For those of you who don't know, there is currently a debate going about whether or not Congressmen should be expected to have read and understood the bills they vote in favor of. One argument against is the notion that government would "come to a standstill" if such a requirement were made.
Why? It is my understanding that the day-to-day functioning of government, the execution of the government's duties, is carried out by the executive branch. That is to say, the President, not Congress. The job of Congress is to tell the President precisely what his job is. In the absence of input from Congress, the executive branch is perfectly capable of continuing to do its job according to the most recent input. The only possible shutdown of government could occur if the money runs out, and Congress does not authorize appropriations... but this is an extreme example, and while Congress likes to make budgets complex in order to micromanage the job of the executive branch (and is perfectly within their rights to do so), if they find that no agreement can be reached in Congress over a complex budget, a simple budget, or simply a repeat of the previous year until further instructions are sent, could easily suffice.
What about emergencies? Once again, that is the province of the executive branch. The President already has, in the Constitution itself, the authority to respond to emergencies of a military nature without the leave of Congress (though Congress must ratify his actions by providing the funding to continue once they are able to do so).
Legislation and execution are not the same thing, and the two functions are wisely separated. Can someone describe to me exactly how a slowing of the legislative process would bring government to a halt? Can someone give me an example of how an extremely lengthy bill might need to be passed before it can be read?
Friday, October 09, 2009
Sunday, October 04, 2009
Russell D. Longcore's Secession Paper: A reply
Over at Lewrockwell.com, Russell D. Longcore posted a piece about the questions that would have to be answered at the state level should a state decided to secede from the United States of America, with Texas as his model, entitled Will Austin Become 'Liberty Central' or 'Little Washington?'. He listed twenty questions he believes should be answered before secession occurs. Here are the twenty questions and my attempts at answering them.
Not too difficult. I might even put my hand to drafting something like what such a document would look like.
I tend to favor a parliamentary form myself. This site has a lot of ideas on potential forms of government, but my favorite idea at this time is for an internet based form of democracy that is both direct AND representational... and a scan of my past writings reveals I haven't actually written this up yet!
Basically, everybody with the right to vote has an account on a gigantic web forum/chatroom/general hub site. Anyone can put forth a proposal, and anyone can vote on it. But because not everybody has time to sit around on the Internet all day, people could also designate others as their representatives, at any time, for any reason. They just set their account to vote the way their chosen representative votes in any vote in which they abstain. They could have a list of votes, which would move to the next guy on the list in the event the first guy also abstains. Or they could set it to go through their abstaining representative to HIS representative. Or they could designate a list of voters, and have their abstentions go the way of the majority in the group. Or any other mechanism people wanted and could be coded in easily enough. And if they decided they didn't like the way their representatives were voting, with a few clicks and a few keystrokes they could change their representative... instantly!
The actual functions of government would be carried out by an officer or officers elected by the legislature... the legislature consisting of all voters, either directly or by way of their representative(s), as the individual prefers. They would receive money from the legislature, and could be given direction as to how it should be spent by the legislature, but actual responsibility for carrying out those directions would be enforced primarily by the threat of removal: once the money was in the hands of the executive, it would be his responsibility to spend it. Removal could be done at any time by a vote of no confidence, after which a new executive would have to be elected.
The precise procedures by which that first line of officers below the CEO/Prime Minister/Whatever are chosen would in theory be done entirely by the CEO. However, the legislature having the power to remove a CEO they don't like, someone running for the office could make whatever procedural promises they want, with the legislature making whatever demands they want, with the legislature's final call on confidence votes being the enforcement mechanism.
Eventually, certainly. Secession doesn't free people from having to wrangle with people they disagree with, only those who live too far away with to wrangle with in a rational fashion.
Were it up to me, I'd have no monetary policy at all, at least no public monetary policy. Of course, the legislature would have to decide what they want to accept in payment of taxes. Probably immediately after secession, folks would continue to use Federal Reserve Notes, and would probably continue circulating them for some time, possibly as long as they hold any value at all. But there would be no legal tender law forcing people to accept them at any particular rate, meaning that gold and silver would circulate alongside them, in whatever denominations folks found convenient, to greater or lesser degrees depending on the condition of the US Dollar, their values allowed to float relative to each other (no bimetallism!). I suspect Mexican Pesos would also be in the mix, at least in the southern parts of the state.
The principle of the independent judiciary requires that inherited common law not be messed with too much. In the absence of federal law, judges would have the leeway to decide for themselves what they think is just. In the event the Legislature wants to clear up a matter, they could make a proclamation directing judges to observe a new principle. This is how the anglo law system has pretty much always worked, and I see no reason to do any radical restructuring. That said, I would prefer to alter the system to utilize mutually agreeable arbitrators more, and the state's judges less.
May I humbly suggest the Single Tax be looked into seriously?
I think the start point for the negotiations that would inevitably have to be done between state officials and the feds should be the respecting of a hands off policy with regard to federal properties and institutions. The Republic of Texas would not immediately seize federal lands and facilities (this would surely provoke an armed response), but also not expend any resources protecting them; it would be the Feds' responsibility to do so. As to the IRS, while without the mandate of law their operations would be technically illegal (if it isn't already), their facilities should be respected in the interim, and their employees not unduly harassed (though duly prosecuted, should they attempt to seize any assets).
Indeed, I would simply regard the United States Government under State law as a property owner like any other. Under a Single Tax, they would be responsible for paying taxes for what they continue to hold (send them a bill, and keep a record of it for when the feds decide that if Texas should leave, they should take their share of the federal debt with them). In the end, the Federal Government would either have to surrender their claim, or sell off their claim (more likely the latter).
