User Rating: 0 / 5

Star inactiveStar inactiveStar inactiveStar inactiveStar inactive

Government Lending A Hand


In the previously mentioned article we talked about how to deal with rule-breakers. In a Natural Competition system, rule breakers are dealt with through the hierarchical system using brute force. We see this every day. Police breaking and entering into private people's homes with the excuse of a "Search Warrant". Secret Police forces or "Intelligence Organizations" kidnapping or killing people and so on. None of these or similar events are news. They are daily events. As these are hierarchical systems in action, the restriction of freedoms is allowed because it is the modus-operandi of such systems. People at the top have more freedoms than people at the bottom. There is nothing contradictory in this process.

However, in a Catallactic Competiton system, things are much more complex. To begin with any such Police or Policing Force would have to have valid contracts with people whom they protect. Otherwise they would be affecting property rights. Yet, it is clear that such forces would not have contracts with people infringing property rights. For example, it is very unlikely that police forces would have contracts with robbers enabling such forces to apprehend robbers.

So, how would such forces operate in a Catallactic Competition environment? Our article also presented the answer to this question (and incidentally, our Master Contract also does so). It is quite simple, really. A person operating in a Catallactic Competiton environment who does not wish to abide by its rules, regresses into a state of Natural Competition. But in so doing this person also drags their victims into the same system. Basically what this means is that in behaving against the rules of Catallactic Competiton they have also lost all its protections because they have destroyed all the incentives that Catallactic Competiton provides. But is this regression universal and all encompassing? No. It is only applicable to the people they injured (physically or wealth-wise). Why would this be so? Because they have not produced any injury to anybody else. For all other people, they are still behaving in a manner consistent with the rules of Catallactic Competition. Thus, a police force searching for such a subject would not be allowed to break any other people's property rights. There would be no overriding "search warrants" or "probable causes" or any other activity that isn't executed through a voluntary agreement… except… when it comes to any property of the rule breakers. Any and all such properties have now reverted to Natural Competition and are thus subjected to hierarchical rules which dictate that he who is the strongest wins. Therefore such police force would be allowed to enter in robber's premises and arrest such a person without any "search warrant" or otherwise dispensation from "authority".

At the same time, such police force would still be liable for any other breach of other people's property rights to the full extent of the breach.

What this process ensures is something strange. Justice in the form of police persecution would be relentless and all reaching but at the same time it would be very, very respectful of all other people's rights. Which, strangely enough is what Democratic systems claim to be striving towards and failing miserably all the time. Yet, in a state of Catallactic Competition this state of affairs would be achieved by default and without the requirement for any hierarchical authority. And the most astounding part is that this will all be based on self-interest!

Note: in the interest of brevity, we have ignored the process of arbitration which falls within the events of injury and police enforcement. However, this subject of arbitration has been developed more extensively in the article Justice in the Austro Libertarian System if you are interested in it.


Communism is based on the theory that owners "exploit" workers because the distribution of profits is unequal. Thus the central idea of communism was the redistribution of wealth in such a proportion as to satisfy all people's needs. In this manner they would all be equally satisfied. These idiotic concepts were inevitably cascaded down to socialism considering it is nothing more than communism-light (we believe we already mentioned this somewhere… but we may be mistaken ). As such, socialism is big on achieving "equality", whatever it may mean. The concept that interests us is not the fact that their propaganda bombards people incessantly day and night, but the fact that "equality" does not come naturally. There isn't a single biological process in nature, at any level whatsoever, that strives towards equality. None. Not the one. Nothing. nihilum, intet, ingenting, nishto, nichts, ei, rien, semmi, nitchevo, nic, nenio, neniom, Null, niente, néant, niks, asgjë, netra, nula, neuhnee, semmiség, faic, res, anyen, nischt, noti, ninajmanje, nimic, einki, Nichtsein, niets, neat, mba'eve, niè, tipota, dim, mixba'al, pustota, nulla, näischt, wala, lutho, niemendal, nüscht, neitt, không có, hiç. This clear enough?
And so somehow communism and socialism attempt to sell us the idea that something that it is utterly un-natural (we would say anti-natural) has a chance not only to survive but to thrive. If "equality" would be such a great idea, we believe that nature would have already provided us with a few working examples, considering that it has been working on this "evolution" thing for the better part of… uh…. 2 million years? Give or take? But no. Not the one example.

Now, an argument can be made on the idea that Catallactic Competition is not a Natural Competition, and as such Catallactics is equally flawed as Communism. Yet, this is an argument that goes nowhere. As we mentioned before, Catallactic Competition and Natural Competition are both based on…well…competition! They are not the same type of competition but they are…gasp…competitions! The difference between those competitions originates in the capacity of humans to come up with better solutions because of their enhanced brain power, but these solutions are still based on solutions that evolution developed in the first place based on… you guessed it… competition! Catallactic Competition does not go against nature, it simply modifies it slightly. Catallactic Competition works with what we got from evolution (our selfishness) and makes the best of it.

Communism and socialism, on the other hand, go against evolution and against human nature. Equality is not to be found in nature. Selflessness is not to be had in nature. There is always a selfish reason however deep we must dig. As such, everything that communism strives towards is artificial. It goes against the very nature of what it means to be human. The excuse for this kind of advocacy is that human beings must be and can be "better"; that they can "evolve" (the communist way) into a "better" person, a "new" person. Huh? Seriously? Are communists so out of their mind as to propose a directed evolution of humans based on a political theory? In a word? Yes.

What this should make you realize is that albeit the concept of inequality may be ethically and morally somehow undesirable, the fight against it is based on concepts so deeply flawed as to reach the center of the world. If moral and ethical theories support the fight against inequality this is a clear indication that they themselves are flawed because they don't understand the nature of human beings, evolution or real free market operations. From a philosophical perspective, philosophy attempts to provide answers to questions for which we don't yet have data from the real world. Philosophy is sort of a pre-science doing the best it can to provide information in the most difficult of situations. Philosophy can be understood as meta-science. Yet, philosophy is not a suicidal art type of pre-science. Philosophy yields its theories to real life data. Any philosophical theory that goes against a measurable reality has a very short life-span indeed!

The fight against inequality is erroneous from a real life point of view because it simply does not work bringing the opposite to what it purports to achieve. It is also erroneous from a moral, ethical or religious perspective when they advocate such a fight as a societal requirement to achieve a given concept of "good". This is not the same as advocating the personal choice of trying to help other people to make their lives more "equal" (i.e. satiated). This latter point of view is a personal choice and as such it is coherent within the realm of freedom. A personal choice is always that; personal. There is no attempt to coerce compliance from society as a whole as some general ethical, moral or religious philosophies advocate.

Note: please see the Glossary if you are unfamiliar with certain words.

Comments | Add yours
  • No comments found
English French German Italian Portuguese Russian Spanish
FacebookMySpaceTwitterDiggDeliciousStumbleuponGoogle BookmarksRedditNewsvineTechnoratiLinkedinMixxRSS FeedPinterest
Pin It