Should Anarchists Take State Money?

Tyler Durden camera_lumina at hotmail.com
Tue Jan 11 07:11:34 PST 2005


Hey! I just created a small replica of Rodan's "The Thinker" by sculpting it 
out of my poop!

-TD




>From: "R.A. Hettinga" <rah at shipwright.com>
>To: cypherpunks at al-qaeda.net
>Subject: Should Anarchists Take State Money?
>Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2005 18:18:15 -0500
>
><http://www.mises.org/blog/archives/002945.asp>
>
>
>Mises Economics Blog
>
>
>January 10, 2005
>
>
>
>Should Anarchists Take State Money?
>
>by Robert Murphy
>
>A discussion on a private email list brought up a familiar topic: When is
>it permissible for self-described anarchists (let's restrict ourselves here
>to anarcho-capitalists) to take government money? This is a tricky
>question, and I have yet to see someone offer a satisfactory list of
>necessary and sufficient conditions. Usually when an-caps argue about this,
>they end up shooting more and more refined analogies back and forth.
>
>For example, to me it's not enough to say that any money spent in the
>private sector is legitimate (vis-a-vis one's anarchism). I personally
>would not feel justified in working for a Halliburton. However, what about
>the guy who opens a Dunkin Donuts near a police station? Is he accepting
>"government money"? Does it matter if he's in a podunk town with a sheriff
>and a deputy, versus if he lives in LA and knows for a fact that several of
>his customers beat the #$#)($* out of suspects?
>
>A big problem in this area is education: Can anarcho-capitalist economists
>take teaching posts at State schools? After all, the State intervenes
>heavily in education, which is a perfectly laudable market institution. But
>surely there are more teaching posts because of the State than there
>otherwise would be. Does the an-cap professor have to estimate whether his
>or her post would actually exist in the absence of State intervention, or
>is that irrelevant?
>
>Personally, I have decided that I will never work for an official State
>school. If I really mean it when I refer (in LRC articles, for example) to
>the State as "a gang of killers and thieves," then how can I possibly
>associate with such people? Yes yes, there are millions of analogies and
>counterarguments, but for me there is a definite line to be drawn at
>actually being on the payroll. (I also wouldn't take welfare, for example,
>even though in previous years I have put in a lot to the tax system.)
>
>Before closing, I should say that in no way am I taking a holier than thou
>stance. For example, I applied for the Stafford (unsubsidized!) loan in
>grad school, even though the State technically coerced those lending
>institutions into offering me such low rates. And I know a guy who is so
>hard core about starving the beast, that he felt like a sellout when he
>took a job on the books and had some of his paycheck withheld. (I.e. when
>he worked under the table, then at least his money wasn't funding the
>State's wars etc.)
>
>But as far as State schools, I think there are a few other things that
>people often leave out of the discussion. First, why would I want to throw
>my talents into a State school? I would much rather work on the side of the
>underdog, and every time I publish a paper or give a talk, I want a private
>school to get the credit. (This also applies to whatever influence I have
>on students; I don't want to enhance a State school's reputation by
>churning out better-than-otherwise students, so long as I could do the same
>at a private school.)
>
>A second issue is a bit more subtle: When moderate Americans hear of an-cap
>professors berating the existence of the State, while they work for the
>State, I think two things happen. (A) They think, "What a hypocrite! These
>ivory tower academics need to get in the real world before redesigning
>society!" And (B), they think, "Our government is so open and tolerant! It
>even employs academics who call for its abolition! I'm so glad I live here
>and not under the Taliban."
>
>(Again, this is not meant as a criticism of those who choose to work at
>State schools. I'm just explaining my position.)
>
>Posted by Murphy at January 10, 2005 08:08 AM
>
>Comments
>
>
>You're very lucky that you have private colleges where you live. Many have
>no such choice. Then all one can do is firmly bite the hand that feeds.
>
>Posted by: Sudha Shenoy at January 10, 2005 08:40 AM
>
>Ayn Rand had an article that was instructive on this issue. She was asked
>whether it was moral for someone to take a government-backed student loan.
>She said it was, because the person receiving the loan had no moral duty to
>abstain from receiving a benefit the government was giving to others. Rand
>distinguished between such benefits and those who choose to work in the
>government at jobs that had no function other than to violate individual
>rights (I believe she cited the Federal Trade Commission as an example.)
