Private Ownership of the Means of Production confers a Social Benefit

Perhaps the most difficult battle faced by the advocates of free markets it to convince people that Private Ownership of the Means of Production is not some special privilege conferring and advantage to "greedy capitalists" at the expense of everyone else, but that it serves a social function that is beneficial to all.

Private ownership makes the accumulated wealth of the entrepreneur a slave to the consumer - that is - to everyone else. We commonly understand private ownership to mean "for our own use," eg. the use of a toothbrush or a private residence, but in the case of private ownership, what is owned is almost exclusively for the use of others, placed at their service.

The capitalist keeps his wealth only to the extend he continues to use what he has accumulated in the interests of the masses, as they judge them, by churning out whichever goods and services they demand. To the extent he succeeds, his wealth will grow. This is the economy’s way of saying that he makes sure and wise decisions with the capital we have amassed as a society - not wasting them on projects that the public have no interest in paying for. To the extent he fails to do so, those factories, machines and companies that his investments represent will be sold on at knock-down rates to whoever thinks they can do a better job of managing them in the public interest. This allows for the constant re-allocation of capital to those who can best manage it, and engenders the accumulation of more capital over time. As the capital stock increase there is more wealth generation and technological advancement can be expected, and this will necessarily be largely led by the preferences of consumers, not those who actually "own" the capital.

Why do Markets Work? Public vs. Private

Can Government Make a Business Run "For The Good of Society" ?

The New York Post recently reported that a judge in Indiana has temporarily barred Starbucks from closing 77 Teavana stores that were failing because "the very profitable Starbucks could absorb the financial hit". Industry experts said the ruling will send a chill down the spines of distressed retailers, and with good reason! The prospect of not being able to shut down an outlet that is bleeding the rest of the business may have countless unintended consequences that will affect not just owners but consumers in general. Firms are likely to take this as a signal to be more cautious about opening up new stores, and become reluctant to invest, take risks, and employ people in the first place. Customers stand to lose.

Amidst the debate upon the justice of the justice in question, I heard a voice clamour, "The question is not of profit, but whether a business should be run for society or society should be run for business!" and to be quite frank the claim struck me at first as vacuous; professing much while saying very little. Yet we must admit that throughout history many governments have believed they were "serving society" (rather than the business community) by forcing companies to fix prices, continue operations at a loss, or even subsidising or bailing them out with public funds. Many have believed this is in the interest of "the greater good."

Could it be that government forcing Starbucks to maintain unprofitable stores - in some circumstances - would be good for society?

First we should examine the use of the word "society" itself. Rather than bring clarity, it obscures the issue, making it more difficult to apprehend the facts of the matter. Who exactly is society and how do we measure what is and isn't good for it? Society is made of a whole bunch of different individuals and groups with different interests, and what is good for one might not necessarily be good for another.

It's not that keeping a Teavana open despite the owner's desire to close it won't be good for anyone; clearly the proprietor of the shopping centres is willing to fight hard for what they stand to gain, and certainly regular patrons will be happy to be able to get their regular cup of chai before leaving a hard-days-shop. However, the point is the move privilege a few individuals who want to continue going to those outlets at the expense of everyone else in the area who has demonstrated that they would rather something else opens up in that space instead. Starbucks then will need to recuperate the loss somehow or other, perhaps by increasing prices slightly at all other locations. If the locality can only sustain the demand for three tea houses and the unprofitable Teavana happens to be the forth then they are also bleeding demand away from the other three, and so on. We can continue counting negative consequences to other parties.

If Starbucks are deprived of however many millions it costs to operate 77 unprofitable stores that is less money they have to invest in stores that are wanted by enough people to keep them afloat. It's less cash for shareholders who will take it out to the shops to spend it or reinvest it in other businesses, it's less for Starbucks customers who have to pay slightly more for a cup of coffee and therefore don't have to spend on something else, it's less for Starbucks employees who might have to forego a raise because there is less to go around..

Clearly the effect of this policy is not something that can be broken down into whether it ‘benefits society’ or not. All we can say is that it benefits some groups and harms others.

It seems ironic to me that most of those who will cheer on the judges ruling, forcing Starbucks to run 77 tea outlets - against their own interests - for the interests of others are probably the most likely to complain when a Teavana opens up that it will "drive out" locally owned tea houses (which are probably actually collapsing under the strain of the regulations they have to comply with, not being able to afford Starbucks team of expensive lawyers and accountants.) If anything you'd think this crowd would be cheering on the closures! As they carry with them a certain prejudice that whatever vexes big business is necessarily good for the rest of us, we can only conclude that supporting the ruling is less about what is good for society and more about what is bad for Starbucks.

Surplus Value

It's still a very prevalent view that employers are somehow exploiting the people who work for them when they draw a profit from their business, despite the fact that a person's employer is clearly doing more for their finances than all of the people who are not employing them. I might add, perhaps somewhat facetiously, including those keyboard-warriors who claiming that entering someone into employment is exploiting them.

It is true that workers do get paid less than the total value of what they produce, but that is because what they produce is made with other resources which have to be bought, and in a factory or work place which has a price and requires overheads to operate. The capitalist is responsible for paying for marketing and advertising to link the product to potential buyers - and at the end of the day, if the product doesn't sell, everyone else has already been paid but the capitalist walks away with the loss.

The capitalist lays out a vision of what he thinks will meet people's needs better than they are being met at present. This requires a particular expertise which is in itself a labour contribution over and above that of the other employees which is unique to the entrepreneur. If his vision is clear, indeed he will make a profit. If it is faulty he will make a loss. This is not a necessary risk, absent the profit motive a rich person is more likely to buy a bigger house or go on a cruise. But the capitalist takes a risk now, and foregoes consumption, in hope that he will reap the benefit later. That is part of what he is being paid for.

Another part of what he is being paid for is the time between making the investment and getting paid for that investment. We would all rather have resources in the here-and-now than some time in the future, because the future is uncertain, that is why lenders can charge interest on money that they borrow. They are choosing to forgo a smaller amount of consumption now for a larger one in future. The workers get paid now, the capitalist gets paid later only after the product has sold, and only IF it is sold, after everyone else has been paid. Austrian Economist, Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk explained that far from exploiting labour, the capitalist removes the burden of waiting for income from the workers. If they wanted to produce the goods themselves they would also have to wait until they could find a buyer before gaining a stable wage, and first save or borrow in order to accumulate the resources to buy a factory or workshop without the help of the capitalist.

Finally, it's worth mentioning that the capitalist is increasing the value of the workers labour! If a man decides to try out the same manoeuvres which might get them somewhere in a factory out in a field it will not produce much of value to anyone else. Clearly workers can earn more working for their employer than for themselves otherwise they would simply declare themselves self-employed and get on with making a higher income. Perhaps some of them can earn more working for themselves but do not want to take on the responsibilities entailed which are currently met by the firm which employs them. This too is evidence that capitalists are providing value.

