Brava! An Uncommonly Fine Winner of the Nobel Prize in Economics
The selection of Elinor Ostrom as co-recipient of the 2009 Nobel Prize in Economics will do much to advance anarchist theory among people who traffic in ideas. Ostrom is being cited for her work on the management of common pool resources, or “commons”, and should inspire more thinkers to recognize the potential for solutions to problems that seem immune to both private property and government property solutions.
Her work offers ammunition to those of us who do NOT believe that a free society requires that all property be privatized, as she has done much empirical research on, for example, the management of forests. Her work also has broader application toward the solution of all manner of “public goods” problems that seem to stump libertarian thought.
I strongly encourage people to read her 1990 book, Governing The Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action, but would like in this post to just summarize the principles she identified in those successful attempts to address the “Tragedy of the Commons” problem noted in the classic article of that name by Garrett Hardin. The application of these principles to all manner of different public policy issues could take any of us the rest of our lives (which, of course, is one reason no centrally planned society could ever do so).
What distinguished the successful attempts to manage commons from the unsuccessful ones in her empirical studies were:
1. Clarity in the boundaries and rules. Lawful people that we are, anarchists have a great appreciation for the minimization of unnecessary conflict. When people know what is and isn’t acceptable behavior to others, it is easier for us to adapt our actions in accordance with those expectations. Of course, the idiots who spout nonsense such as “ignorance of the law is no excuse” are inevitably government prosecutors: the rest of us understand that common law provides its greatest service by clarifying expectations so that people can interact cooperatively and peacefully.
2. Local input and acceptance of these rules. Friedrich Hayek, co-winner of the first Nobel Prize in Economics, would be proud. The closer someone is to a situation, the more things they’ll know that others do not. Central planning, even were it performed by angels, would not produce good rules because of information problems. The fact that angels AREN’T in charge is, of course, another problem. Ostrom is well versed in “public choice” theory and knows that government regulators are humans with their own information AND incentive problems.
3. Active involvement of those most likely to be using the commons in the monitoring of use. The ones who care the most need to either directly involve themselves or else delegate to monitors who are accountable to them. Again, central planners, especially government officials who are accountable, if at all, to a much wider variety of people than those most interested in the commons in question and for a larger variety of activities than just the management of specific commons, cannot effectively monitor them and be held accountable. If the people who most need the commons can’t fire those who fail to protect it, the tragedy is inevitable.
4. Methods for dispute resolution. Central to anarchist theory is the idea that parties with disputes will agree to third party mediation or arbitration of those disputes. One of the inanities of government is that any dispute between the government and private persons is adjudicated by the government itself. The evolution of common law went far beyond the ad hoc choice of an arbiter to arrangements that let parties know in advance how disagreements would be resolved. Disputes are inevitable: dispute resolution methods are necessary, and do evolve.
5. Sanctions for violators. Naturally, those found liable by arbiters or, worse, those who declare themselves “outlaws” by refusing any third party arbitration may need to be encouraged to comply by proportional sanctions. Common law anarchists emphasize the value of non-violent enforcement through ostracism and boycott, most effective against those who are part of the local community, but recognize that some cases may require force against violators. Clearly, the arsonist may need to be restrained physically to protect the forest. Still, when local acceptance and monitoring of rules is strong, violations are rare, usually accidental, and typically resolved without the need for violence.
Inevitably, this prize will lead to the writing of more accessible literature on Ostrom’s ideas and its implications, encourage more academic research on voluntary institutions of governance and how they arise, and add credibility to the “left-libertarian” point of view that denies the need to use traditional formulations of property rights to solve every problem (although I won’t deny that a broader understanding of property rights as a bundle of rights rather than absolute dominion over a territory is one way of viewing many of these solutions, just as the anarcho-communist support for “possession” can be reformulated as a specific interpretation of property rather than its rejection).
To Dr. Ostrom: Brava!
