Two aspects of this have been tickling my haemorrhoids of late.
Firstly, in Private Eye (no online reference available, you're going to have to buy the Dead Tree version) there is an article about the British Petroleum American Oil Company and its lobbying efforts. There is a clear bias in the article which attacks BP for a) lobbying and b) being part of the usual "revolving door" scheme whereby regulators go off and work for the regulatees.
Now, it is despicable that governments allow themselves to be lobbied, but given that they do, is it surprising that a vested interest with enough money to lobby would do so? And at least they're just lobbying their way around pointless government regulations, and not rent-seeking like the banks did. In fact, you could argue that they were not successful enough in their lobbying, because they didn't get the go-ahead to drill in safer, more accessible places.
But my grumble is this: why the fuck do people never get indignant about the fact that governments are all willing parties to lobbying?
And given that it's entirely natural for vested interests to a) want to change legislation in their favour and b) have the money to do so (unlike the people who might actually benefit from the regulation) and given that it's also entirely natural for the government to seek input from the people that regulation might affect, how can you argue for a ban on lobbying?
In essence, government regulation might be well-intentioned, but because they aren't subject matter experts in the thing they're regulating, they have to ask their regulatees for input. The regulatees are going to do everything in their power to change the focus of the regulation to their benefit. In addition, they are usually few in number to consult, so the government will. And they have the budget to schmooze, so they can make government amenable to their gentle persuasion.
The people who would benefit are often too many to consult directly and their opinions are not as focused as the regulatees, so their perspective is often not as easy for the government to understand or apply to the situation.
Plus, they don't have the money to "lubricate the thought processes" over an agreeable lunch or whatever.
And finally, since the government is elected to represent the will of the people, they think that what they do is in the best interests of the people anyway. Just ask Tom Harris, who decries referenda as populist nonsense and a threat to elected democracy. So they don't really give a shit about the opinion of the alleged benefactors of regulation anyway.
It's a real catch-22 situation. Or even a double catch-22. And that's why regulation always seems to wind up benefiting regulatees from legislation meant to rein them in.
So, given that we depend on governments to regulate for our benefit but they don't really care about our benefit and we can't lobby as effectively as the regulatees anyway and the regulations always wind up having unintended consequences, most of which benefit the regulatees ... what can we do?
Here is the unthinkable heresy that no-one will contemplate: get rid of government. Deregulate everything and let market pricing determine everything. You will always get situations of asymmetry, but these will correct nearly instantly when the asymmetry becomes apparent, rather than let the government take years to address the asymmetry and then get it completely wrong.
It will never happen, mainly because government controls the education process and we are all brought up to believe that government is a natural and necessary thing. Corporates like government because they can bend it to their needs relatively easily. Government employs people who like power and attracts these people who want to maintain and grow the state. And finally, if all else fails, they have the guns, the police, the army and we don't.
So we're never going to get to that state (ho! ho!) of anarchic nirvana. But can we at least stop pretending that the government is the innocent stooge in all this corruption?
38 comments:
"(unlike the people who might actually benefit from the regulation)"
You mean bureaucrats and lawyers I presume?
A good post but...
"we are all brought up to believe that government is a natural and necessary thing"
I do believe that a small strong government is desirable. The state I would have in mind would be a sliver of the size of ours, and it would attempt to do a fraction of the things ours does. But a small government with the monopoly on force I will always advocate.
"But"? You've just exactly proven what I was saying...!
What? You want no state, not a small state.
Exactly! My point is that the state conditions you to believe that a) the state is necessary and b) they should have a monopoly on force.
You then went on to say: "I do believe that a small strong government is desirable. The state I would have in mind would be a sliver of the size of ours, and it would attempt to do a fraction of the things ours does. But a small government with the monopoly on force I will always advocate."
This exactly proves my point. As soon as you assume those two things, then social democracy with the state gulping up half the economy is only a matter of time. You cannot restrain the state. So you either have to accept its growth and consequent damage to the economy, or you do without it entirely.