>The difference was between using a service that *should* be provided by the
>public sector (i.e. the Postal Service) and those that could never exist in
>a free market (i.e. monopoly regulators).
>
>  Of course, Rand was only addressing the ethical dilema; whether taking
>state money is practical towards advancing one's particular interests or
>ideology is a separate question.
>
>Posted by: Skip Oliva at January 10, 2005 08:43 AM
>
>Hans-Hoppe teaches at the University of Las Vegas, Nevada and Murray
>Rothbard taught there before him. I do not see this as being hypocritical.
>The main reason why is that if the government taxes and spends on
>universities, it inevitably pushes private institutions out of the market
>by charging artificially low tuition. Therefore, the number of available
>positions at private universities is diminished, reducing opportunities for
>non-public university professorships.
>
>The bottom line is that the state has created a system in which there is
>crime all around us. If we worried about "taking advantage" of this crime
>all the time we probably wouldn't even step outside our front doors in the
>morning, and we certainly wouldn't be driving on public roads.
>
>On the other hand, there would definately be something wrong with say
>becoming an IRS agent while claiming to be an anarcho-capitalist at the
>same time.
>
>Posted by: Steven Kane at January 10, 2005 08:44 AM
>
>Actually I thought Rand's best contribution was this: "There is, of course,
>a limitation on the moral right to take a government job: one must not
>accept any job that demands ideological services, i.e., any job that
>requires the use of one's mind to compose propaganda material in support of
>welfare statism -- or any job in a regulatory administrative agency
>enforcing improper, non-objective laws." (Objectivist, June 1966, sent by
>Roderick Long)
>
>Now, this is interesting. Many people think it might be a bad thing, for
>example, for a libertarian to work for the INS or the IRS or some such, but
>would be happy to take a job as a presidential speech writer. Somehow it is
>usually assumed to be ok to do intellectual work but not ok to actually rob
>and kill for the state. Rand seems to be saying that it is as bad or worse
>to offer one's intellectual talents for propaganda reasons.
>
>  Posted by: Jeffrey at January 10, 2005 08:52 AM
>
>I recently struggled with this problem. Here in Detroit the automotive
>industry (most of the city) shuts down between Christmas and New Years
>(because of the UAW contracts). For most this is a paid vacation but I am
>currently a contract employee (The big three hire all new employees as
>contractors first to avoid all the messy federal laws restricting their
>right to fire people for being incompetent), so it was forced time off for
>me. The problem is so common though that every contract employee is given a
>small packet of information on how to solve the problem of losing wages
>over the vacation: apply for unemployment.
>
>I struggled for days, being an anarcho-capitalist, on whether or not it was
>ethical to accept the state's welfare money. Sure, I think welfare is
>robbery and wrong to the core but I am forced to pay in to it whether I
>like it or not - so why not reclaim some of that money?
>
>Ultimately I decided that it was ethical but I simply couldn't bring myself
>to do it. Ethical maybe, but it still felt immoral to me. Having just
>graduated from college and moved to a new place I could have really used
>the money - but I just felt dirty about taking it.
>
>Posted by: Adam H at January 10, 2005 10:15 AM
>
>
>  Here is Rothbard's point of view on this question: "The ground on which 
>we
>must stand, to be moral and rational in a state-run world is to: (1) work
>and agi-tate as best we can, in behalf of liberty; (2) while working in the
>matrix of our given world, to refuse to add to its sta-tism; and (3) to
>refuse absolutely to participate in State activities that are immoral and
>criminal per se."
>
>Posted by: Jeffrey at January 10, 2005 10:26 AM
>
>I worked for a small private startup at my last job. Even though we were
>"private", most of our money came from government agencies/projects. I
>think the public/private distinction can be misleading. What matters is
>what interests you are serving. Are you serving people's voluntary wants
>and needs or demand created by government regulation and taxes? I don't
>think there's a clear cut answer in most situations.
>
>Posted by: Danny Taggart at January 10, 2005 10:42 AM
>
>Sam Bostaph wrote, on the list: "Murphy raises several questions--and gives
>no answers to them. Then, he asserts personal preferences--with loose or no
>reasoning to support them. He might as well be discussing choices from
>menu."
