Author Archive for Atanamis

Why Government Programs Typically Don’t Work

Published by Atanamis April 6, 2009 in General and Politics. 2 Comments

As I have state previously, government is nothing but a corporation which utilizes physical force for causes it considers “just” [a] [b]. As such, there is no reason why a government should be any better or worse at competing in a market than any other player. Those who pay into a government (through taxes or service fees) are the customers, those who control the government (through elections) are the owners.

That said, why do I so often take the position that government run services are generally inefficient and ineffective? It is (only) partly due to the source of the funding. In most government services, the funding is not provided primarily by those benefiting from the service. This means that a government service can offer an equivalent service for an equivalent price to a “for profit” business without being as efficient. This is because the gap in costs is paid from other sources (such as taxes). This problem isn’t exclusive to government, but is shared by all charitable (often non-profit) businesses that take donations in exchange for providing a service to third parties. In the case of charitable businesses, those providing the funding are expected to keep an eye on the cost differential between what the charity they are funding requires to provide a service, and what that same service would cost from an equivalent non-charitable business.

Some level of increase is acceptable since some costs are incurred to ensure that the recipients of the service meet the criteria set by the charity, and more is spent collecting additional donations. If this overhead becomes too high though, competing charities will normally rise up which will offer the same subsidized service to the target audience for lower donation sizes. Once such options become available, donors will begin to migrate to the new charity forcing the original to tighten expenses or lose support. Unfortunately, government funded charitable operations often are not exposed to this competition of charities, and continue to see their overhead costs rise until they are extremely inefficient at providing charitable service. An improvement to this system would be to take out bids for providing the desired service, which would include penalties if the service was provided to people who do not fit the criteria or refused to those who do.

The other major issue with government funded charities is that government often abuses its ability to use force to prevent competition. An example of this would be the Post Office. The government prevents by force any organization providing first class mail service other than the US Postal Service. This means that even if there existed a company capable of providing universal mail delivery services for a price far lower than the US postal service, they would be prevented by the force of the US Government from doing so. Morally, I believe the use of force is justified to protect the life, liberty, and property of another person from misuse against their permission by another person. This criteria cannot include prohibiting the delivery of envelopes by a company in competition to the US government. There may exist a legitimate need for a government run delivery service to process government business related deliveries. If such a delivery service wishes to process the delivery of private envelopes though, it ought to compete on the free market against other providers of such services. Perhaps there exist one or more companies that can be contracted to provide the security, reliability, and universality demanded by the US government for its own business. If so, there may be no need for a government run delivery service.

This second separation from the market is the more worrisome of the two. In the case of services like universal healthcare, separation of payer and beneficiary is actually the point. Those supporting such a measure WANT to finance the care of others, even if the total costs increase as a result. There is danger in costs skyrocketing out of control, but as some validly point out US costs are already far higher than they should be due to lack of preventative care. Allowing such care to be obtained for no cost to the recipient could well drive down costs. The scary part comes from the use of force to prevent seeking private care. If the government provided service does not have to compete with services provided by other services for quality, there is no competitive pressure to maintain high quality. While there is no inherent reason why a monopoly imposed by force CANNOT provide consistently high quality, there is also no alternative if it fails to do so. Since all services tend to have poor spots in areas, there is no way of knowing whether your service is lagging because a certain area cannot be done better or because there is no competition showing how it can be done better.

So long as a government obtains its resources in a moral manner (though payments by taxpayers service fee payers who intentionally request the services it is providing), there is no moral reason why it cannot provide any type of service its owners (voting citizens) choose to provide. The voters should demand that overhead costs of providing a charitable service are kept to a minimal level while still providing the quality of service for the target group desired, and get clear updates regarding the overhead amount paid. Government should NEVER use force to impose anticompetitive restrictions that are not based on its own property rights, or the rights of others to life, liberty, and property.

Where Anarchists Respond Wrongly to Government

Published by Atanamis March 9, 2009 in Essays, Politics and Philosophy. 5 Comments

In my last article, I argued that in anarchist terminology,government is a corporation. I received a lot of comments that argued that the actions taken by government are immoral. These include theft of land (government claims ownership to all land in their borders using the anarchist definition of “own”), opt out contracts (taxes for rent/services) rather than opt in, and abuse of force against the human rights of individuals. What anarchists refuse to understand is that adopting anarchism won’t change this, because we already live in an anarchy.

Defining the Relationship Between Anarchy and Government
Anarchy as a modern philosophy doesn’t mean a complete lack of rules or structure. Instead, it is based on the assumption that a person cannot have their physical liberty, life or property restricted without that person’s agreement unless another person’s rights are being infringed upon against their will. In such cases, force can legitimately be used by any party, preferably using an arbitrator which both sides agree is neutral to resolve the dispute.

