This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
The Great Flaw in the Free Trade Theory And Other Vain Beliefs, Hoaxes, and Follies
As always, when Jesse discusses economic theory and politics, he clearly and concisely explains why the currently popular mind-numbing theories haven't worked, and will not work. The time spent debating the existing models could be better spent constructing a new vision of how society can best be served by the government and the financial system - not the other way around. - Ilene
The Great Flaw in the Free Trade Theory And Other Vain Beliefs, Hoaxes, and Follies
Courtesy of Jesse's Cafe Americain
There are several economic models and political memes that rely on an underlying belief in the natural efficiency and goodness of 'free trade' and 'efficient markets.' One can question whether these ideas promoted certain behaviours, or if certain parties promoted these theories to serve as justification for their policy objectives.
Whatever the case may be, let's take a look at the theories that seem to underpin the virtue of 'free trade,' meaning international commerce with very light national regulations and a centralized semi-autonomous authority as arbiter.
One of the theories in favor of free trade is the idea of comparative advantage, that is, that one country might have a natural advantage which they can exploit for their own benefit and the general benefit of the world. I am sure we all learned this in business school. I myself was quite a fan of Michael Porter in my day.
This theory is a universalisation of the idea that the naturally gifted pottery maker, for example, has an inherent talent that can be exploited, and can create and exchange pots for food, let's say, from a farmer who has the advantage of owning suitable farm land and has the talent and tools to exploit it.
Makes common sense does it? Everyone does what they do best, and through the free exchange of products the aggregate good is increased.
But the fallacy that is repeated over and over by the non-scientific thinker (like too many economists and politicians for example) is that one can extend things that might make sense anecdotally into general principles writ large on the face real world, or more properly OVER the face of the real world, that at the end have little real fundamental connection with reality.
This was Mandelbrot's great criticism of the neo-liberal school of economics, notably the Chicago School, for example. Their broad assumptions crushed the reality out of the math, and the application of their theory made the markets inherently unstable by miscalculating the risks which were allowed to grow to enormous levels, and then crash at the under-expected event, colloquially known as 'a black swan.'
There is some validity to this. Some nations, for example, are blessed with great natural resources such as coal and oil, and they can sell these items to other countries and regions in exchange for items like food, for example.
But like most efficiency arguments, most notably the efficient market hypothesis, these ripples in distribution or market anomalies are quickly exhausted, and in the classic impetus and peril of successful capitalism, the players start to create monopolies and other artificial advantages, such as frauds, which they can exploit more fully.
So for example, a nation such as China can devalue its currency substantially in the 1990's against the world's reserve currency, and thereby set up a set of artificial import barriers and export subsidies, simply by manipulating their currency.
By the way, this is basic math. There are plenty of people who were denying it, and most of them stood to benefit from this charade. But it is true. Anyone who travels internationally and changes money understands it.
The underlying basis of the currency wars is the ability to artificially manipulate one's currency, or even establish a pseudo-monopoly, for the advantage of one to the disadvantage of the others.
There are other methods to accomplish this and they are usually lumped under the title of industrial policy or mercantilism. A country has a set of laws and regulations that foster a certain stance towards issues such as worker's rights, environmentalism, savings and consumption, wealth distribution and even human rights.
The more trade becomes independent of public policy and regulation, the greater the movement of all countries to the least common denominator of the broader policy stances of the mercantilist nations.
In a very real sense, if you control the issuance and terms of money, you care not who makes the laws locally. And the exchange of trade mechanism is a subset of the control of a medium of exchange, which is the trade system, both international and domestic, the who and how people can buy or sell.
This principle seems to be the basis of the inclusion of gold and silver in the money system essays written by my friend Hugo Salinas-Price, and the age old understanding of the balancing mechanism of a harder standard of exchange to manage the tendencies of various participants to 'cheat.'
Anyone who believes that believes that markets and society do not require clear laws and impartial referees because people are naturally inclined to know and do the 'right thing' has obviously never driven on a modern American freeway.
