Justification of a Coercive Government

[August1991]

In China in the 19th century, teams of men would haul boats up the rapids of the Yellow River. The men would hire another man to follow along and whip any shirkers. It was in the interest of each man individually to have such a slave-driver. That in essence is the logic of government.

This is an incredibly lame argument.

Why was it necessary to whip shirkers? Why could the other teamsters not expel him from the team? Why could the shirker, who didn't want to work, not quit? There has to be coercion involved, so what you are saying is that more coercion is necessary to correct the effects of coercion.

They got paid as a team for hauling the boat. Each individual cannot observe the effort of the others. Each individual would benefit from shirking (and each one knows this). Hence, each individual agrees to be subject to coercion.

There are many situations like this and they invariably arise from people being dishonest or cheating.

Co-operation is a good thing but individuals are prone to being opportunistic. Markets sometimes solve this problem but not always.

[Hugo]

Hence, each individual agrees to be subject to coercion.

Then it is not government in the political sense. If everybody who is governed agreed to be governed and agreed to the terms of their government, then it is not coercive, it is voluntaryist. After all, a person has the right to live in peace without violence being done upon them, but one can voluntarily abrogate ones own rights.

Now, if some of the teamsters were there against their will, that would be analogous to government.

Co-operation is a good thing but individuals are prone to being opportunistic. Markets sometimes solve this problem but not always.

When do they not solve this problem? More examples, less rhetoric, August.

"Government never furthered any enterprise but by the alacrity with which it got out of its way." - Henry David Thoreau

[August1991]

Then it is not government in the political sense. If everybody who is governed agreed to be governed and agreed to the terms of their government, then it is not coercive, it is voluntaryist.

We debated this before. You choose to live in a certain jurisdiction and in effect, to be governed and taxed there. This certainly applies to municipalities and provinces/states. It applies to countries too. I gave the example of buying a condo with shared expenses.

It is a long term contract with many terms unspecified. I think the critical idea here is that a free person voluntarily accepts now to be coerced in the future. This is similar to marriage.

People vote with their feet, and I argued elsewhere that the best measure of citizenship is not voter turn out but tax compliance.

I suspect governments are less rapacious when citizens can move more easily. (Think of Quebec or the Soviet Union.)

When do they not solve this problem? More examples, less rhetoric, August.

Fire department. Yes, it could be private, collecting premiums on a voluntary basis. But that would mean not responding to a fire because the person didn't pay the premium.

Insurance schemes in general don't function well on an individual basis. There can be welfare gains in having universal, obligatory participation. Even where private, group insurance is common.

Another example would be all manner of networks. This would include roadways, water delivery, electricity. An argument could be made that government involvement would be welfare increasing.

I don't think the environment will be protected without government involvement. We have argued this before - it concerns how to define property rights.

There are transaction costs to using the market. These costs often concern obtaining information which in some cases is not merely too costly, it is impossible. The result is that no enforceable contract is possible. In such cases, for example, government might be able to obtain beneficial co-operation.

Many beneficial transactions occur within a family that would be too costly through a market. (Think of sharing a single washroom.) Many beneficial transactions occur within a firm that would be too costly through a market. (Think of the assembly of an automobile.) Many beneficial transactions occur within a government that would be too costly through a market. (Think of national defence.)

Hugo, have you ever heard of the First Theorem of Welfare Economics? Are you aware of the required conditions for its proof?

[i am taking a normative approach here and I'm using efficiency as my moral compass.]

[Hugo]

You choose to live in a certain jurisdiction and in effect, to be governed and taxed there. This certainly applies to municipalities and provinces/states. It applies to countries too.

Ah, the social contract. The problem is that you can't sign a contract before you are born, before you exist, before you have faculties. Did you read that Lysander Spooner essay?

People vote with their feet, and I argued elsewhere that the best measure of citizenship is not voter turn out but tax compliance.

Unfortunately, many people won't or can't vote with their feet because they have already invested vast amounts of time and resources in building a life in their home country, and I don't think it just or fair that you should expect them to abandon all of it and get lost just because the government feels they have the right to help themselves to the property of the populace.

Fire department. Yes, it could be private, collecting premiums on a voluntary basis. But that would mean not responding to a fire because the person didn't pay the premium.

Then you define a failed market as a market where some people choose not to participate? Then by your definition, every market is a failure, and we should abandon the whole thing and move to a completely planned economy. There are a large number of possible transactions that would be beneficial to people and yet they fail to participate in them. You propose to force their participation at gunpoint, unfortunately, you don't realise that that act of coercion will destroy the market, and render any results obtained substantially less than Pareto optimal. Then, it becomes self-contradictory, because by forcing people to participate for their own good you have ended up making them worse off than they were before.

Insurance schemes in general don't function well on an individual basis. There can be welfare gains in having universal, obligatory participation.

Incorrect, August, there will be welfare losses. If you grant a market with "universal, obligatory participation" you have created a cartel, which will then proceed to gouge on prices and generally extort from the customers who no longer have market options to help themselves. You will have artificially created a market failure by introducing politics into the market, and you have terribly skewed economic function by creating a market that lacks correct market functions.

Another example would be all manner of networks. This would include roadways, water delivery, electricity. An argument could be made that government involvement would be welfare increasing.

