Vouchers: I was wrong
For over a decade I have supporter a voucher system as a way of reforming education, health and other government programs. Vouchers provided a way to increase the role of market discipline while maintaining a level of government subsidy, and are supported by many moderate libertarians as appropriate policy and by many libertarians as a step in the right direction.
The basic idea is to give each person an allowance that must be spent on a certain type of behaviour. For example, give each parent $10,000 that they must spend on any school for their child. Since the subsidy is now going to the consumer and not the producer (ie not the school) there is no need for government control or ownerhip of the school and we can have proper competition between schools, which should drive up the total quality and choice in education.
I still believe this is good reform… but I now think I was wrong about one element.
I have traditionally argued that everybody should get an equal voucher, and that the voucher should not be means-tested. I now believe that it would be appropriate to means-test vouchers.
My primary argument against a means-test was that by reducing the amount of the voucher for high-income earners this would increase the effective marginal tax rate (EMTR) faced by a person as they earn more income, and therefore contributes to the “poverty trap”. I still think this is true, but I now think it is outweighed by another issue.
Everybody in Australia is on welfare. There is no such thing as a “self-reliant” Australian and each of us is both taking from and giving to the nanny state. The government gives money to rich people to pay for their health, pay for their education and pay for their childcare costs… while also charging these same people excessively high income taxes as well as a range of other taxes, fees and charges. This has to change.
It is my opinion that we must create a path for people to get away from government support and once again become self-reliant. This is best achieved by offering tax cuts, which are paid for by removing government subsidisies to high-income families.
This should be a reform that gets appeal from across the political spectrum. Free-market advocates get tax cuts and lower government spending. Economists should celebrate lower levels of churning and bureaucratic waste. Social democrats will be happy to note that it involves no cut in support for low-income people.
The real benefit of this idea from my perspective is the long-term dynamic. In the current political environment it seems very unlikely that any politician will simply dismantle the welfare state. And if we continue with the current policies of universal tax and universal welfare (built by Whitlam & Howard) then it doesn’t seem likely that we will ever escape the welfare state.
But by targetting welfare only at low-income people we create a viable mechanism to shrink the welfare state over time. With continued economic growth, the number of low-income people (in an absolute sense) will decrease and more people will move steadily towards self-reliance. This may not please the hard-left who are committed to big government… but for social democrats who truely care about helping people this will be seen as a good thing.
This reform would require two important things. First, to address the issue of EMTRs, the subsidies (for health, education & childcare) should be matched with tax cuts and should only be removed slowly.
Second, to be able to remove the subsidy for high-income families it is necessary to know exactly the size of the subsidy. This actually increases the argument for introducing a voucher system in the first place, as vouchers make the size and direction of government subsidies more transparent. But even if we didn’t move towards a full voucher system, it would still be necesssary (and appropriate) for the government to accurately measure the real cost of their services. This wouldn’t impact on low-income people, but would allow the government to charge high-income people the correct price.
309 Comments
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
-
Recent Comments
Libertarians and ele… on Libertarians and elections (an… 
Dom Vasta on Libertarians and elections (an… 
Shem Bennett on Libertarians and elections (an… 
'Nuke' Gray on Libertarians and elections (an… Dom Vasta on Libertarians and elections (an… 
TerjeP (say tay-a) on Libertarians and elections (an… TerjeP (say tay-a) on Libertarians and elections (an… 'Nuke' Gray on Libertarians and elections (an… Shem Bennett on Libertarians and elections (an… 
Brendan Halfweeg on The Santa Claus Governmen…
Catallaxy Files- Open Forum: February 11, 2012 February 10, 2012 Sinclair Davidson
- Not all recessions are caused by the Fed February 10, 2012More middle of the night blogging. My economics is classical. The almost perfect overlay of my own book can be found in a series of notes taken by Nicholas Kaldor at the LSE in 1927-29 from lectures delivered by the great American economist, Allyn Young. These notes were only published around a decade ago but [...]Steve Kates
- Where’s Romney? February 10, 2012It is quite extraordinary to watch the American political process up close. Now, I admit I have been busy and I don’t watch much of the television and do not read a lot of the press. But before I arrived the thing I did want to do was see more of Mitt Romney since from [...]Steve Kates
- inCISe
- More on PHI rebate means test February 10, 2012When I wrote in Incise yesterday, ‘Rebate should not be means tested,’ I did not expect events to move quite as quickly as they have. The government seems confident it has the numbers to get the means test through. I wouldn’t be surprised if Rob Oakshott and Andrew Wilkie have indeed swallowed the government’s nonsensical arguments, but it will be interestin […]Robert Carling
- Quiggin versus Carling and Kirchner February 9, 2012John Quiggin accuses Robert Carling and I of ‘an appalling breach of elementary standards of research’ for not acknowledging that Alberto Alesina’s work on the effectiveness of fiscal stimulus and consolidations is ‘highly controversial.’ In fact, we referenced Alesina’s work precisely because it has featured so prominently in public debate, including in the […]Stephen Kirchner
- Police going too far February 9, 2012According to an article in the Sydney Morning Herald, police are lecturing parents for letting their children walk to the shops or catch a bus on their own, with senior police saying such incidents will be reported to the Department of Community Services (DOCs) if a child is considered at risk. But when is a child ‘at risk’? One mother was told it was inappr […]Sara Hudson
- More on PHI rebate means test February 10, 2012
- IPA news
- Let European dogs lie February 9, 2012Australians will be surprised to learn that, apparently, the federal government now has responsibility to help the city of...
- It's time to bring back the thrift February 9, 2012Ted Baillieu plans to shave 3600 jobs from Victoria's bloated public service. The state of Wisconsin in the US, with a...
- We'll huff, we'll puff, we'll blow the budget into surplus February 8, 2012Bill Clinton famously said, "It's the economy, stupid". So it is. Unsuccessful politicians might be inclined to argue,...
- Let European dogs lie February 9, 2012
Vouchers for education are a good idea, and have been used quite successfully in Sweden since the 1990′s.
But…
The universal sharing and pooling of wealth is the basis of the modern social democratic state, and applies to all successful peaceful prosperous nations in the world today.
Like democracy, it’s messy and inefficient.
Like democracy, it’s the worst system of government, except for all the other ones.
Can it be improved? Absolutely. Could it be replaced with something completely different, and clearly better? Perhaps eventually. But in our lifetimes? No chance.
I’m (sadly) increasingly of the opinion that the LDP isn’t really interested in aiming toward having a real say in how our country is run. If its purpose is to discuss libertarian ideals because it’s intellectually and philosophically interesting, then fine, but if you want to develop policy that actually has a chance of improving our nation, then there’s only compromise and more compromise.
The best policy in the world counts for nothing if people won’t vote for it.
I’m not convinced. To avoid high EMTRs the phase out needs to be low. For a $5000 education voucher phasing out at a rate of 10 cents in the dollar starting from an income above $25k still means that only those above $75k are independent of welfare. However even a phase out of 10 cents in the dollar when added to income tax leaves steep EMTRs. Especially when you add on the phase outs for all the other handouts.
The key issues roughly in what I think is the order of concern are:-
EMTRs
Welfare dependence
Welfare objectivies
Churn
I think any reform should be judged on it’s merits not on some prescriptive rule that says means testing is automatically a good thing or universal welfare automatically bad. Generally I tend to think universal welfare without means testing is better so long as both welfare and tax is low and so long as welfare is taxed. However it depends so much on the specifics. Mark Hill is in my view close to a very workable reform formula with his idea to increase GST, abolish income tax and minimum wages and provide a universal basic income without means testing.
Means testing has not limited welfare. It has made it plausable and affordable to maintain and expand the offering. Remove income tax and prohibit means testing and welfare would necessarily remain modest.
LS — this isn’t the LDP. This is the official blog of the Australian Libertarian Society (ALS). Many people here are active in the LDP and we discuss it a bit… but not every point has to come back to the party. If you want to discuss party policy, perhaps you might want to contact some of the party members via e-mail.
Having said that, I have no idea why you think the above suggestions would be difficult to implement. The short version of above is simply: let’s give fewer handouts to rich people. If you think that’s too crazy-brave radical then I can’t imagine a reform small enough to meet your criteria.
Terje — I think it would be easy to have link means-testing with tax cuts in a way that didn’t change EMTRs at all. Indeed, I explained how at your place a week ago.
Of course you wouldn’t phase out all the vouchers at the same time. And of course it would take a high income to escape the vouchers… but that’s better than never escaping them.
As for your weird comment about assuming “means testing is automatically a good thing”… I just finished explaining how I was opposed to it for the last 10 years. Of course it’s not automatically a good thing. Perhaps we could also discuss how water is wet and then debate whether the Pope is a Catholic.
I have no doubt about it, but the design of the system becomes more important than in your lump sum, flat tax environment.
I would err on upper class churn but no poverty traps or similar problems. If you can show me a well designed plan with no problems and a sliding scale for vouchers, yipee.
John, fine…my apologies. I had no good reason to assume this blog was primarily about discussing LDP policy.
I guess I’ve made my opinion on it clear enough!
I agree your proposal about is workable. Is it sellable to either of the major parties?
My biggest problem with voucher systems is that when implemented they have almost universally favoured religious schools. So they should ideally be combined with a reduction of other benefits to religious bodies.
Have they? Sure the parents just haven’t spent their own money there? Where’s the evidence fella?
“My biggest problem with voucher systems is that when implemented they have almost universally favoured religious schools”
I don’t see this a problem in itself… if the parents want to send their kids to a school that includes religious instruction, then that’s up to them.
LS seems to be against a majority of people individually choosing a preference, but in other threads has favoured collective decision making over individuals…
But that’s ignoring that fact that religious bodies already get so much government favouritism, and its the same religious bodies that run those schools.
Further, libertarian ideals are surely antithetical and incompatible with religious dogma and superstitution.
Any policy that will potentially increase the power of religious bodies, directly or otherwise, is one I would have trouble with.
How are libertarian ideas antithetical with religion?
The libertarian idea is that human interaction should be voluntary and peaceful as much as possible. If people want to get together and worship sky-fairies peacefully and voluntarily, then that is perfectly consistent with a libertarian system.
I agree that religious schools shouldn’t be given any special advantage over non-religious schools. But neither should the government discriminate against a school because it is owned or managed by a person who believes in sky-fairies.
Anyway, the point I’m trying to make is that we should find a way to stop giving welfare to rich people, and instead let those same people simply keep more of their tax.
The voucher system would replace the education funding scheme. The current scheme merely discriminates against parents unless they have sent their kids to the politically correct school.
Tolerance is a libertarian ideal. So is equality before the law. Students should be funded, not different ideologies (even liberatianism).
If people are free, they are free to worship and be religious. Do you have a problem with this as well?
Libertarianism is about promoting maximum liberty.
Religious dogma is mostly about the opposite.
There are no non-secular liberal societies that I know of.
“But that’s ignoring that fact that religious bodies already get so much government favouritism…”
Yes, I agree that religions should receive favourable treatment (and for the record, I am an atheist). A voucher policy would not give favourable treatment to religious schools over non-religious.
At the moment, there are more religious than non-religious private schools – but this is because they have a greater incentive. I think this policy would see the percentage of secular private schools increase as a percentage of total private schools.
“Further, libertarian ideals are surely antithetical and incompatible with religious dogma and superstitution.”
I disagree – I don’t believe that religion and libertarianism are mutually exclusive at all. In fact, I think it is in their best interests to embrace libertarianism (a message I recently tried to convey to Christian lobby, though I think with little success).
“Any policy that will potentially increase the power of religious bodies, directly or otherwise, is one I would have trouble with.”
If it increases their power through increased protection, then I can see how. But if you increase freedom, and they benefit as a result – well… that’s the funny thing about freedom
Oops, that should have been:
es, I agree that religions should not receive favourable treatment
re 13 – look up The Action Institute.
Reducing churn is good.
John should show a worked example now…
Voucher policies might not favour religious schools in principle, but they do in practice.
Is there a voucher system in the world where the ratio of religious to non-religious schools has gone down?
re 17 – like I said before, who cares? If the parents want to send children there, it is their choice.
Why are you against a majority acting as indivudals and the majority thereof making the same individual choice, but for the majority deciding individual choice, not matter individual preferences?
What a bizzare belief set.
Not sure…
Did you mean ss a percentage of total schools, or as a percentage of private?
If the former, then I suspect it would INCREASE – since religious parents who previously couldn’t afford to take their kids out of the public system would now be able to do so.
If the latter, then I suspect you’d see a rise in the number of secular private schools (some for profit, some not).
But I’ve no data to back either of these up.
“Voucher policies might not favour religious schools in principle, but they do in practice.”
Yes – but that’s the big difference… it’s not favouring the schools – but giving freedom to individuals who choose those schools. Preventing people from choosing their own religion is hardly a libertarian position!
John
How would you means test it?
Re religious schools – we obviously shouldn’t discriminate against parents who believe in the tooth fairy but there needs to be regulatory oversight in what is taught at school. Ofsted (the UK education regulator) has just decided not to impose the same regulatory standards on Muslim and Christian schools as secular schools). This is daft.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/01/31/nschools131.xml
LS — I’m going to repeat this point because it’s important. Libertarianism is simply about preferring that human interaction is peaceful and voluntary. It has nothing to do with convincing other people of your preferred metaphysics.
Under a libertarian system, religion is a personal decision. The government should not discriminate for or against. If people choose to send their children to a religious school, then that’s up to them.
But they don’t favour religious schools because people freely choose MORE religion, they favour them because for historical reasons religions already own the private school sector, and are already heavily subsidised by the government.
John, exactly. And by increasing the power to religious bodies, you are indirectly promoting less peaceful and less voluntary behaviour.
It’s irrelevant what the intent of the policy is. Unintended consequences and all that.
I am a Libertarian AND a Christian. I do not find them incompatible, or mutually exclusive. The teachings of Jesus were about individuals making their own choices, not just blindly going along with the masses. Maybe some institutions have become rigid and doctrinaire, but the teachings of Jesus warn against that.
In fact, Christianity is one of the few religions which favours a separation of Church and State. “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s”.
The Muslim ideal is of a Theocracy, since Mohammed was both Prophet and Leader.
Only if Church and State are separate is it allowable to criticise the state. This is why individualism developed in the West, but the Muslim world is still looking for one leader to tell them all what to do. Their Consciences are communal, not individual.
Pommy — I would reduce the voucher at the same rate as a person is currently paying tax… and offset it exactly by removing the tax.
A (simplified) example — if you earn $6000 you would be paying zero tax and receive a (say) $5,000 health voucher. If you then earn $16,000 under the current system you pay $1500 tax (15% on $10,000). Under my suggested system you would pay no tax but only receive a $3500 health voucher. That is, instead of paying tax at 15% and getting it back as a voucher, you simply don’t pay the tax and have the voucher phased out at the same 15%.
Please note that this is a simplified example, just to show the concept.
LS — the government subsidises all schools, and the subsidy is higher for non-religious schools.
I am arguing for a policy that doesn’t discriminate. If you disagree, then presumably you want a policy that does discriminate. You seem to be arguing that the government should discriminate against religions because you don’t like religion. That’s an extremely weak argument.
You seem to be upset that libertarians would allow the evil christians, jews & muslims to have freedom. Well. Yes. We would. If you think christians, jews & muslims shouldn’t have the same freedom as athiests, then you are an amazing control-freak and should change your name from “LibertarianSocialist” to “NationalSocialist”.
John – I wasn’t attempting to be argumentative but for what it is worth I think water is wet and the pope is catholic. You indicated that you were once opposed to means testing and that you were wrong. If you really were prescriptive about it then perhaps you were wrong. My point is that means testing of welfare is neither good nor bad, neither right nor wrong but needs to be judged in context. Without some broader context I’m not convinced that it is the way to go.
I’m not entirely sure if you have changed from being against means testing to in favour of it, or merely from being against it to being open to it. If the later then I have no disagreement with your new position. Although I’m surprised that you ever ruled it out.
Ok, let me restate – I support vouchers, provided it’s combined with removing the existing financial favouritism that religious bodies (churches etc.) get.
Who could argue with that?
Terje – according to my physics teacher, water is actually a poor wetting agent. but i do believe that His Fancily Dressed is Catholic and Yogi uses the woods.
Pommy,
I don’t think we need the state to determine school curriculum or standards, standards could be set by tertiary education institutions and curriculum could be set by the schools themselves. Parents would choose schools who self-regulate, rather than being forced to choose schools that adhere to the shifting standards of the state. Minimum standards would be set by the market.
At the end of the day people who can afford to choose their children’s school now do more on the basis of the school’s results, reputation, values and discipline than the fact that they meet some dumb government criteria spun to hide the failures of nationalised education. The International Baccalaurette is gaining popularity in the UK as an alternative university entrance course, and has the benefit of being international and multilingual.
The issue I’d like to see discussed is how government owned schools could be privatised under a voucher system. Sure, some state schools would be immediately attractive to private consortiums or charities, but some state schools are so abysmal you couldn’t give them away. How do you manage the transition period and ensure that there are enough private providers to provide schooling for every child?
Gift them in a trust to the local community. I say do it on local property owners, since they have an economic interest in keeping a fine quality school.
Mark, some of these schools would be like gifting a white elephant or even Trojan Horse when you consider how ill disciplined the students are. You can’t force people to take responsibility for their local school. What to do with those schools in areas where community spirit has been killed by the nanny state?
