I have my suspicions and I would be willing to share them with you later, but the purpose of this article is not to solve the mystery of what was going through Mr. Zimmerman’s head the night of Mr. Martin’s death; the purpose here is to refute claims that Mr. Martin’s death was somehow caused or enabled by anti-government sentiments. His death is not an example of renegade free market law run wild and this unfortunate incident should not be used as evidence of need for more government restriction on individual liberty.

Rutgers law professor David Troutt recently wrote an editorial in Politico in which he placed the ultimate responsibility for Mr. Martin’s death on “the invisible intersection of racial hatred and hating government,” as well as on “the extremes of privatization.” He further claimed that “hating government allows this to happen. It helps pass laws that put too much power in private hands while penalizing government for performing traditional duties like crime investigation.“

Mr. Troutt is absolutely wrong to condemn privatization and the market for causing the death of Mr. Martin.

First of all, there is not a free market system of private law which dominates in America. The American system, including that in use in Florida is a centralized bureaucratic system of law which is generated through the political system. Law is created by legislators, interpreted by judges, and enforced by an executive branch which includes police officers, justice departments, attorneys general, and so on. Jurors are conscripted from the general public and forced to participate in the legal process. In any given area, one local police department has monopoly jurisdiction over the handling of crimes committed in that area. Competitive policing agencies are non-existent: victims have no say which police department handles their case. The constituent parts of government justice systems are monopolies in which competition is not allowed and the price system cannot properly function. If a person is unhappy with the police or courts in their area, there is nothing that they can do about it short of moving to a different jurisdiction and hoping for better results.

This is a far stretch from a private legal system which is advocated by many libertarians. Under a private legal system, law would be created by competing agencies and would be adhered to voluntarily by individuals who sought protection from the various agencies. In a private legal system, law is not created through “legislation” (at least not in the current usage of the word), law is created contractually, or through the ruling of common law courts and arbitration societies. If an agency creates laws which coercively restrict the freedom of their clients, they will likely lose profits when their clients switch to a competing agency. It is likely that the providers of free-market law would resemble insurance companies, with their global networks, reinsurance contracts, teams of actuaries and underwriters, contracts and peaceful business dealings with competing insurance firms, etc.

It is clear that no such system operates in the United States of America. Mr. Troutt is simply taking the route most preferred by modern academics: blame “capitalism,” the market, deregulation, and radical privatization for all of society’s problems without either defining any of these terms or recognizing that capitalism is not a feature of the American economy.

Mr. Troutt also makes the claim that “laws that abdicate government responsibility in favor of personal ideas of justice often lead to unintended consequences.”

The author’s rhetorical trick has the effect of making the argument that only these types of laws have unintended consequences, while laws which increase government power are magically exempt from the possibility of creating unintended consequences. Furthermore, by making this comment, the author ignores the fact that all government legislation necessarily entails the abdication of individual liberty in favor of increased government power, and that this guarantees unintended consequences as well.

Yes, George Zimmerman was a member of the neighborhood watch program, but that hardly means that the market itself is responsible for his actions. Police officers kill unarmed civilians all the time—and no this fact does not in any way make what happened to Mr. Martin OK–but I suspect that Mr. Troutt has never argued that laws which protect police officers from immediate arrest are examples of bad legislation.

Mr. Zimmerman’s neighborhood watch duties were in the context of a governmental legal system. It was the government, not the market which passed the Stand Your Ground law which Mr. Troutt opposes. It was the government, not the market which released Mr. Zimmerman without charging him with a crime or holding him for questioning.

Troutt argues that “The Sanford police evidently conducted little investigation — relying instead on Zimmerman’s account.” Notice that the failure was not a market failure, but rather a government failure: it was the Sanford Police Department who allegedly botched the investigation, not the Acme Protective Services Corporation or any other privately run firm.

Mr. Troutt has issues with the “Stand Your Ground Law” which grants legal protection to those using deadly force to defend themselves against what they perceive to be a threat on their lives.

The author is correct to oppose laws which grant special protection to some people (ie, Stand Your Ground gives special protection to those who claim self defense), but he is wrong to argue that Stand Your Ground is a market reform. Stand Your Ground is a government intervention which, as pointed out about, inevitably leads to unintended consequences. Ludwig von Mises noted that statists tend to ignore the root cause of these consequences (the intervention itself) and call for further interventions. The process repeats itself as each new wave of interventions leads to worse and worse consequences and further interventions to combat these consequences.

Mr. Troutt’s article is offensive to defenders of freedom because of its implications; an unarmed teen was killed by a member of a neighborhood watch group and Mr. Troutt’s first reaction is to propose restricting freedom. Whether Mr. Zimmerman sought to murder Mr. Martin or whether this was an honest mistake, we do not know whether Mr. Zimmerman had even heard of the Stand Your Ground law before he shot Mr. Martin. We also do not know whether he would have acted any differently had no such law been in place. This makes it highly unlikely that Mr. Martin is dead because of the existence of that law or that repealing that law a few months ago would have saved Mr. Martin’s life.

If Mr. Zimmerman was a cold blooded killer on the prowl, he would have shot Mr. Martin regardless of whether or not Stand Your Ground was in effect. Killers kill people with disregard to the law. Hence the existence of murder even though it remains unlawful.

Conversely, if Mr. Zimmerman shot Mr. Martin in self defense as he claimed, he would have done that regardless of the existence of Stand Your Ground. When people feel that their live is being threatened, they tend to take whatever action the deem to be necessary to save themselves. They certainly do not tend to think about whether an action is legal or illegal before they act to save their own lives.

Under any system of law, there will always be people who commit murders, rapes, and other crimes. This is true of a free market system as well as of a totalitarian system. Those who use events like Mr. Martin’s death to advocate against individual liberty and for greater government control should think hard about what they are doing. Centralized governments have a horrendous track record with regards to human rights including murdering. In the last century alone, well over 100 million people were killed by governments, while the number killed by individuals is a tiny fraction of this number.

It is important to remember that a child is dead. This tragedy was not caused by advocates of the free market or by efforts at privatization. The goal of law is to achieve justice, to the maximum extent humanly possible. The Stand Your Ground law which led to Mr. Zimmerman’s release was a government intervention designed to grant special privileges to those claiming self-defense. If anything, this tragedy was not caused by the free market, but by the lack thereof.

One of the arguments often used to defend poorly behaving police is the claim that they are “just doing their jobs.” This is such an absurdly silly argument that I am surprised that ANYONE takes it seriously.

I will not spend much time addressing the typical response to this most typical of arguments.  This response is the claim that the Nazi’s were also just doing their jobs too when they participated in the mass slaughter of innocents.  Yes, this argument is 100% true, but it hardly seems relevant in the America of today.  Furthermore, using arguments like this may lead us to fail in our attempts to convince others to fight against the arbitrary use and abuse of police power.

Agents of the Gestapo and the SS were indeed following orders when they committed their atrocities, however in many cases, they were forced under threats of violence or death to carry out these acts.  Often times people killed innocent people to prevent from being killed.  This does not in any way excuse these people or these acts, but it does provide us with some kind explanation for why some of these men participated in evil acts.

In America, the situation is different.  Yes, the United States government continually uses force and coercion against its subjects in order to get us to act according to their desires, but America is still a voluntary society in one important manner.  In America, people are not forced to accept jobs that they do not voluntarily choose to take.  This does not mean that we are all employed in jobs that are our first choices, and it does not mean that government acts of coercion have not prevented us from starting new businesses or being employed in the field of our choice.  However, there is no longer a military draft in America and we are still free to reject offers of employment for any reason whatsoever.

