Economic progress can be understood in terms of the different effects of commerce and predation. Commerce makes it easier for people to trade with one another. The resulting expansion of trade leads to increased productivity, which creates opportunities for further expansion of trade. Economic progress, therefore, is a self‐perpetuating process. Why, then, isn’t every nation wealthy? The answer is predation. Predation slows, stops, and even reverses economic progress. And the principal source of predation is governments.
Read the whole thing. His libertarian thinking is close to identical with mine. He concludes,
Government is necessary to protect us against predation by other governments. But government is not a suitable instrument for other purposes, such as regulating economic activity, funding scientific research, or engaging in social engineering.
Every other ideological viewpoint, from “state capacity libertarianism” to “national conservatism” to progressivism to socialism, presumes that government will do other jobs well. For me, those ideological viewpoints have a burden of proof to show that they are not delusional.
Where libertarianism fails is in convincing those with Fear of Others’ Liberty. Our delusion is that FOOLs will put up with limited government.
lthough it is obviously true that misgovernance, treason, malfeasance, waste, plundering, cronyism, unrestrained villainy, dishonesty, all manner of corruption, and moral wretchedness generally are the order of the day in the federal government, we ought be careful to not throw the baby out with the bath water.
Some moderate middle ground may be the better goal with say a 75 percent reduction in overall overhead and administrative costs and total FTE.
A book that makes a convincing case, to me at least, for such a middle ground is F. H. Buckley’s Fair Governance: Paternalism and Perfectionism. Buckley examines in detail libertarian “perfectionism” and comes to the conclusion that concern for others’ well being suggests that some accommodation of paternalistic non-libertarian governance may well be desirable, even if it cannot be forced into some ideological yoke:
“And so I conclude, without a grand theory or a key to unlock every door. I have defended a moderate, even a liberal kind of paternalism and perfectionism, one which avoids hard edges and to which most of us subscribe.”
Yesterday being Ambedkar Jayanti, it is fitting to look to the example of B. R. Ambedkar as the sort of thinker and doer that Buckley’s reasoning should inspire us to aspire too. Ambedkar was instrumental in relieving India from famine, achieving independence from the UK, drafting a democratic constitution, and propounding Leveller-friendly doctrines of equality.
The lesson to be learned here is that the only path out of our current grim horror is the adoption of authentic modern democracy: ideological purity and blue sky perfectionism take us nowhere.
I think recent rioting and looting shows that government is not the only source of predation that people worry about. Dealing with that is traditionally one of the core functions of government, by maintaining its monopoly on the “legitimate” use of force.
I am not sure how to square that with Kohn’s claim that “government is not a suitable instrument for other purposes” than “to protect us against predation by other governments”. Would he argue that criminals are some form of associational government? Ayn Rand would have recommended a subscription-based police force. That seems like it would be an associational government under Kohn’s framework, but perhaps he does not see that as a government?
[I think recent rioting and looting shows that government is not the only source of predation that people worry about. Dealing with that is traditionally one of the core functions of government, by maintaining its monopoly on the “legitimate” use of force.]
You forgot to mention that the “recent rioting and looting” took place under a government with “monopoly on the ‘legitimate’ use of force.”
That didn’t seem to protect the innocent very much, however.
Actually, the government also went to great lengths to prevent people from protecting themselves.
But I suspect you will continue dreaming that government is the solution, rather than the problem in this case.
The principal source of predation is governments, it’s really companies and powerful people working through government to achieve their own ends. Government is just the environment they are working through. You can change the environment, but that will just require an adjustment of tactics. Blaming government for this is like blaming greed on the influence of money.
Conservatives would also do well to distinguish between regulations that attempt to manage economic activity and regulations that are conditions of public accommodation, which protect economic activity and assets.
If someone wants to do something dangerous to others or which impacts property rights widely, the public consents with conditions. This is a good purpose and creates economic space where none would otherwise exist.
On the other hand, economic regulations to intended to manage markets, like occupational licensing for low risk activities is bad.
“Blaming government for this is like blaming greed on the influence of money.”
LOL! Government isn’t made up of inanimate tools, Tom.
Was that supposed to say “The principal source of predation is *not* governments, it’s really companies”?
