|
|
 |
For the source of the quotes on this page, see the great article A Theory of the Theory of Public Goods.
Why does government do the things it does ?
Because of Private Interest Theory.
There are basically two possible answers to this question : Public Interest Theory or Private Interest Theory. The Public option is the one most widely believed. It holds that politicians and bureaucrats take decisions which they evaluate are most favourable to the welfare of their population. The Private position, in contrast, holds that politicians and bureaucrats pass laws that further their popularity and power, and by extension that of government.
Private Interest Theory is the only model which does not contradict the facts of psychology, memetics and most importantly, that which we actually observe about the behaviour of governments. Governments routinely pass laws and establish systems which are the exact opposite of what Public Interest Theory would demand.
The simple truth is that people do things because they benefit. Politicians and bureaucrats are not excluded from this basic logical fact !
Can government ever pursue the values that private individuals desire ? Can government ever become smaller of its own accord ?
No...
... because of the monopolistic nature of government, and because the twisted incentives that create evil laws and institutions are built into the system.
This page details how government systems further the interest of the ruling class instead of furthering the values of the masses, and the underlying problem in terms of incentives. This is a moral issue, not an efficiency or justification issue. For articles on these, see the page on anti-government material.
War
Incentives :
- In an anarchy, he who wages war has to pay for the cost of war. Government does not have to pay for war, as it gets the resources needed through taxation.
- In an anarchy, people must be persuaded of the just nature of war so they will fight. Government can simply draft however it needs.
- Politicians never have to fight themselves or get any negative consequences of the wars they wage.
Net results for government :
Higher taxation, general expansion of power, personal glory, dissent against the state is temporarily silenced, and the creation of new enemies. "War is the health of the state".
In a normal war these benefits are mostly temporary, but in the case of perpetual warfare (such as the "war on poverty", the "war on drugs" and the "war on terrorism"), the benefits are permanent.
"The government gets its income from its citizens, so it has an incentive
to protect its source of income. Government-income maximization as a motive for
national defense also has the advantage that it clearly explains why nations engage in
all kinds of military activities around the world when the nation's citizens are in no
danger from foreign invasion. Why did the U.S. government invade Kuwait in
1991? The invasion of Kuwait by Iraq posed little threat to U.S. national security,
but did pose a threat to U.S. income."
Democracy
Democracy is necessary for modern government for the following reasons :
- Voting gives the state an appearance of legitimacy. Belief is ingrained in people that the government is in some way a result of their actions, and that "the government is the people". While this is logical nonsense, it also means that people will be much more resigned to political outcomes and give more legitimacy to the government.
- Democracy raises the efficiency of government. In systems without voting, comtenders to power must use violent means. With voting, the damage of this violence is averted, and the most efficient political parasite is determined by how much support he can muster from the population.
- Democracy is the main motor of social warfare. Democracies are dominated by interest group and activist politics, which divides people in competing segments according to culture, race, language, age, work, etc. This diverts people's attention from the evils of government.
- In an anarchy, minority positions can still organize themselves and make a profit. Politicians in dominant parties, having access to monopolizing powers, are free to pass laws that lower the visibility of non-dominant parties (including those who do not fit the narrow left/right spectrum), thus artificially limiting voting.
"Democratic election of government leaders, with strong advantages to incumbents, also makes sense as a way of maximizing government profit. By allowing
elections, government leaders channel the resources of potential challengers into
elections rather than into violent overthrow."
"Democratic government itself is a mechanism for producing legitimacy
because if people vote for their leaders, then their leaders have the legitimate role
of acting as representatives of the citizens. Citizens may not agree with their
representatives' actions, but they are inclined to agree that the representatives
have the right to act for them because they were elected through generally
agreed-upon electoral institutions. (...) The more legitimate the government appears, the easier it is to get citizens to comply."
Education
Incentives :
- In an anarchy, coercive organizations (such as mafias) would be free to buy or build schools and indoctrinate children the way they want, but it is highly unlikely that people would see this favourably. A credible government, however, can make people accept public education on the basis of "fairness".
