'The Freer The Market, The Freer The People'

Scroll to see replies

DrunkHamster

It may well be argued about currently, but that doesn't mean one of the sides isn't right by definition.

I'm not familiar with the Waldron, but I've read the Cohen and needless to say, I'm not especially impressed by the argument. If anyone can be fairly accused of distorting the word 'freedom' out of recognition, I think it's Cohen in the article. Do you know of any responses (I presume if there's a huge argument there will be some replies in the literature)? I'll happily lay into him, but I expect most of the obvious objections will have been made already.

I don't know of any responses I'm afraid, but then I find freedom a really boring topic.

Reply 81

Bastiat

Buteo

Whilst I agree that Venezuela's nationalisation policies might be infringing some people's freedom, people as a whole are generally free.

This is where I think we fundamentally disagree. "People as a whole" don't have a right to their freedom - rather, each individual has a right to his or her personal freedom, and this can't be removed from them without their personal consent.

This is not to say that people cannot voluntarily join communities where their future ability to exchange or acquire property is limited - but merely that they must be free not to participate in the first place. So, unless a community has been formed by the voluntary consent of each individual, then any violent action it takes against those refusing their consent (such as proclaiming sovereignty over their property) is entirely immoral. So, "as a whole," the people of a nation may have more evenly-distributed or a greater total sum of wealth as a result of government action; but if that prosperity has come by denying to others who have never consented to be bound by the majority's decision their inalienable right to their person and property, then it is wholly immoral, regardless of the 'social benefit'.

Buteo

Most of the expropriations have been well paid and have taken over monopolies that made it impossible for other enterprises to compete.

Nationalisation is unjust, not to say economically disasterous, for two reasons: one, it takes money from an individual through taxation to fund the acquisition; and two, were it "well paid," supposing that a government had non-coercively acquired productive capacity, then the firms would have consented to sell it - it wouldn't have been necessary to threaten violence if they didn't. The fact remains that if I own property which the government forces me to be give up involuntarily - for no compensation, or for a price lower than I would accept had I the free choice - then it has stolen some of the value of my property from me. This applies just as much as to a multi-national corporation as it does to a peasant farmer whose land is expropriated for infrastructural development. Where trade is engaged in freely, we can infer that both parties expect to benefit from the trade - otherwise, they would persist in their current state of affairs. Where violence is threatened, no such inference can be drawn, because the transaction was not voluntary.

Buteo

The only people who have suffered with these policies is ultra-rich people who don't want to cooperate with the government.

There are two errors here; firstly, that only "ultra-rich people" suffer from confiscation of property. Secondly, that their refusal to co-operate with the government constitutes a legitimate reason to aggress against them. How you can possibly claim that the degree of freedom is independent of the freedom of the marketplace given that a free, voluntarily-undertaken choice is not made in the case of expropriation, is to me plainly contradictory.

Buteo

I'm not justifying them, but most people in Venezuela have actually gained freedom during Chavez' regime. You say that people have the right to have private property, but many people who now own their houses (in the shanty towns) didn't own them before. Land in Venezuela was never bought by anyone. Most of the current landlords inherited them from their parents, who inherited it from their parents, who inherited it from their fathers, who just fenced a bunch of empty land and claimed it was theirs. Most of the property titles were given by governments after seeing how much land everyone had, they never confirmed how they got it in the first place.

Notwithstanding that you've confused freedom with wealth, which are entirely different concepts, there may be legitimate issues here on a micro scale - but certainly not with the broad brush you're using. To say "Land in Venezuela was never bought by anyone" is an impossibly general statement. You certainly can't prove this.

