Where's the beef (with capitalism)?

Over at Arm Your Mind for Liberty, a recent article takes issue with capitalism. I read this article with great interest because (I assume) it grew out of a discussion between myself and the author as well as some others regarding capitalism. When I read it, though, I couldn't find that the "beef" is really with capitalism at all. Before going too much further, we should probably start with a (common) definition of capitalism, but I'm not going to attempt to define capitalism in great detail. It seems that if you ask ten different people, you'll get ten different answers about what capitalism means to them as the linked article states:

‘Capitalism’ is a funny word. It means so many different things to so many different people, that it’s become entirely useless as a basis for any kind of rational or constructive communication. [...] Some will mention wage labor, others exploitation and yet others will talk of free trade. But I think the defining feature is the ability to accumulate lots and lots and lots of stuff (capital).

Fair enough. The ability to accumulate lots (and lots and lots) of stuff, or capital, is most assuredly a characteristic of capitalism and, as we will see, the article's main problem with it, so let's focus our attention there. Before we do so, the original article takes a slight detour:

And then, most importantly, [a characteristic of capitalism is] to have a third party protect your ability to control that stuff even when you’re not using it. That third party, of course, is the state (the government). [...] Without this ability to accumulate and have your title to said stuff protected at little to no cost to yourself, things like wage labor, exploitation and managed trade could not happen. These all depend on the power imbalances that stem from the state protecting capitalists’ control of their property.

Whoa, wait just a minute! Now, we're not talking about capitalism any more. We're talking about a state-directed ("managed trade") and state-enforced ("stuff protected at little or no cost to yourself", presumably via taxation on the whole population and "power imbalances" in the form of state-chartered police and enforcement mechanisms) economic system, our current system, what many call crony-capitalism. So, we can already see that the author's problem is not with capitalism, per se, but with crony-capitalism and the state enforcement of it. The author continues by stating that he doesn't "think capitalism would survive without the state".

But we're not talking about capitalism any more. We're talking about the state. The author offers no evidence or theories as to why capitalism cannot or will not exist without a state other than to say, "I don’t think a non-aggressive organization will go to the same lengths as the state to protect property". This is demonstrably false, however:

Just think for a moment about the following:

• Who is responsible for protecting you at most major shopping centers? Ever see a private mall cop? I bet you have.
• How about casinos? Almost all casinos have private armed security.
• What about at the dance club? Ever see a bouncer throw out a belligerent drunk?
• What about at the university? You’d be hard pressed to tell the difference between a public safety officer and a cop. Many universities have private police forces.
• How about warehouses, ports and apartment complexes? It is not uncommon to have private security guards protecting all of those. My apartment complex has its own security.
• Airports used to be entirely protected by private security – and guess what? No one was complaining about being molested. Further, after 9/11, it was the airlines who made real improvements to security by putting in steel cockpit doors and arming the pilots.
• Banks? - Almost all bank cash transfers are dealt with by way of private armored car, and many banks have private armed security as well.

Now I've been drawn into a digression about capitalism on a larger scale. Let's return to the accumulation of stuff in the original article and look at an example provided by the author describing his issue with it: "if someone fences off 1,000 acres of land but consistently uses only 2, I don’t consider that legitimate". This situation draws its basis from the Lockean idea of homesteading, that one becomes an owner of land by "mixing" his labor with it. I'm not going to argue whether fencing 1,000 acres constitutes a mixing of labor. A debate on such a matter is not likely easily resolved.

Instead, what if we arrived at this situation differently, voluntarily? Let's assume two people and call them A and B. Each of them own 501 acres (via legal means, homesteading or otherwise) and farm the entirety of their respective plots. A and B both consume only what they need to survive and sell the rest of their produce into the marketplace. A saves the proceeds from his sales under his mattress while B spends his money on vacations and house keepers and other consumable goods and services. (One has to wonder, at this point, if B has a claim to A's money since storage under A's mattress is not "productive" use in B's mind.) At some point, bad weather conditions befall A and B. A, having saved his money, is able to buy what he needs from the marketplace, but B has nothing. Seeing B's plight, A offers to use some of the rest of his savings to buy 499 acres of B's land. B, needing to feed himself and his family, reluctantly agrees. Now A owns 1,000 acres, and B owns 2. We've arrived at the evil capitalist situation described by the author in the original article, but we've arrived by completely legal and voluntary means.

