In an earlier post, I challenged readers to discuss the trans-fat ban by Montgomery County. Should we fight it? Challenge it? Or just assume it’s no big deal, a reaction I heard from a number of friends. Their attitude was come on, don’t get worked about it. There are lots of substitutes for trans-fats. So what’s the big deal. And some of our readers made the point that when you get worked up over trans-fats, most people will assume you’re a nut. And that reduces your chance to have them take other, more important ideas seriously. You’ll be dismissed, and maybe rightly so.
I want to thank all of the readers who contributed to the excellent discussion in the comments to that post.
Here, I’ll give my two cents. Or four.
Going without trans-fats is no big deal. But a ban by the Montgomery County Council is a big deal and this paradox is why the politics and strategic aspect of the issue is so tricky.
I don’t smoke. Never have. So a ban on smoking, in public or private places, is if anything, good for me. I don’t like second-hand smoke.
I wear my seat belt when I ride in my car. Requiring people to wear seat belts doesn’t affect me. I won’t be getting a ticket any time soon.
I’ve been on a motorcycle once in my life. It scared me. So I don’t care if people riding a motorcycle have to wear a helmet. If anything, the requirement supposedly keeps my taxes down.
I don’t really care about the mouth-feel of pastry or whether it’s a little more expensive. Using trans-fats supposedly leads to better mouth feel and a longer shelf life. Come on, would you go to the barricades over mouth feel?
Nope. Not worth it. None of these things are really worth fighting for, are they? Are you going to picket a politician for making some other folks stop smoking or wear their seat belt? Not worth it.
Of course, that’s how the nanny state grows. It’s just not worth fighting any one infringement of liberty. So no, I’m not going to fight for the right to buy a locally-baked pastry with good mouth feel.
But I will fight against the idea that the Montgomery County Council has the right to ban trans-fats. That’s why I’m writing this post. That’s why I mention it to my neighbors. It requires a bit of schizophrenia. But it’s healthy. I don’t care about trans-fats, but I care about the ban. I care about the principle.
The principle is tricky. It’s not the right to eat trans-fats. The principle is that I don’t want powerful people to decide what I do with my body or my life. Those are my responsibility. They are my responsibility because that’s what adulthood is. Adulthood is being responsible for the risks you take, reaping the rewards and enduring the costs.
But those decisions are also my responsibility because I have a lot of incentives to make the right choice. I bear the costs and reap the rewards, remember? I admit I’m imperfect. I’m frail. I’m weak. I don’t always make the right choice. Sometimes I eat too much. Sometimes I drink too much. And I suspect my neighbors make mistakes even when I don’t. So I understand the appeal of being constrained. That’s what friends are for, or rabbis or even self-help books. Those are the sources I want to get my constraints from.
I don’t want to live in a world where a bunch of strangers sitting on the Montgomery County Council act in my name to constrain us. Those strangers don’t love me. They don’t care about me (though they protest that yes, they do.) They are responsive to all kinds of forces besides my well-being. So I don’t want to expand their authority to make decisions for me. I want to reduce it.
So when your friend laughs at you for caring about something as trivial as trans fats, tell your friend you don’t care about trans fat. You care about the principle that’s at stake. The principle is that when your health is a justification for restricting liberty, then the power of politics climbs in your car, in your kitchen and in your bedroom. Today it’s trans fats. Tomorrow it’s meat or single-malt scotch, or skiing or sex. It’s not about whether some cost-benefit analysis proves that on this particular case or that one, the ban is worthwhile. It’s about whether you’re free to be an adult and pursue what you enjoy, knowing that nothing is entirely safe. I choose adulthood for adults.
Chapter Three of The Invisible Heart deals with these issues.
Here’s an essay I wrote on obesity as a justification for regulation.
Share
{ 49 comments }
I think you’re exactly right, Russell. The only thing I would add is that in order for someone to take full responsibility of their life and the decisions that they make in it, they need to be informed and educated about their options.
If we agree that it is NOT the government’s place to ban such decisions, is it possible that it is government’s place to help inform the public about making safe and healthy decisions? Is it government’s place to say, “Hey, you may die in an accident if you don’t wear your seat belt.” Or, “Hey, if you keep eating trans fats, you’re going to have a heart attack by age 40.”
I think it’s my responsibility to purchase a car that I think is safe and food that I think is healthy. And, no, government shouldn't ban my choices. But I think it’s unrealistic for me or anyone else to have to determine on my own what MAKES a car safe or food healthy—engineers and doctors should tell me that.
So should I expect the government to disseminate that information from the engineers and doctors, or should I expect it to come from a private entity? What is a libertarian response?
Another post to remind me why I've become addicted to this blog, Russell.
Michael: "But I think it’s unrealistic for me or anyone else to have to determine on my own what MAKES a car safe or food healthy—engineers and doctors should tell me that."
