From: Rafal Smigrodzki (rms2g@virginia.edu)
Date: Thu Aug 08 2002 - 17:56:31 MDT
Regarding Charlie Stross' post, let me first say I am delighted to find a
tough non-libertarian to argue with. It is likely to be more interesting
than preaching to the choir on this list. But actually I am not a true
hard-core libertarian, only leaning strongly in that direction. Well, ad
meritum:
I wrote:
>
> ### I happen to agree with you but I am curious if we also agree precisely
> which functions need this form of organization (government). I see very
few.
And I see quite a large number. Firstly, preventing aggression by external
governments that might wish to impose a confiscatory or oppressive regime.
### Yes, I agree. Known successful anarchies were wiped out by organized
thugs, therefore it is usually prudent to have organized toughs for
protection. Although, in principle, such service could be provided by
privately contracted services on a non-territorial basis in communities with
low population density and high speed information transfer, there is always
the problem of accumulation of crucial resources (e.g. land) in the hands of
a few owners and the inability of security contractors to protect their
clients from the wealthy and *their* security forces. A classical example
of this occurred in 16th century Poland where a small number of landowners
gained so much power as to be independent of the crown, which resulted in a
weakening of the nation and being partitioned between Poland's neighbors.
------
Secondly, provision of an environment in which property rights are
observed and free trade can take place without fear of banditry and theft,
### Well, here I disagree a little bit - protection against small-time thugs
can be contracted out to private forces, as long as the inequality in wealth
is not extreme, and the problem of the poor is dealt with by charity
donations for security insurance.
-----
Protecting the commons springs to mind;
that's the air we breathe, and the water we drink, (etc)
### Here I find it difficult to interpret your position - what kind of
measures for protection of the commons do you have in mind? Do you want
compulsory regulation of behavior, including preventative actions? I would
think the current state approach is wrong: There is no need for state law,
except insofar as necessary for enforcement of contracts and protection of
property (including human bodies). If any individuals are measurably harmed
as a result of e.g air pollution, they can expect restitution. If the cost
of such restitution exceeds the gain from activities associated with
polluting the air, polluters will adjust their behavior without specific
state intervention.
------
Infrastructure
regulation -- transport, power, gas -- also come into this category
these days.
### What do you mean? Why would you like to regulate gas companies?
-------
Getting controversial: insurance, and particularly health insurance, is
a common good.
### I have the impression you are using the term "common good" in a
different meaning than above. Please explain.
-------
Insurance companies have a strong incentive to exclude
marginal applicants, but excluded individuals can be a threat to the
lives of the included -- the classic example is a health insurance system
that excludes poor people with multi-drug resistant TB (who in turn act
as a reservoir for infections that don't care how rich or insured you
are). I submit that the best way to deal with this is to have a universal
healthcare mechanism.
### Maybe I will surprise you here but I agree, in a way. This has nothing
to do with the common good idea, or even the rational self-interest you
allude to above - I believe we have the basic moral obligation (as members
of the society) to support our fellow innocent humans' wish to live. It is
morally unacceptable to allow the preventable, involuntary death of an
innocent human being. Such event would strike against what I see as the
foundation of the moral society - the wish to live, and the principle of
moral symmetry.
Still, this doesn't mean that I would support universal health care or any
form of state-owned health system. Only those who wish to live and prove it
by their actions should be eligible for help. Somebody who could pay for
insurance but instead has a child or buys a motorbike, should not receive
assistance, since their actions prove they do not care about their life.
Only the poor who do their best by devoting every single surplus penny to
health, should receive assistance, as needed to obtain private coverage. I
described this kind of system a few months ago but there seems to be a
problem with the archive search function, so I can't give you a reference.
--------
A pension system is a bit more controversial,
but if we class managing senescence and disabilities as an illness,
we get them back under the umbrella of a common good.
### Definitely not. A pension is not a way of managing senescence - for that
you need long-term care insurance, again with the same caveats as to
healthcare. Only a very tiny fraction of citizens would ever qualify for
public assistance here.