If, for example, we were in a gold standard system for international trade, and the governance had allowed China and its multinational capitalist friends to game the system as they are doing now, eventually the flow of gold from the US to China would compel the US to devalue its currency against the Yuan, and thereby persuade China to release more of its reserves as gold back into the system by purchasing other things. If they used it to buy US debt for example, the dollar would continue to devalue in a cycle which would hamper and ultimately defeat the currency mercantilism.
It would have also restrained the US from manipulating the world by 'owning' the world's reserve currency and the 'exorbitant privilege' therein. It would have curtailed unfunded wars, and the exporting of jobs and production in favor of a 'service economy' that consists largely of pushing the reserve currency around the plate, and skimming the greatest portion for an elite group of policy leaders. No standard is perfect, and there are ways to subvert some external standard like gold, but it is more difficult to do, and it is more easily seen and exposed if the standard is resolute and robust.
We see a similar principle in action in the theory supporting efficient markets. On paper they sound good, but they are deeply flawed because of the nature of the assumptions they make about people and their rationality and selflessness.
As most gardeners can tell you, there is rarely such a thing as a naturally beautiful and weed free garden, especially the ones that look 'natural.' It takes a great deal of forethought, adjustment, and continual work to make anything sustainable in this world of ours. And so it is with markets, both local and international.
There are those, like former Fed Chairman Greenspan, who argue that the fiat regime of the Federal Reserve works if the Fed 'acts like a gold standard,' that is, with an unapproachable virtue. A similar theory underpins the World Trade Organization's function in international trade. But like all human systems, they tend to fall to the great truth observed by Lord Action some years ago, that "where you have the concentration of power in a few hands, all too frequently men with the mentality of gangsters get control. History has proven that."
I am not promoting a gold standard per se and understand the problems inherent with it, and do not wish to discuss that here.
But what I am attempting to do is expose some of the fallacies of the zombie economic theories that have led the world to the place where it is today, with too much discretionary power concentrated in too few hands, with a propensity to act in secret and with an excess of latitude behind the cover of those artificial constructs known as 'corporations.'
This notion that government and regulation is the problem is true only to the extent that government has become weakened and corrupted by gross abuses. Effective government takes planning, continual hard work, and the adjustment of renewal and reform.
Human constructs, if not continually managed and repaired and occasionally renewed, tend inevitably into disruption, dysfunctionality, and corruption.
To say, let's just get rid of it and things will somehow become naturally good is to attempt to build a castle in the clouds. It will not and has never worked to promote a harmonious and productive society on a large scale, ever, in all of human history. It is the law of the jungle. But it has its continual appeal to sociopaths, misfits, the naive, the frustrated, and psychopaths.
It is a tool of the false dialectic of extremes, that argues that the choice is between no government and bad government, and that if government is not perfect it is inherently evil. Because they are driven to extremes, those who argue this cannot see the great middle ground, of an imperfect government that nevertheless is capable of maintaining justice and order within the context of freedom. Failure is only certain at the extremes, of authoritarianism and anarchy, when by two different paths one turns society over to the wolves.
The longer this artificial construct of natural goodness and perfect rationality is maintained, the greater the forces against it will build, until countries and nations explode into revolution and wars, as a consequence of folly.
The model in my forecast says that meaningful reform to the status quo will not be readily accepted by the power elite. They will promote a 'new normal' which will span a leisurely 'five to ten years' for economic recovery, while they are comfortably standing above it all on other people's necks. The ability to set oneself aside and apart, as separate and above, from the rest of humanity is served in many ways and by many things. It is a dangerous delusion to feel naturally privileged for whatever reason. It can only be maintained through power, and power is a deadly narcotic.
We can be thankful that other crackpot theories have not become mainstream, such as eugenics, or the marginalizing and then disposal of the weak, the disabled, and the different to serve the economic advancement of the state. Or groupthink, and profound belief in national or racial exceptionalism that tends to lead groups to quick utilitarian solutions and Pyrrhic ends. So there is some room for optimism.
Change may not come until the powerful are standing in ashes, and therein lies a tragedy yet to unfold. Let us work on with hope that reform comes well before then.
»
- ilene's blog
- 5042 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
Great thoughts, like the article.
