Me too. The worst thing that can happen
to a socialist is to have his country ruled by socialists who
are not his friends. Welcome to Keith's night.
Don't tread on anyone today. We have Gary chartier.
He is the author of Anarchy and legal order along with economic
Justice and natural law. He is a consultant speaker coach
writer philosopher and teacher check him out.
His website is in the description.
Mr. Chartier. Thank you for your time,
pleasure to be here. What do you mean when you say we
support markets? Well, I guess it depends on who
we is but when I say I support markets, I mean that open
exchange is both predicated on people's freedom to dispose of
their labor and their insights and their property.
And that open exchange is widely generally beneficial.
I should have said to you. I was looking at your quote from
Center for a stateless society. So something like markets, you
could think of slave markets. You could think of human
trafficking today, are those part of this philosophy.
Is that a shortcoming of philosophy?
So on my view a credible Market order depends on underlying
rights, right? It's not to talk about.
Out the value of markets is not to say that anything and
everything is in principle subject to third-party
exchanges. And so, since I think that
people have a right, not to be subjected to physical force them
to have their bodies controlled or injured forcibly and not to
have their justly acquired possessions misappropriated,
then that obviously gets in the way.
Certainly of slave markets, and things like that.
So I'm absolutely not saying anything and everything should
be exchanged and don't think slave contracts are enforceable.
I certainly don't think involuntary enslavement is ever.
Okay. So yeah, my my support for
markets is not a support for not a support for enslavement.
What is a freed Market? The reason a lot of us, thanks
to the great William. Gillis.
Use the Expression freed Market is to emphasize that very often
in contemporary political discourse.
We find people throwing around the language of the free market
and seeming to mean by that not very free at all Market.
Very much. The market that we often have
today in markets that are rigged markets that are Hamstrung
markets that are riddled with privilege of various kinds.
And so we talked about the freed Market that is the liberated
Market to emphasize the difference between the kind of
Freedom. We favor and the illusory
Freedom that is sometimes affirmed of existing markets by
those perhaps a bit more invested in the status quo.
Now, let's say I have a worldview where I want to make
sure people in powerful positions are held accountable.
Why should I support markets? Well, so people in positions of
power because they're in positions of Power, are hard to
hold accountable. Let's let's begin with that with
that recognition. Even when we have glorious words
written down on paper that tell us that people in power, are
accountable either because they're accountable to voters or
they're accountable to Congressional investigators.
Vestigators or they're accountable to journalists.
The reality. Is that once you have power, it
becomes increasingly and unsurprisingly easy for you to
insulate yourself against power, against against inquiry, against
assessment against accountability.
And so It seems to me that. Not to put too fine, a point on
it. The best way to insulate people
against abuses of power. The best way to protect against
abuses of power, is to reduce the amount of power that that
anybody has a my power here. I don't mean influence or
something, vague like that. I mean, the ability to deploy
physical force on a systematic basis.
And so by reducing the amount of free play for Forcible exercise
of power and by increasing opportunities for consensual
exchange, consensual interaction.
And that's really as Charles Johnson suggest in the broad
sense. What the market is the space of
voluntary consensual interaction, then I think we
reduce the opportunity for people with power to act badly.
Now that doesn't mean that if you've got a structure in which
people have power, there's no way to to try to hold them
accountable. Well, but I think we should
begin with the recognition. That it's very easy.
Once you have power to insulate yourself against attempts to
hold you accountable. So the reducing the reach of
power seems like the first step toward actually ensuring, you
don't have to worry about holding abusive powerful people
account. Now, I look at the marketplace
and even a free market. I wouldn't really see them
catering to me necessarily. Whereas if I have a government,
I constantly have politicians trying to please me trying to
win over my vote. Does the existence of a state
allow me as a citizen to actually engage in society and
really be valued and have dignity or as the marketplace is
more of a dog-eat-dog place of if I want to live with dignity.
And be influential in my Society should I embrace markets or a
government? Well, so it seems to me that on
the face divot we can see, you know, both kinds of Alternatives
in principle and play in different different political
and economic environments, culture matters and culture,
obviously needs to include a recognition on basic moral
grounds of Buddy's dignity allowing for that.
However, allowing for the fact that sometimes people are
treated badly by markets and sometimes they treated well by
government officials. Nonetheless.
It seems to me that one reason you might at any rate, favor
markets over governments, is that as a general matter?
