I post this here since I don't think I've seen this argument on here before, so I thought it might be interesting to post. Also, I could not think of an immediate response. What sparked my interest in possible debate was the first post:
...market-anarchism is, at best, an easy placebo rather actual improvement.
I suppose the easiest place to begin is: Market anarchism permits transitional costs to be paid in human suffering. There isn't even a floor to the amount of human suffering market anarchism permits.
That sounds ot me like the typical "government must prevent society from falling into chaos" argument. If a monopoly on force didn't exist, there would be no "floor" to the suffering.
I'm pretty sure this is easily countered by pointing out that the government, by its nature as a monopolist, creates the floor-less environment in the first place. Competition is what prevents people from abusing consumers. Competition in law and order would prevent abuses of authority. Thus, creating a natural "floor" to human suffering. The government, in the absense of such restraint, can perform all sorts of atrocities, such as genocides. All you have to then do is point him to the countless historical examples.
"What we do in life, echoes in eternity."
Nitroadict:I suppose the easiest place to begin is: Market anarchism permits transitional costs to be paid in human suffering. There isn't even a floor to the amount of human suffering market anarchism permits. I was wondering if anyone else ecnountered a similar argument against market-anarchism, perhaps in a more succinct & elegantly worded form?
I was wondering if anyone else ecnountered a similar argument against market-anarchism, perhaps in a more succinct & elegantly worded form?
All (or at least a whole phylum of) statists use this argument in some way or another, though it's usually heard in more particular forms: just price theorists with a maximum allowable price, environmentalists with a maximum allowable average global temperature, &c.
Anyway, the notion is obviously false on its face (if, say, 20,000 Mega-Hitlers is the proposed maximum amount of suffering permissible in the world without necessitating denying people their rights, why would this be the case? why was 5000 Mega-Hitlers so great? it may very well have been too low) and is very reminiscent of the protectionist mentality, though I'm not sure of the exact connection.
Edit: I would say that what is more telling about this critic than his belief in the ethical necessity of 'drawing the line somewhere before the universe explodes' is his statement with incredulity that "market anarchism permits transitional costs to be paid in human suffering", as if nothing had a cost, or that there were some natural distinction between paying for something with money and (consensually) paying for it with an arm and a leg. This is, as you mentioned, a very socialistic tendency.
I HATE PAPER
Nitroadict: I suppose the easiest place to begin is: Market anarchism permits transitional costs to be paid in human suffering. There isn't even a floor to the amount of human suffering market anarchism permits.
Maybe it's just that I'm not especially well-versed in the vocabulary of economics, but when he speaks of "transitional costs," what does that mean? Transition between what and what? Thanks.
This is obviously going into economics, somewhat, and that is an area where I have yet to do the crucial reading for.
More like, it's going into illogic somewhat - it makes no sense.
-Jon
I cannot be caged. I cannot be controlled. Understand this as you die, ever pathetic, ever fools.
Irenicus' Diaries.
Gosh, don't you know? Anarchism would cause those evil capitalists to enslave all normal people and starve to death poor children who are not fit enough to work!
LOL
You simply have to point out that government intervention always harms the economy. All forms of government intervention prevent the most efficient allocation of resources: i.e. tariffs, quotas, all taxes, regulation. However, some forms of government intervention (i.e. minimum wage laws, enforced union monopolies, welfare) also prevent full employment from occurring (remember to mention that this does not include frictional and voluntary unemployment).
"There is only one innate right, freedom (independence from being constrained by another's choice), insofar as it can coexist with the freedom of every other in accordance with a universal law." - Immanuel Kant
You simply have to point out that government intervention always harms the economy.
No, you can't simply point that out, because that's a statement of faith, not of fact. It also ignores that he's probably dealing with value judgments that your definition of "efficiency" doesn't take into account.
I'm not sure what the original author intended to say, especially because of the term "transitional costs". But referring to setting a floor for human suffering makes me wonder if he's talking about the government preventing market forces from allowing something to fall below a certain standard.
Market forces will cause some things to fall below standards set by government. It's not because all capitalists are "evil", although some are. It's because in some cases, economic incentives will work out so that standards do fall, especially where there is an information imbalance.
One good example is workplace safety. Running a safe operation is almost always more expensive than running an unsafe operation, at least in the short term. If all accidents are fully paid for by the employer, then safe operations tend to work out to be cheaper in the long run. But when employers are focused on the short term, which they often are to satisfy investors, or because they act like something with a small chance of happening isn't going to happen (praxeologists should study psychology to understand that many humans do act this way), then they have a clear incentive to cut corners on safety. Then they can outcompete safer competitors on price. Consumers, even if we assume that they all do have the best interests of workers at heart, would have a very difficult time influencing workplace safety practices because they would have very little information about the workplace safety practices, not to mention that they probably wouldn't know what safe practices are in most cases.
The other players in this scenario are the workers. There probably are many workers who have a good idea about safe practices, but there are many who won't, especially young workers or workers new to the industry. In any event, the unsafe workplace only needs to find enough workers who don't know or care enough about workplace safety when compared to other matters (like putting food on the table or getting a foothold in the industry) that they will take jobs with the unsafe employers. This creates a downward pressure on other employers, and you get more and more workers who end up taking jobs with unsafe employers.
