Tim Berners-Lee on Net Socialism / Corruption and unsafe driving

Tim Berners-Lee, considered the driving force behind the creation of the Internet, has piped in on Net Socialism. He thinks we should support it, and that "[t]his is serious". I agree that the statist assault against the integrity of the Internet is serious. I just think it's sad, but expected, that the father stands against his creation.

And of course, the writer of the article once again mentions the opponents of Net Socialism having millions of dollars. Can one of those writers who say these things send me a million dollar? I really would like to fit their pathetic stereotype.

But here is the statist clincher:

The simple truth that you can't have a free market without government regulation...

Hello? Come again? We can't have a peaceful system of trade without a gang of thugs? Says who? Apparently Jon Hannibal Stokes is either a retard, or he knows some arcane secret of economy that we don't... But what do you expect from statist propaganda, right?


A new study has been published recently on the effects of government corruption, as tested on "driver's licences" (driving is a privilege, not a right, doncha know?) in New Delhi.

Several interesting facts regarding corruption emerge. First, the bureaucracy responds to individual needs. Those who want their license faster (e.g. [the group who was given money to bribe officials with]), get it 40% faster and at a 20% higher rate. Second, the bureaucracy is insensitive to social needs. The bonus [bribing] group does not learn to drive safely in order to obtain their license: in fact, 69% of them were rated as “failures” on the independent driving test. Those in the [group that was given driving lessons], despite superior driving skills, are only slightly more likely to obtain a license than the comparison [control] group and far less likely (by 29 percentage points) than the bonus group. (...) Together, these results suggest that bureaucrats raise red tape to extract bribes and that this corruption undermines the very purpose of regulation.

The Non-Aggression Principle

The Non-Aggression Principle (NAP), the cornerstone of the market anarchist framework, can be expressed as such :

No one has the right, under any circumstances, to initiate force against another human being, nor to delegate its initiation.
L. Neil Smith

Although a pacifist obviously follows the NAP, the NAP does not demand pacifism, as self-defense is not an "initiation" of force by definition. Of course, the issue is then raised of what consists and does not consist self-defense, an issue I have no intention of getting into here. Suffice it to say that for the sake of discussion the notions of self-defense as defined in our current laws are good enough for a first approximation (i.e. anyone pointing guns at anyone else is fair game).

Superficially, most people support the NAP, and do not use force in their own lives. However, when it comes to the violence and coercion inherent to government, we get the old excuse of "that's how the system works". Policemen and soldiers routinely gun down, jail and otherwise make life horrible for people without fear of punishment. They feel perfectly legitimized - in fact, they are proud of it ! - because their actions are sanctioned by government, which is itself legitimized by its own propaganda. And the population in general has no qualms supporting the existence of a monopoly of police and army, and supporting wars, because they are too brainwashed to examine these things from a moral perspective.

So once again we have to come back to the Moral Razor. If something is moral for one person, then it must be moral for all people. It is good that any person be honest, and therefore honesty is a virtue for all. It is good that any person be rational, and therefore rationality is a virtue for all.

What about "killing the enemies" ? "Shooting down criminals" ? "Arresting people for illegal acts" ? "Collecting income tax" ? If it is proper for a few, and not proper to all, then that makes it indefensible. Either anyone should be permitted to kill their enemies, shoot down criminals, arrest people for acts they find illegal, or collect income tax for themselves, or we are no longer in the realm of morality, but rather in the realm of exploitation of one group against another.

Of course, the eager defenders of democracy will pipe up and claim that all of this coercion is justified by good intentions and goals. This is, of course, complete and utter nonsense. Whatever your intention is, if you need to kill or ruin people's lives for it, it's not a good intention ! If I hold you up but claim that I will use the money I steal from you to give to a good cause, that does not make my theft any more moral, only more hypocrite. It is a mass mentality, the democratic knee-jerk reflex of invoking government for any problem, without any consideration as to whose lives are being trampled.

The market anarchist solution is that you actually have to deal with other people's values, and live like adults, instead of fighting for a paternal government's gun. If your intentions really are good, then prove it. If your cause is just, then sell it. If you're right, then you'll have many takers. If you're wrong, then few people will follow you.

