Levels… With Steps… Like Ancient Egypt

Remember that PC I built last year? Well, the power supply started chirping or tweeting like a bird, even under a not heavy load. Very annoying.

Amazon reviews make clear that this is a common problem with this item.

After a couple of months of listening to this, I finally decided to RMA the thing.

Corsair was very nice to ship a replacement immediately. Though it seemed identical, one of the old cables was not working with the new PSU (would not recognize the SSD), but a cable that came with the replacement did work.

(Corsair lets you order an "express" replacement, where they ask for your credit card number but ship the new thing before you send them the old one back. This way, you won't be without your computer for several days.)

So far, it's making no sound. Hope it'll stay that way.

My claim is that we have made a grievous error in specifying the scope of the government authorize to make positive law.

I submit that while natural law can be discovered by any entity, positive law must not be created by any government higher than local, such as town, city, or county.

It makes 2 propositions about natural law: (1n) that there is such a thing; (2n) that it is very simple, capable of being expressed in one sentence, such as "do not kill, assault, steal, or commit fraud."

It makes 2 more propositions about positive law: (1p) that no positive law should contradict any natural law; that (2p) that positive law made by governments should be kept to a minimum, so much that the positive law codes should resemble in simplicity natural law.

But suppose -- contrary to fact and for the sake of argument only -- that the masses were idiots. The honorable thing to do for a member of the elite would be to teach them the skills to become self-sufficient, autonomous. (This regardless of temperament; even Artisans are not exempt from the need to learn to manage their finances.)

Eliminating the bad consequences of imprudent actions will only encourage stupidity. If people no longer need to bother with saving for retirement, they will lose whatever skills necessary to do that they had or will never acquire them in the first place.

We could go on about the real causes of old age insecurity, such as, from my book:

The reason why Social Security in the United States is the third rail of politics is also related to money and banking. For business cycles undermine people’s attempts to save for retirement “quickly” and spectacularly; inflation undermines the same “slowly” but surely. As a result, crypto-socialists of all parties obtain recourse to the argument that the community should be charged with providing for everyone’s old age.

Make banking honest and money private, and Social Security will fast come to be seen for what it is: intergenerational theft. There is no principle of justice that takes the fact that young Smith was robbed by old Jones to permit Smith, when he himself gets old, to rob young Robinson. (II, 24)

So, I'm listening to NPR, and the host is asking this question, ever so meekly, "Haven't we learned by now that people cannot save on their own for retirement, that they are very imprudent, that they can't be relied on to provide for themselves; e.g., 401k plans do not work?" "What institutions do we need to remedy that?"

And the woman being interviewed said, "Exactly, and that's why a new system needs to be built on top of Social Security perhaps on state level to get people to save money."

One rejoinder to this is a reductio. If the masses of people cannot take care of themselves, cannot govern themselves, they surely cannot and should not be allowed to govern each other. Democracy is then a twisted joke. The people should surrender their right to self-determination to the likes of the NPR host and be ruled by her with an iron fist for their own good.

I reject the conclusion, and so must reject the premise, as well.

This argument is yet another form the protean leftists take. When discussing "planning," Mises would say, "Whose planning? The dictator's planning or that of every individual? What's wrong with the state of affairs in which everyone plans?" These days, NRP morphs "I should plan, and everyone shall obey," into "I shall force people to save, and they will fork over their money," where "I" is the person making the argument.

The masses are idiots, and it falls to the members of the elite (not sure exactly what sort of elite the host considers herself to be) to care for them. Gently. There will be socialism with a human face.

(It's interesting how the Mises Institute warned years ago that attempts to reform Social Security will end up adding forced savings on top of pay-as-you-go, without abolishing the latter. If I could end all Social Security taxes by pushing a button right now, I'd up and push!)

I'm wondering whether libertarians should admit a some sort of "No Child Left Unhomesteaded" principle that enjoins upon the parents the duty not only to notify others of abandonment but actually to find a person who is willing to receive ownership, that is, guardianship, rights. Mere abandoning according to some set of proper procedures works for durable goods like land; it is logically not sufficient for perishable "goods," like a baby.

This resolves the child prostitution conundrum, because the child can always choose to be moved to another guardian over being raped.

If it is objected that this principle seems to entail that one cannot straightforwardly abandon a box of raspberries, because those, too, are perishable, then my reply is that one can always throw the raspberries away, in the process destroying them; but one cannot similarly dispose of, i.e., kill, a child. Libertarianism is undamaged.

If one's intention was indeed really to abandon (as opposed to destroy) the raspberries, then he would be well advised to hurry up and find a new owner, lest the raspberries spoil.

In saying that it is part of the meaning of the term "abandonment" of a child to be obliged to find new guardians for that child we do not step outside the bound of logic.