The Obviousness of Anarchy
Many sincere limited government libertarians object to market anarchism because they’re unable to imagine how a free market could provide law, security, and defense. But this isn’t just a theoretical claim by anarchists: it has already been achieved both in the past and the present:
Law – The commercial code of the United States and most other developed countries derives from the Law Merchant, a purely voluntary legal system set up in the Middle Ages by international merchants dealing in contracts their governments were unwilling or unable to enforce. Virtually the entire body of law advocated by all libertarians, whether anarchist or minarchist, was present in the customary law and early common law systems of England and other countries, which originated and were operated without central planning.
Security – Professional police are a relatively recent invention in society, spend the majority of their time enforcing victimless crime laws or raising revenue for the government through traffic regulations that have never been shown to produce safer streets and highways, and are now outnumbered by a factor of 5 to 1 by private security personnel hired by businesses and homeowner groups who no longer see the point of relying on the police for protection.
Defense – Volunteer militias, essentially equivalent to National Guard troops but without the obligation to fly overseas, defended this country effectively for most of the history of the US. To this day, the Swiss “military” consists almost entirely of the able-bodied male population of the country, learning basic techniques of local defense but not offense, and threatening no other country, allowing it to remain untouched by 2 world wars in their backyard and all terrorism. Costa Rica has no military in a very dangerous neighborhood, and does just fine. True, it is unlikely that a voluntary defense force will be able to maintain a worldwide empire: this is one “service” that an anarchist society probably couldn’t provide.
John Hasnas contributed an excellent essay entitled “The Obviousness of Anarchy” to a recent book, Anarchism/Minarchism: Is a Government Party of a Free Country, edited by anarchist Roderick Long and minarchist Tibor Machan. The book costs a pretty penny, but Hasnas’ article only costs a mouse click.
Anarchists take seriously all the concerns expressed by people who think it is impractical. Hasnas’ article is not the last word on the subject, but is certainly a terrific first word. Take a look.
Libertarian Party Anarchist Caucus
In the great tradition of jumbo shrimp and government intelligence, yesterday marked the founding of the Libertarian Party Anarchist Caucus by Matt Harris and Paulie Cannoli, and I quickly became a proud member.
It has long been my view that anarchists mingling with minarchists is a very good thing, and that discussing the principles and empirical evidence for market-based law and security will do a lot to swell the ranks of committed anarchists. In my view, most of the minarchists in the LP haven’t consciously studied and rejected anarchism: they have simply continued to carry the common view of anarchy as chaos which is implanted in virtually all of us, and accepted government as a necessary evil rather than as a good. Others simply don’t believe they can effectively persuade people of the validity of anarchy, again more a function of lack of study than anything else.
The LPAC has indicated a commitment to open discussion of anarchy within the LP, while continuing to remain friends and allies with minarchists. The founders also have a sense of humor, which makes for a more pleasant world. Their announcement:
http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2009/07/libertarian-party-anarchist-caucus/
Tom Knapp has offered a more serious argument for it on his site:
http://knappster.blogspot.com/2009/07/we-propose-to-move-immediately-upon.html
I believe that the LP has been a useful halfway house between the status quo and market anarchism over its decades, though I agree it is hard to know the opportunity cost. My own view is that, so long as the LP exists, anarchist involvement is good for the cause of liberty, both to affect the message it sends and to persuade many of the minarchists that, as I have quipped repeatedly, there is something wrong with the theory that free market capitalism is best protected by a socialist monopoly. I see libertarian minarchists as having the same commitment to respect for people’s lives as anarchists, but with a failure to see that institutionalized aggression is the primary threat to that respect rather than its best champion. But many of them DO eventually see that, as the government never stops providing lessons.
I regret there aren’t more anarchists in the LP willing to take the time to discuss the empirical evidence for market-based law and security, but I understand there are other projects where many feel they can make more useful contributions (and I do try and support some of them with a little time and money). For my part, I’m quite pleased by the formation of the LPAC. They have opened a Yahoo discussion group, though it has barely gotten started at this point, at:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lpanarchists/
They also have a Facebook page at:
An Anti-IP Defense of Copyright
[This is a thinkpiece on a topic that I have not completely resolved in my own mind. I reserve the right to change my mind based on persuasive rebuttals.]
