Congratulations to the Swedish Pirate Party – which favours abolishing patents, narrowing the scope of copyright, and opposing governmental surveillance – for winning a seat on the European Parliament.
In a more extraparliamentary vein, check out Brian Doherty’s article on Patri Friedman and Seasteading.
Sounds like they had more luck as a single issue party than the LP has in 30 years. Maybe the LP should rename itself to the “Pot Party”?
Nah. Let’s be fair to the LP. Even with Bob Barr as their lord and mascot, they only deserve to name themselves the “Kettle party”, in relation to the Republicans, who have the respectively same kind of right to associate themselves with marijuana. Both need a hard scrub before being left out in the sunlight to dry.
Incidentally, the Kiwi Legalise Cannabis Party performed only slightly less well than the Libertarianz.
http://2008.electionresults.govt.nz/electionresults_2008/e9/html/e9_part1.html
I voted Green as the most practical way to support civil liberties, feminism, and sisterhood. But I’ll take a gang of jovial potheads over Lindsay’s Perigo’s socially excused class addiction any day of the century.
Unrelated praxeological thought experiment:
What if there were a population, let’s call it Americo. In that population a few companies operating in industry X pretty much monopolized the market for X. Whether they were running a cartel of sorts is unknowable, but what is knowable is that the prices for X are raising to ridiculous levels. And yet, no competition has entered the market.
Eventually Bob–the population’s go-to guy–says, “Hold on, this is stupid. These companies should have to compete against somebody.” Bob’s family has had access to really solid X for many years, and Bob thinks that his family’s company should offer X to everyone–not just his family.
Praxeologically speaking, Bob is doing what is in everyone’s interest. Praxeologically speaking, Bob is moving in a direction which is in accord with the free market. But what if Bob’s name were Captain Coercion and his family was actually the federal government? Bob couldn’t help what his family members did before him. Hell, they should have been offering X to the population all along, Bob thinks.
Regardless, Bob is determined to break up the monopoly on X. Do we chastise Bob because he’s more commonly known as Captain Coercion and his family is the federal government? Or, praxeologically, do we say that Bob is a good free marketeer in this instance?
In many situations like you describe, the “family members before him” either directly restricted the production of X, or else promoted the concentration of capital which indirectly led to monopolies providing X. A Randian once said “Nothing currently provided by government has not already been provided better at some point in history by private hands”.
Are You perchance suggesting that, having swam the vast expanse of the electoral ocean between Sweden and Brussels, the Pirate Party will suddenly turn out to have been changed into violent monsters by the journey and start killing everybody in the Europarliament?
That would be a good agorist argument BTW.
Using the State to do something is equivalent to forcing others to take a certain action…
The state is nothing more than a collection of people whose use of force is popularly considered legitimate (irrespective of whether that use is actually legitimate). Say that some of the people composing the state design a plan and some other people decide to purchase it. That’s no more “central planning” than a private business who designs a plan to make a profit.
In some instances that’s not the case. If the federal government says, “OK: health care costs are ridiculous. No private company offers anything reasonable. If you like the plan you have, then stick with it. If you don’t like the plan you have, you can buy the same plan the government’s employees use.”
Robert, I’m sorry. But, I’m not convinced–in this instance–that such an interaction is not a voluntary exchange. The government is not using force to get you to buy the plan or to get you to fund it. The resources are not coerced out of the population anymore than Blue Cross “coerces” members to supply resources.
…[W]hy is the government running the program and not someone else?
Good question.
…[T]he government has granted itself a monopoly on first-class mail delivery.
But the government is not granting itself a monopoly in the case of health care. Quite the opposite. Non-government run health care companies are the only ones in the market today. None of them offer a reasonable price for health care. The government is not granting itself anything except the right to compete with the non-government run companies. If the government cannot offer a quality product, then people will stick with the non-government run companies.
I’m having a difficult time seeing how this is not–in the singular instance of the health care industry–a win/win situation. All other concerns aside. And there are too many of them to count. How is this a bad thing for the people?
