Political Theory

Re: Is there a limit to the anti-regulation stance and if so, what is that limit?

Sieben — Sun, 13 Feb 2011 15:31:26 GMT

The issue is that they aren't looking at the opportunity cost of regulations. Sure, safety is good, but you have to trade it for higher costs or lower quality. All regulations amount to are parentalism - saying that consumers don't value the right things with their limited resources - so the state has to intervene and correct that.

Also I hate when people try to operate along the regulation/deregulation paradigm. Deregulation is not synonymous with the free market. After all, if you "deregulated" and made murder legal... that's not very libertarian.

Re: Is there a limit to the anti-regulation stance and if so, what is that limit?

Jack Roberts — Sun, 13 Feb 2011 13:17:19 GMT

Some of the points that were made could still exist in a free market. But it would not be a regulation out of coercian by the state, but it would be a market cooperation that was acting to meet a market demand. So labelling of food products could be a main selling point in a market of health conscious consumers.

Some of the regulations i can not see ever existing in a free market, like licensing for hair dresses. Certain safety regulations might come about through liability reasons rather than pretentious health and safety maniacs. But even though the regulations (or contract terms) could exist and might be used, in a free market there would still be the option to go flying at night on your first time, buy a building with asbestos etc. But they would probably come with more liability or you would have to do it without anyone else being known as to fear of ruining your reputation etc.

Re: Is there a limit to the anti-regulation stance and if so, what is that limit?

Clayton — Sat, 12 Feb 2011 08:25:21 GMT

3) Good question. Child abuse goes against the non-agression principle, so in a minarchist society, I'd say that is one of the limited uses of government. But in an ancap society, I would guess it would a private defense force that would step in? Still need to think this one through.

The solution to child abuse is extended family, not government. Look at the abuse in the foster parenting industry - a child is many times more likely to be abused while in the State's foster care system than otherwise. Human society had solved the problem of child abuse long before the modern, all-loving Wonder Government swooped in somewhere in the 18th and 19th centuries to save mankind from itself, even if it has to destroy mankind in the process.

Clayton -

Re: Is there a limit to the anti-regulation stance and if so, what is that limit?

Andris Birkmanis — Fri, 11 Feb 2011 22:28:48 GMT

Re Rothbard's argument on slavery: it's based on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title-transfer_theory_of_contract.

Basically, you may break any contract at any time (because of inalienability of free will), but doing so may trigger transfer of title of certain property (as defined by contract - technically, the title is transfered at the moment the contract is signed, but conditionally upon you breaking the contract).

From this argument, combined with inability to transfer title to human beings (also because of inalienability of free will), follows impossibility of slavery. There are a lot of fine points, but the general gist is like this.

Re: Is there a limit to the anti-regulation stance and if so, what is that limit?

Jonathan Mariano — Thu, 10 Feb 2011 23:23:44 GMT

"I hope the OP doesn't mind my temporary hijack (although the following questions are relevant to the flow of the thread):"

I don't mind at all.

Here is a quick stab at it:

1) Yes, just like there is an "arbirtrator" in this society, the courts, there would be an arbitrator of some sort chosen by both parties.

2) ...

3) Good question. Child abuse goes against the non-agression principle, so in a minarchist society, I'd say that is one of the limited uses of government. But in an ancap society, I would guess it would a private defense force that would step in? Still need to think this one through.

4) I think the answer differs on who you ask. But, IIRC, Rothbard in the Ethics of Liberty(? - it's been a while) argues that if you voluntarily become a slave forever, you still have the right to dissolve that relationship. As for the rational, that escapes me at the moment.

Re: Is there a limit to the anti-regulation stance and if so, what is that limit?

EvilSocialistFellow — Thu, 10 Feb 2011 02:38:14 GMT

I hope the OP doesn't mind my temporary hijack (although the following questions are relevant to the flow of the thread):

1. A few people mentioned expensive insurance schemes to prevent improper health and safety procedures; how is this enforced? Or do the firms employ these schemes in the case of a consumer injury, under which circumstance, the consumer may sue them for insurance presumably through an arbitrator of some kind.

2. A few people talked about children being able to enter labour agreements as though they were able to make rational decision making but, as Mises explains (Human Action), "Beings of human descent" possess the necessary “statutes and biology [which] consider them to be men [but]they lack the essential feature of humanity”. An example is “[t]he newborn child”, who is not able to act to better his/her own conditions; “It has not yet gone the whole way from conception to the full development of its human qualities.” Presumably, if the child takes it upon himself to find a job, he is acting purposefully but how do we know he has not been manipulated by his parents into working in coal mines, say?