Brendan
I don’t agree. If schools are left entirely to their own devices, then many Muslim schools would revert to the type offered in Islamic countries, which spend half the day rote learning the Koran and preaching hatred of Jews. I cannot think of a more divisive way to bring up young Muslims than to have this imposed upon them.
They can sell out if it is a basket case.
pommy, I agree, and it’s an extreme case of the general concern I have about giving religious bodies more power.
“Islamic” countries. I think that tells the story. There is quite a lot of state sponsoring of this awful indoctrination.
It would be illegal to incite relgious violence in Australia.
If students, not institutions were funded, how long would these last before they folded?
These people would have no useable skills and either cahnge for the better or would die out or immigrate in a generation.
Err, emigrate.
Pommy,
The number of fundamentalist Islamic madrassas set up would be minimal, but I see your point. Perhaps redemption of vouchers could be tied to being a member of a professional standards body like the IB. This wouldn’t be that different from requiring people to have insurance. The UK government doesn’t tell you which insurance company to use, or how much cover to have beyond third party. A lighter touch than some heavy handed state bureaucracy like ofsted.
There would be nothing to stop Muslims from setting up such schools independent of the voucher system though. If they want to preach hatred and jihad to their children, then there is little the state can do to prevent it except make the costs of such choices self-evident. Even under a 30-30 negative/flat tax scheme, the state would lose the ability to withdraw income support for radical illiberals of any belief system. I could imagine a bunch of Marxists living in a commune pooling their $9000 minimum incomes preaching socialist revolution.
My point is that state can not prevent free people preaching irrational beliefs to their children while maintaining liberty for the rest of us. Once those individuals cross the line from free speech to bombing trains, then the full weight of the law must apply. Until that point, we must make the cost of their free speech entirely apparent to them in a consistently liberal manner.
Sorry, I should have said
… requiring people to have insurance to register their car.
The number of fundamentalist Islamic madrassas in Malaysia and Indonesia are extremely few… who in their right mind thinks that Australia would be flooded by them? As they wouldn’t meet university enterence standards, I think it is extremely likely we would have zero. Further, banning schools won’t stop hatred from home & mosque/church. This is a very marginal problem, and a very poor excuse to hand over powers to the government.
I’m sure you all want to give the government powers with the best of intentions… but the reality is that you won’t run the government. Somebody like John Howard or Kevin Rudd will… and they’ll be influenced by people like Julia Gillard, Bob Brown, Fred Nile and Pauline Hanson. Are you sure that the strange fear of an unlikely Muslim school is worth giving these people power over education?
Giving the government powers because of life-boat examples is a sure way to give the government lots of powers. And it shows that once again the best friend of government is irrational fear.
Sorry. I am totally against means testing. Means testing and higher rates of income tax are the same thing in effect, but it just adds to bureacratic maze. If you start with a flat rate of 30% tax (e.g. the LDP’s 30/30) what sort of taper rate are you suggesting? To prevent effective tax rate going higher than 40%, the taper rate would be 10%, so, that would mean a 40% tax rate up to $200,000 (assuming two kids per family) and 30% thereafter.
This is a bit off thread but I thought I would toss in something I found from Wayne Allyn Root: -
Then there’s education- perhaps the biggest problem in every country. It seems the problem is always the same: many of the children in government-run public schools are failing. And no amount of government intervention or spending solves the problem. Why is that? Because it’s not the money, stupid (as James Carville might say). It’s not the teachers. It’s not the system. It’s the parents. Parents need to be involved in their children’s lives. Children need love and discipline from their parents. Without parental involvement (and more importantly- parental choice), kids are destined to fail- no matter how much money we throw at the problem. Parents must take a central role in the process and must have freedom of choice- to send their kids to private school, religious school, magnet schools or to choose home-schooling. Government cannot solve the problem. As all Libertarians know, the solution starts and ends with the individual, not Big Brother.
The purpose of government-funded education vouchers is to facilitate provider choice while ensuring children receive an education.
It is not at all libertarian for the government to fund education, or to make education mandatory. But most libertarians accept that some level of government funding is warranted on the grounds that children deserve an education irrespective of the means or motivations of their parents. They similarly accept compulsory education.
In other words, this entire area is a trade off between liberty and compulsion for the purpose of ensuring children get a certain start in life. The objective is education, not freedom of choice for parents.
Given that, I think it is legitimate for the state to prescribe minimum teaching/curriculum standards in order to be eligible to accept the voucher. The state has a responsibility to ensure its money is properly used and its objectives achieved. Vouchers will increase efficiency but wouldn’t change that.
If complete free choice for parents was that important, they could still be at liberty to put their kids in non-voucher schools.
Brendan
Tying vouchers to an accreditation facility such as the IB is not a bad idea. Schools that fail to get accredited could still be open but would just not receive state funding for parents. I like the idea.
The problem Europe has is the excessively generous nature of its welfare system. There simply are no consequences of sending your kids to a school that will rote learn the Koran from dawn til dusk. Once you finish school, you simply go onto welfare and then work in the black economy. The two combined produce a decent living.
If welfare could be seriously hacked back so that it was only a safety net and no more, then i would have no problem with unregulated schools.
I agree total with David’s comments above. If the government is funding certain programs then it should be able to make the funding conditional.
John- you said “but the reality is that you won’t run the government” in regards to having control of education. Well, if vouchers are ever implemented it probably means we are running the government.
I don’t agree with LS that religious schools should be disadvantaged, but I do understand the argument. Religions already control society- if we have a libertarian free for all, what does that mean? Well it means it’s only a matter of time before conservative Christian socialist dogma takes over again.
I really feel lost sometimes. You give people freedom and they just submit to someone else with even worse motives than you… At times I feel like I’d rather be the one in control. I don’t mind giving people the freedom to make bad decisions- but when that bad decision is taking my freedom sometimes I wish I wouldn’t have in the first place!
Following on from that train of thought, what makes society anything but libertarian for most people that agree with the decisions the government makes? If their lives aren’t being restricted and they voluntarily submit to democratic judgement, then it’s only us “rebels” that really aren’t free. Most people are, because they voluntarily submit to the limitations placed on them.
I’m a cynic tonight.
Most people are, because they voluntarily submit to the limitations placed on them.
Interesting thought, unfortunately their ‘freedom’ insists on conformity by all others to their concept of allowable freedom, also it exists in their minds only until they wish to do something different. I prefer a freedom that allows others to do what I have no wish to do.
I prefer a freedom that allows others to do what I have no wish to do.
Yes, unfortunately the paradox is that very definition of freedom allows them to enforce their morals onto you. It’s something you have no wish to do, but it doesn’t stop them…
I think I’m especially cynical because I recently finished reading 1984.
Doublethink and thought control are quite the reality. The past is written by the current government- if someone aligned with Liberal sees tax cuts out of the Libs it’s because they are good with the economy, if the same out of Labor it’s because Labor are trying to by votes. And vice-versa.
The second something becomes illegal it is automatically an immoral act my most people’s standards. Protesting internet filtering means you are a predator wanting to track down kids using the internet.
A Current Affair and Today Tonight are factual accounts of reality. Anyone denying that must surely be criminal.
Mark — I understand your rationale, but consider these points:
1) paying tax is not the same thing as losing welfare; and
2) if you oppose means-testing then you support having a massive welfare state that applies to everybody, and you can never escape from it
I explained above how you could introduce means-testing without increasing EMTRS by offering matching tax cuts… but even if they did increase marginally while people were being weened off welfare, I think that’s an appropriate price to pay for re-introducing the concept of “self-reliance” and “independence” back into the political lexicon.
John, sorry to harp on, but from a mathematical and behavioural point of view, means-testing and taxation is EXACTLY the same thing. Politicians try to make out that they are different, perhaps they are even dumb enough to believe their own propaganga, but they are not.
In the UK, basic rate tax plus national insurance is 33%, not so bad, eh? But people on welfare lose around 80 pence in benefits for every £ they earn, as well as paying 33p in tax/NI. Result? They don’t go back to work – they’d end up worse off.
You cannot get round this by offering ‘matching tax cuts’ – parents would still have a higher EMTR than non-parents. Or would you have a scheme where parents pay 20% tax and have a 10% taper rate, but non-parents pay 30% tax?
Please get out a piece of paper and a sharp pencil and do the workings. I’d be very interested to see what you come up with.
It’s not a question of “breaking free of welfare”. Why do you consider education vouchers to be welfare, but you don’t seem to consider the right to a ‘free’ state education as welfare? Either both are or neither is.
Vouchers represented a great rhetorical idea for Milton Friedman to persuade people about one or two things in a climate when the mere idea of free enterprise had been successfully equated with facism. It was an OK thing to talk about that no reasonable man to the left of him could, in good faith, disagree with. The leftists mostly did disagree but none of them in good faith.
But we should move on from that. There is no need for vouchers. Or at least we can provide a whole string of tax breaks prior to re-surveying the situation to see if we need a sort of interim top-up in the form of these vouchers.
Birds law of political strategy is never to knowingly promote a second-best option since you are then really barracking for a fourth best sellout option.
If we go for totally private schooling with all due tax advantages for the working poor, than we might wind up being forced to accept the second-best option of vouchers for awhile. But if we promote vouchers we are saying that liberty isn’t good enough and we won’t even get as far as vouchers.
Shem, I didn’t say religious schools should be deliberately disadvantaged by any voucher policy. Just that a voucher policy needs to go hand in hand with a policy to remove the tax breaks and other favouritism that churches get.
And further, in order to qualify for vouchers, the curriculum must be free of obvious attempts at religious indoctrination.
I fully agree with your concerns about granting people too much liberty, because it can often lead to a situation where you lose some of your own. That is exactly why I’m a consequentialist libertarian, and not a deontological libertarian. It’s *fortunate* that there is one relatively simple fix: a good, compulsory, liberal education. Many religious schools actually are generally pretty good at providing that – despite the fact that it’s very slowly leading to the demise of religion. But many are not, and giving more power to the even the ones that are is a dangerous strategy.
Mark W, I’m curious how a scheme that treats all parents the same, no matter how many kids they have, could possibly work. Is that what you’re implying?
I think means testing for education vouchers is fine, as long as its based on the students’ income, not that of the parents.
That obviously means that nearly all children under 18 will be eligible for a voucher, as they have no (or very little) income.
For adults later in life wanting further education, some amount of means testing seems reasonable.
BTW, one further thought – single parents that choose to devote their lives to raising their kids ARE being productive citizens, and contributing towards the economy. I see no problem with them opting to not seek privately-paid employment. But it should be done freely, and not because an ill-structured taxation scheme puts their EMTR so high that they see no point in working.
Mark — from a maths point of view it’s the same. But from a political & moral point of view there is a big difference between somebody robbing you… and you being told that you’re have to stop robbing somebody else.
I agree that “free” education is welfare. But it wouldnt exist under a voucher system. Govt schools would be priced properly (just like private schools) and would be funded through vouchers.
A paper on this topic is being drafted now for publication with the CIS.
Means testing, like income tax, necessitates the government invading your privacy in quite extreme ways. I’d really like to get away from this invasive mentality. Whether I am rich or poor, on a high or low income really ought to be none of the governments business.
Having no means testing does not necessitate a massive level of welfare spending just as including means testing won’t guarantee that welfare spending declines. The only thing that will reduce welfare spending is political will coupled with democratic support.
A basic income paid by the government to every citizen (or the citizens guardian) coupled with a flat tax such as GST would entail very little government involvement in your financial affairs. All they need to know is your name, that you are a citizen and your bank account number. Perhaps they would need your age if you they wanted to pay less to those below 18. It would probably entail higher churn but it would probably also entail lower EMTRs.
Why not extent the “basic income” concept to children? The moment you’re born, you start getting paid a basic income that is sufficient to start paying for your education by the time you need it?
That is, leave the whole parent-children relationship out of it. Obviously parents can choose to pay for more expensive education, but all children get at least good quality education.
I think the internet will resolve all these disputes. People could learn at their own pace from home, with their parents guiding their choices. All schooling could be home schooling, if so desired. Or, the local government, as part of the Library service, could provide internet access, and kids could be assigned to a station. They would learn from the interactive programs, not from one teacher. We already have a School of the Air, for outback kidlings, so this would just be an extension of existing facilities.
Ah the internet – curious, can someone propose to me a likely scenario in a “pure” libertarian society that would have led to the development of the internet? Its development owes fairly little to market-based private enterprise, after all.
So the private sector can build mobile phone networks, pay TV (also satellite internet – both dish and remote receiver) but it couldn’t have built dial up internet without DARPA and Al Gore?
That’s just not believeable.
Commerce would have seen “the” internet develop. Businesses have had EFTPOS and computerised sales for ages. You were able to communicate with other computers on ARIEL well before the net (think banks, brokers and libraries).
Until the mid 1990s, it was illegal to use the internet as it existed for commercial purposes. The only people making money from the internet then were the earliest ISPs.
Re: Internet.
Military/defense is a valid government function necessary in today’s world. Also, collaborations are common with private sector.
Computers and software as we know them are due to the private sector. Most of what we think of when we surf the net was due to private sector and innovation from individuals not associated with government.
The innovation seen in the IT field over the last 30 years correlates well with what was a largely unregulated industry.
Bright minds move into areas where they can use those minds ie: in areas of least government regulation. Silicon valley has a reputation for having a higher than average amount of libertarians.
I agree that “free” education is welfare. But it wouldnt exist under a voucher system. Govt schools would be priced properly (just like private schools) and would be funded through vouchers.
Am I missing something here? I accept government schools would be priced properly using vouchers, but the vouchers would still be provided by the government. To the extent that the value of the voucher covers the cost of education, that still makes it free.
I see vouchers as simply a means of creating efficiency among educational providers. It’s like privatising the Commonwealth Bank – it doesn’t mean the government can’t subsidise first home loan buyers.
TimR — you should say that you think that government military spending is a good idea. There is no god given rule that says the government should do anything.
Terje — means-testing isn’t invasive if you choose not to take the welfare. And if you chose to take the welfare, then it’s fair for the welfare giver to attach conditions. You don’t have a god-given right to welfare.
And I would suggest that providing universal welfare (as you support) does indeed mean an inevitable continuation of large welfare.
You can say “please please please” as much as you like… but what I’m suggesting is a guaranteed way to ween everybody (including you, Kerry Packer & Malcolm Turnbull) off welfare… and what you’re promoting is a guaranteed contiuation of welfare forever.
Mark, you do love to make assumptions. I never said it couldn’t happen. I agree with Tim that as long as there is taxpayer-funded military spending (I would also add spending for scientific research – arguably the most critical development after that at DARPA occured at CERN), the Internet or something like it would have developed eventually. I’m less confident it would have done so with no such fostering environment.
I also agree that the IT industry has benefitted from only light regulation and a fair-bit of self-regulation (defining standards etc.). One of the reasons I enjoy working it.
DavidL — the public education wouldn’t be free, but poor people would have a voucher to cover the costs. With a means-tested voucher, rich people wouldn’t get a voucher and would consequently pay the full fees at the public school.
Check the context. Mark asked about the difference between “free” education and a voucher system.
LS,
You asked if the internet could have emerged without the Government.
I pointed out that the private sector had its own global networking systems BEFORE “the” internet was released to the public, built more advanced telephony and other communications technology than what the internet was when it was released to the public and that the silly ban on commercial use of the internet probably slowed down it’s development.
I didn’t make any assumptions there. I just listed events and developments which show that the Government wasn’t required. It should be clear to you the internet would have existed without “Al Gore and DARPA”.
It’s not clear to me at all. What successful large-scale networking systems have had no government involvement at all?
Banks, libraries and brokerage houses.
The fact that the Government uses or funds these facilities doesn’t necessitate Government involvement in the development of the network.
JH, I said, the military is a valid government function. Didn’t mention spending. My statment naturally implies that I think some level of military spending is necessary, but it doesn’t imply that I think spending should increase from its current level.
It simply means that the US military (that developed internet communication to put my comment in context) should rightfully exist.
The reason a military should exist is for governments to perform their correct duty – To protect the rights of people to their lives.
You say, “there is no God given rule that the government should do anything”. I think there is a “rule” or principle of government – that the government should function as a rights protector. ie: police, courts, military as primary functions. I don’t think it comes from God, I think it comes from reality. ie: Humans are unique and have volition, they need to use their brains to survive, which implies they need to act on their descisions which in turn implies they should be allowed to act without coercion/force applied to them.
PS. I actually think military spending is excessive and misdirected in some instances.
No, that government almost always funds and coordinates the development of wide-area networking systems doesn’t prove that its necessary, but does tend to suggest that its an effective strategy.
The advantage of a system such as the Internet and World Wide Web to researchers trying to voluntarily share as much information as possible is clear enough. The advantage to a bunch of disparate private enterprises often trying to hide information from each other is not necessarily so clear.
TimR — I think we should have a strong military.
I just don’t like it when people try to treat it as somehow inherent in society that the government has a military. It’s not inherent at all. It’s just a preference that most people have.
You say you think there is a general rule that the government should provide us security. That is no more a rule than the government should provide us with any other goods or services. The argument for government providing some security is quite a good one — perhaps one of the best arguments for government. But it is wrong (and unfortunately far too common) for people to simply assume they should provide that service. It is at least theoretically possible to have non-government provision of security.
Though, as I said, I don’t personally have a problem with some government involvement in the security business.