Yes, the power structure is illegitimate. Yes, the system is dehumanizing. But, if it can supply voluntary competition in the health care industry, isn’t that a legitimate function? Especially since it counts as a function if and only if it offers a product better than what’s on the market.
Roderick, I’m all for mutual-insurance systems.
I would say that my entire way of thinking about polycentrism is Rube Goldberg-ish. I have no illusions about that. But I do tend to think that we’re two sides of the same coin. Your side is just more straightforward.
True, but note that they still only got 7% of the vote. The real difference is that their system doesn’t disenfranchise minority parties. And while the LP doesn’t typically get 7% of the vote, if the system were set up so that 7% would win them seat(s), I suspect that they’d get many more votes than they do now. If you want to follow an effective electoral strategy, you need to change how the elections work, not what the name of the party is.
Anon, I agree with everything you said. The company owned by the family indirectly (and in some ways directly) caused the monopoly. But does that mean that Bob is wrong to use the same company to break up the monopoly caused by his predecessors?
Furthermore, what if Bob’s family’s company is the only company with the power to break up the monopoly?
My philosophical-political instinct is to look the other way with Captain Coercion this time. But I’ll defer to the left-libertarian consensus on this issue.
Mom=liberal statist social worker+brings sick Aster nummy cooked vegetables:=conflict of interest.
Is the coercion all in the past, or is Bob continuing the coercion?
We don’t have to look the other way. Breaking down monopolies is a good thing. Ideally they don’t form in the first place. But realistically, they’re already there. If the state can be used as a ladder, why not utilize that ladder to climb out of the well?
Those vegetables sound delicious.
My neo-mom is the best. cook. ever. I mean that- sure, I’m way biased, but everything she makes is healthy as anything plus it tastes better than most restaurant food. And she appreciates chocolate. She’s teaching me to cook… I just look forward to the time when I can afford to use her ingredients. At least I’m currently optimistic about that problem.
As for the actual argument, I’m tempted to agree completely, but I recently came very close to selling out to the social democracy for bad reasons, so I’m being a good girl right now and eating all my free market vegetables, even opposition to anti-discrimination law(=). Maybe I can take your side after the cravings go away. Must say no to government blood right now.
(=) It tastes like lima beans. Eew.
In this instance, Bob wants the population to be able to choose X from his company only if they prefer it to the X already on the market. Bob is not coercing the population to buy his X; he’s just giving them the option.
Okay, so Bob is not a governmental figure? What is he, exactly?
Well, his company is called “the federal government.” Overall it’s a pretty shitty company, and it has a history of extensive abuse (Bob has not halted them all). But the company does have good X. It’s just never offered X to the population before. X, in the past, has only circulated amongst company members.
Bob wants the company to put his X on the market.
So Bob (or can we just call him oBobma?) is currently running a company that is currently engaging in rights-violating activities, most of which he has made no effort to halt? In other words, Bob is a criminal?
Yes. Bob is most definitely a criminal. But his company’s X is the only X available to break up the monopoly on X. What do we do?
Are the means that his company would use to break up the monopoly rights-violating means?
The means his company would use to break up the monopoly would consist of less rights-violation than the already given situation–price gouging. So yes, his means are rights-violating, but more rights are violated if he does nothing. Shouldn’t he act?
You mean: should he commit a certain number of rights-violations in order to prevent a larger number of rights-violations?
Well, of course I say no; I’m not a utilitarian. (Though even for utilitarians such a strategy doesn’t ordinarily seem like the way to bet.)
You are cuffed to a chair. 20 feet above the chair is a boulder hung by a rope. The rope is tearing. It costs one cent to open the cuffs. There is only one penny in the room but it belongs to Larry–who is not present. If I take the penny without asking I would violated his right. Do I have to watch you die?
Why should I accept the sixth premise?
Because it’s analogous to the right-violation Bob’s company would commit in order to provide X to the market.
But it counts as a rights-violation only if it’s robust enough to get through the weak consequentialist filter that’s part of the array of considerations defining rights. Borrowing $0.01 without permission in order to save a life seems to get caught in that filter. Are Bob’s prospective actions on a comparable scale?
