Wendy McElroy writes "An aspect of the free market -- the real free market, sans government, not the wretched State capitalism of today -- that receives scant attention from libertarians is the vital role played by activist consumers and consumer advocacy groups. They are part of the feedback mechanism that makes the marketplace function well. Just as unions ((again sans government) act as a brake on bad labor practices ..." Stephan Kinsella says that corporations are valid entities, and that the problem is really the legal structure, i.e. the state.
In writing this I do not want to debate either one of them, but instead wonder, if without the state, there would be corporations, labor unions and consumer advocacy groups? I strongly suspect not. At least not in the form we recognize today. The corporation is a form of doing business that is chosen today because of the legal system that exists. Limited liability is just one feature. There is a whole legal structure that makes this kind of setup desirable. Would it be if there was no state? Or would people in a free society devise more efficient ways of organizing labor and capital?
Labor unions grew in response to abuses by the managers of corporations in a restricted labor market. If the labor market were not restricted, if there were more jobs than people to fill them, as I believe would be the case in a free economy, then the need for labor unions would vanish, even if the corporate system remained unchanged.
I also believe that consumer advocacy, as we understand it today, would be obsolete. With a wide range of goods and services, sold by a huge number of providers, people would simply not do business with providers that did not satisfy them. Add to that a legal system that provided quick relief for damages (when the parties could not settle between themselves) and you have a very different world than the one we live in today. Once again, I think that the need for this type of service would not exist. The one aspect of consumer advocacy that I see continuing is independent product testing, but that is done by many groups, not just those interested in consumer protection.
While I really do not buy Kinsella's argument regarding the legitimacy of the corporate structure, at least corporations exist for a positive purpose. To organize labor and capital to be able create value (as a general rule). So I see that function existing in a free society, much more than I see the function of labor unions and consumer advocacy. They are, by their nature, adversarial organizations. They assume that there is another side and that there will be a fight. I strongly believe that in a free society there will be far fewer adversarial relationships, especially between labor and capital or between vendors and their customers. Given this, I see much less need for these functions, as well as lawyers.
Mostly
Jorge,
I mostly agree with your sentiments. One place where I'd like to pee in your pool (and that of many who seem to make the same assumptions) is where you claim that "...a legal system that provided quick relief for damages (when the parties could not settle between themselves) and you have a very different world than the one we live in today."
I cannot imagine a legal system worse than the one we presently have. At the same time, I just find it interesting that so many people take it as a given that there would be this perfect and wonderful legal or dispute-resolution-organization mechanism. I can assume that there would be lots of variety and both good and bad means for solving disputes.
My personal favorite idea is the Somali Xeer system, where all is voluntary, even restitution (as best as I can understand it). But so much of their system is dependent upon the social structure being based upon clans that I don't know how this would expand into a global, more anonymous, free market.
The only point I'm trying to make here is that I find it problematic that "everyone" seems to make the assumption that a good free-market legal system is a given. In my opinion, nothing is a given. (Except, of course, all of MY assumptions! ;-) )
- NonE
Interesting questions.
I read this yesterday, Jorge, and have been thinking about a reply ever since.
To me it is always a stimulating thought exercise, to speculate how systems might be different if they’d come into being under differing circumstances. Yet I don’t like reading a lot of sci–fi that rests heavily upon this device, partly because it all seems so thin, in the end: anyone can speculate pretty much anything and so it mostly helps spawn a new arena for arguing, rather than offering ideas on dealing with the situation at hand. The one thing that seems very likely to me is that in the absence of a state, many solutions to any given problem would spring up and if necessary, sprout again and again if the market rejects their previous form(s).
It is primarily because humans are social animals that I could see group-based consumer advocacy remaining as a useful tool in your alternative ‘verse—if only for gathering and disseminating data regarding the actions of business entities (as well as testing, as you pointed out). After all, grassroots efforts start with individual decisions to take action.
Would you be willing to expand on this some? As written, it seems to be leading into “anarchist utopia” area, and I don’t think that’s your intent. My perspective is that while the number of misunderstandings and disagreements wouldn’t likely change, how they are resolved would differ drastically from today.
What happens when the monsters come?
I've reached similar conclusions, but then I start thinking about what happens next.
I don't want to say it's inevitable, but often next there's an "insurmountable" problem and some people start calling for the dragon slayer, the anointed one, the Hero to take care of them. Then we get to start the whole mess all over again.
If anyone has a solution to that, I'd love to hear it.
Otherwise I pretty much agree with Jorge.
Wondering more than anything
Although I did say what I suspect or believe the result to be, so....
NonE, I agree that no system is perfect. For dispute resolution I think that free people will come up with multiple competing/overlapping systems, and that there will some method of selecting the appropriate system. I tend to think that the more people and the more wealth in a given area the more options will be available, as that tends to be true of other goods and services, but could be very wrong. I also think that this part of the system will see the least used (more on that below). A discussion of Somali, and other, customary law systems is out of scope for this post.
Neo, I agree that this is a huge problem, in fact it may be the single biggest problem and one we face today. If we can figure out how to get people to stop looking for someone else to solve their problems then the entire philosophy will be a very easy sell. Until then, we probably will not get very far and what little progress we do make will be wiped out the moment there is some "crisis".
Sunni, glad I made you think :)
I am going to have to think on this. My initial reaction is to say that this redefines "consumer advocacy" so much that it is something very different from what we know today.