This is the key fact which makes the argument that police are “just following orders” or “just doing their job” so absurd.  The police officer who arrests kidnaps a person and throws them into a prison cage with rapists and murderers  for the “crime” of growing a plant marijuana is indeed following orders from his commanders when he makes said arrest.  However, no one forced the officer to become an officer.  He did not have to choose a career which he knew would lead him to cage humans for participating in victimless activities.  Most importantly, he does not fear that his superiors will hurt or kill him if he does not commit acts of violence against civilians.  We should have no sympathy for the officer who is ridiculed when he body slams a manwho is doing nothing but silently and calmly dancing in protest at the Jefferson Memorial, and we certainly should not defend him by arguing thaty he was just doing his job by enforcing the “law.”

In America, we have the right to refuse to be employed by a certain employer if we do not like the tasks that this employer asks us to undertake.  This right is not a secret; every one knows this.  No one is pointing a gun at police officers telling them they have to do things that they do not want to do–in fact, it is usually the police officer pointing a gun at an innocent person and forcing him or her to do things they do not want to do. It says a lot about a person’s character if that person willingly seeks out a job that will lead him to use violence and threats against peaceful people.

Next time someone gets righteous with you and informs you that some police officer was “just doing his job” when he used undue force to subdue a harmless individual, remind this person that the officer chose this job and if he truly did not want to be harming people, he is free to quit at any time.

A Solution

One of the big problems with coercive monopolies is that the providers of protection (police) do not have to answer to their customers. Costs go up, quality of customer service goes down. A tendency towards reducing crime statistics and increasing arrests arises. The problem today with police initiating force is only one of many symptoms of the larger problem: coercive government monopoly of services.

It is perfectly normal for people to aspire to go into the business of protection. People that put themselves in harms way to protect and defend should be praised and compensated accordingly.  However, there is no reason why this service cannot be provided privately and funded on voluntarily. In such a system, people who commit so-called “victimless crimes” would no longer be targets for arrest.  Furthermore, officers who abused their powers would be held liable for any harm that they have done.

To quote John Hasnas (page 35):

“If a visitor from Mars were asked to identify the least effective method for securing individuals’ persons and property, he might well respond that it would be to select one group ofpeople, give them guns, require all members of society to pay them regardless of the quality ofservice they render, and invest them with the discretion to employ resources and determine lawenforcement priorities however they see fit subject only to the whims of their political paymasters. If asked why he thought that, he might simply point to the Los Angeles or New Orleans or anyother big city police department. Are government police really necessary for a peaceful, securesociety? Look around. Could a non-political, non-monopolistic system of supplying policeservices really do worse than its government-supplied counterpart?”

Americanly Yours,

Phred Barnet

Are the working class laborers being systematically exploited by managers and white collar workers? Is it the case that white collar workers are making money at the expense of blue collar workers, or is there a better explanation?

Value Does Not Come From Labor

If labor created value, then society (and all of its members) could get rich by having everyone use their bare hands to dig large holes in the desert and then fill them back up. After all, this would be extremely hard work of a very physical nature. However, this would create no wealth for society—in fact, it would represent a destruction of wealth (imagine what the laborers could have actually produced if they were not hired to complete this task).  Generally, this destruction of wealth takes place in the form of an absence of economic activity which would have otherwise occurred.

The value of a product does not come solely from the labor of the workers. The value of a product is measured subjectively; a product is essentially worth what people are willing to pay for it.

A laborer in turn receives payment for his services based on the value that his work adds to the product or service. A janitor in a shoe factory adds relatively little value to the shoes that are being created. There is likely more value being added by the designer who designs the shoes, by the worker who sews the shoes together, and by the person who manages the distribution network which allows for the shoes to be sold in thousands of stores around the world. These workers add more value to the product, despite the fact that the janitor undoubtedly exerts more physical effort to do his job.

Scarcity

While value added by workers is an important reason for the existence of disparities in income, scarcity tells much more of the story.

As Thomas Sowell put it, economics is the allocation of scarce resources which have alternative uses. With the exception of air, just about all resources are scarce. Similarly, nearly all resources have alternative uses (should this rubber be used to make tires or shoes?, should this glass be used to make a window or a beer bottle?, should my time be spent watching a movie or cleaning the house?).

Scarcity doesnt just mean that there isnt a lot of a certain good. Scarcity means that the good is limited. Even in America, bread is a scarce resource.

Diamonds and Water

Think of diamonds and water. Which of the two resources is absolutely essential to life, and which could we live without? Water is infinitely important: without water we will all die very quickly. Diamonds are nice and sparkly and women love them, but they are hardly essential to our lives. However, water is very cheap and diamonds are very expensive. This phenomenon is known as the “diamond/water” paradox. The reason for the differences in the costs of these goods is scarcity; water is abundant, while diamonds are scarce.

For example, I live in unincorporated DeKalb County [in Georgia] where my water is provided by a government monopoly (and hence is likely more expensive than would be the case under a free market system). Yet, the monthly bill for my 3 bedroom house has averaged $61.17 per month since April of 2007. In other words, over the past 4 years, it has cost about two dollars per day to provide the 2-3 people living in my house at various times with the most important resource that we need for survival. In fact, water is so cheap that I can do more than just use it for survival needs—I use it for showering, cooking, watering my plants, and even brewing beer.

What does this have to do with janitors and CEO’s?

Well, the same principles which lead to the diamond/water paradox also apply to compensation for labor. Please keep in mind that my intent is not to belittle the work that janitors do. I know that this type of work is physically demanding and dirty work. However, there is little skill involved and little intelligence required. The fact of the matter is that nearly every able-bodied person above the age of 13 or so is probably qualified to be a janitor. In contrast, there are only a very limited number of people who have the intelligence, experience, and ability necessary to be a successful CEO of Coca-Cola. Janitors are replaceable and easily trained. High-level executives are not. In other words, the pool of available janitors is relatively unscarce when compared to the pool of available CEO’s of Fortune 100 companies.

Bringing it all together

Disparities in income are hardly the result of exploitation by the white collar class against blue collar workers or the working poor. Compensation results from several factors including the value added by the worker, as well as the relative scarcity of the pool of workers available to fill that position.

There is no Federally mandated wage scale requiring certain salaries for certain types of workers. Decisions on how to pay employees—be they janitors, CEO’s, or something in between—are generally made on a company by company basis. Those in the position to hire janitors will pay them according to the value that they believe will be added to the firm. They will likely tend to pay the janitor at levels similar to that of other janitors in related fields. This is because a janitor is likely to add similar levels of value at which ever company he works. The range of compensation for CEO’s is very large, with CEO’s of smaller companies earning drastically less than do CEO’s at large multi-national firms. This is because of the differences in the amount of value that can be added by different CEO’s in different fields at different companies. The CEO of Wal-Mart is responsible for running a worldwide distribution network, ensuring that over a million employees get paid, and in a broader sense—ensuring that society is fed and clothed. In contrast, the CEO of a small but delicious pizza chain has responsibilities which are much greater than his employees, but which do not compare to that of the CEO of Wal-Mart.

Ceteris Peribus

This article does not deal with things like corporate welfare or other special privileges which are often received by corporations from the State. While special privileges will likely skew the distribution of income away from the bottom of the and towards the top, the principles at hand do not change. In a truly free society with no governmental grants of limited liability, no business licensing requirements, corporate welfare, and private control of the currency, income is likely to be somewhat more evenly distributed among the productive members of society. However, as long as there is any level of freedom of choice, there will always be disparities in income.  Income disparities are not always bad–in fact, they are very important.  Differences in income give us something to strive for.  If we all earned the same wages, no matter how hard we worked, no matter how much value we added to society, and no matter what type of work we did, no matter our ages, or no matter how much experience we had, there would be little reason for people to put much effort into their jobs.  There would be little incentive for anyone to be productive beyond the subsistence level–after all, any additional effort that they did would have to be shared equally with all of society.  If we were all the exact same, there would be no reason for trade, or even for society to exist.  It is our differences which encourage people to interact and trade with each other.  No society larger than a small tribe could survive for long if wages were distributed equally.

