Rand on Government

I used to be a pretty strong advocate of Ayn Rand's Objectivist philosophy, but there is one thing I still cannot wrap my head around.  As far as I can remember, she based her political philosophy, rightly so, on an axiom of non-aggression -- no one should initiate the use of force against another.  But how then did she arrive at her advocacy for a government with a monopolistic power to use physical force?  What happens if someone refuses to participate in the government system?  Are they to be forced?  

Today's Act of Mental Heresy

Today, I would like you to commit serial thoughtcrime.  Every time you encounter the word "government", I would like you to replace it with "organized crime" or an appropriate synonym.  If you hear "leaders", or better yet, "public servants", replace it with "boss" or some equivalent.

If you think this is silly or if it does not reveal any insight into our world, feel free to go back to your regular way of thinking tomorrow.
Disclaimer:  To protect the delicate humors of your friends, neighbors and coworkers, be advised not to make any utterances of your revelations.  Instead, provide your thoughts in the comments below.  

Imagine

Statist Newspaper Headline:

Federal Agents Bust Hells Angels on Drug Charges

Anarchist Newspaper Headline:

Hells Angels Lose Battle with Rival Gang.  

Imagine If Intellectual Property Applied to Football

Football is an intensely competitive and dynamic game.  Every season brings changes in offensive and
defensive formations and plays.  Occasionally a young upstart coach at a junior college will come up with a new scheme that, in as little as a couple of seasons, will completely revolutionize the game.  The evolution of the sport is made possible by the rampant copying of one's competitors.  This is what makes the game so much fun to follow.  What works like magic this week may not work at all next week, once one's opponents have watched the game film.  What passes for offensive genius this season may next season be widely exposed for its fundamental weakness.

Imagine for a moment if plays and formations could be patented.  What effect would that have on the game?  An offensive coordinator would come up with a new play, document the design in an overly verbose and incomprehensible document, and wait for the NFL Patent Office to release their verdict.  Finally, 3 seasons later, the coach can incorporate his new play into the offense, or he could try to license or sell the rights to the play to another team.  Perhaps it just does not work with his current crop of players.  Once a defense sees the new play in action, they will have to scour their portfolio for a countermeasure that they think will work in defending it.  If nothing is found, they may have to resort to purchasing the rights to one.  The could of course take the time to invent their own play and check it against current patents issued, lest they land themselves in court for trespassing on the intellectual space of some coach who came up with a too similar blitz 12 seasons earlier.

It is difficult to project exactly how a football patent process would effect the game, but I submit without equivocation that it would put a major damper on that element which makes the game so much fun, innovation.  This is because the incentive of the game would be bastardized.  Instead of just doing whatever it takes to reach the goal line without holding, clipping and the like, the coaching staff must now do so while avoiding the patent courts.   The focus would be shifted from coming up with new plays to protecting the plays already in the team's portfolio.

Is this a perfect analogy to intellectual property to be applied outside the realm of sports?  Probably not.  But I hope what is clear by now is that the absence of legal protection of ideas does not present a disincentive to innovate as is so often leveled in defense of intellectual property.  Being the first to the field or to the market with a new plan, or even an improved implementation of an old plan, is all the incentive that is needed, in life or in sport, to be inventive.  The takeaway that is just as important is that, in the absence of legal protection from copying, one must not rest on one's laurels but must - gasp - keep innovating to keep moving the ball forward.

Marble Wall Coverings

I've been in the homes of some pretty wealthy people.  They weren't billionaires by any means, but they are well off.  I have seen enormous rooms with unnecessarily high ceilings and televisions bordering on the absurd.  I have been in swanky, downtown office buildings of hugely profitable companies.  I've seen some nice amenities is what I'm trying to say.  Today I was in the county Marriage License Bureau - the epicenter of the mundane - and the room was covered in marble from floor to ceiling.  This led me to develop what I am going to call the Marble Law of Finance:

Nobody covers a wall with marble using their own money.  

This is a helpful realization.  If I am ever abducted by aliens, wake up on a marble floor and look up to see marble walls, I'll know I'm in one of their government buildings.

