2 questions

I have two questions which are basically the same:

1)  Can the invisible hand work without the invisible fist?  The invisible fist is a metaphor for the alleged influence western businesses have on U.S. foreign policy (Gen. Smedley Butler: "I have been a gangster for capitalism").  How can global capitalism exist without some massive military force protecting property and keeping the commies/islamofascists at bay?

2)  Can property rights legitimately be enforced without a neutral arbiter, court, title company, or other third party acknowledging the ownership of the property?  Can somebody unilaterally homestead a piece of land and then shoot anybody who challenges their authority?  Or do they need a neutral third party to authenticate their property claims?

I don't know how to answer these questions when other people bring them up.

ama gi:

 1)  Can the invisible hand work without the invisible fist?  The invisible fist is a metaphor for the alleged influence western businesses have on U.S. foreign policy (Gen. Smedley Butler: "I have been a gangster for capitalism").  How can global capitalism exist without some massive military force protecting property and keeping the commies/islamofascists at bay?

Yes, obviously. Think about all the businesses which don't benefit from massive armies and foreign intervention. Think of the countries with no or a very small army, and their businesses. To be honest, I'm not sure what someone asking this question would be getting at.

ama gi:

 2)  Can property rights legitimately be enforced without a neutral arbiter, court, title company, or other third party acknowledging the ownership of the property?  Can somebody unilaterally homestead a piece of land and then shoot anybody who challenges their authority?  Or do they need a neutral third party to authenticate their property claims?

 

This arises out of the misconception that property rights arise from the state, or that the state was created to protect property. In fact, in that a state requires taxation to fund itself, it can never protect property rights, and only harm them - all taxation is a violation thereof. But I think there is some truth in the question. While one can protect one's own property rights, one can indeed employ the help of voluntary or paid third-parties to protect their rights, and this may be a feature of a free society.

This kind of question is the kind coming from either a minarchist, or someone who generally favours free markets, but due to the statism drilled into him at school and the general lack of experience of freedom in money, security, justice etc, falters when coming to the final hurdles. What I usually try to do is make it clear that free market security is not a panacea, but that it will do everything good the current system does - and better.

Thomas Friedman:

The hidden hand of the market will never work without a hidden fist -- McDonald's cannot flourish without McDonnell Douglas, the builder of the F-15. And the hidden fist that keeps the world safe for Silicon Valley's technologies is called the United States Army, Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps. ''Good ideas and technologies need a strong power that promotes those ideas by example and protects those ideas by winning on the battlefield,'' says the foreign policy historian Robert Kagan. ''If a lesser power were promoting our ideas and technologies, they would not have the global currency that they have. And when a strong power, the Soviet Union, promoted its bad ideas, they had a lot of currency for more than half a century.''

This is too easily forgotten today. For too many executives in Silicon Valley, there is no geography or geopolitics anymore. There are only stock options and electrons. Their view that Washington is the enemy, and that any tax dollar paid there is a tax dollar wasted, is grotesque. There is a saying in Silicon Valley that ''loyalty is just one mouse-click away.'' But you can take that too far. Execs there make boasts like: ''We are not an American company. We are I.B.M. U.S., I.B.M. Canada, I.B.M. Australia, I.B.M. China.'' Oh, yeah? Then, the next time I.B.M. China gets in trouble in China, call Jiang Zemin for help. And the next time Congress closes another military base in Asia, call Microsoft's navy to secure the sea lanes of the Pacific. And the next time Congress wants to close more consulates and embassies, call Amazon.com to order a new passport.

I'm  asking because I don't know how to respond when socialists bring this up.

We all know that major corporations and business interests have been influencing U.S. foreign policy since the Spanish-American War.  Socialists (and others) use this to try to prove that global capitalism cannot exist without a strong superpower protecting property and investments.

Let's take the U.S. Government out of the equation and say we're living under anarcho-capitalism.  Let's say you're the CEO of a global gold mining firm.  You own several gold mines in the fictional underdeveloped state of Elbonia, but then--whoops--the Elbonians riot, install a communist government, and nationalize all the gold mines.  Didn't see that coming.