Let’s look at the biggest predators of the last hundred years — Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, Communist China… we could add several more, smaller, governments to this list. Would you really say that companies were behind all the bloodshed and sorrow caused by those governments?
No, what I’m saying is that governments (and companies within) are just structures composed of people. Some people are always going to be predators who use whatever structures exist to prey on others.
Now you can claim that instead of many thousands of smaller predators, that governments consolidate power for a few big dogs that do more damage on net. Maybe, or maybe it just seems worse. I don’t know. I do know that just removing government doesn’t somehow change fundamental human nature and get rid of predation. The whole culture needs to improve to do that.
Look at a place like Iraq. Saddam Hussein is dead. Predation is not. A huge focal point was removed. Sometimes that makes things better, and sometimes it makes things worse.
[Look at a place like Iraq. Saddam Hussein is dead. Predation is not. A huge focal point was removed.]
Look at a place like Iraq. A new government is in place. Obviously predation is not dead, and more actively so when enabled by (a new) government. A huge focal point was NOT removed if the new government asserts the same extensive powers.
“Government is necessary to protect us against predation by other governments.”
Yes, national defense, as Kohn says, but also police and courts. Government has important, and in my view legitimate, functions protecting individuals from predators both within and without.
Why? When government does not effectively protect individuals from each other, protection, and the ability to collect tribute, is provided by “organized crime”, “warlords”, “gangs”; choose your description.
Wealth is unproductively wasted when those groups compete for the ability to collect tribute. As Sollozzo said, “blood is a big expense.”
I agree that government is not a suitable instrument for other purposes.
[Why? When government does not effectively protect individuals from each other, protection, and the ability to collect tribute, is provided by “organized crime”, “warlords”, “gangs”; choose your description.]
False dichotomy. Next time include self-help and self-defense organisations.
As your argument stands, it is based on an incomplete (and therefore erroneous) premise.
I’m glad to see you cite Meir favorably. The two of you are my favorite economists – both MIT trained, each independently working your way to a quasi-Austrian position, but without the inherited baggage some Austrians carry with them.
For those who see Meir arguing that government is only responsible for predation: Read his books at his website. He clearly understands that private predation is also a serious issue. The challenge is to minimize predation both from “roving bandits” and “stationary bandits.”
He seems to be channeling Mancur Olson’s last book, Power and Prosperity. He makes a distinction between a stationary bandit and a roving bandit. A stationary bandit has an incentive to maximize economic rent, and so an incentive to boost output. (Michael Strong observed this in a prior post without mentioning Olson.)
I also add that the American writer Albert Jay Nock had a similar analysis in the 1930s.
Finally, I would like to see some steel-manning. For example, one of my old teachers, Earl Thompson, argues that democratic government works quite well in advancing the common good, with exceptions. He proposed reforms to help it work better. But he (and many others) see a profound difference between a stationary bandit and a democratic government. Maybe there isn’t. But the challenge has been issued. We need a theory that explains why a democracy is not better than any other government, or we confess that our libertarian ideals may have flaws.
Predation is honourable. The correct term is parasitism. When the lion snags the antelope, the antelope is under no delusions regarding whether the lion is on their side.
By contrast, when a government talks, the only thing they’re concerned about is lying about whose side they’re on, because like the parasite they need to avoid an immune response.
The other good term is defection.
“Submitting to defection is necessary to protect against defection.”
Sapif-Whorf shouldn’t be true, but then this happens.
Fun dynamic: the Bantu can’t change into a mosquito or malarium, but they can join the government. If you have a conspecific parasite problem, why not join the parasite class?
Ye Olde aristocracies prevent the over-expansion of the parasite class by having a legal distinction privileging parasites. Alleged democracy can’t limit the parasite class, except insofar as the non-parasite class can be convinced the vampire doesn’t exist. The phenomenon Americans call [wokeness] is largely down to a bunch of non-parasites realizing they can just join the parasite class. They seem so intransigent because anti-Woke arguments all boil down to this: “Being the host/victim is better! Lie back and get drained.”
> Predation is honourable.
I think predation can only be honorable in situations that are unavoidably zero-sum exchanges (and even then, there can be both power and honor in sacrifice, if not for oneself, than for one’s survivors). The vast majority of exchanges need not be zero-sum, and I think it is far more honorable for both participants if they are not zero-sum.
