Dr. Holcombe Intro
Piggybacking off of last week’s paper I wrote on anarchism based on Dr. Per Bylund’s talk, this week Dr. Per Bylund and Dr. Randy Holcombe went head to head, discussing the feasibility of an anarchist society. Holcombe starts his speech by telling us a personal story: his dad took him to a baseball game without private parking, and a child came up and said, “if you give me 50 cents, I’ll protect your car.” Holcombe’s dad gave the child the money, and when they got back, the car was untouched. His reason for telling us this is that the same kid who offered to protect the car for that specific amount of money, probably would have damaged the car in some sort of way had they not paid him. He then tells us that this is how the mafia works. If you don’t pay, your business is at risk. Throughout his speech, Holcombe explains that he is on Bylund’s side… He believes the government has too much power and that the idea of an anarchist society is appeasing, but that there are things that stand in the way of its feasibility. The biggest thing, he explains, that stands in the way of anarchy, is police power. He believes that it is a natural monopoly that private protection firms would collude to form a big agency which becomes a cartel. I think this is one of the biggest issues I had with the idea of an anarchist society: the idea that gangs and cartels, or whatever they would be called, would spring up as a result of no state and they would essentially become the state.
The Ruthless Win
Holcombe tells us that when there is no comparative advantage against big agencies and other companies, which is what the government does, then there is no justice. Holcombe ends his speech by telling us that it is human nature for people to want power, and often people love exercising their power over other people. And that is dangerous. He says that the most ruthless and power hungry people are those who will assume a position of authority. I 100% see where Holcombe is coming from with this. The people who want power are the people who are going to be mean and ruthless and exercise violence. I have thought this for a long time because it’s true. The top 1% are there because they like it up there and they’ll do anything to stay up there. One last thing that Holcombe brought up that got me thinking was that he said that capitalism is great, but to not confuse capitalism with capitalists, as they are the biggest threat to capitalism. That is a great tie into what I just said. Ideally, we’d live in a world with no hierarchy, but how do you see that happening in an anarchist society? I see it becoming even more hierarchical.
Dr. Per Bylund’s Perspective on Human Nature and Protected Groups
Bylund suggests that only the ruthless take over in the black market, not in the “white market” or legitimate businesses. He agrees with Holcombe that businesses will conspire to raise prices, but only when there are barriers to entry imposed by the government. He believes that humans are peaceful people and mostly good. I’d like to think that. And a majority of people are probably good, but the definition of good differs from person to person, and the definition of peaceful differs from person to person. For instance, some people think they’re “saving children” by taking away trans rights, and others think that trans people are just people who should exist peacefully with everyone else. Something I thought about while the Q&A section of this lecture was taking place is, what would happen to protected groups? I completely agree with both Dr. Bylund and Dr. Holcombe that the government has too much power, and I think right now that they are using it for bad. Indigenous rights, rights over bodily autonomy, and LGBTQ+ rights are being taken away right in front of us. Here is where it gets confusing… is it the power of democracy, meaning the power of the people? Or has the government gone too far? I think it is certainly both, so then where is the winning side when it comes to supposed protected groups? If we abolish or downsize government, will that become more or less of an issue? It’s just something important that I realized hasn’t been established in any of this anti-government talk.
Other Points
In the Q&A section of the lecture, Bylund and Holcombe continue to go head to head. Bylund says that the government is like looking into the barrel of a gun, and that with no state, there would be no war, but that either way, it would be hard to overtake a country whose citizens resist. Holcombe agrees with this sentiment; and in fact, Holcombe agrees with a lot of what Bylund says, and even acknowledges such. Honestly, after this talk, my sense of what the government’s role is has blurred a bit. I absolutely believe it is the government’s job to protect us, but in general, we need to take a look at human rights and make things just. I don't know if the solution to that is to decentralize government. Maybe if we did, political influence wouldn’t encourage violence against protected groups. Bylund explains that the kid asking for money to protect the car is a bad example of the mafia, because if someone was acting like an asshole, society would punish them; but then what happens when morals and ethics don’t line up from person to person? That’s a big question. The way I understand it, government is structured so that “both” moral sides are taken into account. Obviously there are complexities to that, but how would that work in a society with no state? Bylund thinks the moral answer is to abolish the state, as its power to wager violence is unethical. I agree that violence is indeed unethical, but I don’t think that violence wouldn’t occur under anarchical circumstances. I like Holcombe’s solution better, which is to shrink the government until it’s just the right amount of whatever it needs to do. I feel like that’s a better bet.