 This is Mises Weekends with your host, Jeff Dice. Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to Mises Weekends once again. This weekend, our show features a fantastic talk from Dr. Hans Hermann Hoppe at a Mises Institute event. About 10 years ago in 2006, the talk is entitled A World Without Theft. And in this talk, Hoppe touches on many of the same topics and themes he touches on in this fantastic book, The Economics and Ethics of Private Property. This is a seminal piece of work, something that every Austro-Libertarian needs to own and read. It absolutely helped my own thinking in areas of property and ethics and socialism and laissez-faire. And again, Dr. Hoppe touches on some of the themes in this book in the talk. If you have not yet signed up for our 35th anniversary Gala event that is happening in New York this October, please do so because it's going to be your only chance to see Hoppe live in the United States in 2017 and it will be his only appearance in this country. He will of course speak about Rothbard and his relationship with Rothbard. You can go to mises.org slash events to sign up for our 35th Gala. But in the meantime, enjoy this fantastic talk from Dr. Hoppe and have a great weekend. What they did have was a super abundance of goods. And if you have a super abundance of goods, then it is impossible that human beings have any conflicts with each other. Because what should they fight about if there exists a super abundance of things? Except of course in two regards, even in the Garden of Eden problems would exist, namely with regard to our own physical bodies. That is still scarce. We have only one of them, not millions. And of course the standing room on which our physical bodies rest. And in so far as scarcity exists even in the Garden of Eden in these two regards, conflicts are possible. And because conflicts are possible it would be even in the Garden of Eden necessary to have certain rules in order to avoid these conflicts. And the rules would have to be rules assigning rights of exclusive control, rights of ownership with regard to scarce resources, namely our bodies. And what the rules would be most likely adopt in the Garden of Eden would be every person is the owner of his own physical body and do whatever he wants with his own physical body and anybody else who wants to do something to me or I want to do something to somebody else he would need the permission of the owner. And the second rule that we would need is I can move around wherever I want but I cannot try to occupy a space that has already been occupied by someone else. And outside of the Garden of Eden where we have all around scarcity and all sorts of conflicts can arise we would also need rules that avoid conflicts in this situation and again without going into a very detailed explanation what sort of rules would be most likely adopt outside of the Garden of Eden that would be again every person owns his own physical body. We acquire the right of exclusive control over scarce resources that were previously unowned by being the first one to put scarce resources to some use. The third rule would be whoever uses his physical body and some originally appropriated previously unowned goods and further produces something with the help of his body and so forth would be the owner of whatever he has produced and the final rule would be the rule that exclusive rights of control over scarce resources can also be acquired by transferring voluntarily transferring ownership from the previous owner to a later owner. These elementary rules are very old rules through all of mankind basically these rules have been recognized they make intuitive sense we can even see them adhere to in the animal kingdom to a certain extent and we recognize that even small children for instance recognize the rule that he who uses something first becomes the owner of it because whenever kids get into a fight the first thing that they point out is I played with a toy first until I drop it you had better leave me alone. It should also be clear that the alternatives to these rules are rather absurd. The first alternative to self ownership would be slavery which is morally objectionable as well as economically inefficient if the second person coming along would become the owner of something then the second person would become the first because the first one wouldn't do it and that has absurd consequences if the first owner would have to share ownership with other people then again conflicts would not be avoided and in addition this would be economically unproductive because the incentive to be the first would be reduced and so forth the incentive to be the producer would be reduced if the producer would have to share ownership with property with those people who have not produced it and so forth. Now the next problem that then arises is even if we recognize the truth, the morality the economic efficiency of these sorts of principles what do we do about those people who do not respect these rules and of course there are always people who break these rules that is we need some institution that enforces and threatens with punishment breakers of these rules and the traditional answer to the question who is in charge of enforcing these rules and threatening potential violators of these rules with punishment in case they do not adhere to these rules the traditional answer is this is the task of of the state this is the sole and only task of the state now whether this answer is correct or not depends on what is the definition of the state and the states are traditionally defined as being a territorial monopolist of ultimate decision making or ultimate arbitration in cases of conflict in every case of conflict the ultimate judge who is right and who is wrong is the state and because the state is the monopolist of ultimate decision making the state has then by implication also the right to say what the price for its arbitration is and it can unilaterally impose what the price will be that is to say the state is also a territorial monopolist of taxation now once we have this definition of the state in front of us then it is not all that difficult to discover that there is something wrong with this answer to the question who should enforce the rules that I initially explained first of all we have a classical argument against any type of monopoly and as I said the state is a monopolist he is the only one that can do such and such the classical argument against monopolist is whenever we do not have free entry into a specific line of production in this case the production line of arbitration of police protection and so forth whenever we have restrictions with regard to free entry then producers are no longer forced to produce at the lowest possible cost as long as free entry producers must produce at the lowest possible cost because otherwise they will invite competition against them and monopolist because of that tend to be from the point of view of consumers more pricey and the quality of their product tends to be lower than it would be if competition existed in their area of production but when it comes to the state matters are actually worse than in the case let's say of milk monopoly which would produce milk above minimum cost price would be higher quality of the milk would be lower but in the case of the government the problem is that governments do not just produce maybe lousy goods but they can actually produce