Consensualism over Coercion
Henry H. Lindner
We
Americans are living in a state of intellectual and ethical chaos. We are torn
between two absolutely incompatible ideas of what is right and wrong. One the
one hand, we believe that people should be free to interact socially and
economically in any way they please as long as both parties consent. America is
a free country, isn't it? On the other hand, we believe that government should
interfere wherever and whenever we, or some lawmakers, think it can do some
good, prevent anyone from making a mistake, or correct a "market
failure". So we sing the praises of our free country, yet we continually
ask our government to make us less free--for our own good. Every law passed,
every new regulation diminishes our personal freedom and our responsibility for
our own actions and helps some people in the short run while hurting everyone
in the long run. To understand the moral and economic ramifications of this
unrestricted government interventionalism requires a level of philosophical
understanding which is completely lacking in our society.
In
order to think clearly about our society, we have to get beyond our political
labels to the sociological reality. Capitalism, socialism, democracy,
welfarism, civil rights, conservatism, liberalism, and equality; every one of
these terms is contaminated with sociological contradiction. The concepts
presented below allow us to hit philosophical bedrock by defining the two
mutually exclusive forms of interaction among humans. The "social
question" is this simple: Are we better off if we can interact with each
other voluntarily for mutual benefit without coercive interference by the
State, or is it better to have the government control our every action for our
own and others’ “protection”? There is no reasonable middle
ground. Once coercionism is accepted in any way, the society enters upon a
slippery slope where every problem is answered with new regulations. These are
the two and mutually exclusive theories about human social interaction:
CONSENSUALISM - Humans are born neither good nor
evil. They are animals whose mind and behavior are largely shaped by their
environment. When raised in a loving family and in a free and healthy society,
they will be self-regulating, rational, productive, and ethical. Each human
naturally strives to improve his and his childrens' lives. All human
improvement, material and psychological, requires the freedom of each human to
pursue his happiness within a system of voluntary, mutually-beneficial social
and economic intercourse. Coercion or violence is the antithesis of all human
values. Therefore, government, if it exists, should do nothing but define
ownership and prevent the use of force by humans against other humans.
COERCIONISM - The doctrine that human
relationships must be based upon use of, or the threat of force. Force is the
use of violence to usurp control over a person's body, privacy or property. The
coerced party does not participate voluntarily, he cannot act not as he
would choose to act to further his interests. He is either forced to perform a
certain act, or the range of his possible solitary or consensual activities is
restricted. All government regulation is social coercion. This doctrine is
based upon the theory—inherent in the Judeo-Christian-Islamic
tradition—that humans are basically irrational, lazy, violent, and
stupid. Therefore, all human improvement, material and spiritual, requires that
each human be forced to conform to the values and needs of his parents and
society. Human society requires a coercive third party (government) to decide
what is best for humans and to force them to act accordingly. Unhindered,
unregulated solitary or consensual activities will create problems for
individuals, and for society as a whole. There is no limit to any government's
use of its powers, as long as it is "for the people's own good".
Discussion: All sane humans want to improve their own lives and those of their
children. Their primary tool to accomplish their goals is their ability to
reason. The social system must expect and even demand that every human use his
reason and take responsibility for his actions. The primary rule of
relationships is that no party is allowed to resort to physical force or the
threat of same. All human intercourse, social and economic, should be
consensual; all interactions and exchanges being voluntary for all involved
parties. Each party willingly participates in any transaction because the
perceived benefits outweigh the perceived costs.
When
coercion is absent from society and people act reasonably, then monetary profit
reflects the degree to which one has created value for one's fellow man. Each
individual has unrestricted control over, and undiluted responsibility for his
own body, his privacy, and all property which he acquires as a result of his
efforts and his consensual exchanges with others. Coercion, which is the use of
force or the threat of force, can only prevent humans from acting to improve
their condition in the most efficient way possible. The coercive authority of
the state should be used only to prevent and correct coercive interactions
among citizens. Coercive actions include property damage, of which pollution of
someone's environment is an example.