- Public schools crowd out private schools, but wealthy politicians never have to send their children to these public schools. So in essence, public schools are a burden on the masses.
- In an anarchy, public schools could exist (see this article on public goods) but would only be built in proportion to the demand for them. Government can raise taxation and build as many schools as it needs.
- Note that these last two incentives also apply to health care.
In an anarchy, schools serve the interest of consumers. Public schools serve the interests of the state first. As we observe, public schools (as well as government control over educational content in all schools) model the mind of citizens to accept the validity of government power and its premises.
"Even in centrally-planned economies that control the mass media, family
and friends provide a network through which individuals can receive information
and ideas, which then can be evaluated on their merits. This is a difficult network
to control. The education system has an advantage over these other methods of
information dissemination, however, because it provides an incentive for the
student to retain the information approved of by the system. Successful students
are those who are best able to arrive at institutionally-approved answers. (...) By nationalizing the education industry and making teachers state employees, teachers naturally have the incentive to side in favor of the state whenever there is a question."
Destruction of the social fabric
Incentives :
- In an anarchy, people are responsible for their own security. In a statist system, everyone believes that the state should take care of everything, and that they have no responsibility. So they let crimes happen in broad daylight. State control of a whole society destroys personal responsibility.
"In the British Isles, until the 20th century, the cry "Stop Thief!" echoing down the street caused good citizens to cease their daily endeavors and rush in hot pursuit of the fleeing miscreant. Each man felt a concern when the property rights of others were violated. But in the 20th century, we have learned dependence upon government. Whenever possible, we shirk responsibility and thrust it away.
Not too long ago, in New York City, on Broadway, a young man seized a brick and hurled it through a plate glass window of a men's clothing shop. At least a hundred people waiting for transportation, or passing by, observed the action and what ensued. The young man calmly climbed through the broken window, helped himself to clothing, and then walked on down the street. Not a voice was raised in protest. No one called the police. No one wanted to become involved. It wasn't the duty of the citizens to arrest a criminal: it was the duty of the police."
"Who Was the Original Aunt Jemima and What Did She Do?" by Robert LeFevre
Trade across borders and immigration
Incentives :
- In an anarchy, controlling all the borders would be very difficult, since trade organizations would object to the limits imposed by any single one of them, and it is generally in everyone's interests to keep the borders open. On the other hand, government is a monopoly, and can easily control all the borders.
- Government is heavily dependent on the support of established industries which are threatened by globalization. Therefore it is more likely to impose high tariffs.
- Immigration disrupts social stability and puts a heavy burden on social programs, therefore government has less incentive to permit immigration, despite the benefits of said immigration.
Justice, courts
Incentives :
- In both an anarchy and government, there is a strong incentive to provide services of security, justice and courts. However, the free market of anarchy ensures that these markets will tend towards efficiency and quality of service, while government, as a monopoly, has no interest in efficiency or quality of service.
- In an anarchy, people deal with each other as equals, settling disputes between value systems by arbitrarion instead of force. Government, being a monopoly and having the power to impose its own value system on the population, has no reason to arbitrate value systems. Its "law" is enforced on all, regardless of how they wish to live and effect their values.
- Government depends heavily on the support of powerful and wealthy elements of society for its expansion (and vice-versa). Therefore it has a strong incentive to make justice dependent on power or wealth. Being more lenient on them means more support for government in the future.
- Being a monopoly, the police has no interest in fair or truthful investigations, only in maintaining the standards set by the law.
- In an anarchy, protection is mostly an insurance, and so protection companies would be much more oriented towards prevention. For a government, the more crime that exists, the more police powers that can be justified.
From the archived email "Waller on Anarchism and Justice" :
"Holding constant the level of human badness, we can merely look at the situation in terms of incentives. Under minarchy, the government faces only periodic competition in the form of voting; and voting is notoriously a pure public good, so voters will probably be unable to carefully monitor the government for corruption. If people find that the wealthy are securing unequal justice, their only alternative is to move to another country. In contrast, under anarchism there can be multiple suppliers of defense services in a single area. And the benefits of switching to an honest agency accrue to the consumer who switches, whereas the benefits of informed voting go to everyone equally."