I think Bob’s action–in the specific instance of providing X–will get caught in that filter. And for the sake of the praxeological thought experiment, let’s go ahead and assume that his actions will be caught in the filter. Doesn’t that mean Bob should have his company provide X?
It seems to me that Bob supplying X is a move towards eudaimonia. If we were totally accomodationist, then we would be cool with the monopolies and just try to work within them–accepting that they’ll be near impossible to break up. If we were totally utopian, then we might wish that the monopolies would be broken up without any work being done. But something like Bob supplying X to the market, even though it’s not the perfect solution, it does seem to be our Max Pref.
And, to be strictly correct, it could be a movement of eudaimonia.
Oops: of should be in.
I think Bob
So if Bob has proof that A and B are colluding to manipulate the price of X, then it is in the consumer’s Max Pref. for Bob’s company C to supply X in order to make the price of X answer to the demand of actual market activity?
And this is true even if C is more commonly known as “the federal government?”
How does A and B’s colluding not count as actual market activity? Is coercion involved?
I thought that collusion implied some form of coercion–more of the compelling kind than the forcing kind.
I mean, A and B successfully inputting disinformation to the consumer is not the kind of free market I imagine.
If I create a virtual prison which appears to restrict your movement, I think I’m still guilty of false imprisonment even though the prison isn’t actual. If the majority of my work is dedicated to making you believe in a false choice–as opposed to actually innovating and supplying a product of quality–I tend to think that my work is not in accord with a free market, but instead: a false market.
Doesn’t price manipulation necessarily entail deception? And if the deception is systemic, doesn’t that compel the consumer into making a false choice?
If I read your post correctly, MBH, you said price gouging was a rights violation, and your entire hypothetical appears to stem from antitrust concerns.
A right-libertarian might simply point out that “price gouging” is not a rights violation and leave it at that.
As a left-libertarian, I’d suggest that your concerns would be addressed by a free[d] market (in which, BTW, fraud is not allowed by definition).
Robert, thank you kindly for your response. My hypothetical is partially concerned with antitrust. I’m aware that antitrust legislation–in the Randian sense–is not sufficient to build trust amongst a population. Actual trust (not the mere legislated “trust”) is something that is brought about through consistency in action and the capacity to form expectations which are shared and met. Insofar as a freed market entails those qualities I agree with you.
My overarching question, though, is a matter of pragmatism. Given the situation in which we find ourselves today, we have a limited number of options. Counter-economics is effective and necessary in many fields, but it has its limitations (at this point in time). For instance, what are my agorist health care options?
In these sorts of instances, I’m not convinced that the state cannot be used as a temporary tool to help break up monopolies. Just because someone knocked you into the well with a ladder doesn’t mean you should rule out using the ladder to get out. And, praxeologically speaking, you cannot rule that out.
Doesn
A and B agree to sell X at price Y regardless of supply and demand. They invest time and energy in making the consumer believe that Y reflects free market activity in order to choke off competition. If D tries to enter the market, then A and B will collude to lower their costs so that D cannot get off the ground.
Socializing risk; privatizing gain.
I’m sorry: A and B will collude to lower the price of their goods/services (not the cost)
A and B agree to sell X at price Y regardless of supply and demand. They invest time and energy in making the consumer believe that Y reflects free market activity in order to choke off competition.
How does price Y not reflect supply and demand? They’ve offered X at price Y; that’s supply. If someone buys it at that price, that’s demand.
If D tries to enter the market, then A and B will collude to lower their [price] so that D cannot get off the ground.
So they don’t stick to price Y no matter what? They lower it in response to … the emergence of a rival supplier? I can’t see anything but supply and demand going on in this story.
Now if the colluders’ ability to do what they’re doing depends on government intervention — which in the real world it usually does — that’s another story. (In that case, it’s really Bob and his minions that are causing the problem.) But merely colluding to raise and lower prices — i.e., to alter the terms on which they will consent to enter into voluntary transactions — is by itself not coercive in the least.
I understand that and how Bob and his minions (or those who ran his company before) are usually responsible for colluding. I agree.