Okay. Yes, I expect you would believe that.
Not how honour works, though. It’s not just a synonym for high-status or ingroup or high-prestige.
It seems like Cohen is using predation to include both parasitic and predatory taking from others.
I’m not sure what your antelope analogy is doing here. Is it ever honorable to prey on weaker people? I’m mean speaking as a person, not a lion.
Again, predation is a cultural/human nature thing, not a woke thing or a government thing. If you are immensely cynical, you can just claim that any and all government or wokeness is just a tool for people to take from others, but you aren’t really trying very hard to understand the way the world works.
There are plenty of sincere people in the world who work in government or are woke. Sometimes those structures work out fine for everyone. There are obviously some vampires out there too. It isn’t the structure of government or the belief in inclusiveness and fairness that causes the evil. Its people who stop giving a damn if they are hurting others to get what they want.
You can lie to yourself and blame government or wokeness if you want, but if those things go away, people will still take your stuff from you if you aren’t careful
If the weak refuse to cooperate, your options are predation or to let an even less deserving predator eat them. To see the latter, refer to any article in any newspaper.
The weak refuse to cooperate more often than not.
If the weakness is stupidity in particular, they frequently cannot understand that cooperation is even possible, let alone profitable.
but you aren’t really trying very hard to understand the way the world works. Yes, I believe the same about you. Would you care to make a competitive prediction?
“If the weak refuse to cooperate, your options are predation or to let an even less deserving predator eat them.”
Can you explain this? What does “refuse to cooperate” mean? You seem to be saying that you might as well take from some vulnerable person because if you don’t, someone else is going to.
What you quoted from me was only half of my sentence. I think some people are corrupt in government and some people aren’t. You seem to be saying government is just a parasite racket. If you think I’m naive I can live with that.
Whether you can guess something isn’t going to add integrity to your argument.
Yes, that’s exactly what I’m saying.
Criminals are criminal. Asking them to nicely respect the vulnerable doesn’t work. Trying this is pro-crime. Instead of protecting the vulnerable, you’re demanding they protect themselves. By definition, we’re talking about the group which cannot protect themselves. Might as well steal their stuff before someone worse does.
Or are you demanding that protection be provided to the vulnerable for free? So, communism. Do it yourself if it’s so important to you. Otherwise it will live up to the high Soviet quality standards all communism achieves. Further, the communism will spread until everything is communist. Ref: America.
If protection is provided, and it’s not free, it’s feudalism. They are serfs, who have a lord, who demands whatever taxes he happens to feel like demanding, because, by definition, it’s not like the serf can do anything to stop him. This is called [stationary banditry] for some reason.
So. Lawbreaking? Communism? Feudalism? Crime, crime, or crime? Which is your preference? Perhaps pure apathy towards the vulnerable, because it’s none of your business?
By contrast, the weak who agree to cooperate can simply pay a subscription to a security service. If you can’t protect yourself, you pay someone who can. Division of labour. You will find they are not vulnerable, in practice. Women often protect themselves from rape in this way. See also: mutual aid.
Parasitic predation in America is overwhelmingly a government thing. All the evidence supports the idea that pure apathy is the least destructive stance. All this alleged caring for the vulnerable has caused immense devastation to vulnerable Americans. Because, as above: crime, crime, or crime.
Speaking of mutual aid, Americans used to have mutual aid doctors. They were banned. The medical guild didn’t like them charging low rates.
If it’s not the government you’re allowed to protect yourself and it rapidly dies out. By contrast, teenagers don’t even think of protecting themselves from parasitic university loans. The point of such loans is graft. Laundering tax dollars into university support for the Regime. Non-STEM and many STEM students are then forced to pay the government for their worthless degrees. The university is never on the hook for any screwups. They’re not even allowed to declare bankruptcy, the same way lawbreaking fines are not discharged. Let alone allowed to sue the university for fraud or negligence. For 95% of students, university is nothing more than legalized crime.
Liar. I don’t believe you’re stupid enough to think that’s what I said. You have heard of science, yes? I mean, it’s only a few hundred years old, maybe the news hasn’t reached you before.
It looks like you know you would lose the contest and need some excuse to surrender without admitting you surrendered. Don’t worry; I accept.