There are more options on offer in an Open Marketplace and your
Need to say no is presupposed. Again, we're talking about the
kind of Market that features rights of the sort.
I've noted earlier and so as a result since you can say no
people have in general, a an incentive to to treat you well,
and I mean we often think perhaps that's a in retail
environments. We're treated fairly
dismissively, but the reality is We nonetheless deal with a
culture in which people don't and generally they don't in
general laugh at the idea that the customer is always right,
you know, we note that in some other societies in which you
know, it's very easy for people to retain employment.
Even when they behave quite badly, retail service can be
very very Submissive and the customer is definitely not
treated as right are things. Perfect in our society.
The answer is, of course not. There are real problems.
There are some of them cultural some of them legal and
structural, but the level of flexibility and the degree to
which we enjoy, the most basic garringer of dignity, namely the
right to say no, really? I think gives us opportunities
that interacting with the government doesn't and If you
want to be reminded of that wait in line at the DMV, you know,
you're not you're not there to get a service that you request
your there to be, you know, put through the wringer by people
implementing the rules that you had nothing to do with with
creating, and they're going to be imposed on, you mean,
obviously, the people, you deal with in government settings, can
sometimes be nice and agreeable. People.
I'm not trying to suggest that we're talking about a bunch of
moral monsters, but I think the institutional Don't lead
government agencies and certainly government officials
with considerable power to be all that interested in your in
your well-being or your preferences.
You know, you talked about government officials courting
you and undoubtedly, they Court you, as you know, the member of
a big pool of Voters or you know, taxpayers or whoever but
they certainly don't. Have much reason to be terribly
interested in you as an individual because in fact you
have no real option to say no and I think by contrast in a
Marketplace, your ability to say no is preserved.
And I think that matters a great deal for how you're treated.
After the options you can front. I look at history and see women
and minorities as being oppressed and the state as the
correcting mechanism. For solving said oppression.
Why should I embrace the ideas of Center for a stateless
society? If my primary focus is to uplift
the downtrodden. So I think it's certainly right
that we can look at history and we can see a great deal of
exclusion and Nation sometimes maintained actively through
violence and sometimes maintained through a variety of
societal pressures. What's clear is that?
Governments are not populated by people who are forwards, first
and foremost ascending to positions of power, in order to
in order to make the world a better place.
I think that's pretty straightforwardly because the
one thing we know about people with power is that they're
people who are interested in and adept, Acquiring and maintaining
power. Otherwise, they wouldn't be in
positions of power. And that means as a general
rule, that such people are likely to be less principled,
more ambitious than the average, or they wouldn't be where they
are, and they're likely to be susceptible to pressures to act
badly in a variety of ways. So I'm not just saying that they
have more power than the rest of us.
And so, you know, like the the rest of us, they sometimes
pursue their own objectives at the interests of others.
That's certainly true. But I'm also saying they're not
as likely to be as principled as the rest of us.
There's a kind of self selection process involved.
So I begin with the assumption that we don't have good reason
to expect that good things will happen as a general matter for
people without power people who have been excluded and
subordinate. Good things aren't likely to
happen just because of the Goodwill of people who have
power, people who have power can be expected.
Instead really, to pay attention to the concerns of the
marginalized in one way or another only to the extent that
they see some political Advantage for this.
So I don't think first of all that appeals to the good
intentions. Of people with power, are likely
to get us very far people with power.
I think can be expected to behave well to behave.
Let's say in ways that reflect opposition to exclusion,
subordination. Largely, you know, when they're
cultural shifts involved. When there are economic shifts
involved, you know, we didn't, for instance, get legislation,
addressing child, labor until the economy and culture had
shifted enough. The child labor was on the out,
anyway, I think that similarly if we think about the status of
Ethnic and cultural minorities. And we think about the status of
women and gays trans people what we should expect in.
All of these cases is less than enthusiastic support from people
with power. I don't think because there are
cultural issues involved often and it's a word nation and
exclusion that we can just assume that market exchange on
its own will be To address every concern that someone in an
excluded or subordinated, group might him and I think there's
there remain certainly room for nonviolent.
Peaceful persuasive activism on behalf of inclusion and
empowerment. But I do think at the same time,
it's worth noting that when people are motivated by
irrational Prejudice when they are motivated, But bigotry, they
pay attacks, right? That is to say they pay more in
order to not do business with, not employ, not have as
customers, not have a suppliers people in groups.
They disfavor when they disfavor those groups on the basis of
bigotry. And so there is, I think a
built-in tendency for markets to push back against bad choices.