bads namely in the following sense because governments are the ultimate arbitrator in any type of conflict governments can also cause conflicts and then decide when it comes to who is right and who is wrong in the case of conflicts in their own favor and given that they are human beings just like everyone else and realizes possibility of cause they will cause conflicts and then decide the conflicts in their own favor and then on top of it they determine what the price of the victims of their misjustice have to pay for this mis-service of causing conflicts deciding them in their own favor and what the price for this must be so this is a fundamental problem with having a state in charge of this particular task this problem is even compounded if we have a democratic state in front of us the classical liberals who propose the state as a solution to the problem of social conflicts faced as their opponents typically monarchical governments kings and queens and they rejected the rule of kings and queens for the simple reason that they thought that they had privileges that they were treated differently by the law than the rest of the people were and they advocated instead that the state should be organized democratically by making the point that if everyone can enter as a state not just some king or queen then we have so to speak equality before the law however it turns out that this is of course a fundamental mistake to think that once you create open entry into every government position that you have equality before the law what actually happens is that if we substitute a democracy for a monarchy we replace personal privileges privileges restricted to the king and queen and so forth with functional privileges that are given to public officials but in fact the distinction between higher law and lower law exists under democracy just as much as it exists under monarchy in the form of two different types of law one that we call public law that covers so to speak the actions of public officials and private law that covers the activities of private citizens as a private citizen you may not steal as a public official however covered by public law you can steal as a private citizen you may not enslave somebody else on the other hand if you do the same as a public official to the army for instance then that is perfectly alright if you steal from somebody and give it to somebody else that is fence stolen goods this is considered to be under private law a crime if you do it as a public official it's called redistribution of income so under public law you can do certain things that under private law would be considered to be illegal so the distinction between two types of law still exists under democracy just as much as it exists under monarchy in addition there are some more problems arising once we have a democracy what you do is you exchange somebody the king or queen who considers the country his own private property with somebody a democratically elected politician who is the temporary caretaker of public property and now ask yourself will this make a difference in terms of the behavior of these two individuals at the end of course it will make a fundamental difference if you consider yourself the owner of a country you will as every private owner does by and large be concerned about preserving or enhancing the value of the country after all you want to pass on something valuable to the next generation you might even sell off some of this and are concerned about the price that you will get for whatever you sell off and so forth on the other hand if you are just a temporary caretaker and not the owner of it then you will take the short run perspective I have to loot the country as fast as possible because I only have four years to do it and no chance afterwards so you will be engaging in capital consumption rather than in the preservation and the enhancement of the capital value embodied in the country in addition it is frequently pointed out but isn't it good that we have open entry into the position of governmental rulers under democracy whereas entry into governmental positions under monarchy is of course restricted by accident of birth now what is wrong with this argument is the fact that yes open entry is good as long as we are talking about the production of goods but open entry is not good once it comes to the production of bads and I already explained that governments produce something bad we would not want to have open competition in who is the best killer we would not want to have competition who steals more effectively than other people do and when it comes to this we notice some very important difference a king might be bad that is true as all governmental positions can be filled by bad people but because he is a member of a family other family members will have an interest in containing people who are bad because they might just lose the property that of the family might threaten the position of the dynasty and bad kings are typically surrounded by members of his own family by entourage that controls them and if need be they get killed if they just go out of line and on the other hand a king can be conceivably a good and decent person because it is just an accident of birth that he comes into his position but now look at a democratic politician a democratic politician a democratic politician can never be good because he has to just compete openly for this position and in order to be elected to this he must be a very good and proficient liar, cheater somebody who is good in terms of qualities that we definitely do not want to have we might have good kings we will never have anybody of any decent moral values ever coming into the position of president or prime minister or whatever it is so now we come then to the question what is the right answer to the question of how do we enforce the rules that I initially mentioned self-ownership first use first own principle producer owns whatever he has produced and the rule of you can acquire properties through voluntary exchange and the correct answer is the enforcement of these rules has to occur by individuals and agencies that are bound by the same rules as everybody else that is we need a society where the only type of law that is in existence is private law no such institution that is covered by public law which of course as I explained is a misnomer that is not public law that is just law or criminal activities masquerading as law now this if private if the enforcement of these rules also has to occur by individuals and agencies bound by the same rules involves then two things on the one hand unlimited rights unlimited rights to self defense must be permitted and the immediate implication of course of this is that private ownership of weapons and guns must be permitted in any free society and despite everything that we always hear from governments in terms of contrary propaganda there is an intuitively sensible rule that says the more guns there are the less crime will exist and the wild west contrary to what some movies insinuate is a clear indication of the fact that this is indeed the case if people own guns private ownership of guns is unrestricted then there will be less crime but in complex societies of course we will not want to provide for our own security only by our own means we do not make our own suits or shoes we rely on the division of labor in this regard and of course in every complex society we would