no third solution

Blogging about liberty, anarchy, economics and politics

Quote of the Day: The Post-Revolution Unknown

October 13th, 2009

OK, so it’s the “Quote of Last Friday”…

In response to the occasional disagreement/dispute/argument/flamewar that arises between anarchists of different stripes on teh interwebz, at Polycentric Order, Michael comments on Why I’m Not a Voluntaryist:

Anarchism is such a radical break with the present order – in fact, so theoretical in nature (the meager handful of historical examples aside), and society itself so complex with almost an infinite number of inputs, contexts, and situations, that envisioning not only what should be, but what is sustainable and what will work, to be next to impossible.

I agree, Michael. It’s stupid to spend our time debating what is essentially unknown.

The problem is that the other people always assert that they do know how things will be, or how they ought to be. And they like to accuse those with whom they disagree of being evil or exploitative or class-traitors, etc.

It’s hard to sit back and take that lying down.

Usury: Three Questions

October 13th, 2009

Lee McFarlin with a fish caught by noodlingJones and Smith are on an island. Each of them is capable of catching about 1 fish per day, which is nice because they need approximately 1 fish per day in order to survive. Over time, Smith has accumulated a small excess reserve of fish, maybe a few days worth. In any event, one day Jones has an idea: he believes he can create a tool which would permit him to catch more fish than he can by the ancient practice of noodling.

The problem for Jones is that, since he requires daily fish to survive, he can’t forgo his current production in order to invest his time otherwise in the development of this tool. Jones mentions the idea to Smith, lays out his plans and estimations and asks to borrow two fish in order that he may bring his invention to fruition.

Smith agrees to advance Jones the two fish he requires, but on condition that he repay him two plus one fish (despite the fact that smith does not maintain any position of “authority” over Jones on the island, according to some, Smith is guilty of usury); the extra fish being pledged in good faith because both men know that Jones’ invention may not work. In effect, he says “I will give you two fish, and you will repay me with three fish because there is a non-zero probability that you will be completely unable to repay me, in which case, although I will ask for a good-faith payment of whatever you can afford, we both lose. I accept only your promise in exchange for bearing this risk, and also for advancing your sustenance during the time you devote to your invention.”

Jones begins production forthwith, and after a day, has created a primitive net. Let us assume that this net then allows him to catch seven fish in one day, after which its useful life is exhausted. On the morning of the second day, Jones consumes the second fish loaned to him by Smith, and sets out to go fishing with his new net. He catches seven fish before the net falls apart in the surf. Of his bounty, he repays Smith the two plus one fish, four remaining to himself.

Smith: I could have enjoyed two days of repose immediately, but loaned my excess instead, realizing a gain of one. Now I may enjoy three days of leisure in the future.

Jones: Although it requires only two to produce, its value-add is five.  I paid three therefore realizing a gain of two; now I may enjoy the “weekend” for once.

Both men are better off as a result: Smith needed only work five days this week (as a result of his previous thrift), but works four instead. And Jones who otherwise would’ve worked seven days, works but five.

Question 1: What justification is there, if any, for denouncing the initial grant of loan (two fish to be repaid plus one)?

Question 2: The question of usury hinges upon some sort of exploitation. How precisely has Jones (or Smith) been exploited by the other, under the above scenario?

Question 3: At what price would the loan from Smith to Jones not be considered “usury”?

Concluding Remarks:

If both men enjoy their leisure to its fullest, their reserves will be exhausted and in order to survive each will be compelled by hunger to work the full seven days next week.

On the other hand, if they are wise and cooperative, they will in short time realize that they may obtain the same amount of food with far less effort in the following manner: Jones works twice weekly to produce nets, and Smith uses those nets twice weekly to catch fourteen fish, divided equally between them. Each man may then enjoy five days of leisure where he previously enjoyed none.


“Things Could Be Worse”

October 12th, 2009

Stephan responds briefly to a common objection to anarchism:

I get people who tell me “Yes, the government is bad, but look at it this way, things could be worse”. It’s true that I could be living in some other country under conditions that are even worse, but that’s not the point.

Practically none of us desire to see a world that’s a worse place to live in, in fact many of us routinely dig deep, even during tough times, to help out those less fortunate, so why presume that we’d let it become something worse?

This is an objection raised on propaganda: People imagine “things could be worse” because they imagine a world without any of the “good” things which governments provide*. The government builds roads, maintains the police, provides for law and order, ensures the quality of our foods, etc., so without government there would be neither roads, nor police, nor law nor order and we’d all eat naught but poison until we die.

It’s clearly stupid to believe this, but many people do because they’ve been conditioned to believe it, and they’ve never been taught to think for themselves (a reflection on the sorry state of public education, I might add).

They are afraid that things would be worse, without a government to control and influence nearly every aspect of their personal lives**. But this is a very untenable assumption unless one unconditionally supports everything the government has ever done and will ever do. And for the record, “everything” includes “Don’t ask, don’t tell”, housing projects, rent control, restrictions on your rights to peacefully assemble, to bear arms, to speak freely, to love who you want to love, to drive an SUV, whether and what to smoke, to eat organic foods, etc. “Everything” also includes internment camps, apartheid, chattel slavery, civilian massacres, corporate welfare, Agent Orange, trashing the environment, destroying our cities, etc.

People are so preoccupied with the how-bad-things-might-become in the worst-case scenario, that they’ve entirely neglected how bad things actually are.

If you say, “Things could be worse,” I challenge you to instead imagine how things could be better.

+++

* In the real world, all of the “good things” come at a the expense of something worse: Either these “good things” rely on violence (in order to pay Peter, the government must first rob from Paul) or, due to the law of unintended consequences, inadvertently cause something else undesirable.

** Every intereference in the market, whether tax, subsidy, regulation, or prohibition, ultimately has an effect on the other tradeoffs and decisions we make.

no third solution

Blogging about liberty, anarchy, economics and politics