All Episodes
Previous Next
April 11, 2012 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
19:22
2121 Peter Schiff vs Stefan Molyneux of Freedomain Radio
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
And this is Peter Schiff.
We are back here at SchiffRadio.com with Stefan Molyneux.
Stefan is the host of Free Domain Radio up in Canada.
He is author of many books, including Practical Anarchy, Everyday Anarchy, not really sure what the difference is between those two, and How Not to Achieve Freedom.
And, you know, Stefan is probably the only guest on the show We're good to go.
Well, I think I would like to go out on a limb and describe my philosophy as correct.
I'd like not to give it a label, but just simply say that it's right.
Look, the non-initiation of force is a basic moral axiom.
There's ways that you can prove it philosophically, but the non-initiation of force and a respect for property rights are both universal moral standards that we all accept in our daily lives.
And yet we get this weird reversal.
Yeah, but we get this weird reversal.
We go up to the sort of stratosphere of the state, and suddenly we say, well, the initiation of force through taxation and debt and fiat currency and monopoly and tariffs and regulations, the initiation of force against peaceful citizens has now become the moral good.
We need the state to initiate violence against its citizens in order to protect them from anyone who might initiate violence against them.
Well, no. In talking about limited government, the type of government we have, since I as an individual have the right to use force I don't have the right to use force against somebody in an aggressive manner, but I have the right to use force to protect my property and to protect my life.
And since I have the right to use force in self-defense, I have the right to delegate that responsibility to a government to use force in self-defense on my behalf.
And so the government can act as a police force.
But I Wow, you are a tricky debater, Peter. That's good stuff. It's almost like you've run for office or something.
Look, if you want to delegate your right of self-defense to an external agency, fantastic.
No problem. But that external agency cannot, cannot morally create a legal monopoly on the provision of those services.
We want competing defense agencies.
We want competing police agencies.
Because if you give a social agency the right to monopolize its services, then it's going to initiate force against competitors, which violates the morality.
Just about monopoly. I'm not saying that the government should outlaw private security, outlaw bodyguards.
I'm not saying the government has to have a monopoly on the use of force.
I think you can designate other people to do that.
I mean, it doesn't mean that just because you give the government the power to defend you doesn't mean you give up the power to exercise self-defense on your own.
Well, I hate to tell you this then, Peter.
I'm afraid that we're on the same side of the fence then, because if you say that the government should just be a service provider of many service providers, then it no longer fits the historical definition of the government, which is a legal monopoly on the use of force or initiation of force in a geographical area.
If they're just another service provider, like one cell phone company among many, then it's not a government as we would describe it today.
Well, it is. I mean, because the government, they've never outlawed your right to hire a private security guard.
That's not illegal.
That happens all the time. And even on taxation, you can say taxation is a forcible extraction.
But if taxes are done in a constitutional manner, you can avoid the taxes.
And I don't believe that there should be a prison.
I think that the government shouldn't be able to put you in prison simply because you haven't paid your taxes.
I think it should be a civil obligation for the collective support of government when government is doing those limited functions it is supposed to do, which is protect private property and liberty from aggression, whether it's aggression from abroad or aggression from other Americans.
That's why legitimate governments are there and they have a right to Well, I agree with you about that completely, which means that you can be confident that you're right, at least in my book.
But if you're going to say that taxes should be voluntary and there should be no legal sanction against the non-payment of taxes, I think what you're describing is a charity, which I agree with.
I think that's a good way of doing it.
I'm not saying they should be voluntary, although you can certainly argue, as my father did, that the income tax is voluntary, even though the government will put you in jail for not volunteering.
But I'm talking about you can avoid taxes.
If the government puts a tax on an article of consumption, you don't have to buy that product, and therefore you don't have to pay that tax.
If there's a toll on a bridge or a road, you don't have to use that bridge or road, and then you don't have to pay that tax.
So There are ways around taxation if you don't want to pay it.
I'm not saying that the tax has to be mandatory, otherwise it's not, by definition, a tax.
But there are ways of avoiding a mandatory tax.
Well, okay, but if you give the example of a toll on a bridge or whatever, I mean, you agree that that's the initiation of force.
Somebody crossing a bridge, let's assume it's not privately owned or the private toll, but somebody who's crossing a bridge is not initiating the use of force, and therefore you can't initiate the use of force to extract money from them.
That's called being a highway robber.
No, no, but... No, but you can say if you want to go over this bridge, you've got to pay this toll to help pay the cost of the bridge.
If you don't want to pay the cost of this bridge, then don't use the bridge.
But if you want to benefit from this bridge, you've got to pay this toll.
I mean, there's no force there because nobody forces you to use that bridge.
But if you voluntarily decide that you're going to use that bridge, then you have to pay the toll.
Now, do I think you should be put in jail if you don't pay the toll?
No. But I think there should be a legal obligation.
The government can sue you.
They can put a lien on your property.
They can garnish your wages to force you to pay that toll.
But I don't think they should throw you in jail.
All right. I agree with you.