-----
is a working justification for health and safety regulations in the
workplace
### Again, why treat healthcare as a "common good", whatever it means? The
only reason for intervention is if there are non-free-market conditions
related to the employment contracts. If the employer is so huge as to
constitute an effective monopoly in an area (e.g. one company providing 90%
of jobs in a mining town), capable of hiding risk-related information from
employees, an intervention is necessary but not otherwise.
---- Unemployment insurance? ### Definitely not. The unemployed might be provided with survival assistance in the form of a poorhouse, with appropriate, useful occupation while staying there, that's all. ------ It's better to have zoning guidelines, public policy on the appearance of buildings, ### Definitely not. All you need is to define property rights and their limitations appropriately, and everything sorts itself out without bureaucrats. Covenants and landlord's associations are all you need. ------- . So it makes sense to make provision for an educated workforce. <snip> (at least as far as UK experience indicates, where there's a strong working-class tradition of refusing to take out loans) ### Those who are not interested in an education that could repay all debts incurred while obtaining it, don't deserve a single penny. ------- ... And there you have it. That's what I think government is good for: universal healthcare, subsidized education, insurance of last resort, public arts policies, libraries, planning, road-building. All derived from first principles. (Do I need to emphasize the point that I Am Not A Libertarian?) ### What are your first principles? I thought I didn't see an explicit reference to them in your post. I use the following: respect for the survival-wish of innocent humans is the paramount value (rule 1). Absolutely anything that is unavoidably necessary to protect this wish, can and should be done. The maintenance of moral symmetry appears to crucial to long-term survival, so following Richard Epstein, I include it among the first principles (rule 2). There are some more principles but not directly related to our subject. Since any state-imposed rule involves the threat of death (by the definition of the state as the monopoly user of violence in an area), imposition of rules by the state is allowable only as long as both rules 1 and 2 are not violated. You can threaten death only to prevent more death. Consequently, I agree with the following life-saving roles for the state: 1. Provision of protection against ELEMENTS (Extremely Large Extremely Mean entities), such as other states, or individuals and companies so powerful that they can corrupt and control law enforcement, in effect *becoming* the state. This subsumes the armed forces, and control of growth of large entities by appropriate laws. If no ELEMENTS interfere, a law system emerges spontaneously and needs to be only supplied with certain types of information, no need for direct state administration. 2. Provision of information crucial to survival, such as: a) information about risks in the workplace which together with prevention of monopolies is sufficient to prevent unwanted death (those who voluntarily take a risky job in a free market get all the reward of a competitive salary, while the employers try to minimize the risk to be able to pay less) b) basic scientific research, data not likely to be provided by private enterprise c) certain types of expensive consumer information - e.g. data about the usefulness of drugs, both patented and generic, (otherwise not provided because of cost and non-excludability) d) the forcible disclosure of some information needed for survival, such as verified, trustworthy nutrition information (normally limited by lack of trust and the manufacturer's economic incentives to withhold it), other consumer information, and many other types of information... 3. Provision of funds and services needed to assure survival of innocents who want to survive but are unable to provide for themselves for reasons beyond their control (aside from children there are very, very few such persons, see the healthcare, poorhouse proposals). This includes oversight of parenting practices, prevention of child abuse, enforcement of the parents' duty to provide education for their children, etc. The above have in common an impact on survival of innocents, while being for technical reasons (non-excludability, large-scale violence, corruption of the legal system, etc.) difficult to obtain without using the coercive methods defining the state. The vast majority of the issues you touch on can be dealt with indirectly, by improving information flows, rather than coercive regulation. I fail to see why roads, libraries, etc. etc. should be paid controlled by the state. I want to specifically single out, as immoral (=threatening death other than as to prevent death), the notion of forcing a neighbor to follow one's ideas about lawn care, even if his lawn decorations were to reduce the resale values of adjoining properties to zero. The threat of death may not be used to enforce esthetics! Rafal
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:15:58 MST