Bretigne, Thanks for the beautiful essay and the powerful testimony about rural China and sweatshops, This is one of my favorite essays because it points to sameness rather than differences: https://fee.org/articles/protectionists-should-tread-lightly-on-the-dreams-of-the-chinese-poor/ Yet, whenever I point in this direction the China bashers come out and include those who should know better. I find it hard to be as optimistic about the next 20-40 years. Will humanity wake up in time?
I love your piece on the Chinese workers. It is so hard to listen to people rail about "sweat shops" when they don't understand why someone would choose to work in one.
Will humanity wake up in time? Probably not. But hopefully we'll develop the technologies we need to protect us from the insanity of coercive institutions run amok!
Excellent work on this and your LewRockwell piece! My eyes have been opened even wider than they already were. Like Toby and many others, I've long believed the regulatory system was created to protect the people/planet from industry misdeeds, and was since captured by industry. So, learning that it was initially designed to benefit industry was quite an epiphany.
In the LewRockwell piece, you state, "The institution of the state is the biggest monopolist around." This reminded me of a paper published in the Wisconsin Law Review titled "The Myth of the Rule of Law" by John Hasnas, about how the state has a monopoly on the rule of law. If you aren't already familiar with it, I think it would be of interest to you. https://medusa.teodesian.net/docs/liberty/MythFinalDraft.pdf
TBH I think this is asking the wrong question. The problem with liberalism isn't so much the market or the state per sae it's that abandoning a society grounded in the absolute morality and metaphysics of Christianity or at least some other religion opens the door to decadence and nihilism. Once decadence and nihilism permeates a society it's everyone for themselves in the worst possible way that people simply stop caring. An example would be someone being part of an evil corporate/state bureaucracy that causes tremendous suffering having no voice of conscience check on their actions. Seeing as you are in the Mises camp I would say Hoppe covers this pretty well in "Democracy that God that Failed."
I haven't read Hoppe's book, but am a fan, and am familiar with his arguments. And I agree to an extent... but I don't think this gets to the core of the problem. Somewhat ironically, I see the core of the problem as being much more mundane and technical. I believe (and I could be wrong here) that the spiritual ills of our society are more the *result* of these technical issues, than the cause. Although, of course, once that snowball gets rolling, it just keeps building on itself.
What I mean is that, the more power and resources we (society) take out of private hands and put into the hands of the state, the more EVERYTHING ELSE gets screwed up. Including morality and religion.
Just one concrete example: In 19th century America, mutual aid societies were prevalent, and did a very good job of taking care of a lot of people who "fell through the net." These were not connected to the government, but were all created by groups of people with common interests: Ethnic and religious groups, trade associations, etc.
Eventually, the state, and its cronies in the insurance industry (using state power to crush its opponents) put an end to most mutual aid, replacing it with a) government welfare systems, and b) corporate (largely monopolized) insurance. Neither of which does a very good job of serving the people who are dependent upon them.
But beyond the dysfunction of these two newer coercive/quasi-coercive institutions, is the social impact of this change. Not only did the crony state eliminate a functioning system and replace it with dysfunctional ones - it also removed one thing from people's social lives that gave them purpose and that connected them in a powerful way with their communities.
I strongly suspect that "being Christian" (insert your own religion or moral philosophy here) is not very real or meaningful without real-life actions that take your beliefs out into the world. That is what mutual-aid societies did – they were a venue for people to "act out" their Christian values, and make them real. I believe that the more these venues are taken from us and handed to the state, the less agency we have not only in our own personal lives but in our communities, and the less meaningful our religion/moral beliefs are to us.
The more we become wards of the state, the less truly "human" we become, and that includes having a powerful moral/religious foundation. That's what I think.
The simple rebuttal to any attempt to throw shade on economic liberalism (and the libertarian political philosphy which is its necessary adjunct) is this:
What is the alternative?
If men cannot be trusted, what government--which invariably is staffed by men, is to be trusted?
If the great mass of men cannot self-organize into an efficient free market, what makes the coercions of a select few likely to succeed?
What human history proves again and again and again is that when any person or group gets even a little power, things do not end well.
