A libertarian and one of his new friend are in abar, drinking a beer after work. The friend heard about his fellow being adangerous anarchist so he decided to investigate a little bit more about thatcraziness.
The Friend: for you what is astate?
The Libertarian: a group to force the people in acountry.
How is the state forcing thepeople?
The state threatens to put them injail.
What is a state for?
It was actually to force people not to force eachother.
You said “was”. That’s not trueanymore?
No. Now, a state is to force people to do whatsome want: the biggest minority in democracy or the chief in dictatorship. Toforce them to give some of their money to the state, not to smoke in a bar,etc, etc.
Why do you think the purpose of a state haschanged?
I think because people sometimes believe thatforcing people to do something they want can be easier and less expensive thatgetting them to want it. And people quickly understood that the state is thebiggest gun of all to force others.
So, in XIXth Century, people owning companies askthe state to force companies abroad to pay money. That prevented the abroadproducts, which were better, to be cheaper than the local ones. The richer wonwhereas the abroad companies and the?local consumers lost.
When they saw that, it was easier for the new socalled “socialists” to convince the less rich?to trust them. They couldtell the less rich they would make the state to force the richer to give themmore money and fewer hours to work.?
OK, wait, if they did not, we would still work 12hours a week for a misery,?wouldn't we?
Actually, this is not right my friend. More moneyand / or less work and / or better work conditions is not contradictory withthe growth of a company. Smart entrepreneurs, like Herb Keleher,?know fora long time that happier loyal employees make happier customers that makehappier shareholders. For example, why do you think Henry Ford raised wages inthe 20s?
Everybody knows that! To make his employeescustomers!
Sorry but this is the myth, not the reality.Henry Ford raised the wages because he understood that better paid employeeswould be more loyal and it would thus be less expensive than recruiting andteaching new ones.
That’s the same issue in >?xml:namespace prefix =" ""st1" /?<China…
Wait… China, you won’t say China is a paradise,right?
No, obviously, I am just saying that in Chinathey have been doing in 20 years what we did in one century, which is raisingthe daily available dollars for a huge part of them, maybe 300 or 400 millionpeople. And you can see many regions out there where the “bargaining power” hasbeen reversed: too many jobs, not enough people, so employers have to seducepeople, not the other way around.
But there is no liberty inChina?
Yes, and that’s a shame. But as you saw in Arabcountries recently, education and globalization will lead to more freedom.What’s the biggest issue with China is not what they’re doing, but that they’redoing it at least 80 years after us, and at ten times the scale. So it is a bigdeal. Either we let customers in West profit from less exensive products andchinese producers raise their living or we turn back to closed systems wherelocal low value producers will be happy but the Chinese and us as customerswill be less wealthy.
Ok, but let’s back to us: honestly, the state isnot “forcing” you…
How do you call one that would threaten you withguns if you don’t want to do what it tells you (which is what would happen if Irefuse to pay taxes).
Right, if you’re not happy, you can leave thecountry?
But I was born here! Between you that want astate and me that don’t want one, why should you be more legitimate tostay?
…hmmm, because this isdemocracy?
Why democracy should be seen as a verifiable godgiven truth?? [The friend is mum].By the way, why do you like the state?
Because it can help thepoor.
Can you say the “less rich” instead of “thepoor”? Honestly even the least rich today in our country are probably “richer”than Louis XIV was. And for me there are no way but arbitrary decisions todecide whether one is “rich” or “poor”: absolute adjectives cankill.
OK. So, because it can help the lessrich.
Are you OK to agree that it’s doing it byracketing money from other people?
Yes. But it isnecessary.
Necessary for what?
Because, it’s unfair to let themdie!
Unfair to whom?
To me, first…
…so 男人体艺术 feelbetter off knowing that the state is doing it? So you areasking the state to force people to do what you want?
…Ok, me, but everyone should feel thesame?
Why? Wanting to help the less rich is a choiceyou make, partly to feel yourself better. You can think that people which don’tfeel worse when thinking about the less rich are assholes, but why is thatgiving you the right to force them?
…but you don’t feel worse about theneedy?
I feel worse. And I want them to get wealthier.But I don’t want to get what I want by forcing other people with astate.
…but without a state, they woulddie!
No. First, all the “universal” services from thestate could be done much better and / or cheaper with time thanks to the rightto compete. And, as in any country, we would have much higher “realsolidarity”, where people choose to give money for nothing. The lower level ofcharity in a country is directly correlated to the higher level of stateintervention.
That’s one of people’s biggest mistakes: wantingto provide a service to everyone by letting the state do it alone with nocompetition and paid by force. You know, if I can’t convince you to let me livewith no state, I would rather let free groups to compete to provide theservices and be forced to give money to the less rich for them to choose one ofthe services.
and what about free school and free Frenchculture ?
It’s a bad example my friend. In France, it’s nota coincidence if we have the highest level of state spending and among theworst results, according to PISA. Second, there, it’s you that is richer andwas born in a better off family that is stealing the less rich to pay for yourhigher education or culture they won’t get. As I said before, and FrédéricBastiat before and better than me, everybody is trying to force anybody elsewith a state. Based on that, guess why I am sure you’re feeling a rise in“selfishness” or a crisis of the “vivre ensemble”.
You think it’s because of thestate?
Yes. Gifting apart, the best way to get what youwant from a person?is to trade it for something he wants more. Whiletrading, both are thinking they’re winning. As a state is to force, from thestart, there is a forcer and a forced. State is feeding thefight between people.
Ah ah, you said it, “thinking” is the right word.Because we know each other that someone can lie in a trade and someone canregret!
You’re absolutely right…and that’s why somepeople or companies provide services to tell you whether or not you can trustsomeone else before a trade. And companies as ebay have even digitalized theprocess with feedback: you know you should not lie on a trade because peoplewill know and may boycott you.
As you saw with Mediator recently, a state doesnot seem to be really better at providing trust J
Ok so, according to you, a way to prevent peoplefrom lying or forcing others is the risk for them to beboycotted?
But “professional forcers” like Mafia would risein your world?
I don’t think so. Especially because the statewon’t be there to force people not to buy drugs. So many businesses done todayin fear and violence would be pacified. Remember Prohibition. Patrick Ricardlooks a bit like Al Capone but is less violent don’t you think?
And many groups will provide security servicesbecause it's obvious people want it.
Yes but don’t you believe that with time only oneprivate security company will emerge as a monopoly and thus recreating astate?
You know, the very first reason for monopoly oroligopoly is the state. Because companies run by men, are like anybody else,wanting to profit from the state. Bigger corporations are most often pro stateand can get rules to prevent competition from newcomers. So with no state,chances are smaller to be the only one to provide a service to anyone. And ifeventually the only risk is to come back to where we are…
…but with what consequences! This would be acivil war!
Neither for me. First no place can work withouthaving many people believing at least a bit in trade, state or not state (thinkabout Iraq). Second, most of civil war is actually to…lead the state! So ifpeople lose their faith in the state, one of the biggest causes of war isalready gone.
…you say “faith”?
Yes, it’s really that faith I want to kill. I amlogical. If some people want a state, I don’t want to force them not to havethem. I want to convince them that the state is what prevents us to getwealthier and eventuallly happier.?And,?to start,?I want thatpeople not to force me to be forced by the state. Would you?
Then the dialog stopped and the two buddies lefteach other. That night, The Friend did not sleep as he could not stop thinkingabout what The Libertarian told him. What if he was right ?