War on Drugs
Incentives :
- In an anarchy, private individuals have strong incentives to stop the War on Drugs, including jail costs, the lower crime rates that stopping the War would bring, and the lack of strong popular support for the War. Government has no incentive to lower jail costs (because of taxation) or to take a specific stance which is not favoured by a strong majority (when taking such a stance would bring less votes). The War on Drugs also creates a rationalization for a great amount of police powers.
- In an anarchy, drugs could not be banned, because there is no incentive for protection organizations to fight over the issue. People would decide whether they want to live in a drug-free environment or not, and would have to deal with living together peacefully. Government, being a monopoly, has no such problem.
- The kinds of drugs that are made illegal indicate the corporatist bias of government. Tobacco and alcohol are some of the worst drugs there are, but they cannot be made illegal because of the gigantic corporate interests supporting them.
Taxation
Incentives :
- In an anarchy, most people deal with each other by trade, fulfilling their values through cooperation. Taxation is treated like any other crime. Due to its monopoly, government can impose taxation and rationalize it by hyping up the "services" it enforces on the population.
- Once again, the influence of corporatism on government is shown clearly by the fact that the most wealthy amongst us (including politicians) pay very little taxes, and that the main burden is placed on the so-called "middle class" (which only means : educated and skilled but not powerful enough to benefit from state power).
Poverty
Incentives :
- Private individuals do not benefit from the existence of poverty. I do not want to live in a context of poverty because I depend on others, and even as a corporate leader, I do not want to sell products in a country where no one can afford them. Government, however, has no such incentives. Having a strong lower class is a great impetus for both perpetual war and a slave class that can be exploited for votes at little cost.
- So-called "laws against poverty" are invariably laws that make life worse for the poor and expand the power of the state. Protectionism, minimum wage, social programs, public education and public health care are examples of this. In actuality, government cannot make life better for the poor of the world, because government is parasitic in nature.
Gun control
Incentives :
- In an anarchy, protection companies would encourage people to train in gun use, as it would be a deterrent to foreigm attack. And as protection agencies can only do so much, people naturally desire to defend themselves against crime. Government, on the other hand, is a monopoly of force, and it must maintain that monopoly by abolishing tools of force in the general population.
- Government, being non-accountable, is not itself subject to gun control. Police forces, and criminals (both categories being pretty similar), can use powerful weapons against innocent disarmed citizens.
The environment
Incentives :
- In an anarchy, free market solutions to environmental problems are preferred. But government can use environmentalist scare tactics to expands its power over property with impunity.
- Since government is not accountable, laws against pollution do not apply to its own polluting systems. In the United States, the biggest polluter is the US Army. Sewer systems are also noted polluters, through neglect. Also, through Tragedy of the Commons situations borne out of public property, environmental disasters can be effected more easily.
Science, arts
Despite their profound differences, these two areas are very similar in their political roles. When controlled by the state, they both serve to legitimize the power of the state. Science falsely legitimizes the decisions of the state through its implied authority, and the arts falsely legitimize the coercive principles of the state. Thus any government has a strong incentive to control these domains and, through the conditions of financing, making them subservient to state interests. This is also what we observe in practice.
The banking cartel
Central banks, bank protectionism, inflation targeting, investment bubbles that lead into depressions, expansion of the money supply to pay off social programs, and other such unsavory effects of the state-bank relationship, would be considered criminal or at least undesirable in an anarchy. Nevertheless, they exist because governments profit from this expansion of powers.
Family structure and Parenting
Incentives :
- Government has a strong interest in promoting parenting - to promote the growth of the state, and to enforce statist and religious beliefs. Parenting is the first experience of obedience, and thus inculcates people with the "parental figure" idealization of power. God and the state are like perfect parents.
- Government promotes monogamy because it is the most stable family structure, and the least likely to provoke unrest. It is a form of relationship socialism.
Template created by: WebDesignHelper.co.uk |
|
|
|
Top