From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Fri May 03 2002 - 18:55:42 MDT
Emlyn writes
> Ok, I can see where you are coming from. I would assume that you'd have a
> government which monopolized violence such that trade could continue without
> threat of violence - no one is allowed to steal or attack others.
Thanks. And yes, unlike some libertarians, minarchists, and
anarchists, I happen to think that a government monopoly on
violence is okay. Maybe we'll evolve to some of their more
radical scenarios later.
> I find that interesting. Why wouldn't you allow violence? Isn't banning it
> just another form of government intrusion?
It may turn out NOT to be possible to say exactly why allowing
violence wouldn't "work". Sometimes extremely complicated issues
can only be settled by experience (evolution). Moreover, I suppose
that in some SF imaginings, it does work; in that progress towards
the Singularity, and people's happiness, are not overly compromised.
But violence (in all examples of recorded history that I know of)
definitely disrupts trade and productivity. That's why it *has*
to be outlawed: people must be free to enjoy the fruits of their
labor, and the use of force to deprive them of same---whether it
be by brigands or by government taxes---punishes productivity,
reduces incentive, and helps create chaos.
> What about the potential market in private violence that is
> being suppressed by this monopoly?
Sounds like you've got a very interesting SF story in mind,
though, if asked to participate, I personally am usually very
reluctant to participate in "interesting times". :-)
> When someone with a lot of money sets up structures to exploit those who
> otherwise have no means of survival (no form of economic self defense), how
> is that different from someone with lots of potential to commit violent acts
> using that to exploit those with no ability to defend against them?
But what is "exploitation"? My best friend begs to be exploited:
he says that only if some employer will exploit him, can he help
create the greatest amount of wealth (and personally benefit himself).
By "exploit", some people believe that if X freely offers
Y a job, a job that Y can legally accept or decline, X is
probably exploiting Y unless Y has a better offer elsewhere.
Due to fluctuations in the market, especially in a rapidly
exchanging economy, people offering jobs sometimes have the
better deal (a "seller's market"), and at other times those
looking for jobs have the advantage (called a "buyer's
market"). When conditions favoring the former are extreme---
say for instance that thousands are starving and a new
factory comes into existence that needs workers---then it
can *appear* to be very unfair: the bosses hire workers
at a just barely subsistence wage, and reap huge profits.
But the wisdom of the invisible hand is this: if it is so
damn profitable to create such a factory, the obscene profits
will quickly motivate others to open such obscenely profitably
ventures. Unfortunately, however, it's in exactly situations
like this that the cry arises that force should be used to
share the "obscene" profits with the workers. The result,
obviously, is that new factories come on-line more slowly.
Another insidious result is that the job-seekers who most
desperately needed the jobs don't usually happen to get
them. Instead some fat union guy gets the cushy job, and
has no incentive to turn it over to someone who will work
for less (who needs the job more).
It happens that allowing freedom of all parties approximately
maximizes the wealth and progress for all. But then most
people, at least in the U. S., figure that either they or
their representatives in government are much smarter than
market forces, and can do a much better job running the
economy than can the invisible hand. The 20th century was
replete with mega-death disasters that sprang from such
views.
Besides "exploitation", your sentence has other very
interesting built-in assumptions:
> When someone with a lot of money sets up structures to exploit those who
> otherwise have no means of survival (no form of economic self defense), how
> is that different from someone with lots of potential to commit violent acts
> using that to exploit those with no ability to defend against them?
The difference is the "use of force". The extremely fluid situation
that usually accompanies your first case happens, in my opinion,
to facilitate progress. Moreover, it's very moral: you wrote
"who have no other means of survival". Well? Obviously, the
incentives to set up such "structures" has to be given high
priority then! People's lives (in your scenario) depend on it.
But those with "lots of potential to commit violent acts", and
who also make use of it, are history's villains, don't you think?
Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:13:48 MST