Simple. Let everybody in, but only naturalize after a period of time. When the legislature can't figure out how to spend all the money they get from the Single Tax, they release the money as a dividend to their shareholders, which don't include the really recent immigrants. A rising population results in rising rental values, which would result in a rise in revenues from the Single Tax, which could be spread among the shareholders (citizens). Immigrants have the freedom to come and try to establish themselves, have no choice but to pay taxes (since a land tax is paid by everyone who uses the land, not just citizens), and the citizens get a bit of a windfall as a result. Everybody wins.
Probably they get cut off. Personally, I would try to make provision in Texas law for continued participation in the United States social security program, if they want to. They could still pay payroll taxes if they want to, and receive the benefits when they retire... or they could NOT pay the payroll tax. Under no circumstances would I saddle a newly independent state government with this obligation: it's questionable whether the US Government will even be able to handle it.
Why make new ones? Just make sure the US Post Office knows they're welcome to continue doing what they do in your state, delivering mail and selling stamps and such. Of course, in the absence of US law, they'd have private competition and no government guarantee within the state of Texas, but if they can cope, just let them keep doing what they're doing. If they can't, the market will fill the void.
You ask what will happen; I don't know, having never been a Texan. If California were the seceding state, most likely the war on drugs would be reduced, if not ended outright... and this is how I would have it. But I don't know what Texans would do.
I would say the New Texas Republic would need some kind of navy to assist in the securing of persons and property in the Gulf, in conjunction with Mexico, the United States, and the various island nations (maybe even open relations with Cuba, ha!). I don't know how well a militia system would work in this day and age. I wonder if Texans would accept compulsory military training, as the Swiss do.
Probably not. I imagine the perspectives of Texans alone would be different from a perspective that incorporates people from the East, the North, and anyone else not living on the Mexican border in the presence of many ethnically Mexican people. And as to other countries beyond the sea, I can't imagine Texas, for all its size, would have the same level of arrogance those who represent the United States' foreign policy establishment, lacking the military might of the United States. This, for me, is the top reason for seceding: to deny capacity to the rogue nation that has taken root in Washington D.C.
I should hope not.
Tax exempt status is a far cry from the tax funded state churches of the past. This, to me, falls under the category of "low priority."
The widsom of Solomon... or the Free Market. How about NOT regulating insurance companies, beyond requiring they honor their contractual agreements the same as everyone else, and establishing the limits of liability in the event of bankruptcy. Personally, I favor extending liability to the owners of the company to some degree.
What securities law beyond a basic prohibition of fraud is needed? Let people use their money for what they want, don't shield people from the consequences of bad decisions, let willful misrepresentation of the facts be considered unlawful (and make no exceptions where other unlawful deeds are concerned for securities), and the market, in conjunction with the courts where necessary, will hash out the details.
Under the legislative system I described above, this would be hashed out via the legislative process. Really, this is a matter of bureaucratic convenience, rather than constitutional design.
Oh noes, teh enviralmentalists is gonna get us! Firstly, not all environmentalism is dumb. But you can head the dumb stuff off at the pass by creating property classes that acknowledge the interest of all stakeholders in resources that are by their very nature shared. Decision making with regard to rivers should be shared by all who live along it, from the headwaters to the delta (and beyond, with regard to a reverse delta). Farmers upriver have no god-given right to divert off all the water and impoverish downriver farmers and fishermen. Air basins should be shared by the people that live there; power generators have no god-given right to spew their filth into the air others have no choice but to breath (any more than your neighbor has a god-given right to dispose of his garbage by dumping it in your yard).
Environmental issues are more complex than "dumb environmental laws", but only because we have new problems that require new insitutions, that we haven't quite figured out. This is a fact even if Texas never secedes.
I should hope not. I'd rather any money that would otherwise be spend on public schools be instead emitted as a citizens' dividend, allowing people to make their own decisions with regard to education. However, if the people, via the legislature, express a desire to set up some schools instead of receiving the money as a dividend, I have no problem with this.
Hopefully, sports conferences will recognize that "America" is not the same thing as "The United States." If baseball leagues can court the participation of Latin Americans and Japanese, surely the NFL can accept Texan teams, even if Texans no longer accept the dominion of Washington D.C.
As for colleges, who knows? I'm willing to let this issue be decided by others at the statuatory level.
This looks more like an answer than a question, but aren't there a whole lot of Texans setting up wind plants in the windy Texas countryside? Aren't the deserts of Texas (not to mention New Mexico, Arizona, and California) ideal for solar power, which is becoming a more commercially viable alternative almost by the week?
Personally, where operations with wide ranging catastrophic failure risks are concerned, I would permit the people living in the failure zone (ie. the "blast radius") the opportunity to prohibit the building of something like a nuclear plant. The risks may well be low, and if this is the case, the would-be nuclear power plant builder is bound to find some place where the people are not scared of the plant. No "permission" would be required to start building, though a builder would be wise to secure permission first, lest he incur building costs and find out only later it's not going to be allowed.
The people living in the risk zone could incorporate for the purpose of managing that risk, probably requiring some kind of payment in exchange for assuming the risks inherent in establishing a nuclear facility (or other facility which imposes physical risks or conditions on the people living near it) for a period not to exceed fifty years. This would include only the people already living there; those who move in later know what they're getting in to.
Alternately, the builders could be required to appease each property owner in the area individually, working out a deal by which the provision "is near a nuclear power plant" would be attached to the deed for a mutually agreeable period of time not to exceed fifty years (after which the next generation would have the opportunity to renegotiate the terms under which they assume the risks). Someone wanting to build a nuclear plant could potentially locate their plant in a manner similar to how free market road builders could locate their roads under the program suggested by Walter Block.