On the part of, you know, social institutions and of business
people and so forth again, not perfectly.
I think they're absolutely is remains room for activism here.
Because in one way or another, there may be sources of
insulation against the expression of bigotry and
Prejudice, but I think we should see markets as counting quite
strongly against the long term. Viability of bigotry.
I know for instance that lets say in South Africa clear
example in the 20th century of institutionalized subordination
and exclusion that it wasn't the case that we had private
businesses independently and freely maintaining consistent
policies of apartheid rather. Those had to be maintained by
law. Precisely because they weren't
in the interests of businesses to to enforce and so here's the
other thing. We know that politicians not
only aren't always prepared to act in support of the excluded
and the marginalized but also that they will very frequently
use power actively to enforce the bigotry of those.
They take to be effective supporters.
So I don't think there's a kind of magic Response that shows
that consensual institutions will perfectly address all
problems, but I think we should be very skeptical about appeals
to the good nature of states and we should certainly recognize
the corrosive effect. The markets can exert on
structures of privilege and exclusion.
Now, do you see the state as sort of like a neutral tool that
you could sometimes use for good?
Sometimes for bad? Sometimes it's efficient or do
you say that the state is a you Meek Institution.
So I think that in the nature of the case, a state is distinctive
its distinctive because it's a monopolist.
If we're going to use roughly, Max Weber says, definition, the
state claims to exercise and at least reasonably successfully
does exercise a monopoly over. Let's say something like
systemic Force. Okay, so the point is Not that
whenever anybody exercises Force, the state is, they're
reviewing and approving that or that the state is the only
entity that ever does exercise Force.
But it claims the right to determine when individual acts
of force are, okay, and it in turn exercises forced
systemically throughout the throughout the society.
So that's distinctive, that's, you know, nobody else does that.
It's not like the mob Sofia which even in a society that's
riddled by the mafia isn't sort of claiming public legitimacy.
It's not claiming the right to do this, not calling the moral
entitlement to do this. It just kind of does it and it's
not, you know, like some other institutions.
We might have, it's not like you defending your house from our
from a robber, you know, with a crossbow or something.
It's Society-wide and it's concerning violence in a
systemic way. So there's really nothing else
quite like a state and As a result, it's uniquely dangerous.
Okay, it's uniquely dangerous. So just quantitatively and
exercises Dominion. Oh, are far.
Wider range of forcible acts than any other institution.
It's also dangerous because it's a monopoly.
And, you know, we all have good reason to be deeply skeptical
about. Monopolies, they deny us options
and therefore, present us with take it or leave it in.
Sometimes, just take it possibilities.
And that means that we can't by exercising Choice.
Take other possibilities off the, you know, off the table,
encourage others, to give us options.
And so we have minimal options and we therefore have reduced
services and high prices, you know, so we think About you
know, what would happen if there were an awfully on shoes to use
my friend driver, logs example, but think of an opulent anything
else. So the state is a monopolist,
then with respect to the use of force with respect to two legal
rights and to ultimately go procedures.
Now, obviously, we can pursue other legal procedures.
Kind of, you know, as long as the state doesn't get involved
in precluding them, we can Sue. A mediation and arbitration and
so forth. But ultimately, you know, those
are legally efficacious only because States enforce, the
relevant contracts and so forth. So states are bad because of
their reach because the the the extent to which they exercise
violence. And because they are monopolists
and exclude exclusive Alternatives and you know, so
there Their Geographic monopolists, right?
So whether you're talking about a small state, the size of that
I can City or Monaco or a huge State, the size of Russia.
The idea is that if you want Alternatives as regards legal
institutions, legal rights, if you want to get away from the
reach of State than what you have to do is leave the States
Territory and that can be economically costly.
It can be emotionally and Logically culturally costly in a
variety of ways. So while there is ordinarily,
unless you have a particularly vile State like, you know,
saying the states of, you know, in the old Soviet Bloc that
actively prevented anyone from leaving.
I still find that today in most places like North Korea.
You do have, if you're not that kind of state the freedom to
exit but exit at a very A high cost.
And of course, the cost gets greater the larger, the state
than a, the farther away. You have to go.
If you want to evade its its reach and so the monopolistic
power of the state makes it dangerous.
It also makes it a course, at the same time, attractive to
people who again are interested in using power for their own
benefit. There's a tremendous amount of
power that's available and that Or can serve as a magnet for
those who want to engage in Mischief, in various kinds.