No. Your not the only one to have found enlightenment. I have not been brain washed into believing in the existence of the state. I have derived my position from first principles and historic record. I believe a small state is necessary, but it must be kept small. In much the same way a runner needs a light trim body, but not no body at all.
Anarcho-capitalists like you have understandably encountered too much government thought your entirely life. I'll assume your in your late 40's or so. Your not personally remember a time when government was not too large, and the last 10 years when it ballooned from 36% of GDP to over half will be forthright.
I understand why you think the state irredeemable. But you cannot have a free market without property rights and a legal framework to maintain those rights. I can cite countless societies throughout history that have thrived with small governments that did exactly what I have described. Can you find me a single historic example of functional free market that was not underpinned by legal framework?
The challenge is to find a mechanism that prohibits the growth of states, (which I have set out on here before) not to try and remove all state all-together.
"You're".
And what, pray tell, is this mystical force that will counteract bureaucratic bloat and corporatist rent-seeking?
@Kingbongo. I think the problem AnCaps have with small governments is that they will not remain small.
The reasons are put more succinctly here but we already know that Constitutions don't work.
"Can you find me a single historic example of functional free market that was not underpinned by legal framework?"
This is a bit of a red herring as Ancaps believe in the rule of Law but your question pre-supposes that a state is needed to do this.
A historical counter-example is <a hre='http://lilarajiva.wordpress.com/2007/07/18/murray-rothbard-a-libertarian-society/> Ireland</a>
JohnW
Also I note that I'm falling into the trap Stephan Molyneax described of turning into a Libertarian googlebot!
meh, html linky skills got zapped.
JohnW
"you're" Thank you.
And the mystical force is localism. And the shift to electing department heads and their budget at the same time.
In a business the directors will outline their budget before the financial year starts.
In politics no reason why a police chief of Wessex (or whatever area/job) can't run for office stating how much they need to do that job for x years. The public then elect the man and the budget that suits them.
If one region wants high public spending they vote for it directly.
Of course in order for this to work you need small autonomous states. Which is why the EUSSR is such a threat. Needless to say I am in favour of the breakup of England, let alone the UK.
Its also the reason Switzerland is so attractive to people like you and me. A small autonomous state.
A historical counter-example is Ireland
I'll gladly read that.
In return: http://www.iea.org.uk/record.jsp?type=book&ID=438
Free download.
There is a fundamental flaw in your theory: if I wanted to stand for police chief (or whatever), I have no real idea of the current commitments or what things cost in real life.
You would have to expend a considerably amount of effort to draft a realistic budget for any given deployment and it might not be in your experience.
But even assuming that this can be done somehow, you're taking the curious position that you want to break things up into smaller and smaller units, the smaller the better, but somehow that final step of breaking the smallest unit of community into its next smallest unit, the individual somehow negates everything else.
You are implying that simply by consolidating individuals into some artificial community, whether it be a town, a shire, a canton, a county, a state (in the US model), or some other thing, it gets sanctified somehow.
Yet those same individuals who constitute this smaller, more broken up, more localised community, cannot be trusted unless they are forced into some kind of aggregation.
This makes no sense what so ever!
“There is a fundamental flaw in your theory: if I wanted to stand for police chief (or whatever), I have no real idea of the current commitments or what things cost in real life.”
Would it really be inconceivable for a small government department to fully publish its books?
“You would have to expend a considerably amount of effort to draft a realistic budget for any given deployment and it might not be in your experience.”
I'm willing to pay for good governance. The if high calibre people are worth it, its worth making it worth their time and effort.
“But even assuming that this can be done somehow, you're taking the curious position that you want to break things up into smaller and smaller units”
Incorrect, I said small states. Switzerland is about 8 million people. Seems about right.
“You are implying that simply by consolidating individuals into some artificial community, whether it be a town, a shire, a canton, a county, a state (in the US model), or some other thing, it gets sanctified somehow.”
I don't know what you mean by sanctified, merely an efficient size for governance.
“Yet those same individuals who constitute this smaller, more broken up, more localised community, cannot be trusted unless they are forced into some kind of aggregation.”
