Public goods: Fallacy or not? Also, production of security

[Augustine2004]

Michael S. Rozeff in an essay http://www.lewrockwell.com/rozeff/rozeff202.html says that each of us has a choice between self-government and government (the US Federal government, for example). In fact, it’s not really a choice, for each of us do have to self-govern himself to some extent anyway. The question is how much external government do we need, if any? First he says that limited representative government has failed us. A long paragraph attempts to justify that assertion. Second, which is the main purpose of the essay, he discusses several reasons why limited representative government has failed us. Some of the reasons are these: 1) The government didn’t stay limited. There are several reasons why. 2) Each of us knows better than everyone else how to better his own welfare. (I don’t quite agree, but I think he’s speaking of adults). 3) Each of us would have to tell his government representative what he wants or requires, and the costs of transmitting such knowledge would be too high. Elections are too infrequent and too limiting to permit the necessary transfer of knowledge. 4) External government is in all cases power and the enjoyment of power. 5) We don’t need external government to make us cooperate; we can and do cooperate naturally (not always true, to be sure, but that happens often enough we can dispense with external government). A case in point is the existence itself of external government everywhere. It cannot exist unless people did cooperate ‘naturally’ to make it possible.

One point that he didn’t seem to make quite clear is that unless we did govern ourselves sufficiently well, external government would not be possible. Bad anarchy or something like that would obtain anyway. To be sure, if nearly everyone decided that he will govern himself according to Maybury’s precepts and the tit-for-tat principle, then only the Biblically-prescribed government would be possible.

[Mr Arkadin]

I don't understand. Of course you have a monopoly on your land, because only you can sell (all or parts of) the land. No one else can sell it or rent it or whatever, without your consent. And, indeed, this monopoly will continue to exist only if your property rights are protected--that is, only if your monopoly on that land is maintained by the use of force. But it is right to forcefully maintain this monopoly, because it is your right.

This isn't monopoly it is called ownership- the unilateral right to use your property in any way you so wish if it doesn't affect the physical integrity of other people's property. You may call this monopoly but it, as said time and again, removes its proper meaning.

Agreed. (Assuming rights are protected.)
And if someone purchased your land from you, then they would now be the rightful monopolists of it. (Just as is the case regarding the sale of any monopoly.)

No they would be the owners.

I don't see why. If we supposed that no one ever used force--no one ever infringed on anyone else's rights, then I would still have a monopoly on my own property, because I would have exclusive control of my own property. No initiatory force having been used.

Again your making ownership= monopoly.

But some people do violate the rights of others. Therefore it may become necessary to protect my property rights (maintain my rightful monopoly) by force, against an aggressor. But that is not initiatory force. The monopoly is being maintained by force, but not initiatory force.

The property is being protected by force.

I'm sorry, but you are the one who first made the comparison. I said I had no problem with U.S. and U.K. being separate countries, and you suggested that, then, I should have no problem with Market Anarchy, since it's the same case with individual land owners. You challenged me to say how they are different.

My point was the absence of a final arbiter between them existed between states as well as individual land owners not that individual land owners were states.

It seems you have changed your position on that matter. So, you tell me. What is the difference? How is your maintaining exclusive control of the use of force in your own land not the same thing? Or is that not what you mean by anarchy?

This will hopefully clear this up- Market Anarchism exists where there is the absence of a territorial monopolist of arbitration. Monopoly defined as legally privilege which implies that body can do things qualitatively different than other property owners. Therefore since all property owners can protect their property then there is no monopoly. This only exists when there is an institutional structure, which must be deemed legitimate or people would treat them as common criminals, which extends their jurisdiction over other peoples property. This would rule out competing law providers in the area of their illegitimate jurisdiction.

How do you propose to keep Market Anarchist protection firms minimal? That is, how do you keep them from infringing on rights? Because they will lose customers and thus funding? What does the firm care--it can start stealing the funding it needs. Thus, ultimately, the only way to keep them from infringing on rights is the use of force by others to protect rights. This will only happen with a well-educated, wise, and well-armed citizenry. But if that is the case, they'll keep a government minimal.
What I'm trying to say is that any problem of inability to keep a minimal government minimal will also be present at least as greatly in the case of Market Anarchy.