As long as there are people with different skills, levels of intelligence, backgrounds, lifestyles, and so on, there will be differences in income. People are different from each other, and as such, will seek out different goods and services. They will also find themselves qualified for different types of employment than their friends and neighbors. Typically, those who are employed in positions that create a lot of value and are relatively scarce will earn higher incomes than those who are employed in positions that create little value and are relatively common.

Americanly Yours,

Phred Barnet

Please help me promote my site:

Share on Facebook

Become a fan on Facebook

The non-aggression principle is the idea that no matter how disgusting, immoral, or improper you believe an act to be, you have no right to use force to stop someone from committing that act, unless that act itself involves the initiation of force against another person (or person’s property).

The principle is simple and straight forward; it is wrong to initiate force against another person or group of people. This is by no means a passive or pacifist doctrine; it is absolutely permissible to use force in response to force, in order to protect or defend one’s person or property, to enforce a contract, or punish someone for failure to adhere to the terms of a contract.

However, it is not permissible to use force to attack your neighbor, steal another person’s property, or stop someone from using their justly acquired property in a manner that does not aggress upon another individual.

The non-aggression principle has been stated and restated from ancient times to John Locke ["Being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions"] to Ben Harper ["My choice is what I choose to do, and if I'm causing no harm, it shouldnt bother you. Your choice is who you choose to be and if you're causing no harm, then youre all right with me"].

By applying the non-aggression principle to all aspects of life, a just and coherent philosophy of non-interventionism becomes clear: if no one is being harmed besides those people voluntarily engaged in the act, leave it alone. It is that simple. You dont have to like or respect or engage in prostitution, homosexual relations, religion, or the use of drugs, alcohol, tobacco, etc, but you do not have the right to stop any adult from engaging in any of these acts.

The non-aggression principle is a very important part of the natural rights philosophy.

Every person is the owner of their own body and has the right to do with their body as the see fit.  People can also acquire property by using one of three different methods: homesteading, voluntary exchange, and theft.  Homesteading involves taking unowned resources and improving them, while voluntary exchange involves the unforced transfer of resources from a person (or persons) to another person (or persons).  Both of these two methods are fully consistent with the non-aggression principle–by definition, neither homesteading or voluntary exchange involves the initiation of force.

When the non-aggression principle is violated, property is acquired in the third method: theft. Physical acts of violence or threats of violence against others are violations of a person’s right to self ownership.

Even if one rejects the doctrine of natural rights in favor of a utilitarian (ie, the common good) view, the non-aggression principle is still important.

Man is a social animal. For the most part, we seek to engage in activities which promote the social benefit. Activities which violate the non-aggression principle tend to disrupt the peace by inviting violent retaliation. For example, if I kill or harm a member of your family (or attempt to do so), you are likely to respond by seeking revenge on me. These types of feuds can spiral out of control and disrupt the peaceful cooperation on which society depends. The best way to keep the peace that is essential to the existence of society, is to adhere to the non-aggression principle.

Thus, whether you subscribe to natural rights theories or whether you support some sort of utilitarian view, it is in the best interests of both individuals and society that people adhere to the non-aggression principle.

As we have seen, violations of the non-aggression principle which are committed by individuals can disrupt the peace. However, violations of the non-aggression principle committed by the government are infinitely more eggregious. This is because the government grants itself the power to do things that no individual could ever be permitted to do.

Only the government (or those under the protection of the government) can confiscate money from people without their permission and give it to other people and call it “public policy.” Government redistribution of wealth and granting of special privileges is aggression because it prevents people from using their own property in a peaceful manner of their choosing.

Only the government can commit mass murder against civilians and call it a “defensive war.” A bombing campaign in a densely populated civilian area which results in civilian deaths is murder; it doesnt matter if the bombing was done by a rogue terrorist or by an Air Force member acting under order from the President. Murder is murder. It doesnt matter who does it.

Only the government can throw human beings in cages which are kept in horrible conditions for the “crime” of recreationally smoking a plant in their own home. Smoking marijuana on your couch does not violate the non-aggression principle; raiding someone’s house and confiscating their marijuana does.

It is essentially impossible for government to act without violating the non-aggression principle. This is because mandatory taxation is coercion, theft, and extortion. All of these acts violate the non-aggression principle. Taking people’s money without their permission is theft. Any business regulation, permit requirement, governmental zoning restriction, anti-drug law, restriction of consensual acts deemed to be “immoral,” etc. are violations of the non-aggression principle because they prevent people from using their justly acquired resources in a peaceful manner of their choosing.

Every government act involves a violation of the non-aggression principle. For, even when government is acting to stop one person from aggressing against another, it is doing so using resources that have been obtained via theft. When you violate the non-aggression principle, your actions may be devastating and cause harm, but they are limited by the amount of damage that one person can cause with whatever resources that you have available to use. However, when the government violates the non-aggression principle, it does so with other people’s money subject only to how much damage it can inflict before enough people get angry enough to either withdraw support or threaten revolution. It also does so under the guise of legality. But intelligent people know that an unjust law is no law at all.

Thus, the only way for government to act without aggressing on the rights of its citizens by violating the non-aggression principle would be for the government to set the exact policies that each individual would choose on their own and rely on truly voluntary donations to do so. In other words, the government’s best option is to do nothing at all.

In the words of the French economist, Anne-Robert-Jacques Turgot:

“The policy to pursue, therefore, is to follow the course of nature, without pretending to direct it. For, in order to direct trade and commerce it would be necessary to be able to have knowledge of all of the variations of needs, interests, and human industry in such detail as is physically impossible to obtain even by the most able, active, and circumstantial government. And even if a government did possess such a multitude of detailed knowledge, the result would be to let things go precisely as they do of themselves, by the sole action of the interests of men prompted by free competition.”

This isnt just the stuff of libertarian philosophers. The rapper Lil’ Jon famously uttered the phrase “Don’t start no shit, it won’t be no shit!”

This concept is remarkably simple: do not initiate the use of force against another person. Respect their right to engage in peaceful activities on their own property in any manner that they see fit.

Americanly Yours,

Phred Barnet

Please help me promote my site:

Share on Facebook

Become a fan on Facebook

One important aspect of the model that I presented yesterday is the idea that insurance companies would likely bundle privately provided police and fire protection with homeowners insurance.  This would allow them to provide a basic level of a “public good” to the populace while charging paying customers extra for premium services.

A free market for the provision of police and fire protection could achieve many of the benefits of collectivization which exist in the current environment.  The main difference is that this collectivization would be voluntary, as opposed to the forced collectivization which is the main feature in the current model.  Furthermore, voluntary collectivization would likely occur within much smaller geographical areas than is currently the case, allowing neighborhoods and small communities to take advantage of economies of scale.

We can apply the homeowners insurance model presented yesterday to small collective units, such as neighborhoods.  Currently, there are a growing number of homeowners’ associations throughout the country which provide many of the same services which are currently provided by municipal governments.  These associations are able to provide residents with services like garbage collection, water, gyms, zoning regulations, and even fire protection and security services.  Members pay monthly or annual fees to their homeowner’s associations and are given such services in return.  In contrast to governments, homeowners’ association has every incentive to purchase services from the most cost effective provider.

Thus, it is not difficult to see that homeowners associations would be a great vehicle for expanding the number of people served by privatized police and fire departments.  In fact, forming homeowners’ associations within existing neighborhoods and apartment complexes is an excellent way for poorer people to pool resources in order to provide security and fire protection.

A great resource for those interested in the history of the provision of “public goods” by non-governmental entities is “The Voluntary City,” a book put out by the Independent Institute. This book is fascinating and leaves the reader wondering why we were never taught any of this in school (until the reader realizes that he went to a government school that had no reason to teach students that non-governmental entities can do good things).  The book deals somewhat with private law enforcement, but it also goes into great detail about the history of homeowners’ associations and the types and scopes of services that they have provided (and continue to provide).