Go ahead and make one, then. In the meantime I'll refer you to the 407 ETR and to Britain's private power companies, and to the consistent failure of the state to provide reliable and cheap power, well-maintained roads, and an efficient, bacteriologically safe water supply.

I don't think the environment will be protected without government involvement.

Take a look at the example of southern US forestry, which has been saved (a rapid decline in tree population was arrested and then reversed) by the free market. You yourself have said that what is owned by all shall be cared for by none, and to trust care of the environment to government, to the public, is to introduce the environment to the tragedy of the commons and nothing more.

Many beneficial transactions occur within a family that would be too costly through a market.

You need to understand a few concepts, August. Firstly, any voluntary human transaction or interaction constitutes a market. Secondly, wealth is definitely not the same as money, and wealth is not even necessarily material goods or tangible services. Wealth is that which has value. And thirdly, nothing has value until it is assigned value by a human being, and the value he assigns will depend upon circumstances and upon his preferences. This is how trade happens and how trade can be beneficial to both parties even though there is only one price.

Hugo, have you ever heard of the First Theorem of Welfare Economics?

Yes. However, it's not applicable to an economy because it only works in static equilibrium models, and an economy is neither static nor in equilibrium. An economy is not a snapshot taken in time but an ongoing process. The Walrasian equilibrium assumes that the quantities (or values) of goods, their prices, and the values and utility of their owners remain static but this is not the case in an economy.

[August1991]

Hugo, you appear to be a devout Christian and so I guess, you believe in family. Let me try my argument that way.

The problem is that you can't sign a contract before you are born, before you exist, before you have faculties.

And we don't choose our family either. Is that a reason to forbid families?

Did you read that Lysander Spooner essay?

Yes, I did. Rawlsian justice is a pure thought experiment. Spooner is clueless.

Unfortunately, many people won't or can't vote with their feet because they have already invested vast amounts of time and resources in building a life in their home country....

Hugo discovers the difference between "rent" and "quasi-rent". How much would you pay to become Wayne Gretzky? How much would you pay not to be Spock?

Or, how much would you pay to get a spot in the local mall? How much would you pay to break your lease with the local mall?

But seriously, I agree with you. Governments can tax up to the rent. People leave at the quasi-rent.

Fire department. Yes, it could be private, collecting premiums on a voluntary basis. But that would mean not responding to a fire because the person didn't pay the premium.

Then you define a failed market as a market where some people choose not to participate?

No, I meant the cost of saving someone's home was negligible. So, even if the family didn't pay the premium, let's save their house. This leads to moral hazard.

Better off to cover everyone. Ergo, government. (Even in medieval times people had the good sense to understand my argument. Hugo, you are normative. Try to be positive sometimes.)

There are a large number of possible transactions that would be beneficial to people and yet they fail to participate in them. You propose to force their participation at gunpoint, unfortunately, you don't realise that that act of coercion will destroy the market, and render any results obtained substantially less than Pareto optimal.

Key. Technology (in the broadest sense) determines an answer. About 50,000 years ago, the only way to co-operate was family (Mom/Dad), government (Alpha Male) or random acts of generosity/trust. Now, we've got markets (prices/numbers) and firms.

Hugo, are you an original/genius? Find a new way to help our species to co-operate.

Insurance schemes in general don't function well on an individual basis. There can be welfare gains in having universal, obligatory participation.

Incorrect, August, there will be welfare losses. If you grant a market with "universal, obligatory participation" you have created a cartel, which will then proceed to gouge on prices and generally extort from the customers who no longer have market options to help themselves.

Government is about creating the cartel. IOW, the monopoly is better than nothing. Democracy seems to be a minor improvement over "we'll flip a coin" to decide the monopolist. I'd prefer "pay me and I'll let you become a monopolist".

Take a look at the example of southern US forestry, which has been saved (a rapid decline in tree population was arrested and then reversed) by the free market.

I don't know this example. To me, the environment is a question of property rights. Nobody owns the high seas. Hence, anyone can take anything from them, or dump anything they want into them.

For this reason alone, I'm a strong environmentalist. In my mind, David Suzuki is a fool.

I'll refer you to the 407 ETR and to Britain's private power companies

407? No one has yet devised a way to charge me for driving on the road immediately in front of my house. Power generation, yes. Power distribution is different. Even in the land of Hope and Glory.

Firstly, any voluntary human transaction or interaction constitutes a market. Secondly, wealth is definitely not the same as money, and wealth is not even necessarily material goods or tangible services. Wealth is that which has value. And thirdly, nothing has value until it is assigned value by a human being, and the value he assigns will depend upon circumstances and upon his preferences. This is how trade happens and how trade can be beneficial to both parties even though there is only one price.

Agreed, trade (co-operation) does not require a market price. Agreed, value is personal. And third, trade with a price means finding more easily a better deal.

However, it's not applicable to an economy because it only works in static equilibrium models, and an economy is neither static nor in equilibrium.

In the long run, it's in equilibrium. Static? No, it requires future markets.

The theorem critically requires prices.

[Hugo]

And we don't choose our family either. Is that a reason to forbid families?

Could parents justly bind their children into servitude before they were born? That is what the social contract amounts to: not merely a family qua family, but a family - not even your family - that presumes to sign your life away on your behalf before your very birth.

Yes, I did. Rawlsian justice is a pure thought experiment. Spooner is clueless.