Ascending Into Anarchy and Order

You always hear, in history and in fiction, about society "descending into anarchy and chaos" following the demise of some government or empire.  This is the premise behind Asimov's Foundation Trilogy so loved by Paul Krugman.  In summary, the ever present goal of generations of characters within the books is to restore the grandeur of the now fallen Galactic Empire and establish a second so that order, progress and prosperity would once again exist in the galaxy.  Even within the state paradigm, the idea that such a broadly centralized government would be effective or beneficial to anyone - besides those in charge of it - is outright silliness.  Still the specter of a galaxy "descending into anarchy and chaos" is invoked numerous times.  

I've got news for everyone: If the societal framework for peaceful coexistence did not already exist, undergirding the law and order provided by the state, then the state could not provide it.  There could never be enough laws or enough lawmen to make order out of a society in chaos.  I could go outside right now, with all our laws and regulations, and throw a brick through my neighbor's window, run back in and probably not get caught.  Even if he saw me, a conviction seems unlikely (and quite expensive at that).  Think about it as you go throughout your day.  What could you get away with if  you were so inclined, and what is the likelihood of getting caught?  If you work at it, I estimate that you could come up with a dozen or so petty, low risk crimes.  Extrapolate by millions and imagine the disorder and chaos that would be far beyond the law's powers to contain.  Now ask yourself why you do not do these things; I suggest by the way, that you do not.  It cannot simply be a matter of economic incentives.  Your neighbor's TV is pretty sweet, and you have seen where he hides his key and know what time he leaves and comes home.  You do not steal his TV because of your own moral rules, whether you derive them from God, nature or otherwise. 

These are the rules that 98% of us agree on 98% of the time and that hold our world together whether there is a state or not.  So let's put an end to the rhetorical nonsense of anarchy equating to chaos and pause for a moment to appreciate how internal rules for proper conduct on an individual and family level provide an extended order for peaceful civilization without the aid of a ruling class. 

IRS Wastes Money to Save Us From "Total Anarchy"

This IRS made video would be humorous if it wasn't so enraging. Count the crimes.  Your money (reportedly $60,000) was taken to make a terrible Star Trek parody with the intention of training 'public servants' in the proper practice of taking more of your money. 

The Argument from Ignorance Revisited

If you ever encounter the argument, "An stateless society has never existed, therefore one cannot succeed,"  consider the opposite, "Not having existed, a stateless society has never failed, therefore one cannot."  Both arguments are equally dubious and of the same sort.  The irrational argument from ignorance should then be summarily dismissed, and conversation must then turn to evidence, morality and history. 

The Democratization of Information?

I have been hearing quite a bit recently about the "democratization" of information, knowledge, art, entertainment, etc.  With the expansion of the world wide web and other technological wonders, we find ourselves with more opportunity to learn the skills that we choose, to watch the movies that appeal to our taste, and to read the  books, magazines and blogs that focus on our hobbies and interests.  Most of this is even available on-demand, bringing what used to be at least a car ride away instantly to our fingertips.  What makes this even better is that much of this content is available at no additional cost beyond that paid for the medium by which it is consumed. 

For example, the entertainment I consume during my daily commute has been transformed from the relatively minimal content available over the radio to countless hours of absolutely free podcasts tailored to my individual interests of comedy, economics, politics and technology.  I rarely watch news on television, but I have the opportunity to pick from several 24-hour news stations.  On the web, my news sources are endless.  When I was a child we could tune in, via our antenna, to the evening news on CBS or NBC.  We subscribed to the morning newspaper and the evening newspaper, published in the nearest major town, and the two county papers published every Wednesday.  I was born in 1985. 

Is it appropriate to refer to this great leap forward as a "democratization"?

What if the Federal Government Ended?

What if the federal government of the united States shut down and came to an end?  I'm not advocating or talking about a violent overthrow by any entity foreign or domestic.  This shouldn't even be interpreted as a protest, just a hypothetical.  What if the leaders just said, "We're tired of everyone begging goodies from us on one hand and their unwillingness to pay with the other.  We've come to the 'Fiscal Cliff' and have reached no final, lasting resolution.  Forget it, we're packing up, going home and getting jobs.  This is isn't a temporary shut down while we point fingers across the isle like you've seen before.  Mom and Dad aren't fighting; we're shrugging and splitting up."

Would their be any jobs?  Would we be safe?  Could we trust our doctors, our food supply, our clean air and water, our banks and our employers?  What about the states; are they up to the challenge of managing our safety and security?