The
Slippery Slope to totalitarianism--The Interventionists dilemma
Partial
intervention in any aspect of social intercourse creates a worse situation than
previously existed and thus creates a demand for further intervention.
Intervention
refers to any government involvement in any aspect of voluntary social or
economic intercourse, i.e. regulation, licensing, government land ownership,
labor laws, corporations, drug prohibition, etc. To make it more palatable, the
coercive nature of government intervention is hidden as much as possible, as
are the social and economic costs of the intervention. The government doesn't
want its citizens to get restless. But the coercion is there; simply think of
what happens if one doesn't comply with some regulation. Fines are levied; and
if you don't pay the fines, you are apprehended and incarcerated. The coercive
aspect of government regulation remains hidden as long as most people comply.
Since most people try to follow regulations, and pay the fines when caught, the
government is spared the embarrassment of grabbing thousands of non-violent
citizens off the street.
Think
with me for a moment: What is a free market? What are its features? What is the
role of government in creating or destroying it? I'm sure you would agree that
there were no free markets in Soviet Russia. Why not? Because the state
eliminated private property and private profit (and a lot of private persons
too). It set fixed prices for all commodities. It forced the people to use a
currency that did not float on the world market. It outlawed the "black
market" which was the closest thing there was to a "free
market". Since our government has avoided the temptation to do all these
things, do we therefore have a free market? Absolutely not. The American idea
of a "free market" today allows the government to interfere as it
pleases in individuals' freedom. It produces rules and regulations ad nauseum
and is constrained only by the inertia of our constitutional system of checks
and balances. As long as Congress approves, the President does not veto, and
the Supreme Court upholds, we can lose any freedom we have - "for our own
good".
So
we still have to answer our question: What is a free market? A free market is
nothing but social cooperation as defined above. In a truly free market,
individuals are free to engage in any consensual economic interaction
that they please. Whenever two people decide to make any kind of exchange, both
believe that they will improve their condition; both agree to exchange because
each believes he will gain. Both parties profit according to their personal
scale of values. Thus unrestricted exchange is the necessary prerequisite for
the unrestricted pursuit of happiness. The only rule inhibiting individual
action in a free society is that there be no non-consensual interaction. No one
can use force, or the threat of force to get what they want. No one can steal
from another, or pollute his environment as that is the taking of a value from
someone without their consent.
Thus
in a truly free society, coercion of individuals by individuals is outlawed
and there is no governmental intrusion into the sphere of consensual social
or economic interaction. Whatever one wants to do that doesn't coerce
others is allowed. Whatever exchange one makes with others is allowed as long
as both parties agree to the exchange. Anyone can engage in any occupation
he wants, buy any item he wants to buy, work for any wage he can
obtain, sell any goods or services he wants to sell. Furthermore, he can
rest assured that the government will not directly or indirectly subsidize or
aid himself or his competition. Every intervention by government means that
some individuals lose the freedom to improve their condition in the way they
think best, and other individuals gain an advantage which they can exploit. Our
country is being destroyed by coercion; be it government intervention,
organized or unorganized crime, or theft and persecution perpetrated by lawyers
and judges--called lawsuits.
Since
the government cannot create wealth by producing profitable goods and services,
its coercive interventions can only restrict citizens from doing what they
would otherwise do to improve their own lot in life. Intervention is always
restriction; it takes away choices in the name of protecting us from ourselves
and each other. It prevents the creation of wealth. But when viewed narrowly
from a particular individual's of business's interest, a specific government
intervention can confer unearned profits and protection from competition. The
government's promise to back savings deposits stimulates consumer demand for
such accounts. The home mortgage tax deduction stimulates consumer demand for
expensive homes--helps the wealthy and the construction industry, hurts those
too poor to afford a home or unable to obtain credit. Every government
intervention can be analyzed in this way; who it benefits and who it hurts and
how it diminishes that welfare of everyone in the long run.