If you say so. It's pretty easy to call somebody "clueless" without refuting their argument in any way, and I've noticed that you tend to fall back on petty insults when you can't make an argument. You cannot call Spooner clueless, you have to prove him clueless with an argument.

Better off to cover everyone. Ergo, government.

Better for whom? If people chose not to cover themselves within the market, that meant that the cost of covering themselves was not worth the benefit to them (value is subjective, remember?). Therefore, they were better off without coverage.

So, if you force them to buy the coverage at gunpoint (and that is what governments do, they cannot provide anything for free but merely force you to buy) you have made them worse off than they were before, by their own judgement.

And if you say that your judgement is better than theirs and should be overriding, then the type of government you truly desire is for you to be Pharaoh and for all other men to be your slaves. If you were truly a god amongst men who knew better than all of them, you wouldn't have any reason to look after their welfare anyway, and should just do what Pharaoh did and enslave the entire nation to building giant geometrical whimsies for you. The argument is self-defeating.

Government is about creating the cartel. IOW, the monopoly is better than nothing. Democracy seems to be a minor improvement over "we'll flip a coin" to decide the monopolist. I'd prefer "pay me and I'll let you become a monopolist".

That's not what government is. Government says, "Pay me and I'll become a monopolist." The cartel might be an improvement over nothing, but does that mean you should stop there, or pursue something even better? Once man had discovered fire from rubbing sticks or whatever, was it redundant and useless to pursue better methods of heat and light generation?

I don't know this example. To me, the environment is a question of property rights.

You can read about this example here. But it seems that you agree with me anyway. To make the environment public is to invite its destruction, therefore, the logical solution to environmental damage is to ensure that every single part of the environment is privately owned, and that is how we should direct our thinking.

407? No one has yet devised a way to charge me for driving on the road immediately in front of my house.

Perhaps you've heard of privately developed communities, like townhouse complexes with internal road and parking lot infrastructures. The maintenance is paid by the residents. Consider the road and parking lot networks in shopping plazas. The leases of the stores pay for it.

To answer your question in one word: "bundling." Of course, it's not the only solution, and I'm not so arrogant as to assume that some worthy entrepreneur would not come up with an even better one given time.

Power generation, yes. Power distribution is different.

Why? Let companies build power distribution networks and lease them to customers and/or power generation companies. The best one will win out (and 'best' is in the eyes of the consumer, so there will be many 'best' companies). Vast riches await the company that can work out a way to keep the power on during a storm! That's something the state power industry has never solved and will never try to. Heck, they can't even keep the power on during summer.

And third, trade with a price means finding more easily a better deal.

All trade has a price. Don't be so short-sighted as to assume a price must mean money, or material goods, or tangible services.

In the long run, it's in equilibrium.

Actually, no, it is in a permanent state of imbalance. This is why the economy changes over time. Very few companies in existence will be around in 100 years, those that do, will probably exist as a result of state subsidy of some kind. None will be around in 500 years. There are no constants in the market.

[August1991]

And we don't choose our family either. Is that a reason to forbid families?

Could parents justly bind their children into servitude before they were born? That is what the social contract amounts to: not merely a family qua family, but a family - not even your family - that presumes to sign your life away on your behalf before your very birth.

My point was that family is a non-market institution which fosters co-operation. It does this in part through coercion. In addition, we do not choose to be a member of a family.

Since I suspect you approve of 'family', I'm asking you to consider 'government' in a similar manner.

As to Spooner, clueless is perhaps a bit strong. I disagree with ideologists in part because they put bone-headed attachment to a simple rule above rigourous common sense.

Better for whom? If people chose not to cover themselves within the market, that meant that the cost of covering themselves was not worth the benefit to them (value is subjective, remember?). Therefore, they were better off without coverage.

Insurance poses numerous problems for free markets and a market solution is often sub-optimal.

If you are not insured, and have no assets, how can I seek redress for a tort you cause? Worse, what incentive do you have to change your behaviour?

I can see the benefit of a law requiring you to insure yourself.

Government says, "Pay me and I'll become a monopolist." The cartel might be an improvement over nothing, but does that mean you should stop there, or pursue something even better? Once man had discovered fire from rubbing sticks or whatever, was it redundant and useless to pursue better methods of heat and light generation?

Pay me? Who is the 'me' in your quote above? My point is that I want some pay-off to accept to be coerced in the future. Like many deals, things don't always turn out as intended.

But you are right. Nothing says that governments will exist in the future - in fact, I am certain they will change as we find other, better ways to co-operate.

To make the environment public is to invite its destruction, therefore, the logical solution to environmental damage is to ensure that every single part of the environment is privately owned, and that is how we should direct our thinking.

I generally agree with you but, once again, in practical terms I don't see how we can sell the high seas to a single owner.

Perhaps you've heard of privately developed communities, like townhouse complexes with internal road and parking lot infrastructures. The maintenance is paid by the residents. Consider the road and parking lot networks in shopping plazas. The leases of the stores pay for it.

But Hugo, your examples are in effect government. That was what my condo example referred to.

The 407 example is different. The road is open to anyone but each pays according to use. In the future, it is conceivable that we will use all roads that way. At the moment, technology does not allow this at a reasonable cost.

To answer your question in one word: "bundling."

Exactly. But even this won't work for all cases.