"You Didn't Build That" - A response in favor of peace

For those of you living under a rock, there has been a recent uproar over something our gentle public servant Obama said the other day.  If you search for "you didn't build that", you will doubtless find a great number of  news items describing, quoting, misquoting, spinning and backpedaling on the statements of the president.  I will not sully my site with the banal news cycle.  I simply wish to provide my thoughts on the subject.

There are various arguments of the type, "You couldn't have accomplished (or you wouldn't have possession of) X, Y or Z without the government.  The government invested in the internet, microchips, space exploration, your education, and roads.  They provided laws and boots for your protection including such things as patents, police, armies, navies and courts.  Governments paid Columbus to "discover" the new world and Lewis and Clark to explore and document it.  Therefore, you have no cause to complain about taxation or other government interventions which have provided for your general welfare."

These arguments are generally given by the left, though the right is only conditionally allergic to them.  They are given in opposition to the simplistic, dare I say Randian, portrayal of the rugged individualist entrepreneur standing alone against the world to profit in a capitalist paradise.  They so often end with some variant of, "You didn't accomplish this alone."  Well of course is it overly simplistic to think that anyone succeeds in business (or in life for that matter) purely on the merits of their own efforts, but does it follow that we should back off any opposition to government based on this fact?

Of course we all rely on the kindness, savings, investments, intelligence, innovation and business of others in extraordinary and unpredictable ways.  You must receive your business inputs, you must obtain the capital and skills to produce your output and your customers must find you and decide to purchase your product at the price you have set.  You stand on the shoulders of inventors and discoverers who have come before you and presume that somehow a population will have the wealth and the desire to purchase your wares.  You didn't plan all of this; you would have had to start before you were born.  So if you succeed in business through loss of your own blood, sweat and tears, whom do owe and how much?

Certainly you can account for the prices paid for your raw materials, your capital equipment, your employees and your education.  You will pay interest or give up a portion of future profits to investors.  Your parents are unlikely to insist repayment for your upbringing, so you're off the hook there.  You either pay rent for your property or you purchased it outright.  Last but not least, your customers pay you, which ultimately allows you to pay for all of your inputs.  So maybe you owe your customer the most; you clearly couldn't have done it without them.  But wait a minute, they received something in this transaction - your product.  Did they pay too much?  Should you give something back, if not to them then to society?  Unless you defrauded them, forced them or sold a defective product, you should not feel the need to repay anyone.  The price paid for any good is a reflection of the subjective valuation of that good to the purchaser at the given place and time.  You give a man a hamburger, he gives you $5 and you owe each other nothing but mutual thanks.  This relationship recurses back through every transaction in the chain of production and we end up with this beautiful, spontaneous, chaotic order in which we can peacefully make progress and profits off the backs of our neighbors and owe them nothing but our thanks.    

Now enter a gang of thieves who disrupt this harmonious relationship with force or subterfuge.  Their guns represent an attempt to get something from the beautiful order of man without giving anything in return.  The gang may in special circumstances provide money in exchange for their takings, but this "price" is meaningless on account of their weapons and their "right" to use them.  Imagine a gang large enough to repel all other gangs between the sea and the nearest mountain range.  The pragmatic gang will not disrupt the order enough to destroy it as it provides for the welfare of all.  They will protect their borders with troops and the order on their streets with police.  They will take their cut of commerce flowing in, out and within their realm.  The population will become so accustomed to these takings that the guns will be rarely taken out of their holsters for the robbery, which then will be called a tax.  If possible they will monopolize the currency used by the populace to aid in extracting the resources required to "maintain" the order, which preceded their existence.  Finally, the populace will thank them and sing their praises for false promises written on paper to constrain the power they have already usurped for themselves.  They will put roads and build bridges where it pleases them and pay prices that mean nothing for materials and labor.  With funds taken from the people, they will pay meaningless fees to scientists to discover things they think people are interested in knowing and engineers to build things they think people will want.  In the same way they will enforce a curriculum upon the youth.  They will mistake progress with comfort and destroy both by paying men to dig ditches and fill them in.  For all of this they will claim a right to thanks from the citizenry.  They will shout down objections to their power with claims that the order would not exist without them and that their theft was necessary and beneficial.  And at this point, their resemblance to the state is complete.          

