02 May 2014

“Fresh Air” Really Grinds My Gears

Libertarianism, private law, Shameless Self-Promotion 49 Comments

My inaugural article at LibertyChat, where I’ll be contributing weekly. An excerpt:

Earlier this week I was listening to an interesting episode of the NPR show “Fresh Air.” The host, Terry Gross, was interviewing the New Yorker’s Dexter Filkins, who was recounting his experience in Iraq while he was researching his latest article. Filkins gave example after example of how violent daily life still is, and how the Iraqi government is hopelessly corrupt. The entire interview was one giant testament to the utter failure of the U.S. invasion to bring peace and democratic government to the country.

Yet despite Filkins’ first-hand experience of the failure of U.S. military might, and the daily corruption of the Iraqi government, he uttered a casual remark that made my jaw drop as I was driving. His remark underscores why it is so hard for the supporters of a voluntary society to get the general public to see just how dangerous and malevolent the State is.

49 Responses to ““Fresh Air” Really Grinds My Gears”

  1. Cosmo Kramer says:

    Saying that government is the cure is like saying that the cure for a bullet wound is more bullets to plug the hole.

  2. scineram says:

    Before the nation state all life was like that.

    • Enopoletus Harding says:

      Really, I see nothing wrong with Filkins’s remark. The situation in Iraq is nearly like Locke’s “state of nature”. A government agency attacking another does indicate the lack of a well-established government.

  3. Lord Keynes says:

    “His remark underscores why it is so hard for the supporters of a voluntary society to get the general public to see just how dangerous and malevolent the State is.”

    It’s priceless how libertarians scream that you cannot ascribe human emotions or actions to abstract institutions.

    But here you go saying that the “state” is “dangerous” and “malevolent”. What you mean is that people who work in, or staff, government are all “dangerous” and “malevolent” — a ridiculous, dogmatic view so obviously on a par with the view of any Marxism fanatic who thinks everything under capitalist is exploitative and evil.

    Was Ludwig von Mises “dangerous and malevolent” when he worked for the Austrian government? is the government of Switzerland filled with “dangerous and malevolent” people?

    And as for the reality of stateless societies, the evidence suggests that they are mostly characteristised by very high per capita homicide rates, far worse than state societies. E.g., the most violent societies ever seen are stateless ones: the Amazon Waorani (c. 58% rate of death by violence), the Amazon Jivaro (at c. 30% rate of death by violence) and the New Guinea Gebusi (c. 29% rate of death by violence).

    http://socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogspot.com/2013/02/steven-pinker-on-deaths-by-violence-in.html

    • Andrew Keen says:

      I agree with you, LK, that it is not 100% accurate to call the state “malevolent.” However I think it is perfectly fair to describe propping up a monopoly as dangerous. A single point of failure is always a risky (i.e. dangerous) solution.

      • JimS says:

        Well, what about corporations? Everyone knows they are evil. I’m kidding of course, but likewise, people are quick to dismiss an individual as a monster. Hitler was human and I am certain he thought he was doiong good. The really scary thing is not monsters, but that the potential for evil resides in all of us.

        Friedman talked a lot about the alleged goodness of government and government do good programs. He always asked “And where will the individuals that staff benevolent government come from?” He always stressed the idea of finding the right person as being a fallacy. people, and politicians and government regulators are people, as hard as that is to believe, always act in their own self interest. He said the trick was to figure out how to make it so the wrong people are compelld to do the right thing.

    • Cosmo Kramer says:

      LK, have you ever read anything about the protection of property rights in stateless societies?

      • Lord Keynes says:

        Oh, you mean have I read some of the vast empirical literature about how stateless human societies from the real world tend to have a lot of common property, as well as private property? (Cambridge Encyclopedia of Hunters and Gatherers, p. 4). Or tend to be egalitarian?

        Yes, thanks.

        • K.P. says:

          “stateless human societies from the real world tend to have a lot of common property, as well as private property?”

          So… libertarianism affirmed, at least in large part? No?

        • Cosmo Kramer says:

          You didn’t even attempt to answer the question. This is the problem we have with you LK.

          (hint hint……. An-Cap/ private property protection)

        • Major_Freedom says:

          History cannot prove or disprove whether statelessness is better or worse, less murderous or more murderous, than statist societies.

          You conceded the principle of history not capable of proving anything grounded on human action when you emphasized to Murphy a couple weeks ago your own beliefs that charts of data do not suggest anything on their own, that we need a correct theory to correctly interpret historical data.

