believing that there can be open competition between thugs and peaceful traders - as equals, or believes that there can be multiple sets of competing laws (based upon any moral premise desired), that can be enforced with any weaponry desired, in any way desired, must have some kind of mechanism in mind that would sort out that chaotic state of hell and make a proper society out of it. And they do. They believe that the market place will be more effective in securing justice. But if the are honest and careful readers of the posts made early on in this thread, they will see that is an unsurmountable fallacy. And if they STILL believe in anarchy - then they are clinging to some kind of self-made blindness, some kind of perverse delusion, in the face of overwhelming reason. And they are advocating for a system that has more hideous results than the worst of the totalitarian states - which is what would automatically replace it. There is no honor in that position.

(Edited by Steve Wolfer on 1/04, 1:19pm)

Post 23

Sunday, January 4, 2009 - 4:33pm

Again, please excuse me for addressing everyone in a single post.

One thing should be made very clear before I get to the individual posts: I am not an anarchist. I understand government is important (and why), that it must have a monopoly on retributive force (and why), and that objective laws are necessary (and why). I believe in individual, natural rights; that it is in Man's nature to be rational, have a rational philosophy, and live his life only as a rational animal can. I believe a Man lives only for himself, and must make his way by his own mind and body - that he is a tool of no one and no one is his tool. It didn't really occur to me to make this clear from the start because my question doesn't really hinge on an anarchist's, or collectivist's argument. I don't believe I'm adopting any anarchist tenets by asking the question I asked. Nor, I believe, am I promoting any Hobbesian point of view. I'm just asking how a LFC system can exist when confronted with the reality that laws must exist, and law is coercive force which interferes in the market.

Jordan - you wrote:

Frederic Bastiat is helpful here. He views law as "the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense." Not all force is equal. Under laissez-faire, initiated force is bad; force in response to that initiated force is okay. So self defense, organized or otherwise, is just peachy.

Okay, so laws aren't an interference, they're like self-defense codified? If a guy walks up to me on the street and starts beating on me, I'll return the favor - I'll defend myself. If a guy walks up to me on the street while I'm standing next to a cop and starts beating on me, the cop will probably return the favor - he'll defend me for me. The law is the codification of that which allows him to act - the principle of the right of self-defense. The law is not a threat, it's just a codification of what's going to happen if you do "X."

John Armos - you wrote:

Jeff it seems you regard responding to an initiation of force as an initiatory action?

No. What I was arguing is that the law, simply because it exists, is initiatory force. A law exists before the crime, therefore even if the crime occurs, the law existed prior to try and coerce the criminal into not committing the crime. For example, we can agree there should be a law against murder, so we write a law against murder. What we're saying is that if anyone commits murder, we're going to do something to them. We're basically saying, "Do X, and we'll do Y." If it coerces anyone from not doing "X," then we have applied force - we have initiated force.

If, however, we consider the law we wrote to simply be a codification of what is going to happen if someone does "X," if we're saying, "Hey, don't want to pressure you, I'm not saying you'd ever do this, just wanted to let you know, if you do X, then we'll do Y. We're not threatening you." As long as "X" falls under self-defense of any natural rights, then we're not coercing anyone - we're just letting them know what the consequences are for violating the rights of another. It's like arguing, "If you lie naked in the sun all day, you'll get burned."

Another thing just occured to me. This is different from the mugger's initiation of force - his attempt at coercing you into giving up your money - because the mugger is demanding positive action. His choices are positive - you do this, or you do that - you must act one way or the other. Objective law is negative - you don't have to do anything in order to comply. It's only when you act that the possibility of violating the law, and therefore suffering the consequences, becomes a concern. I'm not sure I've flushed that out entirely.

Do laws interfere in the free market? Do they coerce men? Do they force men into particular actions?

Post 24

Sunday, January 4, 2009 - 6:28pm

Jeff, I originally wrote:

Jeff it seems you regard responding to an initiation of force as an initiatory action?

You respond:

No. What I was arguing is that the law, simply because it exists, is initiatory force. A law exists before the crime, therefore even if the crime occurs, the law existed prior to try and coerce the criminal into not committing the crime.

