Long time listener, just getting back involved in the FDR community. I am a senior mathematics major and paramedic @ a midwestern university, and as part of our (laughable) curriculum we must have a "senior seminar" course that attempts to integrate our major, ethics, politics, etc. The culmination of the course is a paper that addresses a topic of our choice and its relation to mathematics, philosophy and ethics. I turned in what I thought was a decent effort for a first draft (and a single evenings work), without realizing that my professor is a Statist leftist. I typically ignore the grades I receive, so much so that when my family called me to congratulate me on my Dean's List placement, it was the first time I'd heard about it. However this professor managed to sufficiently irk me that I'd like to put the essay forth for the consideration of you folks here, and give me your impressions as to if it really warranted a 49%, and a single remark that the paper was simply a "long diatribe" and did not address any ethical considerations. Thank you in advance for any remarks or commentary you may have, and thank you Stef for your tireless efforts (Insert sappy remark about changing my life.) P.S. The formatting is a bit odd at times, thus I've attached the original and tried to clean up the spacing.
"There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root.” --Henry D. Thoreau
Anton, an Italian baker, runs a small deli in the Bronx. It is the same business that his grandfather began decades earlier when the family first came to America, and now with his father taken ill, he has become the sole proprietor. Anton is a mild-mannered, affable man who loves his family dearly, and would do whatever it takes to protect them. This is why each month he solemnly tallies the deli’s gross profits, and then writes out what he calls his “protection” check. Ever since his family opened the business, they’ve had to pay the city bosses a large portion of their meager earning to avoid thugs with guns coming in the night to take away their home or business. Of course, they never asked these thugs for any protection, as a matter of fact they would prefer to simply hire a security service to safeguard their business, but the thugs would never allow someone to couch in on their territory. Anton sometimes dreams of living back in Italy. He hears the Mafia only takes ten percent of your livelihood, unlike the United States Government thugs who take a full third of his earnings each month.
Dependent upon how much attention one pays to current affairs, my depiction of the United States Government as a gang of thugs on par with the Mafia will likely strike the reader as either juvenile, or insightful. I will attempt to convince the reader that not only is the State deeply immoral; it is the most immoral contrivance that man has ever invented. Let me begin the discussion with a few definitions to avoid any later confusion. I, as do most Anarchists, define the State as an organization that has a monopoly on the use of violence within a given territory.1 This definition is likely different from the one taught by the majority of elementary schools in the world, and the reasons for this will soon become apparent. Any mention of Anarchism or Anarchists likely conjures up images of rioting masses and Armageddon, however I will defer to the definition: a political theory holding all forms of governmental authority to be unnecessary and undesirable and advocating a society based on voluntary cooperation and free association of individuals and groups.1 My argument against the State will proceed on two fronts, first addressing its moral failings, and secondly arguing against its effectiveness relative to the free market.
The illusion of moral legitimacy that the State has cloaked itself in is likely the most pernicious of delusions to be remedied. The non-aggression axiom set forth by Murray Rothbard will serve as an excellent springboard for our discussion. Simply stated, the initiation of force is always and everywhere immoral.5 It follows that the absence of coercion is the only moral way to live life, since the contrary entails that unprovoked violence against someone can somehow be justified. What implications does this simple, benign and rational idea hold for the State? Taxes? Armies? Citizenship? They are to be discarded as immoral to their very core. Of course, I’m not actually suggesting that a liberal, tolerant Democracy is as evil as a dictator? I am. Our society has such an unceasing love affair with Democracy that we are willing to send young men and women forth to die, and furthermore to kill the innocent who stand in their way. As Stephen H. Foerster eloquently questioned, “What difference is it to me if a decision is forced upon me by a dictator or by half of my neighbors? Either way my right to free, peaceful action has been nullified.” In order to fulfill the non-aggression axiom, liberty must extend as far as possible without detracting from the liberty of others. Any half measures, compromises or deviations from this principle must explain how unprovoked violence can be justified, and of course they cannot.11 State morality is also fails the test of Universality in that it cannot be applied to all people, in all places, at all times. Why can a government agent take justly held property at gunpoint via Eminent Domain, while we consider it illegal for a normal individual to do the same? Simply because the tyranny of the majority has deemed something lawful, in no way lessens the moral failings of such an action. It is often argued that people by their very nature are so evil, and on the brink of chaos, that some form of control, a State, is warranted. Yet who is to administer this control? The very same people whom we have established are evil and chaotic, albeit now that they are in a position of power they have bigger guns and the illusion of legitimacy.1
“The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.” --Winston Churchill