Look, I mean, if you're going to use a bridge, you should pay for it.
I'm not a free rider dude, so I'm with you there.
But let's move to the example of a tariff on sweaters coming in from China or whatever.
Well, the people selling you sweaters from China are not initiating force.
You're not initiating force when you go to buy those sweaters.
So how does the government get the right to initiate force against you by slapping a tariff off?
Well, I don't think this is initiating force against me.
They're not forcing me to do anything.
They're simply saying, if I choose to buy this product that was imported, I am going to pay this tax.
I don't have to buy that product, therefore I don't have to pay that tax.
But of course, if the tax revenue is used in a way that benefits all Americans equally, then it is legitimate a function of the government.
You see, what I don't think, what would be maybe forced, is if the government says, I'm going to take money away from you and just give it to somebody else because I want to make their life better, and I'm going to take money away from you and give it to some other person.
That's theft as far as I'm concerned.
But if the government is collecting tax revenues to provide for the government, that makes my life and everybody else's life better by enforcing contracts and the rule of law and protecting private property.
Everybody benefits from that.
And if we don't want to have free riders, everybody has to pay for the services that we all enjoy collectively from government.
Well, yeah, and my argument would be that the best way to control the growth of government, because what you're describing, I would argue, is kind of like a theoretical ideal.
I'm pretty well-schooled in history.
I got a master's degree in history from the University of Toronto, and I couldn't find an example of a government that stayed within that mandate.
You know, once you give people the power to use force, it grows and it grows and it grows.
And the less power you give them to begin with, the more it grows, because the less power the government has, like in America in the 18th century...
Containing government power is something that has eluded civilizations for centuries.
That is the key. But if you're going to say government is so bad, it abuses its power, it's been described as a necessary evil, then why not have no government at all?
Just have anarchy.
And my problem with that is I don't think anarchy can exist.
I think it's kind of like a vacuum that's going to be filled.
And if you have anarchy, a government is going to arise.
And so you might as well establish one in advance to prevent a worse one from coming into existence.
Well, okay, let's take that one step.
Look, you live in a state of anarchy.
You said, well, what's the difference between everyday anarchy and practical anarchy, these two free books I got?
Well, everyday anarchy simply argues that you, Peter, and me, Stefan, we live in a state of voluntarism.
I mean, I can't imagine that you go out and pull guns on people to get things done.
You negotiate, you trade, you add value, you work hard, and that's what you do.
You provide value to people in voluntary exchange.
This is true within your family, within your business relationship.
Unless you've got friends in government who can do that for you, I can have a business and I can lobby Congress to go slap penalties and fines and barriers to entry on my competitors.
So you can't do it yourself, but you can legally lobby Congress to do it for you.
Right. And that's, of course, one of the problems of concentrated benefits and diffused costs.
The profits of state lobbying are privatized and the costs are socialized, which is one of the reasons why it always grows.
But you live, you say, well, anarchy can't exist, but you live in a state of voluntarism, of non-hierarchical coercion with all of your relationships, I would argue, when you go on TV, when you work with Asia Pacific Capital and you promote it.
It's all voluntary. So it can exist.
And you look in the mirror. You're an example of a voluntary society.
Well, we're not talking about anarchy in the terms of individual interpersonal relationships.
We're talking about from a society level.
Is there going to be some kind of central level of authority, you know, a government?
And I think if there is no government...
Then society, you know, somebody is going to try to steal or rob, and then society is going to try to organize in some way to protect itself from that kind of threat.
And the minute you get that kind of organization, you now have a government.
I mean, the government just kind of comes in as people get together and decide to act in concert with one another.
This is Peter Schiff with Stefan Molyneux, radio talk show host and author, advocate of anarchy as opposed to, I guess, the type of government we have now.
In America, the government is so bad that I would definitely choose anarchy over what we got today, even though I don't believe anarchy would survive indefinitely.
I would take my chances on whatever government might spontaneously develop one day, because I figure it couldn't possibly be as bad as what we got now.
Right, right. I mean, if you've got a terminal cancer, you want it cut out, and it's like, well, maybe it'll grow back later, but that's less important than getting it out now.
And I think, look, just look at some data.
Go ahead. Yeah, well, I was going to say, though, is if you're trying to move the needle on this and go away from big government towards less government, I think if you try to go all the way to anarchy, which a lot of people would look at as chaos, I think it undermines our argument and makes it easier for our critics to say we're nuts.
I think if you just argue for a smaller, limited government, where governments have a much smaller role, I think it's an easier argument to defend than to say that there should be no government whatsoever.
whatsoever.
Well, I agree with you that it's easier to move the needle than it is to sort of flip the pancake.
But I mean, Peter, I would argue also that if you want to change a fundamental moral paradigm in society, and in this one, I would argue that it's the acceptance of the use of violence to solve complex social problems like drug addiction, like poverty, like education, like old age healthcare, and like poverty, like education, like old age healthcare, and so on.
If we're just going to wave guns around laws, throw people in prison, print money like crazy, and think that we're solving these problems, you and I, I'm sure we perfectly agree that doesn't work.