Why? Let companies build power distribution networks and lease them to customers and/or power generation companies. The best one will win out (and 'best' is in the eyes of the consumer, so there will be many 'best' companies).

All networks have declining average costs. You'd still wind up with only one distribution system.

All trade has a price. Don't be so short-sighted as to assume a price must mean money, or material goods, or tangible services.

Let's be clear about the word 'price'. The terms of trade are not always explicit. A monetary price - a number - makes for easier comparative shopping.

Actually, no, it is in a permanent state of imbalance. This is why the economy changes over time. Very few companies in existence will be around in 100 years, those that do, will probably exist as a result of state subsidy of some kind. None will be around in 500 years. There are no constants in the market.

In the short run, yes.

But I agree that we have no idea now how people will relate to one another in the future. 100,000 years ago, people could barely speak to one another.

Co-operation is mutually beneficial and that is why humans seek to co-operate through a variety of institutions. I'd argue that people are far smarter at figuring out how to do this than you or I at theorizing about it.

IOW, I prefer sometimes a positive approach to these questions.

Hugo, you and I can argue about this but I will say that agree in principle with the following quote:

So, if you force them to buy the coverage at gunpoint (and that is what governments do, they cannot provide anything for free but merely force you to buy) you have made them worse off than they were before, by their own judgement.

The issue here is, have we made them worse off.

[The Terrible Sweal]

Now, if some of the teamsters were there against their will, that would be analogous to government.

Analogous to government in coercive states, but not in free states, like Canada, for example.

[Hugo]

Since I suspect you approve of 'family', I'm asking you to consider 'government' in a similar manner.

But government is not family. I don't owe my existence to government, for a start. Then, my family gave freely of their own resources to support me as a child. Government does not have anything to give, what they do is to steal from some people in order to support others.

Lastly, consider that in the parent-child relationship, one party is clearly superior in every respect and may justly enforce its will upon the other. Applied to government, that gives you Stalinism. But one cannot say that all politicians are inherently superior beings to their citizens, especially when you espouse a government of the people! This gives the lie to democracy.

I disagree with ideologists in part because they put bone-headed attachment to a simple rule above rigourous common sense.

Anarchy has the logical beauty of having a single principle that is applied to all. It is internally consistent. Statism is self-contradictory, for it says "here, but not there", "me, but not them", in ways that are completely arbitrary and subjective and not logically demonstrable. Minarchists and Keynesians are just picking a different, arbitrary and equally unjustifiable point to compromise at.

If you are not insured, and have no assets, how can I seek redress for a tort you cause?

You can seek redress from my future assets. An arbitrator would probably rule that I should labour and pay you the proceeds until my debt is paid off. No coercion is involved, however, if I refuse there's every likelihood that I wouldn't be able to get employment or to purchase many goods and services with such a massive black mark against my character. If you needed repayment urgently, you could sell your claim to a collections agency, who will pay you in full and then make it their business to collect that sum from me. But I am surprised that you asked this question, since these mechanisms already exist.

I can see the benefit of a law requiring you to insure yourself.

I can see the benefit from purging the human population of all handicapped people, too. That doesn't mean I'm about to open a gas chamber. How about you?

My point in this somewhat cruel jab is that it's easy to see the benefit in almost anything. When it gets interesting and productive is when you compare the benefits to the costs. That is what I am asking you to do.

My point is that I want some pay-off to accept to be coerced in the future.

Good for you. I don't want to be coerced in the future, and you have absolutely no right to empower somebody else to coerce me no matter how badly you want to be coerced. If you don't have a right, you can't confer that right on somebody else.

I generally agree with you but, once again, in practical terms I don't see how we can sell the high seas to a single owner.

Strawman argument. Who said it'd be a single owner? A large good can be divided, or a large number of owners can be incorporated. I'm sure you're familiar with the mechanisms already.

Exactly. But even this won't work for all cases.

No, and that is why we have other methods of providing "public goods." Do a Google search for libertarian public goods theory.

You'd still wind up with only one distribution system.

What do you base that upon?

But Hugo, your examples are in effect government. That was what my condo example referred to.

No, August, it becomes government when one condo 'owner' is there against his will. Your condo argument fell apart, and you gave up even trying to defend it about half-way down page 7 of the "defence of anarchy" thread.

Let's be clear about the word 'price'. The terms of trade are not always explicit. A monetary price - a number - makes for easier comparative shopping.

What you have said is true but it in no way either refutes or adds to what I have said.

The issue here is, have we made them worse off.

Yes, we have! Have you not been paying attention? In asking somebody whether they are worse off, the only person whose judgement counts is their own. If they feel worse off then they are worse off. Anything else is an argument for despotism.

Analogous to government in coercive states, but not in free states, like Canada, for example.

That doesn't tie in well with the fact that 77% of the Canadian electorate is governed by those they didn't choose but who still exercise arbitrary power over them.

[The Terrible Sweal]

Analogous to government in coercive states, but not in free states, like Canada, for example.

That doesn't tie in well with the fact that 77% of the Canadian electorate is governed by those they didn't choose but who still exercise arbitrary power over them.

Everyone in Canada is free to leave if they don't like the way our constitution provides for selection of the government.

And, just an aside, the goverment in Canada does not exercise 'arbitrary' power.

[Hugo]

Everyone in Canada is free to leave if they don't like the way our constitution provides for selection of the government.