While theories and ideologies are great, we should always be carefully looking at the practical implementations and hard real world evidence/results. Many countries and states are providing real world expirements on various economic concepts as we speak, and history offers us much knowledge, and yet people argue about these things like is theoretical physics, like no one will know til we have a better telescope or particle smasher. In economics and politics we can look at countries right now that are thriving and countries that are hurting. Countries with weak governments do not seem produce great results, neither do countries with overly tyrnannical, unresponisve governments. Those with balance, such as many European countries, Japan, even China to some extent (weird mash up of tyranny and very free markets) seem to do well.
We did the free trade thing with NAFTA, how did that work out for Mexico and US? We have cheaper goods but lower wages on both sides of border. GDP is one measure of overall income of a national economy, but if GDP growth and then some all goes to a few rich lucky/talented ones and regular workers get less of it, is that a good result?
Libertarians want financial anarachy, but even Ron Paul knows that even without a corrupt state helping, monopolies, trusts, frauds will form all on their own in the absence of checks and balances, and our only hope is a mutully agreed upon referee, who, yes, must impose regulations and enforces laws. Now if you must have a referee, how should you choose them? By wealth? By family inheritance? Isn't democracy, the people deciding the only hope? And if you must have rules, do you not need some sort of democratically controlled police? Yes we can have private armies, ask the families of mid-evil Italy, but then the biggest thugs or the richest win in the end, tehy will not be under control of people generally and will work for the interests of a small minority.
To me goverment and "free" private markets are simply tools which proper use helps us get the most overall benefit from society. Neither should be a religion, neither should be considered God, infallable, unyielding. We know goverment can err by being tyrannical, being too centrally planned, and we know private markets can be an excellent mean to incentivize people to serve each others needs/wants and an excellent means of crowd sourcing innovation, value/pricing but we also know greedy individuals can be just as happy profitting off something that provides no value to customer (trick fees, selling fraudulent crap etc) or by creating a monopolistic position. We also know govt can sometimes provide competition to such monopolies ( local govts underserved by telecoms can install very cost competitive high speed internet that big telecoms have not interest) and democractically regulated monopolies (utilities) or democratically run monopolies like a water district can provide more value than a bunch of competiting private businesses. My home town St. Paul MN has all private garbage collection, it costs us 20 percent more than monopolistic city govt schemes, and we create 5 times the pollution and harm to roads by having so many extra trucks on the road.
Collaborated efforts by governments can spur technology that private markets alone can't, see internet...govt got the basics going, private markets found vast and creative uses.
So to me it is all about checks and balances and mix of private and public organizations, serving where they yeild best, for most.
Just because termites eat your wood house, does not mean you should abandon shelter, stop building, and live under the stars...maybe we just need to consider concrete houses, or an occasional tent fumigation.
If we do not have democratic controls, we yield to mob rule of one sort or the other. Yes governments can be corrupted, but that does not mean we do away with any control, in fact, it means we have to re-establish democratic controls, not abandon them.
When a 28 year old Abe Lincoln spoke on "The Perpetuation of Our Political Institutions" he discussed mob rule, lynch mobs, and a lack of govt controls/enforcement 150 years ago... he may as well be talking about the bankers and global elites lawlessness today:
So now we are alienated from our own govt, do we just leave it, and let some minority take control or do we attempt to renew it?l
Good comment. I would add that governement and economic efficiency are a function of the ethical standards of the masses being governed. Sounds like a stretch, but stay with me here. If you have an unethical population, which is true of any population in the past 10k years, then no system of government will operate efficiently in the long term. Yet, if you have an ethical population (which hasn't existed on earth yet) then any system of govenment will operate efficiently. For the past 10k years we have been living in a system which is ruled by fear and the gun. What this means is that if you take away fear and the gun, then anarchy reigns. This is true of any society of the past 10k years. A truly ethical society is one that is self-regulating without fear and the gun (sounds idealistic, but we are not too far off). It is just like a family that is rooted in fear and the whip and the other family down the block which is rooted in love and respect. Behaviors might seem to be the same, but the underlying spirit of the family is completely different. Unfortunately, humanity is still a family that is rooted in fear and the whip. But, this is why the whole system is coming down. Selfish individuals will always produce corrupt governments. If individuals are self-serving and are taught from a young age that if you do what is best for yourself everything else will work out, the market, the invisible hand will fix everything... then why should politicians act any differently? Why are politicians held at a much higher ethical standard than Joe Neighbor? The truth is politicians are just like Joe Neighbor, no worse, no better, self-serving, selfish beings, only interested in their own political carreers and the good of their family and friends; nobody else matters. This attitude is the underlying attitude of competition, survival of the fittest, which has ruled on earth for the past 10k years. Can we finally come to understand that competition amongst ourselves will always always lead to concentrations of power, monopolies. Only in the spirit of cooperation can markets operate efficiently. It is the exact opposite of what we have been taught. But, of course cooperation can't be forced and thereby this is not a problem of the system; this is a problem of our own internal selves. Just some food for thougth. But, hey, so they say, the new era is right around the corner... keep the faith!