The other major aspect that I neglected yesterday was the fact that municipally funded police and fire departments are relatively new phenomena.  The first government run municipal police force in the world was founded in London in the mid-1700′s.  This first police force was founded in a city which had managed to exist without a government police force–and without decaying into chaos for over 1500 years.

The oldest government run police force in the United States was founded in Boston in 1838–208 years after the founding of the city.  Boston has had a government police force for much less time than it went without one. Before the creation of the city run police force, Bostonians organized night watch groups, volunteer police departments, and even relied on the work of private detectives.

Surely, there are many major differences between the time before the 1830′s and today.  Thus, it would be unlikely that eliminating governmental support for and control of Boston’s (or any other city’s) police force would result in policing being undertaken in a manner similar to how is was done 200 years ago.

But, technological advances and a long and unbroken history of effective private security companies must provide us with optimism.  There are currently more private police officers than there are governmental police officers. Some of these police work as security officers, while many others work as private detectives.  The point is that they exist and they would continue to exist in a world where police provision was completely privatized.

Georgetown Law professor John Hasnas has done some interesting work on this subject.  His main point: look around at what goes on in the real world before saying that these ideas are not possible. To quote Hasnas:

“The proper response to the claim that government must provide police services is: look around. I work at a University that supplies its own campus police force. On my drive in, I pass a privately operated armored car that transports currency and other valuable items for banks and businesses. When I go downtown, I enter buildings that are serviced by private security companies that require me to sign in before entering. I shop at malls and department stores patrolled by their own private guards. While in the mall, I occasionally browse in the Security Zone store that sells personal and home protection equipment. I converse with attorneys and, once in a while with a disgruntled spouse or worried parent, who employ private detective agencies to perform investigations for them. I write books about how the United States Federal government coerces private corporations into performing criminal investigations for it.24 When I was younger, I frequented nightclubs and bars that employed “bouncers.” Although it has never happened to me personally, I know people who have been contacted by private debt collection agencies or have been visited by repo men. Once in a while, I meet people who are almost as important as rock stars and travel with their own bodyguards. At the end of the day, I return home to my community that has its own neighborhood watch. I may be missing something, but I haven’t noticed any of these agencies engaging in acts of violent aggression to eliminate their
competitors.

Ah, but that is because the government police force is in the background making sure that none of these private agencies step out of line, the supporters of government contend. Really? How does that explain London before the Bow Street Runners? The New York City police force was not created until 1845. The Boston Police Department, which describes itself as “the first paid, professional public safety department in the country”25 traces its history back only to 1838. What kept the non-political police services in line before these dates?”"

We can take Hasnas’ advice and “look around” to see the same thing with regards to private fire departments.  There are many volunteer fire departments in the United States.  New York City did not have a government run and funded municipal fire department until 1865–again, they have survived longer without a government run and funded than they have with one.  The volunteer fire department in Pasadena, Texas serves a population of 150,000 residents (a number that swells to over 1 million in the daytime).  In fact, this volunteer fire department is so well run that the Federal government even trusts them to provide fire protection to NASA’s Johnson Space Center.

While we may be years away from a political atmosphere that will allow serious discussion of privatizing police and fire departments, this is a very realistic idea with centuries of history to back it up.  Furthermore, given the dismal performance of our current police forces, this idea is certainly worth taking into account.

To quote Professor Hasnas once more:

“If a visitor from Mars were asked to identify the least effective method for securing individuals’ persons and property, he might well respond that it would be to select one group of people, give them guns, require all members of society to pay them regardless of the quality of service they render, and invest them with the discretion to employ resources and determine law enforcement priorities however they see fit subject only to the whims of their political paymasters. If asked why he thought that, he might simply point to the Los Angeles or New Orleans or any other big city police department. Are government police really necessary for a peaceful, secure society? Look around. Could a non-political, non-monopolistic system of supplying police services really do worse than its government-supplied counterpart?”

Americanly Yours,

Phred Barnet

Please help me promote my site:

Share on Facebook

Become a fan on Facebook

Cities and states are facing large budget crises which are forcing these governments to make difficult decisions.  Many people are adamantly opposed to cutting any money from the budgets of police and fire departments.  Few people stop to think that completely eliminating governmental funding for police and fire departments could result in a large increase in public welfare and safety, while at the same time achieving massive reductions in the size of (or even the eliminations of) local governments.

The argument for government provision of these services takes the name of the “free-rider” effect and is repeated in economics and public administration and policy programs throughout the country.  The idea behind this argument is that if I were to purchase services from a fire department, but my neighbors choose not to, the fire department would likely put out a fire at one of their houses to prevent it from spreading to mine.  Thus, my neighbors have paid nothing and have received fire protection for free.  The supporters of this theory argue that over time, the numbers of “free-riders” would grow until the fire protection company could no longer make a profit and this would leave everyone in the neighborhood without protection from fires.  Therefore, to counter the effects of the free-rider problem and to ensure that the neighborhood receives adequate fire protection, a central government must provide this services.

But, it is apparent that this is not a realistic scenario.  Businesses are profit seeking enterprises and their owners are extremely unlikely to sit by and allow a free-rider problem to destroy their hard work.

Economists long assumed that there were certain goods which must be provided by the government in order to guarantee their provision in the face of the free-rider problem.  One such good is the lighthouse.  Economists and public administration professors love using the lighthouse as an example of good that cannot be provided by the free market, and therefore must be provided by the government.  After all, lighthouse operators seemingly have no way of capturing revenue for the service that they provide.  However, Roland Coase (a future Nobel Prize winning economist) demonstrated in 1974 that most lighthouses have historically been built by private groups and run for profit (and successfully so).  While this might seem impossible at first glance, deeper thought on the subject revels how this profit is made.  While it is obvious that the lighthouses cannot be profitable on their own, placing a lighthouse near a port and charging an additional port fee for the use of the lighthouse allows the owner of the port to provide the additional service and earn a profit for doing so.  This process works in the same manner that McDonald’s is able to give away ketchup and other condiments free of charge by pricing these free products into the costs of their menu items. In short, bundling a necessary but unprofitable service with a profitable service is a great deal for both the customer and the consumer.

If we apply these same principles to the provision of police and fire protection, it becomes clear that these services could be adequately provided in a voluntary manner on the free market.

I must begin by reminding readers that in a free market where individuals are free to enter into voluntary agreements with other individuals as they see fit, there is no way to predict what the actual arrangements will look like.  All we can say for sure is that the results of the process of voluntary exchange will accurately reflect the demands of the individuals that make up society.  If a good or service is “under-produced” in such a society it is because the people have chosen to use their resources to purchase goods and services which they deem more important than the “under-produced” good or service.  Thus if a community in a free society had minimal diets, but had an abundance of technologically advanced electronic products, we can only assume that the individuals in the society seem to prefer (ie, value) advanced electronic products over food.

Bundled Services

A key component to free market provision of police and fire services is insurance companies.  Homeowner’s insurance companies are a great vehicle for the bundling of many municipal services, including police and fire protection.  Instead of paying the municipal government for the provision of these services, people would likely pay an additional premium to State Farm, Allstate, or whatever other company they use to insure their homes.

It is further likely that rather than every insurance company operating their own fire department, numerous fire departments would emerge throughout the country and in any given geographical region.

Bundling fire protection with homeowners insurance allows fire departments to continue to put out fires at my neighbor’s house (even though he has not purchased fire protection from his insurance company), while still granting me an additional level of services not given to my free-riding neighbor, and thus eliminating (or drastically reducing) the effects of the free-rider problem; one of the most profound effects of a truly free market which recognizes an absolute right to justly acquired private property is that it has the effect of internatlzing externaltites.

