Monday, January 3, 2011
The definition of the State is, basically, the accumulation of individuals that operate by force. This makes the term "public service" very different from its original intent. Health-care, education, the social safety net that leaves no person behind – all of this is forced by gunpoint. Allow me to explain:
I think it's safe to assume a large majority of Canadians support the State-run health-care system. I'm fine with that, I believe anybody should have the freedom to send their money to the government in order to receive this service. I, on the other hand, would like to opt-out. I prefer to pay for health-care directly and leave the government out of it. Is this possible? Currently it is not, I am forced into this system by paying taxes. If I decide to opt-out on my own, then a man with a gun comes to my house and forces me to either pay, or go to jail. If I refuse both, I'm liable to be murdered.
This is the violence inherent in the system.
If we further expand this, a picture starts to form concerning the nature of the State. Money for the “public sector” depends on wealth stolen from all individuals for a select group providing this “public service.” But isn't everyone providing public service? A business the public has no interest in eventually declares bankruptcy. “Public service” in the modern sense is defined by services the State feels necessary for the betterment of all individuals.
Public service simply means service by coercion. As individuals, people are forced into paying for a service they may not use, need or want. The importance of this service is decided under the State apparatus, which an individual is born into.
So much for “public service.” All wealth created by the market of voluntary exchange is taxed, and it is with these taxes that individuals in the “public sector” get paid. However, these services are more often than not considered valuable and therefore wealth-creating. The former may be true, but the latter certainly is not. Simply, if the net loss of bureaucracy was translated to the net gain of a profit-and-loss enterprise, the “public sector” would add wealth to society instead of siphoning it off. If one wishes to retain governance over this service, then voluntary taxes help correct the problem of the inherent wastefulness of bureaucracy.
Without the profit-and-loss structure of organization, the only alternative is bureaucratization. Ludwig von Mises was correct when he pointed out that the “ultimate basis of an all around bureaucratic system is violence.”
It is only when one starts to realize that without voluntary payment, any consumer good or service forced onto individuals is by threat of violence. One rarely accepts this in everyday life: Theft is wrong, kidnapping is worse and no one forces anyone to shop at a certain store. But in “public” violence is accepted.
It is wrong for one individual to threaten another individual, and by the same standards it is wrong for one group to enforce their will on another group. It violates natural property rights, a violation of basic human rights.
The horrors of socialism in Europe and Asia are being ignored. The economic lessons have been forgotten. After the staggering loss of life during the Holocaust and World War 2 people said “never again”.
But it never went away.
Currently nobody is being burned based on race, but the threat of violence is still there. There is still a State apparatus that increases at the cost of individual freedom. This is a dangerous precedent. The State, an unnecessary institution, has retained power by providing the world at the expense of future generations.
The future generations have arrived. We are pissed.
Baby boomers are retiring; elections and voting will do nothing to solve health care. Violent protest won't solve anything (you can't fight fire with fire). There is only one option: education.