Independence Day

This is the first 4th of July that I would describe myself as an anarcho-capitalist, and I am struggling to pinpoint exactly what it is I should be celebrating and how I should show it.  As someone who recognizes the illegitimacy of states in general, it is difficult to muster any nationalistic pride or go along with any of the myriad activities that can only be described as state worship - singing God Bless the USA, taking my hat off for the Anthem, wearing the national colors, honoring a flag, pledging allegiance, thumping my chest for the spreading of "democracy" etc.  On the other hand, I have come up with a few things that I can get on board with:

1. Blowing things up in a nonviolent way - I like the idea of having a good time demonstrating man's power over nature in a mostly nondestructive and nonaggressive way.  I also like the activity of snubbing your nose at states who don't allow certain fireworks (for your own protection of course) by crossing state lines for your purchase.  
2. Celebrating actual independence - Casting off the yoke of an oppressive regime is always something I can get behind, and some of my ancestors in the American colonies risked their lives to do just that.  It doesn't logically follow however that I should stand in reverence to the oppressive regime that has since then taken its place.  
3. Getting together with loved ones to eat too much and celebrate our "American" culture - It is our personal relationships that fulfill and sustain us, not the promises of the government.  Further, it our customs - our food, our languages, dialects and pastimes - that bind us together in peace, not the imaginary lines on the map.  It is our societal customs and the good nature of our neighbors and our selves that we rely on to keep us safe and free.  To believe that government alone can provide this is a fantasy.  To paraphrase the insidious cliche, freedom is indeed not free, but never fall under the misconception that it can be preserved or defended by proxy.

I wish everyone a wonderful day of thoughtful celebration!

Political Guy

There has long been a strain of progressivism underlying "Family Guy" with Brian, the family dog, being the liberal conscience of the family.  This is unfortunate because it happens to be one of my favorite shows.  The most recent episode was the most political yet.  Not surprisingly, it was the furthest off the mark.  The show began with Peter operating his own jack-of-all-trades business from his home.  Ostensibly out of fear that he may hurt someone by doing bad business and explicitly because he didn't have the appropriate license, the city shut him down.  Peter's reaction was to join the Tea Party and bring and end to the city government.  This is where the realism of the show deteriorated.  The remainder of the show was devoted to an inaccurate caricature of the movement as more centralized, coherent and anarchistic than it truly is.   The incoherent nature of the Tea Party is made obvious by simply observing the diverse opinions of those who pretend to lead it.  I will grant creative license here and criticize no further - a realistic portrayal of squabbling within the movement would not make for an entertaining show.  I will however take umbrage with the anarchistic strain in Peter's Tea Party.

Few would argue that the Tea Party is considerably anti-government in general, but fewer still would argue that the movement is anarchistic, anti-all-government, at its base.  Rather, the movement favors less government or limited government and generally appeals to traditional limitations to its size and scope,  such as the federal constitution.  If the movement was consistently anarchistic, very few if any of its adherents would get involved in the political process at all.  Lest you think I am over interpreting the distinction here or giving to too much importance, note the scene where a dissenter, a man who holds a sign reading, "A little bit of government", is physically assaulted by the mob and presumably killed.  Similarly, a lone dissenting voice among the mob is later silenced via gunfire immediately prior to the dissolution of the city government.  A predictable and tired depiction of the breakdown of society - due to the lack of city governance mind you - then followed including such statist fear mongering as the garbage piling up, chaos on the roads, planes falling out of the sky and riots in the streets.

Perhaps, you say, I should not derive deep political meaning from the raunchiest cartoon on television.   This line of thinking is betrayed by the fact that the conclusion of the show is devoted to making a strong, albeit simple, statement about the morality and practicality of democracy.  The program was not just poking fun at everyone for the hell of it as it usually does and which I usually enjoy.  There was clearly the intention of a distinctly political message - a moral of the story so to speak.

So let's recap the strategy:

1. Create a farcical situation in which the main character, the show's biggest boob, gets involved with a political movement you disagree with.
2. Misrepresent the positions of that movement to align it with one of history's greatest boogiemen - anarchists.  
3. Misrepresent what might happen if the city government were to disappear overnight. 
4. Make an over simplified speech extolling the values you hold directed at knocking down the straw men that you have set up - the fictitious anarchist tea partiers.  
5. Preemptively make fun of anyone who might call you out on the internet.  

I am all for poking fun at just about anyone, even people who want less government, but people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.  Remember the "Fellas At The Freakin' FCC"?

The proper role of government deserves serious consideration given by serious adults.  Politics and satire are similarly cheapened by moralizing, partisan cartoons.