Let's assume that A, having just bought the land and exhausting much of his savings, does not have the capacity to expand his farming operations into his newly acquired 499 acres. When the weather improves, does B have a legal right to reacquire the land, via homesteading? What if B had kept the land but sold his farming equipment to A to pay for his food? Now that B is incapable of farming his land (and has no reasonable prospects for doing so since he has no farming equipment and no savings with which to buy any), can A also freely acquire B's land under the homesteading principle?

The author of the original article seems to think so: "If someone needed land and had a solid intention to use it to sustain his life, I would support that person in any attempt to homestead a reasonable parcel out of the 1,000 acres". B, in our example, has every "intention to use [the land] to sustain his life" as well as others'. The author goes so far as to suggest that force is an appropriate means to affect this outcome:

In a stateless society, people would be freer to rise up against people who attempt to control more property than they actually use. Acting in concert, great numbers of people could, in the worst case, purchase arms, form a defense force and fight capitalists on a more level playing field. Squatters, worker-owned cooperatives and similar direct actors would take control of more of the capitalists’ property. In the process, their power would be eaten away.

In fact, A has saved B's life as well as his family's, and in return B should have the right to use violent force to take back from A what was voluntarily given/traded (by B himself!) to A? What the author is suggesting is either a clear violation of the non-aggression principle or will require a state, with a legal monopoly on the use of violence, to forcibly give A's land to B.

The only other argument in favor of what the original author is suggesting hinges on the word "reasonable". Perhaps 1,000 acres is an "unreasonable" amount. Much like the hypothetical debate about homesteading to which I alluded earlier, a common definition of what is "reasonable" is not easily resolved. As an example, here are a bunch of pro-gun people on a pro-gun forum disagreeing about what "reasonable" gun laws would look like. At any rate, the example I gave above works with any sized parcel of land. In fact it becomes even more difficult to reason out on a smaller scale. Consider if A and B each owned two acres and A bought 1 acre from B. A is in a much better position to farm an additional 1 acre than he is an additional 499. What if A incrementally continues the process, voluntarily acquiring parcels from C, D, E, etc. in a similar manner? When does the amount of land that A owns become "unreasonable"? Does the situation change if A rents the land back to B, C, D, E, etc.? Who makes that decision and who enforces it? What authority does this entity have when A can show that his property was acquired legally? None, according to the author of the original article: "If a person prospers legitimately, I have no basis to challenge any accumulation of wealth." Wait, what? Does B have a claim to A's legitimate accumulation of wealth (in the form land) or not?

In short, capitalism, true capitalism, is not an economic system that is imposed on anyone. It is an economic system that arises from, or rather is the result of, voluntary interactions in a truly free society. In fact, the economic system proposed in the original article is not only incoherent but, in the author's own words, requires violent enforcement. I suggest that the author's "beef" is not with capitalism but with a free and voluntary society.

I can haz liberty now?

Late last week the New York state senate passed a bill allowing same-sex marriages in the state. A few years ago, I would have seen this as a great leap forward. When California had its big argument about Proposition 8 -- which sought to constitutionally declare that only a marriage between a man and a woman would be recognized by the state -- I argued with anyone and everyone that its passage was wrong because, at its core, it denied to one group of people rights that were granted to another group. I still believe that to be true, today, but what happened in New York last week caused me to see things a little bit differently.

Coincidentally, a blog post at mises.org, today, links to an article that argues that libertarians should support New York's action:

[W]hile agreeing that the long-term goal is separation of marriage and State [...] given the slim chance of separation happening any time soon, classical-liberal principles require the State to treat all citizens as equal before the law.

The author of the original post sees it differently:

[O]ne needs to separate rights from privileges and [...] increasing the relative size of a privileged group does not constitute a step in any valuable direction (at least from a libertarian point of view). [...] Equality under the numerous government laws is not only impossible (since pretty much all of them constitute privilege), but may be directly counter-acting the cause of liberty.

There was a time when I subscribed to the former view. Somewhere along the line, I came to embrace the latter. Let me explain.