I don't know what the governmet thinks of my car but I do know what Consumer Reports thinks of my car. In fact, every time I've had to buy a car, I first chose the make and model by looking up the best rated car in my price range in Consumer Reports and then went looking for it in the paper or at the dealer. I've never been sorry. I demand the safest and most reliable car in my price range. All of the cars sold in the market meet the government's standards but those standards vary widely and Consumer Reports helps me find the highest standard for the price I'm willing to pay.
I've chosen practically every piece of technology and appliance using Cnet and Consumer Reports. I've educated myself about nutrition using readily available private sources. I haven't bought a packaged cookie or a locally baked good which has had trans fat as an ingredient for years. And there are ever more cookie makers and local bakers responding to demand by consumers like me.
I realize this is anecdotal evidence. But from where I stand, I can see little useful government intervention and less need for it – especially in light of the liberty lost. The market responds much quicker and with better information than the government ever can.
But I think it’s unrealistic for me or anyone else to have to determine on my own what MAKES a car safe or food healthy—engineers and doctors should tell me that
I'd say it a slightly different way: it is not the government's place to limit my set of choices for risk and reward.
As I understood the original situation, we were considering a county-level restriction on restaurants to serve trans-fat oils. It's important to distinguish between national-level government and local government, and to distinguish between a restriction on businesses vs. restrictions on individual habits.
A pretty good case can be made that there is a common-law tradition for local governments to regulate retail businesses. If my neighbour were to open a gas station, it would severely impact my quality of life as well as the value of my property. How is it against liberty to suggest that a third party should be in a position to prevent this? How is it against liberty to suggest that this third party could be the county government?
If we accept that local government, based on a common-law tradition, should be able to restrict some aspects of retail business, why not *all* aspects of retail business? Where would you draw the line?
These questions remain unanswered. It seems to me that local law vs. national law, as well as retail business restrictions vs. restrictions on personal habits, have been somewhat conflated.
Unfortunately, by assuming responsibility for everybody's healthcare expenses, the Nanny State HAS made it my interest to meddle in other people's health. My tax dollars go to pay for other people's bad decisions. That includes folks who ride motorcycles without helments or drive cars without seatbelts.
This only highlights the importance of your argument. The creeping Nanny State grows exponentially. By embracing something seemingly reasonable, free healthcare for the elderly, with have created incentives for all sorts of other regulations in our lives.
-Andy
You wrote "I wear my seat belt when I ride in my car. Requiring people to wear seat belts doesn't affect me."
Not true. As I'm sure you are aware, people drive more recklessly when they wear seat belts. Thus, requiring people to wear seat belts makes it more likely you will get in an accident. Rather then requiring people to wear seat belts, it would thus be more efficient for the government to tax seat belt use.
I'm disappointed that Russell Roberts didn't address several of the issues that were brought forward in the comments to the "request for comments" post related to this issue.
Henry Hein reiterated one above.
A second was that while we understand that no libertarian would ever want to live in a community that had any restrictions at all, what about people who do? While Russ Roberts says, "I don't want to live in a world where a bunch of strangers sitting on the Montgomery County Council act in my name to constrain us", many (perhaps most?) people actually do want to live in Nannyish communities, at least to a point. Why don't Libertarians just go "buy out" some communities and live in their libertarian utopia there instead of expecting everybody else to change their evil ways? I'd certainly support the Libertarian concept at the federal level and perhaps one state could be convinced to be libertarian as well.
Lastly, I had to laugh when I read this: "Those strangers don't love me. They don't care about me … They are responsive to all kinds of forces besides my well-being." That's the same argument the Maxists used (or still use?) when explaining why the free market and businessmen can't be trusted. Libertarians and Marxists – different ends, same arguments.
This reminds me a lot of the "one more penny" paradox. Imagine an apple costs 50 cents at the local store, and you go to the store to buy one. But, when you get there, it costs 51 cents! Well, what's one more penny? Hardly worth getting angry over or storming out without buying the apple. But once you've accepted that 51 cents is acceptable for an apple, what if next time it's now 52 cents? And the time after that 53 cents? Surely there is some price ($5? $50?) where the apple is clearly overpriced. Although the rational reaction to each individual penny is that it's not worth getting upset or changing your behavior for, somehow all those pennies must add up to make the apple overpriced.
Let's say you draw the line at 75 cents. Nope, you're not paying 75 cents for an apple, no way, no how. Now would you pay 74? Isn't it SILLY to agree to pay 74 cents for an apple but not to pay 75 for that same apple? What's one little penny?
Bret,
Did you read the excerpt from Nozick, The Fable of the Slave that I posted?
it's too late to get caught up on such minor issues. the us govt must be purged, and reformed under an improved Constitution to ever surmount the massive catalog of tyrannical laws accumulated
Russ,
Yes, I read Nozick's "Tale of the Slave" and gave a response in the comments to your "What's the Big Deal" post including the parody "The Tale of the Husband" (or The Tail of the Wife), which I'll excerpt here:
————-
I think this makes light of the horrors and oppression that real slaves experience, but hey, I'm willing to go along with it. I pointed out that later in the book that Nozick supports individuals selling themselves into slavery (after all, if you're truly free, your free to do something as stupid as that as well), and so I still contend that Nozick would support the concept of a community, such as Montgomery County, imposing restrictions on its members, such as a ban on trans-fats.