          You already conceded the fact that knowledge of human action is a priori, not a posteriori. You already conceded that “vast empirical literature”, if it is claimed as proving one theory or another, is in actuality really being interpreted using that theory, where that theory is not derived from the data! but rather! the understanding if the data is derived from the theory.

          The theory you are using to interpret the data on the death by murder rate in those primitive tribes, is that we can compare different societies and attribute the entire difference in murder rates, to whether there is a state or not. That is so crude that even quantitative economists who do regressions for a living would laugh you out of the room. They would say you are committing what’s called omitted variable bias.

          But I am not a quantitative economist so don’t dare consider the above as an endorsement. Rather, I am saying that even in your flawed and muddled epistemology, you are making an even bigger mess of things.

          • Lord Keynes says:

            “You already conceded the fact that knowledge of human action is a priori, “

            I did no such thing. Plain lies do not an argument make.

            • Major_Freedom says:

              You did LK, when you asserted that historical data requires a correct theory in order for the data to be correctly interpreted. That we can’t just assert any old theory that the data purportedly shows on its own.

              That is the very meaning of a priorism.

              You are an a priorist in denial.

    • Major_Freedom says:

      LK:

      “Was Ludwig von Mises “dangerous and malevolent” when he worked for the Austrian government?”

      Yes.

      “is the government of Switzerland filled with “dangerous and malevolent” people?”

      Yes.

      Given that you asked these questions rhetorically, as if libertarians cannot possibly say yes to these, then given the fact that I said yes to them, and is say so honestly and without any hesitation, does that mean that you will concede Murphy’s argument.

      Of course not, you will find an excuse not to have to conclude what is true by changing your mind and pretending the answers to those questions are definitely no, thus assuming your own conclusion is true when attempting to show that the conclusion is the right answer.

      “And as for the reality of stateless societies, the evidence suggests that they are mostly characteristised by very high per capita homicide rates, far worse than state societies. E.g., the most violent societies ever seen are stateless ones: the Amazon Waorani (c. 58% rate of death by violence), the Amazon Jivaro (at c. 30% rate of death by violence) and the New Guinea Gebusi (c. 29% rate of death by violence).”

      False inference. The argument is not that stateless societies have less violence than other, different, statist societies. It is that given the same population, with the same or similar values on human life, there would be more death and mayhem than there otherwise would have been had there been no state.

      So to correctly interpret that data you posted, like you said is the case with that data in a previous blogpost (where you conceded the Austrian a priori epistemology as true), you need a correct theory in order to correctly interpret that data. The correct theory here is not that it can be compared to other, different societies. It is that if those tribal societies had a state, then there would have been even MORE death by murders. The fact that there were no states, kept the death by murder numbers lower than they otherwise would have been.

      • Lord Keynes says:

        “Given that you asked these questions rhetorically, as if libertarians cannot possibly say yes to these, then given the fact that I said yes to them, and is say so honestly and without any hesitation, does that mean that you will concede Murphy’s argument.”

        No, because I find the argument unconvincing in the first place.

        But it’s always good to see an extremist forced to admit his extreme views. So thanks for that.

        • Major_Freedom says:

          “No, because I find the argument unconvincing in the first place.”

          Which means your questions were not sincere at all.

          “But it’s always good to see an extremist forced to admit his extreme views.”

          Statists such as yourself have extremist views, since statism is extremism.

          And I wasn’t forced to admit anything. I chose to answer your insincere questions.

    • Major_Freedom says:

      LK,

      “It’s priceless how libertarians scream that you cannot ascribe human emotions or actions to abstract institutions.”

      Why is that priceless? Austrians, when they use such words, are, BY DEFAULT, referring to specific individuals doing specific things that we call “statist”.

      Just because Austrians use the same word “state” as you, it doesn’t mean they are referring to the same abstract conceptualization as you. You are ascribing your own hypostatization of “state”, to the Austrians. That is a straw man.

      • Lord Keynes says:

        “Austrians, when they use such words, are, BY DEFAULT, referring to specific individuals doing specific things that we call “statist”.”

        Just as when any ordinary person says that prices are flexible or inflexible, they are talking about how human beings in businesses are engaging in activity to bring this about.

        But that does not stop Bala from making dishonest distortions of ordinary language like this:

        And it is precisely because human beings set prices that no statement such as “This price is flexible” or “That price is sticky” can be made.
        http://consultingbyrpm.com/blog/2014/03/what-would-it-look-like-if-the-system-failed.html#comment-296626

        I suspect we would not have to dig far to see you engaging in the same shoddy tactic.