So much for your libertarian purity!
There’s no general “rule” we should have a government at all, of course. We spent first ~200,000 years of our existence as Homo Sapiens without one. But that probably gives you a not unreasonable idea of what the next 200,000 years of our existence might be like if all govermnents were dissolved tomorrow.
Indeed, aren’t many hunterer-gatherer tribes pretty close to the libertarian ideal?
LS,
Hunter-gatherers have little concept of property or property rights. If anything they are more representative of primitive socialism than libertarianism.
What is the history of state funded education? When did Australia switch from private and charity run schools to government schooling?
LS — you are the only person here going on about libertarian purity. Get over it.
John, no need to get over something I don’t take the least bit seriously.
Right, Brendan, so all hunter gatherer societies need are property rights, and they’d be living in first world luxury?
LS, hunter gatherers had property rights and they traded (in between slughtering each other, of course) even hundreds of thousands of years ago. I saw a programme on it.
So then that confirms my suspicion – that the best example of libertarian ideals in practice is a hunter gatherer society. And the reason it worked well is because there was no possibility of significant disparities in wealth and power.
A small part of me sees a definite attraction in returning to such an existence. But I’ve been far too molly-coddled by modern technology and a comfortable existence to voluntarily choose it.
LS – that is the biggest twoddle I have ever heard.
Hunter-gatherer societies are marked by authoritarian oligarchic leadership hierarchies, an absence of equal rights for women, communal ownership, nomadic existence, mysticism, extreme hostility to outsiders and subsistence. What part of that makes hunter-gatherers the perfect libertarians?
An absence of government does not mean an absence of voluntary institutions that uphold civilisation, maintain order, enforce contracts and promote liberty and prosperity.
That’s the biggest twoddle? Evidently, you have never listened to GMB or his twin Lambert.
David Friedman makes an important distinction between anarchy and libertarianism. Anarchy is the absense of government, but there will still be “private violence” (ie criminals). Libertarianism wants to minimise violence/coercion (ie behaviour being voluntary & peaceful).
Anarchists argue that the private sector will sufficiently control “private violence”. In contrast, minarchists argue that you need the government to provide security and that the violence of government is less than the violence they prevent.
It is possible that some hunter-gather societies approximated anarchy, but failed to be libertarian because of the excessive amounts of violence. It certainly seems that their “primative anarchy” was fairly unstable, and such groups quickly were killed to developed some sort of authoritarian government.
Some people have used this as an argument against the viability of anarchy, and it’s a reasonable argument. In resoponse, I argue that modern society makes anarchy potentially more viable because (1) the rewards from peaceful interaction are larger; and (2) the revealed value of life is now higher. But that’s a different debate for a different day.
Either way — primative hunter-gather societies are not good examples of libertarian society because they tended not to be organised around peaceful and voluntary behaviour.
I dunno, John, it’s not as if there was a police force of anyway of enforcing tribal customs. If there is no law-enforcer then I’d have to say it was pretty voluntary.
In Japan there is a social taboo about eating on trains. There aren’t any fines, but Japanese people just don’t do it. Is someone in Japanese society “free” to eat on trains? Well, a social stigma isn’t violent or coercive, but it’s definitely something most would rather avoid…
I actually find it quite interesting, and arbitrary the priority libertarian philosophy puts on physical action. There’s a lot of pressures you can put on someone without ever touching them. I guess death is pretty much the worst of it, though. But isn’t talking someone into suicide the moral equivalent of murder?
Shem,
Japan is not a tribal hunter-gatherer society. I’m not sure what your point is. If you did not comply with tribal customs you had the bone pointed at you and you became a ghost to your kith and kin. Exclusion would eventually mean death.
Today, if you want to non-violently ignore social custom, you sit at home posting on blogs, ordering pizza online. I think the chances of a libertarian society developing in a economically sophisticated and advanced society are much stronger than in a subsistence hunter-gatherer one.
Shem — which societies are you talking about? Most African hunter-gatherer societies had a chief. The chief decided what you could and couldn’t do… and if you disobeyed the chief you were punished. Just because the “police force” were part-time and didn’t wear badges doesn’t mean their society was voluntary and peaceful.
Social stigmas are a separate issue.
No — talking to somebody is not the moral equivalent of shooting them in the head. There is a world of difference between violence/coerion and influence and it’s best explained like this:
Violence/coercion — “do what I say or I’ll take away something that is yours or hit you”
Influence — “do what I say and I’ll give you something that’s mine… please please please”
This isn’t to say that influence is always morally good or that it’s nice or that it’s not important. But there is a very important and very obvious moral distinction between influence (ie free speech) and violence.
I also note that if you want to stop influence you only have two options — use peaceful & voluntary influence (ie talk to them), or use violence.
Exclusion would eventually mean death.
The tribes are just enforcing their own laws on their own property. You had the freedom to leave at any stage, to hunt on your own, to form your own tribe. As long as you weren’t on the other tribe’s property.
The police force in a libertarian society will point guns at you if you murder someone and refuse to go to jail. I don’t see how that’s any different.
There is ALWAYS a need for violence and coercion in society, even in a libertarian society. In a libertarian society violence and coercion are only ever used by those in power if you are violent or coercive towards another.
But in that sense most tribal codes only outlawed theft, murder, rape and things that would be illegal in a libertarian society anyway. The only exception I can think of is that women were sometimes considered “property” so adultery was punishable, even though that’s a voluntary association.
I can’t see why exclusion would mean death. Indeed, I imagine many people wandered off away from their tribe to explore the world.
Shem… the fact that the police in a libertarian world point guns is entirely irrelevant. The point was that that the chief controlled the police and used them to maintain power, and therefore he was the government. If there is a government then it’s absurd to call it an anarchy.
Some of those tribes would have experimented with libertarian rules, but unfortunately it was the militaristic authoritarians that seemed to dominate in most parts of the world. The concurrent development of Athens (liberal democracy) and Sparta (national socialism) give an interesting example of early development… though even there Athens had 50% slaves.
No — talking to somebody is not the moral equivalent of shooting them in the head.
In terms of morality I believe two things matter-
The intention
The result
If I intend for someone to die, and they die does it matter if they die by my hand or their own?
Now, someone saying “I wish you were dead, fag” probably isn’t directly saying that so the person kills themselves. But a lack of remorse after the fact generally means they should at least be held accountable for both their actions and the results of their actions.
Compare it to someone who punches another person in the head intending to hurt them, not kill them, but killing them by mistake and not regretting it. In this case the person will be likely convicted for manslaughter.
In my mind, the intention and the result are what defines the morality or immorality of an action. In both cases harm was intended. In both cases someone died as a direct result of harm caused (in one case physical harm, in one case mental harm). The intent and the result are the same- so the actions are morally equivalent.
Shem… the fact that the police in a libertarian world point guns is entirely irrelevant. The point was that that the chief controlled the police and used them to maintain power, and therefore he was the government. If there is a government then it’s absurd to call it an anarchy.
Who said anarchy?
Either way — primative hunter-gather societies are not good examples of libertarian society because they tended not to be organised around peaceful and voluntary behaviour.
That was your claim. LS said that tribes were the closest thing to a libertarian society that has existed. I agreed. Note the word here is “libertarian” not “anarchist”. A libertarian society has a government to ensure the defence of the life, property and liberty of its citizens. In that sense if a tribe only had laws against murder, theft, rape and enslaving others then it is pretty libertarian! The only time you’d have spears pointed at you is if you were in violation of someone else’s liberty.
I absolutely agree that non-violent behaviour can be morally worse than violent behaviour.
But I absolutely disagree that people should be held responsible for other people’s behaviour… or that there should be laws against free speech. The “immorality” you do peacefully & voluntarily should be legal.
John, exclusion from participating in hunting and gathering parties, exclusion from sharing the produce, would mean a very meager existence, with the individual much more likely to fall victim to the vagaries of subsistence life. Disease and accidents would lead to starvation. There is a reason people grouped together in tribes, it was survival in a hostile world. Perhaps some individuals had the talent and skill to survive alone, but as a general rule tribal justice wasn’t designed to benignly release individuals from being bound to the tribe.
How does a pregnant women deal with complications of child birth alone? How does a hunter injured in pursuit of his prey cope alone? How does an individual find water in a harsh environment without the collective knowledge of the tribe?
In general I agree John.
Legislating against non-violent behaviour is too difficult a task for me to trust government with. It is murky and grey enough for lawyers and judges now with violent crime.
This being the ALS blog, I thought it appropriate to talk about the morality of the libertarian philosophy. Morally I don’t think libertarianism is always right.
Freedom is flawed- but it is less flawed than violence. I’m a utilitarian so I like the solution to problems that is less broken and causes less problems. In SOME cases, I believe a non-libertarian solution MAY have a better net outcome than the libertarian solution. In such cases (and the burden of proof lies with those restricting freedom) personally I would prefer the non-libertarian solution.
Brendan- surely that is then an argument in favour of collectivism? People that don’t work need welfare because otherwise they die. Even if it is their choice not to work, they should be excused from the consequences of their choices if it stops them from dying…
Now that might be a sound argument, but it’s not libertarian
Tribes were more libertarian. They allowed people to suffer the consequences of their own voluntary decisions, even when that led to their deaths.
Shem,
It is not an argument in favour of collectivism, it is an argument in favour of modern civilisation with sophisticated markets and advanced technology operating along libertarian lines of voluntary cooperation.
In a hunter-gatherer society, disabled individuals would be abandoned out of necessity of survival. Disabled newborns would be abandoned. Tribal welfare would’ve only extended to those for whom had a reasonable likelihood of contributing in the future and it was convenient to do so.
Nomadic hunter-gatherer tribes were not more libertarian. They used violence to intimidate tribal members and violence to steal from rival tribes. Property rights of other tribes were not recognised. If your tribe’s lands were suffering drought, you’d simply invade another tribe’s lands and hope that your tribe was strong enough to defeat them. Corporal punishment was common, tribal punishment barbaric. Women were considered possessions. Membership was not voluntary, you simply could not get up and invite yourself to join another tribe.
You say that allowing people to suffer the consequences of their own actions is libertarian. But if survival is linked to non-voluntary behaviour, how is that libertarian? If you insult the tribe’s deity and they stone you to death, how does that wash with free speech?
Facing the consequences is not libertarian when those consequences are not voluntary. Insulting someone’s customs and being socially and economically excluded from intereaction with them is acceptable, but not when they are the only show in town and they practically control all of the resources simply because individual survival is linked to being a member of a group.
I really don’t undestand this desire to equate hunting-gathering societies with individual freedom and voluntary cooperation. Presuming you want to live, then without alternative, membership of the tribe is non-voluntary. It is not the fault of the hunter-gatherer that he doesn’t live in a libertarian society, he and his people haven’t developed institutions that enable freedom. Equating hunter-gatherer society with libertarianism is like equating the current situation in Iraq with liberty.
Look we cannot promote this idea. We’ve got to promote the idea of doing everything to help the working poor that we can possibly do that doesn’t involve stealing.
There are plenty of things we can do to help a person working for $10 an hour with a sick wife and four kids, get his kids a decent education, without resorting to stealing.
Once you bring in a voucher you’ve buggered the industry entire. You’ve destroyed its ability to innovate at anything like the rate that would be otherwise possible.
Such a voucher means accreditation. It means accepting the idea of the traditional school system.
It means accepting that school starts at 8.30am and finishes at 3.00pm which hobbles the options of the poor family right there. Its just a pox.
I wouldn’t mind so much if it were a scheme where the vouchers were weekly and reducing by 5% each week.
No its just ugly ugly ugly. And we don’t need it if we are focusing on the working poor from the getgo. Its just another inherently small-business opportunity closed off by the need for accrediation. Its as though all the businesses imagineable that lend themselves to small startups at low startup cost have been taken by the thieves and busybodies.
Just to bring in some perspective here. Footwear is pretty important isn’t it? And in many countries people lack adequate footwear don’t they?
And in the Dutch and British heritage there was once a time when folks went around without adequate footwear wasn’t there?
Well lets take it right back to the 13th century right?
A lot of people in places like England and Holland got about without adequate footwear in the 13th century right?
What if we’d put in a footwear voucher then?
Don’t you think it would have stifled the industry? To have accreditation of footwear providers? To have taxeaters getting about producing immense statist propaganda to justify their position of footwear provider accreditor?
Actually my example is a bad one that doesn’t do justice to the disaster we are promoting here.
JUST SAY NO.
This is just so important. We cannot be doing this.
Brendan – spot on.
Shem – Judging “intentions” and “results” is fine but the “method” matters also.
John – My concern regarding means testing remains. If you have an innovative way to intigrate means testing with the tax system that keeps EMTRs low then I think you need to present it with some more detail. The appeal of 30/30 was that it removed a lot of high EMTRs and did away with the minimum wage. Overlaying means tested vouchers brings back high EMTRs unless you advocate some integration mechanism that has not yet been made fully clear.
Usually when there is an idea buzzing around in your head it is interesting and has some merit. At the moment it hasn’t made the leap over to my neural network. Something is still jamming the communication channel. Maybe if you throw around some more detail in terms of hypothetical numbers and examples to show how it would all come together then us slow pokes might cotton on to where you are at. If you need time to further incubate all of those bits and pieces then thats okay. But for now I’m not yet on the same page.
Shem. I’m NOT a utilitarian since this is a nihilistic phony position to take.
But national defense aside. Where do yo see a utilitarian argument in vouchers? Its a utilitarian disaster because it is destructive of one of our most important industries.
Utilitarianism is a relentless attack on property rights. It prices the value of liberty as precisely ZERO. And on;y appreciates liberty for the consumer goods that liberty provides.
Graeme – You just said that liberty has no utility. Are you sure that is what you meant?
Shem, in Aboriginal societies, exclusion from the tribe usually meant death, because tribes had carved up all the food regions for their tribes. Outsiders were not allowed in for ANY reason, because the tribes said that they needed ALL the food. As well, other tribes tended to kill single intruders on sight, because they feared they were spies from other tribes. Solitary women were often kidnapped and given to a warrior as a wife, often on the Finders-Keepers principle. Exclusion was bad alround.
Brendan, I think you’re getting confused about the meaning of voluntary. If you would starve without the help of people, and they don’t give you help, then that is not violence. It might be nasty and immoral, but it’s not violence. As you starve to death, all behaviour has still been peaceful and voluntary. Check the definitions I gave to Shem earlier in this thread.
I agree that getting together in a tribe would have had benefits. But you don’t have a god-given right to those benefits.
I also agree that many hunter-gather societies weren’t libertarian… but I don’t understand why you’re so insistent that none of them were. It is almost inevitable that some tribes experimented with a libertarian-like structure. While not hunter-gatherer, ancient Athens and Iceland followed a fairly libertarian approach.
Libertarian doesn’t mean having roads and buildings and McDonalds and credit cards. It means having behaviour coordinated in a peaceful & voluntary way. Libertarianism is not the same thing as development. I think both are good things, and freedom generally leads to development… but they are not the same thing.
nicholas — just because exlusion is bad doesn’t make it violent.
Do you (& Brendan & Terje) think it’s the role of government to force people to associate with each other against their will? Do you think an aboriginal person should be allowed to create a club and exclude somebody membership of that club?
It is certainly true that hunter-gatherer societies often saw a lot of war, and that crime was committed. But that doesn’t prove they weren’t libertarian.
I think it almost certain that the thousands of different tribes experimented with a huge range of different political/economic structures. Unfortunately, given the high incidence of war, the initial advantage probably went to the militaristic tribes, not the libertarian tribes.
No Terge what I’m saying is that utilitarianism as a philosophy is nihilistic since it prices liberty at a zero price. Its an explicit advocacy of tossing in liberty on the basis of a few consumer goods. Utilitarianism is therefore a nihilistic philosophy.
Utilitarian arguments however are valid. Just not the idea of making utilitarianism central to ones thinking.
One ought not appraise matters in relation to what their advocates SAY about them.
I doubt that any of you utiliatarians are going to make a case for vouchers on utilitarian grounds.
Utilitarianism quickly becomes a rabid attack on property rights FOR ITS OWN SAKES.
John – your points in comment #97 and #98 are fair enough but you seem to miss the context of what Brendan said. The point of Brendans to which I said “spot on” was the one where he said “Facing the consequences is not libertarian when the consequences are non-voluntary”.
Wondering into the wilderness and starving involves consequences and I’d agree that it is probably a non-voluntary consequence and that it does not violate libertarianism. However neither does it define the essence of libertarianism as Shem seemed to suggest. Brendan qualified his statement with an example that entailed being stoned for not following the tribes religion. As such he is right that libertarianism is not merely about facing consequences for personal actions. There is nothing libertarian about being stoned for rejecting religion or for embracing religion to avoid being stoned even though both entail an individual facing consequences for an action.
Brendan was rejecting Shems assertion by showing a counter example. The fact that you can come up with a counter example that does not effect Shems assertion is beside the point.
Terje — in your 2nd para do you mean “non-voluntary” or “non-violent”?
I agree that many hunter-gatherer societies weren’t libertarian. But Brendan seems to be dismissing all hunter-gatherer societies out of hand as necessarily un-libertarian. Shem is trying to show that there were libertarian elements to the hunter-gatherer society… and one of them is that they sometimes punished people by simply refusing to associate with them.
Brendan seemed to be saying that “refusing to associate” was somehow violent and un-libertarian. And this is where I disagree with him.