The
problem is that people have no idea that society can be anything other than
what they're used to. If the government delivered milk to each family's door every
morning for decades, no one would be able to imagine that private business
could supply milk at an affordable cost in just the form that the consumer
wanted. This is the "vision problem" when it comes to what society
might be like.
The
American Constitution failed to stop the aggrandizement of the government
because it was not nearly explicit enough. The Constitution of a Free State,
and eventually of every Free State in a Free World, must contain the following:
"THE GOVERNMENT'S SOLE PURPOSE SHALL BE TO ASSURE THAT THE USE OF
FORCE IS PROHIBITED IN ALL RELATIONSHIPS AMONG HUMAN BEINGS--MEN, WOMEN, AND
CHILDREN."
"THE GOVERNMENT SHALL MAKE NO LAW PROHIBITING ANY ISOLATED
INDIVIDUAL ACTION."
"THE GOVERNMENT SHALL MAKE NO LAW PROHIBITING ANY CONSENSUAL ADULT
INTERACTION."
Consider what a truly consensual society would look like. Consider what
life would be like if we are able to separate the State from every aspect of
life. Its role would be limited to the negative one of defining property rights
including money and preventing/redressing every form of coercion and violence
among persons. How will such a consensual society differ from what we have now?
1.
NATURAL GOVERNMENT – limited to defining property rights (including environmental
laws and money) and run by citizens chosen at random from the population.
All decisions made locally whenever possible.
2.
GOVERNMENT MONEY – Money is an extremely useful legal invention. Government
would create token money and spend it into circulation. It would not
borrow money from private banks as it does now. It would not need to tax
citizens, thus eliminating a great deal of pernicious intervention. See
http://www.monetary.org/
3.
NATURAL BANKING -- Bank's would be forbidden to create money via loans as they do
now. Simple honesty requires 100% reserves. Money creation would be
the job of a limited government
4.
NATURAL TRADE
-- Any inhibition of consensual trade interferes with the very process of
increasing prosperity. Inhibition of trade is an act of coercion which directly
endangers peaceful coexistence.
5.
NATURAL PROPERTY LAWS -- Property rights have been inappropriately extended to patents and
copyrights, leading to excessive rewards for the wealthy and clever who least
need money. Prices are increased so that the poor cannot afford information or
products that they need.
6.
NATURAL SERVICES -- There will be no licensing laws or granting of monopolies to any
groups of doctors, lawyers, dentists, or others. Such laws merely increase the
cost to the rest of the public, reduce supply of services, reduce quality of
services, and promote moral and intellectual sloth. Every person must be free
to offer any service to his fellow man. Each person must use their own judgment,
and that of private opinion and research, to decide whose products or services
to use.
7.
NATURAL HEALTH CARE – By eliminating the physician and other monopolies and eliminating
civil liability, we will free up the health care system to be both responsive
and affordable. No government-pay system would be required.
8.
NATURAL BUSINESS -- Every business will be a natural extension of private choice and
action. Every business regulation only helps some businessmen at the expense of
others, and the consumers always lose. Since most regulations demand more time,
money, and staffing, they tend to favor established, large institutions at the
expense of smaller competitors.
9.
NO CORPORATIONS
-- Adam Smith warned us never to allow corporations to exist, except for
temporary state purposes. He knew that they would distort all business
activity, as indeed they have. Corporations are
government created, government regulated bureaucracies that unnaturally
separate ownership and responsibility. Corporate managers are free to enrich
themselves and induced to follow short-sighted policies. A corporation is not
ethical in its foundations, and cannot be expected to behave ethically. Ethical
behavior requires completely private ownership, control, and responsibility.
10.
NATURAL CONTRACT -- Only custom and reputation are necessary to enforce contracts.
Governments should not enforce agreements made by consenting adults. Such
intervention on the part of government only encourages false confidence and
careless behavior. The only incentive needed to ethical behavior in business is
the need to maintain a reputation (a good credit record). The
parties of a contract can opt for arbitration should disputes arise.