For amusement, I've also rewritten the above parable. I call it The "Tail" [sic] of the Wife:
1. There is a husband completely at the mercy of his brutal wife's whims. He often is cruelly denied sex, called out in the middle of the night, and so on.
2. The wife is kindlier and denies sex to the husband only for stated infractions of her rules (not fulfilling the honey do quota, leaving the toilet seat up, and so on). She gives the husband some free time.
3. Not applicable.
4. The wife allows her husband four days on his own and requires him to work only three days a week on her honey do's. The rest of the time (3 minutes per month) is his own.
5. The wife allows her husband to go off and work in the city (or anywhere he wishes) for wages. She requires only that he let her spend six-sevenths of his wages. She also retains the power to recall him to the plantation if some emergency, like a clogged toilet, threatens her land; and to raise or lower the six-sevenths amount required to be turned over to her. She further retains the right to restrict the husband from participating in certain dangerous activities that threaten her financial return, for example, mountain climbing, cigarette smoking, flirting with other women.
6. Not applicable.
7. Though still not having the vote, the husband is at liberty (and is given the right) to enter into the discussions with the wife, to try to persuade her to adopt various policies and to treat him and herself in a certain way. She then ignores him and goes off and decides upon policies covering the vast range of her powers.
8. In appreciation of his useful contributions to discussion, the wife allows him to vote if she can't make up her mind; she commits herself to this procedure. In the eventuality that she can't make up her mind on some issue, she'll consider his vote and do the opposite (er, um, gee, I think the slaves do better than the husbands at this point). This happens nearly continuously.
9. The wife throws the husband's vote in with hers. If they are exactly tied her vote carries the issue. Otherwise it makes no difference to the electoral outcome.
Clearly, the first thing that libertarians should do if they ever get power is to outlaw marriage! Easily the most freedom restricting institution ever invented!!!
My belief is that most people have a need to be bound to a wife, to a community, even to a nation and are willing to put up with the resulting restrictions.
———————–
Again, I support Libertarians going off and starting their own communities somewhere with minimal interference from a central state. But I still think it unworkable to expect everybody else to ignore very strong tribal and community instincts (such as are found in the vast majority of other mammals and primates) and to not basically enter into a sort of "slavery" with each other. That's how social animals usually work.
The extreme collectivists are too heavy on the bonds thing and I think that Libertarians are a bit too light. The happy medium we have works for me, though admittedly, if I had to pick between the collectivists and the libertarians I'd immediately pick the latter.
Bret,
People do like community. What does the Montgomery County Council have to do with that word other than they like to use it?
How can you know whether most people want the Council to limit our freedoms?
Bret, I don't understand the point of your "Tail of the Husband". The husband's state, even at the worst, is nothing like the slave. Most libertarians don't believe in entitlements or "positive rights", so being "denied sex" is not of any concern to them on principle. Eliminating marriage would not (presumably) prevent people from being "denied sex", so the conclusion that libertarians would call for the abolition of marriage (although some individualist anarchists in the 19th century did just that, but generally for more feminist reasons). The other issue is that the husband is "called on". A wife "call[ing] on" her husband is, presumably, non-coercive. It is merely a request with no force behind it. Libertarians have no problem with that (Roderick Long and left-libertarians excepted). Lastly, everyone is by default unmarried and only enters into a marriage by voluntary agreement (the government here does not approve of forced marriages). It would be quite the dumb husband who did not realize this his wife might not always want to have sex and might also make requests of him before getting married (the extent to which those might occur will admittedly be uncertain). If the husband (or wife) become dissatisfied with the marriage it can be dissolved WITHOUT that forcing them into ANOTHER marriage. That is NOT the case with government. I was born under the United States government. I never agreed to the countless laws it subjects me to. I have not left the country (and don't plan to), but if I did that would then force me to be subjected to ANOTHER government. There is a "none of the above" option for every private sector contract (including marriage). There is none for government.
Bret, I don't get how anything you write has anything to do with trans-fat bans by a county. I'm sure any county in America has enough people that if you took all of the people affected by some proposed trendy ban over the past five years, you'd have a handful who would be affected by every single one and would feel like their neighbors put them in a Truman Show setting and decided to ban everything they ever liked. Why leave it to chance who we pick. Let's pick Bret. Bret, tell us everything you like and we libertarians (that is small-l) will find you a county where you can be persecuted 24/7 just for being unlucky.
