Is government inevitable? This has been debated among libertarians. I have encountered the argument that government exists because people want power (to control others). Governments have varied in form, but they fundamentally confer benefits upon those that control them.
The desire for power is not countered with well-reasoned arguments about the benefits of a free economy. In fact, a government can like a somewhat free economy because then its productivity rises, so it can tax even more. Let the people raise living standards, but remain the parasite.
Does the widespread existence of governments show the human tendency seeking power? Not all humans have to seek power, only a certain number. If so, what hope exists for changing it? If humans want power (easier to steal than to work, especially when a government does it), then government, ultimately, cannot be removed with arguments. It must be defeated in combat.
Economist Robert P. “Bob” Murphy said: Many champions of liberty have been agnostic or even outspoken atheists. It does not take an intellectual devotion to God to yield fine and courageous advocates of freedom. But do their heroics make sense, in light of their professed justifications?
We can find no better exemplar of this dichotomy than Ludwig von Mises. He did not justify his advocacy of private property and free markets by appeal to the alleged natural rights of man, let alone to the supposed commands of a supernatural being. For Mises, a society based on private property and the rule of law would be far more productive than one based on arbitrary government privilege, or worse yet a chaotic anarchy in which people stole and murdered with reckless abandon.
Therefore it seemed obvious to Mises that everyone bore responsibility in promoting the free society, because only in such a society could all of us achieve our long-term objectives through cooperation and the division of labor. Whatever temporary thrills one might derive from theft and violence, would be far counterbalanced by the inability to have large-scale capitalist production and market exchange.
Unfortunately there's a flaw in Mises' reasoning. He didn't prove that everyoneshould be moral and law-abiding. Rather, Mises simply proved that everyone would be better off if everyonewere moral and law-abiding. Those are two different propositions.
There are many situations in life that resemble a "prisoner's dilemma" as discussed by the game theorists. That is, there are situations in which self-interest and reason leads each person to act in a way that makes the whole group worse off, compared to the outcome where everyone acts against his self-interest.
Hard-headed rationalists cannot get around this stubborn fact. It's true that many social situations repeat themselves, and so even if they resemble the prisoner's dilemma in any given iteration, in the long-run they actually foster cooperation. For example, even if one could get away with it, it would be foolish to skip out of a restaurant without paying the bill, if the diner expected to return to the same restaurant in the future.
Yet this clever answer doesn't really solve the problem of evil. Is it really true that a secular humanist, armed with all the knowledge of economics, could convince a David Rockefeller or a Henry Paulson that his standard of living would be improved by abiding by the tenets of classical liberalism? If those examples leave the reader unsure, what about Kim Jong-il? If Ayn Rand were locked in a room with the North Korean leader, could she really convince him that the value of his own life would be enhanced by refraining from looting others?
Again, it is true that if the whole world embraced laissez-faire capitalism, even current despots would probably end up living with greater material prosperity. But that is not the choice any current despot faces. He looks at the options at his disposal, and the likely choices that others (including despots) will make during his lifetime. It is wildly unrealistic to assume that the most powerful (and evil) people on the planet are currently hurting their self-interest by violating the rules of traditional morality. A student of David Hume could explain why traditional moral rules benefit everyone, but he ultimately could not prove why anyone ought to be moral in the first place.
. . . The theist who believes in a just and omnipotent God does not suffer from the above inconsistencies. He can justify his passionate and heroic defense of liberty. Even if he dies, he knows he has done the right thing — where "right thing" is not defined as a set of strategies to maximize the likelihood of achieving earthly happiness.
Belief in the God of the Bible gives one hope in the ultimate triumph of good over evil. We know that those who enslave, steal, and murder may experience temporary victories, but that ultimately they are doomed to defeat.
Ironically, we have come full circle. The theist can tell David Rockefeller, Henry Paulson, and Kim Jong-il the following advice which is the epitome of realpolitik:
"You should stop what you are doing because it offends the Creator of the heavens and earth. You are making an intellectual error in your assessment of the strength of your position. Your armies are nothing compared to the might of the LORD, and your intelligence networks are nothing compared to His wisdom. Repent while you still can, and save yourself from ruin."
[Gero: Of course, as for scientific evidence that any god exists, good luck finding it. To claim God is on your side is comforting, but what if, as I believe, there is no God, just humans. There is no inevitable triumph of good over evil. The result is determined by humanity, not by supernatural interference.]
Unfortunately there's a flaw in Mises' reasoning. He didn't prove that everyoneshould be moral and law-abiding. Rather, Mises simply proved that everyone would be better off if everyonewere moral and law-abiding.
How is that a flaw? Its not as if proving that you ought to act lawful would cause anyone to do so. Hoppe has demonstrated that arguing against self-ownership and libertarian property results in a performative contradiction, yet the response is essentially: "well that doesn't stop me from doing it anyway." Showing that everyone is better off (including the individual, not just society as a whole) with the doctrines of liberalism is far more effective.
Is it really true that a secular humanist, armed with all the knowledge of economics, could convince a David Rockefeller or a Henry Paulson that his standard of living would be improved by abiding by the tenets of classical liberalism? If those examples leave the reader unsure, what about Kim Jong-il? If Ayn Rand were locked in a room with the North Korean leader, could she really convince him that the value of his own life would be enhanced by refraining from looting others?