When businesses get market power, we get monopoly, oligopoly, and eventually stagnation.
When politicians get political power we get incumbency, cronyism, corruption, and eventually stagnation.
When one person gets total power, we get genocide and environmental destruction on a mass scale.
One could concede every presumed "flaw" in economic liberalism and still the question stands: "what is the alternative?"
Authoritarian solutions of every stripe do more harm and cost more lives.
Economoic liberalism might be imperfect, but, even so, history shows it to be the best option available. The data on that point is so overwhelming as to put the matter beyond all serious debate.
It all comes down to some kind of fairy-tale fantasy a lot of folks have about government, and it has nothing to do with reality. Maybe what the world is going through now will disabuse enough people of this fairy tale and humanity can finally grow up?
Still, we should be mindful this flaw of government was known even in the ancient world. We can see that in the Israelites demand for a king in the first book of Samuel.
*****
So Samuel told all the words of the Lord to the people who were asking a king from him. He said, “These will be the ways of the king who will reign over you: he will take your sons and appoint them to his chariots and to be his horsemen, and to run before his chariots; and he will appoint for himself commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and some to plow his ground and to reap his harvest, and to make his implements of war and the equipment of his chariots. He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive orchards and give them to his servants. He will take the tenth of your grain and of your vineyards and give it to his officers and to his servants. He will take your menservants and maidservants, and the best of your cattle and your asses, and put them to his work. He will take the tenth of your flocks, and you shall be his slaves. And in that day you will cry out because of your king, whom you have chosen for yourselves; but the Lord will not answer you in that day.
*****
(1 Samuel 8:10-18)
Regardless of one’s faith, regardless of how one views the Bible, the historical reality is this passage was written down at least by the sixth century BC. The folly of believing in government virtue and the consequences that come have been known to humanity for at least 2,500 years.
For millennia we have been told of the perils of government, and for millennia we have not listened.
Will now be the moment when humanity finally “gets it”? We can only hope!
Their inner authoritarian falls in love with Romans 13:1-5 and then feitishizes the verses while bastardizing their meaning.
*****
Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore he who resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of him who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain; he is the servant of God to execute his wrath on the wrongdoer.
*****
This has been used by many to justify authoritarian rule, the presumption being that those “in authority” are put there by God, and therefore whatever those in authority will is automatically what God wills.
However, that interpretation does not reconcile to what the Apostle Paul himself said just a couple verses further on:
*****
Pay all of them their dues, taxes to whom taxes are due, revenue to whom revenue is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due.
*****
The distinction here is ascertaining what is a leader’s “due”.
A leader who strives to be a righteous and godly man, who seeks to discharge his office in line with God’s Will and God’s Law, is a leader that men should support. The Apostle Paul leaves no doubt on this point and I am not one to dispute that point.
However, the leader who acts contrary to God’s Will and against God’s Law earns not respect but reprobation as his due—and the full reading of the text shows that the Apostle Paul leaves no real doubt on this either.
(We should remember that Paul, like many of the Apostles, was executed by the Romans for preaching Christianity to the masses—hardly the subservient apparatchik the fascist apologists would make of him).
For the even older teaching which precedes both Romans and 1 Samuel is found in the closing line of Judges:
*****
In those days there was no king in Israel; every man did what was right in his own eyes.
*****
The challenge in our age—as in every age—is to apply all these teachings (Judges, Samuel, and Romans) holistically, coherently, and honestly without abandoning any of them.
Oops! How did this typo evade our notice for a year and a half? "an an effective instrument"
[We ended up with Stakeholder Fascism because "we" (someone, not me) were foolish enough to believe that an entity that is founded in coercive power can ever be an an effective instrument for the protection of ordinary people against the more powerful.]
“We ended up with Stakeholder Fascism because "we" (someone, not me) were foolish enough to believe that an entity that is founded in coercive power can ever be an an effective instrument for the protection of ordinary people against the more powerful.” Beautifully stated, Bretigne.