You keep them minimal by having real competition rather than monopoly (my definition as above) which is necessitated by an anti statist mindset of the population. As for a more precise answer how it would work it is most probable that security firms would be paid for via insurance companies. And since violence is expensive this type of activity would be more expensive than under a state since you can't devolve the costs onto people not your customers. Further with insurance providing the services they will give discounts to those who take certain precautions such as alarms, security lights etc so it is perfectly conceivable they would give discounts to gun owners which will help to foster a well armed militia. This developed in more detail by Hoppe, again, here Start reading from page 345 of the PDF not the book pages.

[joel]

There are more important matters to argue about than the meanings of somewhat uncommon words.

I don't want to argue the meaning of words. We can always substitute a different term. If we can't agree on the meaning of "monopoly", fine, I'll stop using the word. I'll use "exclusive control" when that is what I mean.

Have you yet figured out a way to demonstrate that we should expect our governments to do more good than bad in the long run? I believe I gave reasons, both theoretical and historical, to expect the opposite. If you can’t come up with any counter-reasons . . .

First, I don't think you answered my question before: is rights protection vs infringement the (sole) criterion we agree to when we speak of "good vs bad"? Or you do have other criteria in mind?

To prevent misunderstanding, I still want, at the local level, government, as long as it’s limited to punishing evil-doers and praising good citizens (defense against large armies will have to be considered separately, though).

Oh, this is the first time I've heard you say this. This whole time, when you have spoken of "oversize government" have you been referring to the size of the geographical area?
Because I'd assumed you were referring to the amount of things that the government tries to control (e.g., wages, health care, food, etc.), and the extent of that control.

[joel]

Again your making ownership= monopoly.

Actually, no I'm not. I said I won't use the word "monopoly" any more, so, if I substitute, you are suggesting that I am making ownership = exclusive control. I'm not. Aggressors can take away your exclusive control, but not your ownership. (For example, if someone steals something of yours, then you still own it, but the thief happens to have possession of your property.)

The property is being protected by force.

Not necessarily. The property itself may be in no danger. In general, you are protecting (by force) your (exclusive) ability to use the property as you wish.

My point was the absence of a final arbiter between them existed between states as well as individual land owners not that individual land owners were states.

Okay, point taken.

Therefore since all property owners can protect their property then there is no monopoly. This only exists when there is an institutional structure, which must be deemed legitimate or people would treat them as common criminals, which extends their jurisdiction over other peoples property. This would rule out competing law providers in the area of their illegitimate jurisdiction.

Exactly. My prior complaint was having multiple legislators in one geographical area, both having jurisdiction over the same things.

So, let me see if I understand you correctly. Suppose there is a wealthy land-owner Alice. She owns a large piece of land on which many other people live. These people work for Alice, are paid a wage (minus the price for rent). Under Market Anarchy, do you see Alice having sole jurisdiction of the use of force in her land or do you wish to see competing legislators over this same land?

You keep them minimal by having real competition rather than monopoly (my definition as above)

I think you missed my point, which is that market competition is insufficient to keep them minimal. You can't (and must not try to) deal with the aggressor company (which steals its funding) by market competition. Rather, the other companies or individuals have to use force against them. But that's the same way you keep a government minimal--an armed citizenry who threaten the use of force against a non-minimal government.

As Noah Webster said, "The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive."

My main point here is that it is only force, not market competition, that can stop injustice.

One difference is that in the case of government, the people only have to worry about keeping one arbitration-provider in check, instead of many.

[Augustine2004]

http://www.mises.org/etexts/HHHonMNR.asp Hoppe on Rothbard - a good summary of Austrian School economics. I’ve learned some new stuff, such as the application of the idea of pareto superiority to an analysis of the M world (my terminology, not Hoppe’s) and to the non-M world. As you may expect, Rothbard concluded that the former world is Pareto-superior whereas the latter is not.

