Wednesday, April 21, 2010

The Three Modes of Exchange -- Part Two

In a previous post, I talked about the two ways to voluntarily part with your property, charitable giving and free-trade. In this post, I am going to explore the more common method: theft.

No matter how “justifiable” the need or cause, taking something from someone else against their will is wrong. It is theft.

In fact, government, by it’s nature is an organization whose very existence is wholly sustained by involuntary coercion. Government produces nothing. It can only take and redistribute resources. For instance, no government has ever “produced jobs”.

The only job a government can “create” comes into existence by taking resources from it’s citizens and redistributing them (inefficiently) to other sources. Redistribution is not the same as creation. In fact, this by it’s very nature implies that something else had to be sacrificed in order to bring it into being. In economics, this is known as opportunity cost.

Now let’s examine how government “pays” for what it “creates”: taxation.

Taxation is theft. This is the most obvious form of involuntary coercion. Don’t believe me? Don’t pay your taxes and let’s see what happens to you.

Now some people would say taxes are a good thing. After all, they pay for schools and roads and libraries and parks. I frequently even hear people say, “I am glad to pay taxes for such things.” Good for you. That does not change the fact that this form of exchange is involuntary.

We often get sidetracked with “what” government is spending our money on. Maybe a new light rail system is a good thing, maybe it is not. It doesn’t matter. The real question should be, “who decides?” Your money and/or property is taken from you involuntarily to pay for whatever program is the latest whim.

Which brings me to the “rule of mobs”.

If my neighbor has something I want, I would never think of just walking over to his house and taking it. For some reason though, we find it okay to do so in other ways. For instance, let’s consider someone who doesn’t want to pay for their own healthcare. They can convince a “majority” to vote for it, thus passing legislation requiring you to pay for it.

Just because the majority wants your property to pay for “their” just cause does not change the fact that the action they are committing is theft.

We now live in a society where the mob rules. If the mob wants to send your sons and daughters to Iraq, the mob does so. If the mob wants to make you pay for it’s pet projects, the mob makes it so. In this kind of society, you have no property rights. Your property belongs to whoever is in the majority.

Ultimately, a truly free society can only exist where everyone respects the rights of every individual, where a person is seen as responsible for themselves and where their personal property is respected. A society where coercive force is randomly accepted is neither free nor just.

Do we want a society ruled by the whims of whatever group is in the majority? Or do we want a society that recognizes -- regardless of what group is in the majority -- all men are created equal, that they are all endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights? Ownership of oneself and one’s own property is at the core of protecting the rights of all.

4 comments:

DC said...

I love this!

Marna said...

Sounds really good, however, there's always the 20% of people who screw it up for the 80% who could truly be responsible for their own lives and make it work!

If everyone lived his/her life by the golden rule, we wouldn't have these problems. No one can change the government or the mob single-handedly. You can only change yourself!

dane said...

Most Americans do not know the difference between a constitutional republic -- which we are -- and a democracy -- which most people think we are. Therefore, the rule of law (based on rights) has been replaced by cronyism (based on the political whim of the majority).

We should be a nation of laws -- laws based on our unalienable rights -- not a nation based on whoever happens to be in charge at any given time. Yet we chose mobe rule because it is "pragmatic"?

Marna, I don't see how the "golden rule" has anything to do with this. Are you saying we should coercively enslave the 80% under the premise that they need saving from the "bad" 20%? Isn't coercion immoral regardless the end justification (or whatever the percentages actually work out to be)?

I highly recommend On the Duty of Civil Disobedience by Henry David Thoreau. It speaks much more eloquently on the subject of mob rule and the tendency of immorality on the part of the majority. (In fact, it may be my favorite political essay of all time...and, yes, I have Mrs. Lutz to thank for that...)

The world operates under the three forms of exchange. Unfortunately, especially when in a group situation, when we "use" government to apply "our" justice on others, we are chosing the least effective and most barbaric mode. Coercion never works long term.

Think of it this way. If you put a gun to someone's head, you will get them to say and do anything....at least until you turn your back.

On the other hand, voluntary interaction not only works, it has created modern society's greatest achievements. Virtually everything you own, every place you go, and everything you do, is done because: 1., it is in your best interest and 2., it is your voluntary choice.

...except, of course, for what the government "requires" that you do...

Marna said...

I'm just sayin' that if the people doing all the coercing and rule making stopped to think about the golden rule, they may realize it's not something they would want done to them. If *everyone* followed the golden rule, there wouldn't be immorality! And, I don't think I need to read Thoreau -- you speak eloquently enough for me.

Subscribe via email

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Followers