The
first mistake Wade makes is to conflate legality with regulation,
they aren't the same thing. The rule of some kind of law is indeed
necessary for a free market to function. (How this law is enacted and
enforced and by whom is another discussion.) To have markets we must
have private property. To have property we need a legal system of
some kind to protect property rights. It should be noted that
legitimate law is almost entirely reactive. When aggressed against
the victim or victims seek restitution from and punishment for the
transgressor.
Regulation
is another matter. It is proactive. Regulations often require
licensing, inspections, reports, and, of course, compliance. All
under threat of punishment without a crime having been committed.
This is a violation of the Non-Aggression Principle, the idea that no
one has the right to initiate the use of force nor the threat
thereof. Once it is established that force can be legally initiated
by some against others the door is open for abuse and corruption. To
be free markets must be free of people initiating coercion.
Retaliatory coercion is necessary and the role, the only role, of the
law.
Though
he didn't use the word regulation Fredrick Bastiat covered the
subject in his book “The
Law”:
“What,
then, is law? It is the collective organization of the individual
right to lawful defense.”
“Thus
the principle of collective right — its reason for existing, its
lawfulness — is based on individual right.”
“...since
an individual cannot lawfully use force against the person, liberty,
or property of another individual, then the common force — for the
same reason — cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person,
liberty, or property of individuals or groups.“
Since
as individuals none of us can claim the “right” to go to
another's place of business and demand information, demand that they
get our permission to operate their business, or make any other
demands while threatening them with using force on them if they don't
comply the collective can claim no such “right” either. Yet
this is what regulation does.
Wade
wrote:
1)
Robbers (Participants introduce the transaction type known as "Theft"
into the Marketplace)
2) Cops (Participants introduce Regulation to counteract the Theft),
2) Cops (Participants introduce Regulation to counteract the Theft),
The
idea that regulation is implemented to counteract theft is naive
at best, willfully ignorant at worst. It is the legalization of
theft. It is what Bastiat called legal
plunder in “The
Law”.
The history of regulation is one of entrenched interests calling for
regulation to protect and enlarge their market share and wealth, I.E.
to stifle competition. A great example of this is the creation of the
Federal Reserve System. JP Morgan was behind it. Yet somehow, many
believe the government created it to take power away from old JP. Ayn
Rand wrote about the process as it applies to broadcasting here.
“Why
Doctors Don’t Want Free-Market Medicine” describes the
process in the health care field.
Further
evidence of Wade's confusion on the issue is found in the very
comment he made. At one point he writes “regulation to prevent
Robbers often becomes part of the problem”. He then strangely goes
on to write 'The Illegal Forceful Trick is to "sleight of hand
style" turn the Cop into the Thief. This is what some of Jeff's
comments seem to do.' Wait a minute, turning the cops into thieves
isn't a rhetorical trick someone else did. It is something that Wade
himself has acknowledged is reality. Given that reality it is
irrational to advocate for the thief.
Below
is the comment being rebutted:
"Jeff's
oversimplified "Market" (I prefer to call it "Cops and
Robbers Governed Marketplace - vs. Free Market - since "Free
Market connotes a myth where there is no theft) is a very good, very
helpful two-dimensional model. It covers neither the third dimension
- depth (which I'm using to denote complexity) nor time (the fourth
dimension).
Regulation often seeks to confront Theft that can only described by depth and time - vs. Jeff's two-dimensional description of Theft (deadly force).
Let me unpack these statements: Jeff wrote:
"No, stealing is always a threat to survival because it sets a precedence that if it is rewarded then it should be repeated."
Here Jeff compresses the four dimensions of...
1) Robbers (Participants introduce the transaction type known as "Theft" into the Marketplace)
2) Cops (Participants introduce Regulation to counteract the Theft),
3) Complexity Arises - various types and degrees of theft and regulation
4) Time (and change) - the increasingly complex system adapts
...into a simplified 2 dimensional model.
This model is almost a Caricature, really, but I'm OK with this particular representation, for purposes of this discussion, because it is a really good, useful model, and it is the one Jeff prefers, and he has introduced tremendous value into this thread - thanks Jeff :) ) of "Deadly Theft" and "Legal Force".
Jeff's bias seems to be to blame the Cops for the outcomes related to Theft, because their regulation to prevent Robbers often becomes part of the problem. This is upside down, or inside out, or backwards - pick a metaphor of choice. Because Theft. The Robbers, are the problem. They are the "Action" which - per Physics - requires an equal and opposite reaction.
The legal "trick" is in getting the Reaction right. The Illegal Forceful Trick is to "sleight of hand style" turn the Cop into the Thief. This is what some of Jeff's comments seem to do.
And this is where Jeff and I have yet to reach agreement - the fourth Paragraph of my Opening Post.
It descends, logically, from the point of legitimate disagreement we've already identified - the question I asked of Jeff a number of posts ago:
"2) Can you live with "develop rules of behavior which become "Regulation" in the market" or do you insist that all regulation which is not directly discoverable in Nature is "Illegal Force"?"
Because where Jeff's legitimate two-dimensional model becomes an illegitimate caricature, which steals from this discussion, is where he begins to define Government as unable to "discover Natural Law" which becomes the domain of the "Seer" who has somehow magically established that "Government IS the thief".
This is deadly force, and it gets to the Crux of what my Opening Post calls "The Free Market Myth".
Regulation often seeks to confront Theft that can only described by depth and time - vs. Jeff's two-dimensional description of Theft (deadly force).
Let me unpack these statements: Jeff wrote:
"No, stealing is always a threat to survival because it sets a precedence that if it is rewarded then it should be repeated."
Here Jeff compresses the four dimensions of...
1) Robbers (Participants introduce the transaction type known as "Theft" into the Marketplace)
2) Cops (Participants introduce Regulation to counteract the Theft),
3) Complexity Arises - various types and degrees of theft and regulation
4) Time (and change) - the increasingly complex system adapts
...into a simplified 2 dimensional model.
This model is almost a Caricature, really, but I'm OK with this particular representation, for purposes of this discussion, because it is a really good, useful model, and it is the one Jeff prefers, and he has introduced tremendous value into this thread - thanks Jeff :) ) of "Deadly Theft" and "Legal Force".
Jeff's bias seems to be to blame the Cops for the outcomes related to Theft, because their regulation to prevent Robbers often becomes part of the problem. This is upside down, or inside out, or backwards - pick a metaphor of choice. Because Theft. The Robbers, are the problem. They are the "Action" which - per Physics - requires an equal and opposite reaction.
The legal "trick" is in getting the Reaction right. The Illegal Forceful Trick is to "sleight of hand style" turn the Cop into the Thief. This is what some of Jeff's comments seem to do.
And this is where Jeff and I have yet to reach agreement - the fourth Paragraph of my Opening Post.
It descends, logically, from the point of legitimate disagreement we've already identified - the question I asked of Jeff a number of posts ago:
"2) Can you live with "develop rules of behavior which become "Regulation" in the market" or do you insist that all regulation which is not directly discoverable in Nature is "Illegal Force"?"
Because where Jeff's legitimate two-dimensional model becomes an illegitimate caricature, which steals from this discussion, is where he begins to define Government as unable to "discover Natural Law" which becomes the domain of the "Seer" who has somehow magically established that "Government IS the thief".
This is deadly force, and it gets to the Crux of what my Opening Post calls "The Free Market Myth".
No comments:
Post a Comment