The laws themselves do not coerce anyone, it is how they are applied by human action that they may become coercive. And when they are applied to stop someone else from coercing another, it is a response to the initiation of force, making that human action retaliatory force. It makes no sense to say a law is an initiation of force if it outlines what is appropriate retaliatory force. Society should not be concerned with just "force" as an abstraction regardless with how it is used. We have to make the moral distinction between those that initiate its use and those that respond to it.

For example, we can agree there should be a law against murder, so we write a law against murder. What we're saying is that if anyone commits murder, we're going to do something to them. We're basically saying, "Do X, and we'll do Y." If it coerces anyone from not doing "X," then we have applied force - we have initiated force.

If we do "Y" we are "retaliating" to "X". If I take the action that responds to the first action, I'm not initiating, I'm retaliating. And saying that I will retaliate on the condition someone initiates the use of force, you can't call that itself an initiation. Perhaps you can call that initiating legislation, or initiating conditional intention, but not initiating force. It's totally non-sensical to say that. No force is applied if you make plain what a future action will be if a preceding one takes place, because you didn't initiate force, you just said what would happen if someone else did.

Do laws interfere in the free market? Do they coerce men? Do they force men into particular actions?

If what you mean by that Jeff is if laws coerce people into acting voluntarily with another, then no they don't because that is a logical contradiction. You can't force someone to not initiate force.. I can't make you engage in voluntary actions with other people, I can only make you stop forcing others into making involuntary acts. If you make an voluntary trade with someone else, by definition of it being voluntary, it means no one forced you to do it. It doesn't make sense to say you force freedom on others, you can only take action to remove the instruments of oppression, i.e. those that initiate the use of force against others.

(Edited by John Armaos on 1/04, 6:40pm)

Post 25

Sunday, January 4, 2009 - 6:32pm

Jeff S writes:

"A law exists before the crime, therefore even if the crime occurs, the law existed prior to try and coerce the criminal into not committing the crime."

Jeff:

This strikes me as a bizarre application of the concept of coercion. The law simply sets out, hopefully in objective terms and in accordance with the principles of justice, what is going to happen to anyone should they initiate force against another. It makes explicit what is unacceptable behavior so that anyone can judge the ramifications of taking certain actions. The law provides information, it does not coerce anyone in any way. In your example, it is the murderer (or potential murderer who is contemplating taking another's life) that is committing or considering the initiation of coercion.

This argument reminds me of a discussion I had with another fellow in my dorm during my freshman year at college. We were having a heated discussion on some unremembered topic when he started acting in a panicky manner. He said that I was hurting him by relentlessly presenting my viewpoint and arguments. I was stunned and eventually asked him if what I was doing was the same as if I were to hit him with a bat, and he said yes! There are some people who find having to think a form of being forced. It is only in this sense that the codification of law could be considered as "coercion".

Regards
--
Jeff

(Now we have too many Jeff S's! This place is getting linguistically crowded! :-))

(Edited by C. Jeffery Small on 1/04, 6:34pm)

Post 26

Sunday, January 4, 2009 - 6:37pm

Onomastically crowded.

Post 27

Sunday, January 4, 2009 - 9:11pm

John, thank you for your patience. I think I'm getting there.

You wrote:

If what you mean by that Jeff is if laws coerce people into acting voluntarily with another, then no they don't because that is a logical contradiction. You can't force someone to not initiate force.. I can't make you engage in voluntary actions with other people, I can only make you stop forcing others into making involuntary acts. If you make an voluntary trade with someone else, by definition of it being voluntary, it means no one forced you to do it. It doesn't make sense to say you force freedom on others, you can only take action to remove the instruments of oppression, i.e. those that initiate the use of force against others.

But isn't it possible someone may want to initiate force, but is coerced from not doing so by law? Couldn't someone think, "I really want to sell poison as medicine, but I won't do it because I don't want to go to jail?" If so, hasn't he been coerced into not acting? In this case, the would-be criminal doesn't actually initiate force because a type of force has been used on him - coercion.

I ask this even in view of Jeff Small's (true) assertion that:

There are some people who find having to think a form of being forced.