Like most anarchists, I reject the concept of “intellectual property” as a perversion of the concept of property, and an actual VIOLATION of the property rights of owners of tangible assets. Nonetheless, I believe there may well be a sound foundation for protection of creative artists that goes much further than most other IP opponents believe, and I am very concerned that an ethic of contempt for the desire of such artists to make an honest living from their work is being fostered in the anarchist movement, a contempt that is neither consistent with anarchist principles nor especially helpful to the movement.
WHY I REJECT IP
My favorite simple summary of the principle of anarchy is Roderick Long’s dictum that “other people are not your property.” I respect the lives of others and expect them to reciprocate. Mutual respect is the fundamental social principle of anarchy.
Property rights DO emerge from such a principle. Since violence against persons is clearly not respectful, peaceful means of dispute resolution are needed. When two anarchists disagree, they don’t fight it out: they try to negotiate to a mutual agreement whenever practical. When that is not possible, a mutually acceptable arbiter is chosen to decide the matter, with both parties “consenting to be governed” by the decision.
The most common dispute among people of good faith will be over conflicting uses of physical resources. While many systems might have developed to address this, the principle that virtually always seemed to emerge was a preference for the first user of the resource, based on the idea that there was no conflict when they used it (as it was previously unused), and the conflict only resulted from the second party making demands on the same resource. Anarchists all agree that the first user can lose their rights if they abandon the resource, and the question of what constitutes abandonment will emerge from the decisions of arbiters over time and the expectations that develop, which might well be different with respect to different types of resources and different parts of the world. It should also be noted that the second user is not prevented from using a resource if their use does not conflict with the first use: I may gain rights to land on which I’ve built a home, but that doesn’t mean someone cannot slant drill for oil under my land, as long as it doesn’t threaten the foundation, or even use part of my property as a convenient shortcut to the other side, as long as they are not disturbing my ability to enjoy the privacy of my home. The rights I’ve “homesteaded” are those a reasonable person would infer were needed for the use I’ve made of the property, and my agreement to arbitrate means that “reasonable person” principle, not my subjective preference, decides the matter. This is how customary law and early common law developed. Of course, my refusal to arbitrate would mean I’ve rejected peaceful dispute resolution. It literally makes me an “outlaw.” There is little evidence that people prefer violence to arbitration: the notion that anarchy makes it impossible to establish the jurisdiction for dispute resolution is refuted by history.
There is, by the way, no need for anarchists to ever come to an agreement on the details of property law, or any law: people who are committed to peacefully resolving disputes will virtually always be able to do so, even if it sometimes means not getting their way. The benefits of society and the pain of ostracism and boycott are so great as to place irresistible pressure on people to avoid violence except when they have an overwhelming advantage in power, which is one reason anarchists are so focused on avoiding the creation of institutions with great power to do violence.
The reason intellectual property is not property should now be reasonably clear. Ideas are not scarce resources which can only be used by one person at a time: the second user doesn’t stop the first user from continuing to use the idea. While property rights in tangible assets arose to prevent conflict over scarce tangible assets, intellectual property CREATED conflict over abundant assets.
For those who need more convincing, check out the Molinari Institute’s links to anti-IP essays, but please don’t go there yet, or you’ll never return for the rest of this essay.
WHY I DON’T REJECT COPYRIGHT
If I don’t feel creative artists have property rights in the ideas they have originated, where do I see them being protected by law? By the same common law principles. I think we’d all agree that a person who performs a task for someone pursuant to an agreement that they will be compensated is then entitled to be compensated, without respect to whether the task they’ve performed creates or improves some recognized property. If a musician is hired to play at an event, and then plays at the event, does not the person hiring them have an obligation to pay what was promised? Does the fact that the musician has no property right in the songs they played mean they have no right to be paid? Of course not: the right of people to make contracts with each other is recognized in every society.