In addition to what Russ wrote, the problem with the trans-fat ban is that it is based in scientism, not science. These are political hacks hearing random BS scare stories at the top of the hour on NPR and enacting laws. Look, if trans-fats from eating out at restaurants is going to cause you measurable health problems, you have a much bigger problem. Which is, YOU ARE GETTING MOST OF YOUR DIET FROM EATING OUT AT RESTAURANTS AND CAN'T SEEM TO MIX IN A SALAD AND A LITTLE SELF CONTROL. Sorry to shout, but puh-lease. Do not go and ruin things for people who want to occasionally indulge a little and either can exercise some self-control or happily accept the consequences.
One more thing on the difference between science and scientism when it meets public policy. Science is a recognition that our state of understanding will change. It may be refined, it may incorporate new information, it may be totally reversed. Policy based on science would be very reluctant to lock in any approach via regulation until there is not just consensus, but textbook knowledge. Think closer to Newtonian physics above the molecular level rather than global warming for the level of assuredness. Scientism, on the other hand, is latching onto the latest cutting edge theories and acting on them before they have been adequately aired out. Think using MTBE as an oxygenator in gasoline, before anyone figured out that it would leak out of storage tanks and pollute ground water. Talk about a giant regulatory screw up that left gas station owners open to costly repairs and lawsuits simultaneously while the chemical was still mandated!
The really funny thing about trans-fats was that in the 80s, they were supposed to be healthier than saturated fats. My Mom, keeping up with the latest nutritional advice, never had butter in the fridge, only margarine. I only tasted real butter at my grandmother's, and developed a preference for it when I moved out on my own. Everything was cooked in margarine, that was supposed to be healthier. And now we're told it's so deadly that we need to enact laws against it. I suspect it's somewhere in between and 5 years from now, we'll arrive closer to the truth. Meanwhile, we'll have these insane trendy bans to protect us from what political hacks think is the truth this week. Don't these busybodies have enough zoning wavers to consider?
Methinks,
Consumer Reports publishes, at least in part, GOVERNMENT crash test ratings. You said so yourself in the post. The point of my comment was to ask whether government should be in the business of providing crash test rating at all. Certainly Consumer Reports could do their own testing without government input.
Ultimately this is a philosophy about the use and misuse of government. I think Russell Roberts original post starts the conversation; it does not finish it.
Russ Roberts wrote: "People do like community. What does the Montgomery County Council have to do with that word other than they like to use it?"
My question is why is Montgomery County not a community and the answer to that is what I think was missing from your post. I live in a County of 3 million people, and to me, it feels like a community. I suspect that deciding whether or not a particular county is a community is subjective. My feeling is that counties are still at the community level, that'd be my default, while states and the federal government are too big to be considered communities.
Russ Robert also wrote: "How can you know whether most people want the Council to limit our freedoms?"
Because the vast majority are non-libertarian humans who, in my experience, overwhelmingly have a natural inclination towards wanting to limit each others' freedoms and don't much mind having some of their freedoms limited.
TGGP wrote: 'Bret, I don't understand the point of your "Tail of the Husband".'
That's not surprising, as libertarians have a worldview that generally precludes them from getting the point. To a non-libertarian, the "Tail of the Wife" highlights the absurdity of "The Tale of the Slave" comparing people living in a democracy (even one without much of a constitution) with the horrors and oppression of actual slaves. In a society, we are indeed all bound to each other through a variety of institutions. Considering those bonds to be bondage just doesn't work for me.
TGGP also wrote: 'A wife "call[ing] on" her husband is, presumably, non-coercive. It is merely a request with no force behind it.'
Given this statement, I suspect that you are either female or never married (or both).
Am I right?
TGGP also wrote: 'There is a "none of the above" option for every private sector contract (including marriage). There is none for government.'
As I have stated before, I'm much more sympathetic to the libertarian viewpoint at the federal level than at the county level. In which case libertarians could go live in their own community somewhere if they didn't like existing communities.
Henri Hein asked:
If my neighbour were to open a gas station, it would severely impact my quality of life as well as the value of my property. How is it against liberty to suggest that a third party should be in a position to prevent this? How is it against liberty to suggest that this third party could be the county government?
Simple. It's against liberty because you can't tell him what to do with his stuff.
Imagine yourself a white South African in the 1950s, and replace "open a gas station" with "sell his house to a black family". Such a sale would have lowered your self-determined quality of life and reduced your property values, right? So why not let the government step in to prevent the black family from moving in?
The simple fact of the matter is that it's immoral for you or anyone else to tell your neighbor what he can and can't do with his own property. You're welcome to buy the property from him to prevent him from turning it into a gas station, but unless he's willing to make such a trade or he physically harms you or your property, you should butt out.
The government does not exist to protect your property values. To imagine that it does (on the basis of some common-law principle you assure us exists) leads us directly from the busybody zoning laws of today ("You can't paint your house that color! Your grass must be less than 5 inches high!") to the racist apartheid policies of South Africa and the post-Reconstruction south.
Wow, the comments sure drifted. I just wanted to say "me too" on one item from the blog entry: it works well for me to highlight who makes a decision.