To not include the residents of the area in the process is to permit people to impose inordinate risks on other people against their will, and to take from them an aspect of their land property. It's the same as if someone went and built a chicken rendering plant right next to a residential neighborhood, flooding the neighborhood with the stench; at the very least, the people should be compensated for the drop in their quality of life, and the only way to ensure the compensation is proper is to require that it be negotiated between the new neighbor and the old neighbors. (Neighbors after that, of course, are buying in at the new levels of property values).
The beauty of this system is that it can be applied to any manner of potentially explosive establishments. This allows the government to respect complete and total freedom to possess and bear arms, while providing the neighbors with the opportunity to object should they find themselves in harms way as a result. If pointing a gun at a man for a reason other than self defense ought to be regarded as improper, the possession of explosives (not to mention nuclear devices) the yield of which could encompass a man's neighbors' property should it accidentally go off, ought also to be regarded as improper. But with such a system, we leave the decision not with legislature or bureaucracy, but with the neighbors themselves. If the people living in a city decide they are willing to allow someone to possess a nuclear device, then it could be permitted.
1. A formal Declaration of Independence and Secession would have to be written and ratified, likely by the legislature and signed by the Governor. A date for presenting that document to someone like the sitting US President would have to be chosen.
Not too difficult. I might even put my hand to drafting something like what such a document would look like.
2. The actual form of the new government must be chosen. Will it be a Constitutional Republic...a Parliament...what? Remember that this is a new constitution for a single nation, not a confederacy of nations. The new constitution doesn’t need to be articles of confederation, but should be more like the Virginia Constitution of 1776 or the Swiss canton system.
I tend to favor a parliamentary form myself. This site has a lot of ideas on potential forms of government, but my favorite idea at this time is for an internet based form of democracy that is both direct AND representational... and a scan of my past writings reveals I haven't actually written this up yet!
Basically, everybody with the right to vote has an account on a gigantic web forum/chatroom/general hub site. Anyone can put forth a proposal, and anyone can vote on it. But because not everybody has time to sit around on the Internet all day, people could also designate others as their representatives, at any time, for any reason. They just set their account to vote the way their chosen representative votes in any vote in which they abstain. They could have a list of votes, which would move to the next guy on the list in the event the first guy also abstains. Or they could set it to go through their abstaining representative to HIS representative. Or they could designate a list of voters, and have their abstentions go the way of the majority in the group. Or any other mechanism people wanted and could be coded in easily enough. And if they decided they didn't like the way their representatives were voting, with a few clicks and a few keystrokes they could change their representative... instantly!
The actual functions of government would be carried out by an officer or officers elected by the legislature... the legislature consisting of all voters, either directly or by way of their representative(s), as the individual prefers. They would receive money from the legislature, and could be given direction as to how it should be spent by the legislature, but actual responsibility for carrying out those directions would be enforced primarily by the threat of removal: once the money was in the hands of the executive, it would be his responsibility to spend it. Removal could be done at any time by a vote of no confidence, after which a new executive would have to be elected.
The precise procedures by which that first line of officers below the CEO/Prime Minister/Whatever are chosen would in theory be done entirely by the CEO. However, the legislature having the power to remove a CEO they don't like, someone running for the office could make whatever procedural promises they want, with the legislature making whatever demands they want, with the legislature's final call on confidence votes being the enforcement mechanism.
3. Will all the existing politicians in Texas have to stand for election in the new government? The present legislators in Austin may be infected with statism and opponents of sovereignty. I nominate Ron Paul as the first President of New Texas.
Eventually, certainly. Secession doesn't free people from having to wrangle with people they disagree with, only those who live too far away with to wrangle with in a rational fashion.
4. Monetary policy is the keystone of the new nation. All commerce, and the very existence of New Texas hangs on this one issue. But if Texas decides to adopt any monetary policy other than 100% gold dollar, it will have swallowed the poison pill of Keynesianism before its life even begins. No government in the history of mankind has devalued its money and survived. Not One.
Were it up to me, I'd have no monetary policy at all, at least no public monetary policy. Of course, the legislature would have to decide what they want to accept in payment of taxes. Probably immediately after secession, folks would continue to use Federal Reserve Notes, and would probably continue circulating them for some time, possibly as long as they hold any value at all. But there would be no legal tender law forcing people to accept them at any particular rate, meaning that gold and silver would circulate alongside them, in whatever denominations folks found convenient, to greater or lesser degrees depending on the condition of the US Dollar, their values allowed to float relative to each other (no bimetallism!). I suspect Mexican Pesos would also be in the mix, at least in the southern parts of the state.
4 (sic). Courts system – Will the new Texas begin with a clean slate, or will it adopt the corrupt American court precedents existing today? You can predict that entrenched interests in the legal system will attempt to tie up the secession in court forever. Where will Texas find judges that are pro-secession? Will Texans allow themselves to be drawn into Federal legal battles when the US should have no jurisdiction in secession?
The principle of the independent judiciary requires that inherited common law not be messed with too much. In the absence of federal law, judges would have the leeway to decide for themselves what they think is just. In the event the Legislature wants to clear up a matter, they could make a proclamation directing judges to observe a new principle. This is how the anglo law system has pretty much always worked, and I see no reason to do any radical restructuring. That said, I would prefer to alter the system to utilize mutually agreeable arbitrators more, and the state's judges less.
5. What method of tax collection will the new nation choose? Any income tax will likely foment yet another revolution.
May I humbly suggest the Single Tax be looked into seriously?
6. There are a lot of Federal lands and military bases in Texas. Will the new nation buy them from Washington or simply confiscate them? And why should the New Texas national government presume that it should own the former Federal lands and bases? Should they not be sold to private parties?
I think the start point for the negotiations that would inevitably have to be done between state officials and the feds should be the respecting of a hands off policy with regard to federal properties and institutions. The Republic of Texas would not immediately seize federal lands and facilities (this would surely provoke an armed response), but also not expend any resources protecting them; it would be the Feds' responsibility to do so. As to the IRS, while without the mandate of law their operations would be technically illegal (if it isn't already), their facilities should be respected in the interim, and their employees not unduly harassed (though duly prosecuted, should they attempt to seize any assets).