Rights vs. Privileges

Up until I embraced this latter view, the difference between a right and a privilege never entered my mind. In reality, my conception was that a right was something that one had or acquired under the law. My definition of "right" was closer to that of "privilege". Since the two are going to be treated as separate from here on, it is worth defining them:

right: a just claim or title, whether legal, prescriptive, or moral
privilege: a right, immunity, or benefit enjoyed only by a person beyond the advantages of most

A right exists independent of any governing body. One has a just claim, for example, to his/her own body. After all, it doesn't make sense for anyone else to own it. Therefore, as the owner, one has a right to do with his/her body as he/she wishes. A privilege, on the other hand is something that is granted to one person or group. Voting is an example of this. While women and non-whites got the privilege long ago, it is still denied to felons in a number of states. This brings up an important distinction between rights and privileges. Privileges are granted and, therefore, can be (legitimately) taken away; rights are preexisting and cannot be (again, legitimately) taken.

In addition, it is worth distinguishing between positive and negative rights. At its simplest, "a negative right forbids others from acting against the right holder, while a positive right obligates others to act with respect to the right holder." Libertarianism says that no person has the right to use or threaten another with force. This is, in fact, a negative right. Every person has the right to be free from the aggressive violence of another. In fact, civil rights such as freedom of speech and association and the right to bear arms all arise from this notion. None of these acts, in and of themselves, are aggressive in nature.

Under the idea of negative rights, two people have the "right" to voluntarily associate with each other in whatever manner they wish. Absent a government (and/or a church), a "marriage" is simply a compact or contract between two people and has no meaning beyond the participants in the contract. That is, I may welcome you into my house, but your marriage does not obligate me to also welcome your spouse. On the other hand, when someone says that he/she has a "right to marry" under the (government) law, he/she is asserting a "positive right". What that person is really saying is that he/she wishes -- is entitled by right -- to be afforded the privileges conferred upon other married people.

The problem with all of this, of course, is that these privileges eventually obligate others to act in a certain way, under penalty of government force, with respect to the marriage contract and its participants even though these "others" have nothing to do with the contract. The solution is equally obvious: leave government out of marriage completely.

But what of the first author's view that the goal should be equality under the law? Shouldn't gays who love each other and, if not for existing law, would marry be granted the privileges that accompany that marriage? Let's look quickly at the "spousal privilege" as it relates to testifying in court for an answer. The spousal privilege refers to the idea that a person cannot be compelled (via government force) to testify against his/her spouse at trial. But what of people who don't wish to marry? What of close friends? This "privilege" does not extend to them. Therefore, in this context, while gay marriage brings gays on equal footing with straights -- and doctors of various types, I might add -- it leaves a very sizable portion of the population out in the proverbial cold, still subject to being compelled to testify. Other benefits not granted to unmarried people include tax breaks, visitation rights, special immigration status, inheritance, etc. There is still no equality under the law, yet nobody that I am aware of is questioning this inequity.

Liberty as a privilege

Now that I've, I hope, made the right vs. privilege distinction clear, I think it is safe to say that, by and large, the rest of the population does not readily acknowledge this distinction. Instead, most of the population views the right to associate (via marriage, gay or otherwise) as indistinguishable from the privileges that come with the state recognition of that association. As such, arguably, this entire situation could be viewed as a group of people begging an even smaller group of people -- politicians -- to please, please, please grant them their liberty when it was the very institution for whom those politicians work that took it away in the first place.

Maybe marriage is a bad example, though. By that I mean, we can't rightly infer the intentions of all people who demand "marriage equality". Having muddied the waters by giving state sanction and privilege to marriage, the government has inextricably linked liberty/rights to privilege such that the population no longer recognizes the difference. And now, we arrive at the real reason I am not head over heels about the recent happenings in New York. The government has transformed liberty and natural rights into privileges.

Marriage, admittedly, is possibly not the best example. So, let's turn our attention to the right to keep and bear arms. In California, among other places, the right to carry a gun in public has been all but completely denied. Open carry of a loaded gun has long been illegal. Open carry of an unloaded gun has been legal by virtue of the legislature not realizing that it had not forbidden it, but it is quickly working to rectify that. Concealed carry is only an option if one lives in a rural area or is buddy, buddy with the sheriff of his/her county. Carrying a gun in an urban area of California is, no doubt, a privilege reserved to government officials and those that donate to them.