This is something everyone understands. Gee, guy, do you really want the county council deciding what you will eat? Are those really people who are wise in the ways of nutrition? Your personal nutrition?
Americans tend to have a knee-jerk reaction to this sort of thing, anyway. Plus, it gets them thinking about how the political process works.
Similarly fun is to ask a European about EU standardization. Gee, guy, standard voting machines sound nice, but how do you feel about some bunch of guys in Geneva deciding how your country will do the mechanics of voting?
>>So I don't want to expand their authority to make decisions for me.
so.. can I list and quote you on my "legalize cannabis" website?
(or are you coming me now with your phony.. oh no no not cannabis… the mouth feel is not right oh no…?)
Michael,
Consumer Reports also does its own testing. The point is – and you and I are clearly examples – that there is demand for third-party testing. As long as there are people who are willing to pay for it, there will be incentive to provide it and it will be provided.
Incidentally, what I said in my post is that for the cars to come to market they have to meet basic government regulations, not that Consumer Reports relies solely on government crash tests. In fact, government crash tests aren't even all that great since they don't test for some of the most common accidents. Nor does the government test for things like handling – important if you want to avoid crashing in the first place. Private companies do because there is demand.
To piggy back off of Methinks original post.
His use of Cnet and Consumer Reports has been made easier by one very key element: The Net.
The internet has allowed for greater desemination of information ot peopla dn the info that you want is more than likely only a google search away.
Granted there are people who are not internet savvy, but those people are becoming an extinct breed.
Exactly. While you stand firmly on principle, you have hinted at a slippery slope argument. Greg Mankiw has sniffed once or twice on his blog at slippery slope arguments, calling The Road to Serfdom one big slippery slope argument. He says that if you resist these small intrusions you'll resist all forms of government and authority and break down useful institutions. For my part, I'm a big fan of slippery slope arguments. Just witness the creeping tyranny emerging in Venezuela and you see how societies take baby steps toward their own enslavement. Better to refuse to take those baby steps if you know where things are headed.
I was always taught that (all things being equal) an increase in price almost always leads to a fall in demand, but not always. However, even when it does not, it does increase the chances of a fall in demand.
Using the apple example above, let us suppose that I run a market stall selling apples for 50p, and each day I sell 50 apples. If I increase the price to 51p, it might just be that everyone accepts the increased price and I still sell 50 apples a day. However, there is a chance that someone will not be able to afford the new price. For instance, a boy who previously bought an apple a day by spending 100% of his £3.50 weekly pocket money will now only be able to buy 6 apples (as opposed to 7).
Bret,
As I have stated before, I'm much more sympathetic to the libertarian viewpoint at the federal level than at the county level. In which case libertarians could go live in their own community somewhere if they didn't like existing communities.
It makes more sense to have liberty as the default. With that foundation, everyone is free to live as he chooses. If you and others want to have a more communal sense of living, with the extra, presumably voluntary restrictions on personal liberty that go with it, you're free to enter into such a deal anywhere and live under those rules. You make the choice to impose that on yourself. It'd be like a homeowners association.
Or a religion, if you will. How is what you're saying any different than "you can exercise any religion you want, as long as you do it somewhere else, this is a community"? The underlying assumption is still that your ideas are right for the area. You seem to be saying that in this example, Montgomery County is, and should be, a collectivist(-lite) community. Dissenters should accept it or leave. They have no right to live there and live their lives completely as they see fit.
In the end, under libertarianism, you're free to form whatever social group you want to opt of a more extensive form of liberty without having to pick up your life and move somewhere else. Under your modified form of collectivism, we don't have that same opportunity. You're saying we have to leave "your" community. That can never be right.
Good post. Precisely the point. All the noise about government jurisdiction to "regulate" is lost without a firm basis in a theory of rights and the ethics appropriate to it. Much [most] regulation is now simply what I call 100% solutions to 2% problems, usually interjection of force without the support of principle, simply because that is "easier" than the refinement or resolving what appear to be conflicts of rights. That sloppy approach insures hopeless navigation of slippery slopes.
"I'd certainly support the Libertarian concept at the federal level and perhaps one state could be convinced to be libertarian as well."
Bret,
Good luck finding a Government that will allow this to happen. Whenever you have a central government it makes decisions which are at odds with those of the lesser governments. Look at speed limits, seatbelt laws, marijuana, etc. Can a single state (or community) decide to use a gold-standard? Can a single state or community decide to stop remitting income tax? FICA? SS Payments?
Someone else mentioned that liberty needs to be the default setting. If you want to choose your master, that's fine with me. Nothing like adverse selection…
Tony wrote: "It makes more sense to have liberty as the default."
Unless you're in prison, just about everybody in the United States has at least some liberty. That seems like a fine default to me. From there, small tweaks towards or away from "liberty" also works for me, especially at lower levels of government.