Why do they need to leave? What special claim does the government, or even the majority of Canadians, have over Canada? I have a stake in this country too, I own property here, I work here, my kids are raised here so why can others tell me to get out? Why can't I tell them to get out?

And, just an aside, the goverment in Canada does not exercise 'arbitrary' power.

Well, here's the definition of "arbitrary":

1) Determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle.

Like the laws that permit tobacco smoking but forbid baby walkers or owning pit-bulls? That certainly isn't reasonable or based upon any principle.

2) Based on or subject to individual judgment or preference.

For example, when Chretien told his caucus that it didn't matter how they voted on the gay marriage bill, since he was going to make sure it became law anyway.

3) Established by a court or judge rather than by a specific law or statute.

Because we've never seen a court strike down a law or a statute in Canada, have we?

4) Not limited by law; despotic.

Such as when the Federal government signed the Kyoto Accord without consulting the provinces, despite the fact that it was well outside the boundaries of their jurisdiction to do so and was supposed to be "limited by law". Or such as when the government violated legal public spending guidelines, resulting in Adscam or a part thereof.

[Guest eureka]

It is not at all outside the boundaries of the federal government to sign on to Kyoto. There is no Constitutional requirement to consult the provinces.

[August1991]

But Hugo, your examples are in effect government. That was what my condo example referred to.

No, August, it becomes government when one condo 'owner' is there against his will. Your condo argument fell apart, and you gave up even trying to defend it about half-way down page 7 of the "defence of anarchy" thread.

Who keeps you in Canada, Hugo? Are you forced to stay here? Indeed, I suspect that you chose to come and live here!

Hugo, you never answered that question.

If I understand properly, you define government as a prison and then say (surprise, surprise) government is bad. But Hugo, how do you define the administration of the condominium? What term do you use to describe this institution?

You did once refer to moving in the following way:

Unfortunately, many people won't or can't vote with their feet because they have already invested vast amounts of time and resources in building a life in their home country, and I don't think it just or fair that you should expect them to abandon all of it and get lost just because the government feels they have the right to help themselves to the property of the populace.

What would you be abandoning? You would sell and get a fair price. In fact, I think that's not a bad way to view the value of government services.

A rent is what attracts people to Canada. A quasi-rent is what keeps people here. It could be argued that these are the net benefits created by government.

Imagine a condo administration that just raise common fees to repair the entry. You voted against the proposal, object to paying the higher fees but choose to stay in the building because moving would be more costly.

Why do they need to leave? What special claim does the government, or even the majority of Canadians, have over Canada? I have a stake in this country too, I own property here, I work here, my kids are raised here so why can others tell me to get out? Why can't I tell them to get out?

Canada is a club, a condo building. What do you mean you have a stake in it? If you were born here, you inherited the condo from your parents. If you immigrated, you chose to buy a condo. In either case, if you don't like the current administration, sell and move on. (This isn't Soviet Russia. You do not require an exit visa.)

If you don't leave, it is because the benefits are greater than the costs. Or at least, this is above your quasi-rent.

----

Hugo, you refer to "government" as a separate entity. It's not. It is an institution that allows people to co-operate together for mutual benefit. (Family too does this, as do markets.)

IMV, a society with no government would be a poorer society and in fact no one would want to live there. You will say that's only my opinion and I will answer that I have seen no society without some form of "government". The reason is simple: markets do not provide in all cases a satisfactory outcome.

IOW, I would prefer to move beyond this silly issue of whether government is ever a useful institution to the more interesting question of what should government do? Marriage, family and government amount to long term contracts. (What is alimony but tax by another name?) So, what should be in this contract given current market transaction costs?

That is, what can government do better when a market is dysfunctional?

To use the condo analogy, should the condo administration really be taking food from my fridge and giving it to other other condo owners? Fixing the entry is one thing; redistributing food another.

----

Hugo, you remind me of Tyco Brahe who simply refused to believe that the earth moved. For you, it is that government might be a useful institution.

[August1991]

Analogous to government in coercive states, but not in free states, like Canada, for example.

That doesn't tie in well with the fact that 77% of the Canadian electorate is governed by those they didn't choose but who still exercise arbitrary power over them.

Everyone in Canada is free to leave if they don't like the way our constitution provides for selection of the government.

And, just an aside, the goverment in Canada does not exercise 'arbitrary' power.

TS, I agree with you except maybe for the arbitrary part:

And, just an aside, the goverment in Canada does not exercise 'arbitrary' power.

In the case of government, we clearly take the bad with the good. John Kennedy said that if 80% of the population is supportive, that amounts to unanimity. Well, what about the other 20%?

Another way to view this is to say that I should be able to sell my vote. Markets seek perfect co-operation. A Pareto optimum means 100% support versus any other alternative.

Our current system of government is arbitrary. It is barely an improvement over "I'll decide because my Dad decided."

[Hugo]

It is not at all outside the boundaries of the federal government to sign on to Kyoto. There is no Constitutional requirement to consult the provinces.

Then take your pick of other breaches of law by Canadian government. For example, the BC government's violation in the Nisga'a agreement of the 1950 Supreme Court ruling that provincial and federal governments may not delegate their taxatory powers to one another, or Dalton McGuinty's breach of the Taxpayer Protection Act and his written contract with the Canadian Taxpayers Association (for which they have filed suit).