Also as a result of the article, I offer a definition of legal acts by the government: It’s an act you’re not permitted to defend yourself against. If you do try to defend yourself against a legal act, you’re a criminal! Criminy!

Rothbard used the word ‘monopoly’ not in the strict sense of a single seller of a good in the market. I wish, because of Joel’s questions and critiques, that Rothbard had used another phrase. He defined the state as that organization which possess either or both (in actual fact almost always both) of the following characteristics: 1) it acquires its revenues [I think that includes control partial or whole of the resources of its realm] by physical coercion (taxation) [what about chicanery, deficit spending, and fiat money?]; and 2) it achieves exclusive control of force and of decision-making power over its realm.

I don’t know this is a good definition of the State. After all even now Americans are permitted to defend ourselves using force and chicanery; it’s not illegal. Moreover they do have some decision-making power on their own.

Interesting, is it not, that Hoppe claims that the term ‘monopoly’ is practically meaningless. I agree.

Note the argument that a big cartel cannot develop in the market because it runs into economic-calculation difficulties.


Michael S. Rozeff in an essay http://www.lewrockwell.com/rozeff/rozeff202.html says that each of us has a choice between self-government and government (the US Federal government, for example). In fact, it’s not really a choice, for each of us does have to self-govern himself to some extent anyway. The question is how much external government do we need, if any? First he says that limited representative government has failed us. A long paragraph attempts to justify that assertion. Second, which is the main purpose of the essay, he discusses several reasons why limited representative government has failed us. Some of the reasons are these: 1) The government didn’t stay limited. There are several reasons why. 2) Each of us knows better than everyone else how to better his own welfare. (I don’t quite agree, but I think he’s speaking of adults). 3) Each of us would have to tell his government representative what he wants or requires, and the costs of transmitting such knowledge would be too high. Elections are too infrequent and too limiting to permit the necessary transfer of knowledge. 4) External government is in all cases power and the enjoyment of power. 5) We don’t need external government to make us cooperate; we can and do cooperate naturally (not always true, to be sure, but that happens often enough we can dispense with external government). A case in point is the existence itself of external government everywhere. It cannot exist unless people did cooperate ‘naturally’ to make it possible.

One point that he didn’t seem to make quite clear is that unless we did govern ourselves sufficiently well, external government would not be possible. Bad anarchy or something like that would obtain anyway. To be sure, if nearly everyone decided that he will govern himself according to Maybury’s precepts and the tit-for-tat principle, then only the Biblically-prescribed government would be possible.

[Augustine2004]

First, I don't think you answered my question before: is rights protection vs infringement the (sole) criterion we agree to when we speak of "good vs bad"? Or you do have other criteria in mind?

I meant general good and general bad. What is the good of a given government act? What bad? Which is greater? (If the good matched the bad, then the action was worthless and ought not have been undertaken, because it wasted time and maybe there were better actions that could have been undertaken instead.)

Oh, this is the first time I've heard you say this. This whole time, when you have spoken of "oversize government" have you been referring to the size of the geographical area?
Because I'd assumed you were referring to the amount of things that the government tries to control (e.g., wages, health care, food, etc.), and the extent of that control.

Have you forgotten the small government thread already? Anyway, let me try another designation. M government is government that does nothing but to punish evil-doers and praise good citizens. You can construe ‘M” as Maybury or as Biblically Mandated, if you wish. Non-M government does more than M government, such as to enforce environmental laws, maintain a standing army, or run prisons.

[joel]

I meant general good and general bad. What is the good of a given government act? What bad? Which is greater? (If the good matched the bad, then the action was worthless and ought not have been undertaken, because it wasted time and maybe there were better actions that could have been undertaken instead.)

But suppose we thought that income and wealth equity (or universal health care, or whatever) is a greater good than justice. Then we'd say, yes, obviously an oppressive government can produce greater good than bad, if it produces income and wealth equity, because that good would outweigh any injustice required to accomplish it.

Also the answer will depend on whether the collective is valued higher than the individual or vice versa.

You see what I'm saying? We have to be more specific about what is good and bad (or better or worse) in order to answer your question.