Marxists hold that capitalists simply skim their profits off the top while providing no value of their own. That they are "extracting surplus value" from their workers. But if that was true, non-profit organisations would just swoop in and undercut profit-making firms by eliminating the "dead weight" costs of paying a capitalist. They do not because they cannot. Capitalists are clearly providing some competence or vision which benefits their workers. Each benefits from the mutual exchange, as evidence by the fact that if the worker could get a better deal s/he would take it, and if the employer could find a better worker s/he would hire them instead.

Ultimately, wages are not an arbitrary figure but a reflection of how much value an employee is able to provide to a customer. If a person wants to do away with an employer they can do so by learning skills, either on the job or on the side, which will allow them to work for themselves. Likewise, profits are not arbitrary but a reflection of how much value a company is providing on the marketplace. Provided - of course - that they are drawing their profits from serving the market place rather than lobbying or appealing to the state, but that is another article.

"In order to show that it is a half-truth, we must have recourse to long and dry dissertations."

- Frederic Bastiat

If you're not growing you're dying.

It takes a long time to make changes in public institutions. You have to get enough of the public interested to make it an issue, you might need to get into the media which itself is a hell of a job and even if you do rouse some attention the best most people can hope for is to vote, and they need to vote for one of the package deals on offer. Even if your reform is quite modest and sensible and its benefit is uncontroversial, it may be adopted by a party who have several other ideas on your mind that you disagree with. There is another path, and that is to get a small concentrated number of people who already have a lot of influence to get on board with your ideal and push it through as a bill but even then the matter is not settled; it needs to go through levels of bureaucrats, managers and administrators before the change enters into the system at large and even then many employees will resist the change because they resent being told what to do by central planners.

If we take the example of our education system there has been no small amount of evidence on how to improve it since the 60s when a wave of intellectual idealists from the flower power generation began discussing how "getting things right" when it came to government could change the world. Some of this data has been around for over fifty years, some of it is still coming out. Have these reforms not been adopted for a lack of political will? Yes to a degree but also because of the insurmountable obstacles to mustering the political will. The largest is the simple fact that most people are more comfortable doing what they have always done than doing something new. Doing things differently is anxiety-provoking and it is very irritating to be told or forced to do it by an authority figure, even one who has the evidence on their side, when you think, "Well I have been on the front lines doing it this way my whole life, this is how I was taught to do it in four years of university I think you'll find I know how its done thank you very much you government busy body."

One of the reasons why markets are so important, and why products adapt to user preferences far quicker is because only one person needs to be bothered enough to accept a new innovation in order to force all the other providers in their sector to step up and do a better job. They can do that by matching the innovation, by implementing one that is equally valuable, by providing an inferior service but at a lower price, or in numerous other ways - but the fact is they have to step up and serve customers or on average over time they will be out of business. This means people don't even need to all be receiving the same service or a one-size-fits-all but it does mean that services that are way behind the times will fall out of favour. Public institutions are not under the same pressure to adapt to the times because people cannot divest from them easily since they are funded through the tax system rather than voluntary contributions that can be withdrawn if the service is poor, and also because they have a relative monopoly on the provision of services in their sector which means that people can't compare their performance to those of competitors who are trying different approaches which may have their own advantages or drawbacks.

People need to have a choice when it comes to services if the quality of services is to increase and not stagnate or fall behind the times. This is not because "ruthless tooth n' nail capitalist competition drives innovation" but simply without the petri-dish of trial and error which is a multitude of entrepreneurs with different information and ideas trying to sell them to a skeptical public there is really no way of discovering the best way of doing things. No one has all the answers, but many people have some of the answers, and by constantly turning over the soil society learns to combine the best ideas and discard the worst ones over time. The soil of government turns very very slowly and that's why innovation in the private sector continues (despite various government restrictions on who can innovate) while public institutions stagnate and become more expensive each year while providing poorer standards to the people.

The River: Public Policy or Private Responsibility?

What is common to many is least taken care of, for all men have
greater regard for what is their own than what they possess in
common with others. 

—Aristotle

The idea of aspects of the natural world being "privately owned" strikes as rather crass to most people and perhaps with some good reason as it brings to mind a vision of heartless mercenaries sacrificing nature to the pursuit of profit. Industrialists, we are led to believe, can only possibly view nature as a means to and end rather than an end in itself, and in doing so reduce it to a disposable commodity.

However, this prevailing assessment does not take into the equation the fact that true ownership is attended by responsibilities to which an owner must be held accountable. Where rights entail responsibilities (as they have in the past under common law), and these responsibilities are enforced, the claim to a property will serve naturally as an incentive to conserve that property. In effect owners will become custodians.*

* (The words "ownership" and "property" have perhaps simply taken on negative connotations synonymous with exploitation for various historical reasons, and so it is essential in order to dialogue on these topics that we make explicit the fact that our definition of ownership is one that not only entails property rights but property responsibilities.)

Most people presume that government must fulfill the role of protecting the natural world, but this arrangement throws up some rather dubious incentives. When governments write policy documents about rivers, lets say, they tend to be for the purpose of  delineating who is allowed to exploit the river, on what terms, and in what measure. Special favours can always be handed out to cronies or campaign contributors; to “stimulate local business”; or for any other political ends that might attract short term support for office-holders regardless of the long term consequences. The rights to log a forest can be sold off to the highest bidder and the tax payer can be left with the burden of restoring it to health.


Where the river (or forest) has particular ownership (rather than general ownership) it is fully in the interests of the owner (or owners) to keep it permanently in pristine condition for at least three reasons. (Owners also need not necessarily be private companies or individuals, but also charities, trusts, worker or consumer cooperatives, NGOs, or any form of organisation - that notwithstanding,  even if held by a private corporations these same incentives will apply.)

The first is in order to retain (or even increase) the resale value of the river. The better condition the river is kept in the higher its value will become; and even if the proprietor has no plans of ever selling the river they still have no interest in losing whatever outlay they have sunk into acquiring it in the first place. As such, a particular owner has the maximum incentive to protect against the river being polluted and to take whatever action is necessary to prevent it from being polluted. As a rightful owner they have the legal and moral right to take action against anyone who pollutes the river because the polluter has damaged the value of their property.  As it is not under general ownership where everyone has as much right to abuse it as anyone else does, the proprietor's interests are aligned with the interests of the natural world, thus he is risen to the level of a custodian. 

Secondly, a well-kept resource is renewable - it can turn a profit indefinitely. A badly-kept resource cannot. If a river is ill-kept the return on the investment for acquiring that resource will soon dry up (no pun intended.) As such an owner who does not know how to take care of the river will stand to gain more from passing it on to someone who does than from keeping it. A superior custodian will be able to pay more to acquire the river since they know how to put it to good use indefinitely.  The best experts in keeping a river running cleanly stand to gain the most from owning them and therefore will be able to pay more to acquire them than those who lack that expertise. In this way those who are the best custodians of resources will end up with them in their care on average over time. (The same would go for forests, fisheries, or grazing lands; where altruism is not enough to motivate environmental concern, rational self-interest will usually do the trick.)