One possible model for the private provision of fire protection through homeowners insurance companies is the bundle model which I presented above.  Under this model, a fire department would put out any fire in a neighborhood free of charge, regardless of whether or not the homeowner purchased fire protection insurance.  At first glance, this may seem to increase, rather than decrease the problems of the free-rider effect, however, bundling fire protection with insurance actually serves to eliminate these problems.

This is true because the insurance company would pay to replace the damages to the home and other property of its customers, but would not do so for those who had failed to pay.  Therefore, free-market fire protective services would offer everyone some level of support, but would charge customers extra fees for the service of being “made whole” following the fire.  This service is likely to be highly profitable for both the insurance company and potential customers, as the cost of rebuilding a $200,000 home, filled with furniture, computers, televisions, and many other valuable goods is likely to justify spending a little extra money on fire insurance.

Because the insurance company would like to minimize its own risk, it is likely to take steps to prevent the devastating effects of fires.  For example, insurance companies could save quite a bit of money by providing homes with complimentary fire extinguishers.  Furthermore, just as car insurance companies offer discounts to teen drivers who enroll in higher rated driver’s ed courses, homeowners insurance companies would likely offer discounts to customers who passed fire safety courses.

Private provision of police services could easily work in a very similar manner.  In this case, the homeowners’ insurance company would provide police paroling services to a paid customers.  Again, the neighbors who did not pay for this service would reap the benefits of this service when the private police squad drove by their home during a patrol.  Additionally, if an officer were to see someone breaking into the home of a non-customer, he would do whatever was in his power to stop the crime.  There would likely still continue to be a 911 like number for people to call for police assistance, whether or not they were customers.

The bundling mechanism plays an important role in the provision of police services as well.  For even though all residents of an area would be provided with a basic level of security regardless of whether or not they paid for the service, paying customers would receive additional premium benefits.  It is likely that insurance companies who offered customers policing services as part of an insurance package would bundle these services with other services like a high-tech burglar alarms which instantly alerted the police about intruders.  Similarly to the proposed fire protection bundle, insurance companies would offer their customers restitution for the damages caused by criminals.  This restitution take place relatively quickly, as insurance companies would need to do so in order to preserve their reputations.  Furthermore, this restitution would take place regardless of whether or not the police were able to apprehend and convict the perpetrator of the crimes.

But what of the areas inhabited by the poor which may not be able to afford to purchase any private police protection services?  Well, this is certainly an important issue, but there is every reason to believe that the market will provide some level of security to these people. Just as volunteer fire departments are common in this country, there is no reason to believe that in a free market, volunteer police agencies would not spring up to meet the demands of impoverished people.  We already see this somewhat, in the form of neighborhood watch programs.  It is not hard to imagine that there would be coalitions of off-duty or retired police officers who would volunteer their services for impoverished areas.  After all, doctors, lawyers, and other professionals currently do quite a bit of work for the impoverished on a pro-bono basis, and there is no reason to believe that police officers are any different.

Furthermore, homeowners insurance companies themselves might find it in their best interests to offer patrol services in these areas.  What better form of advertising could there be for a firm which offered police services than proof that their most basic level of services drastically reduced crime in an impoverished and crime-ridden area?  Providing potential and affluent customers with such a demonstration would be an excellent way to generate new business (as well as provide good will).  Furthermore, providing such services would have the necessary result of increasing the property values in the affected neighborhoods, giving some of these residents the ability to sell their properties and use those funds to move to a safer area and purchase additional security for their property.

Furthermore, consumers are not likely to subscribe to a police service which forcefully restricts their lifestyles.  For example, a marijuana user is unlikely to sign up with a police service which promised to arrest marijuana smokers who were using the drug on their own property.  Thus, such a system would necessarily focus on real crimes–crimes against life, liberty, and property.  Like all free market reforms, the privatization of policing will have the result of leading to a more prosperous society.

Unfortunately, this idea is not currently politically feasible.  Yet, I am confident that as our local, state, and federal budgets continue to spiral out of control and the government faces a populace increasingly hostile to taxes, ideas like this will be brought to the forefront of the public discourse.  It is important to lay the theoretical groundwork and describe how the market could provide for basic services like police and fire protection in the absence of governmental provision of such services.  An idea must be first be born and then developed before it can be considered feasible.  Following that, it must be discussed publicly as a viable alternative.  Thus, the purpose of this article was not to suggest a change which I expect will be enacted or even debated in the near future, but rather to demonstrate the feasibility and workability of such a proposal in the hopes that some day soon the citizenry will take the necessary steps to move towards a truly free and voluntary society.

Americanly Yours,

Phred Barnet

Please help me promote my site:

Share on Facebook

Become a fan on Facebook

But, very few people ever ask why it is the supreme law of the land, or why it even has any power at all, and almost no one asks if it is the supreme law of the land, or if it has any power at all.

In fact, it is the Constitution that calls itself the “supreme Law of the Land.”  So if you ask someone why the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, they are likely to respond by telling you that it says so right there in the Constitution.  If you were to then respond to that by asking what gives the Constitution the right to declare that it is the supreme law of the land, they are likely to respond by saying that it is the supreme law of the land (or something to that same effect). This is what philosophers call a tautological argument, and what everyone else calls a circular argument.

Is the Constitution the supreme law of the land?

Well, the Constitution was a contract.  It was signed by 39 men at the Constitutional Convention (out of the 55 delatates).  Following this, the States held their own votes on ratification in which 1071 men voted in favor of adopting the new Constitution. But, all this tells us is that 1,100 men agreed to the Constitutional Contract.  What of the 16 delegates who refused to sign the Constitution?  What of the hundreds of men who voted against the ratification of the Constitution in their State legislatures.  And most importantly, what of the people who were not given the opportunity to vote for or against the Constitution?

Would it be right to assume that the people who explicitly refused to sign a contract should be forced to abide by it?

But, the vast majority of Americans were not allowed to vote at the time of the Constitution.  This included children, slaves, women, indentured servants, and (in many States) those who did not own property.  They had no say in their local or State governments, and thus no representation in the Constitutional Convention (which—by the way—was authorized by the Congress to amend the Articles of Confederation, not to replace it). The Revolutionary War, which ended less than 5 years before the Constitutional Convention, was fought over the issue of “taxation without representation.”   We must ask ourselves if being governed without one’s consent is substantively different than being taxed without one’s consent/representation.  And no, these arent just the musings of a lone libertarian.  According to recent polling, only 23% of America voters believe that the United States government has the “consent of the governed,” while 62% say that it does not.

Imagine if Verizon offered to provide you with wireless service in exchange for a fee, but for whatever reason, you EXPLICITLY DECLINED to sign the contract (even though most of your neighbors agreed).  Could anyone rightfully assume that Verizon would have the right to declare itself your provider? Of course not.

Lysander Spooner brilliantly pointed out that those who support the Constitution often use the right to vote as a method of justifying the legitimacy of the government. A simple examination of these arguments reveals that this argument falls into a severe tautological trap as well. For eaxmple:

• If I vote for the winning candidate, I have given my consent to his actions because I have sanctioned his platform. Furthermore, I have given sanction to the Constitution by participating in its institutions.
• If I vote against the winning candidate, I have still given my consent to the Constitution because the act of voting implies that I agree to the process outlined in the Constitution and that I would expect the losers of the vote to abide by the results of the vote had my candidate of choice won.
• If I choose not to vote, then I have no right to complain about the government because I have declined to participate in a “valid” process which could have yielded different results had I participated.

Thus, whether or not I vote, and whether or not I vote for the winner, I am giving sanction to the Constitution and to the actions of the government. We can easily see how this is a circular argument, akin to the expression “damned if you dont, damned if you do.” You dont have to be a trained philosopher to realize that this argument isnt a sound one.