So, I don't think the state is neutral because it is a
non-consensual monopolist that imposes.
Its Authority on us, reduces our options and from which it's
relatively difficult exit. We have real problems.
Sometimes people juxtaposed rights of voice to, those of
exit. And there's the The claim that
somehow we are affirming our dignity when we exercise voice,
but the fact is any, but the tiniest of States isn't going to
be influenced by our exercises voice in the vast, majority of
cases, what I say either, as a voter or as somebody commenting
on public matters is going to have very very little effect on
general policies. So, you know, I think the notion
that the state is neutral and we can look to it to do good
things. I suppose isn't just in here.
Insane. In the sense that occasionally,
you know, State, why do something good States, might do
things that we might do ourselves under other
circumstances, but the state is fundamentally.
A clunky. Monopolistic violent, dangerous
entity that attracts people who were up to up to missed you very
frequently. I see such inequality in America
today. We have billionaires and
homeless people. This is the result of free
markets Miss allocating resources instead of focusing on
people and their needs. It's just about money and
rewarding greed. Why should I support markets?
Well, so it seems to me that we can definitely see tremendous
economic vulnerability. Even in A very wealthy Society
like ours. And so it's certainly
understandable that people see the, the vulnerability of
homeless, people and recent immigrants and others and can be
deeply concerned deeply troubled by them.
And I think very appropriately. So the notion however, that this
is a result of the operation of markets doesn't seem to me to be
right. I think that if We look and the
drivers of structural poverty. We don't see markets as the
culprit. So understand there are broadly
speaking, we might think about about others but roughly
speaking. I think we can say that two
kinds of poverty their situational poverty, that
results because you know, I lost a job or there's been a natural
disaster or something like that, but the structural poverty
that's persistent on. Going and reflection of if you
will the rules of the game. So the rules of the game, I
submit rules about everything from access to particular
occupations to access to land things that affect the costs of
living. These are not neutral features
of the environment that are either created by By or
sustained by markets. Instead.
It's impossible not to see these as products of profound and
dangerous political rigging of Market environments.
The great Charles Johnson wrote a piece that I think has been
very influential in many of us, some years ago called scratching
by how government creates poverty as we No it and that's a
for many people. Be a kind of offensive title.
They'll push back at that that can't possibly be right, but I
think Charles does a great job of highlighting important ways
in which that's precisely the case that say occupational.
Licensing rules limit people's access to occupations.
That might make them money. Those rules also drive up the
cost of services provided by others.
I mean, just to take an obvious example, think about the costs
of Healthcare in the United States.
Think about how much might, how much care might be provided by
Say by nurse practitioners that people instead have to obtain,
either directly from licensed Physicians, or say from nurse
practitioners who are operating Under the Umbrella of Physicians
because of Occupational licensing rules.
And so as a result, people who try to provide medical services
with The roles of licenses could be subject to various kinds of
legal liability. It's not an option for them.
So whether I'm entering a an occupation, I'd like to enter an
occupation and I can't do so because of the high cost of
Entry or in like, to obtain services from someone.
And I can only do that from someone who's going to charge
quite a bit because of, again, I cost of Entry.
That's a factor, we can think about the ways in, which access
to land is limited by various used old.
Al's zoning rules building codes and so forth.
We can run through a range of economic factors like this.
It's interesting. There's a, there's a recent book
by co-authored by a Libertarian Brink Lindsey and a progressive
telling us who agree about the ways in which a number of
important factors from, you know, from Equals land, use
controls to the Sega intellectual property rules
above all wealth, to the well-connected and keep a lot of
people economically vulnerable. So, I think certainly right to
be concerned about the way in which the system creates
vulnerability, but I would Vigorously, resist the notion
that the way in which the system creates vulnerability is by
allowing open market exchange instead.
I think the system creates vulnerability precisely by
rigging markets in favor of the privileged by m.
And by the privilege here elderly.
We mean, those who are given privileged precisely by the
vine, the political class, even members of the class properties
in ways that serve to concentrate wealth in the hands
of the well-connected. and exclude others, so I think that
markets are not the cause of poverty.
There, better seem as precisely. The, the remedy for them. now,
does the Which one Trilogy dear McCloskey and more recently in a
more popular treatment of the issues Cooperative art, Cardin
leave me alone. I'll make you rich highlights.