Bretigne, Thanks for the beautiful essay and the powerful testimony about rural China and sweatshops, This is one of my favorite essays because it points to sameness rather than differences: https://fee.org/articles/protectionists-should-tread-lightly-on-the-dreams-of-the-chinese-poor/ Yet, whenever I point in this direction the China bashers come out and include those who should know better. I find it hard to be as optimistic about the next 20-40 years. Will humanity wake up in time?
Thank you!
I love your piece on the Chinese workers. It is so hard to listen to people rail about "sweat shops" when they don't understand why someone would choose to work in one.
Will humanity wake up in time? Probably not. But hopefully we'll develop the technologies we need to protect us from the insanity of coercive institutions run amok!
Excellent work on this and your LewRockwell piece! My eyes have been opened even wider than they already were. Like Toby and many others, I've long believed the regulatory system was created to protect the people/planet from industry misdeeds, and was since captured by industry. So, learning that it was initially designed to benefit industry was quite an epiphany.
In the LewRockwell piece, you state, "The institution of the state is the biggest monopolist around." This reminded me of a paper published in the Wisconsin Law Review titled "The Myth of the Rule of Law" by John Hasnas, about how the state has a monopoly on the rule of law. If you aren't already familiar with it, I think it would be of interest to you. https://medusa.teodesian.net/docs/liberty/MythFinalDraft.pdf
Oh, thank you! I was not aware of that paper - it does look interesting!
TBH I think this is asking the wrong question. The problem with liberalism isn't so much the market or the state per sae it's that abandoning a society grounded in the absolute morality and metaphysics of Christianity or at least some other religion opens the door to decadence and nihilism. Once decadence and nihilism permeates a society it's everyone for themselves in the worst possible way that people simply stop caring. An example would be someone being part of an evil corporate/state bureaucracy that causes tremendous suffering having no voice of conscience check on their actions. Seeing as you are in the Mises camp I would say Hoppe covers this pretty well in "Democracy that God that Failed."
I haven't read Hoppe's book, but am a fan, and am familiar with his arguments. And I agree to an extent... but I don't think this gets to the core of the problem. Somewhat ironically, I see the core of the problem as being much more mundane and technical. I believe (and I could be wrong here) that the spiritual ills of our society are more the *result* of these technical issues, than the cause. Although, of course, once that snowball gets rolling, it just keeps building on itself.
What I mean is that, the more power and resources we (society) take out of private hands and put into the hands of the state, the more EVERYTHING ELSE gets screwed up. Including morality and religion.
Just one concrete example: In 19th century America, mutual aid societies were prevalent, and did a very good job of taking care of a lot of people who "fell through the net." These were not connected to the government, but were all created by groups of people with common interests: Ethnic and religious groups, trade associations, etc.
Eventually, the state, and its cronies in the insurance industry (using state power to crush its opponents) put an end to most mutual aid, replacing it with a) government welfare systems, and b) corporate (largely monopolized) insurance. Neither of which does a very good job of serving the people who are dependent upon them.
But beyond the dysfunction of these two newer coercive/quasi-coercive institutions, is the social impact of this change. Not only did the crony state eliminate a functioning system and replace it with dysfunctional ones - it also removed one thing from people's social lives that gave them purpose and that connected them in a powerful way with their communities.
I strongly suspect that "being Christian" (insert your own religion or moral philosophy here) is not very real or meaningful without real-life actions that take your beliefs out into the world. That is what mutual-aid societies did – they were a venue for people to "act out" their Christian values, and make them real. I believe that the more these venues are taken from us and handed to the state, the less agency we have not only in our own personal lives but in our communities, and the less meaningful our religion/moral beliefs are to us.
The more we become wards of the state, the less truly "human" we become, and that includes having a powerful moral/religious foundation. That's what I think.
The simple rebuttal to any attempt to throw shade on economic liberalism (and the libertarian political philosphy which is its necessary adjunct) is this:
What is the alternative?
If men cannot be trusted, what government--which invariably is staffed by men, is to be trusted?
If the great mass of men cannot self-organize into an efficient free market, what makes the coercions of a select few likely to succeed?
What human history proves again and again and again is that when any person or group gets even a little power, things do not end well.
When businesses get market power, we get monopoly, oligopoly, and eventually stagnation.