Most of them can be trust, there are always some that can't but that number is small. The state needs to be large enough to have clout, and benefit from a sufficient pool of talent to discharge roles effectively. But not so large that the electorate is too removed from outcomes of political action that they loose the will to engage.
“This makes no sense what so ever!”
Like I say, you have understandably become dissatisfied with government over your lifetime that you believe it irredeemable. But a complex free market with a reliance on the ability to contract agreements over the long term is essential to our modern way of life. A way of enforcing property rights and dealing with a small number of miscreants is essential.
I do not believe you can get rid of all state and not expecting another one, or something that looks very much like it to form shortly thereafter.
Given that your going to have to deal with some kind of state or something that looks like it I believe the best version to deal with is a small democratic state, with short terms of office and budgets declared at the time of election. If you exceed your budget you have to resubmit yourself to election early.
"Would it really be inconceivable for a small government department to fully publish its books?"
It certainly would not be in the incumbent's interest to do so. Who knows how they might cloud things?
"Most of them can be trust, there are always some that can't but that number is small. The state needs to be large enough to have clout, and benefit from a sufficient pool of talent to discharge roles effectively. But not so large that the electorate is too removed from outcomes of political action that they loose the will to engage"
But the problem is always that different people have different ideas of how much the state should provide. If you argue for a state that provides roads, courts, police and army, you are pretty much in the UK in 1900. Yet in less than 50 years, the state had the NHS, welfare, yadda, yadda, yadda.
Now, it may well be that transparency slows down the bloat, but you can always sell the electorate some common kindness that the state should provide.
So a small state is going to become a big state, it's just a matter of time.
Once again, I don't refute the convenience that the state brings, especially to the challenges of re-thinking the fundamental basis of society, but I refute the idea that it can be contained to a manageable size.
And you've admitted that the state should be allowed to enact violence on its population, on what grounds does it have this right?
“But the problem is always that different people have different ideas of how much the state should provide.”
Which is precisely why you need small states that people can move between. Competition is just as important for states as it is for businesses.
A state that has a monopoly of people has no more incentive to behave than a business that has a monopoly of customers. So that East Anglia can attract the statists and Wessex can attract the libertarians and Northumbria something else.
“Now, it may well be that transparency slows down the bloat, but you can always sell the electorate some common kindness that the state should provide.”
I do not dispute for a moment that what I suggest would be very hard to achieve.
But so is what you suggest. But since I believe that even if we abolished all government another or something very like it will always replace it. I believe that it is preferable to boil down a large state into regions and give them much more autonomy and bound that state by a constitution for as long as you can.
“So a small state is going to become a big state, it's just a matter of time.”
And nor is no state ever going to last. Even assuming your could have an even in the UK that destroyed the government, do you really think it would be long until another formed and started to grow?
“Once again, I don't refute the convenience that the state brings, especially to the challenges of re-thinking the fundamental basis of society, but I refute the idea that it can be contained to a manageable size.”
This is exactly the central challenge. And the area that libertarians should focus there thinking. You and I are just pissing in the wind trying to design our perfect society. What is really needed is measures that could actually be sold to the public and would have a very real effect on reducing government back to its pre war (WW1 that is) level.
This is why this book is the real deal, and people like you and me are engaging in escapism: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Plan-Twelve-Months-Renew-Britain/dp/0955979900/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1277052237&sr=1-1
“And you've admitted that the state should be allowed to enact violence on its population, on what grounds does it have this right?”
As soon as violence itself becomes redundant so will the need to for a community to manage its use.
"“Once again, I don't refute the convenience that the state brings, especially to the challenges of re-thinking the fundamental basis of society, but I refute the idea that it can be contained to a manageable size.”
This is exactly the central challenge. And the area that libertarians should focus there thinking. You and I are just pissing in the wind trying to design our perfect society. What is really needed is measures that could actually be sold to the public and would have a very real effect on reducing government back to its pre war (WW1 that is) level."
I think you are rather missing the point I'm making (possibly because of the way I phrased it): assuming the need for a state because we're all used to it is a lazy convenience. Given how much man has accomplished in other areas of life, is it not possible to imagine that there is sufficient intelligence in the world to find another way to implement a binding legal framework that does not require the state?