What she famously has called the Great enrichment starting about
1800. The idea is that poverty, has
been over the years, the natural condition of humankind, and even
the wealthiest People a few hundred years ago, enjoy, you
know, very few of the things that, you know, quite ordinary
people in our society, regarded as quite natural features of
their lives. And whether McCloskey is right
that the main shift, the since 1800 in allowing for the great
enrichment has been the positive valuation of Entrepreneurship.
Whether there have also been And as others have been inclined to
claim structural institutional changes, provide a greater
protection for instance, for for entrepreneurship and property
rights. In any event.
It's clear that pro-market changes in the past 200 years
have made an enormous difference and they've been an enormous
Difference by way of reducing poverty and offering greater
empowerment. Do we need regulation in the
marketplace by the state in order to keep us safe from those
seeking to exploit, the vulnerable and take pernicious
advantage of maybe people in vulnerable situations. so
obviously, there are There are Bad actors in any environment in
which we're likely to find ourselves and those Bad actors
can sometimes be expected to engage in fraud and to seek to
manipulate vulnerable people. And I certainly think we ought
to be, we ought to be not naive about that and we I don't think
that a defensive markets can ever should ever.
Predicated on the assumption that somehow, you know, all
Market actors are, are good people.
And can always be expected to do the right thing on the other
hand. However, I think it's clear that
when there aren't various sorts of privileges, that insulate
Market actors against Bad consequences for their actions,
then even not particularly good. Actors, are likely to feel some
incentives. To confront some incentives to
behave. Well, and so, you know, first of
all, of course, there can be incentives provided by by legal
liability, right? If you're, if you're engaging in
fraud and I can, I can sue you for them.
That's obviously going to be something you're going to have
to take into account. But even when there's not a
legal liability in place, we Can note that just reputational
harm? Can be enough to encourage
somebody to behave more responsibly.
And if I'm aware that well, perhaps What I've Done, wasn't
the sort of thing that is Richard.
Perhaps should be a trigger for legal liability, but that is
really going to be seen as In one way or another manipulative,
unfair, you know that that can certainly result in in
reputational losses that will result as long as there's an
open market in people's willingness to go elsewhere.
On the other hand. I think it's worth emphasizing.
That regulation is not some kind of been 92 land.
I'd say there are at least two things.
We should be concerned about the first is that Regulations
characteristically are employed across the board.
They're structured an across-the-board fashion.
They affect everybody in very much the same way and it's very
hard for them to take individual circumstances into account.
And the information that people on the ground possess can tend
to be ignored when regulations are framed and enforced.
The other thing to recognize is that Regulations are going to be
framed under the influence of the dominant players in a given
industry and they're going to be enforced very frequently by
regulatory bodies drawn from the dominant players and their in
the relevant industry, right. I mean, it's, you know, so you
might occasionally have regulatory body in the given
Arena, you know that features, you know, somebody who's been a
longtime consumer Advocate, but I think it's rather more likely
to have somebody Who moves from being, you know, a member of
certain regulatory body to being the vice president for
government Affairs. In a given business in the
regulated area and back and forth.
The kind of revolving door in that regulatory space.
So not only are markets, surprisingly good at protecting
people against bad behavior. But on the other hand,
regulations can both be clumsy and unresponsive.
Lots of to situation particularities and they can be
driven and enforced by people from the relevant Industries who
want to use them to prop up their own positions and very
frequently raised. The cost of doing business for
competitors, who might, for instance, be able to deliver
goods and services at lower prices regulations can be used
to keep them from doing that. There are great examples of this
sort of thing. In a number of books, one of
them I'd certainly recommend is the great late Butler Shaffer
about the Schafer's book in Restraint of trade, the business
campaign against competition. And then there that's I think,
nineteen eighteen to thirty eight or sixteen to thirty
eight, something like that. And you know what Butler points
out is the way in which The drive for greater regulation
notably the mechanisms that were employed in the so-called first
New Deal were mechanisms that were embraced by large.
Well. Connected businesses.
They weren't seen on the whole as bad.
By those businesses rather. They were used to maintain kind
of steady rate of profit for big businesses and to keep them from
being attacked by upstart competitors.
That might Cut into their profits by serving consumers,
more efficiently. And so that's not.
If I was the only story with respect to any regulation, but I
think that's an aspect of the regulatory environment.
That's often overlooked. Do we need a state to provide
antitrust laws to protect us from monopolies?
You know, so you can generally answer to that question is just
no I think the state is a monopoly of course.
And some of you know that I think I'd like to see him cross
the laws applied primarily the state.