In the past, the way the world was when the internet was initially being developed by US military, it’s fair enough to say that the US government was right to have a military.
In a hypothetical future, maybe a great deal of military, police, and court functions could be privatised or scrapped altogether?
Protection of rights – Is it a service like any other?
Yes I’d agree to a point, (eg/ security companies) but when you have an escalating dispute you ultimately need both parties to adhere to one decision maker – if not, then you’ll get two decision makers fighting it out.
So currently I’m tending away from my anarcho-capitalist roots and think the government should function as having a monopoly on the police, courts and military.
In a world where people understand and accept the right to property and the principle of non-initiation of force, crime would dramatically reduce.
However, there will always be disagreements (eg/ over the meaning of contracts) and always need for conflict resolution.
Most primitive societies were far more libertarian than today’s world, and functioned quite peacefully. However, they always had an authority on conflict resolution. If you disagreed, you either left the tribe (unlikely) or grudgingly abided by the decision.
LS, I’m not sure if comment 70 is directed at me, but if so, I don’t know what you’re on about.
TimR — you make a good point about the need for despute resolution. That too is a service, and can be provided privately.
If you think that private security and despute-resolution services will lead to bad outcomes then it is fair to consequently prefer a government system. My point is simplpy that it doesn’t go without saying.
I’m not sure why you don’t trust private despute-resolution. It already exists in many parts of society today and seems to work fairly effectively. Some would argue that it works better than government courts. And there is certainly a strong incentive for security providers to use despute-resolvers (ie private courts) instead of going to war. After all — they are profit maximisers and wars are expensive.
In contrast, the government isn’t a profit maximiser and when they go to war they use other people’s money and other people’s lives. It seems fair to conclude that the private incentive to war is less than the government incentive to war.
But having said that — there ae other complexities in the anarchist story and it’s perfectly reasonable to prefer government involvement if you have a good reason. Once again, my point was simply that government intervention never “goes without saying”. It always needs to be defended on the basis of some benefit.
Tim, I was replying to Mark.
My position is pretty simple: yes, there are inevitable downsides to taxpayer funding of military and scientific research. But given what has come out of it (including the Internet and WWW), I don’t see a good cause for abandoning it just yet. Indeed, we may well need significant increases in government spending on scientific research before we’re in a position to start effectively factoring it out to non-government organisations, simply because we have an urgent need for some important scientific breakthroughs (especially in the area of new energy sources), but insufficient appreciation of the long-term benefits of scientific research among individuals and businesses for them to voluntarily put sufficient funds towards research that often won’t pay off until several decades into the future, and often in a manner where almost everybody gets equal benefit, regardless of how much money they put towards it.
However, having said that, I see little need for scientific research institutions to be run directly by the government.
The CSIRO, for instance, could surely operate as a non-for-profit organisation funded partly by taxpayer dollars, with the freedom to largely do what it likes (including to split into smaller organisation), so long as it is clearly conducting scientific research.
I agree that “refusing to associate” is not violent and as such it is not un-libertarian. I did not interpret Brendan to be saying otherwise. Although words could perhaps have been picked more carefully.
Shem seemed to me to be making the point that if a tribe owns land it can treat people within the tribe how it wishes because it owns the land. In terms of power this is probably true. However to assert that this is an example of libertarian society is wrong. A society in which land is owned communially and where such communal ownership precludes the notion of private land ownership is not a libertarian society.
I have no trouble accepting that some tribal societies may have been libertarian with systems of respect for private land ownership and the like. However tribal society as typified by contemporary popular perception more generally fits a socialist criteria than a libertarian one. The fact that the circumstances of the world may allow you to wonder off from such a society and stake your claim elsewhere does not make that society suddenly recognise private property or change the nature of the society you left.
BTW, thought experiment.
1 million libertarians decide to start their own society.
They are granted sovereignty over some piece of land suitably large and well-resourced enough by agreement with existing nation-states.
Would you a) assume some method is agreed upon by which the land can be divided up into 1 million more-or-less equally-useful pieces and allocate by drawing straws? They are then free to divide up their allotments and exchange with others as they see fit.
or
b) apply a first-come first-served rule, where each individual stakes out their own claim?
If b) how do you settle the inevitable “I was here first” disputes? What do you do with inevitable bits of land that nobody stakes out?
If there is no government at all, who is responsible for keeping records determining what the borders of each block are?
(BTW, it must be said, if I didn’t have a wife & kid, I’d happily join such an experiment, even if it had to be in Antarctica. Even if it ultimately failed, it would be highly informative. I find it odd that no real attempts have been undertaken. Maybe once we start colonising other planets and moons it will.)
Shem, you further claimed that tribes did not have police forces, but the book by Ion Idress, “Red Kangaroo”, shows that the medicine-man would also have been the tribal executioner.
JH, I agree government is not a given. It’s a means to an end.
However I currently don’t see a way of avoiding a monopoly provider as rights enforcer – for appeals and tough decisions.
Nicholas, saying tribes didn’t have “police forces” was perhaps wrong. What I more meant to say is that if you left the tribe, usually you went without punishment. Unlike today, where if you violate a law, there’s nowhere to run to.
I’m not saying EVERY tribe was libertarian, by the way. I was just saying a lot of tribes were more libertarian than society today. As LS said originally “hunter-gatherer tribes are the best example of libertarianism” the best example doesn’t mean a perfect example.
In general, due to the limited number of laws tribes were quite libertarian. It is easy to organise small groups in a libertarian manner, especially when resources are more abundant and there’s no sense of property rights.
I do believe that most tribes were more libertarian than society today. Most tribes had laws against stealing, rape, murder and slavery of others from the same tribe- they are libertarian laws even if punishment by death isn’t as libertarian. Those attitudes may not have applied to outside tribes but in crude terms the simplest tribes are the most libertarian. Once religion gets involved it goes south, or once a greedy chief decides anything produced by the tribe is his property you start to get a monarchy/ dictatorship. But some tribal structures are quite libertarian.
Incidentally you are right that there was a communal ownership attitude towards property in a lot of tribes, Terje. But that is communism, not socialism. And communism, provided it is voluntary, is never in violation of libertarianism. Private property rights were defended and borders protected by tribes. Within the tribes ownership was often shared- that isn’t proof that the tribes are more, or less, libertarian.
Where do yo see a utilitarian argument in vouchers? Its a utilitarian disaster because it is destructive of one of our most important industries.
It is more utilitarian than the current system.
More kids get better educational outcomes as curriculum and teachers can be more individualised. More parents get more choice.
I agree that it isn’t a perfect outcome, or even a utility maximising outcome.
But a totally deregulated education industry while providing more utility probably wouldn’t provide the maximum utility either. Not to mention the fact that in a democracy people need to voluntarily choose such a system.
There’s no point in offering a utility maximising policy if it’s only ever going to exist in your head.
LS,
See this and it wil explore some of those issues:
http://www.mises.org/story/1865
Pennsylvania’s Anarchist Experiment: 1681-1690
TimR — for appeals and tough decisions you can go to a private despite resultion business. People would have an incentive to go there, and the despite-resolvers would have an incentive to give rulings that were considered fair, so that they got more business.
Shem — I don’t believe hunter-gatherers necessarily had communal ownership. They did not each have “shares” in the assets of the community that they could sell or control. I imagine there would have been private property rights over the assets they used — their spears & boomorangs & didgaridoos etc. Ownership of land didn’t become an issue because it was effectively not scarce (ie there was more land that uses for the land, so little conflict about it’s use). And some assets were probably controlled by the elders, who might also have held the power to coerce (ie a mini-government).
Property rights emerge voluntarily as an efficient, convenient social convention, even without a central legal system. It is a surprising finding.
See,
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0022-0507(198206)42%3A2%3C470%3AATOPRW%3E2.0.CO%3B2-X
A Theory of Property Rights with Application to the California Gold Rush by John R. Umbeck
Comment #111 sparks a thought. Given that ownership of land is not relevant until it becomes scarce relative to land use opportunities then historically speaking should we expect to see land ownership emerge sooner in small island states where the supply of new land is constrained by geography?
Not sure, Terje.
Land has no value until people actually need to use it. What matters is resources.
To a primitive community 1 acre of land with fruit and animals on it would be far more useful than 100 acres of barren land.
Terje — interesting question. I imagine the more important issue is population density and how useful the land was.
So you are an anarcho-capitalist JH (in terms of your ideal future society)?
I’d be interested to know how many people on this discussion board think that a majority of people in society will adopt libertarian principles in their lifetime.
eg/ Do you guys think a society will exist in your lifetime where citizens have full property rights, where there is 0 income tax, where there is 0 regulation, massive government privitisation, no vitimless crime laws etc?
It seems like a long way off to me.
Those associated with the LDP obviously believe in getting to the end game step by step, and so do I. But we’d all agree that the quicker the better and although I don’t think it’s worth dwelling on the hypothetical too much, I was wondering if anyone had opinions on timeframes to reaching their utopian society.
Tim, only if a bunch of true-believers went off to create such a society. Or exploration of the solar system takes off much sooner than one might currently expect – though even there, it seems highly unlikely that an “ideal” libertarian society would be pursued. Then again, at least you wouldn’t have to worry too much about pollution.
I don’t know if I’m an anarchist. I like the idea, but I’m not sure that it’s the best system or if it’s ever going to be possible. The only things I’m sure of is that freedom generally works better than government. The details of utopia escape me.
I agree we’re a long way from a libertarian world, and on our current path it doesn’t look like we’ll get there. But who knows what the future holds…
Anyway, it’s worth remembering that our current system of social democracy isn’t too bad, and you can always escape to a 3rd world country and simply ignore all the laws.
JH, social democracy is more than just “not too bad”, it’s the most successful system ever acheived.
I think it will be continuously and gradually improved by further process of liberalisation, but I highly doubt a genuine libertarian society would function today given the social attitudes and general ignorance that still exist in the world.
I think zero income tax is reasonably achievable. There are other nations with no income tax. I’m less optimistic about monetary reform but not a lot. The libertarian genie is still getting out of the bottle. However it is a long term project.
The difference between an economical liberal small government social democracy and a libertarian liberal democracy is probably indistinguishable. However I don’t know why you would call it social democracy.
lol — I don’t think there is such a thing as an economically liberal small government social demoracy. Sounds as absurd as a libertarian socialist, or a fascist pacifist…
LS — I think that liberal democracy, as experienced in much of the anglosphere during the 19th century, was a better system which provided much more radical successes, though admitedly there were illiberal elements of that society.
It is unreasonable (and arrogant) to wait until the world thinks like you before you allow people to be free. We could very easily cope with freedom, just as people have done before and as some people do now.
John, so why did liberal democracies all universally see the introduction of welfare nets, public education etc. etc.?
BTW, you do get some interesting results googling “pacifist fascist” and the reverse. Given “fascist” is often used to just mean “authoritarian”, that doesn’t really surprise me.
I think liberal democracies would have strengths and flaws, but in general people would cope decently.
Much like any other political structure, really. Even under communism people still managed to survive.
To say a liberal democracy wouldn’t “function” is putting a very tight definition on the word “function”. Most societies have functioned…. Even the really nasty ones…
A liberal democracy would function fine – indeed I think what we have now is actually closer to the sort of liberalism that J.S.Mill etc. promoted than the realities of his age.
Terje – There are other nations with no income tax.
Are there? who?
LS – the end of classical liberal society came with the emergence of Prussian statism. As the Prussians brought their militaristic authoritarian statism to a united Germany, Britain started ramping up her statist institutions, partially in admiration for all things German (after all their Royal family were German), partially out of fear of German strength.
The militarisation of British society during WWI opened the way for the new statesmen of the 20th Century, further enforced by WWII. Total war meant the total state. Once the people had got used to the state employing them in military industries, used to them owning transportation, all in the name of defending their liberty and way of life, letting the state into the education, health and welfare in a cradle to grave state was a logical next step.
What Marx failed to see was the ability of social democracy to wrap the proletariat in cottonwool, the transformation of economies from industrial to service and he underestimated the sheer wealth creation capability of capitalism with one hand tied behind its back.
Damn those Prussians.
Brendan
I’m not sure i agree with your theory. Classical liberalism was dealt two mighty blows by each World War. As a result of their contribution during WWI, women in the UK got the vote. Women tend instinctively to be more social democratic than classically liberal (obviously a generalisation but on average is the case). Female libertarian bloggers and commenters are rarer than a Bush spending cut.
And following WWII, there was an overwhelming sense of a need to help one’s neighbour and that a large safety net should be erected, hence the NHS.
John,
Fair enough, I’ll concede. Exclusion from the tribe is non-violent and being a member of the tribe is still voluntary, even though exclusion and almost certain death is the only alternative. But saying, as LS and Shem seem to be, that hunter-gatherers are more free for their lack of government is denying the fact that even a welfare recipient in state housing in Sydney’s western suburbs probably hold up their life as being more free and prosperous than a single Aboriginal in the most successful tribe in the whole of the Australian continent at the time of settlement.
Lack of government is not freedom if with it doesn’t also come with ability to defend that freedom and pursue your own ambitions. Hunter-gatherers could not defend their individual freedom and they could not pursue their individual ambitions. Their economic freedom was minimal, simply because they lived in an environment that did not support complex economic relationships. The Dutch used to say that city air made a man free, but compared to Aboriginals, rural agrarian air made a man freer than hunting and gathering.
Hunter-gatherer societies may have even followed basic libertarian principles, but that fact alone did not make their members more free.
Brendan, I agree that even welfare recipients today are in many ways more free than those who lived in hunter-gatherer societies, even though there are many more centrally-imposed restrictions on liberties.
I think that’s a fundamental paradox at the heart of deontological libertarianism that you can never quite escape.
Pommy,
I don’t think you’ll get very far blaming universal sufferage for the downfall of liberal democracy. Perhaps the limitations of democracy perhaps, but not in stereotypical representation of women’s voting patterns.
The whole need to go to war was down to Prussian nationalism in WWI and German national socialism in WWII. I’m not really sure how what I said is all that different to what you said (besides blaming women for social democracy).
I’d be interested in seeing the historical voting turn out of women and men in the UK since universal sufferage, their voting patterns, and an analysis of how much patriarchal influence on wives and daughters affected their voting. I’d also ponder of whether the return of thousands of servicemen to civil society who had grown used to an all encompassing military environment influenced the greater social programmes.
It was natural for government to get into health care to tend to casualties of war, in fact war enabled many medical advances. Hospitals became part of the military, extending the expertise gained in military hospitals to provide for civilian health care was natural.
What “downfall” of liberal democracy are we talking about?
By any reasonable measure we still live in a liberal democracy. It’s as socially liberal as it has ever been (though there’s a lot of room for improvement), and from a functional point of view, as economically liberal as it has ever been (the average citizen has more financial freedom than they did 100 years ago), though again, there’s still much room for improvement.
Pommy,
Take a look at the following:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax#Countries_with_no_personal_income_tax
Brendan
‘downfall of liberal democracy’ is a bit dramatic. i’m merely making the observation that women are more likely to vote for centrist parties than arch-capitalist, libertarian ones.
fascinating article on hunter gatherer society here
http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10278703
#134 – alas these countries are either cultural wastelands/dumps you couldn’t pay me enough to live in or Islamic kingdoms living off oil (which comes to almost the same thing)
Come on Jason the Bahamas seems like a lovely place.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bahamas#Economy
That was a good article Jason, thanks.
Yes it is. Funny in parts also.
pommy, I think you need to be a bit stronger than “women are more likely to vote for centrist than libertarian parties”. After all, substitute “women” with virtually any category (other than “libertarians”) and the same holds true. Even “experienced economists” or “dope heads”
Women generally prefer political philosophies of the “nuturing parent” type, rather than the “strict father” type, and their close associationg with child-rearing virtually rules out any thought of supporting the “do whatever you like” type. Indeed, because it’s unfortunately still the case that many adults never really truly grow up entirely from being children dependent on figures of authority, I wouldn’t want a “do whatever you like” government in power either. It’s time may come, but not in my lifetime.
Your last sentence LS – make up your mind. Sounds like you are saying your a “born again” “virgin”.
“I want X, but not in my lifetime”…
The mind boggles and pleas for a good Shiraz.
Not at all. Just because I want and support something doesn’t mean I realistically think its time has come.
What we need now is a gradual and workable path towards a more libertarian society.
“Republicans for a Gay President in 2084″
“We’re realistic”
What is the point?
How would you create a gradual and workable path to a more libertarian society? I’m all ears.
By pushing for liberal policies that are likely to have reasonable popular support, and continuing to make the case for those that don’t. Euthanasia being a good example.
134
Terje – not a great advert for zero income tax is it?
LS, the states are named in the Constitution, but WA was allowed to join last, and the definition of WA was left vague. If, for example, Perth allowed the Kimberleys to secede, I don’t think it would be against the constitution. And that society might choose to be a separate nation, not a state of Aus. So a Libertarian nation is feasible.
As for your comment (107) about land, perhaps the ALS should buy the Kimberleys from WA, and then give every member an equal area of Freetopia, to subdivide as they choose.
Wanna join?
I do…but my wife wouldn’t let me, and it would need some time before it would be a better place for raising kids than the rest of Australia.
Freedom goes hand in hand with individualism.
And individualism suffered a heavy blow throughout the 20th century due to the ideas of Kant, Marx, the emergence of socialism and facism.