1)  You are have the resources to crush the Elbonian revolt.  Would it be ethical for you to try to use force to protect your investments against the Elbonian government?  If no, you are a statist wimp.  If yes, you are using acting as your own judge and jury.  You have no incentive you respect anybody else's property rights, only your own.

2)  Could the Elbonian revolt be prevented in ways that do not entail violence?  Perhaps the threat of international boycott will keep them on their best behavior.

Discuss.

bump

As a minarchist pig, I'd like to hear the answer to this as well.

I would like to know the answer to this one as well.

1. Yes.  Governments foreign and domestic do not defer property rights on their subjects.  They can only violate them.  If you own property in a country that has a communist revolt, or a fascist one like here in the US, then you have a right to use force if necessary to protect your property.  You have the right to commission 3rd parties to enforce your rights.  You DO NOT have the right to force others to pay for your property rights enforcement as in doing so you violate their property rights.  So if you have a big stick government like the US then it is rarely moral to have them come to the rescue of your property as the government will certainly cost more to get the property back than you would be willing to pay for it.

Also, the communists who took the property aren't stupid.  You could offer them the ammount it would take to redeem the property and see if they bite.

That is really where the Anti-War Left loses it.  They can not grasp that the government violates the property rights of its citizens when running and embarking on a military adventure.  This is the start, although not the worst part, the murder of war is the worst part, it is a violation of rights.

i thought thedesolateone answered your first questions well, heres my go at the next ones

ama gi:

1)  Would it be ethical for you to try to use force to protect your investments against the Elbonian government?

yes.

ama gi:

If yes, you are using acting as your own judge and jury.

i dont understand the supposed force of this criticism..., its conflating self-defense with vigilantism. theres a difference!

ama gi:

You have no incentive you respect anybody else's property rights, only your own.

well, there are incentives to be 'seen as acting justly' in the eyes of ones customers, and ones neighbours, ones suppliers etc.  but moreso, not all motivating ends are monetary/financial, if being moral is psychologically important to the CEO, then thats an incentive to be moral. I think a lot of the posters on mises.org have profound moral sense, and would not stoop to steal, even at miniscule risk of being found out, as this offends their morality, and their self-image.

ama gi:

2)  Could the Elbonian revolt be prevented in ways that do not entail violence?

they could be educated maybe? distribute free translations of the works of mises amongst the population. also im not sure if for the purpose of the question you are counting the threat of violence as synonymous with violence itself, certainly as far as coercion is concerned they are equivalent but the threat of agressive self defense is no crime... perhaps international boycott would be effective, but it needs must be a voluntary boycott and not state enforced. depending on the circumstance it might be that defendning propoerty rights in elbonia, although perfectly just, is a poor entrepeneurial choice and the ceo will withdraw all his staff to civilization and leave the animals to their death and misery. perhaps making it clear to the ancap civilization that they arent abandonning their rights, merely tactically withdrawing, and when the elbonians are ready to invite foreign investment, and drag themselves out of poverty the company can resume its holdings.

 

nirgrahamUK:

they could be educated maybe? distribute free translations of the works of mises amongst the population. also im not sure if for the purpose of the question you are counting the threat of violence as synonymous with violence itself, certainly as far as coercion is concerned they are equivalent but the threat of agressive self defense is no crime... perhaps international boycott would be effective, but it needs must be a voluntary boycott and not state enforced. depending on the circumstance it might be that defendning propoerty rights in elbonia, although perfectly just, is a poor entrepeneurial choice and the ceo will withdraw all his staff to civilization and leave the animals to their death and misery. perhaps making it clear to the ancap civilization that they arent abandonning their rights, merely tactically withdrawing, and when the elbonians are ready to invite foreign investment, and drag themselves out of poverty the company can resume its holdings.

Let me put myself in the position of CEO:

Violence is not an option.  I am a Christian, after all.  I would, however, threaten a boycott.

If the Elbonians seized the gold industry, the would be boycotted by all capitalists everywhere, because they'd think they would be next.  If the Elbonians want Big Macs and iPods, they'll let me keep my gold, thank you.

(iPods are far more persuasive than Austrian literature, IMHO.)