Indeed, I would simply regard the United States Government under State law as a property owner like any other. Under a Single Tax, they would be responsible for paying taxes for what they continue to hold (send them a bill, and keep a record of it for when the feds decide that if Texas should leave, they should take their share of the federal debt with them). In the end, the Federal Government would either have to surrender their claim, or sell off their claim (more likely the latter).
7. The new Texas will have to create an immigration policy. Not only is there the existing problem with the Texas/Mexican border, but hundreds of thousands of Americans will want to relocate to Texas to take part in the birth of the new nation.
Simple. Let everybody in, but only naturalize after a period of time. When the legislature can't figure out how to spend all the money they get from the Single Tax, they release the money as a dividend to their shareholders, which don't include the really recent immigrants. A rising population results in rising rental values, which would result in a rise in revenues from the Single Tax, which could be spread among the shareholders (citizens). Immigrants have the freedom to come and try to establish themselves, have no choice but to pay taxes (since a land tax is paid by everyone who uses the land, not just citizens), and the citizens get a bit of a windfall as a result. Everybody wins.
8. Millions of Texans presently receive Social Security benefits of some sort. What will happen to their benefits after secession? Will Washington cut them off in retaliation? Will Texas assume that obligation?
Probably they get cut off. Personally, I would try to make provision in Texas law for continued participation in the United States social security program, if they want to. They could still pay payroll taxes if they want to, and receive the benefits when they retire... or they could NOT pay the payroll tax. Under no circumstances would I saddle a newly independent state government with this obligation: it's questionable whether the US Government will even be able to handle it.
9. Privatization of state services – will Texas try to set up new bureaucracies to deliver mail, collect the taxes, etc? The free market always performs better than government, and no compelling reason can be made for government service.
Why make new ones? Just make sure the US Post Office knows they're welcome to continue doing what they do in your state, delivering mail and selling stamps and such. Of course, in the absence of US law, they'd have private competition and no government guarantee within the state of Texas, but if they can cope, just let them keep doing what they're doing. If they can't, the market will fill the void.
9 (sic). Law Enforcement is already entrenched in every niche and corner of Texas. Will the new Texas continue with the failed War on Drugs, or recognize that drugs are morally equal to alcohol and lift its prohibition?
You ask what will happen; I don't know, having never been a Texan. If California were the seceding state, most likely the war on drugs would be reduced, if not ended outright... and this is how I would have it. But I don't know what Texans would do.
10. What will the New Texas do about a military? Will it embrace a national militia like Switzerland, or establish Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines?
I would say the New Texas Republic would need some kind of navy to assist in the securing of persons and property in the Gulf, in conjunction with Mexico, the United States, and the various island nations (maybe even open relations with Cuba, ha!). I don't know how well a militia system would work in this day and age. I wonder if Texans would accept compulsory military training, as the Swiss do.
11. Foreign policy issues will involve border states and other sovereign nations. Will New Texas make the same foreign policy blunders that Washington loves to make?
Probably not. I imagine the perspectives of Texans alone would be different from a perspective that incorporates people from the East, the North, and anyone else not living on the Mexican border in the presence of many ethnically Mexican people. And as to other countries beyond the sea, I can't imagine Texas, for all its size, would have the same level of arrogance those who represent the United States' foreign policy establishment, lacking the military might of the United States. This, for me, is the top reason for seceding: to deny capacity to the rogue nation that has taken root in Washington D.C.
12. Will New Texas assume the liability of a Medicare/Medicaid system?
I should hope not.
13. Will New Texas protect religious liberty and eschew religious subsidy? After all, there is no practical reason that religious organizations and churches should enjoy tax-free status at the expense of the rest of the population. This issue will be decided as New Texas forms tax policy.
Tax exempt status is a far cry from the tax funded state churches of the past. This, to me, falls under the category of "low priority."
14. Insurance makes the world go around. New Texas will need the wisdom of Solomon in its Department of Insurance to properly regulate insurance companies.
The widsom of Solomon... or the Free Market. How about NOT regulating insurance companies, beyond requiring they honor their contractual agreements the same as everyone else, and establishing the limits of liability in the event of bankruptcy. Personally, I favor extending liability to the owners of the company to some degree.
15. Securities law must be enacted. But copying the corrupt FTC and SEC won’t work.
What securities law beyond a basic prohibition of fraud is needed? Let people use their money for what they want, don't shield people from the consequences of bad decisions, let willful misrepresentation of the facts be considered unlawful (and make no exceptions where other unlawful deeds are concerned for securities), and the market, in conjunction with the courts where necessary, will hash out the details.
16. How many of the existing US Cabinet offices will find a place in the New Texas government? New Texas would probably run fine without most of the unconstitutional bureaucracies operating in Washington today. Copying Washington won’t work.
Under the legislative system I described above, this would be hashed out via the legislative process. Really, this is a matter of bureaucratic convenience, rather than constitutional design.
17. Texas is a microcosm of all the environmental issues facing America today. The "greenies" will fight hard to continue some of the dumb environmental laws in New Texas. They have money and they are patient.
Oh noes, teh enviralmentalists is gonna get us! Firstly, not all environmentalism is dumb. But you can head the dumb stuff off at the pass by creating property classes that acknowledge the interest of all stakeholders in resources that are by their very nature shared. Decision making with regard to rivers should be shared by all who live along it, from the headwaters to the delta (and beyond, with regard to a reverse delta). Farmers upriver have no god-given right to divert off all the water and impoverish downriver farmers and fishermen. Air basins should be shared by the people that live there; power generators have no god-given right to spew their filth into the air others have no choice but to breath (any more than your neighbor has a god-given right to dispose of his garbage by dumping it in your yard).