Thirdly, if the river is not properly kept and becomes polluted, this is inevitably going to have negative effects on neighbouring lands, industries and settlements as the pollution is carried by the river onto other people’s property. At this point, as the last line of defence against irresponsible misuse and management of the river is the threat of litigation against the owner for his negligent and harmful management of his property. Where others have suffered harm, loss of health, or damage to their own property, a particular owner should be forced to pay damages and reparations to restore them to their original condition. They can lose their personal property and have to forfeit ownership of the river if they are found guilty of causing damages. When the government causes environmental catastrophes, as they often have, they can only be tried in their own courts, and even so the property of decision-makers is never at stake - even if found guilty of wrong-doing, the public purse will eventually foot the bill. As officials in public institutions tend to have a diffusion of responsibility it is hard to hold particular culprits to account for their actions, rarely will a department be shut down or replaced where abuses occur as they are presumed essential even having "made mistakes". Often state officials have sovereign immunity, occasionally one or two resignations will be tendered as a  token gesture, but the machinery of the institution remains as well as the lack of moral hazard which set it up to fail.

Misanthropic Myths about 3rd World Poverty debunked!

One of the most persistent myths about 3rd World Poverty is that if underdeveloped nations are allowed economic advancement and become wealthy it will be some kind of unmitigated environmental disaster. Is that so?

Wealthy countries can afford to clean up their water supplies after fouling them and treat their sewage properly. They can replant their forests, put recycling infrastructure into place, and farm sustainably. Countries without wealth can’t do that. In places like Bangladesh people must scramble to make a living with no long-term consideration to their surrounding environment, and they have no means of repairing it afterwards. Starving Brazilians have little choice but to cut down the rainforest when they can hardly afford not to. A lack of a just legal system, economic freedom and property rights¹ prevent some of the world’s poorest countries from diversifying their economies, leaving them to rely on the exploitation of natural resources to generate income. As these nations develop they attain the means to establish other sources of revenue that don’t simply involve digging things up and selling them.

As economic growth first sets in environmental degradation can worsen for a time but soon environmental health indicators (such as water and air pollution) tend to reduce.² Environmental pollutants, such as sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, lead, DDT, chlorofluorocarbons, sewage, and other chemicals previously released directly into the air or water are found in far lower levels.³ Once per capita income reaches about $4000 in a nation, people begin to demand a clean-up of their local streams and air. Among countries with a per capita GDP of at least $4,600, net deforestation has ceased to exist.⁴ Europe’s forests have grown by a third over the last 100 years.⁵

According to Hans Rosling, sustainable global development advocate, the richest billion people in the world are responsible for 50% of the world’s consumption of resources, the 2nd billion for the next 25%, and the third billion for the next 12.5%.⁶ This means that the 2 billion poorest people in the world could easily be raised to the standard of living of the 3rd or even 4th poorest with very little environmental impact at all.

Western Nations can help by establishing free trade with the world’s poorest countries and importing their produce in order to help their economies develop faster. Cheaper produce would also mean better living standards for people on low incomes at home. The protectionists argue that this would harm domestic farmers (who are already in receipt of considerable state benefits and government subsidies – some of which have been an environmental disaster⁷) but these farmers would not be starving should they have to migrate into other occupations – people in the third world are! They themselves could benefit from cheaper produce, and are we really expected to put the interests of a small group ahead of everyone else in the country and abroad?

Concerns for the environment regarding “food miles” (how far food has to travel) are also completely misplaced. It is often far more energy efficient to grow foodstuffs in countries with naturally high temperatures which would otherwise have to be artificially raised in colder climates. As Matt Ridley explains, only “4% of the lifetime emissions of food is involved in getting it from the farmer to the shops. Ten times as much carbon is emitted in refrigerating British food as in air-freighting it from abroad, and fifty times as much is emitted by the customer travelling to the shops.”⁸ Economist Johan Norberg also attests that while 83% of the CO2 emissions involved in American food consumption is used in the production phase, less than 11% is caused by transportation and that it's puzzlingly more environmentally friendly to grow apples in New Zealand and ship them all the way to Great Britain than to produce them locally.⁹

Some environmentalists believe that growing populations attaining greater living standards in developing countries is a recipe for ecological disaster, but actually birth rates fall to manageable levels only when countries become developed. The industrial revolution created population booms across the whole planet – but in every single country where a reasonable standard of living has been achieved population growth receded; there is no reason to believe that will be any different when it comes to the developing world. Education has played an increasing role and will continue to do so, while current projections predict that the world’s population will level off between 9 and 11 billion, and may even then start falling.

People who don’t have to scrape out a living can get educated, work less in agriculture, factories and more with their minds. Their occupations are not so polluting, and some of them may even be responsible for the environmental innovations of the future. Inventions such as e-mail and the USB Flash Drive have already saved more trees than all of the environmental activism throughout history combined, and a car today emits less pollution travelling at full speed then a parked car did in 1970 from leaks.¹⁰ It is clear that innovation is set to play an increasing role in the solution of our environmental issues. Intensive farming techniques have helped save countless acres of rainforest by increasing yields over less land, and soon lab-grown meat from cloned tissue may put an end to our factory farming crises by reducing the massive ecological impact of meat production through fossil fuel usage, animal methane, effluent waste, and water and land consumption. Cloned meat will also produce a positive impact on world health by eliminating the heavy use of antibiotics and preventing the fecal contamination which factory farming currently produces.

Countries where the vast majority of people are engaged in subsistence farming are a waste of millions of minds. They do not have the leisure time to enjoy art, become cultured, innovate, creative, and reach the higher potentials of human flourishing which will allow them to contribute to advances which may help everyone on the entire planet. They are too poor. Farming is of course a fine occupation too, but it should be chosen rather than forced upon people by poverty.

If we really believe in prosperity, we have to believe in it for everyone. Not just those lucky enough to be born into affluent nations. Fundamentally, it’s not economic progress but our irresponsible economic systems which are responsible for the environmental damage we have seen over the last 200 years. Governments can externalise the costs of damaging the environment and redistribute it to the taxpayer, rather than allowing producers and consumers who pollute to pay for the full cost of their choices. We can create sustainable economies by holding individuals and organisations personally responsible in proportion to how much they pollute. These very incentives would encourage people to choose sustainable development and ecofriendly habits far more of the time.

1 Where private property is established, logging companies develop the incentives to look after the sustainability and long term value of their land, and charities can even buy up tracts of land for preservation. At present that is rarely possible as those property claims would currently just be ignored by the loggers and the corrupt governments in those countries

2 Tierney, J. (2009). “The Richer-Is-Greener Curve.” New York Times.

3 Ridley, M. (2010). “The Rational Optimist.” Fourth Estate. p106

4 Waggoner, P. E. (2006) “Returning forests analyzed with the forest identity.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, vol. 103 no. 46.