Let's suppose, for the sake of argument, then, that in some instances property was illegitimately acquired (which I do not doubt is the case for some property in most countries). Then we would agree that whatever coercion was used in the initial acquisition was unjust. However, we cannot blanketly assume that all initial acquistion was unjust; it must be proven by recourse to evidence in specific cases. An example that springs to mind is landholders in pre-48 Israel, who still hold deeds to property that was confiscated by the Israeli government - they are entitled to reclaim the property that they can prove was heretofore theirs legitimately. Suppose, though, that you are unable to substantiate by evidence a claim against a particular household who you assert dispossessed your ancestor some generations ago; in that case, we may be uncertain as to the correct ownership of the land, and so, supposing neither party to have a better claim than the other, it follows that whoever first employs it is entitled to it; and so momentary 'unownership' is promptly replaced by legitimate ownership by the current occupier.

Buteo

In 1998, when Chavez got elected, around 40% of Venezuelans didn't own the land where their houses were. That situation has improved during his government, as many of the poor who lived in terrains they didn't own have been given property titles, and given the option to sell that land or further build on it.

I certainly won't object to the extension of property titles where there had been previously uncertainty and communal ownership. It confers upon the owner exclusive rights to dispose of his land - as you say, "to sell that land or further build on it." These are the very freedoms which are inherent in the free-market, so, entirely contrary to your later assertion, you firmly place trust in the virtues of the free-market to extend freedom and security to people with formerly uncertain property titles.

Buteo

Also, I'd rather have freedom of speech and the right to get involved in how the country is run, than to live in a country that supposedly allows you to have property (while giving you **** education and no healthcare to make sure you don't grow up to be one of the ones who do own some property) and then tortures and kills you if you say god doesn't exist.

I assume the alternative society with which you contrast your preference is one of the examples I cited as being partially free-markets - Iran under the Shah &c. That isn't what I'm defending - or, at least, not those components of government action which are errant from the path of private property.

As to the point concerning freedom of speech, I think you'll find property and self-ownership are its essential pre-requisites. For, how can you have absolute free speech if you are not sovereign over your body (and therefore your vocal chords and limbs with which you express your opinions)? And how can you disseminate material with your political, artistic or religious opinions unless you can legitimately be the exclusive owner of the paper on which it is written? Free speech is impossible - unless there is a state of affairs in which conflict over resources can be justly determined by recourse to private property.

As to governments "giving you **** education and no healthcare to make sure you don't grow up to be one of the ones who do own some property," you seem to think that the government, through some beneficient agency, provides these services to individuals peacefully. It is entirely to the contrary. If you claim, 'I have a right to an education,' you are saying nothing more than 'I have a right to the time of a teacher' or 'I have a right to the books from which I can teach myself' - which is to say, that the teacher is subject to your will, or the publisher's voluntarily exchanged paper and printing presses under your command. That the government performs these actions as a proxy, and against the general population instead of against specific individuals, does not make the threatened violent imposition any more morally sanctionable. It is still theft, even if it endorsed be the majority; democracy is, after all, nothing but mob rule in baseball caps.

The same is true of healthcare. By saying, 'I have a right to be treated when I'm ill,' you are claiming that the doctor cannot dispose of his skills as he would do so voluntarily. You are denying his freedom to treat people on whatever terms he thinks are best for him, and repudiating the principle that he is a self-owner. You are claiming an inviolable right to his time and effort - which is to say, that you partially own his time and effort. I am unable to see how, despite the obfuscations that occur when the medium of government is interposed between the benefit of the service and the initial act of violence required to extort the taxes, this situation differs substantially from serfdom.

Reply 82

Bastiat

Bismarck

I don't see the difference to be honest. The provision of security will always be based on some premise other than the obvious one. If you don't like the lords example, how about the provision of security by the largest merchant families in a place like the Republic of Venice? The rich and the powerful are going to contribute more to the funding of any security system; what incentive do they have to not grant themselves more rights?

Of course, where there exists de facto territorial monopoly in which there may be difficulty establishing rival firms due to the extensive client base or whatever of some particularly efficacious producer of security, it may very well be the case that a firm comes to exploit its position by threatening violence against customers who seek alternative security or arbitration provision - in which case, we might say that a government has emerged.