It looks like I’ve been conflating supply with production and demand with value. I should say then that my concern is not with prices that don’t reflect supply and demand, but with prices that don’t reflect production and value.
So supply is the exchange of production and demand is of manifestation of value?
I should say then that my concern is not with prices that don
I would think that the conception of eudaimonia determines value. I mean, even in societies where false cures are most demanded and most supplied, false cures still aren’t valuable–at least in the objective sense.
Oops. MBH, my reply to you showed up here: http://aaeblog.com/2009/06/08/two-for-the-bounding-main/comment-page-1/#comment-351828
…[N]one of us know exactly what consequences a State action has.
We don’t know exactly what consequences a private action has.
There are many economic explanations for why central planning does not work…
I’m not suggesting central planning. I’m suggesting a service be offered, not demanded.
The reason it’s central planning is that the State, unlike a truly private business, obtains its resources through the use of force — which, as you imply, is not legitimate. If not for the State’s theft, those resources would still be in private hands, where they would be used differently. Again, since the State forces the use of these resources in a certain way, it is central planning.
That depends on what you mean. They certainly aren’t truly private. See, for example, one of Kevin Carson’s comments on this here: http://theconverted.wordpress.com/2009/03/13/the-problem-with-canadian-healthcare/#comment-642
The health care system in the US is already run by the government. This is true even if there’s more fascism involved than state socialism.
I noticed you didn’t answer my question about why the government has to do it and not someone else. Any possible answer I can think of involves the use of force, so we are back to rights violations and central planning, which wastes resources — meaning people get lower quality health care.
Back in today’s world, there is another possible answer if you accept that the government already controls the health care industry. if you read my comment in the thread I linked to, you saw that I think health care nationalization today would simply be a reorganization of the statist health care industry. This would apply to your program as well — it would simply continue the problems of inefficient, low-quality, centrally-planned statist health care.
To recap, in today’s world, the government has indeed granted itself a monopoly in the case of health care. It controls who can provide health care and how. The solution is not merely to adjust the way it controls health care, but to remove it from health care entirely.
I think my post got caught in a filter. Reposting:
That depends on what you mean. They certainly aren’t truly private. See, for example, one of Kevin Carson’s comments on this here: theconverted.wordpress.com/2009/03/13/the-problem-with-canadian-healthcare/#comment-642
The health care system in the US is already run by the government. This is true even if there’s more fascism involved than state socialism.
I noticed you didn’t answer my question about why the government has to do it and not someone else. Any possible answer I can think of involves the use of force, so we are back to rights violations and central planning, which wastes resources — meaning people get lower quality health care.
Back in today’s world, there is another possible answer if you accept that the government already controls the health care industry. if you read my comment in the thread I linked to, you saw that I think health care nationalization today would simply be a reorganization of the statist health care industry. This would apply to your program as well — it would simply continue the problems of inefficient, low-quality, centrally-planned statist health care.
To recap, in today’s world, the government has indeed granted itself a monopoly in the case of health care. It controls who can provide health care and how. The solution is not merely to adjust the way it controls health care, but to remove it from health care entirely.
Well, scratch that. I’ve just read that the plan–as it stands now–will need extra revenue. Hence, coercion. Ugh.
Is health care a basic right? I think it is. But I can’t argue this issue anymore on the grounds of value-free economics. Shit.
MBH, any thoughts on Sheldon’s worries here and here?
Even if health care were a basic right, that wouldn’t mean that government provision is the best way to secure it. And creating a government-maintained socialist health care system to compete with our government-maintained fascist health care system seems needlessly Rube Goldberg-ish. Why not just stop banning free-market health care?
Your piece on Scrooge also seems relevant: http://libertariannation.org/a/f12l1.html
BTW, am I the only one who can no longer see most of the content of my earlier comments? It’s a shame the comments system has so many problems, because the discussions are so interesting.
Long talkbacks now split into multiple pages; look for a clickable “1″ or “2″ at the bottom of the page. Maybe that’s the problem?