Environmental issues are more complex than "dumb environmental laws", but only because we have new problems that require new insitutions, that we haven't quite figured out. This is a fact even if Texas never secedes.
18. New Texas will have to make an early decision on public education. Will New Texas continue the failed policies of the federal Department of Education and the deathgrip of the teacher’s unions?
I should hope not. I'd rather any money that would otherwise be spend on public schools be instead emitted as a citizens' dividend, allowing people to make their own decisions with regard to education. However, if the people, via the legislature, express a desire to set up some schools instead of receiving the money as a dividend, I have no problem with this.
19. Texas has great colleges and universities. What will happen to them when Federal money dries up? More importantly, will Texas football teams be thrown out of American football conferences and the BCS? God help us.
Hopefully, sports conferences will recognize that "America" is not the same thing as "The United States." If baseball leagues can court the participation of Latin Americans and Japanese, surely the NFL can accept Texan teams, even if Texans no longer accept the dominion of Washington D.C.
As for colleges, who knows? I'm willing to let this issue be decided by others at the statuatory level.
20. New Texas will need an intelligent Energy policy which embraces nuclear energy, oil and gas, and alternative sources. Texas must throw off the American regulations that prohibit new nuclear power plants. 100% of the electricity for New Texas should come from nuclear power.
This looks more like an answer than a question, but aren't there a whole lot of Texans setting up wind plants in the windy Texas countryside? Aren't the deserts of Texas (not to mention New Mexico, Arizona, and California) ideal for solar power, which is becoming a more commercially viable alternative almost by the week?
Personally, where operations with wide ranging catastrophic failure risks are concerned, I would permit the people living in the failure zone (ie. the "blast radius") the opportunity to prohibit the building of something like a nuclear plant. The risks may well be low, and if this is the case, the would-be nuclear power plant builder is bound to find some place where the people are not scared of the plant. No "permission" would be required to start building, though a builder would be wise to secure permission first, lest he incur building costs and find out only later it's not going to be allowed.
The people living in the risk zone could incorporate for the purpose of managing that risk, probably requiring some kind of payment in exchange for assuming the risks inherent in establishing a nuclear facility (or other facility which imposes physical risks or conditions on the people living near it) for a period not to exceed fifty years. This would include only the people already living there; those who move in later know what they're getting in to.
Alternately, the builders could be required to appease each property owner in the area individually, working out a deal by which the provision "is near a nuclear power plant" would be attached to the deed for a mutually agreeable period of time not to exceed fifty years (after which the next generation would have the opportunity to renegotiate the terms under which they assume the risks). Someone wanting to build a nuclear plant could potentially locate their plant in a manner similar to how free market road builders could locate their roads under the program suggested by Walter Block.
To not include the residents of the area in the process is to permit people to impose inordinate risks on other people against their will, and to take from them an aspect of their land property. It's the same as if someone went and built a chicken rendering plant right next to a residential neighborhood, flooding the neighborhood with the stench; at the very least, the people should be compensated for the drop in their quality of life, and the only way to ensure the compensation is proper is to require that it be negotiated between the new neighbor and the old neighbors. (Neighbors after that, of course, are buying in at the new levels of property values).
The beauty of this system is that it can be applied to any manner of potentially explosive establishments. This allows the government to respect complete and total freedom to possess and bear arms, while providing the neighbors with the opportunity to object should they find themselves in harms way as a result. If pointing a gun at a man for a reason other than self defense ought to be regarded as improper, the possession of explosives (not to mention nuclear devices) the yield of which could encompass a man's neighbors' property should it accidentally go off, ought also to be regarded as improper. But with such a system, we leave the decision not with legislature or bureaucracy, but with the neighbors themselves. If the people living in a city decide they are willing to allow someone to possess a nuclear device, then it could be permitted.
The Evils of Capitalism
I swear, I do some of my best work on forums having nothing to do with my best subject. Over on the Off Topic forum of the El Goonish Shive forums (EGS is a webcomic), somebody comes in posting about "Net Neutrality." Someone else posts something about capitalism and the free market being essentially the same thing, and his absolute trust in free markets, as opposed to the other guy's distrust of markets. And this is what falls out of my brain. I'm calling it:
The Evils of Capitalism
And this is where you get it wrong, and lead folks like blort down the wrong road. The Free Market is nothing more than the notion than the notion that society allocates resources best when it does so via an unregulated market. This is true, so far as it goes. But Capitalism is more specific to the current era, and carries with it baggage accumulated thanks to a property regime that, in my opinion, is wrong in places, and results in concentrations of wealth that must, ultimately, turn into concentrations of power via government. Capitalism is its own worst enemy (and Adam Smith himself predicted this very phenomenon): under Capitalism, a John D. Rockefeller can make a fortune providing a plethora of petroleum products for the consumer at prices lower than ever before seen, thus creating opportunities for more innovation and more fortunes, overall a good thing. But then the big money can then turn around and use that fortune to cement his own and his people's position, by acquiring rent collecting opportunities--ramming legislation through that limits potential competitors more than himself is but one of the tools.
Markets are very efficient at property allocation. The question the market cannot answer (except, perhaps, under a condition of total anarchy, and even then the market only provides the evidence; we still must use our own brains to figure out the answers) is "What do we properly regard as property?" For when this is answered incorrectly, the market will show us, with brutal efficiency, why we are wrong... but we ourselves may be so enmeshed in the system we either fail to notice, or even deny the evidence. A perfect historical example is chattel slavery. American slavery was a very different thing from Mediterranean slavery (argument lifted directly from Stanley M. Elkins Slavery).