I'm not arguing the would-be criminal is being forced to think, but that his behavior is changed due to the law. He doesn't need to believe he has a right to sell poison as medicine, he may understand it's completely wrong, he could be a completely irrational person unconcerned with his own rational self-interests. Certainly there are people in this world like that?

Post 28

Monday, January 5, 2009 - 2:27am

Jeff S,

Is it reasonable to say that a person might be 'coerced' into not poisoning someone because of a law against murder?
The short answer would be, "Yes, and isn't that what we want?"

The longer answer is, "Yes, but it is a case of defensive force, and it is not a violation of anyone's rights (there is no right to poison someone else). Strictly speaking, the 'coercive' force is conditional - it is not a threat, until the condition is fulfilled (the would be poisoner starts his attempted poisoning).

You said, "Do laws interfere in the free market?" You can NOT have a free market without laws. It is the proper set of laws, efficiently enforced, that make a market free (free of initiated force). Bad laws initiate force. No laws allow anyone to initiate force. Good laws defend against initiated force.

Post 29

Monday, January 5, 2009 - 10:00am

Jeff,

Laws against murder do not initiate force -- they do not start the use of force. To the extent that they are effective, they PREVENT people from starting the use of force by threatening them with retaliatory force if they do. You can call the law "coercive" if you want. But normally, the term "coercion" refers not just to any kind of force but specifically to the initiation of force. You're using it to mean any kind of force -- force in general. In you want to use it that way, fine. In that case, laws are a form of retaliatory or defensive coercion. So what's wrong with that?

You can't have laissez-faire capitalism unless the initiation of force or the initiation of coercion is banned -- unless those who start its use are stopped by retaliatory force and punished, or are prevented from starting the use of force by the threat of punishment. To initiate force means to actually use force or the threat of force FIRST; it doesn't mean to threaten retaliatory force in order to prevent people from initiating force. If I tell you not to punch me in the nose or I'll punch you back, have I initiated force? No, I've simply promised to defend myself if you initiate force against me. Laws against assault or murder are no different.

I don't understand why you are having such a difficult time grasping this idea. It's a no-brainer!

- Bill

Post 30

Monday, January 5, 2009 - 10:12am

There is a sense in which I agree with Jeff S.

Consider that Objectivism establishes (in ethics, prior to politics) that the individual has the right to practice retaliatory force in response to initiatory force.

Later, in politics, it is argued that the individual must not be allowed to actually use force, even though he has a right to, because he may use disproportionate force and make a mess. So, government must have a monopoly on the use of force, applying it on behalf of individual victims.

What starts out as an individual right, the right to retaliation, gets taken away by the government, under threat of force�so that any individual who retaliates on his own, even if responsibly and proportionally, is a criminal.

That�s all fine if the government does a good job of retaliating on my behalf.

And it�s great if the government uses more force and deterrence than I would have.

But it becomes a rights violation if the government uses too little force on my behalf. For example, the losers who regularly tag my garage in broad daylight have obviously figured out that they have nothing to fear from the government. And I am forbidden from beating them up and tattooing their forehead.

Personally, I am OK with all this. I will just have to vote for the �tough on crime� mayor next time.

However, I think it is a valid point, even when made by anarchists.

Post 31

Monday, January 5, 2009 - 12:20pm

Jon,
Have you thought of getting a paint ball gun and "tagging" them back? That could turn into great fun!

Post 32

Monday, January 5, 2009 - 12:25pm

Jon L.

Later, in politics, it is argued that the individual must not be allowed to actually use force, even though he has a right to, because he may use disproportionate force and make a mess. So, government must have a monopoly on the use of force, applying it on behalf of individual victims.

Jon I wouldn't entirely agree with the way you are characterizing it. You can even under our current system use force to defend yourself if immediate action is necessary and there is no time for police to respond, but even then laws are written that say if you need to take immediate retaliatory force to defend yourself if police are not present, you must only do so proportionally, i.e. you cannot use force to the extent it no longer is retaliatory force but itself becomes an initiation of force. However if we are talking about a subsequent punishment for initiating force after the crime has been committed, according to Objectivism the government establishes the rules for what is appropriate punishment, in that sense the government should have the monopoly over delayed retaliatory force.