The Renaissance and Industrial revolutions were amazing breaks from the Dark Ages but individualism has never totally taken hold even though its legacy lives on in the western world.
I would say individualism is gradually declining and this could continue with threats from fundamentalist religion (Islam in particular) and the anti-capitalist mind set of most people in the world.
I think the potential of a libertarian type society is more than most people can imagine. After the 20th century, we are now used to massive wars, genocides etc. We don’t feel goodwill to strangers and think progress is evil, there’s a lot of doom and gloom going around. Basically I think the world badly needs libertarian principles.
Also, that article at #136 was very good.
Agriculture was the beginning of civilization, but a diet on nothing but grains! Ughhh, give me a nice steak any day.
Also, presumably we’d need to import labour, unless the ALS (and other Libertarian groups) really has enough members willing to do the back-breaking labour necessary to get such a society off the ground.
Whichever way you look at it, we’d need to raise a lot of dough first. Such a project would separate the true libertarians from those that adopt libertarian principles when it suits them to maintain their existing positions of wealth and privilege (far too many of those unfortunately).
Wrong.
“Libertarian wealth and privilege”. Oh mercy. The few that have it worked their guts out to get like that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Minerva
The conclusion is telling and predictablity cynical and libertarian. It also has a practical lesson about the unfortunately necessary steps to do so.
So tribalism is free enterprise now?
No thats NOT right. A tribal setup is a SOCIALIST setup. The opposite of capitalism. This is why I tell you people that its PROPERTY RIGHTS that are the most central feature of capitalism. Not the absence of regulations. Not the absence of the initiation of force. Not freedom of contract. But its PROPERTY RIGHTS that are the real deal.
The others are important principles but clarity-in-property-titles has precedence. Now do you have that in a tribe? No of course not. The tribal leader will have all the rights and the tribesman has no rights and effectively no property.
Graeme- capitalism is NOT necessary for freedom. An anarcho-communist society is still a free society.
Everyone shares everything voluntarily, they are still free.
Don’t be an idiot Shem. There is no such thing possible.
I suspected you were a communist idiot all along.
Now give us the economics behind this anarcho-communist society. Because Marx was not able to do it. So lets see you do it.
Just like with industrial-CO2-release. No reasoning or evidence for any damn thing. We cannot have marxists like you, Pommy and JohnZ in the party.
These anarcho-communist societies have been attempted many times over and they never work. They CANNOT work. But lets see you explain it then. I look forward to more idiocy of exactly the same nature we got from you on industrial-CO2-release.
Now you talking about, are you not, a society without government and without money. Without a medium of exchange.
You tell me how such a society would work.
Shem, both Mises and Hayek have shown that a communist or socialist society is not possible. (Hayek showed that it’s not possible in practice. Mises showed it’s not even possible in theory.)
All the wealth of society, above the bare subsistence that man could produce alone, comes from the division of labour. This makes work in co-operation more productive than work done in isolation, otherwise there would be no material need for human society. The process of capital accumulation increases the productivity of labour and facilitates the further division of labour, which leads to a further increase in living standards.
However in deciding whether or not a particular use of resources, or capital, is going to be worthwhile, requires comparison of the different end results (e.g. profit or loss) using some common denominator. In market societies, this is done using monetary calculation.
In a socialist or communist society where private ownership of the means of production does not exist, there is no way to compare the different possible uses of a resource, other than by comparing the physical quantities. While a one- or two-man economy might be able to do this with simple tasks, such as comparing a fishing line with fish-trap, any level of economy above bare subsistence could not cope with the complexity of the task.
Resources used for one project cannot be used for a different one. The whole purpose of economy, as with human action in general, is to substitute a more preferred state for a less preferred state. But resources, including time, are limited. Only in a state of limitless resources and limitless time would it be unnecessary to rationally calculate how to use resources most economically. Needless to say, this state has no reference to the real world that humans face.
Communism and socialism have in common that they contemplate some kind of public ownership of the means of production. They therefore share the fatal flaw that they cannot rationally calculate which of different possible uses of resources will yield the more economical result. This has real costs for human lives and values.
Human population, as well as living standards, rose with the rise of capitalism. The abandonment of market economy, or nobbling it, must adversely affect the number of human being kept alive, and the standard at which they are kept alive. That is why millions and millions of people died when the socialist countries tried to socialise agriculture. It’s not some kind of strange coincidence, as vainly think. It is a necessary consequence of what was done, however good the intentions were.
The history of freedom is inextricably entwined with the history of property rights. Without the right to own your self, your labour, and the fruits of your labour, talk of rights and freedom means nothing.
By the way, we now associate socialism with the failed experiments of countries in the twentieth century: the famines, poverty, gulags, dictatorships and so on.
So it is hard to think that in the nineteenth century, the socialist authors were promising that the abolition of capitalism would bring about, not dictatorship and poverty, obviously, who would want that? They were promising *greater* freedom *at the same time* as greater wealth.
They weren’t saying we’re all going to have a higher standard of living but we’re going to have to pay for it with less freedom.
But the socialists today are. After all that disastrous disproofs of their deluded destructive belief system, they still have the gall to get up and offer a better society, at the cost of less freedom!
But Justin, capitalism inevitably leads away from anarchy.
As the original investors pour their money into projects they become more and more wealthy and the people at the bottom are forced into wage slavery.
Eventually under capitalism it might be possible for a single entity to own all resources in the world. For anyone else to be entitled to those resources they would have to exchange labour for them.
Capitalism inevitably leads to wage slavery. You can force someone into slavery by force, or you can force someone into slavery, by making it so that they have to work for you if they want access to your resources. Really it’s no different- they are working under threat of dying. In one scenario dying from deprivation another scenario dying from you actively inflicting death.
If you have private property rights you also have an entitlement of one person over another, it’s yet another power hierarchy. And if you try and access that person’s resources, what happens? They initiate force. Not too different to government, really.
What we live in is a society of victors- which is much what an anarchy would be anyway. The only way a libertarian society will progress is if libertarians are victors. The world will always be ruled by those in power, by force. The only question is- who initiates force and who has power.
Utopia is unachievable, yet, an anarcho-communist society, where distribution of wealth ensured no power hierarchy of any kind is the only type of utopian society I can envision.
In the meantime, in the real world I support capitalism and liberal democracies as having the most utilitarian outcomes. Democracy inevitably will rule, though. Unless a minority initiates force, coercion or manipulation and fraud against the majority.
I don’t know if you are taking the piss, but the data says that is highly questionable…
Investors don’t become more and more wealthy. They face diminishing returns after a certain point, unless they can continually create new products. It is simply very, very hard. The entire economy doesn’t, but it has the entire range of sepcialisations for entreprenuerial talent to be applied towards and the total sum of fixed assets which can become variable, fungible assets in the long run.
Free enterprise in 19th century Britain saw people move away from guilds and medieval attachment to the land and saw real wages rise 400%. This was unprecedented then.
Someone like Will Gates III might “secure” up to, say 1% of global resources, but in doing so, he more or less has to create at least 1% of wealth equal to this. In doing so he has afforded other higher porductivity with their resources.
As long as the economy is a positive sum game, it would be impossible to secure even a small (as opposed to miniscule) proportion of resources.
Mark, once 100% of resources are owned by someone how is someone new meant to break into that?
I guess by the exchange of ideas or services, but assume the resource and land owners decided to with-hold their resources and land.
I look at things as a philosopher, not an economist. But if there is no minimum wage and all land becomes privately owned I can imagine a world where the majority of people only have the option of renting, which puts them at the mercy of the landowners. Essentially a new feudalism.
Now such a world is not imminent, it’d take a long time for power to centralise like that. But already the majority of people are enslaved by their purchases. If people stopped working bankruptcy would be the only option. And bankruptcy is essentially a form of regulation that wouldn’t exist in a truly free market- why should the government allow someone to weasel out of their debts?
A lot of people are slaves of their own making. They are slaves to their purchases. But slaves nonetheless.
Shem, that’s what Marx said. Competition between workers would lead to a race to the bottom, and the poor would get poorer and more numerous, while the rich got richer. Eventually the poor would form a massive class at the level of starvation and would overthrow their exploiters.
The problem is, it’s wrong. The opposite happened. The poor got richer and richer. Capitalism doesn’t lead to wage slavery, it leads to the deproletarianisation of the proletarians, as they get richer and take on the values and tastes of the burghers of the bourgeoisie. The ordinary people, who under other systems either died in childhood or lived in poverty, get jobs and bank accounts and cars and nice clothes and houses and chocolate biscuits and microwaves and go on holidays and sit in their electrically-lit homes surfing the net on their personal computers.
The process by which the serfs of the middle ages morphed into the modern contract workers is the opposite of what your anticapitalist rhetoric has taught. Serfs were more or less the property of their landlords. They had to obey them: that was the condition on which they were permitted to occupy the land. What distinguishes the modern worker under contract is precisely the fact that he is not forced into the relationship. He is free to accept it, or not.
There are several objections to saying that the modern worker is ‘forced’ to work for the capitalist, (apart from the obvious fact that he isn’t forced). Socialists always conjure this class of people who are supposedly starving to death. But let us remove from that all the people in modern Australia who are not working for their employers because the alternative is starving to death. For everyone you would care to mention, the question is a higher wage with their current employer, or a lower wage with another in the same or a different industry. This mythical class who are working under threat of starvation is exactly that: a myth.
Secondly, the idea that the workers are a class at the level of starvation, while the capitalists are rich to start with, has no basis in the reality of modern Australia. Almost all capitalists in Australia today start their own business from scratch, usually after mortgaging their home. The workers who don’t start businesses, don’t start them, not because they have no capital, but because they don’t want to risk their home, and take on all the risk, stress, delay, unpaid hours, tax, and government paperwork, only for government to treat them as class enemies when they eventually employ people and make a profit!
Thirdly, the poverty of the worker who resorts to employment to earn a liiving is not caused by the capitalist. It is relieved by the capitalist, and caused by the consumer. Just as, when you shop for bread or pants or electronics, you want the best quality product for the cheapest price, so does everyone else. This is what determines the wages of the workers. It is ironical that the one person who in the whole world is offering the worker a better deal than would otherwise be available to him, and in a worst case scenario, keeping him from starvation, is reviled as an evil exploiter.
Marx thought that the capitalists were expropriating the surplus created by the workers because he wrongly thought that the entire value of the product was attributable to the workers. This is unsustainable and is simply mistaken. The worker gets paid *now* for his part in producing something that will not yield fruit until *the future*, if ever. The capitalist must forego consuming the product of his work now, and bear the delay and risk of the thing never happening. Any profit he makes is a direct result of the behaviour of consumers, the vast mass of whom are ‘the workers’, in preferring his product over that of all the other things they could have bought with the same money.
The relation of employment is not one of exploitation, as Marx wrongly thought. It is one of mutual benefit based on different time preferences, and the freedom of each individual to the transaction serving his own interests as he sees them.
That is why capitalism has brought about the highest standards of wealth and freedom for the ordinary working man in the history of the world, wealth which even the richest people in the world could until recently only dream of, like flying in an aeroplane or using a car.
The whole point about freedom and capitalism is that a property owner does not have ‘power’ over another person by the mere fact of owning property. Government is the last refuge of that kind of raw power. It is socialism which is a throw-back to the pre-capitalist days in which social co-ordination is based on the threat by some to beat others into submission. It is precisely capitalism which led us away from all that – if only the fucken socialists would stop trying to drag us back there!
Eventually under capitalism it might be possible for a single entity to own all resources in the world. For anyone else to be entitled to those resources they would have to exchange labour for them.
Non-business people often argue monopoly is an inevitable outcome of competition. I liken them to conspiracy theorists – they rely on faith and misinterpreted evidence.
They claim, for example, that if Woolworths buys or forces out a corner store, prices go up and the profits used to buy more stores. Eventually, they believe, none will be left.
Based on their argument, the world’s car manufacturers are somehow gravitating towards one giant world manufacturer whose products we eventually will all be forced to buy at exorbitant prices.
The facts completely disagree. Business diversity is increasing as the economy grows and wealth increases. As long as the barriers to entry are commercial, not regulatory, monopolies are almost impossible to maintain.
In reality, if Woolworths raises its prices, Coles steal its customers. (The ACCC is soon to discover the reality of that.) Even if Woolworths was to buy Coles and then raise its prices, any number of small competitors would expand and steal its business. In time, they would out-compete Woolworths.
Same with the cars. While the American car companies are all losing billions, the Japanese and Europeans are relocating manufacturing to Asia and Eastern Europe. The Indians are developing their own vehicles and starting to export them. Even if one American car company were to buy up all its American competitors the Japanese, Koreans and Indians would continue to hold more than half the US market provided there was no regulatory barrier to entry (to imports or local manufacture).
It’s actually easier to escape wage slavery now than it has ever been, by starting a new business or buying an existing one.
A single entity can only own all the resources of the world under a socialist government, not a capitalist one.
Shem, never separate philosophy from economics, or science for that matter. A world verges on ignorance if it does…
I believe part of the problem is a failure for people to recognise economics as a science. Just as there are certainties in science, there are certainties in economics.
Marx was a philosopher and yet his theories, guided by philosophy alone, shows no proof or rational science behind them.
Mises and Hayek were indeed philosophers, but they would never ignore the science of economics. They would not let philosophy corrupt or interfere with the facts of goods, value and exchange.
Economics in libertarianism is the driving force of the philosophy. A science stands behind libertarianism, where communism is purely and simply belief, feeling, and instinct which just isn’t good enough.
Shem. Nothing like that can happen with sound money and no height restrictions on buildings. And if it could be the case that large land holdings wound up in the hands of the very few like in South America or Pakistan you’d slowly pick up a little bit more of your tax liability from land value tax like we do in NSW and the problem would be solved right there.
As for big firms taking over everything this too is impossible. Since when they reached a certain size they would, like a commmunist country, begin having serious problems with pricing information internally.
Easy money tends to lead to larger conglomerates. As does our habits of dishing out resources by bulk auction rather than in accordance to homesteading. But firms simply cannot and will not get that big and there is redress via tax substitution if this ever became a problem.
You aren’t looking at it like a philosopher since a philosopher would realise (if he was any good and not a Rawlsian crackpot) that economic science cannot be arbitrarily removed from philosophy since all knowledge is holistic.
Shem
Get away from this obsession with anarchy. It is a construct designed in philosophy tutorials only. It has no relevance to the real world. Someone will always step in to fill a power vacuum. That’s why limited government as set out by the Founding Fathers is the most effective system yet dreamed up.
And also, learn to learn capitalism. It really is an astonishingly effective system. And no-one gets to dominate the world. Quite the opposite, in fact.
that should be learn to love capitalism
I’d agree capitalism as a principle deserves as much respect as democracy, but I’m not sure I’d go as far as “loving it”.
Understand also that most objections to capitalism are really either objections to a) greed – an unavoidable part of human behaviour, b) corporatism – partly due to the way that the law recognises corporations (especially in the U.S.) and c) “crony” capitalism, where supposed “capitalists” actually achieve positions of wealth & privilege not by actual capitalism, but by currying favours with governments.
Libertarians and “lovers” of genuine capitalism should be working harder than anyone to attack corporatism, crony capitalism, and clearly unethical behaviour by corporations.
Unfortunately too often they are seen to be desperately trying to defend corporations that simply don’t deserve defending. Perhaps Nike has done more to lift people out of poverty than World Vision – but that’s no excuse for the way it’s gone about it, and the actions of companies like Nike are exactly what give “capitalism” a bad name.
What makes the actions of people in spending their dollars in transactions which they can choose to enter into or not, less representative of society than the actions of people in voting every three years for a bundle of policies, which they can’t pick on from the other, and which are applied to everyone regardless whether they voted for them or not? Surely democracy must be regarded as less representative than capitalism? LS?
Your second paragraph is spot on, LS. Most people ascribe to capitalism the faults of interventionism that was intended to replace capitalism with a better system.
Justin, you’re describing the principle of free trade, which I don’t think needs defending. The principle of capitalism (to my mind) is that those who possess some combination of talent, ambition, diligence, risk affinity and luck put “capital” into growing wealth, making use of others’ labour to do so, but then having the sole privilege of deciding what to do with the profits.
That this sometimes results in undesirable outcomes is no more controversial than the fact that democracy sometimes does too.
That is a distinction without a difference. Any wealth we are talking about under capitalism comes from the behaviour of the consumers in preferring whatever the capitalist has to offer to all alternatives. But as soon as the capitalist attains a success, the profits start to disappear as competitors come into that market and the price comes down. A big business can only get that way by a consistent series of superior services to the consumers, as judged by the consumers, the vast mass of whom are the workers.
So what makes democracy, in which people don’t get input on each transaction and get a whole lot imposed on them even if they voted against, more representative of society than capitalism, in which consumers get input into each and every transaction, and don’t have to enter into any if they choose not to?
I don’t think democracy is more “representative” particularly.
Democracy and capitalism are complementary and serve different purposes.
Comment 160 and 162 are worthy of several readings. In particular pommys point about power vaccums does in my view make anarchy a very unstable offering. It is useful as an intellectual challenge and an economic challenge to speculate about how small a state might be possible (with zero being a benchmark). Ultimately I think a little bit of poison in the form of a small state is healthier than no poison. Some poisons is small quantities are medicinal.
168 is deceptive.
People freely offer their labour with no risk or liability. They are free to use their own savings to fund their own risk taking ventures.