That was great, moneymutt! Thanks.
@mm
Libertarians support "economic anarchy." Really! All this time I thought we supported laissez faire. You know, markets that are free of gummint meddling. You don't suppose that they are as anarchic as the force of gravity, that they are governed by the force of nature, that these obey correct economic principles and some of the may be discovered in the sundry works of the great Austrian School economists and their precursors. How about Adam Smith, Von Mises, Von Hayek, Rothbard, et al? How about real laissez faire capitalism for a change instead of mercantilism and elitism?
Ron Paul recognizes the classic role of good government, to whit, that they are there to enforce good laws that protect against force or fraud but otherwise eschew meddling in laissez faire markets.
Dishonest Abe Lincoln was an unreconstructed Whig. He was a mercantilist, Hamiltonian and inside trading elitist.
Dishonest Abe Lincoln was a big gummint kind of guy, atrue son of the Whigs and a Hamiltonian. He was no friend of free markets. He was totally down with "internal improvements", cronyism, mercantilism disguised as capitalism and insider trading. In addition, he was a hypocrital racial bigot, our first dictator, a proto-fascist and a tyrant who enslaved all free men
The movement that I'm in favor of is a movement of libertarians who do not substitute whim for reason. Now some of them do, obviously, and I'm against that. I'm in favor of reason over whim. As far as I'm concerned, and I think the rest of the movement, too, we are anarcho-capitalists. In other words, we believe that capitalism is the fullest expression of anarchism, and anarchism is the fullest expression of capitalism. Not only are they compatible, but you can't really have one without the other. True anarchism will be capitalism, and true capitalism will be anarchism. -- Murray Rothbard
>How about Adam Smith, Von Mises, Von Hayek, Rothbard, et al?
Yeah, von Mises was truly a towering intellect. Menger, Rothbard, Hazlitt, Bastiat, and Turgot certainly deserve to be mentioned. Today we have guys like Hoppe, Walter Block, and Stephen Kinsella who are continuing to make exciting progress.
Abolish fractional reserve gold bullion banking and replace US treasuries as the worlds reserve asset with gold. Problem solved.
Gold doesn't solve the problem. The British learned that the mercantilists (India and China) would take their gold sovereigns and never return them. Mercantilists value gold and silver above all, even human life, and therefore will sell you anything to get your metals. They will never trade their gold for anything. Even today 60% of the world's gold is in India. The British even tried drug addication to get their gold back but never succeeded. The key in dealing with mercantilists is simple. Never trade with them under any circumstance.
>We did the free trade thing with NAFTA, how did that work out for Mexico and US?
You must beware the cum hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. Real-world economies with countless individuals are unimaginably complicated and pinning down any single thing as the cause of any effect is dubious. And, FYI, a free trade agreement doesn't need hundreds of pages. It requires only a couple of sentences. NAFTA is hardly free trade. Instead of worrying about macroeconomic effects, it is often easier to think about things from the point of the view of the individual. Should two individuals living a mile away, but separated by an imaginary line, be shot and murdered for performing a peaceful, voluntary exchange involving a certain kind of plant?
>To me goverment and "free" private markets are simply tools which proper use helps us get the most overall benefit from society. Neither should be a religion, neither should be considered God, infallable, unyielding
Now it sounds like you're falling for the argumentum ad temperantiam fallacy. You see two things as extremes and you want to be "safe" by assuming the correct solution has to be somewhere in between.