Hiring managers won't ever give you any feedback on why you didn't get the job.

You can thank the feds for that.

Though I suppose they had "good intentions," and that excuses the bad consequences.

Even in the limiting case of anarchism, where I am absolute lord and master of my castle, a "medieval dukedom," and no government can make any laws regulating my own law-making, the positive laws for the my house I promulgate to my guests cannot violate those guests' natural rights.

Therefore, even an anarcho-capitalist will agree that Smith cannot kill Jones for walking on the carpet with his shoes on.

Troubadour has a more useful point, namely, that the Rothbardian concept of rights of children may cause legal "child prostitution."

Here's Rothbard:

The mother, then, becomes at the birth of her child its "trustee-owner," legally obliged only not to aggress against the child's person, since the child possesses the potential for self-ownership. Apart from that, so long as the child lives at home, it must necessarily come under the jurisdiction of its parents, since it is living on property owned by those parents. Certainly the parents have the right to set down rules for the use of their home and property for all persons (whether children or not) living in that home. (Ethics of Liberty, 103)

In writing this, Rothbard, too, confuses (1) in the previous post with (2). The fact that parents can set rules for using the house does not give them dictatorial powers over any child who lives there. Moreover, a family is not a political community.

Children are different in the sense that if Smith throws out Jones his adult guest, then Jones will go elsewhere. The child will die. So, if Smith says to Jones: "Either you let a bunch of homosexuals rape you, or you leave my house," then Jones will be unperturbed. He will simply leave the house, thinking Smith rather rude. But a child cannot do that. Therefore Smith the parent can threaten the child with expulsion followed by death, unless the child submits to being raped to Smith's profit.

If the parents have the right to abandon a child at any time, killing him in the process, then a fortiori, they can offer him a choice of the lesser of the two evils of abandonment vs. prostitution.

Suppose the parents did decide to abandon the child and let him know that. The child, facing the grim prospect of death out in the hostile world, makes his parents an offer: "I'm more valuable to you alive than dead. Instead of throwing me out, let me make money for you by being a child prostitute. I'll work for food and shelter. Invite some men over and let them bang me, and I'll serve you well." The parents mull this over and agree. Is this a reasonable situation?

The existence of formal social abandonment procedures a la Walter Block (which in themselves are a wonderful refinement of Rothbard) is beside the point. In practice, this problem is very unlikely to be widespread. But the theoretical thorn in the libertarian's flesh does exist.

Or in other words, abandonment procedures are not enough. There have to be rules for what sort of things the parents are allowed do to a child that in badness come close to abandoning him.

From my book: "The government is usually ascribed three functions. It (1) manages properties owned in common, such as roads or parks; (2) deters unjust aggression (such as murder, assault and bodily harm, or theft) and fraud; and (3) controls externalities. In all three cases it issues laws." (I, 34)

Therefore, Troubadour's belief that libertarianism causes "dictatorship & serfdom," i.e., that "private property gives its owners dictatorial powers within its boundaries -- in other words, that all laws other than the whim of the owner cease to exist once you enter private property. ... According to this viewpoint, if you step off the street into a person's home, you're stepping out of 21st century America into 10th century Wallachia, with all the attendant differences in rights and morals," is simply a confusion between (1) and (2).

The government, in owning a park, sets the rules to people for using the park, e.g., "no littering." Smith the private property owner similarly sets the rules for using his own property. But Jones is protected from murder and theft regardless of whether he is in the government's park or in Smith's house. The most Smith can do to Jones for violating Smith's rules is eject him from his property and even bid him never to come back. If Jones does come back, again the most Smith can do is have him arrested for trespassing; he can't shoot Jones, for example. A sign like "Trespassers will be shot" is most often seen precisely on government properties. The free sector often parodies this with "Trespassers will be offered a shot" and "Unattended children will be given an espresso and a free puppy."

The confusion may be due to the fact that government has a monopoly on punishment over a given territory. It sets the rules for a park it owns, and it set the laws for the people located in its jurisdiction even on land it does not own. But (1), such as rules of the road, still regards land, while (2), like "punish thieves," regards individuals. Laws for use of roads are per area; protection from violence is per person. The latter remains in effect even if a government-protected person is outside any government-owned area.

Few libertarians would claim otherwise.

There is a natural right for all men, generally speaking, to "walk the earth," move about freely.

This primordial freedom of movement over the vast unowned and unexplored planet is simulated today with the help of public roads.

We have to be reasonable here and say that there is a right to move basically from community to community, not necessarily either be admitted into any single community as a member or move freely within the community if someone's guest.

This right is more fundamental than even the right to homestead, because if you can't walk to a piece of unowned land and mix your labor with it (or whatever works better than the labor theory of property), you cannot appropriate it.