I don’t think that’s what it is. Some comments are simply truncated, including some of yours:
Roderick on June 11, 2009 at 12:25 pm
Doesn
Roderick on June 11, 2009 at 5:09 pm
I should say then that my concern is not with prices that don
Robert Paul on June 11, 2009 at 8:01 pm
My overarching question, though, is a matter of pragmatism. Given the situation in which we find ourselves today, we have a limited number of options. Counter-economics is effective and necessary in many fields, but it has its limitations (at this point in time). For instance, what are my agorist health care options?
In these sorts of instances, I
Robert Paul on June 11, 2009 at 8:35 pm
We don
Robert Paul on June 12, 2009 at 1:49 am
But, I
Ah. Yikes.
It looks like those are just gone ….
Unless someone has the old comments RSS feeds and can resurrect them? I don’t, and apparently Brandon doesn’t either.
Through some convoluted magic I think I’ve got all of them. I’ll post them here. BTW, any idea what happened? It would suck if it happened again, especially if it affects your main blog posts, and everything isn’t being backed up…
Roderick June 10 11:56 AM
I think Bob’s action–in the specific instance of providing X–will get caught in that filter.
I’m not sure how much insulation is being smuggled into the phrase between the dashes. But if Bob can indeed prevent some rights-violating behaviour in a way that gets caught in the filter, then it’s ok for him to do so.
But he would still have to have evidence that the monopoly is using or has used rights-violating means to maintain itself.
Roderick June 11 12:25 PM
Doesn’t price manipulation necessarily entail deception?
Can you explain exactly what you mean by “price manipulation”?
Roderick June 11 5:09 PM
I should say then that my concern is not with prices that don’t reflect supply and demand, but with prices that don’t reflect production and value.
But what is value determined by if not supply and demand?
Robert Paul June 11 8:01 PM
The problem with using the State as a temporary tool to bring about liberty and prosperity in any way, aside from natural rights issues, is that none of us know exactly what consequences a State action has. There are many economic explanations for why central planning does not work; they all apply here. The State is not a simple, static object like a ladder. It morphs constantly and any use of the State has potentially devastating unintended consequences, like a massive, magic hammer swinging unpredictably all over the place. And again, this is all leaving aside the question of whether the ends justify the means.
Robert Paul June 11 8:35 PM
This is true, but there are many different individuals, each of whom have less power than the State. Using the State to do something is equivalent to forcing others to take a certain action, instead of whatever action they would have chosen otherwise. That is central planning, even if some sevice is only offered and not demanded.
On the other hand, if the service you’re suggesting does not depend in any way on the State’s coercive power, then it can be done without the State.
Robert Paul June 12 1:49 AM
You are not taking the entire transaction into account. The government certainly is using force to obtain its resources. If, in your hypothetical, absolutely none of the funding for the program is obtained through force, then, again, why is the government running the program and not someone else?
If your answer is that nobody else is big enough, we are back to the use of force because that’s why the government is so big in the first place. (It’s also why so many sectors of the economy are dominated by a few large firms, instead of being populated by many more smaller firms. This goes back to your antitrust concerns — the government caused the problem in the first place.)
Here is a related example. The US Postal Service funds itself and does not take any other tax revenues. So everything’s fine and no force is being used, even though they’re part of the government, right? Wrong, because the government has granted itself a monopoly on first-class mail delivery. If someone else tried to provide this service, the government would use force against them.
Those worries are fair. I would like to see Obama use his networks to encourage–what you call–a patient run HMO. Use the theatrics of politics to encourage a private health care enterprise–funded only by private citizens–for the sake of universal health care. It’s in his interest to do so. And it would help our population understand the true meaning of free-market. It would engender bi-partisan support unlike anything before.
It would engender bi-partisan support unlike anything before.
A program that threatened both the fascist policies of the right wing and the state-socialist parties of the left wing, that threatened the entire bipartisan duopoly system, would engender support from both parties, and would be championed by the executive in charge of the very apparatus he’d be dismantling? When the seas turn to lemonade, maybe.
Lemonade seas would be delicious.
But sticky to swim in. Plus after a while, the rising count of dead fish would make the lemonade less delicious.
Well, at least Misesians and Hayekians can’t judge me for my short-term delicious but long-term senseless end.