>Libertarians want financial anarachy, but even Ron Paul knows that even without a corrupt state helping, monopolies, trusts, frauds will form all on their own
A state is a monopoly in the provision of security and arbitration services over a given geographical area. You're saying we need a gigantic monopoly to help stop monopolies from forming? States routinely engage in violation of property rights. You're saying we need a criminal state to prevent fraud from occuring?
I'm saying some in society will attempt fraud and crime, and the best solution is power to be responsive to democratic controls. That means a democratic state. If you do not have a democratic state, you will have monopolies with no checks and balances. A democratic state can be corrupted, that does not mean unions are worthless. Without unions of people, then a few will rule in monopolies, without any controls.
"a democracy is a system whereby 51% of the population robs the other 49%."
OR
"democracy is two wolves and one sheep voting on what's for dinner."
which is why the United States was formed as a REPUBLIC.
education these days is garbage. doesn't anyone read books any more?
please, before you trash all hope in education, I think we can all accept we are speaking a bit of shorthand here and not writing academic tomes on political theory...democractic controls and unions of people can take lots of forms, and yes, the early french revolution, rule by legistlature did not turn out well, so there is a need for Republic-like structures, indepdent branches of govt and structures, courts etc to protect basic minority rights. I side with George Washington tendencies on this, as some wanted us to be a more direct democracy, rule by legislature or referundum, but he went the Republic way.
but I would take 51 ruling over 49 percent if it was only alternative to 1 percent ruling over 99 percent. Yes, there are better systems than direct democracy and voting on every single issue, but anarchy and or letting a few rule is not one of them.
There once were six million individuals for whom a state "responsive to democratic controls" didn't work out so well. Are you sure this is the best solution?
There are alternatives. For example, non-monopoly firms competing to provide the best security and arbitration services and funded through voluntary payments. Security and arbitration services are economic goods and I see no reason why they should not be provided the same way other goods and services are provided. Note that the US Constitution says that the postal service is a necessary government function, yet other providers of delivery services like UPS and FedEx thrive when they are allowed to do so.
Actually the nazis were against democracy, camaigned on a platform of eliminating it, and did so as soon as they were able. So if that's you're argument, then you just proved his point for him.
The apparatuses of the state enabled that outcome.
My own democratic state has incarcerated innocent people in concentration camps and sterilized innocent people as part of a eugenics program. It is also the only one in the world that employed fusion weapons on thousands of unarmed civilians and children.
If you're looking for a pancea that prevents crime, apparently the democratic state isn't it.
in absense of state, no tyranny can exist? I know most tyranny these days comes from corrupted states but do you really think abolishing states would preclude any organized crime?
Organized crime is by definition a state. They might be fairly small and weak states, but they are states none-the-less. If a group of people attempts to violate the law and commits aggression against an anarchic society, then the militia will be forced to take care of it. The results won't be pretty for the aggressors. A rifle behind every blade of grass makes it quite impossible for any army to assert dominence over an extended land mass. Ask the fools who have attempted to impose government on Somalia for the last 30 years. Even with constant support from the outside, they can't control more than a few blocks. And that's not even real anarchy, that's Xeer (a blend of tribalism and anarchy). If they had social insurance companies, you can bet that they would have access to much better weaponry which would make invasion totally impossible. This is up to and including nukes and even more powerful weapons if needed.
Good commentary Dracula. I agree 100%
I won't bore you with WInston Churchill, but what is your alternative, and how can we get there? Believe me, I have great sympathy for anarchist/libertarian ideals, but no one has ever given me a sound answer to those questions.
If you're looking for a pancea that prevents crime, apparently the democratic state isn't it.
But perhaps it is after all. Perhaps your state just isn't really a democracy, as much as a representative republic. Switzerland has direct democracy, and they have a constitutional amendment forbidding service in foreign wars.
They are also all members of the militia, and have governemnt issued rifles which they are required to be proficient with.
A good idea, even though there is no need for the requirements or the government issue material.
Fusion weapons?
Gone Fission,
By a shady, wadey pool ...
Well put.
"Effective government takes planning, continual hard work, and the adjustment of renewal and reform."