Alright, let me suggest a reason why we find it intuitively plausible that "public" roads should crisscross the land. By public I mean "generally usable by the public" not "owned by the government."

Even this suggestion must be qualified: for example, if we had flying cars, then perhaps there would be no need for roads, either publicly or privately owned. We can never foresee the shape that economic creative advance will take.

Basically, if Smith has invited Jones to visit him, and Jones agrees, then upon the payment of all transportation expenses by the responsible parties, Jones should have the opportunity physically to arrive onto Smith's property.

If I am in Ohio, and my uncle's house is in Florida, then it is an absurd situation if I am unable to do something so simple in today's world as traveling, if I can afford it, from here to there.

In the case of encirclement, there is genuine forced exclusion. Smith wants to go to the grocery store to buy food, and the store would be happy to have Smith as its customer. Unfortunately, Smith is trapped by the conservative. This is forced exclusion that has no place in a civilized society.

A left-liberal may have a response to my little salvo below. He may admit that encirclement can occur in any society, regardless of its economic system. But only the libertarians, he will charge, will claim that the rich conservative is legally in the right. The government in the other two scenarios is wrong to murder Smith.

Good people of all ideologies, he will continue, should petition the government not to do this to Smith. Good from Troubadour's point of view, that is. Anyway, what if there are not enough of such people?

Now these government actions are instances of positive law. The people are fully sovereign, so a law is a law is a law. A law can be judged invalid only if it contradicts a more basic law. There is, for example, the Constitution. But that, too, is positive law. It can be changed. Suppose that prior to trapping Smith, a Constitutional amendment allowing this sort of thing (if it is not already allowed) was formally passed. Who can complain?

Troubadour's response must then be that the positive laws I used as examples violate natural law. Smith, apparently, has a natural right to access and use any public road. Well, does he? Why? At this point, a well-intentioned discussion can commence. I see nothing "horrible" here; only heartily enjoyable contemplation.

One of the horrific libertarian scenarios in Troubadour's understanding is the long-standing issue of encirclement.

Suppose a rich conservative buys up all the land surrounding your property -- and I do mean all of it: A solid ring. According to LibCon principles, they now have the right to set up a tollbooth between your house and the outside world and charge you $5,000 to leave and come back.

He says that libertarians must concede the legitimacy of this extortion. Here I won't attempt to resolve the issue, not because it has no solution, either practical or theoretical, but because I'm saving it for my next book.

Instead, I will deny that encirclement is specific to libertarian political theory. Let Smith be a known child molester who has chosen to live in town X after serving his term in prison. The citizens of X collectively own the roads, as per the left's vision. There is a full-featured city government. Now it so happens that Smith's neighbors and their representatives in the city council despise Smith. The council (or state legislature or Congress if you will) passes a law forbidding Smith to use any of the public roads. Uh oh: Smith is trapped in his house. He is fully encircled by the properties of other people and he cannot even use a road to leave the town (or state or country)! Is he supposed to starve?

A socialist dictator can similarly prohibit Smith (let him now be a dissident) from using any government grocery stores, starving him in a different way yet to the same effect.

There is no longer any rich conservative but in the first case an action by the duly elected government and in the second case the leftists' dream: socialism. If encirclement can raise a problem for these regimes, as well, then libertarianism ceases to be uniquely "horrible."

At least the "rich conservative" will allow Smith to leave for a price; government decrees of the sort outlined here kill him outright. You can't fight City Hall, after all.

Thanks to Stephan Kinsella for bringing this article to my attention.

So, I'm looking at the headlines of The New York Times (no, I am not subscribed, though I should be... know your enemy), and there is a cornucopia of articles about gay people. We have:

• Same-Sex Couple Say, ‘I Do’ as Italy Sticks to ‘I Don’t’
• Immigrant Measure Still Backed by Gays
• Milestone for Gay Athletes as Rogers Plays for Galaxy
• The Music Behind Liberace's Capes, Jewels and Candelabra

Maybe this is just a coincidence, but I think there is a conspiracy among the power elites, especially the Hollywood celebrities, to homosexualize the culture, the glamour culture in particular.

I hope the public will respond to this development with the right attitude: healthy straight disgust.

So, then, what does Achilles in Troy mean when he says, "Everything is more beautiful because we're doomed. You will never be lovelier than you are now. We will never be here again."?

The now, the present moment is when Artisans are most alive. If there is beauty to be appreciated now, they drink it in.

Now beauty is subjective real. It depends on the thing to be judged and the person issuing judgment.

At each moment, both of these will change. Therefore, the combination of thing + judge creates a unique experience which is neither better nor worse than the experience of a different moment. Achilles is correct vacuously: she will never be lovelier than she is now, because the experiences of each moment are incommensurable; they cannot be compared with each other.

