No Coercion

In response to my previous post, someone on a message board replied to the primary question (”What might have been?”) with, “We would be speaking Russian.” And another commenter also indicated he believed the Soviets would or could have developed nuclear weapons first and conquered the world in the absence of the Manhattan Project. In this particular example, the blame appears to fall back on the Manhattan Project itself, since Stalin didn’t have a nuke program until he heard about the one in the U.S.

But I think a more important point for the general case is that a free society, unencumbered by destructive taxation and regulation, would be extremely wealthy and highly versatile. Such a society would have people and firms that would have total mastery over information gathering and would know about a foreign power’s weapons plans in short order. The idea that a wealthy, free, and fiercely independent people would not spontaneously organize to prevent the development or use of such a weapon is absurd. Not to mention that a society that had eliminated the state or reduced it to the point that it was not engaging in military adventures (and the resultant weapons development) would not even represent a threat meriting the creation of a civilization-endangering weapon by a foreign state.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

With all the news lately about the Large Hadron Collider and new NASA programs, I think it’s important to ask a fundamental question: Why should the state be involved in funding and conducting science? That is, why should one group of people take up arms and expropriate vast sums of money from other people in order to do science? From a moral standpoint, the answer seems obvious to me: they shouldn’t. Like all endeavors of the state, it’s an exploitative relationship and has no place in civilized society.

But, some will say, what about the Apollo Program? What about all the discoveries that happen at places like the LHC? What about the achievements of the U.S. federal labs? What about all the university science funded by the government? Aren’t these worthwhile advances? Wouldn’t many of these things be impossible without violent exploitation? Well, to these people I would simply ask: What might have been?

What might have been the course of scientific progress in the U.S. if the state had not spent the past century confiscating untold billions of dollars from private individuals and directing it in the way that it did? Well, we know that all that money (all things being equal) would have been directed toward market-demanded production. Some would have gone toward privately-conducted science. In fact, without government crowding, there would have been quite a bit more private science, and private science is responsive to what consumers actually want. State science has only a rough approximation of this in the form of the pressure of public opinion.

For all we know, market-driven scientific progress could well have far exceeded what we’ve ended up with. Maybe some scientific knowledge and technologies we have now wouldn’t exist. But other discoveries–again, more closely-aligned with consumer demand–may have been made that would have resulted in an overall higher standard of living than we currently enjoy. In fact, that’s likely. With only a pale imitation of the cost-control pressures of the market, government science will tend to be far less efficient, solving problems and developing new technologies in much more round-about and resource-intensive ways than market-driven science. So, no, we probably wouldn’t have had an Apollo Program, that expensive and embarrassing instance of international “sword fighting” (if you know what I mean). Rather, the natural pressures of the market may have resulted in private, competing firms developing advanced, low-cost methods of reaching orbit and extracting commercially valuable resources from the moon, Mars, asteroids, etc. And we probably wouldn’t have the LHC. Instead, perhaps companies in fields as diverse as transportation, computing, communications, and medical technology would have developed a variety of cheaper and more effective ways of probing the fundamental particles and forces of reality in search of new technologies for the products demanded by their customers.

And it all would have been done through peaceful interaction among free people seeking to profit by providing one another with value rather than by violence of a parasitic political class exploiting a productive population in order to score political points.

The question is not, “How could we have X,Y, and Z without the state?” The question is, “In the absence of violent, inefficient, and politically driven state science, what might have been?”

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Today is Blog Action Day, organized to try to use coordinated blogging on a single topic to try to affect change. It seems to be focused on statist (i.e. violent) solutions to problems such as poverty, human rights, deforestation, health care, education, etc. The topic this year was declared to be “Climate Change.” Naturally, I’ll be attacking this from a libertarian, voluntaryist, market anarchist angle.