Mediterranean slavery was a heavily regulated institution, but both church and state watching over the institution with a close eye. It was as humane as slavery could be (which isn't very, but I'm just saying), and there were many opportunities for a slave to be freed. The pressure was toward gradual elimination of slavery, and, like so many other places, when it was finally abolished, the abolition occurred bloodlessly.
Slavery under Capitalism
Contrast the American experience. Under pure Capitalism, a thing is either property, or not property. Further, in the absence of a power system preventing a thing from becoming property (whether it be a substantial religious/philosophical influence, or access to friends and relatives), some people WILL reduce just about anything to property, and gaining by doing so, influence others to do so as well. Thus it was that, while white indentured servants had to be freed at the end of their term, lest word get back to England and Europe the fate waiting for future indentured servants in the Colonies, African servants had no similar defensive power structure, and as such could safely be, and therefore were, reduced to property. And once they were property, the law made few restrictions as to how this "property" might be "used".
But People are Not Property. Reduce them to such, and you reduce both them, and yourself, from personhood. For the slave must carefully avoid thinking, lest he notice his condition and despair, thus robbing the slave (and the public) of the creative potential of a human mind. The slave master, on the other hand, must devote his energies to suppressing rebellion, causing a similar impact on his potential as it does on that of the slave. Additionally, the master must singe, and ultimately burn out, his conscience, in the process of doing so; the more his conscience complains, the more likely he is to invent even more untrue ideologies (ie. racism), distorting his thinking further, and reducing his wealth producing capabilities even more.
Make no mistake: the market, left unrestricted, punishes both master and slave (and I'm not sure which gets it worse, since at least the slave has the benefit of a market value protecting him from excessive levels of cruelty!) for this violation of correct principle... by imprisoning them within this horrible system. For while the generation of slaveholders that first cemented the slave's condition in law doubtless saw benefits, the market quickly devours those benefits by pushing them into asset prices (the purchase price of a slave is higher than that of an indentured servant). Nobody after that point gets to be a free rider; he must pay a price for his slaves at least equal to the benefit the former owner could have gotten from the slave. But why would someone willingly buy into such a system, if it isn't even all that helpful in the long run?
Making Money or Taking Money?
My answer is that the vast majority of people understand accounting far better than they understand economics; or, to put it blort's way, people are greedy. For under capitalism, people follow the money, wherever it may lead. More profits is inherently better, and believed to be so, without reservation, by the layman economist because he imagines the only way to increase profits is to improve productive efficiency. And this is true... IF we're using the definition of "profit" used by economists, which is revenues minus ALL wages, rents, and interest... even the opportunity cost of this operation to the entrepreneur, himself. But most people don't; they instinctively use the accountant's definition. For the accountant, profit is what's left over from revenues once expenses have been paid. Profit equals revenues minus what you have to pay others for.
The difference is crucial, for under the accountant's definition, there are TWO ways to increase profits. Efficiency can be improved, leading to more revenues relative to the factors used; or, more factors can be brought under the ownership of the business owner, thus dropping the opportunity cost of these assets from the balance sheet. For example, if a man rents a storefront, he can increase his profits by making his store better (increasing revenues without increasing the resources used), or taking ownership of the storefront (thus dropping the opportunity cost of the storefront from the balance sheet). If he pays another for his labor (whether weekly, monthly, or for a five-year contract, in the case of indentured servitude), he can increase his profits by increasing the revenues of his operation through greater efficiency, or he can utilize the labor of someone he doesn't have to pay, thus dropping the opportunity cost of labor off the balance sheet.
It is very important to point out that from the economist's perspective, there IS NO PROFIT in either of those second options, the one that involves taking ownership of an asset he previously had to pay someone else for. There is, at best, a revenue neutral transferring of revenues from one person to another... but often, the effect is a net loss. The opportunity cost of a slave is the productive potential of a free man... but that does not matter to the slave master, since his revenues are up as a result of reducing a man to slavery. And if he DID buy his way into the system, while he has realized but small net gains to himself (having to pay the previous master the opportunity cost of giving up a slave), the abolition of slavery wipes his asset book clean. He goes from being a rich man to a poor man overnight... and therefore, though the slaveholders are every bit as held down by the system as the slave himself (witness the explosive economic growth in places were slavery was illegal, relative to that of the slave states), he dare not permit the institution to be abolished, because he is psychologically attached to the asset value of his slaves. It makes him "feel" rich, even though he isn't.
Political consequences of Rent Seeking
What does this have to do with Capitalism as a whole? The fact that while markets are the best way to allocate goods, it is also very efficient at entrenching evils (until such a society is overtaken from without by another society that has not entrenched that evil). People become wealthy by performing valuable services... but then can use that wealth to turn access to their profession into property. A big company may successfully petition the government to grant them a privileged position (generally protection from competitors) in exchange for a share of the loot. A particularly high paying profession may convince the government to erect barriers to entry (through state required licenses, etc.) in exchange for a share of the loot. A large developer might get preferential treatment with regard to the acquisition of land (to the point where municipal governments will deliberately create blighted areas for the purpose of seizing it to sell to a developer), in exchange for a share of the loot. Economist have a term for this sort of behavior: rent seeking. It's the effort to take control of something for purpose of requiring others to pay a toll to access it, whether customer or competitor... a thing they did not create.