M government is government that does nothing but to punish evil-doers and praise good citizens. You can construe ‘M” as Maybury or as Biblically Mandated, if you wish. Non-M government does more than M government, such as to enforce environmental laws, maintain a standing army, or run prisons.

Do prisons not fall under the category of punishing evil-doers?

But anyway, it seems like what you are arguing is that we should have local governments, but not a federal government. That is, that we should have governments over small geographical areas, but not over large geographical areas. Is that right? Is that the alternative you are offering? (As opposed to Arkadin who is arguing anarchy vs having any government at all.)

[Augustine2004]

But suppose we thought that income and wealth equity (or universal health care, or whatever) is a greater good than justice. Then we'd say, yes, obviously an oppressive government can produce greater good than bad, if it produces income and wealth equity, because that good would outweigh any injustice required to accomplish it.

Also the answer will depend on whether the collective is valued higher than the individual or vice versa.

You see what I'm saying? We have to be more specific about what is good and bad (or better or worse) in order to answer your question.

Everyone has his own notion of what’s good and what’s bad. To someone boredom may be bad but sadistic acts may be good. So, like those Clockwork Orange guys he goes out and [deleted].

How do we sum up those notions of good and those notions of bad? How do we compare that aggregate of good and that aggregate of bad so that we can determine which is greater? It’s impossible. For one thing someone would have to read individual minds perfectly and in one instant. For another, one would need to be free to act in order to express his notions of good and bad and for others to know them as well as they could.

Do prisons not fall under the category of punishing evil-doers?

I'm not sure. I think sentencing evil-doers is more like what the Bible meant. Auctioning people off to slavedom. For example, if a poor person steals an expensive car and subsequently totals it, he is sentenced to work as a servant to some wealthy family until he earns enough to pay for the car. An auction is held . . . . Maybe use eBay. Come to think of it, we do need temporary holding places, i.e., jails.

But anyway, it seems like what you are arguing is that we should have local governments, but not a federal government. That is, that we should have governments over small geographical areas, but not over large geographical areas. Is that right? Is that the alternative you are offering? (As opposed to Arkadin who is arguing anarchy vs having any government at all.)

yes. The areas need not be fixed, though. A judge may usually work in an area but be asked to do some work in a neighboring area. I'm not sure about defense of many local areas that comprise a large area, though. How would those local governments be involved in that? How would they cooperate?

[Augustine2004]

AW said in the ‘Why we must stay in Iraq’ thread that ‘totally eliminating government from even the most basic functions like policing and the armed forces is insane & will never happen.’ Http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...&postcount=396

He didn’t give reasons why he thought so.

Perhaps he meant that we libertarians would never be able to persuade the people to stop believing in the State. That is possible, but that’s defeatism.

However, I think I will try to explain once again why it’s better to have free market provision of security.

Take police services. It’s not one thing, it’s actually an aggregate of many services: business patrols, traffic control, fugitive pursuit, evil-doer arrest, premises guarding, jail operation, etc. We do have private guards, bounty hunters, private jails, etc., even now.

As for defense, if a collection of small areas had no overall government, families would tend to arm themselves well, probably much better than even now. In addition, insurance companies with coverage of large amounts of property would be naturally be defense-minded. So, they would either set up their own defense organizations, or contract with private firms to provide defense services over large areas.

Perhaps AW is concerned with intelligence on lands beyond the collection of small areas. So, too, would the insurance companies. They would buy newspapers, set up their own intelligence organizations, or contract with private firms to provide intelligence.

So far I’ve only shown possibility, but not why we should think free market defense would be better. However, I wish AW would try to think of some good objections so that we can know why he won’t buy our arguments.

[joel]

Everyone has his own notion of what’s good and what’s bad. To someone boredom may be bad but sadistic acts may be good.
...
How do we sum up those notions of good and those notions of bad? How do we compare that aggregate of good and that aggregate of bad so that we can determine which is greater? It’s impossible. For one thing someone would have to read individual minds perfectly and in one instant. For another, one would need to be free to act in order to express his notions of good and bad and for others to know them as well as they could.