Let’s assume for the sake of argument that the doomsayers are right about the warming of the planet and its degree of anthropogenicity.  My response is, “So what?” Does that give you the right to hold a gun to my head and prevent me from producing, selling, or buying certain types of vehicles, light bulbs, air conditioners, etc.? Does it give you the right to use violence to force me to spend money to modify my production facilities to meet special emissions caps you’ve set? Does it give you the right to forcibly stop me from raising cattle or the right to take money from me and give it to someone else with a spiffy electric car company? The answer to all these questions is NO. Nothing other than my invading someone’s person or property can provide moral justification for him to commit any of those acts of aggression against me. And of course the State therefore also lacks such justification.

Supporters of government action (violence) to stop or reverse global warming often talk about scenarios such as rising sea levels displacing coastal populations, melting polar ice killing off the polar bears, dramatically altered weather patterns turning productive land into desert, etc. What they never seem to consider is that all of this could happen completely independently of any human action whatsoever. If that was the case, surely they wouldn’t be calling for acts of violence against their neighbors. If it was clear that the planet’s temperature was suddenly rising due to natural causes (like volcanic eruptions, solar activity, or the spontaneous appearance of an army of Megan Fox clones), would these pro-government-action folks be clamoring for the use of force to tell their neighbors how to run their businesses or what kind of TV they can have? Of course not. They would recognize that you do not punish or control people as a reaction to natural phenomena over which they had no control.

But how much different is that than the current situation as they describe it? If they’re right about the anthropogenicity of the latest warming trend, all we can say is that billions of people have interacted in the market place in order to meet each others’ needs and earn a living, thus dramatically improving their standards of living while unintentionally altering the atmosphere to the point that temperatures start to rise. This, to me, seems to be a fairly natural process, and the warming was entirely accidental. Does this call for violent solutions, the likes of which you might employ against an evil supervillian who intentionally poured carbon dioxide into the atmosphere to cause destruction? I don’t see how it can.

And the situation becomes even more untenable for the pro-coercion camp when we look at the fact that the climate system is so complex that we really have no idea if their plans to reduce human economic activity (an inhuman “solution” if ever there was one) will do anything at all to stop or reverse the trend. It’s not pleasant to contemplate all the needless misery and death resulting from the foregone improvement in standards of living (especially for the world’s poorest) if temperature trends are not affected by the statist schemes. Layer on top of that the fact that it’s entirely possible that a slightly warmer Earth, though possibly including higher sea levels, could easily result in vast amounts of currently frozen, unproductive land to become arable or otherwise incredibly beneficial to human utility. And regardless of how things turn out, individuals (again, especially the poorest) will be best able to mitigate the downsides and take advantage of the positives if they remain as free as possible to innovate, produce, and exchange on a voluntary basis, free from government coercion.

One final note is that as societies develop economically, they become ever more able to think beyond their daily survival and consider the costs of their actions on the environment. There is widespread pressure from consumers in the developed world for the companies they patronize to use ever more eco-friendly materials and production processes (even Walmart has begun experimenting with green-topping some of its stores). There are even investment funds that put together portfolios of only companies that meet certain standards of ‘greeness’ and energy efficiency (because consumers are demanding it). Advanced market economies naturally produce participants who are attuned to ever more diffuse effects of their actions, and companies will be forced to compete on those bases. There seems less and less need, even by the standards of the pro-government faction, to use force (a necessarily inefficient and thus eco-UNfriendly mechanism) to force companies to ‘be good.’

It seems to me an inescapable conclusion that the only moral position is to oppose the use of the organized, legal violence of the State to combat climate change and just allow the creation of wealth and happiness that flows from the unimpeded interaction of billions of free individuals spontaneously working together to improve their standards of living.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

I just saw an amusing ad on TV. It’s from a climate change activist group of some sort and puts forth what they apparently believe is a bullet-proof argument that we can both cool the planet and boost the economy by capping carbon emissions, thus forcing an explosion of renewable energy production. This is the kind of “green economics” that the Obama administration and many Democrats (and a few Republicans) tout.  But such a concept is neither green nor economics in any meaningful sense.