I agree with Terje’s analogy of getting the doseage right with his medicinal poison. The government is a destructive agency with the power of force (not creative like business). This destructive power is required to protect citizens rights. And at the same time is exactly why government powers should be severely limited.
I also think comments 160 and 162 are spot on.
A world wide monopoly that owns everything would be virtually impossible due to the number of people and geographical area of the earth.
In the most capitalist period of history ever, 19th century USA, this phenomena did not occur.
In a true capitalist society without government favours, you need to fight to stay on top. eg/ Think of the number of people who have lost massive family inheritences within one generation. (This used to be more common in less regulated times but is still regularly seen today).
I’m happy to say I love capitalism. Because it means freedom, prosperity and it’s the most ethical economic system.
Sorry, comments 161 (David), and 164(Pommy).
Did the numbering of the comments just change or am I going crazy?
Tim, what were the trade protectionism levels for most of 19th century USA? I’d read recently that they were as high as 40% for much of it, but couldn’t find any figures to back that up.
Mark, sure…but what about the significant percentage of the population that either have a) no savings or b) inherent risk-aversion and no particular enterpreneurial talent?
No savings doesn’t matter. They can borrow. Plenty of people do save anyway…
They have no entrepreneurial talent and inherent risk aversion but want the reward for risk?
Come on, that is just parsimonious!
It’s not reward for risk, it’s reward for work.
And further, plenty of people can’t borrow and can’t save either, often through little fault of their own.
If they are being rewarded for “work”, then why bring up the issue of risk?
Some people can’t save. They borrow. No big deal.
If people can’t save, and it is not their fault, whose fault is it?
Those who provide labor to those with capital have no direct control over how much “reward” they are able to claim. Yes, in an ideal world, labor has equal bargaining power by virtue of the fact that multiple businesses all want labor. But there is no ideal world.
Lots of people can’t save because of circumstances out of their control. Single parents, those who suffer significant disabilities (either through birth or accident), etc. etc.
Bargaining power? How much you get paid depends on how valuable your services are. Labourers in WA can earn $90k p.a.
Some small business owners elsewhere own far less than this.
Labour economics is best studied scientifically and empirically using supply and demand models, not the mysticism of textual criticism and labour theories. These old theories are based on the labour theory of value which was proved to be incorrect synchronously by the Austrian, Walrasian and British schools of economics (which lead to the “marginalist” revolution from classicial to neoclassical economics). The labour theory of value could not explain why useful water was worth less than “useless” diamonds.
The people who cannot save due to circumstances beyond their control is very, very small. As for single mothers, you have to appreciate the incentives that lead them becoming single mothers. This seems mean spirited but it leads into the fact that welfare can lead to generational poverty if it creates poor incentives. This can be as wide ranging as using contraception to the choice someone makes as a partner.
Generational poverty might be beyond your control, but ending the incentives that leads people to fall into it and stay in it are vital. Welfare, if it exists needs to give poeple incentives that don’t lead to more welfare. The baby bonus was one of the most stupid, cynical and cruel ideas the Howard Government cooked up to cling onto power.
To increase savings, the Government could simply reduce inflation through monetary policy and cut taxes and chnage to consumption taxes.
And how do you think employers judge how valuable their employees are? Generally they will pay as little as the market will bear, no? But if all employers colluded and agreed to pay all their employees a little more (and take home a little less pay for themselves, as Henry Ford did), the economic and social benefits can potentially be enormous.
I’d like to see the evidence that demonstrates that people become single parents because there are financial incentives to doing so (or at least are careless at avoiding becoming single parents because there are not sufficient financial risks involved). The idea that someone would take into consideration the fact that they might be eligible for a baby bonus or FTB payment when deciding whether to engage in casual sex stretches credibility somewhat. Indeed, what percentage of single parents are even single because of a decision to engage in casual sex? The same applies for choosing a partner.
“Falling in love” is not a bodily function somehow magically regulated by the existence of government welfare.
No. People are paid at least according to their market value. That is as little as they can pay. The argument doesn’t work because consumers also pay as little as they can for goods and services. That means that each input is paid according to it’s productivity. In turn, the productivity of labour is actually the demand for labour.
Efficiency wages and trasnactions costs as well as shut down costs all suggest that most workers get paid more than their marginal product. Workers aren’t might be paid “as little as possible” but this is either equal to or in excess of their productivity.
There is nothing wrong with the wages people get paid. The only rule should be that it shouldn’t be overly hard to quit.
As for the baby bonus, who in society gets the most marginal benefit (i.e change in total income) for having children?
That should point out which income quintile is encouraged the most to have children by such an idiotic and cynical policy.
Really such a marginal analysis can be applied to single parents pension as well.
LS,
Most people don’t assess marginal tax rates, EMTRs, baby bonuses or other welfare benefits in the way that an actuary might. However via trial and error and by modelling the behaviour of others the outcome is generally not dissimilar. Garbage tips (the old variety) have a lot of seagulls because seagulls can discover benefits without a maths degree.
The best welfare is random acts of kindness. The random nature ensures that nobody learns to bank on it. If a benefit is irregular, unreliable and uncontrollable then it generally has a lot less influence on behaviour.
Regards,
Terje.
p.s. I don’t advocate that the government randomly drop gold coins in the street because such an approach would be very unaccountable and government insiders would no doubt be the primary beneficiaries. But as a thought experiment I think it has merit.
What argument doesn’t work? Are you saying Henry Ford was wrong when he decided that by paying workers more, he’d sell more cars?
I have no time for the baby bonus either, but I can assure you it doesn’t come close to covering the actual costs of raising a child.
Terje, when we lived in smaller communities, we could bank on the kindness of others. We’d take risks, knowing that there was always somewhere to fall back on if we failed.
Now we live in huge sprawling metropolises, that simply isn’t the case anymore. With nothing to fall back on, few would take any risks.
Shem, please use more precise meanings. ‘Utopia’ was a novel written by Thomas Moore, and it featured a communal society of total, enforced, equality. By definition, utopian should mean communal. If you mean a better society, just use ‘better’, or ‘libertopian’ for an anti-communal society. This way, we can all do our bit to protect the language.
No. Henry Ford was a clever businessman. He paid what are called efficiency wages. If the biggest firms with the most market power do this, why even worry about “bargaining power”?
That is precisely the problem with the baby bonus, it encourages people who cannot afford to have children to have children.
Why do large cities have less charity than small towns? How can you interact with less people? I think you re interacting with more poeple, but a smaller proportion of your community.
LS,
Those currently “dependent” on welfare would take more risks not less if we moved further towards random acts of kindness and away from structured benefits. The decline of civil society parallels the growth in government and in my view a reduction in the role of government would lead to growth in civil society, all be it with some initial hysterisis. IMHO smaller government means stronger society.
Mark, I agree – *if* most businesses paid “efficiency wages” there would be no need for unions or awards or anything like that.
No real disagreement re the baby bonus. In fact, I don’t know anyone with a real interest in economics or politics who actually supports it. Of course, we parents all take it!
Do you really need me to answer those last two questions?
The social isolationism caused by big cities is hardly in question. I’d like to think that with technological advance, it’s something we can move away from, but that may be decades down the track.
Terje, I agree with a reduction in the role of government. I disagree with scrapping welfare nets entirely, until we can move back to more “human-sized” communities where people can be relied upon to look after each other voluntarily.
LS – In that case what do you think of making social welfare a local government issue.
Who said anything aout unions – unions should be free to exist and represent workers as to reduce trasnactions costs and because we have a right to freely associate.
Firms at least pay workers their marginal productivity. These small firms have virtually no “market power”. The large firms with amrket power pay above these rates as to reduce trasnactions costs.
Wage regulation simply prices some people out of work. The econometric evidence quite strongly backs such an assertion and studies which repute to say otherwise such as the famous one by Card and Kruger have been disowned by the authors.
Yes, I would like you to answer the questions. I don’t believe there is “social dislocation” in big cities. If it exists, it is voluntary.
p.s. I think there will always be a role for unions. However I’m not generally opposed to voluntary cartels.
LS,
What if we don’t want to move back to opitmally sized communistic villages of between 30-150 people?
What stops people from being able to move into new areas like this?
Terje, I generally support moving the role of government towards local councils.
Mark, unions have traditionally been about pushing for higher wages for workers. Therefore they largely exist because employers often haven’t done a very good job of voluntarily offering higher wages. In Europe as I understand it, all minimum wages are determined by unions. This seems a reasonable arrangement, and surely better than centrally-imposed.
As technology improves, the benefits of being in a large city should tend to decrease, so at some point I believe that smaller towns will become more attractive. But we’re some way off that point currently.
And BTW, why it is that in the IT business, if you want a decent salary, you work for smaller firms, not larger one?
LS – some nations in Europe such as Britian, France and Spain have a government determined minimum wage. Nations like Norway, Denmark, Sweden and Germany don’t.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_minimum_wages_by_country
The EU, unlike the US, has no centrally legislated minimum wage.
Yes, I should have said “much of Europe”.
For an earlier discussion about the minimum wage take a look at the following:-
http://alsblog.wordpress.com/2007/07/01/minimum-wage/
I dunno, for me, the European nations that get along fine without a centrally-imposed minimum wage tends to prove we don’t need one here.
Basically it’s only purpose seems to be reduce the need for unions. So I can imagine the Liberal party loves it.
LS – I think that seriously mischaracterises the position of the Liberal party or the politics of abolishing the minimum wage in Australia. However I don’t speak for or champion the Liberal party so I won’t bother with the detail. The LDP position favours abolition. Thats my preferred course of action but I’d be open to reforms that mitigate the negative impacts of the minimum wage (such as regionalising it) as a second best.
p.s. Yet another issue on which The Australian Greens seem to be heading in completely the wrong direction.
Well true…but the Greens do like to look towards Scandinavian nations for ideas (as they seem to be most successful “socialist” nations). Point out that Sweden and Norway and Denmark don’t have minimum wages and they may well think differently.
We could also point out that gun ownership in Norway and Sweden is widespread. Or that Denmark has nothing to compare with our “unfair” dismissal laws. However I think you are far too optimistic about the Australian Greens.
p.s. The Norweigens have a liberal view towards whaling also.
Terje, I think it will take the Greens at least 10 or 12 years to become genuinely small-l liberal. But at least they will be electable. I don’t see the LDP becoming electable in the next 20 years.
Why not?
I hate to say it, but largely because of the attitudes of those who seem most dedicated to libertarianism in its ‘purest’ form.
But also simply because of the history of libertarian political parties around the world, and the fact that public opinion generally moves pretty slowly.
I’d love to be proven wrong though.
BTW, which country do you view as more libertarian – Norway, Singapore, or the U.S.?
Good question. Tough call. They all have some good elements and some horrid elements. I don’t think I wish to incriminate myself.
I’d pick Norway in a flash. High taxes just don’t bother me that much.
LS,
Your views on economics are at times, bizzare. We won’t change to suit your worldview which rejects deadweight losses of taxation and the costs of the regulatory burden etc. This would be completely unscientific and superstitious.
Unions exist as a consequence of employers paying too low wages…you truly can be naive. Who do you think the AMWU or indeed the AMA are? Were all the doctors in Australia struggling to feed their families until the AMA was formed? Unions simply don’t act that simplistically just to raise wage rates. They act like rational economic maximisers to maximise the wage bill and improve working conditions, which can be pretty cruisy at times (see the wharves pre 1998).
Handing over wage decisions to union bosses and industry heavyweights for the entire economy is a vile idea. It reeks of fascist economic prinicples. Let people choose what they will negotiate with each other. Since you understand why regulated wages price people out of employment, learn about the Balassa Samuelson effect as well. Depressed areas of a nation can have simialr characteristics of a foreign nation. It doesn’t make sense forcing unskilled Aboriginals near Daly River to be paid no less than $25 an hour if their rent is $70 per week. Can you understand from the perspective of someone knowledgable about the Balassa-Sameulson effect as to why centrally dictated wages don’t work? Wages determined in WA could put people in NSW out of work right now…
They bother me loads. Given that you say that you favour free trade how can you be indifferent to high tariffs on inter-household trade?
You are seriously deluded about the “socially liberal” Sandinavians. They have outrageous social controls such as the control of the sale of liquor and truly punitive taxes for anyone who wants a drink.
If you go on a long vacation to Norway, take a still and some juniper berries with you.
Mark, of course that’s not what all unions are for, and not the only thing they do. But it is one of their principle roles.
I never said anything about handing over wage decisions to union bosses. I (perhaps naively) assume that in Europe, unions and businesses largely agree on minimum wages through peaceful and voluntary negotiation, with the occasional threat (and exercise) of strike no doubt.
“Socially liberal” is relative. Do you really believe that Singapore or the U.S. are somehow more socially liberal?
How can you compare having to pay tax on liquor and not being able to chew gum, or form gay civil unions? And it’s not just government policy – as a society, their is far more tolerance towards and actual freedom of various behaviours in Scandinavia than in (most of) the U.S. or Singapore.
Scandinavian nations have had successful economies for decades with high tax rates, and the people continue to vote for governments that promise more of the same.
Is it possible that their economies could be doing a lot better without those tax rates? Of course. And it seems they are slowly discovering this. But not everyone cares about maximising economic growth above all other concerns.
So why did you post such a disingenuous explanation? Their principle roles are many.
Such a move would hand over decisions to a few union and industry bosses, intentional or not. You have to face up to the reality of this.
I never said any of those countries was more socially liberal. I’d choose the US because they have a long tradition of defending their rights with constitutional and court ordered guarantees. The last place I’d go to would be Singapore.
Scandinavian nations have less regualtions on their labour market and low tariffs.
Choosing the best policy isn’t a matter of picking the country you like most and imitating their policy mix, but seeing what works best in each situation and choosing the best mix. Moderate libertarianism with an incrementalist, gradualist reform plan towards a free enterprise and strong civil rights based society seems the best to me.
But are minimum wages in Scandinavian countries are generally voluntary agreements betweeen businesses and unions or not? If so, then are you saying the government should ban them?
Your last sentence I fully agree with. Previously I got the impression you weren’t too interested in incrementalism.
Obviously not, if it is voluntary. What would be wrong would be if all companies and workers were legally bound by what representives of only a few firms and unions agreeed to.
Some further information on European minimum wages here:-
http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/eiro/2005/07/study/index.htm
So does anybody actually know? All I’ve read is that minimum wages are not specifically government prescribed in Scandinavian nations. But it’s certainly possible that other labour market regulation makes them effectively prescriptive.
Speaking of education, did anyone notice that the NUS is back, and trying to get the Ruddy Government to repeal the Howard laws that killed it off? How would vouchers (remember them?) be affected?
The link above in relation to Denmark seems to be pretty clear in saying that companies are free to offer wages as they see fit. Norway seems less clear cut.
Denmark seems to have achieved a very sensible compromise wrt labour regulation, from what I’ve read.
Mark, the fact that high taxes don’t bother me is nothing to do with my views on economics. Indeed, given it’s not an area of expertise, I generally don’t have strong views on economics at all. It simply does not bother me personally how much tax I pay (and it’s quite a lot).
In other words, if I had the choice of opting out, and sacrificing everything I get in return for them, I wouldn’t.
You get less in return for what you pay.
You wouldn’t give up the small range of benefits for the larger range of benefits the tax cuts could fund?
That’s okay, you can give your “excess” income to me and keep roughly the same living standard.
No, because no additional amount of money is going to improve my quality of life, that I can see.
FWIW, the reason I say that is that my salary has tripled in the last 7 years. Yet the only thing that has truly added to my quality of life in that time is the birth of my son, despite it leading to less financial freedom.
BTW, other than John’s cambodia experiment, how many other “capitalist” charities are there? I wouldn’t mind giving money to a charity that had a policy of giving out targeted micro-loans to those in financial difficulty.
But as I’ve said before, what I want to put money towards is decent mass transit. No-one seems willing to take any at this point.
LS – have you donated all of the surplus to worthy charities. If not why not?
Terje, because I’m lazy, and constantly waste money on things that I think will make my life better but never do.
A bad habit that I need to break, which a tax cut won’t help with!
A tax cut and extra money to save for your children’s future won’t make you better off? What about them?
Even if your preferences are for no more money, the marginal tax rate affects the willingness of others to supply their labour or rsk their capital. It affects everyone.
I’m hopeless at saving.
Yes, I’m aware that high marginal tax rates are a big problem for others. I fully support significant tax reform.
I just don’t care how much I pay personally, and would happily pay more if it made others better off.
BTW, is there a support group for “Libertarians that like Tax”?
Like I said, lobby for tax cuts and I can send you my BSB and a direct credit request form if you find it hard to keep so much of it.
The whole point is, because of the losses of production that such a poor tax system entails, your money porbably has a very low marginal value for helping people.
Yet you wouldn’t give up your gum if it made others happy? Odd.
Gum is hardly the worst thing in Singapore that is banned, just the most famous example of how interfering the government likes to be with individual’s lives.
Mark, if you are genuinely poor and struggling, then you have my tax cut.
BTW, I will be honest – if there really was a choice to opt out of most of my tax – I would, until the mortgage was paid off. Then I’d opt back in.
That’s solid proof that taxes make saving harder.
Mark is an economist, youngish and a PHD student which are all good indicates for extreme poverty.