Then, you'd better take those responsibilities away from the civil servants working for the government.
To reduce the argument to "no government vs bad government" is hyperbole. That is not the debate going on. The debate is about the proper role of good government in a free market, not how to get rid of government.
Government has a purpose in the free market by creating a level playing field, enforcing the law equally via a set of predefined rules rather than by arbitrary rules and whims, enforcing contracts and preventing one entity or group from exploiting or coercing another.
Instead, we have crony governments that effectively create a monopoly on commerce (via excessive regulation and taxation) while granting exceptions or privileges for the highest bidder. That is not a free market and that is not the proper role of good government. We haven't had good government policy nor free markets in a long time.
Lastly, the concept of a gold standard, as conveyed by the author, is pathetic. Fixing a dollar value to gold is not a gold standard. Central banks have no role in a gold standard either. Allowing the market to set the price of a goods in grams of gold is more like it.
>To reduce the argument to "no government vs bad government" is hyperbole. That is not the debate going on.
I maintain that no government is the best form of government: organizations that obtain payments or interfere in other's peaceful voluntary exchanges, and do so using coercion (including threats of violence and imprisonment) are essentially criminal and they damage human welfare.
>The debate is about the proper role of good government in a free market, not how to get rid of government.
If you just assume that government is necessary, then you're intellectually handicapping yourself and closing off insights that you'd otherwise have access to. That's too bad.
And your statement is self-contradictory in that governments by definition cannot have a role in a free market. Governments use coercion to obtain funds rather than solely depending on voluntary exchange, which is the hallmark of a free market. Thus governments can deal with a free market but by definition can't part of one.
Show me a path to a free prosperous world with no government that does not immediately evolve into warlords / mad max, tin pot kings and mass slaughter and I'll go there with you.
Meanwhile, on planet earth, populated with social animals known as human beings, we need to figure out how to deal with the massive concentrations of power and complexity that are about to snuff out everything.
>Show me a path to a free prosperous world with no government that does not immediately evolve into warlords / mad max, tin pot kings and mass slaughter and I'll go there with you.
We already have warlords and mass slaughter. And I bet even in the mad max world in Bartertown that Master Blaster doesn't take 40% of your income to provide services you don't want or need.
I can't promise you a utopia, only that the laws of economic science show that a monopoly government providing security and arbitration services using coercively obtained funds will provide them at lower quality and higher prices than competing entrepeneurs facing market disciplines.
There will always be murderers and rapists. You can never wipe out crime, but you can always oppose and act to reduce it. You don't have to accept crime as a normal thing just because it's inevitable. Likewise, humanity may always be burdened governments. But you can still oppose and act to reduce them.
"And I bet even in the mad max world in Bartertown that Master Blaster doesn't take 40% of your income to provide services you don't want or need."
The mad max world leaves you to defend your own propery rights. All of your human or monetary capital would be spent protecting this. It would reduce the ability for capital to flow to other profitable ventures.
I'm not sure you actually watched Beyond Thunderdome.
In that movie, the people of Bartertown outsourced their personal defense responsibilities to Entity and her crew. This was ALMOST free market. It would have been free market if there were more than one option for that protection, and preferably more than one option for energy production.
In real anarcho-capitalistic societies, the people would likely be a part of their own militia, and would have to carry social insurance in case they stole, raped, committed fraud, murdered, or committed anything else that said insurance company considered a crime. There is not much violence between people in this setup, because initiating violence is VERY EXPENSIVE. Similarly, people drive cars, but they don't treat the roads like bumper cars because their insurance rates would go up if they did (not to mention the fact that they might die). WIth this very inexpensive setup in place, some 95% of capital would flow toward productive ventures (the other say 5% going toward payment of social insurance and maintenence of your own weapons if you choose to keep them).
The world is fractal in nature. I series of very simple rules creates very complex results. All you need to do is recognize natural law in an orderly manner, and you will create a civilization that grows in economic power until even the poorest live far better than the greatest kings of old. Fail to recognize it, or erode that recognition, and society will decay into chaos.