Post 33

Monday, January 5, 2009 - 2:11pm

Steve, you wrote -

The longer answer is, "Yes, but it is a case of defensive force, and it is not a violation of anyone's rights (there is no right to poison someone else). Strictly speaking, the 'coercive' force is conditional - it is not a threat, until the condition is fulfilled (the would be poisoner starts his attempted poisoning).

I don't disagree that the force used when the condition is fulfilled, when the poisoner has actually poisoned, is not initiatory force. What I'm arguing is that the coercion used before the condition is fulfilled, before the would-be poisoner attempted his poisoning, is initiatory force. It's a threat until the condition is fulfilled and the poisoner poisons. When the poisoner poisons, the conditions are met, the threat is actualized, and the retaliatory force is applied. But until that time, the threat still exists, the coercion still exists, and it exists before the would-be poisoner commits his crime.

Bill, you wrote -

Laws against murder do not initiate force -- they do not start the use of force. To the extent that they are effective, they PREVENT people from starting the use of force by threatening them with retaliatory force if they do. You can call the law "coercive" if you want. But normally, the term "coercion" refers not just to any kind of force but specifically to the initiation of force.

If something I've written seemed to imply that I'm using "coercion" to imply any kind of force, I didn't mean to. I thought I'd been very careful to use "coercion" to mean exactly as you write: the initiation of force. My argument is that government initiates force through laws which coerce individuals to act a certain way: for example, to not commit murder. If they are effective, and do prevent people from starting the use of force through threats and coercion, then can't it be said the government has successfully used coercive force and threats to change someone's behaviour? How is this different from anyone else using threats and coercion to change another individual's behaviour - for example, a mugger using threats and coercion to make you hand over your wallet? We can both agree the mugger initiated force, but what makes his action different from the government's? They both used threats of physical force. They both might coerce me into choosing an action I would not have taken.

The answer is probably here -

If I tell you not to punch me in the nose or I'll punch you back, have I initiated force? No, I've simply promised to defend myself if you initiate force against me.

I agree. Perhaps the answer is that proper laws are not coercive because their purpose is not to coerce (which is somewhat backed by evidence of crime not being reduced by increasing the punishment), but rather to inform what the proper retaliation will be if a particular action is taken. As in your example, you telling me you'll punch me back is not necessarily meant to coerce me into not punching you, but you're letting me know explicitly what a rationally self-interested person should already know - you have the right to defend yourself and will exercise that right by punching me back.

I don't understand why you are having such a difficult time grasping this idea. It's a no-brainer!

I'll have to beg your forgiveness on this one, Bill. It's not really all that obvious to me. I know "in my gut" LFC capitalism cannot exist without laws. A know a free society cannot exist without laws, and I think my problem comes here: are those laws meant to protect people against initiatory force, or are they meant to define what initiatory force is and prescribe the punishment for initiating force? If they are meant to protect against initiatory force (not ongoing force), then it seems to me they can only be meant as threats and coercion; they are meant to coerce someone into a different course of action. That would be force, and since it comes before any other force is used, it would be initiatory force - which no one, even the government, is allowed to do.

Post 34

Monday, January 5, 2009 - 3:02pm

Hi John,

�However if we are talking about a subsequent punishment for initiating force after the crime has been committed, according to Objectivism the government establishes the rules for what is appropriate punishment, in that sense the government should have the monopoly over delayed retaliatory force.�

Correct. And yes, I am talking about delayed force, punishment. From what I can see the people who tag my garage have no fear whatsoever of the government�s punishment. So, I am not allowed to establish a punishment, and the government isn�t doing much of anything either�where did my right to retaliatory force go?

The government says, �Don�t worry about punishment, in fact don�t you dare or we�ll imprison you, because we will do all the punishing (which produces deterrence) for you�but then they don�t do shit.

I am saying that in that instance my right to retaliatory, deterring force is violated.

Same for Chevron. They are disallowed to forcefully engage foreign governments in defense�because the gov�t wants a monopoly on that. �Oh, but don�t worry,� Chevron is told, �because we are the gov�t and we have armed forces.� Yet, when Chevron�s property is stolen by Chavez the gov�t does nothing.

