What Do Governments Hate Because They Can't Control It?

Free trade is a Natural Right as inherent as your rights to free thought, expression and self-defense. The right to property acquired through voluntary exchange is what distinguishes a free individual from a slave subject to involuntary servitude. It is free trade that poses the greatest threat to the power of the State as it enables the individual to live beyond the clutches of the ruling class. Judge Andrew Napolitano explains how:

The Right to Enslave?

I originally wrote this piece for RevoluTimes on November 12, 2011

Do we have a right to any good or service? For many in America and throughout the world, this question is rarely even asked; but an answer is nevertheless presumed: yes. Though the development of Occupy Wall Street and the passing of the federal health care mandate are perhaps the most blatant examples of this concept in recent years, the widely held belief that individuals or even groups have an inherent “human right” to a good or service has been pervasive in the US since the New Deal. Today we’re told we have a “right” to education, health care, affordable housing, a minimum wage, a job, even to the earnings of younger generations should we come to find out that our Social Security trust funds are empty. While it seems there’s no limit to what rights will be discovered next, what are being overlooked are the rights that are lost.

At least on a superficial level, it’s understandable why someone would consider certain goods and services a right. People have needs to survive and prosper in their lives, so it only makes sense that human beings must have a right to such things. But where do goods and services come from? Does a starving man have a “right” to enter a grocery store and take whatever food he wants? No one suggests that a loaf of bread or an automobile is simply conjured out of thin air. If you want Internet access in your office or a pizza delivered to your home, no one pretends to I Dream of Genie the product into existence with a fold of the arms and a nod of the head. These goods and services must be produced and provided by human beings. This may seem to be common sense, (and it should be) but unfortunately this fact is often disregarded when rights and the economy are being discussed.

It may be common knowledge but where goods and services come from is seldom considered by the average politician or American citizen due in part to the implications that follow from such a line of thinking. As man ponders the marvel of the division of labor and the advancements in society created by it, man must first recognize the material blessings that have been bestowed upon him. From this the individual observes that he has made conscious decisions to better his standard of living in one form or another. If this is so, then it follows that he is responsible for the actions that created the opportunities for those decisions to be made. In other words man owns those actions, hence he owns himself.

Self-ownership is simple enough, especially for Americans as this nation was founded upon it and from that the right of self-determination; but from this it follows that all individuals own themselves. This is why the perception that people have a right to a good or service is not often discussed in depth as it creates quite an inconsistency with the most fundamental principles of our society. If I own my actions, logic tells us that I must also own the results of those actions.

While the notion that private property is theft may only be claimed by outright communists, those who believe in rights to education, health care, a “living wage”, (whatever that means) etc. are ascribing to the same mindset if you follow it to its logical ends. Indeed, many involved with OWS feel the rich are depriving them of their “resource” as we’ll discuss later.

In actuality, private property rights are the foundation of freedom. As was mentioned above, goods and services must be produced and provided by the labor of individuals. Just as I am responsible for and own the results of any foolish or wrongful acts I commit, I am equally responsible for and own the results of my virtuous and productive actions; the fruits of my labor. Property is merely the manifestation and extension of the principle of self-ownership.

Contrary to the approved opinions of the D.C. establishment, free trade is not exploitation in any form but the very essence of mutual respect. Just as property is a statement of sovereignty and self-worth, free trade is an act of reverence for your fellow man. In all transactions or voluntary exchanges both parties benefit, otherwise they wouldn’t do it. If a woman seeks to purchase dinner from a restaurant, she only chooses to pay the stated price because she values the food more than the dollars in her purse and the restaurant owner only agrees to provide the service of making the meal because he values the revenue more than he does the product. The trade is an act of recognizing each other with dignity as free human beings.

Even some of the most ardent economic statists would agree with the benefits of trade and its moral superiority but many fail to observe that free trade is precisely what is taking place when an employer hires someone. I do not have a right to a job or set wage any more than I have a right to my neighbor’s car. Convinced that the wealthy business owner is seeking to exploit the worker, it is often argued that people have a “right” to a minimum wage. But in any other context would someone suggest you have a "right" to the money in someone else's bank account? Many supporters of OWS have even proposed a minimum wage of $20 an hour. Why stop at 20? Why not $2,000? The answer of course is obvious: higher forced wages cause unemployment and raise the wage high enough, no businesses will be able to afford to employ anyone. Just as the individual seeks to only spend his hard-earned money on the best product for the lowest cost, a minimum wage forces the employer to fire those who are less skilled or less productive or to hire less in order to stay in business.

While the left claims to want to end poverty, at some point apparently, you can earn too much. Who decides this? What’s the limit? Liberal filmmaker Michael Moore  has argued the rich do not actually own their wealth, it’s a “national resource”. Not only does this suggest that you do not own yourself and thus the fruits of your labor, it further suggests that at a certain point your labor no longer holds any value. But what exactly do Moore and his comrades feel the rich need to “give back” to society? As previously explained, in a free market, (where there is no government intervention) individuals only become wealthy by providing services that better the lives of their fellow man through voluntary exchange.