In other words, why does the HAVE to be a state to implement a binding legal framework? Is it not possible that there is another, better way that doesn't require some arbitrarily-designated thuggery against people?
"As soon as violence itself becomes redundant so will the need to for a community to manage its use."
Um, so what you're saying is there's no good reason why we should allow the state to have a monopoly on violence? We should allow it, just because some people are violent?
How does this differ from saying "the state should ban drugs because some people can't handle drugs"?
“In other words, why does the HAVE to be a state to implement a binding legal framework? Is it not possible that there is another, better way that doesn't require some arbitrarily-designated thuggery against people?”
I suppose its possible. As soon as someone has it I'm all ears, which is why I read sites like this and other libertarian leaning ones. But I'm yet to see something that really stands up to scrutiny. And like I say its all escapism, designing our perfect state. The real work to be done is designing tweaks to the one we have that are sellable to the general public.
“Um, so what you're saying is there's no good reason why we should allow the state to have a monopoly on violence? We should allow it, just because some people are violent?”
Like it or not violence is the ultimate authority. Ultimately no matter how good your arguments, or how fantastic your dancing or whatever it is. The party with the recourse to the superior violence will get there way. Its how the universe is, always have been. Its a particular bug for AnCaps because they have no answer to it. Other than to exclaim they they don't behave like that. Well someone will.
“How does this differ from saying "the state should ban drugs because some people can't handle drugs"?”
John Stewart Mill, self regarding and other regarding actions.
'their' I know!
"Like it or not violence is the ultimate authority. Ultimately no matter how good your arguments, or how fantastic your dancing or whatever it is. The party with the recourse to the superior violence will get there way. Its how the universe is, always have been. Its a particular bug for AnCaps because they have no answer to it. Other than to exclaim they they don't behave like that. Well someone will."
That is still no reason to sanctify the state's violence. Just because some people are violent does not me we need to submit ourselves to some common violence and a permanent, continuous threat of violence.
I don't care if some individuals ARE violent, I can buy, collectively if needed, some kind of protection against them. I don't have to submit myself to a group of people who can use violence against me to things I don't want to do.
I don't agree with the welfare state, I don't agree with Iraq, I don't agree with Afghanistan, I don't agree with shooting Brazilian electricians, I don't agree with free swimming, I don't agree with state education. But I cannot withhold my financial support from any of these things, because I will go to jail if I do. I don't have any option in these matters, and I don't have that option precisely because of the state's monopoly on violence. Sure, I could leave the country, but then I'd just be swapping one set of disagreements for another. At no point would I ever find a state that I agreed with and supported entirely. And if I did, someone else would surely disagree with some of it, and they would be under the compulsion to agree with me.
You may think that the threat of some violent people justifies a permanent threat of violence from a group of people who can use that violence to support whatever whim they might have, I simply do not.
And make no mistake, the violences supports a load of whims of people who really shouldn't be anywhere near the levers of power.
Your case for a state monopoly is non-existent so far and as such is hardly compelling. :o)
“Sure, I could leave the country,”
And the fact you don't clearly suggest you think this is the least worst option out of the alternatives.
Which brings me back to the main point I have been making. All this is just you and me pissing in the wind.
Who is the better libertarian. The guy who dreams of a world with no state, but achieves nothing and influences no one. Or the guy you comes up with an idea that gains enough popular approval to actually happen and reduces the size of government 0.5% and increases politician accountability 0.5%?
That said, its been fun. I'm currently stuck at the mother in laws, with every chair either too soft or too hard. And a laptop with some old Mickey Rourke movie on it. Jesus.
"“Sure, I could leave the country,”
And the fact you don't clearly suggest you think this is the least worst option out of the alternatives."
Or it might just be taking me longer than I want. ;o)
"Who is the better libertarian. The guy who dreams of a world with no state, but achieves nothing and influences no one. Or the guy you comes up with an idea that gains enough popular approval to actually happen and reduces the size of government 0.5% and increases politician accountability 0.5%?"