5 Noack, R. (2014) “How Europe is greener now than 100 years ago.” Washington Post.

6 See BBC Documentary “Overpopulated” (2013) (available on youtube).

7 For example, the EEC – now the EU – tried a policy of buying everything that farmers produced and couldn’t sell which led to mountains of excess grain being produced that then had to be sold off at knock-down prices to third world countries, causing gluts in their markets which put local farmers out of business and had devastating effects on their economies. Before the policy was reverse countless miles of hedgerows well pulled up to make fields bigger uprooting the natural habitat of countless animals and insects giving way to the bleak, soulless prairies that parts of the UK have becoming. Magnificent wetlands were drained and destroyed to plant more land for crops that no one could sell 95% of the flower-rich meadows, 60% of the lowland heath, and 50% of ancient lowland woods were destroyed in little more than forty years in the UK alone.

8 Ridley, M. (2010). p41.

9 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_mBgUqqnsyw

10 Ridley, M. (2010). p17

Occupational Licensing

In 2015 Obama sent his council of economic advisers out on a fact finding missions to discover why job creation was so hard for the administration and this council - made up of a bunch of Democrats, right - not ideological free marketeers - concluded that demands for mandatory occupational licensing were creating terrible cartels, excluding workers and getting in the way of regular people wanting to start up businesses.

There are over 800 occupations that might require a licence in some states in America including a tour guide, manicurist, dog walker, librarian, locksmith, dry cleaner, auctioneer, fruit ripener, plumber, private investigator, Christmas tree vendor, florist, interior designer, funeral director, cab driver, shampoo specialist, glass installer, cat groomer, tree groomer, hunting guide, kick boxer, real estate agent, tattoo artist, nutritionist, acupuncturist, music therapist, yoga instructor and mortician.

On the back of people's justified fears of disastrous bridges being built by unqualified tradesmen and hapless patients being sliced open by quacks, government - with the help of protected industries - have managed to sell the myth that mandatory occupational licensing increases the safety and quality of services. People assume that if the government says its fixed its fixed. The reality is that mandatory occupational licensing far reduces the number of practitioners operating in any sector, and when consumers have less choice they have to take whatever they can get at whatever price they have to pay. As a result the quality of services can actually go down and prices up.

This is borne out by the empirical data:

After compiling a meta-analysis entitled, "Rule of Experts," S. David Young concluded “…most of the evidence suggests that licensing has, at best, a neutral effect on quality and may even cause harm to the consumers... The higher entry standards imposed by licensing laws reduce the supply of professional services…. The poor are net losers because the availability of low-cost service has been reduced.”

Stanley Gross of Indiana State University, had to concur, “…mainly the research refutes the claim that licensing protects the public.”

More recently economics PhD. Morris Kleiner released two publications (2006, 2013) for the Upjohn Institute for Employment Research demonstrating that licensing occupations does more to restrict competition that to ensure quality.

On a free market, the poor may have to sometimes settle for inferior services - but often that is better than no service at all which might be what they otherwise receive. Even so, the price of most services will come down over time if a multiplicity of firms are offering similar services: if not in price then in real terms as wages rise. There are more risks though. When people can’t buy services they might try to do their own work, their own electrical work, plumbing or dental work, this has often happened in the past, and sometimes the consequences can even be fatal.

Still, most people find it difficult to imagine how society might be protected from quacks without government-mandated occupational licences, so lets have a quick review of some of the market can account for this:

Market Competition. Consumers provide a large degree of regulation over markets by not repeatedly buying poor services and advising other customers of what to buy and what not to buy.
Consumer Watchdogs. Customers want to know which services offer the best value for money and are quick to consult experts in magazines or online for good information before they choose a provider.
Employer Discretion. Employers do not want to take on a poorly qualified civil engineer or plastic surgeon.
Registration. Third parties or groups of experienced practitioners can create registries of bonafide service providers. If a complaint is lodged against someone on the registry the administrators can investigate the case and strike them off if they are guilty or give them a warning.
Private Certification. In the absence of mandatory government licensing consumers will often want assurance from credible sources that the services they are going to pay for are of high quality - and more importantly - safe. Third parties can offer to certify practitioners that meet their standards.
Litigation. Customers already have protection under the law against faulty products or false advertising even in the absence of mandatory occupational licensing. The threat of being sued for causing damages is enough to deter most companies from releasing harmful products, if the threat of killing off their customers is not enough already.
Contracts. Customers can make explicit contacts with service providers to ensure they have recourse if they don't get what they think they are getting. If a company says the customer is getting x but gives them y the contract clearly delineates who is in the right and who is in the wrong.
Bonding. Individuals can engage in agreements in advance that involve third parties to ensure that payment is transferred when it is supposed to be.
Insurance. Customers can insure themselves against receiving faulty goods or receiving harm from services. In some cases the insurer will be able to bring litigation against the service providers for damages incurred offering a deterrent against providing poor services.
Jail. If the fact that it is not profitable in the long-term to kill of your customers is not enough to deter greedy capitalists from selling products that are physically harmful, the prospect of a jail term just might be.

Occupational Licensing simply come down to the government abolishing someone's right to provide services to someone else who is willing to buy those services, and then selling it back to that person at a fee. This is usually at the cost of several years in some educational institution where education in the necessary skills is dragged out over several years and supplemented with a whole bunch of written work that is superfluous to the exercising of those skills. The sum result of these policies are to drive otherwise capable people out of their passion because they are not academic, can't afford the education or the time off work, or can't look at another educational institution after the horrors of school. Willing students are saddled with debts and loss of work experience while they study and expect to recoup expenses from customers. All of this drives up the cost of products, reducing living standards for average people.

We see a real problem with this with the FDA when they allow highly dangerous foods - and people presume "the government has taken care of it, if it was dangerous it would be off the market" - when the opposite is the case. They have also held (and continue in some cases to hold) life-saving drugs off the market for decades at the expense of countless lives. They also have the monopoly on this service so it's impossible to compare their performance with any other agencies that might have had a much better record of making good judgements of food and drugs. With a multiplicity of firms acting in the sector you could compare their history for a sense of which might be the most reliable when it comes to what.

10 Ways The Profit Motive Drives Sustainability.

Time for some heresy today.

Most people are given to thinking that the profit motive in a capitalist economy can only drive environmental destruction, but I am here to say that the profit motive has been acting as a massive bulwark against the kind of environmental destruction which was seen in the communist nations during the 20th century which far outstripped the damage done to the environment here in the west.

The idea that the desire for profit is ripping apart the environment seems so intuitive that you'd think it were beyond dispute. People take resources from the earth to make products and draw a profit, right?  And because corporations are only motivated by profit they will destroy the environment in pursuit of profit, won't they? Obviously.

Well, this is not the full story, lets investigate what is unseen.

1) A forest, fishery or grazing land is a renewable resource if properly managed. Keeping it in pristine condition will not only preserve (or even increases) the value of the land but will allow the owner to profit from it indefinitely. Laying waste to it for a quick buck would be like slaying a goose which laid golden eggs for a single dinner. This is why loggeries that are privately owned are handled sustainable whereas when land is leased out to firms by the government they usually mistreat the land for short term profit and leave the taxpayer to pick up the tab. Renters don't take as good care of their stuff as owners do.