I don’t know his personal financial position but his reluctance to make long distance phone calls seems to confirm the idea that he ain’t rich. However I still think it would be best if you handed your excess bundles of cash to me. I’d invest it wisely. 
LS – ever studied the Laffer curve or looked at the dead weight loss of taxation?
“Solid proof” how? I had vastly less disposable income 10 years ago, and I saved much better then (before I was married, oddly enough).
And it’s one thing to say “I will take the tax cuts and put them towards my mortgage”, and another to actually stick to that. Given my track record over the last 7-8 years, I’d say I almost certainly wouldn’t.
LS – if you would use your financial freedom unwisely that doesn’t negate the fact that others wouldn’t. I’d suggest that you and those that think like you should submit to an additional voluntary tax and all us sane people should get a tax cut.
p.s. If you can’t be trusted to be wise with money you earn who on earth decided to let you vote. I’d suggest you avoid voting and use some of that spare cash to pay the fine.
I’m capable of being good with money when there’s a pressure to be so. But in the last 7 years I’ve always managed to earn more money than I really needed to live comfortably, and credit has been too easy to obtain to make saving worthwhile.
I’m all for “opt out” taxation (or super) schemes by the way.
Terje, yes I know about the Laffer curve. I’ve yet to find two economists that agree on the extent to which it actually matters in real life.
LibertarianSocialist
What is the legitimacy or justification of democratic government to tell other people what they must do, apart from the extent to which it represents the opinion of the majority?
“I had vastly less disposable income 10 years ago, and I saved much better then (before I was married, oddly enough).’
LOL. Yeah funny, that. I wonder if there’s any connection between being married, and a lot more of one’s money being spent? Hmm. Try this quick quiz: notice any wide-screen TVs, new white goods, and expensive gee-gaws popping up around your home? ‘I think we might be onto something here.’ Perhaps it’s another one of those economic certainties that these scientists keep telling us about LOL.
Of course in a world where there was really social justice, we would get all the benefits of these charming creatures without it costing us a cent more: the government would provide it as part of its mission to even things up a bit where fairness requires it.
‘I’d agree capitalism as a principle deserves as much respect as democracy’
LibertarianSocialist, since democracy is less representative of what the people in society want, for reasons I have already shown, then why should it deserve as much respect as capitalism or free trade?
Capitalism might be representative of isolated individual choices. But if the collective result after a number of years is something that majority are unhappy about, then democracy is the best tool for attempting to remedy that.
It’s not dissimilar to the fact that all my material possessions are “representative” of isolated individual choices that all made sense at the time. But looking back now, I wish I hadn’t made at least half of them – not because they were individually bad choices, but because the more you keep buying stuff, the less stuff actually means to you anymore. Further, they mean we’ve been able to save nothing. On that basis, I would vote for a government that offered to boost default super payments – i.e. one that deliberately took away some of my freedom to make individual choices now, in exchange for the more meaningful freedom of financial independence later in life.
Yet if people are not smart enough to decide for themselves what transactions to enter into voluntarily, why or how are the same people going to be smart enough to decide what transactions they should be forcibly prevented from entering into?
Perhaps there is something about the process of compulsory voting, political parties, electoral bribery, marginal seats, pre-selection deals, lobbying and pressure groups, media sensationalism and moral panic, vested interests, the fact that the law against misleading and deceptive conduct applies only to business and not to politicians or government, taxation, bureaucracy, the psychology of crowds, the rationality of force, perhaps these all have some magical power to produce a result that would be closer to your heart’s desire?
But even then that would only explain why *you* should be bound by it. But why should other people, who are happy with their own purchases, be forced to sacrifice their values to accommodate your mistakes?
Justin, I agree. I think people should be able to opt out of any any system where you can reasonably prevent the free-rider problem (e.g. super).
And strangely enough, despite all those problems you describe that plague democracy, it does produce a solution that by any reasonable criteria “works”.
It doesn’t mean we shouldn’t constantly strive to improve it, however. Scrapping compulsory voting would certainly be on my list.
LS,
The Laffer curve is real. Tax elasticity is real. Taxes affect productivity, work leisure preferences and risk reward profiles. The “voodoo economics” part is that some of Reagan’s advisers didn’t use a paticualrly intelleigent version of supply side economics. They were like vulgar Keynesians and believed that the Laffer curve only had a right hand side. They believed they could finance deficits through continuing tax cuts.
(An insight of the Austrian school is that total Government spending plus surpluses) is the real proportion of GDP that is the real taxation as it is the real opportunity cost in production).
Australia’s tax system is actually the worst economic factor we have in my opinion. Every stage of production is taxed by high, often regressive taxes on every kind of input. There is definite doubling and tripling effects on labour and so on. This inefficient system for example, on labour reduces the demand for labour in so far that it causes significant unemployment. The overall effect is that we use our resources very inefficiently and all goods and services are more expensive than they need be.
A change from this system would ostensibly help the more affluent the most but the reality is it would help the least well off the most.
You really need to address Justin’s first question @ 246. It is a really strong argument for less Governemnt intervention in our lives.
Here’s a thought experiment – list all the inputs to a carton of milk being delivered to your door or bought at a supermarket, and list each tax which is levied on the production of such a product. Who does this most marginally effect?
Justin’s question seems to be implying that as voters we actually determine goverment policy, which clearly isn’t the case. Those who determine policy are expected to be knowledgeable, intelligent and have access to the best possible advice. That would be just as true whether it was the LDP or the ALP or whoever in power. When they get it wrong, as judged by the public, they get booted out.
I can certainly imagine that the taxes on many purchases punish those who can least afford it. I’m all for tax reform, as I’ve stated repeatedly. I just don’t expect to benefit from it personally.
Individuals have virtually the same level of access to non defence type information, and can specialise themselves.
Parliament House might be a great place if you need a lawyer though.
Well if you seriously believe that today’s society would get along fine with a government whose sole purpose was defence and nothing else, then I kindly suggest you go out and actually meet some real people.
(As an aside: generally someone who wants a very limited Governemnt argues for the police, courts and defence to fight internal and external aggression and to enforce contracts and settle torts).
Why do I need to talk to “real people”? What do they need the Government to do for them?
Then why do you even think we need government for police and courts, if all individuals are adept and well-resourced enough to do the right thing, and always make sensible informed choices?
“Real people” do need “government”, of some kind or another. Human society is inherently heirarchical and most need authority figures to lead them and to delegate important decisions to. That’s no excuse for government trying to meddle in every little part of our lives whether we need it or not, but no country ever became prosperous and peaceful without strong government.
The colloary of your assumptions is that Government Ministers do not make mistakes…as if everyone else was as well resourced as them, they’d have perfect information. We would have a net benefit in giving fwer people decision making and letting everyone else economise their time otherwise.
No one has this and people will make bad (negligent, complacent, violent or fraudulent) choices. A Government focused on defence and law and order is a good way of dealing with this. It also seems to be the best way.
The whole point about decentralisation is that it diversifies the actions people take and limits the impacts of poor decision making. It allows people to act on information as to what is a good new strategy of doing something. It allows them to avoid poor decisions which can’t be forced upon them.
We should have less Government, not to allow people to act as angels, but to limit the damage centralised mistakes have.
You really need to make a distinction between STRONG Governance, and BIG Government, as you do for LIMITED Government, and WEAK Governance.
Libertarians simply want a strong Governance and a limited role for Governemnt in society.
No.
Most people DO NOT need authority figures to lead them or make decisions for them.
I agree with less government, and a limited role. Just nowhere near as limited as you seem to believe is possible (I believe it might be possible among a self-selected group committed to making it work, but not among society at large).
Thousands of years of history, and the research of thousands of anthropologists, pyschologists and neurologists says you are wrong. Humans are just not that different from other primates, who all exhibit the same tendency.
Further, almost every single business in existence today proves you are wrong. If most people do not need authority figures to make decisions for them, why do CEOs exist?
Why do CEOs exist? You might want to read the Corporations Act (legal obligations for firms to exist properly) and what Jefferson said about the possibility of a board of Presidents as opposed to one POTUS – executive authority must be singular. Why do we need executive authority in people’s day to day lives? Each person has the capacity and constitution to make singular decisions for themselves, by theirselves. More or less, they are an extension of Coase’s transaction cost theory. Private firms plan like totalitarian regimes as well, but in doing so reduce costs. You may want to read up about this if it seems weird.
I dispute that antrhopology says that I am wrong. Brutal, superstitious primitive societies may have conditioned people into having leaders. Yes, we’re primates but we’re also human beings. How can neurobiology explain things like Walden or Atlas Shrugged?
The role for Government can be very limited. A good start is “Myths of Market Failure”, edited by Dan. F Spulber. A number of Nobel winning economist’s best papers are this book. Another place is the work of John Umbeck, who showed how property rights evolved voluntarily in the Californian goldfields without any central authority, simply because they were utilitarian. Another place which you may not necessairly agree with is David D Friedman’s website, and his online text “the machinery of freedom”. It is very well applied economics and it is hard to argue against.
Finally, a link on the Quaker communities in Pennsylvania. These guys did have a Government that funded the militia etc but had very low taxes and very strong civil rights. it isn’t perfect but it has a strong message that people d not need Governemnt in their day to day lives. These guys functioned without a “boss man”.
http://www.mises.org/story/1865
I never said we need a single executive authority-figure involved in our day-to-day lives. We just need a broad ability to delegate a certain amount of decision making to those prepared to take on the responsibility for it.
All successful businesses are heirarchical, though we are gradually discovering that they don’t need to be as heirarchical was traditionally believed. Of course this is mainly true in industries where workers are highly skilled.
It seems odd that you can argue on one hand that equality of opportunity shouldn’t be strived for, but on the other that heirarchical structures aren’t needed.
If the Quaker communities in Pennsylvania were so successful, they would still be flourishing today.
Even if a significantly less heirarchical communities can itself be stable, it has little chance against other competing heirarchical communities.
Equality of outcome shouldn’t be focused on because it is a low order priority – the lack of any hierachy means people have abundant opportunities without any equality in the first place.
The Pennsylvanian experiment was ended by a greedy King who saw Pennsylvania and ultimately the 13 colonies as cash cows.
Did you mean to type equality of “outcome”?
I agree that flattening out hierachies is an excellent way to encourage equality of *opportunity* (which is, in my mind, the end goal). But I think you need some system in place to maintain flatter hierachies, or they will naturally tend to build up again (power vacuums etc.)
Any attempt at maintaining a anarchist society will be at the mercy of competing heirarchical societies.
I would be wary of reading too much into the Quaker experience. A lot of things that held the Quaker societies together can no longer be relied on, including religious belief and close-knit “human-sized” communities.
1. Yes.
2. No one ever really explains how “power vacuums” work. It is a shallow explanation.
3. It wasn’t truly anarchist – it had very limited Governemnt. It was very close to “anarchy”. It did get cannibalised by it’s liege Lord, the Kingdom of England as a tax magic pudding.
4. There is nothing stopping people joining their own “human sized” communities. People have lived in much larger societies a long time before the Quakers. Furthermore, you won’t read into this but think people are like apes? Strange.
1. But previously you stated the “equality of *opportunity* stifles the entrepreneurial spirit”. I never said anything about the equality of outcome, and don’t believe it possible or even desirable.
2. There don’t seem to be very many explanations of why they work. But they definitely happen.
3. Ok, to restate: any attempt at maintaining a society with too little government will be at the mercy of competing “over-governed” societies.
4. It’s the fact that we don’t live in such communities today that’s an issue. That the Quakers survived as long as they did with minimal government does not show that, for instance, Australia as it is today could do the same.
Indeed, it’s partly because people are like apes (are you suggesting you *don’t* think this?) that we have the difficulties we do managing vast sprawling nation-states. We aren’t evolved for it – it’s amazing it works at all.
1. Err, no. Sorry. I meant no!
2. They “just” happen? Some people will capitalise on being able to take on a better position. But the dynamics of a relationship can change. That is why don’t like the power vacuum idea that much. It would be a libertarian goal to alter such change in that there is no void to fill once a tyrant was overthrown or a menacing power was defeated. Spain and Portugal changed for the better when Salazar and Franco went. Power was decentralised and no new emergent institution or person holds as much power individually or collectively as did either dictator. I think that was a good outcome.
3. No so. You need a good military. (Panama actually was the most stable nation in the Sotuh America if not the world until it formed a military, which took over).
A good military and stronger civil society, smaller Government and high growth economy would fight war better than an a sluggish growth, overgrown social democracy.
4. But there is nothing stopping you to do so. Your solution to the problems that hairless apes have in running nation states is to increase the size of Government? I suggest that only more shit will be flung around.
2. There are definitely ways you can prevent power vacuums from being problematic. Democracy is one of them.
3. Not sure what you’re saying here
4. No, I think we should decrease the size of government from what we have now. But it would almost certainly need to be more than what the Quakers had.
3. I don’t think you have proved that a society with more of a “power culture” will defeat you the more anarchist your tendancies are. Look at how the British Empire lost to the Afghanis etc. A military isn’t necessarily stabilising, but the presence of a welle quipped, competent military is more important than your culture.
4. Perhaps. Besides a trasnitionary period, I don’t know why much more than defence, police and courts are needed. Then of course are the arguments that our police, courts and prison system if bloated due to the alrge number of counterproductive, victimless crimes. David Freidman gives a good example as to how defence services might be privatised.
Yes there are arguments for those who cannot defend or think for themselves (children, education) and some public and merit goods (lighthouses) but there are also technical and historical arguments against these (the history of private education and lighthouses for example). I would limit the role of intervention to funding the person (e.g education vouchers) if there was any affordability issue.
Our police, court and prison system are most definitely bloated due to “victimless” crimes.
Personally I’d be concerned that a government whose only concern was law and order would lose any “nurturing” value that it does now – it would be a purely “strict” authorian type government. There’s no need to throw the baby out with the bath water.
How does the Government nurture us?
How is a Government authoritarian if it has strong civil and private property rights it protects through the police, courts, gaols and from external aggression through the military?
The conclusion of this is that you’re arguing a Government is authoritarian if it doesn’t “nurture” us.
Personally, I blame a lot of authoritarianism on the urge to “nurture” nations.
Being responsible for funding education, healthcare and scientific research is a ‘nurturing’ sort of role.
How is it not authoritarian if its role it to maintain law and order – which is ultimately done by force?
‘I never said we need a single executive authority-figure involved in our day-to-day lives. We just need a broad ability to delegate a certain amount of decision making to those prepared to take on the responsibility for it.’
You haven’t given any reason for it so far. You have said that ‘democratic’ decision-making is desirable to ‘complement’ individual decision-making. But the only advantage democratic decision-making would have over the decision-making of other forms of government, for example totalitarian dictatorship, would seemingly be that democratic decision-making is representative of majority opinion.
(Of course, short of a referendum, ‘representative democracy’ provides no way of knowing whether a majority is in fact in favour of any given decision or not: they are all jumbled together in politicians’ grab-bag of promises, and most actual governmental rules and decisions never even get mentioned during election campaigns.)
But assuming, against a body of evidence, that democratic decision-making does represent a majority on every single question, we still have not got past the common ground that it is not as representative of society as is people’s purchases in the market, so there is no presumptive reason to prefer it in any given case. The traditional existence of power blocs, established customs of using force to get what you want, is no more a reason now than it was under the feudal period, or in imperial Rome. There is a need for a principle to justify it, and you haven’t provided any.
You said democracy is not ‘particularly’ more representative than consensual and private transactions, in other words, the market, but in fact it’s nowhere near as representative, is it? Every single transaction in the market has the consent of every single participant and every single dollar of profits (absent government interventions) is the result of a voluntary transaction and a mutual and demonstrated preference. By contrast, with government, the only thing we know for certain is that people do not choose to pay for it!
So I’m sorry to have to tell you this, but you are very far from making out the basis of a case in favour of the use of governmental power to override the peaceable relations of citizens for anything in particular.
To say that it is necessary to control for ‘free-riding’ would authorise just about any abuse. According to this theory, any time a pretty woman walks down the street, the government has the right to tax everyone else to pay contributions to her for the benefit she confers on ‘society’, and which free-riders would otherwise have for free.
To say, in the jaws of evidence and reason against your argument, that libertarians need to talk to ‘real’ people, is to avoid rational argument and make an appeal to absent authority. You are a real person – and an educated and intelligent one at that. If you can’t put up a rational argument based on evidence, appealing to people who are less able to do so doesn’t put those others in any better position.
‘Majorities are not less exposed to error and frustration than kings and dictators. That a fact is deemed true by the majority does not prove its truth. That a policy is deemed expedient by the majority does not provide its expediency. The individuals who form the majority are not gods, and their joint conclusions are not necessarily godlike.’
Mises, ‘Omnipotent Government’ p.47
Justin, I guess it comes down to how well the collective result of consensual and private transactions actually produces a situation that everybody is happy about.
For instance, let’s say we privatise the ABC, on the basis that it’s existence isn’t justified by market principles. It’s unable to remain solvent without running commercials and appealing to a broader base. Eventually it becomes no different to channel 10. Now everybody has lost the value that the ABC had – providing advertisement-free television that wasn’t captive to any commercial interest. OTOH, a few people that never watched the ABC have a few more cents in their pocket each day.
Is it fair to say that the nation as a whole is better off because of this?
BTW, I will say that this is basically just an extended version of prisoner’s dilemma: multiple people act individually in their own best interests, but produce a result where everybody (or at least, almost everybody) is worse off.