Fine, you say, but what does this have to do with copyright? Am I arguing that people need to sign contracts for every purchase of a book, song, or software? Or that the click-through contracts online and shrinkwrap legal documents people never read should be enforceable?
A COVENANT NOT TO COMPETE
Not at all. People who have learned contract law know that most of the terms of a contract are implied, not express, and that unreasonable terms in a contract, especially when there is reason to believe they weren’t read, are unenforceable. Common law contracts follow the same idea of customary law that established property rights, including the use of “reasonable person” standards. It is understood by reasonable people who order a pizza by phone that they are agreeing to pick it up and pay for it. I see no reason that a reasonable person wouldn’t understand a book he is being sold is under condition that he not widely reproduce it in a manner that denies the author expected revenues, and that he has in fact AGREED NOT TO DO SO, whether he said so or not. If a guy picks up a girl on a date and takes her to an isolated area, he has an obligation to drive her home, even if they never discussed it beforehand, and even though she has no property right in the car or the guy.
But what about third parties: why should they be bound? Well, they aren’t bound at the time of the first sale, but they are no longer third parties when they acquire the book, song, or software, because the first buyer cannot transfer rights he doesn’t have, and a reasonable person acquiring a book, song, or software from another KNOWS THAT. Reasonable use exceptions are also a product of common law: the right to express honest criticism, to use the ideas in a book, to engage in limited reproduction in circumstances that would not substantively threaten the author’s expected revenue, and to reproduce freely when the author has abandoned the book by ceasing active distribution.
Note that this concept of copyright doesn’t include the right of an author to prevent distribution when the author is unwilling to distribute, or the right to prevent people from using images and creations in a manner that wouldn’t be expected by a reasonable person to reduce expected revenues, or the right to prevent reproduction without permission when the author doesn’t make himself reasonably available. For that matter, the only consequence of violating a creator’s right is restitution for damages as judged by reasonable person standards, so their mere preference a work not be distributed further is not a basis for blocking distribution. Also, substantive revision and alteration would move away from being mere reproduction, and at some point sever any reasonable connection to the earlier work. How much? I have no idea, but common law deals with fuzzy lines all the time. Personally, I think audio versions of books are substantively different than paper versions, but I’m not trying to write rules here: I’m simply suggesting there will be some.
Finally, reasonable person principles would not allow the absurd expectation that people will verify permission to use the type of information that is normally transmitted freely, and once the principle of compensation is established, standardized royalties for various forms of unauthorized use of creative work might apply, exceptions built-in for non-commercial use, and even time limits. Customary law developed quite detailed schedules of payment for various acts of violence, and specific rules will arise that are not “found in nature” any more than the obligation to drive on the right side of the road was established in natural law (or in England or Japan).
A MORE IMPORTANT ISSUE
I am not claiming to know what principles of creative rights will be established by common law, only that some probably will, at least for the most blatant forms of reproduction without compensation, and that those opponents of IP who claim that contract won’t get us very far with copyrights are only making a guess, and I think an incorrect one. But the bigger issue is that I’m seeing many anarchists expressing utter contempt for the expectation of creative artists that they receive compensation for originating and distributing an idea and that people not be able to destroy their expected revenue stream by unauthorized and widespread reproduction.
The argument that we should look for a better model to compensate creative artists, hopefully one that will eliminate the reason creative artists and their representatives are trying to limit the free flow of information, is valid, but expressing disinterest in the compensation of artists works against that goal. I believe it might be quite possible to change the model of compensation so that reasonable person standards will change. Just as tipping is a matter of course in certain industries, and any waiter will tell you it is their PRIMARY form of compensation, even while being completely voluntary, the same Internet that makes distribution so easy ought to be able to make it easy to “tip” creative artists. But the anarchists who dump on the idea that we should have any concern for the incomes of creative artists, pretending they are all J.K. Rowling, Britney Spears, or Bill Gates, might well not be violating libertarian principles, but are certainly violating the “thick” libertarianism of promoting values that will increase the probability of such a society arising.