Let's go a step further. Earlier, I mentioned that each person is the proper owner of his/her own body (if for no other reason than because no other owner makes any sense) and can do whatever he or she wishes with it so long as the action does not violate another's ownership of his or her body. If this is true -- and it would be impossible in my mind to argue differently -- then one has the right to put whatever one wants into his or her own body. This includes not only so called illicit drugs but prescriptions as well. Why should one have to obtain permission from a doctor who has in turn been granted permission from the state to get a prescription?

Maybe drugs aren't your thing. Perhaps you like milk? I hope it's not raw milk. The FDA doesn't like raw milk and has even gone so far as to say that individuals do not have the right to eat what they wish. The FDA is quickly moving in the same direction against mothers who share breast milk.

All of these liberties have been transformed into government-granted privileges. As if that wasn't bad enough, the system is self perpetuating. As a monopoly provider of law and enforcement, the government has been put in the position of having the power to deny a right by law and enforce that denial through its police power, thus rendering it a privilege. Citizens are left with two options, neither of which is appealing: 1) ignore the law and risk ending up in jail, or 2) beg the government to recognize/grant their liberty.

The latter option seems to be the government's approved method of attempting to maintain/regain one's liberty, and there is a very simple reason for that. To utilize this method is to implicitly acknowledge that liberty is a government-granted privilege.

You are not your own

On November 18, 2007, Richard Barnes got into a fight with his wife, Mary. She called 911, and police were dispatched to the scene to respond to a "domestic violence in progress" call. When the police arrived, they spotted Mr. Barnes in the parking lot outside his apartment and began to question him. Mr. Barnes told the officer(s) that he was leaving and that they were not needed. An argument between Mr. Barnes and the officers ensued during which Mrs. Barnes arrived from inside the apartment and threw a duffle bag at Mr. Barnes, telling him to take the rest of his stuff. Mrs. Barnes then returned to the apartment, followed by Mr. Barnes who was followed by the two officers on the scene. Mr. Barnes blocked the officers from entering his apartment, and Mrs. Barnes had not explicitly invited the officers into the residence. When one of the officers attempted to enter the apartment, Mr. Barnes resisted, shoving him against a wall. Mr. Barnes was then subdued by the officers with a choke hold and a taser and arrested for assault (on the officer) and resisting an officer among other charges.

At trial, Mr. Barnes wanted to present an instruction to the jury that he had the right to resist the officers' entry into his home because the entry was unlawful. The judge refused to issue the instruction offered by Mr. Barnes nor any other similar instruction. Mr. Barnes was convicted by the jury, but he appealed the decision. The Court of Appeals agreed that the failure to allow the jury instruction was "not harmless error" and ordered a new trial. Last week, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled against Mr. Barnes:

Now this Court is faced for the first time with the question of
whether Indiana should recognize the common-law right to reasonably resist unlawful entry by police officers. We conclude that public policy disfavors any such right. ... We believe [...] that a right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy and is incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence. Nowadays, an aggrieved arrestee has means unavailable at common law for redress against unlawful police action. ... Here, the trial court‘s failure to give the proffered jury instruction was not error. Because we decline to recognize the right to reasonably resist an unlawful police entry, we need not decide the legality of the officers‘ entry into Barnes‘s apartment. [Emphasis added]

Many sites across the web have their various takes on whether on not the officers' entry was justified. I don't intend to take up that debate. The court didn't, so there doesn't seem much sense in my doing so. Instead, I want to focus on the fact that the court has decreed that people have no right to resist the police. Let's be very clear about this point. The Indiana Supreme Court unequivocally stated that the right to resist an unlawful police entry does not exist. It's a very short step to change "entry" to "action".

Essentially, what the court said in its ruling is that when the police enter your home with or without a warrant, with or without announcing themselves as police, with or without even any suspicion of anything, you must simply lie down and take it. Eventually, the courts will sort things out for you. This, of course, assumes that you survive your encounter with the police. You can read all kinds of stories on CopBlock or by William Grigg about people who were unlucky enough to have run-in's with the local authorities. That one should have the right to defend himself and his property against unwanted and illegal aggression should go without saying. The nanny-state and the police-state have officially merged. The government will determine what is best for you. When the government suspects (or even when it doesn't) that you're not acting in your government-determined best interests, it can and will enter your house to find out. And there's nothing you can do about it; the courts will sort it out for you later. Those are the same courts, by the way, that just told you that they can do whatever they want with your home.