Of course, market judgment is the last thing statists want. They wish their coercive ideas to be enforced without reference to other people's values, because the very nature of democratic government is that of a constant struggle to get one's values enforced over others. Like Christians who hide behind their interpretation of "divine laws" to escape moral judgment, the statist hides behind the coercive "common good" in order to escape judgment from their peers, and derides us as "pacifists".

Thus is the way of the Aggression Principle, the way of the coward and the brute.

Carnival of Liberty 51

Timothy Sandefur didn't have the gumption to address my answers to his questions in "Questions from a libertarian war cheerleader", or maybe he's just wasting people's time and doesn't care about his own challenges. But now the newest Carnival of Liberty published it for everyone to see. Go check the other articles, and down with state power!

A Little Duckspeak Analysis

Let's do a little duckspeak analysis. Those are always fun. We have an easy example here with George W. Bush's recent Executive Order (translation: the President's Dictatorial Whim). Here it is:

It is the policy of the United States to protect the rights of Americans to their private property, including by limiting the taking of private property by the Federal Government to situations in which the taking is for public use, with just compensation, and for the purpose of benefiting the general public and not merely for the purpose of advancing the economic interest of private parties to be given ownership or use of the property taken.

Is this good? Bad? Don't know? Well, you have to analyze it. Let's take this process step by step. First, strike out all the obvious rhetorical phrases:

It is the policy of the United States to protect the rights of Americans to their private property, including by limiting the taking of private property by the Federal Government to situations in which the taking is for public use, with just compensation, and for the purpose of benefiting the general public and not merely for the purpose of advancing the economic interest of private parties to be given ownership or use of the property taken.

Then identify all the code-words:

It is the policy of the United States to protect the rights of Americans to their private property, including by limiting the taking of private property by the Federal Government to situations in which the taking is for public use, with just compensation, and for the purpose of benefiting the general public and not merely for the purpose of advancing the economic interest of private parties to be given ownership or use of the property taken.

Not too shabby! Now replace them with correct phrases:

It is our policy to protect the rights of Americans to their private property, including by limiting our theft of land to situations in which the stealing is for our use, with just compensation, and for the purpose of getting us more votes, and not merely for the purpose of advancing the economic interest of private parties to be given ownership or use of the property taken.

We're almost there. Now just translate the rest and cut out the strike outs to get the meaning of the passage:

We try to limit our theft of land to situations in which the stealing is for our use, and for the purpose of getting us more votes, not only for the purpose of profiting the people who get use of the loot.

Ah! Now I get it! Another bit of duckspeak translated into real English. Now it makes perfect sense.

Keep up the Special Pleading, Statists!

If a serial killer is responsible for innocent people's deaths, he is a criminal and the deaths are horrible tragedies.
When a state killer (soldier) is responsible for dozens of innocent people's deaths, he's either a hero, or at worst, he's fired. Sure you're a killer, but you're doing it for us, so it's morally fine (hitmen don't get that same recognition however - the statist mind is very finicky).

Thieves are considered criminals and put in jail.
When the state collects taxes... no, wait! Taxes are not theft! You see, social contract mumble mumble the common good mumble mumble without taxes how would we finance the War on Drugs? If you don't like the taxes, then wait until you can vote against them (you'll never get the occasion to anyway) or go move to one of those other countries that have taxes so you can complain there. IRS agents shouldn't be put in jail, that's ridiculous. They're not stealing from you, they are saving you from your own fiscal irresponsibility. Of course, if you try using that excuse to rob people, you're still going to jail. The main difference is that they have the guns and you don't.

Talking about guns, there can be no debate about whether soldiers and policemen should have access to firearms. They need them to defend themselves. This is completely different from your average American living in crime-torn cities, because the soldiers and policemen have uniforms! On the flip side, every time a private citizen kills with his firearm, self-defense or not, we should always have a public outcry on how evil guns are and how we should get rid of them (except for the state's goons, of course).

If a doctor withdrew vital medications from a patient and that one patient died from it, the doctor would be accused of gross negligeance and dragged through the mud.
When the FDA withdraws vital medications from people and thousands die from it every year, it's a vital service. They must be protected from themselves, even if that means they have to die. Always remember that unlike those big evil corporations, the state truly cares about your well-being.