The common citizens ignorance of the basic tenets of mathematics may seem only tangentially related to the issue of Democracy, however I will argue that such lack of knowledge ought to strike a deathblow to this false deity. Setting aside the question of the State’s moral pretenses, we must ask if it is proper for the ignorant masses to influence public policy. The ability to assess risk is one of the most fundamental arenas to test a person’s mathematical acumen. Our evolutionary history has tuned us such that we fear the sensational more than the mundane, even if the latter is far more deadly.8The most obvious example of this is the public’s fear of terrorism, when the threat of heart disease is far more dangerous. A mere vague understanding of probability theory is sufficient to dispel with such immature thinking, yet the public lacks this completely. A contemporary example of this idiocy can be seen in the uproar over Methicillin Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus (MRSA). The number of healthy, active children who die from MRSA each year pales in comparison to the numbers who perish from something as seemingly innocuous as an insect bite. Yet despite these miniscule risks, entire school districts have been shut down and sprayed with bleach, even as the threat of car accidents, lightning or drowning posed a larger threat to the lives of their students.8 Similar mathematical ignorance is expressed each time someone purchases a lottery ticket, goes to a fortuneteller, witnesses a miracle, sees a UFO, or checks their horoscope. The economist Kenneth Arrow’s theorem regarding voting systems is quite remarkable in that given just four minimal conditions, one can prove that there is never a guaranteed way to derive societal preferences from individual preferences.9 There is of course a very efficient, moral solution to such a conundrum: a free market. People vote with their wallets in a free market, and if they act irrationally and make a poor decision they alone are punished, without their fellow citizens having to suffer as a consequence.5
“This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when he first appears he is a protector.” --Plato
When future historians reflect upon the 20th century, they will certainly make mention of the personal computer and the Internet, however the overriding theme will be Democide, the murder of any person or people by a government, including genocide, politicide, and mass murder. It is quite shocking how often a justification for the State is made on the grounds of protection, when in fact the number of people killed by their governments from 1900-1999 is roughly 262 million. This figure is six times the total number of people killed in combat during the century’s foreign and internal wars.10 If we believe Aristotle’s maxim, “We are what we repeatedly do”, then it would seem that governments are simply a highly efficient apparatus for turning their citizens into corpses.
The current hysteria over global warming and environmental destruction has led many to petition the State for legislation to limit pollution and deforestation. This is quite ironic given that governments have perpetuated the most grievous crimes against the planet. Governments have detonated over 2,000 nuclear devices, with many being detonated at ground level or high in the atmosphere. The long-term effects of these criminally negligent actions remain unknown.3 Let me ask the reader, do you take better care of a home that you own, or one that you rent? The reason that few people renovate rented homes is because they lack any incentive to improve the dwelling, aside from basic upkeep and maintenance to avoid losing their deposit. As a parallel, we see the dire consequences to the environment when the State “rents” loggers the right to trees in a forest, without allowing them to purchase the land. The loggers are just like the renting tenants in that they have no incentive to protect the integrity of the land or animals, thus they simply clear-cut the forest. Now imagine if they actually owned the land, and had an incentive to use the land the following year. They are forced to protect their investment by replanting where the cut down, avoid harming the surrounding biosphere, and maintaining soil integrity.5
“Socialism is impossible.”-- Ludwig von Mises
If one is able to blithely ignore the moral failures inherent in taking another’s liberty at gunpoint, then we can turn toward arguments against the State in terms of its inefficiency. The Socialist Calculation Debate refers to a period in economic history where there was a discussion of whether economic calculations were possible under the direction of a centralized State power. The advent of the computer had given rise to the hope that if a machine were fed copious amounts of information about the citizenry’s purchasing habits, resource availability, global economic trends and numerous other variables, it would be able to rationally make decisions for the benefit of the State. The theoretical intricacies regarding price signaling, distributed knowledge and central planning are quite abstract for the non-economist, however for the purposes of this discussion we need only examine the damning practical evidence .1 Long waiting lines, food shortages and incredible inefficiency characterized Eastern Bloc Europe for decades. The chief free market economist of the time, Ludwig von Mises, dismantled the Socialist Calculation, and while ultimately his theoretical arguments proved to have errors, his conclusion remains widely accepted now that other Austrian economists, namely F.A. Hayek, have corrected his mistakes.12
The most famous and influential advocate for economic and personal liberty in the face of Statism is unquestionably Milton Friedman. Awarded the Nobel Prize for his work on Lassie-Faire capitalism, he demonstrated unequivocally the harm that results from attempts by the State to “tinker” with the free market. In focusing on the quantity of money available, Friedman revived the theory of monetarism. He demonstrated that the “boom and bust” business cycles that plagued modern economies were a direct result of State manipulation of the money supply and subsequently causing inflation. The Great Depression, often set forth as an example of “market failure”, was according to Friedman merely a stock market fluctuation that was only able to develop into a depression due to inappropriate intervention on the part of the Federal Reserve.