2) Companies are always trying to decrease the cost of their inputs because the lower their costs of production the higher their margin of profit. This gives firms and active incentive to constantly find innovative ways of stretching the same amount of resources further. An example of this, often cited, is that Coca Cola have made their cans thinner than they used to be. There must be dozens of others. There is no comparable incentive to save resources by decreasing inputs in a centrally planned economy.

3) Those with the knowledge of how to stretch limited resources the furthest are the most likely to acquire them on a free market because they are able to pay more to acquire them owing to their larger projected profit. This will broadly lead to copper mines and oil wells ending up in the hands of the most competent custodians; so long as the state is not in charge of who gets what, a more competent owner will be able to buy-out a less competent owner.

4) On a free market the price system values resource inputs in proportion to how scarce they are and how many people want to use them. Therefore the most environmentally friendly way to produce something also becomes the cheapest. As resources become more scare the laws of supply and demand push the price of those resources up driving innovation to find alternatives and use those which are still left better - the best alternative being a renewable alternative. There is no comparable defense against the overuse of resources under socialism where the central planners can continue to dish out the goods to cronies long after they have become scarce. (In fact the only defense against this is the potential killing the central planners can make by selling those scarce resources to capitalist economies that actually have a price system.)

6) On a free market the mechanism of profit and loss minimises the production of goods and services that no one wants limiting waste. In a planned economy central planners have to best-guess what people will want. They will often guess wrong and lots of production will simply go to waste.

7) Because consumers have to choose what products to buy with their limited resources on the free market they have to be discerning. Products that are more intensive in resource use are more expensive, meaning someone who buys them has less to spend on something else. Because resources are held privately rather than in common there is no "tragedy of the commons" where everyone has the incentive to take as much as they can in the short term to stop other people from taking it first.

8) On a free market, much of what we consider waste could be considered a free resource to one entrepreneur or another. Food waste could be slop for livestock; aluminium and tin cans, glass bottles, and many electronics can be reused. Were there a market in trash disposal, rather than central planning, people would be charged for waste in proportion to how expensive that waste was to dispose of. Perhaps they would even be remunerated for waste to the extent that that waste could be reused. The companies who were most effective at recycling and reprocessing waste in an environmentally friendly way would be able to pay the most to acquire that waste. This would change the whole face of the economy by presenting a massive incentive for companies to make their goods easy to recycle, reuse or repair as consumers faced real financial incentives for choosing sustainable purchases, Non-biodegradable forms of excess packaging and would probably be eliminated as consumers would favour items that they would not be charged for the disposal of. Planned obsolescence would also be heavily discouraged by a system where people had to pay not only the cost of buying goods but disposing of them as well.

9) The profit motive provides an incentive for companies to devise ways to turn their waste into useful biproducts that people can actually use. For example, Standard Oil invented thousands of biproducts such as paraffin wax, lubricating oils, chewing gum, and fertilizer out of resources that other companies were simply wasting. This incentive would also be far more pronounced of a true free market where companies had to pay for waste, not in the abstract, but directly in proportion to how difficult it was to dispose of - and potentially get paid for waste in proportion to how valuable it was to people who could recycle it.

10) The profit motive is constantly driving capitalists to creating innovations which are better for the environment and more sustainable than previous technologies. Memory sticks invented by capitalists have saved billions of trees. A 15 watt fluorescent LED light provides the same luminosity as a 60-watt incandescent bulb. Burgers grown in a lab from cloned meat will be solving our factory farming crises by reducing the massive ecological impact of meat production. The average smart phone has a camera, radio, television, sound recorder, music player, gps, flashlight, board and card games, computer games, video player, maps, encyclopedia, dictionary, thesaurus, access to textbooks, compass, photo album, thermometer, scientific calculator, dematerialising the need for the production of many goods and saving the environment.

A recent innovation in progress designed with the third world in mind is high-tech toilets that burn feces for energy and flash evaporate urine rendering everything sterile. No pipes are required under the floor, no leach field under the lawn, no sewer systems required to run down the block. These may have been invented decades and decades ago had the state not been responsible for getting rid of our sewage; removing the necessity to innovate. Rather than waste anything, these toilets give back packets of urea to be used as fertilizer, table salt, volumes of freshwater, and enough power to charge a mobile phone. If users can sell the energy back into the grid they will literally be being paid to poop!

So, on that note, allow me to end by saying: I’m not shitting you when I say the free market is good for the environment.

There is reams more to say on this topic and I intend to expand upon it in my book The Free Market Hippy. If you would like to be notified when it is finished download my previous book free and you will automatically be informed when it is available.

Why is the Capitalist Workplace so Authoritarian?

You are told that capital tyrannizes over labor. I do not deny that each one endeavors to draw the greatest possible advantage from his situation; but, in this sense, he realizes only that which is possible. Now, it is never more possible for capitalists to tyrannize over labor, than when they are scarce; for then it is they who make the law -- it is they who regulate the rate of sale. Never is this tyranny more impossible to them, than when they are abundant; for, in that case, it is labor which has the command.

- Frederic Bastiat, from Capital and Interest

A persistent criticism of capitalism as an ideology is that it is authoritarian by nature, and can only lead to tyrannical bosses ruling over dependent staff who are forced - by fear of poverty and starvation - to remain under their command. Certainly, if we take our example from the workplaces of today, most of them are hierarchical, and many of them pretty authoritarian. In extreme cases staff even need to ask permission to go to the bathroom. So there appears to be some demonstration to the thesis.

In reality there is nothing inherent in the system of free enterprise that necessitates hierarchy, and many businesses have been successfully run with decentralised structures. Ricardo Semler is an example of an entrepreneur who had such massive success running his business on a non-hierarchical model that he turned to teaching other capitalists all over the world to do the same. Nonetheless, crappy bosses who like to throw their weight around the shop or office are ten a penny, and since no one likes working under a dictatorship we really have to question why more egalitarian models not more common.

A market will tend to use the skills and propensities of the labour force within that market, because it is costly and time consuming to inculcate staff with new habits. For example, if a workplace can afford to hire experienced staff rather than train newbies they will often do so (especially where there is a high minimum wage.) Companies will sooner offer a raise to hold on to an employee with a good work ethic than take a risk on someone new. The fact is, human qualities are less malleable than other factors of production, and so it's usually going to be preferable to try and court the kind of employees you want around rather than try to foster whoever walks in the door into a new sort of character you like; especially considering people have their own proclivities and desires for their own personal character development, unlike machines. This is why most of the companies that run in cooperative or non-hierarchical structures begin with this idea as a primary value, and will tend to attract a certain kind of person who shares in the company vision and is competent to contribute to making it a reality. (Tim Kelley, an expert who currently helps companies adapt to what he calls "The New Paradigm in Business" states that as they do usually some number of employees flee, unable to adapt to the rights they are afforded, and responsibilities they must shoulder, under the changed system.)

Now am I saying that people are naturally slavish and therefore will tend towards hierarchy on a free market?

Not at all!