This, again, for two reasons. First, the person judging beauty himself will change from moment to moment; second, each experience of beauty offers its own unique zest and flavor that can never be duplicated in other experiences. We cannot say that this sweet thing is better or worse than this salty thing. They are both good yet different and inimitable.

It's true, there are a lot of fat people walking around. Shame on them. But the word "epidemic" properly applies only to infectious communicable diseases that can spread easily from person to person: an epidemic is "an outbreak of disease that spreads quickly and affects many individuals at the same time" (m-w.com).

A case can be made that during an outbreak of some hideous disease, the carrier's liberty can be infringed by means of a quarantine ("a term during which a ship arriving in port and suspected of carrying contagious disease is held in isolation from the shore," also more generally, "a restraint upon the activities or communication of persons or the transport of goods designed to prevent the spread of disease or pests.") This violation of rights, though evil in itself, can still be attempted to be justified. A sick person just by being around other people pulses with a negative externality: he can infect them.

Moreover, being infected in the case of a true epidemic is not a "temptation," such that whether or not to give in to it is under the control of one's will. (So, something like "peer pressure" cannot create an epidemic, any more than Coca-Cola.) One may get the illness while being completely innocent of any wrongful or stupid behavior.

I think enough books and movies (I'm thinking Stephen King's The Stand) have explored this issue, so the point should be clear.

But obesity is not contagious. One cannot catch fat from another person. In fact, a fat guy walking around can spread positive externalities: I look at him, am disgusted, and resolve in my heart not be like him, to stay or get fit.

Another implication here is that there are no "public health" issues apart from local externality controls, such as enforcing sanitation rules, making sure that private exterminators do not just drive the vermin next door, and suchlike trivial stuff.

The use of the word "epidemic" is a crude appeal to imagination and emotion, as though fat were flying through the air, attaching itself to people's stomachs. Being obese is a personal consumer choice (of lifestyle, food, exercise or lack thereof, etc.). Coercively to interfere with it (or in general to save people from themselves) is straightforwardly to harm people.

That's an infelicitous phrase, yet even Mises uses it.

The government's power is 100% destructive. It can lob a nuke on your town and wipe out everyone and everything in it. If that's how we understand omnipotence, then the government is indeed a major god.

But when Christians talk of divine omnipotence, they mean two things: first, that God is perfectly happy internally, within Himself, having enough "power" to "achieve" and maintain his happiness; and second, that He is Creator of the entire external to Him world. Omnipotence rightly understood is creative power.

And the government is abysmally weak in regard to that. Mises corrects himself in saying:

There is no reason to idolize the police power and ascribe to it omnipotence and omniscience. There are things which it can certainly not accomplish. It cannot conjure away the scarcity of the factors of production, it cannot make people more prosperous, it cannot raise the productivity of labor. (HA, 831)

Yet people continue to expect from the government things that the government is manifestly incapable of delivering. The most is can do is stop damaging society, get out of the way. "Laissez faire, morbleu! Laissez faire!"

From my book:

As the Drug Prohibition is the stupidest “conservative” policy, so gun control is the least defensible of the leftist ones.

Not that the two are unconnected, of course: the massive increase in violent crime due to the Prohibition supplies the left with a (bad) argument in favor of attempting to lower it via gun control. Even if the conservatives are guilty as sin, the left-liberal remedy fails to improve matters. (Intro, 2)

Same with the warfare state. The US government's foreign policy is almost solely responsible for terrorism. Live in peace, and terrorist attacks will subside, and the trading-liberty-for-security people will have to shut up.

I predict that if the Drug Prohibition is fully ended, and we start living in peace, then gun control will cease to be a topic of public debate. There will scarcely be any restrictions on production, trade, and consumption of all firearms that pass the Rothbardian pinpointing test. Guns will come back even to such formerly hostile places as the New York City.

In failing to realize that these two evil policies provoke a vast of amount of stupid agitation from the left, the conservatives, well, shoot themselves in the foot.

It so obviously is theft on the level of the federal government, and just as obviously is not theft on the level of a gated community, that (1) a separate reason must be found for this difference in kind, and (2) the maximum "level" at which taxation remains licit must be located.

If anyone's been following this blog, he'd know that I am a "city-state" libertarian who holds that no government above local level is generally speaking legitimate, yet local governments are OK. They are probably... expedient for a variety of reasons.

(One thing that follows is that my several recent posts on Bloomberg and his doings are by my own standards impolite. The affairs of New Yorkers are none of my business. Still, if called upon to advise, I would stick to what I have written.)

My previous writings should be enough to resolve both (1) and (2).