When a handful of criminal fraudsters and con men are revealed as having edified a multinational corporation out of thin air, it is a major scandal which casts a shadow on the whole economic system.
When thousands of politicians are shown to have spent billions of dollars on programs and wars which hurt people instead of helping them, it's business as usual, and the people who came up with the programs or wars are hailed as heroes. Never does it occur to anyone to use this as an argument that statism is flawed.

When Microsoft makes special contracts with computer manufacturers, people cry monopoly.
When the state grants special contracts in Iraq to election-year generous, war profiteering corporations like Haliburton and the Bechtel Group, people are silent.

Talking about Microsoft, it's perfectly all right if the state imposes price floors, a trust, or even makes a product required by law (such as car insurance), but it is so not okay if you're a private individual successful in offering an actual product. Don't you know your success makes everyone else look bad? You should do like everyone else and ask the state to crush your competition.

When a store chain backs down of a position because of public outcry, people complain that the chain is politically-motivated.
When politicians refuse to acknowledge the will of the people after they are elected and never back down, people call it democracy. But since they believe that people magically become altruistic when they get public office, I guess we shouldn't be too surprised. They're really ignoring you for your own good.

The difference between a state bureaucrat and a private individual is that the bureaucrat doesn't need to persuade you he's right. He can just force you to do what he wants. The state, ultimately, reduces itself to nothing but coercion of productive efforts and resources into obeying the ruling class values in that society. And so anyone who supports the state is a traitor to his own values and his own freedom.

What is an incentive?

On a previous entry, I asked non-determinists the killer question: what is an incentive?

An incentive is a path of preferred action traced by the feature of a system (any system, not just a mode of social organization). For example, a system where power is concentrated (systemic feature) will inevitably invite abuse of power (path of preferred action). A system that lacks accountability (systemic feature) invites inefficiency and corruption (path of preferred action). A system where accountability is important (systemic feature) invites efficiency and transparency (path of preferred action).

I use these words "path" and "traced" because they are appropriate. Sure, a person within that system can decide to act differently, but incentives present a path of least resistance. They entail that people will prefer acting in certain ways instead of others, because of the way the system is made.

Now, what does that imply for determinism? If people's minds are not causal, then there is no reason why incentives should exist at all. Why should individuals feel the pull of any specific path? Unfettered will should be able to decide on the basis of values only, without the input of any mere exterior factor. Saying that these incentives are influencing people can only be true if we do not have an unfettered will.

Bizarre Counterfeiting / "Price Gouging"

Division of Labour asks what could almost be a Zen Koan on the stupidity of state agents: "Is it counterfeiting when there’s no real dollar bill in that denomination?" Turns out the US Secret Service has accused a ministry of counterfeiting... million dollar bills. Of course, no such bills actually exist. Your tax money at work, ladies and gents.


Rasputin.com tells us what Walter E. Williams has to say about so-called "price gouging". This is a great article.

Let's start off with an example. Say you owned a small 10-pound inventory of coffee that you purchased for $3 a pound. Each week you'd sell me a pound for $3.25. Suppose a freeze in Brazil destroyed half of its coffee crop, causing the world price of coffee to immediately rise to $5 a pound. You still have coffee that you purchased before the jump in prices. When I stop by to buy another pound of coffee from you, how much will you charge me? I'm betting that you're going to charge me at least $5 a pound. Why? Because that's today's cost to replace your inventory.
(...)
If you were really enthusiastic about not being a "price-gouger," I'd have another proposition. You might own a house that you purchased for $55,000 in 1960 that you put on the market for a half-million dollars. I'd simply accuse you of price-gouging and demand that you sell me the house for what you paid for it, maybe adding on a bit for inflation since 1960. I'm betting you'd say, "Williams, if I sold you my house for what I paid for it in 1960, how will I be able to pay today's prices for a house to live in?

The "What If" Disease

Many statists suffer from the dreaded "What If" disease. This disease afflicts statists who understand the superiority of the market anarchist model and seek to rationalize their denial. It is not known yet whether this disease is permanent. The goal of the afflicted is to pepper the anarchist with hypothetical "What If" questions, ostensibly designed to point out a flaw of the model, but which, in reality, almost always exposes the statist's beliefs for the travesty that they are.