It seems to me that it is intensely arrogant to think that sweeping away the current set of federal and state government institutions and laws and replacing them with libertarian ones in one fell swoop would be anything but catastrophic. This belief, which seems to be widely held in this forum, is, to me, nothing more than a Fatal Conceit, no different than what the collectivists and other utopian visionaries suffered from.
…just about everybody in the United States has at least some liberty.
So you're happy with "some" liberty. I'm fine with you being happy with that. In my ideal political landscape, you'd be free to enter that. But you're going further and saying that, since you like it, it's good enough for me, too, even if I can clearly demonstrate how your reduced freedom harms me.
If my desired freedom forced harm on you, you'd have a point. But when it doesn't, you've simply decided that you know better. I, then, have your liberty, not mine.
Note that I made no arguments about sweeping away government institutions in one feel swoop. Some would have to go, but I'm practical. The transition should be smart, which is a different debate. It doesn't make sense to say that, we have these government institutions, so I guess we have to keep them.
"Why don't Libertarians just go "buy out" some communities and live in their libertarian utopia there instead of expecting everybody else to change their evil ways?"
Haha, that's what the military is for…
"The government does not exist to protect your property values"
Wrong. That's precisely the proper role of government.
"You make the choice to impose that on yourself. It'd be like a homeowners association."
I have asked before and I will ask again. What is the difference between a home-owners association and a county?
1. You join each voluntarily.
2. You sign a contract when you move in to either.
3. Each carry a recurring fee, which you can only avoid by moving out of the area.
4. Each have elected representatives and 'townhall' style meetings.
If Bret had joined a private home owners association he was unhappy with, presumably the libertarian answer would have been "go find one you like, or work to get the charter changed." This works both ways. I have yet to hear a good explanation for why the same reply doesn't work for counties.
"You make the choice to impose that on yourself. It'd be like a homeowners association."
I have asked before and I will ask again. What is the difference between a home-owners association and a county?
1. You join each voluntarily.
2. You sign a contract when you move in to either.
3. Each carry a recurring fee, which you can only avoid by moving out of the area.
4. Each have elected representatives and 'townhall' style meetings.
If Bret had joined a private home owners association he was unhappy with, presumably the libertarian answer would have been "go find one you like, or work to get the charter changed." This works both ways. I have yet to hear a good explanation for why the same reply doesn't work for counties.
Wow! I am stunned that people like Bret and Henri Hein really want the government to tell them what to eat. What if the Council decided that whatever your favorite food is should be banned? Would you really want some County Council to ban your favorite food? You may ask why would they ban my favorite food? Well if they can ban trans fats then why not? And why is better to have a local government restrict my freedom as opposed to a central government? Either way, I have lost my freedom.
"I have yet to hear a good explanation for why the same reply doesn't work for counties."
Ever hear of a Homeowner's Association that you're not allowed to leave? Ever hear of a Homeowner's Association breaking down doors in the middle of the night? Kidnapping the people who live there? Killing them?
Furthermore, an HA consists formal covenants to which one puts his signature. This statement is not true of any government. Anywhere.
David Z wrote: "Ever hear of a Homeowner's Association that you're not allowed to leave?"
I've never heard of a county you're not allowed to leave either.
My homeowner's association had specific restrictions that I agreed to when I bought my house. I voluntarily signed the agreement. You say county government is like that. My HOA doesn't change or add restrictions. How many local governments abide by that?
Given that we're discussing a new trans fat ban by Montgomery County, the answer is obvious.
Tony,
At least some HOAs can add restrictions by some majority vote. Signing an agreement is explicit consent. Entering a county or an incorporated township is giving implicit consent to abide by the laws of that locality. It doesn't seem like much of a difference to me except the latter is more efficient for trade and the like.
Note that your heirs will be stuck with property and the HOA restrictions that they never agreed to that might well affect the value of your property then.
There may possibly be towns that agree not to pass any new restrictive laws. I don't know.
If you're so into this freedom thang, why not join the free state project (http://www.freestateproject.org/), where a bunch of libertarians are planning on taking over New Hampshire with the intent to "exert [their] fullest practical effort toward the creation of a society in which the maximum role of civil government is the protection of life, liberty, and property." Go there and eat trans-fats!
Bret, HOAs are a horrible example. HOA agreements often contain unenforceable and downright illegal provisions. My HOA allows us to have one dog under 40 pounds. If that were ever enforced, there would be violence. Like many HOAs, ours has finally come to terms with satellite dishes by requiring that 3 neighbors sign off on it, similar to how exterior renovations and additions are handled. The most that an HOA can do is fine you and attach a lien on your property. Such liens are always negotiable when you sell. Why? Because if you've amassed any, the HOA would would rather have you leave than stay. Violate the county ordinance against cooking in vegetable oil and you might land in jail.
Bret,
You're assuming I eat trans fats. I don't. But I'm not arrogant enough to believe that everyone else should make the same choices I make.