There is no “higher authority” of the majority to tell any individual what to do with their life, property, or personal efforts. The common argument AGAINST anarchism is that without government, corporations will abuse their capability of using force to abuse the individual. The common response to this is that just as corporations can be abusive, so can government. Where both sides drop the ball is in realizing that there is nothing “magical” about a government. A government IS a large corporation, and like any other corporation it can sometimes abuse its power.

Protection Rackets in Our Current Anarchy
Anarchists like to suggest that without government, people would contract with private companies to get their personal security. The “free market” would meet their needs. The problem with this is that the market (whether free or not) is ALREADY meeting the needs of individuals for freedom, in the form of huge corporations called governments. Individuals often choose to remain customers of these corporations despite regular abuses due to their desire for the services they offer.

I have suggested in the past (on our forums) that anarchist protection services would act like mafia “protection rackets”. I was told that this would be prevented in an anarchist society by “security insurance companies”. All of this is based though on the assumption that we don’t already live in an anarchist world. In fact, we do! Government ARE the protection rackets I suggested would result. Their use of force IS the consolidation of violence into the biggest and most powerful wielders. And nowhere to be seen are the “insurance companies” I was told the free market would demand.

Truly “Free” Markets Are A Myth
The fact is that there is no such thing as a “free” market. Force is ALWAYS a possibility, and unless both parties have agreed to a common wielder of force stronger than either of them they are subject to the other party deciding to implement their own force. This force then sets the rules for the market, but is the only alternative to both sides setting the rules based on what they have the physical power to implement. This might not be a moral result, but it is a human result.

The problem with anarchism as a modern theory is that like “true” communism it relies on fundamental changes in human nature. Man will no more voluntarily respect the rights of others than they will voluntarily seek to maximize their contribution to society. Individuals MUST band together for personal and corporate protection, and in doing so they ALWAYS end up in a group that commits immoral acts as well. The answer is not to dissolve such groups or demonize their existence, but to try to work with them to cease committing immoral acts and to compensate their past victims.

Anarchists cannot consistently call for the dissolution of governments while upholding the right of individuals to form corporations and use force for self protection. What they CAN do consistently is call for governments as corporate entities to abide by the same moral rules they would hold any other corporation to. They should not be “anti-government”, but rather “anti-immoral corporation”.

Describing Government in Anarcho-Capitalist terms

Published by Atanamis February 18, 2009 in General. 33 Comments

I have recently become convinced that modern governments are in fact consistent with Anarcho-Capitalist ideals, they just don’t understand it. To demonstrate this, I will describe government in terms familiar to anarcho-capitalists:

Assumptions:

1) Anarcho-capitalists allow groups of people to form corporations, which can own property.

The concept of a corporation is essential to understand modern governments. In a corporation, many owners collectively fund and own a company. The company can then act in many ways as a person, owning property, producing products, entering contracts, etc. It is the corporation that has customers and liabilities. In many cases, stock holders in a corporation may also be customers of that corporation. The key elements for this article are that corporations can own property, and that corporations pursue whatever goals are desired by the owners of the corporation (who generally can vote on the goals of the corporation and the corporation’s board of directors who select the top positions in the corporation).

2) The owner of a property  is allowed to set the price of rent, and to evict people who do not pay rent, even if that person was born on the property.

A primary complaint of anarcho-capitalists is that people to not “opt in” to government. This is categorically not true though, since most Western governments provide full freedom for people to leave their countries. If I own a property which I rent to a tenant, the fact that the tenant has a child while on that property does not obligate me to give free housing to the child. Particularly if the child becomes an adult and their parent dies, I have no obligation to give the child “free housing” or to help them find another place to live if they can’t or won’t pay rent. In fact, I have a right to seek compensation if they continue to use my property without paying rent.

3) The owner of a property has the right to demand payment for the use of services provided on their property

If I own a piece  of property and provide security guards to protect those on my property, I have the right to demand that those coming on to my property pay a fee for that protection. That fee can come in the form of a one time payment, or I can charge a certain percentage of the person’s profits in exchange for the service. If the person does not agree to my terms, they are free to leave my property. If they do agree and then later refuse the determined payment, I have a right to seek compensation for the unpaid services.

Conclusions:
I’m sure everyone reading this sees where it is going. Using anarcho-capitalist definitions,  modern governments “own” all land in they control. Like any corporation, they claimed unused land, and can buy or sell that land as they see fit. They could choose to sell land to individual buyers, but historically have only “truly” bought/sold land to other “governments” (corporations which sell the use of force). Anyone choosing to live in one has a moral obligation to respect the property rights of the government as a corporation and to pay rent if required. Any business choosing to organize under that government’s legal structure is also a customer deliberately seeking the services offered by the government.