Lysander Spooner argued that the Constitution actually bound no one. I agree with his logic, but have reached different conclusions.  I will argue that the Constitution does not bind very many people, but it does bind those (and only those) who have expliticly agreed to the Contract.

The President, Vice President, and members of Congress all take an oath upon entering office.  In doing so, they are explicitly giving their consent to the Constitution and agree to act in accordance to this Constitution.

Thus, the President, Vice President, and Congress are required by law to uphold the Constitution and its provisions, whether or not they like what it says. Failure to do so is a violation of their oath and a violation of the laws of the government that they have explicitly agreed to serve. The President’s oath reads

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

Notice the final clause which demands that the President “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” Thus, the President must use his veto power whenever Congress passes a law that violates the terms of the Constitutional Contract. Failure to do so would be an explicit violation of the President’s oath and grounds for removal from office.

Similarly, the oath of Congressmen reads:

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”

This oath differs in that it requires members of Congress to ” support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same. [Emphasis added]” This is an important difference, as it not requires Congressmen to defend the Constitution against domestic enemies as well. Thus, every member of Congress has a duty to defend the Constitutional Contract from those who wish to undermine it. This must not only include other members of Congress who are bent on undermining the Constitution, but also must include protecting the Constitution against Presidents who rountiely violate the Constitution and their oath to the Constitution.

But if most members of Congress, as well as the President, Vice President, Cabinet, and most of the executive bureaucracy—the people who have taken an oath to the Constitution and who are thus bound by it—refuse to adhere to the Constitution or to their oath, then why should we, the American people have to abide by the Constitution?

Generations of Congresses and Presidents have routinely violated the Constitution and have trampled on the protections afforded in the 1^st, 2^nd, 4^th, 5^th, 8^th, 9^th, 10^th, 14^th, 15^th, and 21^st amendments. Their actions have rendered many of the above amendments nothing more than “dead letters.” The trampling of the Constitution by the very people who have sworn to protect it is not limited to the Constitutional amendments themselves, but also includes the routine violation of many of the protections contained in the body of the Constitution itself.

I have pointed out that members of Congress and the President have taken oaths requiring adherence to the Constitution. We The People, on the other hand have not. This fact alone leads to the logical conclusion that the Constitution does not apply to those of us who have not declared allegiance to it. And yet, many of those who ahve taken official oaths to the Constitution routinely violate it. Thus, the question must again be asked: if most members of Congress, as well as the President, Vice President, Cabinet, and most of the executive bureaucracy—the people who have taken an oath to the Constitution and who are thus bound by it—refuse to adhere to the Constitution or to their oath, then why should we, the American people have to abide by the Constitution?

In addition to Presidents and the Congress, members of the military take oaths of loyalty to protect and defend the Constitution as well:

“I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic [emphasis added]; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”

The military oath not only requires that members of the armed services protect America against foreign invasion, but also requires that these members protect the Constitution from domestic enemies (those who have sworn allegiance to the Constitution but violate it) as well.

But, instead of taking their oaths seriously and defending the Constitution which they have sowrn to protect, Presidents, members of Congress, and members of the military have been much more willing to use their authority to force the American people to live under an unconstitutional (and nonconsensual) government.

I ask again: If the government refuses to abide by the Constitution, why should we?

The answer is that we shouldnt.

How long will we continue to allow Congress to rule over us using a “do as we say, not as we do” logic? The truth is that this has gone on long enough.

But, even if Congress, the President, and everyone else within the goverment followed their oaths perfectly, this would not be reason enough to follow their laws. The above statement stems fromt he simple fact that the vast majority of the American people have never sworn an oath of allegiance to the Constitution. A simple example can be used to understand why we are not bound to the Constitution—even if it is perfectly followed. Imagine that someone declares himself to be the new owner of your car without your permission. This man has no legal or rightful claim to your car, but that doesnt stop him from claiming ownership. However, this man is “nice enough” to allow you to use the car whenever you want. Thus, his “ownership” of your car doesnt interefere with your right to use the car in any way. But, does this mean that you should allow him to get away with the crime of claiming false ownership over your car? Of course not. It is true that while he still “allowed” you to drive your car whenever and wherever you wanted you probably wouldnt rebel against him, but that surely wouldnt meant hat you have accepted his claim of ownership over your car.

The vast majority of the readers of this article have taken no oath of allegiance to the Constitution or the the US Government (which itself is guilty of repeatedly violating the Constitution).  I have never read the words of the oath aloud, I have never signed an oath of loyalty to the United States or to the Constitution.  How then can anyone argue that this document binds those of us who have not taken a loyalty oath?

The Constitution itself was nothing more than a well orchastrated coup, designed to centralize the powers of the government into the hands of an elite few. The vast majority of citizens (and all of the slaves held) never had a proper say in the approval of the Constitution. And, as Lysander Spooner pointed out, one cannot sign a contract that binds future generations (wouldnt that be the greatest form of taxation without representation that is possible?). Thus, even if the Constitution somehow did bind all those living under it upon its ratification, it binds no one today but those who have explicitly agreed to it.

The Constitution does not bind those of us who have made no such explicit agreement. Thus, we have no legal or moral obligation to follow the “laws” put forth by Congress, the regulations created by Congress or executive agencies, or the executive orders and decrees made by the president.

I am not advising you to break the law—just because the law doesnt bind us does not mean that the government will not employ the use of men with guns to force you to comply with its laws and regultations. Just as an unarmed person would probably be better off (ie, would have a much better chance of survival) turning his wallet over to an armed robber who demanded the wallet, most people will find it easier to comply with the “laws” of the United States government rather than risk their own death or imprisonment.

But, even as we continue to hand the robber our wallet, this does not mean that we should recognize the legitimacy of the robber who demands tribute and restricts the liberty of so many millions of people.  It certainly does not mean that we should be happy to hand the robber our hard earned wealth.

Recognizing the illegitimacy of the Constitution and the United States government is a very important step. The more that people recognize this fact and speak about it, the more obvious it will become to the populace.

A critical mass of Americans is needed to recognize that we do not owe our allegiance to the Constitution.  Furthermore, this critical mass needs to realize that the United States government is illegitimate and that it has no moral right to tax, rule, or restrict the liberty of anyone who has not consented to be ruled.  Only when the people wake up and realize these facts will we be able to restore our lost liberties.

Americanly Yours,

Phred Barnet

Please help me promote my site:

Share on Facebook

Become a fan on Facebook

This book is a simply written, illustrated allegory which details how economies grow and what can cause economic collapse.  The book begins with three men who are stranded on an isolated island.  The men spend all day fishing just to catch enough fish to barely survive.  After a time, one of the men underconsumes and is able to use his savings to increase the number of fish that he catches.  From this action, an island economy is born.

The story continues for generations and generations (immigrants eventually come to the island) as the island’s economy continues to develop.  I will refrain from giving specific details about the economic expansion so as not to ruin this book.

The chapters contain “Reality Checks” which simply relate the material in the chapter to real life by defining the concepts which are outlined.  In these short sections, the Schiffs explain things like underconsumption, productivity, savings, risk, and so on.  The “Reality Checks” help readers who may have little or no understanding of economics understand basic economics principles.

At the end of each section is a much more detailed (but still simple and easy to understand) section called “Takeaway.”  These sections elaborate on the lessons from the chapter and give further explanation of the underlying economic principles.  They greatly enhance the book by providing the reader with a nice overview as well as a great segue to the next chapter.  The “Reality Check” and “Takeaway” sections both help move the story along and are features which would be great in other books on economics.

The first 5 chapters of this book are absolutely amazing.  The Schiffs do an excellent job of using humor to make reading about economics fun and easy to follow.  They explain the causes of a growing economy (and the effects of a growing economy on society) in a manner that is easy for anyone to understand, regardless of their economic background.