In other words, even if my entire essay on the validity and viability of contractual copyright is wrong (and I will readily concede it might be, and that I completely disagree with this essay for a few minutes every day), we should be actively trying to discover and promote social norms that will reward creative artists. In the 19th century, Charles Dickens earned more royalties from the sale of books in the US, where he had no copyright protection, than in England, where he did, and J.R.R. Tolkien managed to kill an unauthorized version of one of his books without resorting to law, and Radiohead made some money with an alternative means of compensation for a song, and open source software developers have found ways of earning compensation without copyrighting their work. Anti-IP advocates such as myself love to use these examples to demonstrate that a world without IP is viable for creative artists, but these examples exist BECAUSE people have a strong desire to compensate them, and so should we.
Agorists and voluntaryists talk of building the new society within the shell of the old. Building, not destroying, respect for creative artists, and sincerely evaluating our obligations in a free society to such people with respect to unauthorized reproduction, should be part of that process.
P.S. I am not denying that, under the present oppressive system of IP, some copyright piracy might well be valid civil disobedience. Clearly, contractual copy protection is quite different from the present statist rules.
An Open Letter to the Peace Movement
A hat tip to Don Stacy via one of my favorite web sites Strike-The-Root for recycling a terrific open letter written by Roderick Long in the days leading up to the Iraq War, pointing out that a consistent peace activist ought to embrace the principle of anarchy. The idea that People in Other Countries Are Not Our Property is a subset of the broader idea that Other People Are Not Your Property (Long’s wonderful formulation of the basic anarchist idea). Check out the Long archives at Strike-The-Root for more gems. Long himself blogs at Austro-Athenian Empire.
The Safety vs Effectiveness Choice is Different for Each Patient
In a superb post by Darren at No Coercion, he brings up an obvious point I’m embarrassed to admit I’ve never considered in arguing for abolition of the FDA: the FDA is imposing a single standard of safety and effectiveness which ought to be, in fact, different for each patient. As he notes:
The multitude of voluntary interactions in the free market can quickly and non-coercively identify safe and useful drugs. It happens all the time in other industries. Consider the early adopters–the small group of people who are the first to try a new product. If a new drug for MS is introduced in a free market (i.e. no FDA), most MS patients aren’t desperate enough to jump on it right away. But a smaller group of patients are suffering to such a degree (maybe having tried everything else) that it’s worth it to them to risk the unproven drug, even if there is concern it could kill them. As more of these early adopters move in, data starts to come in (picture something like Consumer Reports for pharmaceuticals or discussion forums on MS sites) indicating the level of the drug’s safety and effectiveness.
As more information comes out from the early users of the drug, the uncertainty starts to diminish, and (if the results are positive) those who are suffering a great deal (but not enough to be in the early adopter group) choose to try the drug (since their personal cost-benefit analysis has shifted based on the new information). This produces even more ‘user data,’ thus continuing the trend of increasing numbers of people using a drug that’s helping them and thus eliminating a great deal of suffering. And it’s all done quickly and voluntarily, with no one having options artificially kept from them by force.
In addition, the manufacturer, not being hamstrung by FDA rules, would be able to constantly improve the formula based on patient results, thus reducing suffering even more.
The point of course, is that the FDA blocks all people from using a drug based on a single standard of how safe and effective it needs to be proven, when the cost-benefit decision is different for each potential beneficiary.
The basic case against the FDA is so strong that I find it hard to understand how anyone who has studied the matter could support it (and virtually no economist who has studied the situation has done so). The decade-plus approval period clearly kills multiples of the number that might have been saved from the delays, the 50% reduction in the number of drugs becoming available each year since the 1962 amendments strengthened its powers makes no sense in a world where advances are occurring at an accelerated pace in all other technological fields, the dominance of the field by large pharmaceutical companies is a direct result of the intolerable cost of approval (around 80% of the cost of a new drug is the cost of satisfying the FDA), and after all that, dangerous drugs are still approved and there are reasons to be suspicious about the politics behind some approvals.