And for the record, anarchy is a society of free peoples. Chaos is a society of slaves who have lost their master. There is an extreme difference, though the latter can lead to the former. But more often, slaves prefer to remain slaves, which leads us straight back to where we were.
So should we disband the US military and police and give the job to Xe? who's going to pay them? what will happen to you if you don't pay them?
Just because GE doesn't pin a medal to it's chest that say's "I'm the government" doesn't mean it isn't effectively the government. Who writes the laws?
Man's nature writes the laws. Just as I have arms and legs I have a natural right to do as I will as long as I do not hurt another person or deprive them of their property. I have a right to defend myself in proportion to any threat made against my person or property. That is the extant of the law.
Why would I hire Xe (Blackwater) for protection? I know hundreds of people who are reasonable, hard working and know how to defend themselves and others. What in the world makes you believe that in a free market the only choice would be to hire Xe? Do you chose to willfully misunderstand the world around you?
Why don't you go live in your paradise, Somalia.
I'm an American who loves freedom. You're not. You get out.
You're a lying political whore. You get out. You hate freedom, and you hate America. Get your ass back to Somalia where you and and your brothers rule.
Oh. I get it -- you hate black people.
Your obliviousness to the existence of other organizations than "government" is remarkable.
Humans organize. Organizations wield power. The organization may provide benefits and freedoms, or may be harmful and oppressive.
The human conundrum is to form organizations for the benefits, and yet avoid and curtail their destructive pitfalls. It appears to be a Sisyphean project, to be repeated over and again.
Downsized government(s) will be even less able to resist the special interests and corruption from global corporations, war merchants, environmental despoilers, criminal syndicates, and even religious organizations. Perhaps you should consider that it is mega corporations and an influential wealthy elite that needs to be curtailed, not so much government per se.
Let's stop repeating the same mistake and embrace voluntary associations. All persons should be free to interact as long as other individuals are neither physically harmed nor deprived of their property.
Government is an impediment to peace and freedom. My government encourages me to hate and fear Muslims. But I can get along just fine with the Pakistani cashier at the gas station. The "human conundrum" you speak of is actually a government conundrum. How does one form a government in order to regulate imperfect people when the people running the government are themselves imperfect?
People can either get along with each other or walk away. Government draws "a line in the sand" and demands compliance rather than voluntary cooperation. This inevitably leads to conflict whereas voluntary agreements are by definition peaceful acts.
"All persons should be free to interact as long as other individuals are neither physically harmed nor deprived of their property." - CrockettAlmanac.com
You state a generalized ideal which is the vague equivalent of "let's all just get along".
The problem is that some will "voluntarily" (or not) form associations and organizations to seize "property" and harm others. The notion that absent government, no such abusive organizations will be formed is naive.
Worse, you introduce a loaded and presumably biased notion about property rights without considering who is to "own" what, and what may be entailed by whatever property "rights" are granted.
Government's only source of funding is to seize the assets of others. Should we let government seize our assets so that they can protect us against those who would seize our assets? That doesn't sound like a particularly effective strategy to me.
I can look after myself far better than the government can. The main impediment to my freedom is government itself.
I totally agree. Further, EVERYTHING looks to grow, and that growth leads to ever-increasing concentrations of power. It's NOT just about govt, but about ALL things that get BIG. I'm sure you're all tired of me saying it, but, BIG=FAIL.
Those that think that corporations or other things will dominate if govt would go away are missing that it's BECAUSE of govt that nearly ALL of these entities have their power (at such scale).
Can we not fully understand the concept that power corrupts? Lest people continue to miss the FUNDAMENTAL (and, I'd argue, ONLY tenent) of anarchism, it's NO CONCENTRATION OF POWER. Yeah... power will attempt to concentrate, such as history has clearly shown us; not until we educate ourselves that such aims are bad we will be continue to ride the same merry-go-round right into mankind's grave.
Again, fundamentals are where we should focus, not on secondary stuff (which all of the regular debates seems to only dwell upon). Hack at the trunk, not the branches!
I totally agree with everything you just said. Surprised?
I didn't gain much from reading this article. Really, if you want to learn economics, read Mises; if you want to learn about the nature of governments, read Rothbard. Learn from the Learned who have already done the work. Don't reinvent the square wheel.