Who keeps you in Canada, Hugo?

My wife is Canadian.

But Hugo, how do you define the administration of the condominium? What term do you use to describe this institution?

If the condo owners used violence to intimidate other entrepreneurs from opening other condos, your analogy would be somewhat more valid (although still invalid on net balance as the government of Canada did not build Canada). If government ceased to fund itself from forcibly expropriated taxes and permitted competition in provision of its services, it would not be coercive, and it would not be government anymore, but just a business.

To state that the Canadian government is not coercive because I can leave is fallacious. To leave Canada means that I must have somewhere else to go, which means I have to merely pick a different master, another government. To construct an analogy, you would say that a battered wife could not leave her husband until she had found another man to take her in! Or, to put it another way, that blacks during the segregation period had no right to complain about Jim Crow laws because they could always move to New England. Or, that your next-door neighbour can break into your house and steal your television, because if you don't like it you can just move to another neighbourhood.

But, we move off-topic. You are supposed to be justifying the initiation of coercion and violence to me.

What would you be abandoning? You would sell and get a fair price.

Yes, until everyone else caught on, and then the rush on the market would ensure everybody was ripped off. Furthermore, how will I get a fair price for my emotional investments - my friends, my wifes family, my childrens playmates?

In either case, if you don't like the current administration, sell and move on.

Why? If you move next door to me, do I have the right to demand that you wear a bearskin hat on Tuesdays, claiming that you consented to it by moving next-door, and if you don't like it you can always move away?

You are assuming that government is ordained by some kind of divine law that must be obeyed. It is not. It is a law of men, so defending it is defending the notion that it is just for some men to impose their will upon others using violence, or that some men are inherently superior to others and have the right to coerce them and even to bind their descendants into coercion.

Hugo, you refer to "government" as a separate entity. It's not.

Yes, it is. I can identify which individuals in our society are in government and which are not, just as I can identify which individuals in our society are female and which are not.

IMV, a society with no government would be a poorer society and in fact no one would want to live there. You will say that's only my opinion and I will answer that I have seen no society without some form of "government".

Nor will you. Anarchy is self-government, that is all. Six billion states of one.

I would prefer to move beyond this silly issue... you remind me of Tyco Brahe who simply refused to believe that the earth moved

Why do you continually try to pass off insults and condescencion as debate? Your behaviour is sometimes shameful, and the frequency of your descents into pettiness seems to be growing.

I think it rather silly that you would even refer to anarchy as "silly" given the number of great minds who have lent their support to it, including the Nobel laureate economist Milton Friedman. Are they "silly", August? You seem to admire their ideas in other discussions.

[Guest eureka]

I fail to see what either of those instances have to do with the ability of the federal government to sign an international agreement. I would express some views about the Canadian Taxpayers Federation's suit but I do not feel in a scatological frame of mind. The Constitution is quite clear on that particular aspect.

[Hugo]

See what you want to, Eureka, I can't stop you. But it seems to me that, in all the court rulings against the government over the years, it is hardly the case that the Canadian government does not break the law. Even right now, we are in the middle of an investigation into whether or not the Chretien administration broke the law (Adscam).

[August1991]

If the condo owners used violence to intimidate other entrepreneurs from opening other condos, your analogy would be somewhat more valid (although still invalid on net balance as the government of Canada did not build Canada).

No one has seriously threatened violence if Quebec were to separate. Many countries obtained independence in the past century.

If government ceased to fund itself from forcibly expropriated taxes and permitted competition in provision of its services, it would not be coercive, and it would not be government anymore, but just a business.

The condo management would simply be enforcing a contract as is government when it collects taxes. This is what you fail to see Hugo. You are going to say that "I never signed the social contract". And my answer is that you signed the Canadian social contract the day you married your wife and decided to live in Canada.

I would offer the same argument for somebody who was born here and in effect inherited their parents' condo in the condo building.

The contract we have with government stipulates - as do agreements to live in a condo building - that condo management may alter terms or payments as necessary. There is typically a constitution giving voting rights to residents.

To state that the Canadian government is not coercive because I can leave is fallacious.

It's not fallacious, it is a simple fact. Moreover, in a federal state such as Canada, you have a variety of jurisdictions to choose from. (Hugo, I will refrain from being sarcastic since you have recently objected to my style.)

To leave Canada means that I must have somewhere else to go, which means I have to merely pick a different master, another government. To construct an analogy, you would say that a battered wife could not leave her husband until she had found another man to take her in!

Is that how you see all marriages? Don't you think there might be some nice guys out there? Are all men wife-beaters?

And incidentally, it is analogies like that Hugo that drive me to sarcasm. You are not really interested in discussing whether government can be a useful institution. You have decided that government is a "wife-beater".

I gave the example above of a condo management, in effect a government. It is a useful institution - like a market with monetary prices - for people to co-operate and achieve common goals. (In this case, renovating their entry.) If a single condo owner is not happy with the fee structure/renovation (taxes/benefits), the condo owner can buy a house in a private community with a different fee structure, or a house with local property taxes.

Or, to put it another way, that blacks during the segregation period had no right to complain about Jim Crow laws because they could always move to New England.

Slavery of this kind (theft of this kind, if you prefer) should not be within a social contract.