See, we already have a basic difference here, because I believe that we can rationally determine and discuss this. Unlike you, I do not think it is impossible. If you think it is impossible, then we can't address your original question of whether government would do more bad than good.

yes. The areas need not be fixed, though. A judge may usually work in an area but be asked to do some work in a neighboring area. I'm not sure about defense of many local areas that comprise a large area, though. How would those local governments be involved in that? How would they cooperate?

I think for such a discussion, we ought to first analyze the arguments of the Federalist Papers.

[Mr Arkadin]

Actually, no I'm not. I said I won't use the word "monopoly" any more, so, if I substitute, you are suggesting that I am making ownership = exclusive control. I'm not.

Thank you for clearing that up.

Aggressors can take away your exclusive control, but not your ownership. (For example, if someone steals something of yours, then you still own it, but the thief happens to have possession of your property.)

Agreed.

Not necessarily. The property itself may be in no danger. In general, you are protecting (by force) your (exclusive) ability to use the property as you wish.

We maybe getting into semantics but IMO the right of self defence is built into the concept of ownership- defence isn't extrinsic to ownership but intrinsic.

Okay, point taken.

I'm getting somewhere. Yay!!

Exactly. My prior complaint was having multiple legislators in one geographical area, both having jurisdiction over the same things.

So, let me see if I understand you correctly. Suppose there is a wealthy land-owner Alice. She owns a large piece of land on which many other people live. These people work for Alice, are paid a wage (minus the price for rent). Under Market Anarchy, do you see Alice having sole jurisdiction of the use of force in her land or do you wish to see competing legislators over this same land?

Alice does have sole rights of jurisdiction in this area since she owns it. However suppose within this land there is a significant population of Jews and Muslims she could therefore give a choice of judicial functions Talmud or Sharia to keep the population happy. If there was a dispute between a Jew and a Muslim she could allow the the Talmudic courts to come to a compromise deal with the Sharia court. She could allow as many different providers she wished to allow.

The deals between different different land owners will be analogous to that of the USA and UK and common laws will arise naturally.

I think you missed my point, which is that market competition is insufficient to keep them minimal. You can't (and must not try to) deal with the aggressor company (which steals its funding) by market competition. Rather, the other companies or individuals have to use force against them. But that's the same way you keep a government minimal--an armed citizenry who threaten the use of force against a non-minimal government.

Self defence is a market function since it attempts to uphold property rights. The difference though between the state and private firms is ideological- people perceive the state to be legitimate monopolist otherwise it would just be an outlaw firm. And being a monopolist the cost of justice will rise or the quality will decrease. Further the ability to tax allows the costs of an action to be passed onto other people. With an outlaw defence provider the costs of funding the provider will rise, since aggression is expensive, and will lose customers who will not pay for their behaviour. This is completely absence with a state and there is no market competition. This financial restraint along with other properly trained mercenaries will keep outlaw firms in check better than one with a solely general militia and no financial restraint.

As Noah Webster said, "The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive."

The fact is America continually enacts unjust laws and has perpetually especially since the illegitimate constitution. Further due the ideological acceptance of even a minimal amount of aggression the question is no longer aggression vs non-aggression but how much aggression. You have therefore entered the slippery slope which leads the government to perpetually grow to inflict ever more aggression.

One difference is that in the case of government, the people only have to worry about keeping one arbitration-provider in check, instead of many.

You miss the fact that these other arbitration agencies keep each other in check and have the financial restraint the state does not have.

[Zeluvia]

The other day on CNN I was watching a report.

The US is responsible for about 80% of the worlds Food Aid. Since the falling dollar and rising energy prices, our aid has been reduced about 40%. There have been food riots in about 12 countries or so.

The commentator said that riots for food could be a destabilizing force in some countries, and making sure people were fed was a matter of "security".

What do you think about this Augustine? Is making sure everyone has enough food a matter of "security"?

[Mr Arkadin]

The other day on CNN I was watching a report.