The average person who enters the workplace has been through 11-13 years of a mandatory education system which is highly authoritarian and hierarchical, and at the time in their life where their character is most impressionable and inclined to adapt to their circumstances. Their personalities have already been adapted to what was necessary for them thrive (or at least survive) under that system. Interestingly, the empirical evidence on how people best learn seems to suggest that a cooperative learning environment is far more productive than the isolated one that is the dish of the day at school. A crappy boss is not that unfamiliar in aspect from a crappy teacher, and it's hard to imagine that a population exposed to a long period of cooperative and mutually edifying education along the lines of the empirical evidence would be so tolerant of poor treatment from authority. If schools were to teach reasoning, social skills, emotional handing, conflict resolution, and other soft skills, far more people would have the skills to run organisations. start business enterprises, or create egalitarian ones.

The Marxist ideal of workers owning the means of production is perfectly compatible with free market capitalism, and there is no reason why there should not be more worker run cooperatives, communally owned business, and organisations with polycentric structures - other than the fact that currently, workers have no idea how to own the means of production or run a business. Partly because this requires different skills from what is required to complete their jobs from day to day, and partly because they are pre-conditions by years of hierarchical and authoritarian state education. If Marx was right and bosses provide no value - only skimming profit off the top - then workplaces without bosses will surely be more efficient and out-compete workplaces that shell out unnecessarily on paying them... but we will never know until we reform our education system.

Regime Uncertainty

A seductive (if poorly considered) critique of markets is the notion that they are so wildly unpredictable and inherently unstable that we need government to watch over them and intervene to mitigate their excesses. There is a great irony in this position which I will reveal.

Economist John Maynard Keynes (1883 – 1946) made perhaps the most famous case for this view, coining the term "animal spirits" to describe the irrational, impulse-driven whims of market-actors based on arbitrary expectations that could only cause instability. The idea itself seems to make sense because it's hard for intellectuals, who love chewing over ideas and coming up with bright plans, to see how a society could run coherently without a single plan. The truth is, market economies are actually planned - there is just no central plan. What happens on a market is that lots of individuals make little plans to roll out their bright ideas into the through businesses, charities, and other organisations, hoping to influence as many people as possible. The plans which prove successful on the small scale attract resources and grow steadily in their impact. Other planners emulate them and adapt their own plans in light of their success. Meanwhile those plans which prove to be failures never get far off the ground.

This means that, left to their own devices, markets have their own self-correcting mechanisms which Keynes appeared to have overlooked. While in any situation there may be entrepreneurs, investors, and consumers who do indeed make poor or irrational decisions and make mistakes (driven by their animal spirits) there will always be others who succeed as well. The mechanism of profit and loss allocates the pool of available capital to those producers who make good predictions as to what consumers (you and I) want over the long term and reallocate them away from those who use the badly. This limit the scope of damage caused by bad or incompetent decision-makers. Where people fail, the results of those failures will be limited to some small number of people. This can not be said of failures of government which might extend to affecting the entire society.

Now, here's the irony. Even allowing for Keynes his hypothesis that markets are inherently unstable, how can the prospect of intervention by government, at any time, into the economy do anything but make the market more unpredictable and make it more difficult for the "little planners" to make long-term decisions? Over the course of 20 years a government could change 5 or more times. With each change in administration the form of state interventions in the economy can change dramatically, as can the political philosophy driving it. Plans can be added or scrapped at any time. Government can increase or reduce taxes at whim, or increase or decrease spending. They can pass new tariffs, grant subsidies, institute licensing laws and regulations or scrap them. Government-mandated Central Banks (like The Bank of England or The Federal Reserve) can increase or decrease interest rates; expand the money supply or contract it. Plus what makes those calm and virtuous actors themselves immune to the influences of the animal spirits? Do they not too have emotional whims, not to mention voters and campaign contributors to please?

Yes, when the specter of government hangs looming over the economy conditions can rapidly and unpredictably change at any time, in countless ways and this can only exacerbate the problem that the Keynesians plan to solve. Economist Robert Higgs called this the phenomenon of "Regime Uncertainty", where investors fear it may be hard or even impossible to foresee the extent to which future government actions will alter the “rules to the game.” As a result, investors become averse to taking risk (much in the way that Keynes feared they might) not due to a lack of government intervention – but in anticipation of it!

Private investors have "skin in the game." Their own self-interest should motivate them to only take certain risks of personal loss, and investigate all the available information to make robust decisions. But public servants are forever fated to spending other peoples money on other people. The best people at making decisions with money are most likely not in government. They're probably out there in the free market making "Little Plans" to launch a new businesses or product that might one day spread out to the furthest reaches of the earth the way mobile phones are now reaching the world's poorest populations in Africa.

I'm in the process of writing a book called "The Errors of Keynes" if you would like to receive updates about it please grab my free eBook and you will get an update when it's good to go.

Free Market Environmentalism

The Excesses of Capitalism

The government - we are told - is necessary to protect us from the excesses of capitalism, and whatever gripes the average person might have about their elected officials, almost all of them can agree upon this.

But there's a problem with thinking the government can ever enter the economy as a fair referee rather than merely playing into the hands of whatever factions are most rich, powerful, and influential; because as soon as a corporations can make more money by angling for government favours than they can by serving customers that is exactly what they are going to do. Not necessarily because they are evil - but because it becomes the rational thing to do.

On an open market where only voluntary exchanges are permitted a business can only turn a profit by  providing something that the general buying public wants. No matter how greedy the corporate fat-cats may be, if they fail to 'cough up the goods' (and services) that people want they will go to the wall. [all puns intended] In this way the market forces otherwise self-interested people to apply their self-interest to social ends.

Critics may still complain about "tooth and nail" competition, but at least on a free market firms are competing to serve you better and win your disposable income. As soon as the government intervenes in the economy one thing is for sure: companies will compete for control over legislative bodies and the strings of the public purse. This is where the real "tooth and nail" begins.

According to The Sunlight Foundation for each of the 5.8 billion dollars spent by America's 200 most politically active corporations between 2007 and 2012 on federal lobbying and campaign contributions by they got $741 in return in kickbacks and benefits.

To pay for these kickbacks tax-payers were left $4.3 trillion dollars poorer - but that's not all.  $5.8 billion was spent in political gaming instead of invested in jobs and product development. These incentives drive companies to misallocate resources by making products that the general public doesn't want profitable, and products that they do unprofitable. In other words, the government has become the client of these corporations rather than their customers.

Firms might lobby or contribute to political campaigns to earn the exclusive right to provide government with their products. This will give them a huge advantage over competitors even if they are producing inferior or more expensive services. They can lobby for subsidies on their own goods or tariffs on cheaper or superior competitors.They can get the government to pass laws about who can and cannot operate in their sector.