I'll let la Boetie answer this one for me: "Resolve to serve no more, and you are at once freed. I do not ask that you place hands upon the tyrant to topple him over, but simply that you support him no longer; then you will behold him, like a great Colossus whose pedestal has been pulled away, fall of his own weight and break into pieces."
they said we would have an unfair fun advantage
Thanks for bringing this up, Gero. Dare I say it's a response to Danny's thread? :P
I have to ask you how you're defining the words "government" and "power". Only then can I really weigh in on this topic.
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
mikachusetts:How is that a flaw? Its not as if proving that you ought to act lawful would cause anyone to do so. Hoppe has demonstrated that arguing against self-ownership and libertarian property results in a performative contradiction, yet the response is essentially: "well that doesn't stop me from doing it anyway." Showing that everyone is better off (including the individual, not just society as a whole) with the doctrines of liberalism is far more effective.
Indeed. The only thing I'd like to add is that anarcho-capitalism is the fulfillment of liberalism.
On the other hand, since I've concluded that nearly everyone is born with the same "moral instincts", which at least tend to guide their conscious morality, I think pointing out inconsistencies in their "moral reasoning" is also useful. That seems to be the point of Hoppe's argumentation ethics. Of course, one doesn't have to argue; but if one is, and he advocates denial of self-ownership, then he's either committing a performative contradiction, or he's not holding to moral universalizability.
mikachusetts:I'll let la Boetie answer this one for me: "Resolve to serve no more, and you are at once freed. I do not ask that you place hands upon the tyrant to topple him over, but simply that you support him no longer; then you will behold him, like a great Colossus whose pedestal has been pulled away, fall of his own weight and break into pieces."
Unless a significant majority of people feel this way, and each of them knows the others do, the tyrant will simply put a gun to your head and demand that you serve him anyways -- or else.
This thread was not in response to any recent topic, Autolykos.
By government I mean a monopoly on violence. By power I mean controlling others without their consent.
Government is inevitable, as there will always be conflicts and always people will turn to elites for justice. However, it is not inevitable that government will succeed at destroying all competing governments, or that a pact forbidding competition between governments will hold.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
There never has been such a thing as a monopoly on violence.
That is why I prefer to say monopoly of justice.
Power is the ability to impose things on others. Constitutional government is attempt to channel and control power. Anarchy occupies a power vacuum, so everyone has an incentive to carve a share as large as possible for himself. This struggle eventually leads to government.
There is no such thing as a power vacuum.
Maybe we should be patient rather than cynical. All kinds of evils were tolerated by human societies as good or morally neutral for thousands of years before the eventually died out. Slavery, horrific child abuse etc.
In the end, they are naturally selected out of existence, because they engender less survivable humans and human societies than superior moral systems do.
Governments are tremendously self-destructive, unsustainable, wasteful entities. They exist exclusively for the purpose of violence and aggression. Either we will all kill each other, or they will eventually have to go.
I don't think there's anything intrinsic to the human genome that demands government. The lust to control and dominate the wills of others results from one's self being controlled and dominated.
You are thinking of the paradox of imperialism. For this to continue, there has to be the regular birth of new societies contesting the old ones. This birth process has not functioned in our generation.
The tyrant will simply put a gun to your head and demand that you serve him anyways -- or else.
Autolykos: I see that you are capable of clairvoyancy as well. Maybe you should include "I think..." or "It is a possibility that..." Of course, like yourself, I isolated a statement from its context and am attacking it as a certainty rather than a possibility. I could rise above the occassion and be more forgiving of your negligence (not necessarily ignorance), but what the heck, quid pro quo.
What makes you think that the tyrant (powerful) will necessarily act in this way? Are his/her actions always dependent upon how the majority feels and what they mutually know? Does he never act on his own? Hopefully, it is not because the tyrant has always acted this way that the tyrant will always act in this way.
Lyle:The tyrant will simply put a gun to your head and demand that you serve him anyways -- or else. Autolykos: I see that you are capable of clairvoyancy as well. Maybe you should include "I think..." or "It is a possibility that..." Of course, like yourself, I isolated a statement from its context and am attacking it as a certainty rather than a possibility. I could rise above the occassion and be more forgiving of your negligence not necessarily ignorance), but what the heck, quid pro quo.
Autolykos: I see that you are capable of clairvoyancy as well. Maybe you should include "I think..." or "It is a possibility that..." Of course, like yourself, I isolated a statement from its context and am attacking it as a certainty rather than a possibility. I could rise above the occassion and be more forgiving of your negligence not necessarily ignorance), but what the heck, quid pro quo.
I see that you are more than capable of committing the tu quoque fallacy more than once. Otherwise, I don't see the point of you bringing this up. But thanks all the same - I shouldn't have written "will" there. I'll edit the post to replace it with "could".
Lyle:What makes you think that the tyrant (powerful) will necessarily act in this way? Are his/her actions always dependent upon how the majority feels and what they mutually know? Does he never act on his own? Hopefully, it is not because the tyrant has always acted this way that the tyrant will always act in this way.
The tyrant won't necessarily act in any certain way. The future is always uncertain. As I mentioned above, I was erroneous in using "will", as I can't claim knowledge of what the tyrant will do in the future.
However, while I will graciously admit my error and amend the post to reflect my new understanding, you appear to be doing nothing of the sort in the other thread. Instead, I see you continuing to masquerade your statement of certainty as if it were a statement of possibility.
EDIT: Apparently I can't edit that post now. Here is my amended statement:
Unless a significant majority of people feel this way, and each of them knows the others do, the tyrant will could simply put a gun to your head and demand that you serve him anyways -- or else.
I hope this clears things up.