Here are some examples:

* "What if... one company becomes so powerful that it monopolizes everything? Then they would become tyrannical and take over society."

This is a common rationalization. It also exposes the statist very neatly, because we already have a monopoly - it's called the state. His worst-case scenario is exactly what he believes in, a monopoly of power! He is revealing here that he finds his own beliefs undesirable, or is simply lying.

The market anarchist theory answer is that monopolies only arise in a limited set of circumstances: when the resources needed to produce are too rare, when the demand is too low, when only one product is good enough for consumer use. But by far the biggest cause of monopolies, trusts, and other undesirable situations of this sort, is the state.

* "What if... those agencies that have all the guns, decide to bump their competition off... there'll be fighting in the streets!"

By far, the biggest agency of violence is the state. True, there are plenty of criminals going around, but the state brings us war - which is nothing more than generalized violence engendered by the state. Corporations do not go around killing people on the streets, because they are accountable for their actions, unlike governments which can kill with impunity. In a market anarchy, this would not change.

The only thing that stops politicians from declaring war is the threat of nuclear force, because they personally could be under danger from such weapons. This is why they seek to suppress nuclear development in other countries. They know that the more nuclear bombs spread, the least possibilities they have to do war - at least, until a counter is found.

* "What if... people decide to trade with big corporations and give them all the power?"

Actually, we already have this going on right now. For example, people prefer to shop at big chains rather than mom and pop stores. Why? Because the big chains are more efficient, have more buying power and leverage, and thus provide lower prices. People go shop there because they get more. It's as simple as that! If the chains stop providing what people want, people will go somewhere else. The fact that a corporation is big or small does not change the fact that, unlike the state, it is accountable to its customers.


What is missing in all these "What If" attacks? An understanding of the incentives in each scenario, especially the fact that corporations, which are nothing more than groups of individuals cooperating towards a goal of production, are accountable, while states are not.

In the first scenario, the believer fails to grasp that the state is the biggest monopoly of all, and in the most dangerous domain of the economy - force. The state is already tyrannical and has taken over all aspects of society through its arbitrary laws, subsidies, artificial monopolies and trusts, and its deadly grip over education and health care. All that the scenario demonstrates, even if it was realistic (which it is not) is that the worst case scenario of a market anarchy is... statism! And this argument is supposed to convince us that statism is superior?

The other problem is that the scenario is not realistic. There has never been a monopoly in history implemented without government force. This is, in fact, quite an impossible scenario in the absence of severe constraints on resources or demand. Furthermore, consumers have no incentives to support a monopoly, because people know very well that monopolies are undesirable. For example, in Europe especially, there has been a backlash against Microsoft's growing market share - and it was only at 85%! Microsoft could never achieve a monopoly, simply because people don't want to be at the mercy of a monopoly, with higher prices and a lower quality of service.

In the second scenario, the statist is complaining about the power of agencies in a market anarchy. Once again, what he describes is the state: a group that has all the guns and tries to bump off its competition. Once again, what we have, at best, is a worst-case scenario, so it cannot convince us that statism is superior. The operation of statism, in all of recorded history, has been of war after war, when anarchies, while still violent, are considerably more peaceful. Statism is coercion.

In a market anarchy, the incentives for war are greatly reduced. Unlike the state, which can raise money and manpower relatively easily at little cost to itself, any person or group who desires to wage war against others must pay for the cost of weapons, wages and damages. Unlike the state, which can use its propaganda front doors to spread lies and deception in its subservient society, such a person or group must also convince others that the cause is good enough to die for, or at least get maimed for. Finally, unlike the statist system wherein war can be needed to maintain the legitimacy of the state, people in a market anarchy have no legitimacy reasons to wage war.

In short, the error of the statist arguments discussed above lie in their confusion between the state and agencies in a market anarchy. In a market anarchy, there can be no such thing as a state by definition. Individuals in a market anarchy, therefore, are subject to extremely different incentives, ones which are based on personal freedom and responsibility. This means that the total depravity and irresponsibility or the state cannot be imputed to such individuals.