If you want to change a fundamental moral paradigm, you have to keep hitting that moral argument.
If you want to get rid of slavery, you don't argue for less slavery, you argue for no slavery, that the institution is immoral, and that's the way I approach the state.
But you don't have to get rid of government completely to get government out of education.
You don't have to get rid of government completely to end the war on drugs.
I mean, we just have to enforce limited government and understand that force can only be used in a defensive manner by government and government cannot redistribute wealth.
If it collects money through taxation...
The money has to be used for the legitimate purposes of government, not to redistribute wealth.
No matter how worthwhile the politicians might think a particular individual or group of individuals is, the government cannot take money from one citizen and give it to another.
Citizens have to choose on their own.
To support charitable causes or individuals who might be in need.
When the government does it, we recognize that theft is theft, and it doesn't matter who does it.
If somebody comes and forcibly takes your money and gives it to somebody else, that's not legal, and that's not a legitimate function of government.
Well, I agree with you that theft is theft and it doesn't matter who does it, but explain this to me, and I don't mean this sarcastically.
I'm genuinely open to the argument.
I can't find an example where governments have stayed small.
In fact, the smaller the governments begin, the larger they end up, because small governments generate huge wealth through a non-interference in free trade and through an enforcement of property rights.
They generate huge wealth, which they use as collateral to borrow, to print money, to go into debt, to bribe their friends and punish their enemies.
How is the citizen supposed to control this monolithic monopoly of violence called the state?
How is that enforcement supposed to happen?
There is no precedent for a government staying small.
They always grow. But there's also no precedent for anarchy because governments always arise to fill that void.
It's going to happen. But yes, you know, can we find a better way to keep government limited?
I mean, that's what the founding fathers strived to do.
And they succeeded, even though government began to grow almost immediately after the Constitution was ratified.
We did hold the reign on government power that lasted over 100 years.
And even though government gained power, it did it very slowly and slowly.
Yeah, I think.
I don't know that simply abolishing it completely is going to work either.
I think that if we establish a very limited government from the get-go, I think we can control its growth better than having no government and then having a very powerful one emerge that we have no control over.
Right. Now, but the argument from historical non-precedents, like you show me an example of a society without a government, well, I don't think that's hugely relevant.
I mean, it's important, and we need to look at historical facts.
But, you know, before the end of slavery, you could make the same argument.
You can say, well, you show me a society that's functioned without slavery.
All societies have slavery, and if you get rid of slavery, you'll simply create a slavery vacuum, and you'll get it back again.
But that hasn't happened, right?
So if you get rid of an immoral institution, it doesn't always come back.
Slavery wasn't a universal concept.
It wasn't like every society had slavery, even in America.
I mean, you could look at the difference between the North, where there was very little slavery, and the South, and the North was more prosperous.
The North was the economic juggernaut, and that was not built on slave labor.
These were free people who were employed.
No, look, I agree with you.
I'm not just talking about the American example, but if you go back far enough in history, almost all societies had slavery, and then you could make the argument and say, well, no, societies had no slavery before, therefore it can't work.
But once you make that moral argument, you argue for equal whites for women, which is a relatively unprecedented phenomenon, new to the West, thank heavens.
If you argue for the end of slavery, if you argue for rights for children...
society does pass through a threshold, and it seems almost impossible to make it go back in time.
Nobody argues for slavery anymore.
Nobody argues for the subjugation of women or, you know, throwing children down the mines or whatever.
Once you do cross that moral threshold, it does seem to stick pretty well in society.
Society doesn't usually slide back.
I think the same thing could equally be true of statism, if we make the moral argument compellingly enough.
And I don't know how to make a compelling moral argument without going for maximum consistency.
And the maximum consistency of the non-aggression principle is, thou shalt not initiate the use of force against others, which means you can't have a monopoly of violence.
I think the most consistent argument will win.
Even if you think that anarchy is some type of ideal, how do you get there?
I mean, how would you get, either in Canada or in the U.S., from a system of massive government to no government at all?
I mean, how would you even achieve such a monumental shift?
I mean, wouldn't you need some kind of violent revolution?
And then you would have to assume that the revolutionaries, once they achieve power themselves, they relinquish it all and step back.
Oh, Peter, but this is why I'm on your show.
You have the kind of media power that by the time we're finished this conversation, it should be a done deal.
I'm looking forward to opening my browser when we're done and saying all laws have been repealed and we're all now free.
I couldn't even get the nomination for a Senate seat.
In the Republican Party talking about limited government.
How are we going to abolish it completely?
But anyway, it's an interesting theoretical discussion.
It's going to have to remain a theory because I don't see it being a practical reality anytime soon.
But we can always strive to limit the size of government.
The smaller, the better.
The closer we can get to anarchy, probably the happier and the freer and the more prosperous we will all be.
But Stefan, thanks for coming on the show.
Everybody, we've got a full hour of The Peter Schiff Show coming up So don't go away.
▲
Export Selection