What Darren has done, though, is point out the radically different level of assurance needed by different patients, and the need for such decisions to made individually rather than bureaucratically. Even if the FDA DID eventually only approve drugs safe enough for the average user, they would still be harming (and often killing) people whose situation justified taking more risks.
Nobody is suggesting that drug manufacturers not be accountable for harm resulting from negligence or fraud: indeed, while government agencies are generally punished for causing harm by receiving an increase in their budget, a drug manufacturer that kills its customers will, in a freed market, lose everything to the competition.
As an aside, Darren’s hypothetical example strikes very close to home, as my wife has MS. She ought to have the right to decide when the available evidence on a helpful drug is sufficient for her to see if it can help her, and it is quite likely that the FDA will cause my wife to have to endure unnecessary pain for an extra decade of her life before she gets relief, assuming the costs it has imposed don’t result in that drug never even being developed in her lifetime.
Should an anarchist support state-recognized gay marriage?
I have had two recent discussions with anarchists who believe that it is a violation of anarchist principles to support state-recognized marriage by gays. Let’s stipulate the following:
(1) An organization with a monopoly on coercion should not exist.
(2) It current does.
(3) The effect of state-recognized marriage is to reduce taxes and other state aggression against gays who apply for marriage certificates, while not benefiting those who don’t.
In general, I think we should support reduced aggression against anyone, and that speaking out on state laws is a legitimate strategy. Those who maintain a consistent public silence on all laws that increase or decrease aggression have an obvious answer, but most of us DO speak out on government laws, and do choose to support some legal changes that reduce aggression, so we need to decide if supporting this change is strategically wise. I think so, other anarchists do not, and I’m interested in the reasoning on both sides.
I think a similar issue is coming up soon, as proposals to legalize, tax, and regulate marijuana sales are bound to be in our near future. Even if it purely legalized marijuana sales, it wouldn’t legalize other drugs. Should anarchist support or oppose reforms in the correct direction, and why or why not?
In my view, supporting reduced aggression now is a no-brainer. Favoring higher aggression now in order to hasten the day of an anarchist society is, to me, a violation of anarchist principles, because it means supporting aggression to get to a non-aggressive society.
Memorial Day should be for ALL who have died as a result of War
A constantly updated web counter of the number of CONFIRMED Iraqi civilians killed since the invasion by volunteer, paid employees of the United States government began. The actual number is believed to be much, much higher. Sad to say, an Afghani civilian death counter is now needed, as well as one for unarmed Pakistanis killed by drones. Both numbers far exceed the total number of American civilians killed by terrorists, whom we appropriately have not forgotten.
I have no problem with a Memorial Day that remembers those killed by war. Indeed, in a free future, I would hope such an annual remembrance became an important part of avoiding a return to statism. It is disgraceful, though, when those who were unarmed and not trying to kill others at the time they were killed are treated as less worthy of remembrance on Memorial Day. They will be in my thoughts tomorrow, whether they were American or not.
Ed Stringham on law enforcement under anarchy
During the recent meeting of the Association of Private Enterprise Education (APEE) in Guatemala, Economist Ed Stringham gave an interview outlining the idea of law enforcement without government. I highly recommend Anarchy And The Law, which Stringham edited, for those who are interested in serious theoretical and historical coverage of law enforcement, dispute resolution, and collective defense in stateless societies.
Anarchy In One Lesson
Here is the practical case for anarchy in a nutshell (well, most people think anarchists are nuts, don’t they?):
“The use of aggression in a particular situation will, on average, make matters worse, and it is not possible to know in advance when the general probability doesn’t apply nor to create institutions that will limit their use of aggression to when the general probability doesn’t apply, so a policy of completely rejecting the use of aggression or institutions of aggression is the optimal strategy in the real world.”
The rest is elaboration and commentary. For those who can’t wait for the next installment, I suggest you begin with Friedrich Hayek’s 1945 essay, The Use of Knowledge in Society, available at the excellent Library of Economics and Liberty here.