And our economy is FULL of these kinds of things. Look at the health care debate, for example. A lot of people are convinced that the current costs are the result of the free market. Strictly speaking, this is true, but that is only because the market monetizes the rent seeking behavior of pretty much every participant in the health care system. Over the past century or so, enormous barriers have been erected against entry into pretty much every aspect of the health care system. There's doctor licensing (which requires far more in the way of expense than is actually necessary to acquire the necessary skill to perform basic services), centralized drug regulation (which big pharma can deal with much more easily than small pharma), tort law (which fails to recognize the inherent risk involved in medical care and medical procedures), preferential regulatory treatment of patented medicines over organic (and therefore unpatentable) alternatives, the insanely expensive nature of the legal system itself (which is, itself, caused by the cartelization of the legal profession), intense "fairness" regulation of health insurance and medical care which has the effect of shifting costs from those who incur them to others, employer health care requirements that have the effect of creating mini-monopolies over the employees of smaller firms, and mini-oligopolies over the employers of larger firms... the list goes far farther than I can even begin to go. At every point of contact, the money spent into the medical system is diverted from actual medical care, to the costs of maintaining, extending, and enjoying all the privileges granted by government... in exchange for a share of the loot.
Rent Seeking in the Communications Industry (Or, the Nexus of All Rent Seeking)
There is rent seeking in the communications industry, as well. Presently, rent seeking behaviors are likely low (in the Internet industry, at any rate), due to the fact that there are still plenty of real capital investments to be made. But when the field ultimately matures, the money that presently goes into laying new lines, sending up satellites, building towers, and such will go more and more into rent seeking behavior: efforts to control the communication system. And government will not merely support it in exchange for a share of the loot: large budget mass democracy creates a market for centralized control of media, the value of which is exactly proportional to the size of the government's budget. Centralized control over the media is the very engine of rent seeking, for everything the government does must pass muster with the electorate. The ability to saturate a market with a particular message, or to deny access to a particular message, has a value that can be measured in dollars, a value that is reaped by those larger companies that have the ability to edge out smaller competitors.
So with regard to Net Neutrality, we're between a rock and a hard place. On the one side, we've got the rent seekers, who will, if able, consolidate control over the medium of communication. On the other side, we've got government types saying they will protect us from the evil corporations (and rent seeking IS evil)... but it's every bit as likely that those very politicians are the tool of the rent seekers. In addition, the politicians AGAINST Net Neutrality might ALSO be the tools of the rent seekers. There are numerous examples throughout American history where BOTH sides of the debate were dominated largely by what we today call "Astroturf". It's entirely possible Net Neutrality is yet another example of that. That's why both sides of that debate scare me.
The Evils of Capitalism
And this is where you get it wrong, and lead folks like blort down the wrong road. The Free Market is nothing more than the notion than the notion that society allocates resources best when it does so via an unregulated market. This is true, so far as it goes. But Capitalism is more specific to the current era, and carries with it baggage accumulated thanks to a property regime that, in my opinion, is wrong in places, and results in concentrations of wealth that must, ultimately, turn into concentrations of power via government. Capitalism is its own worst enemy (and Adam Smith himself predicted this very phenomenon): under Capitalism, a John D. Rockefeller can make a fortune providing a plethora of petroleum products for the consumer at prices lower than ever before seen, thus creating opportunities for more innovation and more fortunes, overall a good thing. But then the big money can then turn around and use that fortune to cement his own and his people's position, by acquiring rent collecting opportunities--ramming legislation through that limits potential competitors more than himself is but one of the tools.
Markets are very efficient at property allocation. The question the market cannot answer (except, perhaps, under a condition of total anarchy, and even then the market only provides the evidence; we still must use our own brains to figure out the answers) is "What do we properly regard as property?" For when this is answered incorrectly, the market will show us, with brutal efficiency, why we are wrong... but we ourselves may be so enmeshed in the system we either fail to notice, or even deny the evidence. A perfect historical example is chattel slavery. American slavery was a very different thing from Mediterranean slavery (argument lifted directly from Stanley M. Elkins Slavery).
Mediterranean slavery was a heavily regulated institution, but both church and state watching over the institution with a close eye. It was as humane as slavery could be (which isn't very, but I'm just saying), and there were many opportunities for a slave to be freed. The pressure was toward gradual elimination of slavery, and, like so many other places, when it was finally abolished, the abolition occurred bloodlessly.
Slavery under Capitalism
Contrast the American experience. Under pure Capitalism, a thing is either property, or not property. Further, in the absence of a power system preventing a thing from becoming property (whether it be a substantial religious/philosophical influence, or access to friends and relatives), some people WILL reduce just about anything to property, and gaining by doing so, influence others to do so as well. Thus it was that, while white indentured servants had to be freed at the end of their term, lest word get back to England and Europe the fate waiting for future indentured servants in the Colonies, African servants had no similar defensive power structure, and as such could safely be, and therefore were, reduced to property. And once they were property, the law made few restrictions as to how this "property" might be "used".
But People are Not Property. Reduce them to such, and you reduce both them, and yourself, from personhood. For the slave must carefully avoid thinking, lest he notice his condition and despair, thus robbing the slave (and the public) of the creative potential of a human mind. The slave master, on the other hand, must devote his energies to suppressing rebellion, causing a similar impact on his potential as it does on that of the slave. Additionally, the master must singe, and ultimately burn out, his conscience, in the process of doing so; the more his conscience complains, the more likely he is to invent even more untrue ideologies (ie. racism), distorting his thinking further, and reducing his wealth producing capabilities even more.
Make no mistake: the market, left unrestricted, punishes both master and slave (and I'm not sure which gets it worse, since at least the slave has the benefit of a market value protecting him from excessive levels of cruelty!) for this violation of correct principle... by imprisoning them within this horrible system. For while the generation of slaveholders that first cemented the slave's condition in law doubtless saw benefits, the market quickly devours those benefits by pushing them into asset prices (the purchase price of a slave is higher than that of an indentured servant). Nobody after that point gets to be a free rider; he must pay a price for his slaves at least equal to the benefit the former owner could have gotten from the slave. But why would someone willingly buy into such a system, if it isn't even all that helpful in the long run?
Making Money or Taking Money?