To be green, I suppose it would have to be good for the environment. Unfortunately for the green pro-state folks, history shows us that the environment is healthiest under conditions of free markets and private property rights and least healthy under conditions of increasing state meddling. Specifically, the aim of these activists is to cool the planet. But we don’t know if the planet is truly warming–data from recent years apparently indicates a fairly flat trendline. Beyond that, since much climate variation seems to be due in large part to solar activity, we don’t know how much we could affect it by reducing carbon emissions. To complicate things even further, we don’t even know if a warmer planet would actually be worse. It may well result in a dramatic increase in arable land and help mitigate any future (and far more deadly) global cooling.

As for the assertion that the forced limiting of fossil fuel use would somehow boost the economy, that’s patently absurd. Making energy more expensive means everyone will have less money left over to spend on other things, thus lowering our standard of living. We would end up with a net loss of wealth and well-being in our society.

Keep that in mind when you hear someone self-righteously proclaiming the mystical goodness of the “green economy.”

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

 Veeeerrrrrry interesting:

Myth of Consensus Explodes: APS Opens Global Warming Debate

More evidence for a lack of consensus on climate change. As I’ve said before, even if we were significantly affecting the climate in some way, it’s such a complex system that we have no clue what affects various proposed policies might actually have. And since such policies are typically estimated to impoverish humanity to the tune of trillions and trillions of dollars and necessarily require the initiation of force against individuals, there is absolutely no way–no way–to morally justify any action by government to ‘fix’ the climate (I should specify–the government should take no positive action; the government most certainly should take the negative action of immediately abandoning all publicly owned property and ceasing all taxation, regulation, and other coercion, which would not only do wonders to help the environment but would allow economic growth and productivity on an unimaginable scale).

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

This, my friends, is how basic science could be funded in a free society where government doesn’t confiscate money from Bill to pay for Bob’s research:

Public donates to UW scientist to fund backward-in-time research

I don’t care how important you think your research is–it’s not important enough to steal from me.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

While chatting with some friends tonight, the topic of government studies of artificial sweeteners came up (”Well, of course it did,” you’re saying to yourself). A friend who works at the EPA mentioned some agency folks who had just finished a study apparently racking up more evidence that aspartame (in the form of diet soda in this study, it seems) does such things as cause cancer in lab rats and fails to actually help the rats lose weight as compared to a control group that was drinking regular soda (personally, all the rats I know are more health-conscious than that and tend to avoid soda altogether–something about phosphoric acid).

I asked my friend if he had seen many government-funded studies that came up with good news in their results. You see, it occurs to me that there is a disturbing incentive at work here that makes all government-funded science suspect by default. The money comes either from elected officials directly or from government bureaucracies whose existence and budgets depend on the elected officials.

Now, we know that elected officials (with a very, very few exceptions) depend for their jobs and fame on scaring voters about particular issues and then riding in like the cavalry to solve the terrible problems with new legislation. Are these politicians likely to send money toward scientists whose research finds that, say, aspartame is perfectly safe? Certainly not. Do the scientists know this? Of course. Are there ethical scientists who get the government funding and then proceed to brazenly stick it to their masters by following the science and coming out with results that are not scary? I’m sure there are. But I’ll bet not many of them get repeat business from Uncle Sam (and if they work directly for a government agency, they may not keep their job much longer).

Of course, there’s also a dynamic involved that doesn’t necessarily involve scaring voters into accepting new legislation. Politicians will often also fund research that is popular among the masses, regardless of its actual value. For instance, you see politicians today jumping on whatever the latest ‘green’ technology is that is trendy among the environmental groups (ever notice how easy it is for people to push something when they can use government to force everyone else to help them pay for it?).

I’ve personally seen a lot of government physics research (including some I worked on myself in my pre-libertarian days) that seemed to be driven by socially popular environmental agendas (not to mention plenty of space craft research driven by military-related fear mongering).

Basically, what it comes down to is that research that is likely to lead to an expansion of government power or increased fame and personal power for politicians is much more likely to be funded by your tax dollars than research that isn’t.

Or even more briefly: Government funding of scientific research tends to bias the results in favor of expanded government.

Maybe something to keep in mind when weighing the results of government research.

Am I right? Am I wrong? Have I misread the incentives? Weigh in with your comments, and let me know what you think!

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!