But yeah, I think the the rise of antitrust legislation, you
know, very often again, I think has been used to get in the way.
Of benefits for consumers. Such legislation is sold as
intended to benefit and Surrey. But you know, again in an
environment in which, you know, there is the absence of barriers
to entry, which people can start new firms, and try different
ways of doing things, you know, a sort of de facto Monopoly
that's exercised by, you know, a single player in a given Market
is ordinarily going. Going to be impossible to
maintain, you know, if you think about even, let's say an
oligopoly with a group of firms, trying to maintain a cartel to
keep prices High reality. Is it's going to be very
tempting for a given member of that cartel to to defect right
to at least under the table offer better prices than the
cartel itself is offering. And and so Because of that in
general to maintain a cartel to maintain through a small firms.
What's needed is precisely regulation that excludes
competitors or the requires competitors to go along with the
cartel as long as I can compete with the cartel.
If the cartel is charging a lot, then as long as it's You know,
you know, it's gone a big profit margin that I can cut in two by
entering the the relevant market, then I can certainly
vary. I can certainly do so.
And as a general matter are rational firm is going to be
aware of this possibility. Even if there aren't other
players in the market right now, the possibility of injury is
going to be sufficient General spoon to discipline around
National irrational player and so on the one hand, as I said, I
think I think antitrust legislation very often been used
to, in fact inhibit vigorous competition.
That's actually beneficial to Consumers.
You know, it's exercise the powers that Regulators have
under under antitrust laws often exercised for the benefit of
other Market players of other other firms that are playing in
the market. Not For the benefit of
consumers. And I think we can see by
contrast that in a genuinely open market, maintaining
monopolies is, is not something to be going to be easy indeed,
again. We see that.
When there are Monopoly of this, they are maintained precisely by
by regulatory support for existing players.
So, we think about traditionally older say, You know,
anglo-american law. I'm an awfully.
It was recognized was something that you enjoyed precisely,
because you've got a special privileges, special Charter from
the government, you know, then people started to kind of talk
about the fact of the novel is by analogy.
But the situation of that de facto Monopoly is
characteristically very different in a situation where
there's no forcible exclusion of Alternatives.
And instead you're just Just talking about one or small
number of current, participants of the given Market.
It's important where that phenomena exist asked why it
exists and whether indeed there is some regulatory barrier to
entry. And if there's Not Again, One,
my want to ask whether indeed, the possibility of competition
is still disappointing performance even by a limited
number of players in the market. You know again, this is an
ongoing process is not to say that any one moment.
You know, any Market is behavior.
We perfect officials. That's it.
That's a piece of fantasy. A market is an ongoing process
of equilibration discovery. And so at any one point people
may be making in one way or another ill-informed, bad
decisions, but what markets do have is the ability to bring
about ongoing equilibration, not perfect equilibrium, but but
ongoing Discovery in the adjustment that has the
potential certainly to be profoundly beneficial because
What about the idea that in the marketplace, in order to live
and survive? I have to work.
I have to be laboring. I have to be constantly pleasing
other people. But if I embrace a state, well,
I could get a universal basic income and others can do the
working for me. I mean, why should I have to
work to live? well, so ultimately the idea I
think behind markets is that I as you say, I make money by
pleasing other people by serving.
I'm rewarded. I'm rewarded for the
effectiveness with which I serve other people.
And so since those other people are all of us, right?
We all depend on each other. Of we need a mechanism for
securing cooperation. So it's not going to be the case
that any society is going to function.
Effectively. If most people expect than
without serving others, without any kind of acceptance of
reciprocal obligations and of responsiveness to others.
They're going to be cared for. I think.
It's a recipe, it seems to me for societal collapse.
So obviously I think in decent Society will feature mechanisms
for the provision of support to temporarily or persistently of
vulnerable. People.
That's another matter. But if the general mechanism of
operation, the society method of operation of the society,
Doesn't involve people cooperating with each other to
provide goods and services than others want than then the
society it seems to me runs into a real problem.
We know that the division of labor in which people focus, on
particular things, they develop expertise and they can use that
expertise in a focused way that tends to yield widespread
societal Prosperity, people can depend on each other.
To participate in networks of extended social cooperation and
can benefit from the from Demand on a Model instead in which
everybody expects to be to be a ward of the state.
I think that's a, that's a really, a really serious kind of
problem because it means that people in general have given up
on cooperating with each other from usual betterment.
