I just finished "Meltdown" by Thomas E Woods Jr. Note 17 of Chapter 7 in "Meltdown" I found the following:
"We should not expect hundreds of [interpretations of law] to exist under a system of...freedom; for [law] to serve its purpose it needs to be widely marketable and easily recognized, and that becomes more difficult to do the greater the variety of [interpretations]. On its own the market has given us personal computers that are by and large compatible with each other and electrical products with plugs of the same size. Since people want that kind of standardization, the market gives it to them. The same would be true of [legal interpretation]."
Isn't monopoly (eg. government) the "standardization" that "the market gives" to people? Especially to those people who "want that kind of standardization?"
The free market is a voluntary system, so it can't "give us" something that is based completely on force. The monopolization of government is built by those who wants to force others to do things because they believe a government can plan lives. The people who passively let the government take everything from them are those who want to have their lives planned. It's a big sadist-masochist thing.
Libertarians wouldn't object to a collectivization of voluntary people in some random society so long as no one forces us into their system. We know that, eventually, they'd join our 'even more' voluntary one. A system of voluntary collectivization, though, isn't really a government at all because the idea of it being voluntary isn't force/coercion.
"We should not expect hundreds of [interpretations of law] to exist under a system of...freedom; for [law] to serve its purpose it needs to be widely marketable and easily recognized, and that becomes more difficult to do the greater the variety of [interpretations].
What I believe he means by this is that our laws shouldn't change every day, and they shouldn't be able to be interpreted differently. The non-aggression principle is a standard law indicating that you can't hurt people. When laws are changed to say that certain guns/drugs aren't allowed while others are, for example, people don't know what to believe. Drugs would always be legal in a free society, but generations and generations of people would still know it's bad to do heroin due to it being widely known (instead of legislated) for such a long time.
Like Joseph Sobran said in The Economics of Liberty, "In the Politics, Aristotle explains the character of law well. He recommends that there be as few laws as possible, and that they be altered as seldom as possible. The reason for this is that law should be an extension of our normal sense of right and wrong, so that people can observe it. for the most part, simply by living what they regard as morally upright lives. Law should seem to be impersonal, applying equally to all, rather than the expression of any special or partisan will or interest. The less frequently it changes and the more permanence it has, the more citizens will feel reverence for it."
Brian, Are you saying that for government to be the standardization the market gives to a people who want that kind of standardization it would require a unanimous vote? And what about Thomas E Woods Jr (or was it Thomas DiLorenzo's) implicit consent argument (that good government doesn't require a unanimous vote since, implicitly, all people want good government)?
I added something in my previous post, by the way. I didn't add it in time before you replied.
Brian, Are you saying that for government to be the standardization the market gives to a people who want that kind of standardization it would require a unanimous vote?
I suppose so, in a way, but it wouldn't really be a "government" then if every single person in the entire world (including those born every few seconds) agrees with it and can leave whenever they please.
And what about Thomas E Woods Jr (or was it Thomas DiLorenzo's) implicit consent argument (that good government doesn't require a unanimous vote since, implicitly, all people want good government)?
I'm kind of confused by this. Can you expand a bit upon what you're trying to say? Implicit consent is kind of like someone voting "no" during an election and the other candidate wins. It's saying to the State, "I'm sad that my candidate didn't win, but thank you for at least asking. I'll keep letting you steal my money until my candidate wins." The government might seem good to the majority who benefit from the legal force it uses (welfare benefits, monopoly privileges, etc.), but the minority is screwed. Implicitly, though, they're still going along with what the government does. Is that kind of what you mean?
Several ancient societies have had dual status governments, where habitants were citizens or residents thereby having different privileges and immunities, the former consenting to government and the latter not (privileges to government services greatly reduced -- ie. case by case user-fees).
By implicit consent, I mean exactly what you wrote:
"The less frequently it changes and the more permanence it has, the more [people] will feel reverence for it."
I don't recall the speech that was given but the argument given for implicit consent (through majority vote) is that a unanimous vote is unnecessary since the abstentation from voting cannot be determined necessarily as a vote against a measure but implicit consent. The old Thomas More dictum that silence is regarded as consent.
