From: Brian Holtz [brian@holtz.org] Sent: Sunday, June 23, 2002 2:44 AM To: Anton Sherwood Subject: RE: ism ism > > * Replace all social programs with a (Milton Friedman-style) > > negative income tax. > > I'll concede that one [..] > > > * Internalize externalities by e.g. auctioning pollution rights. > > Would be beneficial if administered honestly. Wanna bet we won't see > exemptions for public-sector polluters? Sure, since the far more likely (and more reasonable) proviso would be to grant grandfathered (i.e. initially free) pollution licenses to existing (public and private) polluters. > > * Regulate currency and the money supply. > > * Regulate physical-network natural monopolies. > > * Ban anti-competitive artificial monopolies. > > Regulate, regulate, ban. I wasn't aware that we were living in monetary > or trustary anarchy. Pay attention. I never said policies like these weren't currently in effect. I just said they weren't supported by the LP. > > It's simply not the case that any legislation at all makes > > intolerable levels of intervention inevitable. > > I'd divide legislation into three broad classes: that concerned with the > structure and management of the state itself; codifications and > harmonisations of existing custom (basic criminal law, the Uniform > Commercial Code); and economic interventions "Existing custom" is too contingent; slavery was once an existing custom. I'd classify legislation according to which purpose of the state the legislation seeks to accomplish. In my book I identify six such purposes: * Effect justice (the minimization, reversal, and punishment of aggression); * Provide aid and sustenance to persons in mortal danger; * Protect species or ecosystems in danger of destruction; * Prevent torture; * Regulate natural monopolies; * Provide public goods: non-rival non-excludable positive externalities that benefit essentially every person in a society, such as national defense, currency, and some basic scientific research. > > Minarchists stand for limited government ceteris paribus -- > > does the Bill of Rights apply ceteris paribus, too? No, my list of restrictions on the state is more inclusive than the Bill of Rights, and totally unqualified. See "Restrictions on the State" in section 1.3.2. (Philosophy / Axiology / Political Philosophy) of my book. > > You claimed collusion can't happen often enough to be a problem. > > I cited an example showing it can. QED. > > I said not often enough (I meant not causing enough cumulative > harm) to justify creating an agency to control it I would never propose creating an agency to control a specific industry. > > I doubt you could cite an economic historian who would claim > > that Standard Oil didn't cause market failures by its > > monopolistic tactics. > > Market failures such as - ? Market failures such as overpricing, suboptimal levels of output, exclusion of competitors, etc. > Before "applying antitrust policy" or any other > positive regulation, it might help to see if the problem > can be blamed on interventionist legislation, and try > repealing that. Which is what I propose: repeal the laws that exempt unions from *existing* antitrust regulation. > > Then what makes a state without laws a state? How is it different > > from a civics club or a standards body? > > The executive branch. Civics clubs and standards bodies have executive officers. > > Each of my five counter-proposals has far more prior applicable > > empirical validation than the corresponding LP planks. > > And nobody, looking at the list, would say "Aha, no one from the Major > Parties could have written this; there must be a Minarchist about." What a silly test. If a *single* Republican can have proposed them, then the policies aren't sufficiently iconoclastic for you? Look, if you're just trying to rebel against the crowd, do it the old-fashioned way, with your music or your tattoos or your piercings or your haircut or your drug use (oops!). > I don't know where the political equator is No idea, eh? Then you are either too clueless -- or too disingenuous -- to waste my time talking to. > > you have not disclosed why you don't seem to > > consider it important not to lump yourself together with us statist > > coercive scum whose policies lead inevitably to, or perhaps are > > indistinguishable from, Ted Kennedy and Joe Stalin. > > I don't lump myself with you. I lump myself with those minarchists who > recognize that interventionist regulation creates interest groups with a > disproportionate influence (see Public Choice); that as all experience > hath shewn it is easy to persuade oneself that one's pet scheme is for > the general good and thus worth the unfortunate necessity of coercing a > few people here and there; and that new regulation ought therefore to be > examined not only for its direct effects but also for the precedent it > sets for other regulations if the legislature should ever slip out of > the firm grip of enlightened minarchists. (Keep hoping I'm not such a minarchist, if that's what it takes for you to get you through this debate with your preconceptions intact.) Assuming that you realize that any minarchist favors at least some state coercion, how do you distinguish between minarchists whose proposed regulations pass your "precedent" test, and those who don't? > An institution that > specializes in coercion - and reserves to itself the power to decide > when coercion is called for - will not minimize coercion for long. Then sit back and watch history prove you wrong as humanity enjoys unprecedented and ever-higher levels liberty -- under the leadership by example of American capitalist democratic statism. > Maybe you want to expand a bit on those whose first word is "Regulate" > or "Ban". Somehow I missed the part where they result in less > government. Each of the three things I said should be regulated or banned are *already* regulated or banned -- in ways that involve more government than the obvious minarchist alternative. That is, there is obviously much more banking regulation, nationalized industry, and antitrust regulation than a minarchist would need to enact these three policies. > My claim - or at least what I meant - was not that an accusation of > selfish partiality would bear close examination, but that one can count > on its being made and believed by many My claim is that "my drugs and my taxes" issues are obviously and significantly *more* susceptible