My answer is that the vast majority of people understand accounting far better than they understand economics; or, to put it blort's way, people are greedy. For under capitalism, people follow the money, wherever it may lead. More profits is inherently better, and believed to be so, without reservation, by the layman economist because he imagines the only way to increase profits is to improve productive efficiency. And this is true... IF we're using the definition of "profit" used by economists, which is revenues minus ALL wages, rents, and interest... even the opportunity cost of this operation to the entrepreneur, himself. But most people don't; they instinctively use the accountant's definition. For the accountant, profit is what's left over from revenues once expenses have been paid. Profit equals revenues minus what you have to pay others for.
The difference is crucial, for under the accountant's definition, there are TWO ways to increase profits. Efficiency can be improved, leading to more revenues relative to the factors used; or, more factors can be brought under the ownership of the business owner, thus dropping the opportunity cost of these assets from the balance sheet. For example, if a man rents a storefront, he can increase his profits by making his store better (increasing revenues without increasing the resources used), or taking ownership of the storefront (thus dropping the opportunity cost of the storefront from the balance sheet). If he pays another for his labor (whether weekly, monthly, or for a five-year contract, in the case of indentured servitude), he can increase his profits by increasing the revenues of his operation through greater efficiency, or he can utilize the labor of someone he doesn't have to pay, thus dropping the opportunity cost of labor off the balance sheet.
It is very important to point out that from the economist's perspective, there IS NO PROFIT in either of those second options, the one that involves taking ownership of an asset he previously had to pay someone else for. There is, at best, a revenue neutral transferring of revenues from one person to another... but often, the effect is a net loss. The opportunity cost of a slave is the productive potential of a free man... but that does not matter to the slave master, since his revenues are up as a result of reducing a man to slavery. And if he DID buy his way into the system, while he has realized but small net gains to himself (having to pay the previous master the opportunity cost of giving up a slave), the abolition of slavery wipes his asset book clean. He goes from being a rich man to a poor man overnight... and therefore, though the slaveholders are every bit as held down by the system as the slave himself (witness the explosive economic growth in places were slavery was illegal, relative to that of the slave states), he dare not permit the institution to be abolished, because he is psychologically attached to the asset value of his slaves. It makes him "feel" rich, even though he isn't.
Political consequences of Rent Seeking
What does this have to do with Capitalism as a whole? The fact that while markets are the best way to allocate goods, it is also very efficient at entrenching evils (until such a society is overtaken from without by another society that has not entrenched that evil). People become wealthy by performing valuable services... but then can use that wealth to turn access to their profession into property. A big company may successfully petition the government to grant them a privileged position (generally protection from competitors) in exchange for a share of the loot. A particularly high paying profession may convince the government to erect barriers to entry (through state required licenses, etc.) in exchange for a share of the loot. A large developer might get preferential treatment with regard to the acquisition of land (to the point where municipal governments will deliberately create blighted areas for the purpose of seizing it to sell to a developer), in exchange for a share of the loot. Economist have a term for this sort of behavior: rent seeking. It's the effort to take control of something for purpose of requiring others to pay a toll to access it, whether customer or competitor... a thing they did not create.
And our economy is FULL of these kinds of things. Look at the health care debate, for example. A lot of people are convinced that the current costs are the result of the free market. Strictly speaking, this is true, but that is only because the market monetizes the rent seeking behavior of pretty much every participant in the health care system. Over the past century or so, enormous barriers have been erected against entry into pretty much every aspect of the health care system. There's doctor licensing (which requires far more in the way of expense than is actually necessary to acquire the necessary skill to perform basic services), centralized drug regulation (which big pharma can deal with much more easily than small pharma), tort law (which fails to recognize the inherent risk involved in medical care and medical procedures), preferential regulatory treatment of patented medicines over organic (and therefore unpatentable) alternatives, the insanely expensive nature of the legal system itself (which is, itself, caused by the cartelization of the legal profession), intense "fairness" regulation of health insurance and medical care which has the effect of shifting costs from those who incur them to others, employer health care requirements that have the effect of creating mini-monopolies over the employees of smaller firms, and mini-oligopolies over the employers of larger firms... the list goes far farther than I can even begin to go. At every point of contact, the money spent into the medical system is diverted from actual medical care, to the costs of maintaining, extending, and enjoying all the privileges granted by government... in exchange for a share of the loot.
Rent Seeking in the Communications Industry (Or, the Nexus of All Rent Seeking)
There is rent seeking in the communications industry, as well. Presently, rent seeking behaviors are likely low (in the Internet industry, at any rate), due to the fact that there are still plenty of real capital investments to be made. But when the field ultimately matures, the money that presently goes into laying new lines, sending up satellites, building towers, and such will go more and more into rent seeking behavior: efforts to control the communication system. And government will not merely support it in exchange for a share of the loot: large budget mass democracy creates a market for centralized control of media, the value of which is exactly proportional to the size of the government's budget. Centralized control over the media is the very engine of rent seeking, for everything the government does must pass muster with the electorate. The ability to saturate a market with a particular message, or to deny access to a particular message, has a value that can be measured in dollars, a value that is reaped by those larger companies that have the ability to edge out smaller competitors.
So with regard to Net Neutrality, we're between a rock and a hard place. On the one side, we've got the rent seekers, who will, if able, consolidate control over the medium of communication. On the other side, we've got government types saying they will protect us from the evil corporations (and rent seeking IS evil)... but it's every bit as likely that those very politicians are the tool of the rent seekers. In addition, the politicians AGAINST Net Neutrality might ALSO be the tools of the rent seekers. There are numerous examples throughout American history where BOTH sides of the debate were dominated largely by what we today call "Astroturf". It's entirely possible Net Neutrality is yet another example of that. That's why both sides of that debate scare me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)