3. In regards to autonomy for market, by extension, autonomy must also be provided for the family unit, no? What about the more controversial issue of child abuse?

4. If I am able to voluntarily enter servitude on any basis of contractual arrangement, by extension, I should also be able to indefinite servitude, in which case, would I be at my employer's indefinite disposal? Would I be permitted to simply leave and break the terms of contract (and presumably face court charges from my ex-employer) or would my employer be able to use physical force to detain my body?

Re: Is there a limit to the anti-regulation stance and if so, what is that limit?

Clayton — Wed, 09 Feb 2011 20:41:21 GMT

I think you underestimate the natural instints of human beings for social climbing and power management; much less their ability to rationalize.

I agree that much of the inherent drive to power is sheer instinct... if you've ever worked a job you know how good people are at office politics! It seems to me that nearly everyone - however smart or dumb they may be in other ways - is a natural elite of social status climbing.

Yes, Obama is a complete hypocrite - but I bet you he honestly is anti-war.

I don't consider the US President qua US President to be one of "those at the top." The Bushes are near the top but that would be the case whether or not they had held the US Presidency. It is my view that the pinnacles of power are private property and occupied by the monarchs that survived the 20th century war in Europe, the Vatican and other merchant-elites that have come into their own as financial/economic monarchs. I hold this position as an extension of the Hoppean argument that monarchy is preferable to democracy... I think not only is it preferable to democracy it is in every way superior* to democracy so that any form of "representative" government which engages in power-sharing or distribution of power must ultimately be annexed to or subjugated by a monarchical government, whether formally or through "back-channels". This is because a monarchical government will inevitably out-pace a distributed government by virtue of its inherently conservative nature.

Democracy is such a poor form of government, in fact, that I consider the project of "democratizing" a nation to be a preliminarty step to its subjugation. Why else should a foreign power go to the bother and expense of imposing democracy on a nation? Democratizing by mobilizing populist sentiment within the nation is much cheaper than outright conquest and rule.

He's just great at making excuses, which in fact makes him more effective at power plays. A priest is far more convincing if he accepts his religion as true, even if he uses it for self-serving and contradictory ends. The ability to compartmentalize one's thinking is very common in sociopaths and revolutionaries. Look at John Adams.

Well, the psychology of it is of little interest to me. I can imagine a tyrant who is a perfectly normal, well-adjusted human being.

Clayton -

*I mean "superior" in the amoral sense of "the Roman army is superior to the Carthaginians".

Re: Is there a limit to the anti-regulation stance and if so, what is that limit?

Ricky James Moore II — Tue, 08 Feb 2011 18:23:46 GMT

My thought on this question is that it Austrian Economic Theory in itself does not support or oppose such regulations, but rather Austrians (individuals who follow Austrian Economic Theory) and Austrian Political Theory does. Yes, the two are tightly intertwined.

Although some disagree I would say Austrian Economics is a wertfreiheit science. However, this does not render it irrelevant to policy or legal theory. To a consequentialist theory of morals it has obvious consideration; to a deontic theory of morals it can help instruct one know where to look for the correct theory and to a more Aristotilian view of morals consequences form an important part of judging an act.

I would also note that consequentialism and deontic ethics are not compatible, one could believe that a pareto-superior increase in wealth is either a priori or prima facie good and therefor economic arguments would have a bearing on what is good; i.e. if being richer is good in itself then how to get rich is obviously not something you can dismiss 'justice though the Heavens fall'. It reminds me of what Deng Xiaopeng said, "To be poor is not socialism, to be rich is glorious.' He effectively inverted the Maoist scale of values from being normative about means to being normative about ends.

Re: Is there a limit to the anti-regulation stance and if so, what is that limit?

Jonathan Mariano — Tue, 08 Feb 2011 18:15:25 GMT

I was thinking about this question related to this post: "Does Austrian economics oppose such regulations?”

My thought on this question is that it Austrian Economic Theory in itself does not support or oppose such regulations, but rather Austrians (individuals who follow Austrian Economic Theory) and Austrian Political Theory do usually oppose it. Yes, the two are tightly intertwined. However, more precisley, Austrian Economic Theory can inform ones understanding of economics thus influencing ones political theory, or Austrian Political Theory. Austrian Economic Theory itself is value-free, but rather provides a basis for understanding the beneficial or detrimental effects of regulations upon society and the marketplace.

