Walter Block’s article today discusses four cases that divide libertarians.
The first is public sector unions. A public sector union attempts to monopolize labor supply for a given service, a supply that for various reasons, economic and political, the government as employer cannot easily replace. Still, in 1981, President Reagan fired air traffic controllers on strike. In 1919, facing a police strike, Coolidge declared “There is no right to strike against the public safety by anybody, anywhere, anytime.”
Von Mises argued that whether one favors capitalism, socialism, or interventionism, it can be shown that only laissez-faire policies result in a goal that all three philosophies agree on, which is progress in material wealth. However, von Mises believed that government was essential to protect property rights and allow laissez-faire to operate:
“Government ought to do all the things for which it is needed and for which it was established. Government ought to protect the individuals within the country against the violent and fraudulent attacks of gangsters, and it should defend the country against foreign enemies. These are the functions of government within a free system, within the system of the market economy.”
From this point of view, a public sector union on strike stops a public service and this holds up the public, which is a gangster operation. This undermines the government’s capacity to provide safety in some service at a market-determined price of labor. This robs taxpayers and denies the public a service. As long as there is a government, it must prevent its own downfall and it must attempt to provide safety. It therefore cannot hire people to work for it unless they agree beforehand that they won’t join a union, an organization that threatens and leads strikes. If it does, it’s not holding up its end of the bargain with its taxpayers. It is actually undermining itself.
The anarcho-capitalist libertarian, thinking that the government is all evil, may favor anything that undermines it. However, what if the undermining activity is itself evil or negates laissez-faire during the destruction of the government? What if that activity destroys the public’s wealth and capacity to create wealth for an indeterminate period? Do two wrongs make a right? What if a golden age of life sans the state does not appear?
What if von Mises is correct that government is needed for protection against gangsters? What if Hobbes is right that without government, we are back in a disorderly state of nature lacking in private property rights? What if von Mises is correct that mankind’s material progress has depended greatly on government protections that allowed the division of labor to prevail and laissez-faire policies to work?
The second case is defunding of police. This case is almost the same as the public union case. Police protect against gangsters. This allows people to work in peace. We are told this of the Boston police strike in 1919: “Without police protection, the city was quickly experiencing robberies and riots. Mayor Andrew J. Peters called in Boston companies of militia, restoring order and breaking the strike.”
Government cannot suddenly defund police forces without undermining itself, and this undermines public safety and economic behavior. Unless private citizens quickly organize their own protection, which will prove costly and time-consuming, defunding police will demoralize police forces, impede their mission and destroy useful capital built up in their organizations. Defunding police robs the public of an essential service they pay for.
Third comes CHAZ. CHAZ is ridiculous. It makes no sense. It’s an operation that obviously flouts the public and property rights. It’s obviously highly destructive if replicated elsewhere.
CHAZ is the work of domestic barbarians. The area depends on contributions from others outside CHAZ. It’ll fail. Nonetheless, it’s invading property that belongs to others and should be stopped immediately. Americans cannot let such operations go forward in other locations without undermining the whole country.
Governments cannot allow such invasions of property, its own property and that of the people trapped in such a zone, without losing their own reason for being and eventually dissolving. The only reason why CHAZ has lasted more than a few minutes is because the city and state officials are so benighted and cowardly. Sooner or later, someone else will have to clean up their mess if they do not.
As in the first two cases, one must ask the same questions. Do two wrongs make a right? Is the government an unmitigated evil, as in installing death camps that kill Americans? And new questions arise. Even if governments do bad or evil things, which they do, who speaks for the public? Is it CHAZ’s people? Is it BLM? Is it apparently ineffective government officials? If the people want to change government policies, what are the proper means to accomplish that? It’s surely not by riots, looting, suppressing people, tearing down statues and censoring speech. Even if governments do bad and evil things, what are remedies? And what are attainable alternatives? And what do these alternatives cost us?
The fourth case is Chinese ocean encroachment. I’ve written at length on that subject before. My conclusion then was that China can build up islands lawfully on existing shoals and reefs, but it cannot then claim territorial limits around them for hundreds of miles that encroach on established sea lanes. “The first appropriators are in fact those who have traveled the waters, not necessarily state actors and fighters, but traders, shippers, travelers, explorers and merchants. These have made portions of the seas public property like paths or roads that no one owns but anyone can use.”
Personally, I am against public unions, which in local governments have gained very high pay for no perceptible return to taxpayers. And they have political clout as a bonus bad feature. Defunding the police is a slogan that can mean completely gutting police budgets, and that’s reason enough not to endorse such a thing. If the unions are broken, that will reduce city budgets spent for something and getting nothing. I am all in favor of ending the War on Drugs and ending asset forfeiture. There are other useful reforms that can be done that could introduce competition. My position on CHAZ is clear. It cannot be allowed, or else the barbarians will take over anything they want. As for sea lanes, they have to be enforced against any party that attempts to control them. Sea lanes are the result of long-established public rights-of-way.
9:02 am on June 19, 2020