And instead have just expected that they will, they will depend
on others and they won't affect exploit others.
So yeah, I don't think we should you, you know, vulnerable people
as inherently exploitative. If we have a society that
eliminates those structural features that make and keep
people poor, then we will dramatically reduce the risk.
Ask of poverty but we recognize there is situational economic
vulnerability again thinking about in case in which people
are orphaned or case in which you know, the natural disasters
before my eyes and I think it's very important to have
mechanisms for Mutual Mutual Aid networks that provide people
with support in case of that kind of ability.
And I think Both for our own benefit.
And as a matter of I think appropriate concern for others.
We had good reason to participate in such networks,
but that's very different from supposing that the right way of
handle things is to have the state just provides or the
uniform support for people as a general alternative to work, you
know, so, of course there have been Libertarians and various
sorts. One thinks of, you know, among
the leading 20th century Libertarians, High Friedman,
certainly contemplated the possibility of something like,
you know, basic income schemes, but you know, because they
weren't Anarchist on here talking and what's broadly, an
anarchist mode, but you know, we can certainly understand why a
Libertarian might think in those terms.
And certainly I think of basic income scheme that you
mentioned. Is vastly preferable to the sort
of crazy quilt of, you know, complex Market distorting
mechanisms for economic support that you know, existing state
institutions provide, but I think it is important to
recognize that where those kinds of basic income schemes are
provided by states that, you know, in society, people on the
scene, the wisdom of anarchism yet.
You still can't have a culture and a set of economic A tutions
that assume that a society can operate without its being the
case that most people participate in networks of
extended social cooperation, providing goods and services
that other people want. I want everyone to have health
care. Why should I embrace the ideas
of markets? So, what we have, what we might
want to say about Medical Care is I think deeply related to
what we might want to say about poverty.
Right? So very often concerns related
to the accessibility of Medical Care.
Are related to the high cost of such care and at the same time,
the inability of people with limited resources to obtain
access to. So I think that the first thing
again, if you want to contemplate a market-based
response to the concern that you articulated is to think hard
about the need to eliminate those institutions and practices
that make and keep Poor and as I've suggested the whole range
of things that we might want to eliminate there that make it
hard for people to earn income as they prefer.
And then raise the cost of living when they do have income,
make basic goods and services from you know, housing to food
and so forth. Harder to contain the other
thing. No here.
That's especially important. Begin with is that medical care
itself is rendered. Ridiculously inexpensive,
ridiculously expensive in a variety of ways.
And so, first of all, as I've suggested that, I've already
suggested licensing requirements for for medical care providers.
Various kinds obviously positions with many others as
well. Those licensing requirements
drive up costs. Adequate but think about other
kinds of details as well. We can think about everything
from medical device happens to drug patents to the FDA approval
process for drugs to the licensing mechanisms that are
employed to limit. The availability say of
hospitals, Uncle certificates of need that have to be Pained that
are basically designed to limit competition in the relevant
area. And so There's a broad range of
things that dramatically increase the cost of medical
care to people, you know, say if we think about insurance as
something that's that's needed, certainly for catastrophic care
for, you know, Big Ticket items like, you know, cancer surgery.
Then it then it certainly matters that insurance is Not
always readily available. And then indeed, there are
cartel lysing rules that prevent the sometimes the sale of
insurance across state lines, things of that nature as well.
And so, for all of these reasons, then it seems to me
Medical Care is much more expensive than it needs to be
and then we reasonably expect it to be Even as at the same time,
people people in general are less well off than they.
They certainly should be in a free market.
And in particular, the most economically vulnerable are
rendered much more vulnerable there.
So I think we can close the gap there between the people's needs
and what's available in a way that involves eliminating
eliminating. The Privileges, the prop up the
cost of medical care and that reduce people's incomes in there
for their assets, to directly and certainly, through Insurance
mechanisms so forth. So, I think that, in addition,
the kinds of mutual Aid networks, that I referred to
earlier that were important aspects of the provision of
security, to people in the face of health challenges in the
Interval 20th, centuries. Certainly, it seems to rain can
be re-established and power the Caribbean in the 21st century.
So, I think it's entirely reasonable goal to want to
expand access and the quality of care.
And at the same time. I think it's important to
recognize that the state is the only way to do that and that
states have indeed. It seems to be played important
roles in dramatically. The increasing cost of care.
My friend, Roger Guang has a great great essay drawing on the
historical, work of people like David Beto and David Green, an
essay called how government solve the healthcare crisis.