However, this is neither necessary, nor, I contend, likely. The reason for the former is obvious - notwithstanding Nozick's failed attempt, there is no reason why a monopoly must emerge. The reason for the latter, I would argue, is that in the case where the principles of individual sovereignty over property are widely accepted (and therefore free to hire private security, arbitration &c), there is much more likely to exist vigilance against encroachment on those rights - the same premise, as it were, that underlied the Second Amendment.

The other crucial aspect that is missing, I believe, from your criticism of private security, is a fair comparison. If you object, as I do, to the granting of illegitimate rights - such as, say, a monopoly on trade, the extension of tax-funded healthcare or the imposition of some pharmaceutical regulation - in which state of affairs are they more likely to occur: one where each individual is vigiliantly sovereign over his property, or one where there exists a single central government which disseminates the myth of its legitimate sovereignty through 'educational' propaganda, and where the end of, say, acquiring a monopoly, requires nothing more than a political contribution. It seems to me self-evident that - though I do not claim anarchy as a necessary utopia - it is certainly less vulnerable to violate the rights of individuals.

Bismarck

People have the right to not be positively harmed. A person has the right to obtain property; he doesn't have the right to have a specific amount of property. A person has the right to life and liberty as long as he doesn't infringe on other people's rights.

We couldn't be more agreed here; I may tighten up the word 'harmed' to be 'violently aggressed against,' but I think that's the meaning you intended from your other posts re rights to homelessness and sustenance.

Your definition, though, includes nothing that implies one must contribute through taxation to supplying security for others. Indeed, it implicitly claims precisely the opposite - so long as I don't infringe on your rights, you have no claim whatsoever to my property; so, in particular, you have no claim on me to pay for judicial services or police protection.

I doubt, from your other posts, that you intended to convey this meaning, so feel free to revise it. Using an assumed revision in line with this as a starting point, I'd like to query something with a minarchist of your inclinations: suppose there does exist some legitimate claim on me to supply funds for the protection of the property or person of others. Why does that claim - if it is a moral one, not a positivistic one - stop at the boundaries of the state in which I live, and why are state boundaries themselves legitimate? To me, the objection of the minarchist against anarchy - that there is not one contiguous legal authority - applies equally well when there exists 200 separate 'sovereign' domains as when there exists several billion, and so the logical implications of minarchism are 'international' (wrong word - I mean to convey without nations) jurisdiction.

Reply 83

Buteo

Bastiat

This is where I think we fundamentally disagree. "People as a whole" don't have a right to their freedom - rather, each individual has a right to his or her personal freedom, and this can't be removed from them without their personal consent.

....

The same is true of healthcare. By saying, 'I have a right to be treated when I'm ill,' you are claiming that the doctor cannot dispose of his skills as he would do so voluntarily. You are denying his freedom to treat people on whatever terms he thinks are best for him, and repudiating the principle that he is a self-owner. You are claiming an inviolable right to his time and effort - which is to say, that you partially own his time and effort. I am unable to see how, despite the obfuscations that occur when the medium of government is interposed between the benefit of the service and the initial act of violence required to extort the taxes, this situation differs substantially from serfdom.

Bastiat, first of all I appreciate that you took the time to write that post.

However, I'm afraid you are not considering the many variables that make the South American situation so unique when it comes to the implementation of free market.

First of all, your argument about how nationalisation is catastrophic from an economic point of view is probably right in a large developed market. However, in S. America, nationalisation has proved to be a very effective way to make the government stronger, therefore allowing it to function reasonably well from the get go, something that wouldn't be possible without the nationalisation of natural resources.