        • Bob Roddis says:

          I submit that it is better to be more specific and speak of individual action because both Austrian and Keynesian analyses appear to be based upon theories of ordinary people being confused and misguided about operating in a modern economy. The nub of our dispute seems to be about who, how and why people are confused and how to fix that.

        • Major_Freedom says:

          “Just as when any ordinary person says that prices are flexible or inflexible, they are talking about how human beings in businesses are engaging in activity to bring this about.”

          So…you concede that libertarians are not actually referring to an abstract aggregate concept when they say “the state is dangerous and malevolent”, contrary to your insinuation otherwise?

          “But that does not stop Bala from making dishonest distortions of ordinary language like this:”

          “And it is precisely because human beings set prices that no statement such as “This price is flexible” or “That price is sticky” can be made.”

          Context LK. You have to put all arguments in the context in which they are being made.

          What Bala means is that prices aren’t doing anything, but rather, what is happening is that humans are making valuations and choices, and only to the extent that these valuations and choices differ across time, or not differ, will prices be observed as “being” flexible or “being” inflexible.

          Bala is not denying that through history, the numerical exchange ratios for the same or very similar products, as against the medium of exchange commodity have been observed as changing temporally, or not changing temporally. He isn’t dishonestly twisting or distorting anything. He is making an argument that strongly suggests that focusing on the prices themselves, abstracted from individual action, will tend to mislead. That prices aren’t themselves causing people to make them sticky, or causing people to make them not sticky. Rather, it is the reverse. Human action causes prices to change or remain the same. What is therefore sticky and not sticky in the economics context, are the human valuations, the human created exchange ratios as against the medium of exchange commodity, over an arbitrary period of time.

          You are using the flawed scientistic approach to interpret past price data. Like you claimed in an earlier thread, historical economic data requires a theory to correctly interpret the data. Bala is saying your theory that you are using to understand price history, is flawed. That in order to correctly interpret the data, you need a theory of economics, you need a theory of individual human action.

  4. Josiah says:

    We would expect a government newspaper monopoly to work badly, but to work badly in a specific way. For example, we would not expect a newspaper monopoly to lead to the news becoming highly critical of the government. Were that to happen, you’d have to wonder if something else was going on.

    Similarly, when you have members different government agencies attacking each other, that suggests that perhaps there isn’t the unified monopoly on violence that Hobbes thought was the purpose of government.

  5. Bob Roddis says:

    Libertarian analysis is always or should always be concerned with the notion that enforced rights regarding private property, contracts and individual personal safety are the basic foundations of a civilized society. It is assumed that most people are competent to manage their own affairs. In this context, the appropriate definition of “the state” is the IDEA that a special group of people may and must violate the rights of others as the result of them engaging in various non-violent activities. “Statelessness” is thus merely one (essential) prong of a civilized society which requires enforced rights regarding private property, contracts and individual personal safety. Holding up a society of murderers and rapists as a refutation against the strict enforcement of the prohibitions against murder and rape is a typical response of statists seeking to quickly change the subject. Otherwise, they know exactly where such ideas and argument must lead so they must shut it down ASAP.

    Pro-violence Keynesian-statist graduates of western universities believe in the Mary Poppins theory of government which holds that people are incapable of running their own lives (except when it comes to voting for government officials) and that governments have special and magical powers to solve problems. Further, they have an unshakeable belief that the solution to any and all human problems is a western style democratic Keynesian social democracy and they are hell-bent upon inflicting it planet-wide. Thus, when they inflict such a system upon a foreign society such as Iraq, the result is that there are now plenty of people and institutions ready, willing and able to inflict statist violations of personal rights upon almost everyone. However, since neither they nor their western sponsors understand the essential nature of individual and property rights or economics (and they do not want to understand them), there is no protection available for individuals and their property from the rampaging hordes of state actors specifically empowered to violate rights pursuant to the statist vision.

    Due to the bizarre and oblivious worldview of the statists, they cannot see what has happened and continues to happen right before their eyes.

    • Tel says:

      I think it is fair to say that in Iraq the state dominated the citizens before Americans invaded the place.

      Admittedly Democracy isn’t working too well either, but you can’t claim that statism in Iraq was brought there by foreigners.

      • Bob Roddis says:

        I don’t know about that. Maybe we need to split some hairs about forms of statism. My concept here was that government officials in the USA have a special dispensation to violate the rules that mundanes must follow and society tends to agree with that concept. In the Middle East, it appears that the government consists of the outlaw gang with the most guns and the population is kept in check not with the illusion of the magic benevolent government, but by guns aimed at everyone’s head. Thus, the pointy-headed westerners fail to understand the cultural importance and foundation in the west of private property, individual rights and deference to the winning majority running the government in the western countries. So they provide the tools for the special statist dispensation to violate rights in Iraq where there is no tradtion of individual rights or respect for the opposing winning majority and wonder what went wrong.