What I don't understand is why you're so determined to build this collectivist group hug for everyone. You assume that living in an area implies consent and agreement with whatever the majority decides. What is objectionable about you forming a voluntary agreement with everyone else who wishes to join, while leaving everyone else alone to form or not form restrictive groups as they please? Unless every vote is 100% in favor, do you expect people to leave the community until everyone agrees on everything? That's going to leave many extremely small communities.
It's interesting that you mention the Free State Project, as if I'm the one who's an isolationist who needs a community of like-minded souls. I'm not the one suggesting that dissenters should leave. I can accept different choices. I don't care if my neighbors disagree with me, as long as they don't try to force their decisions on me through the power of government. You can't accept that. You demand agreement or out of sight, out of mind. That's irrational nonsense.
Why do you hate liberty?
Another great discussion. There must be something about ridiculous and unproductive government regulation of private life which fosters discussion.
Of the many topics discussed (I counted 8 or 9 separate issues), I'll comment on two of them:
First, there seems to be a strong "if you don't like the way things are here, you should leave" mentality among some posters. But answer doesn't even address the question: should the government do this? Instead, it proscribes how people should react to the regulation.
There is a purely logical reason for the failure of the idea that you should "just leave" if you do not agree with a government policy. At least one person has admitted that defining community at the local level of government is totally subjective. There is no real reason why we should so narrowly define community. Perhaps community is national, in which case restrictions should be fine, right? Libertarians can just leave the country. But why stop there? In the context of the universe, humanity is a pretty tight-knit community. But then (at least until commercial space travel) libertarians fleeing community-imposed restrictions cannot leave. So I take it for granted that no one supports any global governance or courts, but as long as there is at least one free community somewhere on Earth, we can communally restrict all we want.
Sarcasm aside, why should the government (which is simply a monopoly on force) make me abide by an idea (like not eating trans-fats) when anyone who wants to do it can voluntarily do so. Tony’s posting hits the nail (or rather collectivist argument) on the head.
The second prevalent idea I noticed concerns “information.” The government as distributor of information instead of enforcer of decisions certainly sounds better, at least on the surface. However, having worked for the government earlier in life, I can assure you (along with many scholars much smarter than I) that government workers are just normal people, with access to basically the same information you and I have. (Given the blog, I hope everyone has read “The Use of Knowledge in Society”) This is why so many mistakes are made (Brad did an excellent job with his “science vs. scientism” post). Government mistakes are compounded because they are enforced, not tested in the market. Also, because it is simply made of people, government is open to all sorts of decision-making distortions (see public choice theory).
On the other hand, the market takes care of many problems, and does it amazingly without coercion. Suppose a majority of the population of an area really hate trans-fats. If true, there will appear options for them to get food without eating trans-fats. Some people didn’t like cigarette smoke, so smoking and non-smoking sections came into existence. If most people agree with an idea, why not take care of it in a voluntary way instead of forcing everyone to comply?
Finally, a bit of humor from Bret to end the post:
“Lastly, I had to laugh when I read this: ‘Those strangers don't love me. They don't care about me … They are responsive to all kinds of forces besides my well-being." That's the same argument the Marxists used (or still use?) when explaining why the free market and businessmen can't be trusted. Libertarians and Marxists – different ends, same arguments.’”
I too got a good laugh, though probably not for the same reason.
By the way, great post Russ.
Brad Hutchings wrote: "Violate the county ordinance against cooking in vegetable oil and you might land in jail."
Pretty unlikely given what the ordinance actually is:
"Any violation would be considered a class C civil violation. Each a violation exists is a separate offense. The Director of Health and Human Services may also suspend a license issued for up to 3 days if the Director finds that the operator has knowingly and repeatedly violated the regulation."
David wrote: "But answer doesn't even address the question: should the government do this? Instead, it proscribes how people should react to the regulation."
What the government should do in theory and how people might react to actual regulation are completely unrelated.
There are no libertarian towns, counties, states, or countries. The fact is that a libertarian government is and will likely always be a fantasy. The one chance for libertarians is for the few of you to band together and go start a community or go take over New Hampshire or something. Otherwise, you will have to live with the frustration of having your liberties restricted in ways that you don't like.
We can debate whether or not the government should, in theory, provide nanny services, but the fact is that it does and will continue to do so. That's the basis for my responses. If you don't like it, go do something about it. It will be absolutely impossible for you to change existing communities without a migration of libertarians to one place to increase your density. Otherwise, there just aren't enough of you. Very few people like the strict libertarian vision, even if they understand it very clearly. Thus, "education" will not help. Therefore, like it or not, if you stay where you are you will always have to live with the regulations imposed on you. There's simply no choice.
Henri Hein said:
""The government does not exist to protect your property values"
Wrong. That's precisely the proper role of government."
Alright. State your case. Why is that government's role, and how far can the government go to maintain the market price of your chattel and real estate? David and Tony have made compelling arguments above about why their vision of government is proper and good. Can you do the same?