" Implicitly, though, they're still going along with what the government does."
Would this be the equivalent of saying that consumers who purchase goods that the majority of other consumers do not demand (and which subsequently disappear from the market) are, likewise, implicitly going along with what the market does?
Lyle, I think you need to clarify your objection. Are you saying that the government provides a standardized law, or that the government provides a standardized version of the law that people prefer? The latter is quite obviously false; just considering the problems involved in proving this claim should give pause (how can you know what "kind of standardization" you want, much less what others want?). And though it's easy to imagine that the government, as "monopolist," can provide standardized law, I would say that is also false. Consider the multi-jurisdictional character of the US (at the very least, you are subject to local, state and federal law, which can and do conflict); the problem of legislation, particularly in a democracy (legislation need not be consistent); the issues of the courts and the interpretation of the law, and so on. Of course, complete standardization is impossible and undesireable, leaving the question of where and to what extent there ought to be standardization. I imagine that Woods would argue that we can expect the best trade-off to emerge in a free market.
implicit consent is just fancy and even ambiguous word for "social contract". And we all know (at least, I hope that all libertarians know), that "social contract" is non-existent and if it did exist, it could be easily debunked..
There were never in human history a government with such "implicit consent" (if there was apparently, I would like to know). There were some (or maybe even majority) people who were ok with government, and there were some who were not ok with it, even though they couldn't imagine the alternative to it. Libertarians give that alternative to people.
(english is not my native language, sorry for grammar.)
They don't subsequently disappear from the market if the demand of the minority is still there. Goods will only disappear when [even a minority of] consumers don't demand the goods at that certain price, at which point the price will drop or someone (possibly one of the previous consumers if they have the will to work) will start to produce the good in a way that makes it cheaper/better and thus increases the demand and revenue acquired.
Several ancient societies have had dual status governments, where habitants were citizens or residents thereby having different privileges and immunities, the former consenting to government and the latter not (privileges to government services greatly reduced -- ie. case by case user-fees
I haven't heard of these governments in the past, but we can see from today that even people who don't pay taxes to the government still use the government's services, not to mention that this phenomen of voluntary goverment can't exist. It would just be a company in the free market.
Take, for example, a privatized fire department. Some people in the community would pay the fire department once per year ("voluntary taxes" so to speak) as insurance against fires, while others would take the risk of never having to use the product. One day, a non-payer's house starts to burn down. They don't get the fire department to come down to put the house out until they call the fire department and make that "user-fee". Since it's voluntary, it isn't government.
Two classic cases.
The first is the famous "VHS vs Betamax" format. Video enthusiasts have long maintained the Beta was far superior to the VHS system, so it should have won out in the end since consumers would have backed the superior product. The reality is different: in the early years VHS recorders/players were much cheaper than Beta units, making them instantly more attractive. Also Sony wasted a lot of time with licensing technicalities while JVC was ready to hand out a license to anyone willing to pay. In the end the consumers had a much broader choice when it came to VHS players while Beta was restricted to Sony and Aiwa on most markets (I am aware other brands such as NEC and Pioneer built Beta players but these were simply not available in most markets). In the end what settled the war was recording length: it took Sony years to come up with tapes lasting longer than 60 minutes while 120 minutes VHS tapes were immediately available and they were also cheaper than Beta tapes. The Beta may have been better from a technical point of view but the VHS was the clearly the most market-friendly system.
The second is the control layout on cars. The first car to have the present control layout (three pedals with throttle on the right, brake in the middle and clutch on the left, ignition key etc) was the 1916 Cadillac Type 53. This was an immensely expensive car and only the very rich could afford it so very small numbers were produced. After the Great War Sir Herbet Austin studied the ergonomics of many existing cars (including the widely popular Ford Model T) and clearly saw the superiority of the Cadillac controls. He put them in a small, affordable car and the Austin 7 was born. BMW popularized the layout in Germany by building the 7 under license as the Dixi and Nissan did the same in Japan (though they didn't bother obtaining a license). It wasn't long before all car manufacturers started using the superior Austin/Cadillac layout. The reasoning was simple: a person could buy a brand new car without the need to "reprogram" their brains.