The Need for Government - A Fallacy?

Is it just me, or does pretty much every argument for the necessity of government boil down to the argument from personal incredulity, "I can't think of how X can be true, therefore X is false."  These arguments come from Left, Right, Center and even radical Libertarian minarchists.  The story is always the same:

We have to have government because...

• ... I can't conceive of how we would have roads without them.  
• ... I can't imagine who would take out the trash.
• ... it's impossible for people to pay for their own healthcare. 
• ... no one would be able to keep law and order.  
• ... I can't imagine parents educating their own kids. 
• ... I don't see how businesses will regulate themselves such that they will produce high quality, safe products.  
• ... I can't come up with a way to make basic science research profitable without subsidies.  
• ... it would just be utter chaos without it.  

Perhaps I am missing something.  I'm sure you'll let me know.  

Jamaica is a Harsh Mistress

I spent the last week lying, with my beautiful companion, on a beach in Jamaica.  I was particularly struck by the kindness of most of the customer service employees I encountered.  Granted, they do live in paradise, but they are clearly not very wealthy by our standards here in the States.  Given the fact that they must deal daily with twenty-something trust fund yankee brats and middle-aged, over-pierced euro-punks trying in vain to speak "Jamaican" and asking incessant questions about Ganja, they must truly possess saintly levels of patience.   There are some cultural barriers that must be overcome in order to navigate the island successfully.  First of all, everyone is on "island time", meaning that no one is in a hurry.  That includes the man crossing the street in front of oncoming traffic and, unfortunately, your waitress and bartender, so you have to get used to it.  Second, rule ambiguity abounds to the point that negotiating an all-inclusive resort can even be a challenge.  Schedules are incredibly loose, directions are unclear, rules are unspoken, and most prices are unlisted and negotiable.  Finally, their dialect of English can be quite difficult to understand.  This is amplified by the fact that they tend to speak in very low tones.

With Robert Heinlein's The Moon is a Harsh Mistress fresh in my mind, I could not help but notice some of the beautiful anarchy that exists on the island.  Since I spent most of my time on the beach I may have an unreasonably rosy picture of the island as a whole, but the "Jamaican Authority" seems to be virtually nonexistent on the beach.  The police presence consists of the slow parade of two officers, clad in very distinctive white uniforms, up and down the beach.  If you are very lucky, you will see them twice per day.  If you watch closely, you will also notice that the Ganja vendors have mysteriously disappeared in anticipation of the daily "crackdown".  You should really have no fear at this point because you can still purchase a wide variety of items without moving from your lounge chair.  In the course of a day you will encounter several ladies wishing to serve you fruit, some enterprising men with sacks full of assorted cigarettes and cigars, some young women hoping you would like to have your hair braided or your neck massaged and a multitude of artists covering Bob Marley hits or selling wood carvings.  We encountered one man who had the vision to diversify: "Seashells?...Parasailing?...Ganja?".  The list goes on, and there is some variety from day to day.  I don't know for sure, but I don't think any of these people had licenses to do their business.  I doubt the fruit ladies had food handlers' cards in spite of the fact that I saw them cut up and serve fruit to patrons beach side.  I doubt the hair-braiders had beauty school diplomas or certifications in massage therapy.  To me the scene exemplified the beauty of self-organized society in the absence of force.  

As one would expect, the Authority has a massive presence at the airport.  This is also where the jolly customer service stops and the threat of force begins.  On top of the typical shoe and laptop removal security theater we have all become accustomed to, I was randomly selected for additional security screening.  I was lucky enough to be locked in a room alone with a surly security agent who, without any kind words or eye contact, ordered me to open my bags and give her the palms of my hands.  I was summarily dismissed without any invitation to have a nice day.  At the gate my bags were searched again, and I was ordered to remove my shoes so they could be searched and I could be patted down.  All of this was done with the manners due a presumed terrorist.

The Authority is also ever present in the citizens' pockets.  I carried a piece of it home with me in the form of a 1000 Jamaican Dollar bill which is worth less that US$ 12 .  According to wikipedia the Jamaican dollar peaked in its early years of issue (1969) at J$ 0.77 to US$ 1.  This means my beloved fruit lady, given her age, has had virtually all of the savings sucked right out of her pocket.  That means years of hard service in the hot sun, with the weight of mango and papaya weighing down on her head, stealthily seized by the state.  I doubt she is even aware.