to charges of self-interest. Dare you assert the direct negation of this statement? > like I said, can you prove that you own no timber stock, > between Monday when the smear hits and Tuesday? Like I said, it's *easier* for me to prove I'm not a timber magnate than for you to prove you're not a drug user -- especially since I'm not, and you are. > > and I note that you > > did not even attempt to argue such susceptibility on the > > issues of monetary policy, agricultural subsidies, > > rent control, campaign finance, term limits, GMOs, genomics, > > and negative income tax. The distinction between these issues > > and "my drugs and my taxes" is blatantly obvious. > > Fine, you win, but - are you sure you've mentioned all of > these before? Yes, I composed the above list by checking my previous postings. > Rent control: you're a yuppie who wants the brown > people out of your fair city. Rent control doesn't help brown people, it just helps the (usually white) people who have rent-controlled leases. And I don't live in a city. > Farm subsidies: "my taxes". This is obviously far less of a "my taxes" issue than repealing the income tax. > Term limits: you want to ensure > that our legislators are mostly novices and easily misled. Bzzzt. Libertarians *oppose* laws restricting who one can vote for. > Campaign finance: you want to buy those legislators. Bzzzt. I personally can't afford to buy any politicians, whereas you personally pay income taxes and smoke pot. > GMOs: what's that? > Genomics: er, where's the political issue? Genetically-modified organisms. The issue with both is that leftists and neophobes want to limit the use of technologies without evidence that they'd be preventing any aggression. > > > Show me a $10 trillion *minarchist* superpower, then. > > > > America is obviously far closer to my brand of libertarianism than it > > is to anarcho-capitalism > > But far from minarchism as I normally see the word used. You simply dispute my conclusion while not responding to my argument: "especially in the economically fundamental areas of monetary policy, natural monopoly infrastructure, externality regulation, and antitrust regulation." > > So why wouldn't one particular private anarcho-capitalist currency > > achieve similar runaway popularity due to network externalities, > > Well, one wouldn't expect it to have such an advantage > at the starting gate. A private currency needn't have any initial advantage to achieve runaway popularity due to network externalities. > > and why can't the dollar be managed as well as such a currency? > > I suppose it *can* be Can be, and has been for about twenty years and counting, with no sign of problems on the horizon. > A crank might imagine that a permanent war could someday > tempt the powers that be into -- let's not call it > inflation Believe it or not, economics is a science, and it undergoes advances just like other sciences. Just as it became well-understood how to avoid deflation-induced depressions like that of the 1930s, there is now a consensus on how to avoid inflation that simply didn't exist in the profession twenty-five years ago. > > And just how does this imperfect medieval example invalidate > > all the examples of twentieth-century protection rackets? > > the latter all arose in the enlightened bosom of monopoly states. Subtracting the state from the equation makes protection rackets *more* likely, not less. > > How would this be any different under anarcho-capitalism > > (in which the statist police is simply replaced by the > > trade association of anarcho-capitalist defense agencies)? > > Bob's Anarchofuzz operates openly. It strives to build a > reputation for fair dealing. It advertises on that theme. > It attracts customers thereby [..] The Gambinos operated openly (from the perspective of their 'customers' and competitors). Yet they did not "strive to build a reputation for fair dealing." They did not "advertise on that theme". They did not care about "attracting customers", yet they became the dominant protection racket. Do you even have a clue how *far* you are from rebutting my point? > > If the police can squelch competition, so can the stronger > > (networks of) anarcho-capitalist defense agencies. > > If they have a big enough fraction of the total force - > which, by the way, includes every armed householder. I'm sure many victims of mob shakedowns have a gun behind the counter at their store, too. > If there are a dozen such firms in town, > how many can you crush before the others make a mutual > defense pact? Then that defense pact becomes the dominant mob, and starts behaving as such. > > how do you explain that no mob boss ever died at the > > hands of such a civic-minded "protection racket of last resort"? > > Would we know it if they did? Argument by conspiracy theory. > > And of course, you make no mention of the least powerful > > people, too poor even to be worth extorting "protection" > > contracts from. > > Friedman: "Currently [1989], government expenditures on > police and courts run about forty dollars a year per capita." No mob ever protected anyone from anything for a mere $40 a year. The figure you cite is an argument for my side, not yours. > > > > and both Gates and Gotti are far more deterred from > > > > casual murder under statism than they would be under > > > > anarcho-capitalism. > > > > > > So you say. > > > > I'd venture that it's intuitively obvious to anyone who isn't > > already an anarcho-capitalist. > > Well, y'know, a lot of things are intuitively obvious and false. Yes -- precisely those things that are *demonstrably* false. You offer no demonstration, just a "so you say" denial of the obvious. > > You still haven't grokked my point: *every* mob murder > > has been under effective anarchism. > > One doesn't often hear These United States described as an anarchy. Non-answer. In what ways do you claim American mobsters have felt materially constrained from competing with each other or for 'customers'? How would there being even *fewer* constraints suddenly make them kindler and gentler? > > Given the trends of the last twenty years, it would be historically > > illiterate to pretend that any legislation at all makes Ted Kennedy > > or Joe Stalin inevitable. > > Gary Condit then. ;) Have there been reforms that make Senators less > likely to get away with vehicular manslaughter? Non-answer. -- brian@holtz.org http://humanknowledge.net