IOW, do not get me to argue that the collective should have the right to confiscate everything from one person. (Once again Hugo, you often make these kind of false dichotomy arguments.) The issue is how much will we each put into a common pool to pay for services that cannot be obtained easily otherwise.

Or, that your next-door neighbour can break into your house and steal your television, because if you don't like it you can just move to another neighbourhood.

A leasing company has the right to repossess your car if you don't make payments.

But, we move off-topic. You are supposed to be justifying the initiation of coercion and violence to me.

Even you have suggested various forms of coercion to enforce contracts.

Furthermore, how will I get a fair price for my emotional investments - my friends, my wifes family, my childrens playmates?

I dunno. When people quit a job because they don't like the boss, do they get compensated because they lose their friendly work colleagues. You are striking at the very heart of what constitutes a choice and how each of us value things differently.

But Hugo, consider language. Imagine you are unilingual Finnish. How much can fellow Finns get you to pay for the government services they love?

You are assuming that government is ordained by some kind of divine law that must be obeyed. It is not.

Hugo, I am the last person on this forum who would view the government as "ordained". I have made it plain on numerous occasions that the government is a mechanism for people to work together.

It is a law of men, so defending it is defending the notion that it is just for some men to impose their will upon others using violence, or that some men are inherently superior to others and have the right to coerce them and even to bind their descendants into coercion.

The institution of government must operate through coercion. Without coercion, there would be a problem of free-riders.

Hugo, there is no guarantee that a collective solution based on the individual wills of free people will be a "good" solution. On the contrary, there is a strong likelihood the solution will be "bad".

That was my analogy of the Chinese boat men.

If the condo owners used violence to intimidate other entrepreneurs from opening other condos, your analogy would be somewhat more valid (although still invalid on net balance as the government of Canada did not build Canada).

I have never read Milton Friedman make the same arguments as you make. Friedman was also pragmatic, arguing in favour of a positive approach.

[August1991]

Ignore.

[Hugo]

Many countries obtained independence in the past century.

How many of those were obtained after war or years of oppression? History shows that, on the whole, government typically reacts violently to attempts at secession, and especially violently towards the notion that competition for its services might arise within its own borders.

No one has seriously threatened violence if Quebec were to separate.

A better question for you to ask would not be, "how would the government react to Quebec secession?", but, "how would the government react to an attempt at an independent justice system within Canada, with its own police, courts of law, prisons and gallows?"

You are going to say that "I never signed the social contract". And my answer is that you signed the Canadian social contract the day you married your wife and decided to live in Canada.

So, according to you, the government does not own me or my wife, since we are free to leave, and one can fully control ones possessions. Nor does the government own any of our property, since its rights to it are limited. Therefore, what you are saying that the government has done is to attach clauses to a contract made between two people, wholly independent of the government.

How do you justify that? Next time you make a contract with anyone, I want to add a clause that you'll pay $1000 per month to me forever.

I would offer the same argument for somebody who was born here and in effect inherited their parents' condo in the condo building.

A birth is, for the infant, a non-consensual act. How can a non-consensual act be taken as some kind of consent for further acts, exactly? If your heart beats again, I'll take that heartbeat as your consent to your giving me $1000 per month forever.

Moreover, in a federal state such as Canada, you have a variety of jurisdictions to choose from.

So, because I can choose my poison, I have no right to complain about being poisoned?

Is that how you see all marriages? Don't you think there might be some nice guys out there? Are all men wife-beaters?

Strawman argument. I referred to a battered wife, and I never insinuated that all such marriages involved violence.

But further to your point, there are many nice marriages out there where all acts are consensual and no violence is initiated. That would be analogous to the anarchist state.

You are not really interested in discussing whether government can be a useful institution.

I believe that the means affect the end. The means of government is the initiation of violence, which is wrong, therefore, it can have no good ends. What are the wages of sin, August? An act executed under duress or using violence cannot be more than amoral.

a government... is a useful institution - like a market with monetary prices - for people to co-operate and achieve common goals.

How can a monopoly be a market or be like a market? A monopoly is the absence of a market. A thing cannot be its negative.

A leasing company has the right to repossess your car if you don't make payments.

Because I signed a contract of my own free will with the leasing company stating that, if I did not keep up the payments, they could repossess the car. Show me the equivalent contract I made with the government, please.

Even you have suggested various forms of coercion to enforce contracts.

Another strawman. You are supposed to be justifying the initiation of force. I have never advocated nor defended the initiation of coercion and violence for any reason, and your post (where you quoted me as specifically saying "initiation") refutes your own point. I didn't really need to say anything, did I?

Hugo, I am the last person on this forum who would view the government as "ordained". I have made it plain on numerous occasions that the government is a mechanism for people to work together.

But it is not. The very fact that government depends upon the initiation of violence nullifies that statement. People who "work together" under the threat of violence, against their will, are slaves.

The institution of government must operate through coercion. Without coercion, there would be a problem of free-riders.

Why?

I have never read Milton Friedman make the same arguments as you make.

Milton Friedman has stated that, although not an anarcho-capitalist, he is sympathetic to them. His son David (also a renowned and published economist) is an anarcho-capitalist. So are many other great minds. Anarchists include people like Leo Tolstoy, David Friedman, Noam Chomsky, Mikhail Bakunin, Peter Kropotkin, Henry Thoreau, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, George Woodcock, Murray Bookchin, Max Stirner, Benjamin Tucker, Lysander Spooner, Murray Rothbard, Gustav de Molinari and more.