In chapter 6, however, things took a slight turn for the worst.  In this chapter, the Schiffs explain the foundation of a banking system.  I have heard Peter Schiff give speeches on this in the past–his speeches are great and include detailed information on the historical evolution of banking.  It is always interesting to hear Schiff speak about this and I wish that he had included more of this information in his book.  For some reason or another, the Schiffs do not tell the full story of the evolution of the banking system.  This is somewhat perplexing, as he wrote about this quite nicely in his bestselling (and highly recommended by me) book, Crash Proof.  I have also seen him give numerous speeches on this subject, all of which were great speeches which gave this full history.  The failure to include this can certainly be excused, as the Schiffs’ book was surely intended to be a brief, simple overview of how an economy works.

The “Takeaway” section of chapter 6 was also somewhat perplexing.  There was a disconnect between the material in the chapter and the “Takeaway” section which is likely to confuse some readers.  In this section, the Schiffs launch an attack on the Federal Reserve system without explaining to the reader exactly how this ties in with the information in the early part of the chapter.  While I fully agree with the Schiffs on the Federal Reserve, an uninformed reader might have a little trouble understanding the Schiffs’ early critiques of the Federal Reserve System.  To their credit, however, the Schiffs do properly explain this later.

I do want to point out to my reader that this chapter is my only real criticism of the book and that while it is worth pointing out, it does not take much away from what is truly an excellent book.

Following this section, the Schiffs continue to brilliantly explain the evolution of a developing economy into a major economic player.  While the time line is a little off (something that the Schiffs warn the readers of in the introduction), the Schiffs paint a largely accurate picture of the history of the American economy and the growth of the American government (especially with regards to its intervention in the economy).

I wont give away the ending, but the economy in the book suffers a fate similar to that of the American economy during the current economic crisis–the title promises to explain how an economy crashes, so I dont think that Im giving anything away.  However, the Schiffs looks into the future and offers a glimpse of what the future of the American economy might look like if we do not quickly enact sound monetary policies.  Given Peter Schiff’s history of correctly predicting the course of the economy, his prediction is certainly worth taking into account.

My rating:

Strongly recommend:  9/10

Americanly Yours,

Phred Barnet

Please help me promote my site:

Share on Facebook

Become a fan on Facebook

There are three methods of acquiring property: homesteading, voluntary exchange, and theft.   The first two methods are just, while theft is inherently unjust.  Taxation involves taking things without permission and must be classified as theft.

However, before deciding on whether or not taxation should be considered theft, the term “taxation” must be defined. I will define taxation as “a government mandated extraction of resources from individuals and/or groups, paid to support the aims of the government.”

The phrase, “mandatory extraction” is the key to understanding why taxation is theft. A mandatory extraction, by nature, is taken through the use of force or coercion, and not paid voluntarily.

Theft is always theft, regardless of who does the theft, how the theft occurs, and what excuses the thief makes to “justify” the theft.  The ONLY exception to this statement is when things are taken as restitution for a prior wrong (for example, if you stole $100 from a person, a court would be justified in taking $100 from you without your permission to repay the victim).

Before I go on, I must address a question that I will surely be asked by many readers: arent taxes special because they are taken by the government in order to provide people with their basic needs?

The answer to this question is a flat NO!

People have certain inalienable rights which should never be violated. It would be wrong of me to kill you, rob you, or physically harm you. Governments are made up of people, and are often created by people to secure their rights. Because governments are made up only of people, governments cannot have any rights that people themselves do not have. It simply does not make sense for this to be untrue. Rights are rights, people are people. Any claims that the government has more rights than anyone else is arguing that some people (the populace) should be considered inferior and subordinate to others (the government).

Taxation involves taking property from people without their consent; taxation is theft.

To quote myself: “If a man with a gun were to demand that unless you pay him 1/3 of your income he would lock you in a cage, he would be guilty of initiating the use of force with the intent of committing theft. It would not matter if the man promised to use this money to pay for a school for your children, for a new highway, or for a missile defense program. Taking things from a person without their permission is, by definition, theft.  Silver-tongued rhetoric may be employed to obscure this fact, but it cannot change it.

Taking something from another person without their permission is always theft and should be condemned as theft. It does not matter what the “reason” or “justification” for this action is.  It does not matter who committed this theft, what was stolen, or how many people told the aggressor to act.”

Examples of taxation as theft

Some of the taxes described below are not traditionally thought of as taxes, but they are taxes—they all meet the above definition of being a government mandated extractions for the purposess of supporting the aims of the government.

A government imposed minimum wage law prevents a person (a sovereign owner of him or herself) from selling their labor to a potential buyer at a mutually agreed upon price. This is theft of a laborer’s future earnings.

A government imposed ban on the sale of alcohol on Sunday prevents a person from selling their justly acquired resources to an individual willing to purchase them. This is theft of profits.

A government imposed business regulation prevents a business from using its justly acquired resources in the manner that it sees fit.  This is theft as well.

A mandatory income tax, imposed under penalty of imprisonment, enforced by men with guns is theft of the fruits of one’s labor. Stealing one’s labor is called slavery. A mandatory income tax makes the government a middle man in all labor transactions, and allows them to claim ownership of property that they did not justly acquire.

A mandatory property tax, imposed under penalty of imprisonment, enforced by men with guns is, by definition, a violation of property rights, and therefore is theft—no explanation should be necessary to prove this. But… property taxes are fees on products that have already been paid for. They are levied on the owner of a property. A mandatory fee on residents for the continued use of their own house is no different than the government charging a person rent to stay on their own property. Remember, a person who justly acquires property becomes the owner of that property, but if a person has to pay the government rent to occupy their own property, who is the real owner of the property, the homeowner, or the government?

A mandatory sales tax, imposed under penalty of imprisonment, enforced by men with guns is theft as well. A mandatory sales tax makes the government a middle man in all retail transactions, and allows them to claim ownership of property that they did not justly acquire. Sure, they can argue that sales taxes are imposed in order to pay for police, but this does not change the fact that this money was acquired through theft, and not through voluntary means. The mafia also forces businesses to pay a protection fee.

I would love to hear your comments on this article, but please dont post a comment or send me an email that says “taxes are necessary because without them, the government could not provide services.” I have addressed this above: taking money from someone without their persmission and then using that money to buy they something that they may or may not want is still taking something without permission [theft].

Please do not send me a message or post a comment telling me that taxation is “voluntary” and not theft because if I disagree with the taxes, I can move somewhere else. When it comes to taxes, we have three choices: paying a tax, or refusing to pay the tax and being arrested by men with guns and then locked in a cage, or leaving one’s family, friends, and property behind to search for a society that does not employ mandatory taxation. This fact should make it clear that taxation is not voluntary. A person who uses coercion to force another person to give up some of their property under threat of violence is guilty of extortion. Governments can have no rights that people do not have, and are therefore just as guilty of extortion as would be a person who acted in this manner.

Furthermore, the argument that if a person does not want to pay taxes, they can renounce their citizenship and leave the US to avoid taxes is false.  The US government does levy a tax on people who give up citizenship:

“Expatriation on or after June 17, 2008, may cause an expatriate to be subject to IRC § 877A, which was enacted as part of the Heroes Earnings Assistance and Relief Tax Act (HEART) Act of 2008. Generally, IRC § 877A imposes income tax on the net unrealized gain on property held by certain U.S. citizens or green card holders who terminate their US residency as if their worldwide property had been sold for its fair market value on the day before the expatriation or residency termination (mark-to-market tax). The Treasury Department and IRS have authority to issue regulations under IRC § 877A so further guidance is expected soon, though it has not been released yet.”

Finally, please do not send me a message or post a comment asking how things like schools, roads, or even national defense could be paid for without mandatory taxation. There exists a long history of voluntary provision of all these goods and services (check out this book for more information).