Mandatory licenses, fees, reviews, huge stacks of forms, inspections, make it expensive for small start up businesses to enter the market and compete on an equal playing field. Companies spend millions of dollars on accountants, lawyers, actuaries and bureaucrats - not to mention tens of thousands of hours - to make sure they comply with the entangling webs of red tape, and make no mistake this harms the public. The costs are reflected in the price of products, and those are millions of dollars and tens of thousands of hours that are not being spent on more productive work that would benefit others. The rounds of "regulation" inflate corporate profits more and more, by cutting small firms out the market and directing sales to bigger firms who can afford specialists or whole departments to play the game.

By changing the incentive structure of the economy to favour profit through political influence over serving customers the government corrupts the market rather than moderating its excesses.

Beauty Salon Economics

One of the most fundamental things about economics which most people who are passionate about politics do not understand is that the economy is not just like a chess board where you can move one piece with deterministic and predictable consequences. On the contrary, an economy is an intricate fabric of interrelated institutions and actors all of whom act relative to one another. Any one move creates a cascade of domino effects. If the price of milk changes dramatically then orange juice sales might be affected - you just never know.

The role of a good economist is to be able to follow the threads of consequences liable to result from a policy so that the short-sightedness of policy-makers (and would-be policy makers) seeking some immediate and favourable end does not result in a multitude of negative unintended consequences into the bargain. (Clearly this goes to the very heart of why I called this blog Seeing the Unseen.)

Many policies can end up having the opposite effect from what is intended.

For example, supposing some of the fancy hair salons are getting irked because cheap salons are popping up everywhere and giving people poor quality haircuts. They're giving the whole industry a bad name. So a coalition goes to the government to pass standards and licensing laws in the hairdressing industry (in some places you currently need a license to braid hair.) That's going to improve the quality of haircut going around, right?

Not necessarily. Now all the hair salons have to send their employees to college for two years to get a license, and when they graduate they are expecting much higher pay because they just sunk two years into an education which they didn't see  any money during. Some of them went out drinking with their student loans, the rest still had rent to pay, and most of them accumulated debts. What's more the salons need to consult special accountants or lawyers to make sure they can prove that they are adhering to the new regulations - even the ones who are way ahead of the law and already providing far better conditions and services than what has been mandated. These professionals often charge upwards of $100 an hour. Many independent salons simply can't afford the increase in costs and have to close down entirely; others have to jack prices up to pay for the extra costs of compliance and staff. In some areas only one salon is left standing and since people have less choice they can afford to let standards slip.

With the price of haircuts going up lots of people decide to go without. They cut their friends hair at home, badly. Or they get pretty good at it and don't have to go to the hairdressers any more but take longer to prepare for going out and miss out on the chat and gossip. What's more everyone who does still go for a professional haircut has less left over to spend on a manicure or something else nice, so other industries also suffer. You can add to that the marginal increase in taxes to pay the civil servants in the new public body which acts as a regulator for the hairdressing industry. Now those people are involved in busy work instead of making commodities and providing services that improve people’s living standards in real terms and rather than paying into the public purse they are a net drain on it.

I choose a relatively trivial example (no disrespect ladies) because it's perfectly illustrative of how a seemingly simple and innocuous policy suggestion - mandatory hairdressing licenses - can generate more than its fair share of consequences. An alternative is for a series of private watchdogs to certify only hairdressers that meet their standards and give the ones who do an official number and sticker to put in their window; because they are competing they have to keep the costs of certification to a minimum (no $100 an hour fees), and people who are not fussed to pay extra for a certified cut can take a risk on somewhere cheaper or go by word of mouth.

Occupational licensing makes for an interesting case because it is almost ubiquitously considered in the public interest and even necessary to prevent catastrophe, and yet there is actually zero evidence that it leads to a higher quality of service provision. Zilch!

Usually all it means is that instead of taking budget options people with fewer means have to go without any services at all! This is a topic to which we will have to return to in more detail, check back! :)

Why The State will Not solve Social Problems

The impulse of the state is not to solve social problems but to create as many dependents as possible, including a bloated public sector full of Marxists and as many people as possible on welfare who they can then turn on whenever they need someone to blame for their own excesses. That is why the size of government grew massively even under so-called free market Thatcher who made hand-outs to big business and sent military spending through the roof. Every dependent will make justifications for the existence of the state as a necessary evil and attack the free market which takes people out of poverty. The natural state of everyone who is born is poverty; all wealth was created by individuals for themselves or to trade with other people for something which they agree upon in a voluntary exchange. Voluntary exchange enriches both parties as each trader values what they get from the trade more than what they part with, and so trade takes people out of poverty not government. Government retards this organic process by putting restrictions on who can trade with whom under what circumstances and passing an ever increasing litany of laws that make it impossible for poor people to find employment so that many people will have to compete for few jobs and accept whatever conditions are given to them. This creates dependency upon which government survives. To complete the trick the government directs the attention of the oppressed to their crappy bosses rather than the conditions which created the crappy bosses, those state interventions which restricted the number of jobs.

The government cannot solve social problems because the government lives on social problems. If tomorrow everyone woke up in a world without crime then what need for a large police force? In a world with little poverty and many routes out of poverty, then what need for huge welfare programs and government bureaucrats to administer them? If there wasn't a shortage of medical staff pushing the price of medical care through the roof then who would tolerate a million people on NHS waiting lists? If we didn't fear any enemies in the Middle East or Russia what need for a large military and curtailments on civil liberties? Who would need government without social problems? Who would want it? It is in the interests of government to perpetuate social problems internally and create enemies abroad, then blame all of this on capitalism and the free market so the average individual will call on government to save them.

If we want to solve social problems we need to dig in with our own hands and start helping. We can volunteer, create organisations, or support organisations that are already doing good work. 

A bunch of looters!

States are a cancerous growth on society. A bunch of looters. They enjoy the de jure privilege of not having to gather resources and property the way all other people and institutions do by request or by voluntary exchange. They bribe half the electorate to vote for them with free stuff and blackmail the other half with dependency and fear of starvation. 

They assimilate already existing institutions and make them worse. The NHS is an expression of the general will of the people to have universal healthcare. The state assimilates that and creates waiting lists a million lives long.

They supplanted organic institutions for providing welfare in the community and replaced them with a system that condemns generations to poverty.

Their moral and philosophical basis is so vacuous and without merit that they had to create a religion called democracy - the most prevalent religion, and least appraised for its virtues (or lack thereof as would more accurately be the case.) Their intellectual vassals coined bullshit theories like "the social contract" to post-fact rationalize their desire to run the lives of others by force, then disseminate them through an education system which teaches a false version of history designed to make people see bondage as freedom and freedom as slavery. More than ever, academics play the role that the churches played in the dark ages - they are apologists for state power. On one hand they claim individuals have moral obligations to government to which they did not consent, on the other they deny their right to their lives and the product of their labour by appealing to Hume's Law and post-modern doctrines which claim that no universal morality between men can exist. Universities tell people what they should learn and what to think rather than help them become fully fledged, skilled individuals with brilliant critical faculties, self-esteem, and strong ethics.

Once states are abolished people will look back on them the way we look back on slavery.