  6. Bob Roddis says:

    Both wings of the war party are afflicted with the myth that FDR, the New Deal and Keynesianism not only cured the depression but rebuilt Germany and Japan. In fact, Germany and Japan rebuilt due to the cultural attributes of the Germans and Japanese. The same “solutions” applied to the Middle East result in this lovely scene from Syria. Whatever. FULL SPEED AHEAD!

    http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-kRh5F8PppYo/U2UoY-fULgI/AAAAAAAAANk/ZXrTgf4EOmw/s1600/Syrian+civil+War.jpg

    • Philippe says:

      You think the war in Syria is due to ‘Keynesianism’? [Edited–RPM]

    • Bob Roddis says:

      US wars are funded and facilitated by Keynesianism. A nation attempting to escape the clutches of the US Keynesian system will be destroyed by the US military.

      Is that what you are asking?

      I’m going on one of my famous road trips to Canada now so I will leave you guys to yourselves.

      • Philippe says:

        So you’re saying that the war in Syria isn’t due to ‘Keynesianism’.

        Ok, that’s obviously true, but why did you previously suggest the opposite?

    • Tel says:

      In terms of curing the Great Depression, if you have a lot of unemployed people and some other country also has a lot of unemployed people and both countries force those unemployed people to fight each other to the death… you will solve your unemployment problem.

      It would work just as well if you put them in pit fights.

      The practicality of this is unquestionable, but for obvious reasons suitable propaganda is used to hide what is going on here and make the action a bit more morally acceptable to the rubes.

  7. Bob Murphy says:

    Guys, in case you missed it, “joe” got permanently banned last Sunday. (I didn’t fine him $2.5m though.) So if you answer him before I can remove his comments, it’s just more work.

  8. Enopoletus Harding says:

    Alright. Couldn’t you block him with a blacklist, though?

  9. Major_Freedom says:

    Where is LK screaming that Filkins is using empirical data where states are present to prove or confirm a theory of statelessness.

    Surely if an anarchist were to consider the data on the primitive tribes that LK posted, and claimed that this data proves or confirms a posteriori a theory of statism, then LK would be “screaming” that the anarchist couldn’t do that on the basis that the data is not statist data and thus the anarchist is merely being an “ideologue.”

    It is ok, apparently, to be a statist ideologue.
    Lol

    • Bob Roddis says:

      MF, you AnCaps live in a world of unicorns. Lord Keynes has taught us over and over that historical evidence is everything. Since there are no examples of a stateless AnCap society where property, contract and personal rights were rigorously protected, no such society can ever be created (or even imagined). Similarly, a Keynesian cannot be expected to find an example of where such a society might fail or might have failed in order to provide an example of that elusive “market failure” justifying violent Keynesian intervention because no such society has ever existed. Get with the program, MF.

      • Lord Keynes says:

        “Since there are no examples of a stateless AnCap society where property, contract and personal rights were rigorously protected, no such society can ever be created (or even imagined)”

        I have never said that, roddis.

        The argument is that, if you attempted to create it, it is highly probable that it would not work in the way you think it would, and would be subject to serious failures.

        • Bob Roddis says:

          1. What is the relevance of a society from history where individual rights are not recognized or even conceived to a proposal to rigorously enforce those rights in a different population which already recognizes and understands them to a signficant degree?

          2. Where does the NAP break down requiring violent Keyesnian intervention? Don’t mention abandoning babies.

          • Philippe says:

            Only Rothbardians and other right-wing libertarian types like yourself would describe policies advocated by Keynesians as “violent”. Normal people don’t describe them as “violent”, because they are not “violent”.

            The only reason you describe them as “violent” is because you believe in a strange ideology which the overwhelming majority of people do not believe in.

            Again, you do not understand the non-aggression principle. Rothbardianism is not the NAP.

            Rothbardianism is simply the use of force to impose the Rothbardian ideology of property.

            • Bob Roddis says:

              I’m really tired of these riduculous and pointless arguments trying to confuse aggressive and defensive violence and positive and negative obligations. Even MMTers admit that fiat currency is a government monopoly imposed at the point of a gun. See the Mosler v Murphy debate. They admit it and celebrate it (which is bizarre, but there it is). At least they are honest enough to insist that the monopoly is somehow necessary.