"This notion that government and regulation is the problem is true only to the extent that government has become weakened and corrupted by gross abuses"
This neglects the fact that even a government run by angelic beings will be a monopoly provider of services and will provide them at lower quality and higher prices than competing entrepeneurs facing market disciplines could. This neglects the fact that the governments by definition engage in taxation which is a violation of property rights akin to robbery. This neglects the fact that governments comprise actual individuals grasping for personal advancement. This neglects the fact that the most immoral, incompetent, power-hungry, lying sociopaths are attracted to government offices. This neglects empirical reality which shows that governments cause millions of deaths and hamper human progress through corrupted economic pseudoscience and ill-informed economic policies.
It might, and you would find that side as compelling as you say.
The problem you ignore, however, is what the author describes as the "real" world.
In that world, contrary to your axiom, the most power hungry psychopaths are not necessarily attracted to government. By no means is that the case. What kind of pussified, lame-ass, cheap pathetic psychopathoc bitch would be attracted to government when there is so much more real power--buying and selling both people and things--to be had in business success? Not to mention a whole lotta difference in the money.
Now I'm not suggesting that their aren't some totally lame-assed, power hungry psychopaths who care alot less about the money. They clearly exist . . . and have found their place in government, at this stage of the game.
But we're quite late in the game. A game that was set up to favor corporations--ever greater concentrations of economic power predicated upon literal mountains of OPM. That's some serious advantage. That's the kind of money that buys your government. And thereby guarantees evil.
At this stage of the game, it doesn't seem worth the time to get fully invested in only one side of the equation. We face both evils today.
But one side of the equations is designed to be held accountable by the public. The other, of course, is accountable to no one. Even today.
I'm for balance.
"What kind of pussified, lame-ass, cheap pathetic psychopathoc bitch would be attracted to government when there is so much more real power--buying and selling both people and things--to be had in business success?"
I think you answered your own question ;-)
I run in to them just about every day. At this point, it is very much populated by those who cannot make a living anywhere else. I have sat in a large room, representing my company, by myself, the meeting being video taped and even at 20 to 1 they cannot make an important decision between them whereas I do whether forced to or not. Thats how bad it is.
"We face both evils today.
But one side of the equations is designed to be held accountable by the public. The other, of course, is accountable to no one."
They cannot be held accountable by the public if the public does not know what is going on.
And yes, I desire balance too.
certainly govts can and do err in the way you describe, but they are not the only ones that coerce, not the only way to form a monopoly. If one rich guy ones whole town and runs whole show like a king...he may not be a government, he many be simply a king, but the result is same as govt corrupted by that one guy. He does not have to "tax" people, he can simply pay them little and charge them lots for food. If someone tries to grow his own food, he can kill him or punish him. Govts have done this, but men with money and power can do this without govts.
If people do not form some sort of union, there is no state to corrupt, but there is also no uinon to protect, and richest, must thugish guy can easily win. Banding together, form alliances so the most good can come to the most people, is course often chosen, whatever you want to call it is is a state, a governement. The other option is to cede the power to a small minority of people. Someone will be in power, the only question is how much/many checks and balances from general population will placed on that power.
People can and do protect themselves through voluntary associations. Government can only replace the bad rich man who kills everyone with bad politicians who will not be adverse to killing everyone if it furthers their power. We all know this.
Obama killed innocent people. Bush killed innocent people. Clinton killed innocent people. Bush killed innocent people. And so on.
I'm not picky about the types of unions people make, call them what you want, but if they are completely volunteer at all times, it is not much of an union. If people do not unite for common good and if they do not agree to subject themselves to the ruling of an commonly agreed upon authority, then some one, other than the people, will have power with absolutely no democratic controls.
(sorry this comment was meant to reply to comment string, but it got lost and is now all alone, looking stupid)
I'm not picky about the types of unions people make, call them what you want, but if they are completely volunteer at all times, it is not much of an union.
Voluntary associations are always stronger than forced assocaitions. If a man forces himself upon his wife when she is indisposed that does not make their union stronger. Quite the opposite. The same holds true for other relationships. If I forced you to be my friend would we have a stronger bond than you have with your actual friends?