There are further reaching effects/implications of this ruling. If the government can enter your home whenever it wishes, who owns your home? Certainly not you because the government has decreed that it can enter whenever it likes, even against your wishes. It would seem then that the government owns your home. How long before your car becomes government property? That already happened when the courts ruled that they can install GPS tracking on it without a warrant.

To be honest, I really don't know how to sum up/conclude this post. I'm having a hard time even writing it because what's wrong with all of this is so innately obvious that I can't even put my thoughts into words. I can't suggest using the courts as a remedy because the courts are the very place(s) where this "law" is being made/handed down.

God help us all. Neither our elected officials, nor the courts, nor even the Constitution which is supposed to protect us from this kind of tyranny are of any use any longer.

Why democracy?

Over the last month or so, people have been throwing off, or trying to throw off, the shackles of their oppressive governments. It started in Tunsia, spread to Egypt, then Yemen, Bahrain, and now Libya. In every instance, though, the protestors have been calling for democracy. I suppose that's understandable; the grass on democracy's side of the fence probably looks and probably is a lot greener than that on the dictatorial side. I'm probably underselling democracy with that statement. After all, democracy is often held out as the gold standard for (good) government. Winston Churchill endorsed it, saying, "democracy is the worst form of government except all the others". Despite the actual wording, when reading or hearing Churchill's statement, people often "hear" that democracy is the best form of government. In reality, we can rightly infer from the statement that all forms of government are terrible. In Churchill's opinion, democracy is just the least terrible.

Democracy is often referred to as "tyranny of the majority" and Lysander Spooner explained, very eloquently, why:

[O]ther men practise this tyranny over him by the use of the ballot. He sees further, that, if he will but use the ballot himself, he has some chance of relieving himself from this tyranny of others, by subjecting them to his own. In short, he finds himself, without his consent, so situated that, if he use the ballot, he may become a master; if he does not use it, he must become a slave. And he has no other alternative than these two.

Democracy is a very seductive mistress because it promises the people control of the government. It gives the illusion of self-governance and individual rights. It implies that no injustice can be done so long as the "will of the people" is done. It provides nothing of the sort, though. As explained, when the people vote, a majority may and does impose its will upon the minority. "Will of the people" is rightly replaced with "will of the majority". This can be seen most prominently in the struggle in the U.S. for gay rights, and more specifically, gay marriage. In California, in 2008, 52% of the population denied gay people the right to marry. Proposition 19 last year, also in California, is another example where barely more than half of the population (53.5%) used their majority position to deny the use of marijuana -- the actual use of which affects no one other than the user -- to the rest.

There is also the problem that democracy doesn't scale. The founders knew this when they set up the U.S. House of Representatives. That is, it is not practical to hold a vote among the entire population for every matter to come before the U.S. federal government, so instead the population elects representatives to act in their stead. These representatives then practice democracy amongst themselves. This is even worse, though. Each representative currently represents just under 700,000 people. How can one person adequately represent the diverse views of almost three quarters of a million people?

Choosing between two candidates is analogous [to] going to Walmart and being presented with two shopping carts already filled with items. Everyone will leave the store with the same cart of goods. Each cart contains products that a person may want and products that one wouldn't choose to have, but the voter is not able to take anything out of either cart.

Not only that, but:

[E]ven though the voters are promised a particular set of goods in the shopping cart that won the election, that doesn't mean that the voters will receive that set of goods. The candidate could promise to deliver a specific set of policies, but after the election, the office holder is free to deliver a different set of policies to the voters, either because the candidate changed his position on some issues or because he was being deceitful during the campaign in order to gain political support.

The same can be said at other levels of government, even down to the city level, where a handful of elected officials make decisions on behalf of hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people. So, the question should not be "why democracy", but "why government". At the federal level, we have things like  TSA body scanners, highway checkpoints, the PATRIOT Act, warrantless wiretaps, extra-judicial assassinations, and indefinite detentions. At the state level, we have the aforementioned denial of gay rights and marijuana use, prohibitive gun laws, and smoking bans. At the city level, we've got Happy Meal "bans" and watering limits and landscaping restrictions. And at all levels, we have taxes and police. You may be inclined to agree with some or all of these items, but that's not the point. The point is that some person or group who you may or may not have voted for or even heard of is, in one way or another controlling you. So, perhaps the question should really be, "why do people choose to be ruled".