The US is responsible for about 80% of the worlds Food Aid. Since the falling dollar and rising energy prices, our aid has been reduced about 40%. There have been food riots in about 12 countries or so.

The commentator said that riots for food could be a destabilizing force in some countries, and making sure people were fed was a matter of "security".

What do you think about this Augustine? Is making sure everyone has enough food a matter of "security"?

The current rise in food prices have a few causes. Firstly a lot of grain is being put into biofuel production which means a rise in demand for grain in general and a reduction in grain used for food. Further the fall in the dollar is caused solely by the Fed's inflation which is hardly a free market institution. Historically all food riots, for example the bread riots before the French revolution, were caused by inflation.

In a sense having enough food is a matter of security but as we have seen the statist provision either leads to huge shortages, al a direct socialism, or overproduction due to state subsidies.

[joel]

We maybe getting into semantics but IMO the right of self defence is built into the concept of ownership- defence isn't extrinsic to ownership but intrinsic.

I agree. Also, just to clarify, your right to use your property as you wish is intrinsic to ownership. But your ability to use your property as you wish is not. Your ability must be protected from aggressors. But since you have the right to use it as you wish, then you have an intrinsic right to protect your ability. (In turn, your ability to protect it is not intrinsic, etc.)

Alice does have sole rights of jurisdiction in this area since she owns it. However suppose within this land there is a significant population of Jews and Muslims she could therefore give a choice of judicial functions Talmud or Sharia to keep the population happy. If there was a dispute between a Jew and a Muslim she could allow the the Talmudic courts to come to a compromise deal with the Sharia court. She could allow as many different providers she wished to allow.

But she could also restrict the choice to 1 if she wants, right?

[edited to add]

You miss the fact that these other arbitration agencies keep each other in check and have the financial restraint the state does not have.

As for the financial restraint, I don't disagree with making the government voluntarily funded, as I said before, so that argument won't work here.

As for keeping each other in check: Again, I must emphasize that it is not market competitors that will keep outlaws in check. Rather, it is individuals and groups using force. You don't need rival market competitors you need militia groups, or perhaps just The Militia (the armed body of citizens). If these other groups will keep all outlaw firms in check, then why would they not also keep a single organization (such as a government) in check?
[/edited to add]

[Mr Arkadin]

I agree. Also, just to clarify, your right to use your property as you wish is intrinsic to ownership. But your ability to use your property as you wish is not. Your ability must be protected from aggressors. But since you have the right to use it as you wish, then you have an intrinsic right to protect your ability. (In turn, your ability to protect it is not intrinsic, etc.)

Sounds fine.

But she could also restrict the choice to 1 if she wants, right?

Of course.

As for the financial restraint, I don't disagree with making the government voluntarily funded, as I said before, so that argument won't work here.

How do you propose to fund the government voluntarily? Suppose I am within a statist jurisdiction and will not fund them because they're immoral. What happens if I need to go to arbitration- I can't go else where, because it is legally barred, so I must pay a unilateral fee or otherwise justice is denied. That is pretty much theft.

As for keeping each other in check: Again, I must emphasize that it is not market competitors that will keep outlaws in check. Rather, it is individuals and groups using force. You don't need rival market competitors you need militia groups, or perhaps just The Militia (the armed body of citizens). If these other groups will keep all outlaw firms in check, then why would they not also keep a single organization (such as a government) in check?
[/edited to add]

Well considering you accept there will be a financial restraint in your ultra-minarchist state (which I don't believe but anyway) then it must be there in market anarchy. Further even if you think it won't be empirically large you can't deny its existence. Militia's are good don't get me wrong; they will actually be promoted in market anarchy as the Hoppe article I cited a few posts ago shows.

There is one huge difference between the state and an outlaw firm- its ideological. With the outlaw firm the distinction made by the population is aggression vs non-aggression as well as free competition and monopoly. With the state it is varying degrees of aggression and acceptance of monopoly. And since it is decided that the state is legitimate doling out aggression there is no non arbitrary stopping point for its aggression and its monopoly.

Contrary to what you wrote above inviolate property rights and free competition in goods is the optimal position in this fallen world.