And he's concerned here with the way in which the cost of Medical
Care was dramatically reduced by the availability of same mass,
purchase on the part of people in in the mutual Aid.
Edwards in the 19th century. The crisis here was precisely
that from the standpoint of the politically influential players
in situation. Namely organized medical
profession, you know, the prestige and especially the
remuneration of Physicians was decreasing, say a mutual Aid
group could, you know, hire a physician full-time, you know,
that didn't seem to reflect the kind of professional work, you
know, Prestige than two positions wanted, it certainly
meant that That, you know, we don't want the young Physicians,
can do this and make money, as they enter the profession into
this, have the effect of driving down.
What the incomes that established Physicians were able
to able to gain, and the Practical effect was that they
actively encouraged legislators to get rid of these.
These Arrangements. They sought to blackball their
own members, who participated in of course.
Increasingly these medical societies Had State privileges
that had to do licensing. And so by calling members really
gave them the power to exclude. Those whose competition was
driving down their incomes. So so the point is that we
should recognize not only that markets can provide much less
costly medical care that is on offer right now, but the to look
in the state is a bit of a problem because the state can be
seen as a player precisely in the increase, of course.
It's in the influent ation of access that we can find final
question, sir. Thank you so much for being
generous with your time. Is the employee-employer
relationship inherently exploitative, as in?
I have to work for someone in order to live and they reap a
surplus value. Only employing me knowing they
will make money off of me. Is this inherently exploitative?
Thus immoral. Thus in need of abolition.
So I think that the short answer is no, then we have to get into
a more complicated answer. There are a variety of Market
distortions, which shaped the background conditions against
which the employment relationship very often occurs.
I think that many of us in employment situations, don't
necessarily find those terribly appealing.
It's not a lot of fun often to be pushed around by people above
us in organizational, hierarchies.
And we may find that those organizational hierarchies.
Well, often some reasons that brought equals Theta function.
Alright, so we think about the way in which, you know, big
ironical States. Confront.
Broadly speaking two kinds of problems, right?
They confront incentive problems.
Makers who try to manage the economy, very often, confront
incentives that involve them in the choosing for their own
benefit and the benefit of their cronies rather than for those of
ordinary consumers. And they also confront the
informational problems because as mises and Hayek showed us,
the, you know, information that's needed to make economic
decisions is distributed throughout Society of the
Grassroots level with no one person has Has what could
happen? Well, those same problems occur
in large organizations and while not perhaps the same degree,
nonetheless, hierarchical Corporation, often involves, you
know, decision-makers who don't know what's going on at the
Grassroots level don't have the information that's on offer
there. There aren't prices to provide
that information as there are in a market economy.
And those top-level decision makers.
Often again are acting for their own benefits more than for the
benefit of shareholders or Of employees.
So I think, you know, there really are economic pressures
that might well be expected to yield smaller flat or
organizations in which, you know, there would be more
opportunity for participatory decision-making or indeed for
participatory ownership as in Partnerships or go or coops.
And I think a lot of us might benefit from them some
Sometimes. However, what and what seems to
be happening is that the state is responsible for whole range
of privileges that can insulate a large well-connected
organizations against the pressures that might otherwise
lead to their replacement by s'mores latter alternative.
Again, it's always more complicated than that because
for instance, you know, while self employment offers a lot.
More freedom. It can also offer a great deal
of responsibility and therefore pressure.
If you have to, you have to come up with a start-up cap on will
yourself, that can be a much tougher and more risky
undertaking. And so therefore I think some
people might quit quite reasonably in some circumstances
prefer to work for others, rather than to work for
themselves, but I think, even in those cases, if we had reduced
pressure. Sirs for if we eliminated the
the support. I think that's provided to
top-heavy hierarchical organizations then even in
organizations in which employment was the primary
source of Labor rather than than self-employment.
We worked for others was the primary source of Labor.
It might well be the case. I think of you you see more
pressure for fairer and more participatory organizations that
took advantage. People's knowledge and also
treated them with greater dignity.
I don't think they're for employment is in principle,
exploitative, but I think many employment situations aren't
very pleasant. I think most of us prefer not to
be pushed around. And I think in a genuinely open
market, we might expect to experience a good deal lesson
that the books are Anarchy and legal order, law, and politics
for a stateless society and economic Justice and natural
law. Check them out at Gary Sharda.
She got net Link in the description.
Sir. Thank you so much for your time.
Have a great day. Thank you for having me.