Correct. I certainly do not envision a "utopia", although, admittedly, I do see the world being a much nicer and friendlier place in general. First of all voluntary interactions are by their nature not adversarial. If I have 10 stores available and I choose to only shop at one, it is highly unlikely that I feel hostile to them. Likewise with many employers/clients to choose from.
Secondly, we live in a world that encourages "us vs. them" thinking. Sure, we are tribal beings and we do, for the most part, form group identities, but these do not have to be adversarial. They can be simply belonging, such as a family, or even friendly rivalry, such as rooting for a sports team. But today, almost no matter where you live, there are many groups, with the state being by far the largest, telling you that "them" are out to get you and can't be trusted. Of course, the state, the union, the advocacy group, are your real friends, they are looking out for you, you can feel safe with them. With the state gone a major source of this type of message will vanish. I believe that others will also stop using this type of message. Even if they do not stop entirely, the general negative atmosphere will be significantly reduced.
Third, if you arrive at a point where you can't settle some problem directly with the business involved I think that there will be a variety of reconciliation services available. In fact I see this type of service being mostly free for the standard inter-neighbor and individual consumer/local business type problem. There are many reasons that I think this, but basically, I see a lot more volunteering in a free society, and one great way to volunteer is to help reconcile your neighbors, which makes the community a better place to live.
And finally, should all the above be for naught and a person gets to a point where the problem needs to get to arbitration, it will be fast and efficient, which will ensure that the problem does not fester. Closure will be quick, and people will be able to move on. From personal experience, I know that if I am feeling angry because of some unsettled issue, I am more likely to have other issues. I also know that I am not unique in this aspect. Quick resolution of negative issues will result in there being fewer negative issues.
So yes, I do believe that in addition to the methods of resolution being better, that the actual number of misunderstandings and disagreements will go down. Perhaps I am being naive.
I think you are correct
I've talked with a LOT of people about this sort of thing. Too many seem to insist that they must find some perfect "answer" - ahead of time - to any and all of the dilemmas that would abound in a truly free society.
It's as if they can understand the insanity of central planning when done by present government and unwise economists, but then insist that all of the questions and potential problems be answered with definite plans NOW, before anything can progress toward a free society.
And my plea is always that these things can't BE planned, any more than can the free market. They evolve and grow, and each person or group figures out their own answers to reflect their condition and needs. As long as it is done without coercion or force, it doesn't matter how they resolve their conflicts. And the more different solutions that evolve, the better I think.
Zackly, Mama
Zackly!
and I must say that David D. Friedman made an excellent post on his blog yesterday. Gratitude. The antithesis of entitlement. I've watched the sense of this change from the former to the latter over the course of my lifetime. Is it going to take that long for the pendulum to revert to the opposite pole? I'm going through a major funk right about now, seeing nothing but shit thru my glasses and wanting to know if I'm the problem, the solution, or simply an irrelevant grain of sand on the beach of societal evolution. I want to feel love, and to smile, and to laugh and share with others, yet all around me I see nothing but finger pointing and blame. It warms me to my very soul to read David Friedman's perspective on trade. I feel a cad that I am not feeling the same spirit within me, but sometimes it just is overwhelming. And just now the Beach Boys sprung up in my head... Good good good vibrations. Well, it's a good thought, anyway.
- NonE
Never.
My friend, I have a very hard time seeing you as part of the current social problem. More in private ... and lots of squeezes for you.
Come to Wyoming!
I can introduce you to a LOT of people who do not have an entitlement mentality. :)
Conflict Resolution
And let me add to my comment what I find is a critical point, one which maybe I didn't elucidate well enough for Jorge to want to pick up on, and one which is the essence of what Mama pointed out: There is a fundamental issue at hand here. Conflict resolution. The very words are the key. Until you have a conflict, there is nothing to resolve. The writing of laws and dictates are not about resolving conflict, they are about fear and arrogance (which I believe is a manifestation of fear.) The core of the Somali Xeer system is that there is no law, there are no courts, UNTIL there is a conflict. At that point they invoke the time tested method of voluntary conflict resolution. After which, it's back to anarchy, or rather, it's STILL anarchy.
This is a diametrically opposed view of the world from most. Instead of attempting to predict any and everything which might possibly occur and then attempting to write rules which will prevail to curb any conflict, the Somali method is to simply live your life and when a conflict arises, to resolve it... and then go on living your life.
There is a fundamental issue of perspective here that every other thing is built upon, and until we get to that core issue and choose to either be free or to be enslaved by our fears of uncertainty, no progress may result.
- NonE
Default perspectives and speed
Again, Jorge, you’ve spawned too many thoughts in response for me to address each. Hence I will bypass the “monsters” element, interesting though it is.
I would say that’s accurate for most individuals, but there are some who seem to prefer high drama to peaceful coexistence. Highlighting this are the recent headlines I’ve seen on Google news, blaring the completely unsurprising finding that bullies enjoy seeing pain in others.
The above also sets aside how one might define “adversarial”. Some individuals enjoy haggling over prices, but for me, it quickly becomes a drawn–out torture. I understand its importance in some contexts or situations and will engage in it when necessary; but I try to avoid scenarios where extended haggling is customary.
That subset of people I mentioned above aside, I do think speedier resolution of problems is a key to improved relations and healthier communities. Negative emotions are dampeners of body and mind (spirit is a better word here, but I understand that some might balk at it). I don’t see your perspective as naïve, but rather, as hopeful. Perhaps that’s because I share the same hope or naïveté.