Furthermore, these items could be provided for through taxation in a purely voluntary manner if people were allowed to exercise their natural right to free association and choose their own government. Under voluntary government, taxation could no longer be considered theft, as those who did not wish to pay a tax could simply drop out of one government and sign a contract with another government.

Economist Walter Block argues that under voluntary government, one would have “the right to stay put, on one’s own property, and either to shift alliance to another political entity, or to set up shop as a sovereign on one’s own account.”

Governmental services can be provided on the free market as can any other service; a government would agree to provide certain services (possibly protection, roads, health care, or whatever) in exchange for a fee from a citizen. Thus, the citizen would be paying a purely voluntary tax.

In contrast to voluntary, contractual government, our government does not allow citizens to withdraw their support from the State.  It levies taxes on people without their consent.  These non-consensual taxes must be recognized and exposed for what they are: THEFT.

Americanly Yours,

Phred Barnet

Please help me promote my site:

Share on Facebook

Become a fan on Facebook

Self Ownership

Before understanding man’s ability to own other objects, one must understand man’s ownership of himself (or herself).

Each human being is the sovereign owner of him or herself.  While this conclusion seems fairly obvious, we can arrive at it several ways. I will focus on the method used by Murray Rothbard and others below because I think that it is the easiest method for the common person to understand. For a more detailed and completely different approach, take a look at Ludwig von Mises’ “action axiom,” and Hans-Hermann-Hoppe’s “theory of argumentation.”  This piece by Gennady Stolyarov II also summarizes the point as well.

One way to prove self-ownership is by assessing three possibilities of who owns a person: that everyone in the world owns fractions of everyone else in the world, that some group of elites own everyone else, or that every person owns him or herself.

The first such possibility is that everybody has an equal claim to ownership over everyone else.  Murray Rothbard (page 36) explained that this scenario

“holds that every man should have the right to own his equal quotal share of everyone else. If there are two billion people in the world, then everyone has the right to own one two-billionth of every other person. In the first place, we can state that this ideal rests on an absurdity: proclaiming that every man is entitled to own a part of everyone
else, yet is not entitled to own himself. Secondly, we can picture the viability of such a world: a world in which no man is free to take any action whatever without prior approval or indeed command by everyone else in society. It should be clear that in that sort of. . .  world, no one would be able to do anything, and the human race would quickly perish.”

Thus, we are able to reject any notion that people can be co-owners of each other. Seeing that it is impossible for humans to all own equal shares in each other, we must now examine the notion that one group of people owns all of the rest of the people (page 28).

“a certain class of people, A, have the right to own another class, B…. Th[is] alternative implies that while Class A deserves the rights of being human, Class B is in reality subhuman and therefore deserves no such rights. But since they are indeed human beings, th[is] alternative contradicts itself in denying natural human rights to one set of humans. Moreover, as we shall see, allowing Class A to own Class B means that the former is allowed to exploit, and therefore to live parasitically, at the expense of the latter. But this parasitism itself violates the basic economic requirement for life: production and exchange.”

Thus, we are left with our third option, that every human is the sovereign owner of him or herself.

Acquiring Property

Property can be acquired in three different ways–two of the methods are just, while the third is unjust.

Homesteading

The concept of acquiring property through homesteading has a long philosophical tradition.  In 1690, John Locke famously wrote (page 71):

“Though the earth and all inferior creatures be common to all men, yet every man has a “property” in his own “person.” This nobody has any right to but himself. The “labour” of his body and the “work” of his hands, we may say, are properly his. Whatsoever, then, he removes out of the state that Nature hath provided and left it in, he hath mixed his labour with it, and joined to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property.  It being by him removed from the common state nature has placed it in, it has by his labor something added to it that excludes the common right of other men. For this labor being the unquestionable property of the laborer, no man but he can have a right to what that is once joined to…”

Under homesteading, a person who improves or makes use of a natural resource becomes the owner of that resource.  For example, if a person landed on an uninhabited island, and picked an apple off of a tree would become the obvious owner of that apple.  No one else could rightfully claim ownership to the apple.  Similarly, if this man were to cut down several trees on the island and use the lumber to build a home, this home and the land surrounding it would become his property.

Homesteading has its limits–one must improve or change the resource to be considered a just owner of that property.  For example, if a man were to simple build a large fence around an area the size of Texas, he could not seriously claim to be the owner of all land inside of the fence.  Similarly, if I were to claim ownership of the planet Saturn, I would be ridiculed, and when the time came that humans visited Saturn, my descendants could not expect to collect rent from these astronauts.

Murray Rothbard explains this concept (page 170):

“If Columbus lands on a new continent, is it legitimate for him to proclaim all the new continent his own, or even that sector ‘as far as his eye can see’? Clearly, this would not be the case in the free society that we are postulating. Columbus or Crusoe would have to use the land, to ‘cultivate’ it in some way, before he could be asserted to own it…. If there is more land than can be used by a limited labor supply, then the unused land must simply remain unowned until a first user arrives on the scene. Any attempt to claim a new resource that someone does not use would have to be considered invasive of the property right of whoever the first user will turn out to be.”

Voluntary Exchange

Under voluntary exchange, a person can trade any of their justly acquired resources with another person in exchange for some of that person’s justly acquired resources.  For example, the man above who took an apple off of an unowned apple tree could trade his apple with another person for a product of that person’s, as long as the trade was voluntary.

This right also derives from the right of self-ownership.  I own myself and I may sell my labor to another person for a wage or a product (I could sell 8 hours per day of my time to an employer for a fixed rate of $10 per hour).  At the end of the day, I now own the $80 (meaning that the employer no longer has any claim to this money), which I am able to trade with a different merchant for some of his products.

Thus, any resources which are acquired justly can be traded for any other resources that are acquired justly.  In completing such a transaction, original owners must completely give up their right to the property that they have sold.

Theft

Theft is taking things by force (including fraud or threat of violence).  Theft is immoral and unjust, and one who acquires resources by theft should not be considered to be the legitimate owner of that resource.

If I were to take $10 from a person without their permission, it is obvious that I have stolen from them.  If this person is paid $10 per hour by their employer for their labor, I have effectively stolen an hour of this person’s life.

Similarly, if a food merchant were to market a meal as “non fat,” knowing that the meal contained 10 grams of fat, he would have acquired the money from that trade through fraud. Thus, the person who purchased the meal would have a strong claim against the merchant and should be entitled to receive a refund or some form of compensation.

Additionally, if a man with a gun were to demand that unless you pay him 1/3 of your income he would lock you in a cage, he would be guilty of initiating the use of force with the intent of committing theft. It would not matter if the man promised to use this money to pay for a school for your children, for a new highway, or for a missile defense program. Taking things from a person without their permission is, by definition, theft.  Silver-tongued rhetoric may be employed to obscure this fact, but it cannot change it.

Taking something from another person without their permission is always theft and should be condemned as theft. It does not matter what the “reason” or “justification” for this action is.  It does not matter who committed this theft, what was stolen, or how many people told the aggressor to act.

People often use majority support as a justification for  increases in taxes, large new social programs, war, and government debt because “the people overwhelmingly support them.”

Rothbard (Pages 57-58) shoots this idea down as well.

“even if 90% of the people decided to murder or enslave the, other 10%, this would still be murder and slavery, and would not be voluntary suicide or enslavement on the part of the oppressed minority. Crime is crime, aggression against rights is aggression, no matter how many citizens agree to the oppression.  There is nothing sacrosanct about the majority; the lynch mob, too, is the majority in its own domain.”

Unfortunately, our current system does not always respect private property rights.   Remember, that property rights are inviolable, and that action taken against a person’s property without their permission is aggression.  It is a sad fact that property rights (often including the right to self ownership) are regularly discarded by the very government which was instituted to protect our liberties.

Also, check out this video for a great explanation of private property.

Americanly Yours,

Phred Barnet

Please help me promote my site:

Share on Facebook

Become a fan on Facebook