I can think of three reasons why you might have called property value the "proper role of government".
1. You're a troll.
2. You're a protectionist Luddite bigot who truly expects the government to deny others their human rights to protect the resale value of your stuff.
3. You hold your opinions in good faith, and we've either misunderstood each other, or else are simply starting from very different points of view.
I think the third answer is probably right.
In retrospect, I think I failed to distinguish clearly enough between protecting the physical sanctity of persons and property (a [arguably] legitimate role for government) and the (illegitimate) preservation-by-force of property's market value.
I shouldn't have said government isn't supposed to "protect property values". That's a bit confusing, since if government has any legitimate use at all, it's to protect people and their property (both land and stuff) from phyiscal violence — murder, rape, theft, vandalism, and so on. Further confusing the two issues, when government fulfills this limited, "night-watchman" role, it usually increases the market value of the secure, safe property, so the two apparently overlap.
But make no mistake: your property's market value could drop for many reasons. Maybe your neighborhood is having a murder spree. Maybe your neighbor is building a gas station. Or maybe peoples' tastes have shifted and they prefer to live elsewhere. All of these would hurt your property values, but under the "common law" you mention, in only one of those situations could the government legitimately intervene.
That said, I think perhaps there's even more gray areas in your gas station example. But they all return to the sanctity of your property rights, not the narrowly-defined market value of your property.
If your neighbor's gas station polluted your property with noise, bright light, and bad smells, (all of which are physical phenomena) then there are certainly commmon law nuisance standards that would apply — either your neighbor would have to curtail the offending activities or compensate you for the damage he caused, or some combination of both. The government could certainly be involved in arbitration to this end (though private arbitration is also possible), or could perhaps legitimately force your neighbor into this arbitration. But like I said above, this wouldn't be to protect your home's resale value or your mental satisfaction with your living arrangements. It would be to prevent your neighbor's violation of your propety rights, just like the government can legitimately compel trespassers to leave someone's house or yard.
(As a side-note, have you ever heard of Ronald Coase?)
In answer to your question about HOAs versus local governments, there are many differences:
First, HOAs claim no right to legitimate use of violence, confiscation of property, or imprisonment as do governments. David Z. has already dramatically remarked on this.
Second, I think you're conflating two different kinds of HOA in your comparison with government. In one kind of HOA, the association may actually own the property you're purchasing (or have owned it originally, and dictated conditions to the first buyers that were bound to dictate when they sold to second buyers, and so forth), and adherence to the HOA's regulations is a contractual condition of the sale. This kind of HOA is fairly comparable to a county government, though not entirely — in such an HOA, my agreement to abide by its rules and governing structures is a contract I make with the property's previous rightful owner. A county's government does not rightfully own all the property in the county, and therefore it has no business setting conditions on the agreements made between buyers and sellers, beyond making sure no one is coerced, and everyone holds to their side of the contract (and again, not everyone would say that the government is necessary for that second step).
Another kind of HOA is one in which a group of neighbors get together and say "hey everybody, let's all sign a contract and agree to get each other's approval before we paint our houses." This is totally voluntary on everyone's part, and not really comparable to a government at all.
Since I answered your question, will you answer my old one, too? If protecting property values (as I've explained them) is the proper role of government, would, say, the government of a rural town in Harper Lee's Alabama have been justified from preventing blacks from moving into a white neighborhood in order to protect current residents' property values? Or was this question predicated on a misunderstanding of your meaning when you said "property value"?
There is a third answer to the homeowners association. You do not have to just "put up with it" or "leave", you can also "lobby for change". That's what libertarians are doing with government.
It's also true that governments have a monopoly on land to impose laws upon. You cannot go and find an unowned piece of land and set up your own country, it's all already owned. Wouldn't leftists want to break down a monopoly like this and give libertarians a viable state?
The CL wrote: "…you can also "lobby for change" …"
Yes, there's nothing wrong with that. Good luck, in fact. However, you're such a tiny minority and your incentives aren't really particularly aligned with what makes politicians tick, so that it seems unlikely your lobbying will have much of an effect. While you're waiting for your lobbying to have an effect, your only practical alternative is to just "put up with it".
The CL also wrote: "You cannot go and find an unowned piece of land and set up your own country, it's all already owned."
I've actually given that a lot of thought, along the lines of what I'd do if I had Bill Gates' money. There are at least two alternatives. There are a lot of little, uninhabited islands in the South Pacific that could perhaps be bought with sovereign rights from one of the governments that owns them. The other alternative is to build an island like the Japanese are doing (Osaka airport for example). I'd pick the equatorial pacific since there are almost never any storms. Just anchor it to the bottom, and you have your very own country.
If you're really serious about it, there are solutions so take action! If you're not serious, well then, lobby away!
The CL also wrote: "Wouldn't leftists want to break down a monopoly like this and give libertarians a viable state?"
Nah, go build your own (see above). Also, I'm not sure that very many people think a libertarian state would be viable.