My point is that with all these people behind the theory, for you (who are, as far as I am aware, of no particular expertise in political or economic theory nor a published writer or renowned lecturer) to dismiss their ideas as "silly" is, in and of itself, silly.

[The Terrible Sweal]

Everyone in Canada is free to leave if they don't like the way our constitution provides for selection of the government.

Why do they need to leave? What special claim does the government, or even the majority of Canadians, have over Canada? I have a stake in this country too, I own property here, I work here, my kids are raised here so why can others tell me to get out? Why can't I tell them to get out?

The question was whether you are coercively subjected by government. You are not. You CAN leave. If you don't leave that is your choice. The argument you offer is beside the point.

Well, here's the definition of "arbitrary":

1) Determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle.

Like the laws that permit tobacco smoking but forbid baby walkers or owning pit-bulls? That certainly isn't reasonable or based upon any principle.

By choosing that definition of 'arbitrary' you fallen away from the question of 'arbitrary power' and wandered into the question of 'arbitrary policy'. The folly of particular policies does not of itself render the power backing them arbitrary.

Take this definition: "not limited by law; absolute; despotic". Clearly Government power is not arbitrary in Canada in that sense.

[Hugo]

The question was whether you are coercively subjected by government. You are not. You CAN leave.

Then your next-door neighbour can steal your property, because if you don't like it, you can move.

Take this definition: "not limited by law; absolute; despotic". Clearly Government power is not arbitrary in Canada in that sense.

Who makes the law?

Attempts to regulate government always boil down to an attempt to make something regulate itself. That is why attempts to regulate government always fail. Look at the modern USA compared to the USA of 1780 for an example. Or modern Canadian government compared to the government of even 50 years ago. Bigger, more intrusive, with far more accumulated power than it ever had before. There's no reason to believe that this trend will spontaneously reverse itself, it never has in the past, at least, not in any sustained fashion.

[The Terrible Sweal]

Then take your pick of other breaches of law by Canadian government.

You need to distinguish power from particular exercises of power.

The fact that a holder of power exercises their power against the law does not make the power arbitrary. It makes the exercise of that power illegal. The very fact that you can discuss that exercise being 'illegal' disqualifies the power from being arbitrary.

[The Terrible Sweal]

The question was whether you are coercively subjected by government. You are not. You CAN leave.

Then your next-door neighbour can steal your property, because if you don't like it, you can move.

You're not making sense. If your property has been stolen your moving is not a remedy as it won't restore your property. I don't see the analogy to the situation we are discussing.

Take this definition: "not limited by law; absolute; despotic". Clearly Government power is not arbitrary in Canada in that sense.

Who makes the law?

We do, through our institutions.

Attempts to regulate government always boil down to an attempt to make something regulate itself. That is why attempts to regulate government always fail.

Again, I don't see the connection to our subject, and don't see the merit in the assertion. Attempts to 'regulate government' have a history of success stretching back to Magna Carta at least.

Look at the modern USA compared to the USA of 1780 for an example. Or modern Canadian government compared to the government of even 50 years ago. Bigger, more intrusive, with far more accumulated power than it ever had before. 

Again, I don't see the connection to our subject, and don't see the merit in the assertion. The mere fact that government is bigger does not make it more coercive. Within these timeframes, both the US and Canada have added a constitutional protections which constrain government action. I also think your assertion that government is more 'intrusive' is highly suspect as well.

[August1991]

A leasing company has the right to repossess your car if you don't make payments.

Because I signed a contract of my own free will with the leasing company stating that, if I did not keep up the payments, they could repossess the car. Show me the equivalent contract I made with the government, please.

*Sigh* ...when you used your immigrant visa to come to Canada. And in fact, the contract was not with the "government". It was with other people living in Canada.

The very fact that government depends upon the initiation of violence nullifies that statement. People who "work together" under the threat of violence, against their will, are slaves.

If you want to say that the guy at McDonald's is my slave while he cooks my food, fine.

But further to your point, there are many nice marriages out there where all acts are consensual and no violence is initiated. That would be analogous to the anarchist state.

But you yourself described, using David Friedman's example, how justice could be entirely private and contracts enforced. It sounded violent to me.

As to the use of the word initiation, I can argue that you initiated the violence when you chose to come to Canada. I could argue too that you choose to continue to invite initiated violence because you choose to live here.

You agree with me that private clubs/private communities exist which provide public goods to everyone's enjoyment by somehow "taxing" everyone. So, in that we agree that "government" is a good thing.

I have presented this as a "social contract" which people "voluntarily" accept - as immigrants, or when they are old enough to decide. The alternative, presumably, is to live entirely alone on an island in the South Pacific.

The comparison to marriage is apt:

How do you justify that? Next time you make a contract with anyone, I want to add a clause that you'll pay $1000 per month to me forever.

When two people agree to have children, it is understood that either or both must pay to raise the child. Would you describe the enforcement of child support payments as "initiation of force"?

Milton Friedman has stated that, although not an anarcho-capitalist, he is sympathetic to them.

Someone might call me sympathetic too. Alan Greenspan has Ayn Rand books in his office. But then I might be described as a socialist-sympathizer too because I tend to favour state organized health insurance.