And what of the poor? How can a society confront the problem of poverty in the absence of a State? It is first worth noting the incredible failure of the State in all of its efforts to alleviate poverty, either through New Deal socialism, or the modern day leviathan of welfare. Welfare rolls have increased out of proportion to population growth, and with high taxation limiting the incentive to get off welfare, this trend is unlikely to stop. Also, despite the constant influx of fresh capital stolen from the general populace, welfare programs nationwide are consistently over budget and bordering upon insolvency. When one wants to help the poor, do you mail a check to a private charity like the Red Cross, or to the IRS? Even in the midst of a struggling stock market and foreign wars hemorrhaging billions of dollars, private donations in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina exceeded 3.5 billion dollars.6
Our survey of the arguments against the legitimacy and efficacy of the State has touched upon the moral, philosophical, and mathematical issues at the heart of modern political philosophy. We have seen that the very existence of the State represents a supreme moral failing since it is predicated upon the initiation of violence. Philosophically, the State fails the test of Universality since it is utterly lacking in any internal consistency. The State is a vehicle by which mathematical ignorance is practically exalted rather than rightly denigrated.
Works Cited
1. "Anarcho-Capitalism." Wikipedia. 4 Oct. 2007. 6 Oct. 2007<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism>.
2. Caplan,Bryan. "The Myth of the Rational Voter." Cato Institute. 6Nov. 2006. 25 Oct. 2007 <http://www.cato-unbound.org/2006/11/06/bryan-caplan/the-myth-of-the-rational-voter/>.
3. "Catalog of Nuclear Explosions." 9 Oct. 2006. 25 Oct. 2007<http://www.okgeosurvey1.gov/level2/nuke.cat.index.html>.
4. "Death and Taxes." 25 Oct. 2007<http://www.thebudgetgraph.com/>.
5. Doherty,Brian. Radicals for Capitalism. New York: PublicAffairs, 2007.
6. "GulfCoast Hurricane Relief." The Center on Philanthropy At Indiana University.Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis. 15 Nov. 2007<http://www.philanthropy.iupui.edu/Research/Giving/Hurricane_Katrina.aspx>.
7. Meyerson,Michael I. Political Numeracy. New York: W. W. Norton, 2002.
8. "Oddsof Dying." National Safety Council. 2 Aug. 2006. 25 Oct. 2007
<http://www.nsc.org/lrs/statinfo/odds.htm>.
9. Paulos, JohnAllen. Innumeracy. New York: Hill and Wang, 2001.
10. Rummel,Rudolph J. "20th Century Democide." July 2007. 25 Oct. 2007<http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/20TH.HTM>.
11. von Mises,Ludwig. Liberalism: A Socio-Economic Exposition. Sheed, Andrews andMcMeel Inc, Kansas City, 1985.
12. von Mises,Ludwig. Liberalism: The Classical Tradition. Liberty Fund, Indianapolis,1985.
The secret of happiness is to face the fact that the world is horrible, horrible, horrible. [Bertrand Russell]