11.
NATURAL CIVIL LIABILITY -- The present civil liability system poisons the natural
goodwill existing among individuals in a market economy and strengthens the
need for government regulation of every aspect of life. Each
ruling by a court creates even more de jure rules that strangle our
freedom and constrain us to conform to legal codes of behavior. We must
increasingly act or not act out of fear of lawsuits—not out of ethical
concerns. Individual responsibility and morality disappear in direct proportion
to government involvement in our interactions. Only public knowledge, opinion
and custom are needed to discipline bad actors. Private insurance will handle
the monetary aspects of any kind of tragedy. Criminal acts, i.e. non-consensual
or violent acts are handled through criminal law.
12.
NO VICE LAWS
-- It is self-defeating and stupid for a society to use violence to prevent
consensual behaviors like drug use, gambling, and prostitution. As much as I or
others may disapprove of these non-violent behaviors, we have no right nor need
to use force to prevent them. We the people have grievously erred in thinking
we could create a better society by outlawing acts performed privately by adults,
or among consenting adults. Such laws have created most of the street violence
in our cities, and are the root of organized crime. How can we have failed to
learn from our experiment of Prohibition?
13.
NO GOVERNMENT CHARITY -- Government charity becomes civil right. Civil rights displace private
morality and charity. In this truly free society, the inherent morality
and greater ease of life would make charity something that is rarely needed,
and easily given when needed.
14.
NO LABOR LAWS
-- Labor law as we know it was needed as a counterweight to illegitimate
property, corporate and business laws that existed to support a capitalist
class structure. We need to eliminate the source of the problem instead of
creating more problems.
15.
NO TAXES --
The very limited government here outlined would create money and spend it into
existence.
16.
NO RACIAL, RELIGIOUS, OR ETHNIC LAWS -- No society should ever write laws that require or
outlaw discrimination. Every person has the right to associate or not associate
with whom he desires. This applies to his private business behavior also.
Ignorant racism does not disappear by passing laws, it disappears through time
and experience.
17.
COMPLETELY FREE SPEECH, NO MEDIA LAWS, NO LIBEL LAWS -- Elimination of corporations and
reduction in the role of government will do more than anything to free our
media and our minds. Any person must be allowed to say whatever he wants about
anyone at anytime. A free society will become a polite society as long as there
is justice. A free society must be absolutely intolerant of injustice.
18.
POLLUTION A MATTER OF CRIMINAL LAW -- Damage to our shared environment has a non-consensual
element. If you pollute my air without my consent, you are engaging in a form
of theft or property damage. Pollution is therefore subsumed under
property rights. Pollution has a cost to us all. Thus the government
should highly regulate and control this aspect of behavior just as it
prevents/redresses any form of coercion among persons.
19.
NATURAL LEARNING--THE COMPLETE SEPARATION OF EDUCATION AND STATE -- See my other articles concerning
our government's enslavement of children in our society.
20.
NATURAL MORALITY--THE END OF LEGALISM – Legalism replaces scriptural commandments
with human commandments. Its just a new version of an ignorant old
game. Humans are not machines and words are not reality. We cannot and
must not let our lives be controlled by lawyers and judges (priests) who
manipulate word formulas to their benefit. Coercion is evil because is
destroys human relationships and human values, not because some law was passed
by some legislature. Legalism in fact represents the intrusion of coercion into
every sphere of human family and social life. In a natural and enlightened
human society, the scope of the state will be reduced to a small fraction of
its current unlimited role. Written laws will be needed only for the purpose of
defining property rights and outlawing every use of, or threat of the use of
physical coercion to control another person or take away his property without
his consent. In such a society, government and legalism will be confined to
their proper role and will not poison the morality of the society. Disputes
among persons will be dealt with by arbitration. Communities will elect
"wise men" to be their arbiters.