Another factor that needs to be addressed is whether the costs of accidents really will be internalised. Employers are going to internalise costs like lost production time and property damage. It's questionable how much worker injuries will be internalised. It's easy to say that, theoretically, if the employer is responsible then it will have to bear the full costs of the worker's injury, including medical and lost wages. In practice, it's way harder. Workers will have to prove that the accident was the employer's fault and that they weren't contributorily negligent. This takes time and money, and many of the workers won't have the resources to fight this sort of battle to begin with.
So as an alternative to this race to the bottom, most people are happy to impose minimum safety standards on workplaces. Government isn't stopping employers from exceeding these standards, and some do exceed them, though for many, market pressures, laziness, incompetence, and human psychology make them just meet or fall below the standards, at least until regulators fine them.
A similar situation to workplace safety is consumer safety. A good example is the airline industry, where consumers really have very little understanding about the differences between a safe airline and an unsafe one. Again, there are competitive pressures which make many small airlines fall below reasonable safety standards (the large international carriers tend to be pretty good because they are more heavily regulated, they've been in business for a lot longer, and they have more financial and human resources to deal with safety), and most consumers really have very little idea about how to judge if an airline is safe or not. I've spoken with several pilots who are in the situation of the worker in the first example, and they've openly said that they've accepted jobs with unsafe employers because there aren't that many jobs to go around with safe employers, and that this is extremely common in the industry. They're at least informed and can make a decision balancing the risks against the benefits. The flying public is not.
It is not a "statement of faith" that government intervention harms the economy. It is demonstrable theoretically and observable historically. Mises, Rothbard, Hoppe, et al, have devoted thousands of pages to showing how interventionism ultimately harms everyone.
Also, government regulations, especially safety regualations, do not help anyone. At best, they provide the illusion of safety, and they impose sometimes massive costs on businesses, especially small ones.
Agora! Anarchy! Action!
Worker costs WOULD be internalized. Theoretically speaking, if you're an employer, is it beneficial for you to hire and train a new worker every week just so you can replace another injured worker? Is it profitable to make your workers work longer hours to take the place of an injured worker? Is it profitable to risk the chance of a union forming and strikes occurring for greater worker safety?
As for consumer safety: when you buy a cheap product, you more than know that it is possibly dangerous. You're taking the risk into your own hands when you buy a cheap product you don't know much about. The difference between a true market economy and a regulated economy is that in a market economy you have the CHOICE between a cheap high-risk product and a more expensive low-risk product while in a regulated economy you can't take the gamble and can only choose the expensive low-risk product.
wombatron: It is not a "statement of faith" that government intervention harms the economy. It is demonstrable theoretically and observable historically. Mises, Rothbard, Hoppe, et al, have devoted thousands of pages to showing how interventionism ultimately harms everyone. Also, government regulations, especially safety regualations, do not help anyone. At best, they provide the illusion of safety, and they impose sometimes massive costs on businesses, especially small ones.
Exactly.
Statists just like imagining that government decrees actually mean something, other than being arbitrary nonsense foisted upon the public whether it likes it or not, and further assume there is no other way to handle problems than the state. I wish this theory of perfect government intervention would die out, along with statism in general.
I refuted this objection some time ago.
Minarchism failed because it is socialism || A challenge to minarchists || Private roads and cities || A two-stage strategy for freedom
Callisthenes: You simply have to point out that government intervention always harms the economy. No, you can't simply point that out, because that's a statement of faith, not of fact. It also ignores that he's probably dealing with value judgments that your definition of "efficiency" doesn't take into account. I'm not sure what the original author intended to say, especially because of the term "transitional costs". But referring to setting a floor for human suffering makes me wonder if he's talking about the government preventing market forces from allowing something to fall below a certain standard. ***** ******* ***** ***** ******* ***** ***** ******* ***** The flying public is not.
***** ******* *****
The flying public is not.
I have to take my hat off for you. You almost got me for a minute. Really. No offense intended.
Nice talk, pal.
Callisthenes: So as an alternative to this race to the bottom, most people are happy to impose minimum safety standards on workplaces. Government isn't stopping employers from exceeding these standards, and some do exceed them, though for many, market pressures, laziness, incompetence, and human psychology make them just meet or fall below the standards, at least until regulators fine them.
This assumes that government regulation is some kind of minimm standard, that said standard is reasonable, and that it can be changed to adapting circumstances. All three assumptions are unwarranted. Also, if "most people" are indeed happy to have minimum standards, then the "race to the bottom" doesn't really exist, since they can always create such standards and encourage businesses to meet them through private certification or some other mechanism.
The airline industry is heavily regulated, and never more so since 9/11. If the flying public is uninformed of the risks in the airline industry, I would think that the regulations had something to do with that ("national security" and other such nonsense), unless you can specifically show that such regulations are not restricting the dessemination of such information.
wombatron:It is demonstrable theoretically and observable historically. Mises, Rothbard, Hoppe, et al, have devoted thousands of pages to showing how interventionism ultimately harms everyone.
Yes, just as I demonstrated theoretically, and as I have observed historically, government intervention in some areas can be beneficial. The problem in these sorts of situations is that no theory dealing with human action, the economy, and government action can be proven according to the rules of formal logic. Everything is argument, and different arguments will convince different people, especially when they have different experiences.
Do you want to try to address some of the points I made about the incentives? Do you want to look at the airline industry as an example, and small regional operators in particular? Do you want to compare safety records between nations that seriously enforce their regulations and those nations that just have them on the books, if that? "Government" isn't the same thing everywhere.