The US government is also a corporation, owned by the citizens who get to choose the goals and leaders of their company. Like any land owner, the US government has the right to evict anyone for any reason it chooses. Like any seller of services, the US government must provide a satisfactory service to its customers (renters and corporations), or it will see them seek out competitive alternatives. Like any service provider, it has the right to charge fees on any calculation it chooses (profit taxes or payroll taxes). Like any owned entity, it has to report to its owner regarding its goals and leadership (elections).

The US is the epitomy of anarcho-capitalist ideals. Their only real complaint is that the US as a corporation chooses not to sell its land to individual buyers, but since anarcho-capitalism holds sacred the rights of a property owner to do as they wish with their own property they have no moral right to criticize what “US Government Incorporated” chooses to do with its assets. As partial owners, they have every right to suggest redistribution of assets, but the corporation MUST listen to the decisions its majority stockholders define. If as customers (taxpayers) they wish to find a new landlord, they are free to do so. Like any property owner, the US enlists arbiters to determine property damage cases with neighboring countries. If we damage Canada with pollution, we end up paying “Canada Incorporated” for the damage to their property, and vice versa.

“Anarcho-capitalism” is not a reaction against infringement of individual liberties, it is either a semantic argument (only governments “own” property in the anarcho-capitalist usage of the word) or it is a rejection of free market ideals regarding ownership of property and the rights of corporations. If they want to run a territory on different rules, they must first purchase some land (from a government under the clear contract that the property will no longer be governed by the selling government, a “real” sale not a “rental agreement” which is normally referenced as a sale in modern usage). There is nothing stopping a government “owned” by a single person. In fact, this is exactly what a dictatorship is! Buy a group of dictatorships, and structure your free association of independent property owners however you see fit.

Claiming a government lacks the right to own and oversee land or charge rent for its usage is simply an attack on the rights of a corporate group of people to own property, and has nothing to do with the rights of an individual to life, liberty, and property. (Obviosuly the above does not apply to a government that refuses to allow its citizens the right of liberty and property to take their person and wealth out of the country. Since they do not actually own the land though in the anarcho-capitalist sense of the word “own”, they cannot take their property only sell their lease on its usage and the rent obligation that comes with that lease.)

Marriage and the Law

Published by Atanamis October 27, 2008 in General. 39 Comments

I’m going to start by explaining my bias, so you can read the rest of my article through that filter.

My beliefs regarding “proper” marriage are that:
1) People ought to refrain from sex until marriage.
2) Marriage should be only between one man and one woman.
3) Marriage should be a nearly* unbreakable commitment.
4) Parents should have a wide latitude of authority and responsibility in rearing their children, with some basic criteria for sufficient care and reasonable discipline.
5) It will make a far better home for their children if the parents are highly committed to one another.
“nearly” meaning only broken in case of clear abuse or unfaithfulness.

Separating the civil and religious concepts of “marriage”:
Despite this “conservative” view on marriage, it is my belief that government ought to get out of the marriage business. “Marriage” as a term has long held religious connotations, and in my opinion it is undesirable and even dangerous for government to be responsible for forming or recognizing religious distinctions. Personally, I feel that the concept of marriage has been massively cheapened in our culture. By allowing government to define marriage, we have also allowed government to define divorce and for it to heavily influence how a marriage should look. When I got married, I made an unbreakable commitment to my wife. No matter what happens in our lives, I will sacrificially make decisions for her best interest. This is the commitment I think “Biblical marriage” calls for from a man. Biblically, I don’t think gay marriage is appropriate (another discussion), and definitely don’t think things like a marriage of convenience for the sake of citizenship or tax benefits makes sense. The problem is that as soon as we equate “religious marriage” with legal rights, protections, or perks people will “fake it” to get those benefits.

The concept of “separation of church and state” is a political theory, and not the law in the US. That said, I do think separation is a good idea for the protection of religion. Allowing government to define religion has only weakened that definition. Far better if government did NOT define marriage, but allowed religious organization to produce their own definitions. A religious group can then base its definition on its holy books, and not have to worry about a civil government infringing on their definition. Properly, religious organizations should already be doing this, rather than allowing the government to define what ought to be a highly sacred agreement between two parties. What would be far better would be to split marriage into legal “civil union” system and a religious “marriage” system. Such a system would allow a single man to form a “civil union” with his elderly mother, making her his “partner” as considered by insurance companies, medical decisions, and for property ownership. Two brothers would be able to for a “civil union” if they wanted to merge their finances. If I wanted to sponser my buddy in Mexico becoming a US citizen, I could form a “civil union” to help him get citizenship (though likely with a “pre-nup” protecting my financial assets). This system would be preferable for both the religious and the non-religious citizen.

