Apropos Austrian Aphorisms

the T(hesaurus)-Rex of blogs chomping on malapropos market malapropisms

January 2008 - Posts

"I'm all lost in the supermarket
can no longer shop happily
I came in here for that special offer
A guaranteed personality"              
Lost in the Supermarket, The Clash

 

In the most recent Republican debate, candidate Rudy Giuliani professed his belief that English language proficiency should be required of all new immigrants. Invariably, the response among libertarians will differ over immigration — some will believe the State has a proper role in admitting new people into its land; others believe the decision should be left up to rightful property owners. Each case will dictate proper language proficiency, then, it will be stated. But what role, if any, should the State play in dictating language? Its role should be as it is with any other: absent, letting the market determine its use.

Language is a marketable skill: It is a tool used by individuals to communicate and cooperate with each other. Its value varies accordingly with employers as some will value clear, concise communication over others, and other employers won't mind so much if their employees can recognize the distinction between its (possessive) and it's (contraction). Thus, language in the market is as important as it is valued as a useful tool. Just as the State should not regulate whether an employee's skills are fit for an employer, such as if an IT employee truly knows how to set up a computer network, so too should the State absolve its involvement in determining a potential employee's language for his marketability for hire.

In a society that holds proper respect for property rights, it should follow that only property owners should rightfully determine role of language. If English is valued over Spanish throughout society and an immigrant lands within society unable to adequately speak English, but can speak Spanish well, then a few possibilities present themselves. The most obvious is that the Spanish-speaking immigrant will not be hired and he will have to resign himself to improving his marketability by learning English. A more costly possibility, for employers, is to hire the Spanish speaker and train him not only with regard to whatever the job's task is, but also in speaking English. The market, not the State, will decide the role of language.

The recent popular television show Lost displays this situation well (at least one aspect it displays with good libertarian method!). A Korean-speaking couple is stranded among a group of people who speak only English. The Korean-speaking couple often works aloof the rest of the group with little ability to communicate. The division of labor and respect for property is tested and at odds by the incompatibility of language. However, after a while the language incompatibility takes a backseat to the more marketable skills of the couple. The man, Jin, is able to catch fish and provide food for many of the stranded survivors on the island. He is then compensated accordingly. Further on in Season 1, the man begins work with an English-speaking man named Michael, who is attempting to build a raft to leave the island. Jin's ability to work, without language, as Michael desires, values, and needs for the completion of the raft, overcomes the difference in the two mens' speech. Had Rudy Giuliani been present on the island administered a test for admittance to the island's English-speaking group Jin would've never found employment with Michael, and Michael's work would have suffered!

The State's ability to determine what language is proper is also more fundamentally noisome. A law dictating what language(s) should or should not be spoken and used is, at its heart, a law regulating free speech; that is, such a law violates an individual's property right over his own body to guide his own speech and thoughts. There is perhaps no greater reason to oppose language laws. That some public schools even go so far as to barring students from speaking a language other than English on school grounds should give some kind of hint as to how grossly and unjustly the State spreads its power over language, rather than letting the market decide its proper role.

There is no reason for individuals to be lost in the language market: they should have the freedom to voluntarily contract with language as they wish; otherwise, they can no longer speak happily. When many emigrate to the United States for the special offer of freedom and its guaranteed free personality, then the freedom to use one's own property, such as in the faculties of body language, should be respected under the rule of law. 

 A recent debate topic on Facebook's Politics poll was whether you supported Mike Huckabee's FairTax plan. The FairTax is a splendid example for examining language and economics. Let's not mince words: The FairTax is not fair. It is an ugly euphemism designed to receive support. Eliminate the IRS and replace it with a simpler tax code that is fair? Sure! exclaim many. No! I say. Let the IRS die and the rest of the tax code with it. Here are three responses to common arguments regarding the FairTax.

  • The FairTax is not "fair"; there's nothing fair about taxation — what would be called theft if any private individual were standing between you and your purchase extracting a benevolent 23 percent. As Murray Rothbard noted about the FairTax, it's essentially a "pay to live" tax: You must relinquish 23% of your purchase, whether it be a plasma television or a Thanksgiving turkey. The FairTax says this: The government must be involved in every purchase you make; there is no privacy between consumer and provider.

  • The FairTax is not "simplification." The IRS may be gone, but another bureacracy is put in its place. The idea behind eliminating the IRS, as Ron Paul argues, is not because it's complex or confusing, but because it is illegitimate. The federal government should be reduced, not tinkered with. The elimination of the IRS, with nothing to replace it, forces the federal government to behave constitutionally because it cannot extort payment from every individual to finance the myriad federal functions not authorized by the Constitution.

  • The FairTax is finally fair to rich people! No more progressive taxation under the ugly income tax — a tax that penalizes you for being more productive. And this is why some people oppose the FairTax; it is because now the rich are taxed as the poor are. The rich must relinquish more! they say. And how much more? And who is rich? Who determines these arbitrary constructions? What obligates the "rich" man to give to the "poor" man? There is no norm to establish this creed, which is why it has no answer and no substance.

As all popular federal governments do, the national sales tax (i.e., the FairTax) will grow over time. What is the harm in 1% more? And then another 1 percent? It must be noted: the proposed 23% is to cover current expenditures. What happens, as we've unfortunately seen over the past centuries, when the federal government spends more? The sales tax must be increased proportionately. Who determines the correct percentage? And is the sales tax on top of already existing state sales tax and "sin taxes," e.g., cigarettes?

 The FairTax must be rejected for what it is: A farce. There is no simple, no just tax. Repeal them all!