>
>I agree with Sam. And as I wrote on the list: "Bottom line: the
>overwrought, over-agonized, over-thought attempts to justify one's way of
>living in this imperfect world are simply pointless.
>
>"First, libertarian employees of state universities might try to come up
>with any number of justifications for why their chosen career is
>"justified". But in the end, how many of them would quit if their little
>libertarian calculus came out the wrong way? I think it's clear the answer
>is near-zero. Clearly this is just make-weight argument; rationalization.
>Strunk and White say, if you don't know how to pronounce a word, say it
>loud! "Why compound ignorance with inaudibility?" Likewise, if you are
>going to enter the game of life--in this mixed-state world, where some
>careers one would choose in the free market are largely monopolized by the
>state; where one must participate in state-decreed institutions and rules
>in order to flourise, prosper, succeed, and survive--don't pussyfoot around
>about it. Don't be embarrassed by it. Don't, for God's sake, *apologize*
>for it. Remember Galt had the face without pain or fear or guilt. Those who
>opppose the current malicious order are not to blame for it. They are -- we
>are -- already victims. To insist that we victims -- *because* we are
>victims (those who respect rights) -- have to suffer even further damage,
>to restrict ourselves from career and business and life opportunities that,
>ironically, our fellow men who do not agonize over the morality of their
>choices, ... frankly, to my mind, it is ridiculous and obscene.
>
>  "Libertarianism at its essence distinguishes between victim and 
>aggressor.
>To whine and hand-wring about what one libertarianly can or cannot do in
>this world -- when our non-libertarian enemies, yes enemies, do not give a
>damn about it -- is, in my view, to equate victim with aggressor; to blame
>the victim for trying to make it in the the nonlibertarian world he has
>been thrust into; a world that is nonlibertarain specifically because of
>the beliefs and actions of his fellow non-libertarian citizens. To say he
>should have a higher standard of behavior than them is to add injury to
>injury."
>
>Murphy writes, "I personally would not feel justified in working for a
>Halliburton." I suppose there are a few die-hard types out there whose
>personal preferences would lead them to ever and ever greater personal
>sacrifices so they feel they are living by some kind of moral principles or
>something. But I find the entire notion that you *need*, in general, to
>"justify" where you work is just a bit silly. I agree w/ Bostaph that
>Murphy supplies no reasons for his assertions; why it's okay to set up a
>donut shop selling to police, but not to "be on the payroll". Surely
>Austrians are aware there is nothing economically special about the
>"employee" relationship; just as political borders are just political and
>not economically objective.
>
>I believe it is not hypocritical to live in the real world, as a general
>matter. What is hypocritical, in my view, is the pretense of some
>libertarians that they work at their present state-related jobs *only*
>because they have found a way to justify it. I would be a lot of money that
>99% of these people would not quit their jobs, even if you could show them
>their little pet proofs "justifying" the morality of their position is
>flawed. So it's just a makeweight argument trotted out in a vain attempt to
>show that one's chosen career is "justified"; but the only reason to do
>this is the false notion that one's career *needs* justifying.
>
>Posted by: Stephan Kinsella at January 10, 2005 11:21 AM
>
>Jeffrey's quote from Rothbard (in particular, "(2) while working in the
>matrix of our given world, to refuse to add to its sta-tism"), I believe,
>answers the titular question perfectly.
>
>Even if it is the case that, by starting from scratch, a better system
>could be constructed, if our aim is the construction of that system, we
>must recognize that we do not have the luxury of erasing the influences of
>Marx, FDR, et al. Those who would change the system must necessarily work
>within it, and if that means using U.S. Mint-coined money, so be it.
>
>Posted by: Lowell at January 10, 2005 11:26 AM
>
>Stephan,
>
>Interesting points, although showing that something is moral or immoral,
>legal or illegal, does not in any way show that one would stop doing it.
>Everyone acts immorally numerous times each day. The fact that they know
>they're acting such doesn't stop them from doing such. Good people try to
>strive to be the best they can, presumeably.
>
>Ultimately, everyone has to live with what they do, and with how other
>people perceive what they do.
>
>  A good person is someone who tries to do what he thinks is moral. Such
>people generally are engaged in careers they think moral. It will take a
>lot of argument to convince them otherwise. However, if they can be
>convinced of the immorality of their career, they will quit it (or cease
>being good people).