A similar revolution, though on a much smaller scale, happened recently when BMW decided to fit to their bikes indicator switches similar to the ones used on Japanese motorcycles for decades (a single switch for both left, right and cancel). Previously BMW had used three different switches (one each for left, right and cancel).
Like in the previous two cases there was no ruling body which forced BMW to change its layout nor nobody had "asked" for standarization. In the end the better layout simply won out in the end.
Brian, Very good points about government. I see how limiting the definition of government to compulsory force rather than force in which the people voluntarily acquiesce can render the phrase "voluntary government" an oxymoron. Nor have there ever been voluntary governments, by the definition established here, to have existed. Some speak of the rules and regulations of membership to social clubs and religious organizations, or of employment to companies, as a type of "government," the violation of which result in punative measures, to which people agree. However, since there can be no "voluntary government," am I to assume that any breech of private contract should NOT be compulsorily enforced in a government court of law?
Also, Thanks for the correction. There will always be goods produced regardless the size of one's market share so long as it is profitable.
Some speak of the rules and regulations of membership to social clubs and religious organizations, or of employment to companies, as a type of "government," the violation of which result in punative measures, to which people agree.
Yeah, I understood after a while how limiting the government's definition to compulsory force could benefit everything. I used to not see it that way at all, haha.
Brian:
Bear with me, for I am to take the argument a little deeper. Aggression having been defined as the initiation of force by Miseans, not necessarily compulsory force, does it matter whether force is voluntary or compulsory? Or are we also defining compulsion as equivalent to initiation and voluntary as equivalent to restoration? If the latter, is government force only bad because it taxes and not bad because its justice system makes attempts at restoration?
To the point: If force is to be solely voluntary, doesn't that mean that breachers of contract (ie. criminals) can opt out of being punished or being compulsorily forced to restore what was lost as a result of their crime? If not, doesn't that mean compulsory force need not necessarily be considered a negative on society or the economy so long as it is not an initial force?
Aggression having been defined as the initiation of force by Miseans, not necessarily compulsory force, does it matter whether force is voluntary or compulsory?
I don't think it can really be defined as "force" if it's voluntary. Are you asking, if someone consents to being hurt (i.e. professional boxers, etc.), would that count as the opponent breaking the non-aggression principle? I definitely wouldn't call that breaking the NAP because both parties are informed of their decision and can leave whenever they please.
is government force only bad because it taxes and not bad because its justice system makes attempts at restoration?
Both are similar. The act of the government taxing citizens is its way of trying to restore what it sees as a flawed market, and it's the same for the courts' attempts at restoration of justice. Many people see the welfare benefits that 'help' people and how Medicaid/Medicare provides healthcare for the poor/old, but rarely do we think of the other side of the equation, which is the people who have had their wealth taken away. Likewise, the courts tend to give much, much, much more money than necessary to victims of healthcare mishaps in medical malpractice suits, and, while that benefits the recipients, the hospitals/insurers lose a ton of money and end up placing that loss in the hands of consumers through higher-priced goods. That means even more people can't receive healthcare/insurance. Not to mention how many people sue for stupid reasons these days. Private courts would throw dumb cases out because they wouldn't be worth the time.
To the point: If force is to be solely voluntary, doesn't that mean that breachers of contract (ie. criminals) can opt out of being punished or being compulsorily forced to restore what was lost as a result of their crime?
No. Contracts would be meaningless if you could opt out.
If not, doesn't that mean compulsory force need not necessarily be considered a negative on society or the economy so long as it is not an initial force?
Okay. I think I understand more where you're coming from with this now. Compulsory force is fine so long as it's an attempt to receive restoration for crimes committed against you. The problem is that the government uses this compulsory force when people neither break contracts nor hurt others. The NAP doesn't equal passive peace; it means peace through property rights and self-ownership.
Brian,
Thanks for entertaining me in this mental exercise.
Of course!