For example, in the late 60s, the Chilean government was having serious difficulties collecting taxes and functioning well. The Unidad Popular decided to nationalise copper, and this enabled the government to operate on a bigger budget. Today, and in spite of being a free market, the Chilean government still depends on that copper to regulate the economy and finance social projects to fight poverty. If it weren't for the copper, the government would be forced to raise taxes, and for a developing country that would be suicidal, as it could cause a halt to the fantastic economic growth that the country has seen over the past 18 years. It works the same in Venezuela with PDVSA. The Venezuelan government couldn't collect taxes. A huge majority of Venezuelans had NEVER paid their taxes before Chavez came to power, simply because the state was too weak and corrupt to do anything. The nationalisation of natural resources gives governments the power to send their country in the direction they want them to, and in Latin America, this cannot be achieved by using alternative methods.

It is necessary to make some 'sacrifices' and play with the market a bit before creating a true free-market. Chile is nowadays ranked as one of the most free markets in the world, but this wouldn't have been possible without the nationalisation of natural resources.

Now, when I say 'people as a whole', I mean that most individuals have economic and personal freedom in Venezuela. If you live in Venezuela you can buy whatever you want with the money you make, there isn't a limit to how much money you can make in something, and you can buy and sell land. The problem is that when 50% of the population don't own anything, they are being left out of the society. In order to pay for the expropriations of land, the misiones, and all the programs that President Chavez is implementing, the state needs the money that comes out of the oil industry.

You said that nationalisation was disastrous because "it takes money from an individual through taxation to fund the acquisition". The nationalisation of natural resources in S. America pays for itself. The money the South Americans government (with the exception of Chile, Uruguay, and Argentina) make through taxes is miserable, and is not enough to pay for anything the government want to do. The Venezuelan SENIAT, the taxing organism, is enjoying its best moment in decades, as thanks to the money that comes in from the oil allows them to start 'anti-evasion' campaigns.

Bolivia, another state that was too weak to fund any campaigns against government or fund hospitals, are now benefiting from the partial nationalisation of natural gas.

As these nationalisations keep large amounts of money in the country (that would have otherwise been taken abroad immediately by the multinationals), the wealth created by them benefits those who did not own any property in the past, and enables them to effectively 'enter the society', thus giving large amounts of people a larger degree of economic freedom than they had before.

Bastiat

The other crucial aspect that is missing, I believe, from your criticism of private security, is a fair comparison. If you object, as I do, to the granting of illegitimate rights - such as, say, a monopoly on trade, the extension of tax-funded healthcare or the imposition of some pharmaceutical regulation - in which state of affairs are they more likely to occur: one where each individual is vigiliantly sovereign over his property, or one where there exists a single central government which disseminates the myth of its legitimate sovereignty through 'educational' propaganda, and where the end of, say, acquiring a monopoly, requires nothing more than a political contribution. It seems to me self-evident that - though I do not claim anarchy as a necessary utopia - it is certainly less vulnerable to violate the rights of individuals.

Well, let me state first of all that I believe in universal healthcare. In the US, if a young poor person suffers an injury and requires surgery, it is likely that this person will have to pay for that surgery in quotas for the rest of his life. That scenario, to me, is unjust and unfair. I would happily pay higher taxes to ensure that if a fellow citizen who can't afford higher quality private healthcare (which I think should still exist, obviously) gets injured, he can be treated properly and not made to pay for having been born in a lower class.

In S. America, however, there's no 2 ways about it. Public healthcare is a must. With the minimum wage there's no way you can maintain a family's basic needs and pay for medical care in the case of an emergency. There are private clinics, and they work all right, but that's no reason to deny someone medical attention when he has no money to pay for it.

It is also not violating any doctor's right. Doctors in public hospitals are not forced to work there. Nothing keeps them from working in the private sector, nothing. But if they don't qualify or are not interested in the private sector, they can make a living working in public hospitals. The same applies to teachers.

I value free speech, free education, free healthcare, and freedom of choice over an imposed free market economy which doesn't take into account the context of the place where it is being applied. If you take Venezuela and impose the previous free market model, I think people would be less free than they are now.

(for the record, I do believe in free market as a mean for the creation of wealth, I just don't think that a 'freer' market gives people more freedom under the conditions of Latin American countries)