>
>  An "evil" person is someone who does not bother to try doing what he
>thinks is moral. That is, the person who knows what is moral, yet does not
>abide by it. I would characterize Alan Greenspan as such a person.
>
>  Posted by: David Heinrich at January 10, 2005 11:36 AM
>
>In an earlier post on this blog, I noted the example of Todd Zywicki, a law
>professor who recently finished a stint as planning director at the FTC. In
>his professorial role (at a state school, George Mason), Zywicki has
>portrayed himself as a free-market champion. Yet during his FTC service, he
>stood by and said nothing while the agency committed all sorts of
>individual rights violations. This is the type of person who needs to be
>condemned as evil--the man who poses as an ally of free markets, yet when
>put in a position of authority does nothing to advance the cause.
>
>  Posted by: Skip Oliva at January 10, 2005 12:05 PM
>
>I wonder what Ayn Rand would have thought of the fact that one of her
>closest associates is now the person who is responsible for carrying out
>the biggest inflationist institution in the world-and also propagates for
>the usefullness of that institution.
>
>Posted by: Stefan Karlsson at January 10, 2005 01:49 PM
>
>Libertarians who work as speechwriters for the State do great damage. They
>enable the interventionists to disguise their destructiveness with
>positive-sounding rhetoric.
>
>Posted by: JS Henderson at January 10, 2005 01:49 PM
>
>Unless something great happens, the government is going to be stealing my
>money and violating my rights until the day I die. I have no problem
>getting some of that money back through subsidized loans and government
>scholarships. Although I do believe it is disrespectful for the government
>to sponsor a scholarship in Barry Goldwater's name, I am proud to be
>nominated for it.
>
>Posted by: Horatio at January 10, 2005 02:02 PM
>
>As the for the private/state school arguments, private schools subsidized
>by the state also. Kids complete the fafsa and receive pell grants, and
>loans to go the both schools. We support the state in so many ways because
>we enhance society and its members. I think you're justified if you work is
>agaisnt the government, but not against the people.
>
>Posted by: Andy D at January 10, 2005 03:50 PM
>
>Stephan,
>
>I agree w/ Bostaph that Murphy supplies no reasons for his assertions; why
>it's okay to set up a donut shop selling to police, but not to "be on the
>payroll".
>
>Just to clarify, I didn't say it was OK to set up a donut shop. I asked if
>it were (for those who think one can't work for Halliburton in good
>conscience). My point here is not to lay out the definitive answer, but
>rather to say that I think I could come up with particular examples that
>would cast doubt upon any hard-and-fast rule people on either side give.
>E.g. if an an-cap thinks there's no problem working for Halliburton, then
>we can ask about a military company that exclusively supplies stuff to the
>gov't.
>
>I agree with Bostaph that I didn't give any answers; that's my point. (But
>this implies of course that I didn't agree with the official positions both
>of you took. As I recall, Bostaph said something like, "They aren't fair
>with me, so I'm not going to worry about playing nice with them." That's
>not the issue; no one is saying you shouldn't work for the State because it
>might violate the rights of the tax man. Am I allowed to mug a guy walking
>down the street because the IRS took my money?)
>
>I didn't bring this up on the List because I thought this topic was getting
>beaten to a pulp, but since you posted your response from there, let me
>address something that concerned me:
>
>To insist that we victims -- *because* we are victims (those who respect
>rights) -- have to suffer even further damage, to restrict ourselves from
>career and business and life opportunities that, ironically, our fellow men
>who do not agonize over the morality of their choices, ... frankly, to my
>mind, it is ridiculous and obscene.
>
>  Here you're just begging the question.  Are you an innocent victim 
>"(those
>who respect rights)" if you work for the government? No one is arguing that
>the victims of gov't abuse should hurt themselves even more so; the claim
>is that victims of government abuse aren't thereby given a green light to
>abuse third parties as compensation.
>
>And finally, I don't see why you're disgusted that "our side" is worried
>about choosing justified means. Isn't that what makes us libertarians, that
>we worry about violating side constraints?
>
>
>
>Posted by: RPM at January 10, 2005 04:04 PM
>
>
>--
>-----------------
>R. A. Hettinga <mailto: rah at ibuc.com>
>The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation <http://www.ibuc.com/>
>44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA
>"... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity,
>[predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to
>experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'





More information about the cypherpunks-legacy mailing list