The notion of having rights to services or wages is what Robert Nozick called involuntary servitude as it suggests the provider of such services is duty bound to serve others under threat of force and without just compensation. What differentiates the sovereign from the slave is his right to property. As Nozick stated, to tax 5 months of a man’s income away is to take away 5 months of his life and render him to forced labor.

The very fact that such egalitarian desires must be enacted by decrees and the violence of government removes any possibility of such measures to be “human rights”; as they are by definition privileges derived not from an inalienable part of one’s humanity but from the whims of politicians and bureaucrats. While it is truly saddening to witness the outcry for more legislative shackles to be placed on their fellow man, what is most tragic is that as the anti-capitalists grant the State more control, they are unwittingly consigning themselves to bondage as well.

Who is Serving You?

While it’s often argued by many that the State must help to provide for the needs of the people; what is not discussed is what the people actually want. While visiting family in Atlanta recently, it occurred to me that most Americans simply do not recognize the differences between the nature of the State and the nature of the market.

When it came time to eat lunch we stopped in a small restaurant in Atlantic Station. As we found our seats, the server cordially gave us menus, asked what we’d like to drink and said to simply let him know if we had any questions. Though the cuisine and atmosphere was very impressive, after a brief look at the menu we decided the prices were too expensive.

As the waiter returned to the table, we thanked him for his service but told him we weren’t looking to spend that much money and had decided to find lunch elsewhere. With a smile he politely thanked us for coming in and wished us a nice rest of the day.  There were no guns, no threats of arrest, and no men with badges forcing us to give up our money.

While most encounter this at least once a day, rarely do Americans take the time to appreciate what’s actually taking place. How often do we go into a department store or restaurant with the understanding that these businesses have spent hundreds of thousands, if not millions of dollars in advance to provide a good or service without any guarantees of a return on their investment? There are no demands or obligations to purchase any product; indeed the demand comes from us that these products be available. Should a business fail to produce what is demanded by consumers, it will soon file bankruptcy and cease to exist.

This is the nature of the market. Every entrepreneur must take massive risks and invest large sums of money to create production, innovation, distribution and let’s not forget paying the wages of the servers who welcome you when you enter and thank you as you leave; all to give you what you want.

The functions of government are diametrically opposed to the nature of the market. How many times have you been given the option to pay or not to pay taxes? Were you ever given an opportunity to not pay for the welfare state, endless wars or bailouts to corporations? Though many view the State as our protector, what happens if you refuse? Can you picture an IRS agent simply thanking you for your time and wishing you a nice day if you withhold your income? People do not pay taxes out of consent or compassion, but out of fear and submission.

As author and editorial Vice President of the Mises Institute, Jeffrey Tucker has pointed out before; even government institutions invoke a sense of submission upon your entering.  As Tucker explained, imagine walking into a department or grocery store. How many people are waiting to assist you? If you purchase a product but decide you no longer desire it or it’s defective, you simply take the item to the exchange desk and are either reimbursed or given the opportunity to choose another item. No questions asked.

Tucker then asks you to imagine entering the DMV. How many people are there to welcome you? Do any of the employees, (who are paid with your tax dollars) seem to have any urgency in helping you? Do these institutions ever seem to be efficient?  If you have a complaint how eager do they appear to be to resolve the issue?

The circumstances are even worse at the airport. If you’ve purchased tickets in advance online, you expect them to be available and to save some time before the flight. Should the airline fail to provide efficient services, you have the ability to seek out a competitor. It is not the owners of companies who hold the power in the market, but the consumer. Whether you’re wrong or right the business must cater to your interests or suffer a loss in sales.

But once you go through security, your demeanor changes entirely. There is no sense of control on your part. You walk with intimidation, hoping you’re not selected for the extensive security measures. No TSA agent seeks to make you feel safe or welcome. There is no greeting or sense of service, but a look of suspicion, of accusation and an implicit threat of force.

Behind the very notion of every government program is the assertion that the State is doing what’s best for the country; that our wise leaders are simply acting on behalf of the interests of their constituents. But at what point did politicians ask the people what they wanted? Was there not an overwhelming rejection of ObamaCare throughout the country? How many Americans asked to be subjected to the TSA’s strip searches? Were you ever asked how your money should be spent, or if it should be taken from you at all?

Politicians and bureaucrats have long fashioned themselves as benevolent leaders acting upon the will of the people, but broken promises and the increasingly violent disposition of the State has revealed them to be the direct opposite and has proven the State to be an abysmal failure. The voluntary sector of society, the peaceful cooperative nature of individuals within their communities and throughout the world that provide for society have demonstrated it is not government that produces the greatest public-servants, but the market.