The ABC consistently rates lower in popularity than other channels. Why should the majority of people who don’t watch the ABC be forced to pay so other people can watch the programs they like without ads? You may not like channel 10 – and I don’t either. But more people watch it *and* put up with the ads. What does that tell you about the ABC.
If the matter is only ‘a few cents’ then why don’t those who want it pay, instead of expecting to be able to mooch off everyone else, many of whom are worse off than they?
All the government’s income merges in consolidated revenue. It is equally valid to look at the financing of it as coming from only those individuals whose total tax bill amounts to the ABC’s budget. Those kids working at McDonald’s, those forklift drivers who can’t afford their own home, are working all year to pay the tax bill that the government then pours down the ABC to please a class of viewers largely comprised of comfortable middle-class left-wing snobs, and probably a significant section of whom are themselves government employees.
If they have a claim on enforced contributions in the name of the public good, then the claim of those who watch channel 10, or who listen to Alan Jones or John Laws, must have a better claim.
If anything, you have shown a good argument against the use of arbitrary power to subsidise the broadcasting of biased government-dependent political material.
There is no such thing as ‘the nation as a whole’, except on matters that concern them in common, which are very few. You don’t eat a sandwich as a ‘nation as a whole’, nor watch TV as a ‘nation as a whole’. This is merely a cypher for particular interest groups to use force to sponge off the output of others and call it the greater good.
Hey sex is necessary for society (think public interest), it is necessary for reproduction (think baby bonus), it does wonders for ‘the community’s aesthetic interests (think arts), it is good for health and mental health (think health department), it can be called a sport (think publicly-funded velodromes, stadiums, football fields), and also qualifies as a hobby (think public funding of community crafts etc.)
So why not vouchers for sex? This would also help the underprivileged who aren’t getting much sex and so would promote equal opportunity.
The fact that some people might be forced either to pay for, or to have sex that they might not otherwise want to have, is surely irrelevant. The government presumptively represents the greater good. People who don’t want to be forced to give their services toward this scheme for social justice are merely selfish, and should think about the public interest, the national interest, Australia’s interest, ‘society’, ‘our community’, ‘the nation as a whole’, submit and spread their legs.
Is this not exactly the same approach we take when we use government to supply any service that is not required to protect life, liberty and property?
It’s a great analogy, Justin. You can generally say most people would like more of it, a lot of people think it’s essential, but it is possible to live without it. But no one would say the government should provide it.
…….if you could call that living!
Justin, no-one has discussed the need for government funding of “sex”.
Ok, hypothetical scenario – the LDP gets in power and privatises the ABC.
After 3 years the result becames clear, and 80% of the electorate are unhappy about it (not an unreasonable projection, going on polls indicating support for the ABC).
So an opposition party promises to re-nationalise it, and gets voted largely on that basis.
Are you saying that in such a case, it is wrong for democracy to trump market forces?
Personally my preference would be for the ABC to be an independent not-for-profit organisation that receives taxpayer funding, where taxpayers may choose to opt out of supporting it. While it’s very difficult to police for free-riders, it’s not really more difficult than it is to police for all sorts of other methods that people use to minimize their tax, often illegally.
“Justin, no-one has discussed the need for government funding of “sex”.”
I’m someone, and I’ve discussed it. There is no ‘progressive’ reason not to fund it, is there? Please answer. All the justifications for funding sport, health, mental health and so on apply also to sex. Smatterafact, I’m just a-hankerin’ for that voucher now!
80 % percent of the electorate are unhappy that they can’t force all the taxpayers to pay for a TV station that fewest people watch or listen to?
Yes I’m saying it’s wrong in such a case for democracy to trump market forces.
Are you saying it would be right for 80 percent of the population to force everyone else to pay for Channel 10, which is far more likely as more people watch it?
But indeed why stop there? Why shouldn’t 80 percent of the population be able to force the rest into doing whatever they like? By what principle do you decide the limits to government power? How can mere numbers justify an exercise of power to prevent peaceful consensual activity? If 80 percent of the population want to oppress the other 20 percent, then that makes it okay does it? Appeal to the protections of ‘democracy’ ultimately can conjure no more than majority opinion – at best: often it doesn’t even have that.
Why shouldn’t those who want to watch it, pay for it, and those who don’t, not be forced to pay for it? That is much fairer.
To talk of the ABC being ‘independent’ is nonsense. It’s entirely dependent on government, and it’s fare is notoriously biased to the left wing, and in favour of the expansion of government. F
Why not-for-profit? It’s easy to make no profit: just waste lots of money, or fail to provide what the public wants. There’s nothing virtuous about that. Profit is an indication that what is on offer satisfies the wishes of the consumer in *voluntary* transactions *over and above* what they were willing to give to get what they consider a worthwhile deal. Not-for-profit is only a desideratum in the upside-down back-to-front socialist view that profits are evil, the fruits of exploitation. This idea comes from Marx and is built on the labour theory of value, which was refuted before the turn of the nineteenth century. Perhaps socialists could get over it and move on? Stop trying to impose social controls on everyone else to realise their vision of a better society?
I”m all for opt-out mechanisms, which is what the market provides on every transaction.
All it takes is for you to be responsible for your own values in life, and to try to understand the basis of social co-operation.
And certainly if it’s okay to compel people to fund British comedy, it’s justified to compel them to fund sex, which is both more pleasurable and more important.
If a government offered to pay for people to have more sex, and were elected on that basis, I don’t see anything particularly wrong with it. If it kept on offering more and more such services, and kept on raising taxes in order to fund them, then eventually people would object. But taxes in Australia are well below many other stable, prosperous and peaceful nations, so I just don’t see a reason to worry about it at this point.
As far as “on what principle do you decide the limits to government power?” goes – good question, and one that has been debated throughout the ages. I personally think the constitutional limits to government power that currenly exist in Australia could do with some tightening, but aren’t that far off the mark. You clearly would prefer to see far stronger limits.
“Opt-out” mechanisms are not the same as market (opt-in) mechanisms. People don’t behave the same way.
Your definitions are getting absurd LS.
A Government which governed to liberal principles is by definition, not authoritarian. A Government which seeked to “nurture society” etc would be at best neoconservative, and at worst, authoritarian.
@ 280 – I do oppose that. It’s utterly, utterly stupid!
And you seem to have a very black & white view of the world.
Even when governing by liberal principles you need the authority to enfore them.
All governments are authoritarian in some general sense.
But there’s “good” types of authoritarianism as well as bad types.
BTW, we do already vote for governments that pay for people to have more (unprotected) sex. Neither major party has promised to scrap the baby bonus.
Good. So we have now established that
a) it is legitimate for government to fund sexual pleasure, and
b) it is legitimate for government to force people into service in order to provide the funds, even though they don’t consent.
So on the same logic it must be legitimate for government to force people to provide the sexual services directly using force to overcome their lack of consent.
The market mechanism is an opt-in and an opt-out mechanism, both at the same time.
Er…how on earth do you come to that conclusion?
Just because I’m forced to pay taxes to fund other couples having babies doesn’t mean I’m forced to have babies myself.
And anyway, I’m not really forced to pay taxes to fund babies – I can choose to earn less than the tax-free threshold, or leave the country, if I’m really that unhappy about it.
FWIW, I don’t believe the baby bonus is good policy, but not because I consider it undue force.
LS,
Your defintions are absurd. It is not “authoritarian” that we imprison people found guilty of murder after due process.
A wide range of Govenrment action cannot be justified by making a trite eqivocation of liberal democracy and dictatorship.
Your benchmark for policy is highly relativist. Before 1967, Aboriginal policy was justified, according to you.
Yes we accept the results of elections. Never use elections to judge the merits of policy. Elections are simply too complicated for anyones preferences to be revealed other than who is their preferred PM.
I’m not talking about having babies per se, I’m talking about government funding sex on the ground that it’s good for health, mental health, sport, recreation, equal opportunity and so on – all purposes already accepted for purposes of government funding. Governments have enforced conscription in the past, and subsidised brothels, so why not enforce sexual servitude?
The point is this: as long as the majority agreed, it would be supported by your logic, wouldn’t it?
As to how I come to that conclusion, I’m just arriving at your point of departure, which is, that it’s legitimate for the government to force people into serving whatever purpose the majority happens to think would be a good idea. The only question is whatever takes their fancy as they decide what form the service of the state’s subjects should take. Since they’re already teaching socialism, there is no reason why they should not teach religion, or enforce sexual servitude: governments have done it in the past.
Underlying all your argument is simply a bland assumption in favour of its beneficence and competence of government. But for all the reasons that have been shown that this assumption does not withstand critical scrutiny, you have not shown one reason to think that majority opinion,or government, are capable of satisfactorily achieving what it is you expect of them at a worthwhile cost. All is in the realm of arbitrary opinion or appeal to absent authority.
As for, I can choose to live in poverty or flee the country to avoid such servitude, that is not much alternative, considering that you have give any good reason in favour, is it?
“The tyranny of the majority” is a real problem, and arguably the biggest problem with democracy. That’s what constitutions and separation of powers are for. In time, I agree, we will probably move towards stricter controls over democracy. I just don’t think what we have right now is particularly bad.
Elections don’t judge the “merits” of policy, but act as a buffer against truly bad policy that leaves everyone worse off. If the LDP got into power and put all their policy in place, but the result was something that almost nobody liked (except LDP members), democracy would be there to ensure those policies weren’t continued.
Don’t worry, they’d be outrageously popular once enacted.
I think a steady program to phase it in over, say, 12 or 15 years could produce a result that nearly everybody was happy with. But there’s no way I would insist I should have the right to do so.
Constitutions are only as good as the belief system of the people. Without a strong belief in liberty, governments tend to expand their powers, budgets, and personnel.
The problem with the separation of powers, is that it depends on government to restrict the expansion of government. What if the general climate of opinion within government favours the expansion of government, even if the overwhelming evidence is that it is unreasonable and destructive?
And of course in the Westminster system, the executive – Cabinet – controls the legislature, which is exactly what the Act of Settlement 1688 – the modern constitution – was intended to avoid. How did it happen? It happened by the growth of mass political parties, starting surprise surprise, with the Labour party in the nineteenth century. This has largely subverted the protections of the separation of power. produced the situation where the executive tail wags the legislative dog.
There remains the judiciary, thank god, but their protection is only as good as their fidelity to the ideals of liberty in the common law. However the orthodoxy holds that Parliament is supreme. So, to cast today’s courts in terms of the pre-1688 revolution, they side with the royal prerogative of governmental arbitrary power based on a presumptive divine right, rather than the common law’s defence of the liberty of the subject: man’s home is his castle and all that. You only have to look at the native vegetation laws to see what outrages are being committed in the name of the the state’s divine right as against liberty and property.
If you read the Constitution of the United States, the government today is almost unrecognisable in the degree to which it has overridden the constitution. Similary with our Constitution. One clause alone: the foreign affairs clause, has been interpreted now to make almost all of the stated limitations on government power redundant. All the government has to do to expand its powers is sign a treaty or UN convention on areas outside its stated limitations, and its powers expand. Needless to say, since the Franklin Dam case which decided this, government has engaged in an orgy of treaty-signing.
The tyranny of the majority is indeed a problem, and it is the well-intentioned whom we should fear the most. And elections may not judge the merits of policy, but serve to protect the people against abusive decisions. However then that only begs the question of why decisions should be made by political process in the first place.
Nothing of what you have said has provided any reason for it, apart from what has been thoroughly refuted.
Why should we wait 15 years to get rid of poverty traps and perverse environmental incentives?
‘You only have to look at the native vegetation laws to see what outrages are being committed in the name of the the state’s divine right as against liberty and property.;’
(The relevant divinity is Gaia.)
LS,
The LDP has a range of policies. What timeframe would you implement each on and why?
Justin, how do you propose we foster a “strong belief in liberty”? And what mechanisms do you think would work better to maintain protections against the tyranny of the majority, and separations of power etc.?
Mark, I agree, those would be some of the first policies I would want to see changed, and are unlikely to provoke too much outrage.
LS,
The challenge is in selling the policy, not implementing them. We have good reasons to implement them all virtually straight away. You tend to agree since your concern is about not stirring up an atmosphere of mass conservatism and resistance to change.
Not just resistance to change, but huge backlash at a subsequent election.
That’s why an opt out style system should be adopted. Don’t sell of Govenrment businesses, but give people a lot of shares in them.
That is one approach – simply hand over decision making to individuals.
I fully agree with that.
It may well still make some people slightly worse off at first, but not irrecoverably so.
Did you read about the Swedish social security privatisation model? They gave voters the choice to opt out of a default plan. Those that did ended up somewhat worse off than those who stayed with the default plan. But at least it didn’t make those who stayed with the default plan worse off (as far as it can be determined).
On the other hand, opt-in plans almost never attract a very high number of takers.
An upside is a reverse in fortunes would encourage an opting out.
The first thing is we must distinguish the principles in issue from the practical issue of the use of force.
The arguments are all lost and won. If we look at the respective fruits of capitalism and socialism over the last 150 years, both in the theory and practice, there can be no question which is preferable.
The problem is that those in favour of the failed creed use irresistible force to get the funds to propagate their creed and policies, while those against resort only to persuasion and example. There is no question that those who use force will tend to continue doing it, while ever they believe it is for the greater good, and even when they don’t, and that is the major challenge.
I think the trick to moving to a freer society is to handle the transition. Someone who has paid taxes all his life, and had inflation rob him of his life savings twice over by the time he reaches retirement destitute, cannot be left to fend for himself in old age. Some provision must be made to pay out existing entitlements.
George Reisman has handled this key topic far better than I can in his book Capitalism.
Imagine if the proponents of liberty were able to have the use of force to detain and indoctrinate the entire population from the age of 6 to 16. That’s what we’re up against, and that’s just a start.
To me, the keystone of the arch of statism, funnily enough, is state schooling. I think they are enormously destructive, not just for liberty in general, but for the lives of just about everyone who goes through them. The detriments far outweigh the advantages in just about everyone’s terms. But obviously if you take the money for it, people will cry for the service you have promised.
Both Mises and Hayek took the view that the most important thing we can do to defend liberty is to spread the ideas behind it, and I tend to agree. Constitutions and political parties won’t work if the people who run them do not have a strong understanding of why freedom is better than coercion.
My own approach is to use the liberty and property I have to enjoy my life to the full, while simultaneously trying to persuade people of the superiority of freedom over force, both in morality and in practice.
Except that “pure” capitalism has never been tried.
So we don’t really know whether it works.
Most of the regulation we have today over free enterprise came about because governments perceived a problem, and tried to apply some fix to it. Now, we can agree than in general they’ve not done a wonderful job choosing what sort of fixes to apply, but it requires a leap of faith to assume that all problems that might arise in a completely unregulated market would sort themselves out automatically.
No-one has suggested that. It is disingenuous to say governments have ‘not done a wonderful job’ of fixing the problems they perceived. It is difficult to see how the original problem could have been worse than what governments have done over the past 150 years.
Perfection is not an option. But it does not require a leap of faith to see that the imperfections of government are more costly, more abusive and more chronically failed than the imperfections of liberty and property.
We do know enough about capitalism to know that it works, compared to the alternative of socialism, which doesn’t work, or its little sister interventionism, which also doesn’t work and leads to statism. It needs to be understood that fiddling with the details won’t fix the problems of interventionism, which arise from the same cause as those of socialism. The problem with socialislm is not one of implementation, it is one of conception. With freedom, the problem is the opposite: because violent know-it-alls persist in nobbling society’s consensual mechanisms.
Besides, the task is not to achieve a state of affairs in which ‘all problems that might arise… would sort themselves out automatically.’
It is enough to expose and admit the erroneous assumptions underlying the current state of over-government, which is common ground to all of us.
re 301:
The Californian Goldfields experience is instructive. It didn’t last long, but before central authorities made it there, property rights were created voluntarily between prospectors, as a utilitarian social convention. If anarchy can create property rights, their is a fair chance that “pure” free enterprise with limited Government can work.
Sure…so it comes down the definition of “limited”.
My idea of “limited” is obviously somewhat greater than yours. Let’s just agree that government could do a far more effective job than it does now while spending signifiantly less. Once I see it working better while spending, say, 20% less, I’ll re-examine the situation and do my best to determine whether it would do better spending another 20% less.
I think a utilitarian anlysis should trump arbitrary percentages and idealism. Emprically, this would be significantly lower than now.
You think *I’m* the idealist here?
No, just *arbitrary*.
‘Once I see it working better while spending, say, 20% less, I’ll re-examine the situation and do my best to determine whether it would do better spending another 20% less.’
Yes, that’s fine. But it can’t done in such a way that they have an incentive to be inefficient, which is how it is now. How would you get around that? The classic tactic of government departments, when faced with their own failure to perform, is to cry that they don’t have the ‘resources’, even though already they’re using more than a comparable private business would.
It’s as P.J. O’Rourke said ‘If a private business fails to perform its basic intended purpose, it ceases to exist. If a government department fails to perform its basic intended purpose, it gets bigger.’
Now we all know that there’s enormous efficiences going begging in government. There’s more than 10 percent in flex-time alone.
So if you cut the size of government by 20 percent, they’re not just going to make do with less. How are you going to make a government department more efficient? How to control for the perverse incentive for government employees and unions to respond by sabotaging the works, externalising the blame and calling for more money to fix the problem?
‘Shrieks of silence’, his only reply.