Workplace Safety

It's widely believed that it was the intervention of government and labour unions which is responsible for improving safety conditions in factories and other industries, but that is not accurate. This graph demonstrates that workplace fatalities were already very much on the decline before OSHA (the Occupational Safety and Health Administration) was even founded in America:



Tom DiLorenzo wrote in Capitalism "Enriches the Working Class":
"Capitalism has also made the workplace safer. In relatively “dangerous,” strenuous, or dirty jobs, employers must pay a wage premium because relatively few people want such jobs. Economists call this a “compensating difference.” The man who rides on the outside of the garbage truck at daybreak, in the winter, in the northern states, does so because he makes a very good salary – better than any of his alternatives. Profit-seeking capitalists have always understood that they need to pay more to get people to perform risky or dangerous work. Therefore, they have also always understood that there is profit in making the work place safer. A safer workplace requires a lesser compensating difference. Lower wages paid to the workers can mean higher profits for the capitalist. Thus, the American workplace had become safer and safer for generations before the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) was established in the 1970s. Indeed, OSHA has often reduced workplace safety with its clumsy and stupid workplace rules enforced by government bureaucrats with no knowledge of the specific work that they are regulating. "

The government can intervene to bring about workplace safety faster, but this will not be without any negative consequences to their employees. The dictates of government will displace private efforts. Once the state declares that they are in charge of safety businesspersons are going to leave it up to the experts. Rather than investigating what investments will improve safety most effectively, they will spend lots of money on whatever the central planners at OSHA dictate; and if these are harebrained ideas these resources will be misallocated and go completely to waste.

Do you really think those workplace safety advancements were paid for out of the factory owners pockets? Well they weren't. They were paid for out of the workers pockets. Employers have a certain amount to budget for labour and it makes zero difference to them whatsoever if that gets spent on wages, health and safety, health insurance, company cars or anything else the employees might want to receive as payment in kind. On a free market employees will tend to get roughly the package of spending on them that they want because if a workplace is too dangerous they can go somewhere across the road that pays them less and spends more on safety. As recent empirical evidence of this the economist Benjamin Powell actually went to factories in the poorest countries in the world and asked them if they would like better health and safety, shorter hours, and a long list other benefits; overwhelmingly they said yes to everything - who wouldn't? - Unless those benefits meant less pay. In which case they declined them all. This is why workplace safety was shoddy when people were poor, but improved as people got richer. When you're broke you'd rather your employer spent the money on your wage than health and safety. However, as your standard of living increases safety at work becomes more of a priority so your expectations on your employer go up. This would all arranged voluntarily even without legislation from government. In fact it was! If employers were responsible for injuries or deaths they may have been sued for damage in common law courts for having caused harm or loss.

The best defense of workers rights is having the largest choice of employers available as possible. All of the things which the left think will help workers reduces their number of options by making employing people profitable to less employers and therefore reducing the options of workers rather than increasing them. The consequence of having less jobs to go around is that low skilled workers have to accept whatever is going on whatever terms are offered to them, and often tolerate crappy bosses. On a free market, some people might have to tolerate a less well paid job in the short term, but if they have a bad boss or do not like the safety conditions at work they can easily walk into a job elsewhere because anyone can employ them. This is a system of spiritual advancement. A wise individual can choose the job that will teach them the most skills, then move to the next one, and onto the next, and keep on moving from job to job gathering skills until they can get a management position, start their own business, or become a staff trainer or consultant themselves. It affords the maximum opportunity for class mobility. Each well-intentioned socialist policy: the minimum wage, maximum regulations, workplace safety, - takes a big slice out of the pie of possible jobs available and reduces the prospects of the poor to become wealthy in the long term.

Government is a Trojan Horse for Environmental Destruction

For all its faults one thing the Government does is protect the environment from profit-seeking corporations, right? Without government to stop them,corporations would just lay waste to the environment in pursuit of the bottom line. That's the popular view.

An investigation of history might yield some surprises.

There was a time where the courts ruled by common law and were held separately and above the government. When an industrialist polluted  a stream or the air in a way that caused physical or financial harm to his neighbors, the courts would force them to pay reparations and a penalty. This in itself did a pretty good job of deterring people from polluting,

Until the latter part of the nineteenth century this form of law, where the right of every individual were considered, was successful, it stated that if you caused harm or law to another person it was your duty to restore them to their original condition and compensate them. Then, as documented by Morton J. Horowitz in his two-volume treatise named The Transformation of American Law, the legal system began to change. Industrialists went to the government to have it changed.to a more collectivist philosophy where lawyers and law makers became increasingly concerned with what was termed “the common good."

"Under the individualist view the law should protect everyone's right to life, liberty and property – which includes the right not to have your body or property damaged by the pollution of others. The new legal system however argued that no individual or group of individuals should stand in the way of the economic progress of the entire community. Therefore a few victims of pollution should not interfere with economic development prospects that would benefit "The greater good.”" (Tom Dilorenzo)

The government came back and told the people that while the factories were polluting and there would be some victims the industry served 'the common good' and therefore people just had to accept the pollution as a fact of life 'in the greater interests of society as a whole' and all those high minded phrases the left have since appropriated. When you consider history you will see that it is government that made the way for industry inflicting damage on others.

Free Market Equality

The free market - we are told - creates large disparities in income and inequality. But let’s look at the facts.

A few hundred years ago, the wealthy used to go around in carriages with 4 horses, everyone else walked. Nowadays the wealthy man may have a Lamborghini, or a Rolls Royce, but even so - most poor families still have a car. That is equality.

You can afford, if it takes your fancy, to have steak dinner every night. A few hundred years ago you would have had to have been a king to afford that. That’s equality.

The richest person in the world can’t get that much better a broadband connection than you can. He can’t get comfier shoes, or a bed, or a couch. That is equality.

Everyone – increasingly now even people in third world counties – has a phone. That is equality.
A rich person has a flush toilet. You have a flush toilet. A rich person has water coming out of his taps. You have water that comes out of your taps. A rich person has electricity. You have electricity. You can afford soap. You can eat fruit that is flown in from all over the world, in every season. The richest lord in the world a couple of hundred years ago couldn’t even dream of the luxury that people who are considered impoverished in 1st world countries live in.

99% of Americans living below the poverty line have electricity, water, flush-toilets and a refrigerator. 95% have a television. 88% a telephone, and 70% air conditioning - just like rich. That is equality.

Now, I hate the term market competition – because the market is not about competition. Competition simply arises naturally, wherever there is choice between more than one option - whether that is a product, a partner, spending time in the evening, which friend to go to lunch with, or which parking space to choose. That said, market competition – as that is the term which is commonly used for the phenomenon of different service providers trying to sell their products to the same customers who have limited time and resources in which to consume those products – creates an upward pressure on the quality of products, and a downward pressure on their price, because consumers want the best product at the best price in most cases.

That is why at first hardly anyone could afford a computer, and because those greedy rich bastards who were so exuberant and wasteful with their handfuls of money decided to pay for them anyway – instead of giving it to the poor – the companies that made them were able to fund research to make the kind of computer that you are reading this article on now affordable to you.