              We can never ever begin to discuss the simple mechanics of a free society using well known and everyday concepts without some statist showing up to halt the discussion with a B.S. obfuscation regarding uncontroversial definitions of simple words and concepts. I realize that this is the only defense they have left, but at some point, this gets ridiculous. It’s just pointless harassment.

              Refusing to deal and trade with a Chinese community because they eat dogs is not the same things as overruning their community and killing them all with machetes.

              https://www.flickr.com/photos/bob_roddis/8525140770/

              Moderation in the pursuit of trolls is no vice.

              • Philippe says:

                As usual Bob, the basic problem here is that you do not understand.

                “Even MMTers admit that fiat currency is a government monopoly imposed at the point of a gun.”

                MMT argues that the obligation to pay taxes gives a value to the money which can be used to pay taxes.

                Mosler used the example of a man with a gun standing by the door, who won’t let you out of the lecture room unless you pay him with Mosler’s business cards. All that Mosler is saying is that you have to get his cards, therefore they have a certain value in terms of the work you have to do to get them.

                If you weren’t so blockheaded, you would understand that if the example is about the real world, then the man at the door represents law enforcement.

                “Men with guns” (cops) do enforce the law in the US. That is true in the case of both private debts and in the case of debts owed to the state.

                The law relating to private property is ultimately enforced by the police, as is the law relating to taxation.

                If you repeatedly refuse to pay your private rent, then at some point the police will show up at your door to enforce the law.

                Do you understand this point, or not?

              • Cosmo Kramer says:

                Phillippe, it is you that is confusing terms here.

                If I enter into a contract to pay x $USD for a vehicle, I am obligated to buy said car at that price, or face legal consequences. If I don’t honor my contract, I violated him.

                vs.

                Government forces us to participate in the purchase of tanks, pizza parties for Pelosi, welfare for the rich and poor, etc. Government violated us at the onset.

              • guest says:

                All that Mosler is saying is that you have to get his cards, therefore they have a certain value in terms of the work you have to do to get them.

                All violence creates value for obstacle-overcoming goods.

                But if you just got rid of the obstacle, you could more efficiently fulfill your preferences.

                Why are taxes extracted under threat of death preferable to leaving people alone, in Mosler’s view?

              • guest says:

                Cosmo Kramer,

                If that’s going to be their response, then why, in Mosler’s view, would it be preferable for me to leave than for me to be left alone?

                Is he claiming that, so long as a majority are in agreement about something, then that is authoritative?

        • Ben Kennedy says:

          “The argument is that, if you attempted to create it, it is highly probable that it would not work in the way you think it would, and would be subject to serious failures.”

          Very Hayekian!

  10. John says:

    I realize I’m a day late and a dollar short to this discussion, but what’s the proposed enforcement mechanism to protect contract rights, property and personal safety in the society we’re imagining? I recognize it can’t be government but then what is it? It can’t just be everyone agreeing to respect these things, right? Who or what enforces these rights?

    • guest says:

      I recognize it can’t be government but then what is it?

      (Arbitration services are still a form of government, by the way.)

      Individuals would either choose an arbiter, together; Or they would refuse to do business with the contract-breacher until they fulfilled their obligation.

      • Matt M (-Dude Where's My Freedom) says:

        “(Arbitration services are still a form of government, by the way.)”

        No they aren’t, because they are not claiming any form of monopoly, they cannot coerce you to utilize their services, and they could easily be replaced without large-scale violence.

    • Tel says:

      What’s the proposed enforcement mechanism protecting the people of the Ukraine? Or the Christians in Egypt and Syria? Or the Muslims in China?

      I recognize it can’t be the UN because they aren’t doing anything useful, the then what is it?

  11. John says:

    I confess I don’t understand Tel’s response. I haven’t heard anyone here suggest that anybody or anything is effectively protecting people in the Ukraine, minorities in China, Egypt etc. is the point there that their government’s are oppressive, so anything would be better?

    On Guest’s response, is that really the proposed enforcement mechanism for rights in libertarian thinking – that the market would discipline contract breakers or people with a dispute would get together to settle it? Assuming that would work, wouldn’t there be an awful lot of breached contracts before any particular person or corporation got disciplined by market forces. I mean, gee, there’s an awful lot of breached contracts now, and you can take people to court to enforce them, with “violence” as they say. Is there some empirical reason to believe there’d be less breaching if contracts really were essentially voluntary agreements enforceable only because people might not contract with you later if they heard you breached? That sounds extremely unlikely to me, but that’s based only on my anecdotal experience of the world, not on hard evidence.

Leave a Reply to Cosmo Kramer

Cancel Reply