Well, I suspect that iDave might actually achieve the accountability although I doubt he will reduce the size of government.
But iDave isn't a libertarian, he has explicitly said so. "Smaller government" is a very common meme amongst all sorts of people, none of whom are in the slightest libertarian. You can be a near-minarchist Tory and still not have liberty as your over-riding goal.
The true libertarian is the one who manages to convince other people that there is no real need for a state in the first place. The only difference between you and Gordon Brown or even Joe Stalin is a question of degree. (Although, to be fair I assume you're also not a genocidal mass-murderer! :o)
"The only difference between you and Gordon Brown or even Joe Stalin is a question of degree."
About 98% of the population would not be able to tell the difference between mine your position.
Besides, your old enough to have actually done something about some of this. But your still here, still paying tax and living by the man's rules.
So at least I'm honest enough to accept the state I live within and want to change it.
You refute the state in its entirety. But then still voluntarily live within it.
And compare me to Gordon Brown again, and I'll ram your blog down your pissing hole you rancid old bastard! :)
"About 98% of the population would not be able to tell the difference between mine your position."
Yeah, that state education system is doing a bang-up job, isn't it? :o)
"You refute the state in its entirety. But then still voluntarily live within it."
There's fuck-all voluntary about it. Please tell me where Anarchia is, and I'll start packing now. Oh, there isn't one?
I have to live in subjugation to one state or another.
Do you stutter? :o>
"Please tell me where Anarchia is, and I'll start packing now. Oh, there isn't one?"
I'm pretty sure Louis Theroux has done a couple on those type of communities. One in South Africa, and another in the US.
I'm sure about the US one. No taxes, own rules, I'm sure you would love it.
Uh, anywhere in the US is subject to US Federal law. Otherwise it's not part of the US.
And I'm pretty sure that anywhere in South Africa is subject to South African law as well.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eYd-o0Shmn4
“Uh, anywhere in the US is subject to US Federal law. Otherwise it's not part of the US.”
Yeah, but those guys have the balls not to follow the rules.
"Yeah, but those guys have the balls not to follow the rules."
Hm. I think that if they ever became too big, they'd find themselves on the end of some serious harm.
I can't, for example, believe that they don't pay any taxes. The IRS would never let them get away with that.
Or perhaps they don't. Perhaps the undertake all their transactions without banks or credit or whatever. But I think the threat of state violence is only held at bay because they are so well-armed. If they ever got to seriously threaten the status quo, they'd be obliterated.
And even if none of that is true, they're still only being granted a temporary waiver. That isn't really a free society.
Are you happy that's all of your excuses out now.
Fact is your dreaming it, some people are living it, as could you if you really wanted to.
Seems you want someone else to come along and create the state you seek.
"Are you happy that's all of your excuses out now.
Fact is your dreaming it, some people are living it, as could you if you really wanted to."
Well, I know it sounds like another excuse, but frankly, those people all seem a bit fucking mad. I don't want to live in a society that is predicated on the fear of some other government coming to conquer them and fighting a resistance guerilla war against the UN.
Even if they have opted out of the US, that is not the way I see libertarians living: bashing the bible and raving about a New World Order conspiracy.
Survivalism is not libertarianism.
Anarchia thy name is Zomia
Although, tbh, I don't want to live in a stone-age slash and burn society.
@ Kingbongo
"Seems you want someone else to come along and create the state you seek."
No, he doesn't, he doesn't want to live in a state. That's the point.
JohnW
"Well, I know it sounds like another excuse, but frankly, those people all seem a bit fucking mad"
How do you think people like us sound to the average drone when we say that the poor will get cheaper and better healthcare by abolishing the NHS and withdrawing government from healthcare entirely?
Yes, that's true. But since you're more astute than the average drone, you must surely understand that I don't want to go live in a survivalist society, I want to go live in a libertarian society. ;o)
Move to Switzerland then. It's more libertarian than here by a long way.
You just want to moan!
Btw, about a year ago I was looking into the process of moving quite seriously.
I feel a bit better the Tories are back in. I'll give them a few years to see how they do.
Post a Comment