As a result, I support a civil union that:
1) Allows any two non-minors citizens to form a legal bond with pre-determined exit clauses.
2) Allows those entering into the bond to establish rules for mutual property ownership / death benefits.
3) Allows those entering the contract to file taxes jointly.

I also support laws that ensure that biological parents have the right to raise their children (with possible court supervision if the parents disagree or are determined to be unfit) and a responsibility to support their children (again with court enforcement in case of disagreement or improper conduct).

Opposing gay marriage:
Given the above, one might suppose that I support gay marriage. In fact, these positions do not make limiting the legal expectations of “marriage” to people of opposite genders legally or logically unsupportable. The above claim of making “civil unions” as a not a morally based institution really only makes sense if no limits are applied (as described above) or when restricted to people with biological children. Any other position is not “ignoring morality”, but rather imposing a new set of moral imperatives. If we allow “gay marriage”, but do not also allow the marriage of close relations and complete strangers seeking a tax or immigration benefit, we are implying that “legal marriage” is more than just a contractual state. Why shouldn’t I be allowed to file taxes jointly with any random person I choose to file with? Why should I not be allowed to change my “next of kin” list at will, or choose to add my elderly mother to my insurance policy as my partner? Sure, this is the way things HAVE been done, and is an entirely legal way to do them, but does it make sense from a non-moral position? I fully support “special” legal protections for the biological parents of a child, and the expectation that they will financially support their child. I support allowing churches to refuse to marry couples that are same sex, or couples that have pre-marital sex, or even couples that have tattoos if they choose. That’s freedom of religion. I see no reason though to restrict tax filing methods or “next of kin” modifications at will though.

Any “just add gays” kind of approach that does not make “civil unions” an unrestricted contract between ANY two adults is STILL making moral judgments (against cousins or siblings). If we are basing the legal definition of marriage on our personal morality, I am in opposition of gay marriage. A legal contract shouldn’t carry any expectation of a “sexual relationship” anyway. Prohibiting a “civil union” made entirely for tax purposes or to gain citizenship is again imposing one’s morality on others. The fact that others believe that sibling marriages are wrong, disgusting, or even harmful to society doesn’t change my opinion, because I believe the same things are true about gay marriage. Either we agree not to enforce personal morality by law (civil unions for any pair of people), or we wait until they have a majority that agrees with their personal morality before we change the laws. We either agree that the legal contract does NOT impose morality, or we all fight for OUR definition of “proper” marriage. Nobody is likely to change what I think marriage ought to be here, and I’m not going to try to change what others think it should be. Either we agree not to impose morality (and therefore allow close family members to form “civil unions” to protect property or for tax purposes), or we agree to impose “majority morality” (in which case I continue to vote against gay marriage until I’m in the minority).

Note regarding terms:
I do think it would be valuable to use a separate term for the government contract to clarify that we aren’t telling religions what to do, but words aren’t what I’m arguing about. What I am saying is that we need to make it clear that the legal arrangement is separate from the religious arrangement. There are two main reasons why religious groups strongly oppose “gay marriage”. The first is that they believe (as I do) that gay partnerships are undesirable for society. That said, most religious people I have spoken with do not wish to forcibly prevent such partnerships. The second reason they oppose “gay marriage” is that they are concerned about the increasing dilution of the term “marriage”. 50 years ago, it was expected that a marriage would be more or less permanent, and that it would only be broken as a result of good cause (abuse or unfaithfulness). Today, we have a high divorce rate which I (and others) believe it hurting children and society. By splitting the terms, we can allow religious groups to define “marriage” as they see fit while not restricting legal relationships between consenting adults.

My intent is to make VERY clear the distinction between the religious ritual and the legal contract. Look through this thread for the people who support “marriage” for gays but not for siblings. There is no legitimate reason for this aside from the moral judgment of the poster. The term “marriage” implies a relationship that should not be needed for a purely contractual arrangement. If you agree that any two consenting adults should be allowed to “marry(1)” and that a religious body should be fully allowed to define its own terms for who it will “marry(2)”, we are probably fundamentally in agreement. I still think that separate terms for marry(1) and marry(2) though would help others understand the distinction better though, and am unwilling to support marry(1) for same sex couples so long as ANY other restrictions are placed on it.

Archives

Archive for Atanamis.

Archive for Atanamis.

July 2009
M T W T F S S
« Jun    
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728293031  

Archive for Atanamis.