So, to be precise, and combine several insights garnered from this thread, Austrian Economic Theory does not support or oppose regulations, but Austrians and Austrian Political Theory would oppose regulations exogenous to the market yet are comfortable with regulation that is endogenous to it.

Re: Is there a limit to the anti-regulation stance and if so, what is that limit?

Ricky James Moore II — Tue, 08 Feb 2011 11:57:39 GMT

wow, never thought about this in such a way! Thanks.

I owe the insight to Gabriel Kolko's The Triumph of Conservatism. Regulation is, objectively, a cartelization device. It reduces competition and lowers quality.

Re: Is there a limit to the anti-regulation stance and if so, what is that limit?

MaikU — Tue, 08 Feb 2011 11:11:29 GMT

Ricky James Moore II:

- Requiring auto manufacturer's to install seatbelts and other safety related items

Making uniform standards for safety requirements (or whatever they claim for it) does not, in fact, make people safer. What it does is eliminate safety as a point of competition, forcing all auto-makers to utilize the same general schema for 'safety'. Likewise many of these requirements may interfere or make to costly the implementation of other design features which would, in fact, make individuals safer. It will also prevent entry into the market of competitors who can not afford these particular features.

wow, never thought about this in such a way! Thanks.

Re: Is there a limit to the anti-regulation stance and if so, what is that limit?

Ricky James Moore II — Tue, 08 Feb 2011 10:43:50 GMT

Those at the top must always know precisely what they are about, else they will have already been pushed out by someone else less inclined to romantic delusions. The lower layers are much more complex but the Prince is all about one thing and one thing only: extracting maximum resources from the subject population and expanding the borders as wide as possible.

I think you underestimate the natural instints of human beings for social climbing and power management; much less their ability to rationalize. Yes, Obama is a complete hypocrite - but I bet you he honestly is anti-war. He's just great at making excuses, which in fact makes him more effective at power plays. A priest is far more convincing if he accepts his religion as true, even if he uses it for self-serving and contradictory ends. The ability to compartmentalize one's thinking is very common in sociopaths and revolutionaries. Look at John Adams.

Re: Is there a limit to the anti-regulation stance and if so, what is that limit?

Clayton — Tue, 08 Feb 2011 10:39:07 GMT

I don't think it's quite as simple or Machiavellian. People who get into government usually believe government works. They engage in cognitive dissonance and rationalization to cover their opportunism, but they usually honestly believe that their brand of tyranny is 'real' freedom.

Those at the top must always know precisely what they are about, else they will have already been pushed out by someone else less inclined to romantic delusions. The lower layers are much more complex but the Prince is all about one thing and one thing only: extracting maximum resources from the subject population and expanding the borders as wide as possible.

Clayton -

Re: Is there a limit to the anti-regulation stance and if so, what is that limit?

Ricky James Moore II — Tue, 08 Feb 2011 10:32:56 GMT

I don't think it's quite as simple or Machiavellian. People who get into government usually believe government works. They engage in cognitive dissonance and rationalization to cover their opportunism, but they usually honestly believe that their brand of tyranny is 'real' freedom.

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.

- C.S. Lewis

Re: Is there a limit to the anti-regulation stance and if so, what is that limit?

BrianAnderson — Tue, 08 Feb 2011 10:18:02 GMT

Brian Anderson questions the effectiveness of such laws in the first place. Do the laws really do what the laws are intended to? Most likely not.

Yes, in general that is what I believe. Many types of legislation are meant to protect consumers when all they do is give the illusion of protection. As for accreditation agencies, they will spring up in the free market, especially with how far we've come using the internet. It'd be like if the government were to establish a law so that kids could only hang out with the friends for 5 hours per week so they'd be home studying instead. What the law would probably do is force kids to sit at home and mess around doing other stuff, procrastinating more than they would if they were just given time outside to relax. With pilot training, it's the same for medical licensing. Medical licensing is the government's 'guarantee' that no bad doctors will practice medicine. But bad doctors still get through the system, and many would-be good doctors might quit. I'm a pre-medicine student right now, and I absolutely hate school. I love learning about surgery, but I'm learning how to look through microscopes and how electrons shift between different atoms on molecules. I don't need to know that stuff, yet I'm wasting $20,000+ every year to get a bullshit graduation certificate so that I can spend hundreds of thousands of dollars at another government-mandated medical school. It misallocates resources and people from where they should be to what they find worth their time.