Whether they know it or not, most people are Hobbesians, by which I mean that they believe or are fearful that the natural state of humanity is "war of all against all". They may very well be right, and in order to protect themselves from this "war", people institute governments and cede the use of force to said government, presumably to prevent the use of force amongst the people themselves. Locke argued that people do not even have the ability to cede this power in the first place, but nevertheless, ceding this power to a government presents a clear contradiction. If all people by their very nature would war with all others, why would anyone cede to anyone else the legal use of violence? James Madison touched on this idea in The Federalist, No. 51 when he said that if men were angels, there would be no need for government. He argued further that because men are not angels, pitting them against each other within government was the best that we could do. Men, competing with each other, from different branches of government, would restrain each other.

But what kind of person runs for public office? Madison failed to foresee that even the so-called "separation of powers" could not restrain men forever. Entry into politics does not require any particular skill or morality. It simply requires some combination of money, connections, personality, and a desire to rule others, particularly the last one. In fact, that last reason is probably the main reason that anyone runs for office. The idea that the world would be a better place if <insert your name here> was in charge is probably not foreign to anyone. To succeed in government, however, involves backroom deals and "compromises" ensuring that only the least moral and most willing to deal away their principles will rise to the top. Thus, government will ultimately be populated with the worst people in society, and it is only a matter of time before they decide to work together to turn their legal authority to use force on the people themselves. It turns out that government is really a sort of Faustian bargain. Government is instituted to protect people from those in society who would do harm, but how much worse is it when those who would do harm wield the power of the state?

The people of the revolting Middle Eastern and African nations now have a rare opportunity to truly be free. I fear, though, that like many before them, they will make the mistake of putting in place a government that will ultimately betray them and once again oppress them. If they are lucky, it will be to a lesser degree.

No good deed goes unpunished

Last July, an Aurora, CO man was on a road trip to Montana when he and his family stopped in Casper, WY for gas. The gentleman, William McCreary, left his wallet on top of the gas pump.

Another customer at the Common Cents convenience store found the wallet.

Deborah Heinrich said she opened it to find who it belonged to and then started making phone calls.

"I left messages at his home phone after I found his number on the Internet," Heinrich said. "I called his bank and a Harley Davidson dealer listed on a business card in his wallet."

Unfortunately, she also contacted the police for help in tracking down the owner. When Mr. McCreary, the man who lost the wallet, realized he'd forgotten it, he returned to Casper. When he couldn't find it, he filed a police report. The police then called Ms. Heinrich and asked her for the wallet. She declined stating that she would hang onto it until she heard from the owner himself what he wanted done with the wallet. At this point the police became aggressive and demanding and, at no time, did they inform Mr. McCreary of the woman who had his wallet. Ultimately, they arrested and hauled her into court for "interference". Her first trial ended in a mistrial and a second trial is scheduled for next week in which, if convicted, she could face a $1,000 fine and a one year in prison.

People can and, I'm sure, will debate the merits of the decision not to simply give the wallet to the police. I think the police were doing a bit of interfering themselves, but that's not my issue in all of this. My issue is that the woman now faces a year in prison and a sizable fine essentially for trying to return Mr. McCreary's wallet without the police's help. Even if one thinks that the woman was in the wrong for refusing to give the wallet to the police, what possible reason is there for her to face punishment? Her crime was trying to do the right thing in a manner other than that prescribed by the state. This is simply a case of the state wanting to show her (and everyone else) who is "in charge."

Even more troubling to me is the implication at the end of the article that Ms. Heinrich bears responsibility for this whole mess. It seems to me the only thing she did wrong was to hurt the feelings of the local police department who would have been denied kudos from the owner of the wallet if she had been allowed to return the wallet herself. In the end, the man who lost his wallet got it back, the police got their praise from him, the taxpayers are going to shoulder the expense of at least two trials (including bringing out Mr. McCreary from his home in Colorado to testify), and the woman faces prison time for being a good Samaritan.

Justice, indeed.