When politicians get political power we get incumbency, cronyism, corruption, and eventually stagnation.
When one person gets total power, we get genocide and environmental destruction on a mass scale.
One could concede every presumed "flaw" in economic liberalism and still the question stands: "what is the alternative?"
Authoritarian solutions of every stripe do more harm and cost more lives.
Economoic liberalism might be imperfect, but, even so, history shows it to be the best option available. The data on that point is so overwhelming as to put the matter beyond all serious debate.
It all comes down to some kind of fairy-tale fantasy a lot of folks have about government, and it has nothing to do with reality. Maybe what the world is going through now will disabuse enough people of this fairy tale and humanity can finally grow up?
That would be a nice outcome.
Still, we should be mindful this flaw of government was known even in the ancient world. We can see that in the Israelites demand for a king in the first book of Samuel.
*****
So Samuel told all the words of the Lord to the people who were asking a king from him. He said, “These will be the ways of the king who will reign over you: he will take your sons and appoint them to his chariots and to be his horsemen, and to run before his chariots; and he will appoint for himself commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and some to plow his ground and to reap his harvest, and to make his implements of war and the equipment of his chariots. He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive orchards and give them to his servants. He will take the tenth of your grain and of your vineyards and give it to his officers and to his servants. He will take your menservants and maidservants, and the best of your cattle and your asses, and put them to his work. He will take the tenth of your flocks, and you shall be his slaves. And in that day you will cry out because of your king, whom you have chosen for yourselves; but the Lord will not answer you in that day.
*****
(1 Samuel 8:10-18)
Regardless of one’s faith, regardless of how one views the Bible, the historical reality is this passage was written down at least by the sixth century BC. The folly of believing in government virtue and the consequences that come have been known to humanity for at least 2,500 years.
For millennia we have been told of the perils of government, and for millennia we have not listened.
Will now be the moment when humanity finally “gets it”? We can only hope!
Yes, I keep thinking about that!
And it is striking to me how few Christians seem to be aware of this passage, or of its importance.
Their inner authoritarian falls in love with Romans 13:1-5 and then feitishizes the verses while bastardizing their meaning.
*****
Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore he who resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of him who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain; he is the servant of God to execute his wrath on the wrongdoer.
*****
This has been used by many to justify authoritarian rule, the presumption being that those “in authority” are put there by God, and therefore whatever those in authority will is automatically what God wills.
However, that interpretation does not reconcile to what the Apostle Paul himself said just a couple verses further on:
*****
Pay all of them their dues, taxes to whom taxes are due, revenue to whom revenue is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due.
*****
The distinction here is ascertaining what is a leader’s “due”.
A leader who strives to be a righteous and godly man, who seeks to discharge his office in line with God’s Will and God’s Law, is a leader that men should support. The Apostle Paul leaves no doubt on this point and I am not one to dispute that point.
However, the leader who acts contrary to God’s Will and against God’s Law earns not respect but reprobation as his due—and the full reading of the text shows that the Apostle Paul leaves no real doubt on this either.
(We should remember that Paul, like many of the Apostles, was executed by the Romans for preaching Christianity to the masses—hardly the subservient apparatchik the fascist apologists would make of him).
For the even older teaching which precedes both Romans and 1 Samuel is found in the closing line of Judges:
*****
In those days there was no king in Israel; every man did what was right in his own eyes.
*****
The challenge in our age—as in every age—is to apply all these teachings (Judges, Samuel, and Romans) holistically, coherently, and honestly without abandoning any of them.
Oops! How did this typo evade our notice for a year and a half? "an an effective instrument"
[We ended up with Stakeholder Fascism because "we" (someone, not me) were foolish enough to believe that an entity that is founded in coercive power can ever be an an effective instrument for the protection of ordinary people against the more powerful.]
😱 Yikes!!! Thanks!
“We ended up with Stakeholder Fascism because "we" (someone, not me) were foolish enough to believe that an entity that is founded in coercive power can ever be an an effective instrument for the protection of ordinary people against the more powerful.” Beautifully stated, Bretigne.
Your thoughts encapsulate the thoughts that were running through my mind as I read that piece.