Summary:

Individual has right to retaliatory force.
Gov�t usurps it with promise to implement it.
Gov�t doesn�t even come close to implementing it.
The right has been violated.

Post 35

Monday, January 5, 2009 - 3:15pm

Jeff S,

Here's another way of looking at it. I suppose you could say I'm "coercing" you not to punch me if, say, I threaten to punch you back. You could also say my threat comes first, so I am the force initiater. Of course, I could say my threat comes second and *in response* to the latent coercive threat of you, or anyone for that matter, punching me. We could argue coercion from both sides.

If you like, we can view our little arrangement as mutual coercion (to borrow a phrase from Garrett Hardin): I punch you if you punch me, and vice versa. But then who's the initiater? Neither of us. It's just a standing implicit, equalized, moral maxim. And in referencing Bastiat earlier, I suggested we may trade, build upon, and organize around this principle.

The Law is set to enforce this mutual coercion. It kicks in when one of us deviates from our little arrangement. *He who deviates, initiates.* They ain't called "deviants" fer nuthin'!

Jordan

Post 36

Monday, January 5, 2009 - 3:17pm

Jeff S,

I can announce to everyone reading this, "Hey, if any of you break into my house, I'll have you put into jail." Now, do you feel coerced? No one should feel like they might be coerced until the instant they start to plan breaking into my house - and it is only a feeling until the person starts to act on a plan or gives up acting on the plan.

You said, "...are those laws meant to protect people against initiatory force, or are they meant to define what initiatory force is and prescribe the punishment for initiating force?"

The law is how we implement individual rights for the purpose of creating the political situation that best suits human flourishing. Purpose = Create Optimum Environment. That means defining all acts that government can take and how to take them. That means creating the machinery for resolving conflicts. That means having legal standards in the present so people can make agreements and take actions that will span into the future. That means letting people know what actions would constitute violations of individual rights, so that they can act accordingly.

You said, "If they are meant to protect against initiatory force (not ongoing force), then it seems to me they can only be meant as threats and coercion; they are meant to coerce someone into a different course of action."

The entire legal environment is meant to encourage the least initiatory force possible. It is never an INITIATION of violence to explain what will happen if someone else commits violence. Laws that threaten to arrest or fine someone for a seatbelt violation are threats to initiate violence, not because they are laws, but because they are laws that are not in agreement with individual rights. Not wearing a seatbelt is not a case of initiating force, fraud or theft.

Bad laws are threats to violate our rights, good laws are statements acknowledging the right to defend or retaliate against rights violations.

"[If they are meant to protect against initiatory force (not ongoing force),] that would be force, and since it comes before any other force is used, it would be initiatory force - which no one, even the government, is allowed to do."

A statement of the right to retaliate or defend, by definition, is referring to an act that is initiatory and therefore does not come first. If such a statement deters, the act that is deterred is one that was immoral - and therefore no right was violated. Stopping someone from violating a right is NOT taking away the freedom to act or violating their rights. "If you punch me in the face, then I will have you arrested." Notice that the "punch me in the face" is an act that precedes the "have you arrested" - and notice that the punching is not something a person has the right to do, so you are NOT depriving them of anything that they rightfully possessed.
--------------

Bottom line:

A failure to clearly see and defend the difference between laws that are in accord with individual rights and those laws that violate individual laws is a worst case form of moral relativism. That suits only statists and anarchists.

To treat a law that proscribes a punishment for, say, murder, as if IT were the initiation of violence, instead of the act of murder is to throw away reason, abandon purpose, make a mockery of the attempt to create the environment we need to live life as we should, and to leave your mind impotent to work with any productive tasks in this area.

Post 37

Monday, January 5, 2009 - 3:44pm

I barely even see proper laws as coercion in any instance. More of a statement of fact, like "Don't jump off a cliff, its a long way down. You'll get hurt." Doesn't seem much different than "Be careful how you choose to deal with us, we respond to violence in kind, and we respond as a group."

Post 38

Monday, January 5, 2009 - 3:57pm

Ryan, that is well put.

The difference between proper laws and bad laws is that good laws can be expressed without making improper threats, bad laws are improper threats.

Post 39

Monday, January 5, 2009 - 4:11pm