no third solution

Blogging about liberty, anarchy, economics and politics

Category Archives: Agora!

Unearned Guilt: The Free-Rider Fallacy

January 22nd, 2009

I have previously characterized the “libertarians are free-riders” argument as nonsense, as a slimy tactic which poisons the well with unearned guilt. Recent discussion threads at Reddit caused me to re-examine the “social contract” the most convincing arguments in support of which, although still fallacious appeals to emotion, fall back on the “free rider” argument: those who do not pay their “fair share” are somehow cheating everyone else, they are “stealing” from society. In a nutshell, anyone who works for a living, anyone who produces anything whatsoever of value, is not a free rider.

I want to take the time to extrapolate on that line of thought.

Collectivists of all creeds typically resort to some argument that relies on one’s acceptance of the subsidies of history as the base justification for their “social contract”. It is of paramount importance to understand first and foremost, that although history could have been different, none of us having had any say in the matter, the entire course of human existence happened in only one particular sequence, he culmination of which is the Present, imperfect as she may be. The consequences, to some extent, we all bear, and the benefits to some extent, we all reap.

The Present could have been different, but it is not. The Present only is.

We can not deny the language that has evolved over the millenia, the wheel, the lever, the wedge, the inclined plan, the transistor, the cotton gin, the x-ray, the microchip, penicillin or any of the myriad inventions, discoveries and luxuries that make all of our lives easier than they were in generations past. One “accepts” these subsidies, not because he or she is a “free rider”, but because one can not deny them.

What we deny, is that merely because we inherited these things, owe a debt to future generations (who will also inherit these things, and then some!). Further, we deny that we owe a debt to past generations who created these things; they did not invent for our sake (and even if they did, this does not create an obligation for us), they invented for their own sake, the benefits of which they have fairly reaped.

But neither can we deny the many injustices or atrocities that have been perpetrated by men long dead, which served to injure us or our brethren, to impede the progress of humanity, to reduce by some amount the real standard of living which we could otherwise enjoy. The question then is, what can be done about the sub-optimal distribution of property?

I content that in order to alleviate those now suffering from past wrongs, it is not necessary to perpetrate further injustices on some scapegoat, class warfare-style. It is not necessary to cause injury.

We can not, nor should we be asked to, make penance for the sins of our fathers, except by arresting any ongoing injustices, removing impediments, breaking down the walls that cage us all, and tolerating them no longer, forever. We can set things right only by freeing ourselves and ceasing to rely upon that which is wrong.

All we need to do is stop hurting people.

Immigration: Open the Borders

December 31st, 2008

Addressing Christian libertarians (and perhaps Christian anarchists), ndsnow lays out a few simple principles about immigration policy in general and about drug/prohibition policy, specifically @ Juris Naturalist. As for the latter, suffice it to say that s/he and I are in agreement. My stance on drug prohibition (any prohibition, actually) is that it is objectively counterproductive, and it should be eliminated since it necessarily begets crime, corruption, and destroys liberty. I belive that immigration laws are akin to chattel slavery, the basest form of economic rent-seeking and political privilege, in other words: pure evil.

On the topic of Immigration, ndsnow says:

Christians should advocate open borders. Any other position advocates protection of privilege for those who already hold US citizenship. All privilege is evil.

Good so far; I’ve got zero issue with eradicating the if-you’re-not-already-an-american-then-you’re-a-cancer-or-an-enemy mentality. IMO, any law that brands men as criminals merely for being born somewhere else is an affront to human rights. Just don’t expect the Hoppeians to go along with you on this one.

Christians should put the government out of the welfare business by doing a better job of it on their own.

This sounds good, but the fact of the matter is that government finances its operations through taxes. Oh, and they also get to print money out of thin air. It’s tough to compete with an agency that plays by an entirely different set of rules. Furthermore, because of the nature of taxes (especially income taxes), government essentially grants itself ius prima nocta with regards to our income. Other taxes, too, generally take precedent over any other forms of consumption which we would prefer to do, voluntarily.

This puts voluntary aid at a distinct disadvantage, since each dollar remaining after the taxman has taken his cut, must necessarily be spent towards the satisfaction of a more urgent or immediate need; which is to say that in order to help others, you must first help yourself, and if you’re barely able to do that because the Government is taking 50% or more of your income, there’s not much left for charity and voluntary giving.

Making immigration free puts all the bad guys out of business. End of problem.

Well, d’uh. But the bad guys are in business. And they make the rules. This is not likely to change, nor are the bad guys likely to cede any of their power voluntarily, any time soon.

Face the music: you’re not going to pass a referendum that allows 10 million Mexicans to spill over the Rio tomorrow. Or next year. Probably never. Only by working to remove oneself from the system, only by working outside of the established framework whenever possible, is revolution possible. It’s a John Galt revolution: withdraw your productivity from the slave economy, and put it to use for yourself, and your friends and family. The counter-economy needs to be built essentially within (or in the shadows of) the status quo.

The more you can do this, the better. But any small amount of freedom you create is a step in the right direction, and more freedom than existed yesterday.

Bon courage!

In any event, most arguments you’ll ever encounter in favor of immigration laws are utterly without merit. Allowing immigration will lead to prosperity, this is as true now as it was 100 or 200 years ago, when people were even stupider and less technologically advanced than we are, today.

RE: The Economics of Invasion

November 28th, 2008

We all know, or ought to know, the truth about the State’s origins. To a one, they are built on a foundation of violence, and they maintain their statehood through the systematic implementation of violence and oppression.

In Some economics of invasion and the State, constant‘s most interesting idea is that since overthrowing a State appears to be a public good, then according to conventional wisdom, it will be undersupplied. In short order, he proceeds to lay out a pretty elementary case for the common defense as public good.

This case, however, is always argued upon a single iteration of the game. Surely, upon learning that one’s neighbor had been violently deposed by an invading bandit, the remaining freemen should begin to see the true costs of their failure to voluntarily provide for a common defense. Historically speaking, this might’ve been difficult in practice, but I’m not convinced that this is any longer the case.

One very private good is the ability to hide one’s assets, or perhaps more importantly, the ability to hide one’s production from the State. If the wealth you create was never part of the white market in the first place, it becomes almost impossible to track or quantify. The State can only steal what it can see, what it knows to exist.

The concept behind the Agorist movement, is to take Constant’s second course: free yourself, as much as is humanly possible, from the State’s constraints. Work with others who share these goals and ideals, to assist them in freeing themselves. It certainly has a Galt-ian appeal to it: by working together and outside the system with people you trust, to better yourselves, the oppressive state should collapse under its own weight.

no third solution

Blogging about liberty, anarchy, economics and politics