want to rely on division of labor on specialized agencies and agents also when it comes to the protection of private property rights and a very important role in a free society when it comes to the protection of these rules that I mentioned before would be insurance agencies and associated with insurance agencies directly or indirectly police, detective and arbitration agencies now what would be the result of this and a very brief comparison between the state provision of security and the provision of security by by privately funded freely funded insurance operations the first thing would be there would be a drastic fall in the price that we have to pay for security as I explained the tendency for under monopolistic provision of security is the price of security always goes up we have to pay more and more and we get lower and lower quality of protection precisely the opposite would occur if there were competition in this area the second fundamental change that would occur with regard to how much security should be produced every resource that is expended on providing us with security can no longer be used to provide us with other things money spent on security can no longer be spent on on vacations on beer and wine and food and whatever it is normally people decide voluntarily based on their own judgment how important security is to them as compared to other needs that they might have if you have government deciding for you how much security you need they will of course decide the more I can spend the better the better it is that this involves a restriction of satisfaction of other needs is of no concern of no concern if we have competition in this area there will be no overproduction of security the next point I want to emphasize is would there be a large amount of money resources expended on victimless crimes if we had competing insurance agencies wanting to protect us as we all know currently huge amounts of resources are expended on combating victimless crimes such as drug use prostitution gambling whatever it is but it should be perfectly clear that as much as many people dislike these type of activities since these activities are victimless crimes and we are not directly affected in our own property by the existence of these types of activities very few people would be willing to spend huge amounts of money to be protected from something that they do not see as a threat insurance agencies that would want to protect you against these sorts of things would obviously have to charge higher premiums than insurance companies that would abstain from protecting you against these things and since most people are not affected by such things insurance companies that would offer services such as this would likely go out of business very quickly so victimless crimes would tend to be treated for what they are namely as not a big deal at all and likely no prosecution of the perpetrators of victimless crimes would occur more important than this is the following insurance companies would indemnify you in case they fail in the task that they have accepted in return for you paying a premium governments on the other hand monopolists of course do not indemnify you if they fail if somebody steals from you robs you mistreats you and so forth the government will not come and say look we failed in what we promised to do and because we failed you we will offer you compensation of such and such an amount I have at least never heard of any government anywhere doing anything like this and I'm sure that you have never heard anything like this also why would insurance companies be good at this they would be good at prevention of crime because whatever they can prevent they would not have to pay up for it a government police officer on the other hand if he does fail to prevent a crime he gets his salary paid no matter what and in this situation it is of course better to hang around at 7-Eleven stores than just trying to prevent what he's supposed to prevent when it comes to the next thing that we want is we want things that have been stolen taken from us and so forth returned to us if at all possible what is the incentive of governmental police to find stolen stolen goods to find the loot anyone who has any experience with this know knows that the police will file a report and then you ask them what will you do about these goods they will file it away and that's the end of the story by accident sometimes things might be recovered but only by accident what incentive on the other hand exists for insurance companies to recover things the answer is because they otherwise have to indemnify you of course they have a financial incentive to recover whatever they can recover at reasonable cost I had an acquaintance he got stolen in Italy he went to the Italian police and asked him what will you do about it and he said nothing and then he reported this to an insurance company and a week later the insurance detective discovered where his car was of course the car was pretty much worthless also but nonetheless you can see as an entirely different incentive in both cases and the last thing that you want of course is like that the perpetrators of the crime are found and captured and that they have to compensate the victim now how likely is it that the government finds the perpetrators in capital crimes yes they do occasionally find them because public opinion pressure is quite quite high in crimes of lesser sort rarely if ever do they apprehend the criminal what will they do with the criminal will they force the criminal to now compensate the victims and again I have never heard of this quite to the contrary they will probably jail jail the person and the victim plus other taxpayers are forced to even pay for the incarceration of the person who victimized them in the first place and if I remember correctly incarceration in the United States per person per year cost about $70,000 or in the neighborhood of this there you can just engage in physical work you have TV you can complain if you don't get your right muesli in the morning and you might even study law to prepare yourself for the next apprehension you know how to better prevent yourself and all the rest of it and does the victim ever see a penny out of this and the answer is of course never ever would insurance companies operate like this imagine insurance company would tell you this is the condition under which I ensure you as soon as we apprehend the criminal we will ask you also just to pay for his incarceration I don't think that insurance companies would get very far with this type of treatment next point how about the point of disarmament of the public as we all know governments of course always disarm people in the United States we are not as progressive as in many other countries but we are definitely moving in the direction of disarming the citizenry increasingly also and it should be perfectly clear that a business that is in the business of taxing you is interested in disarming those people that they want to tax but now imagine that you would go to an insurance company and the first question that they ask you do you have any arms weapons dangerous objects at home and you say yes I do and they would say but the first condition that is attached to ensuring you is that you have to hand over all of these things to me I think everyone except the moron would immediately recognize that there must be something suspicious about an agency such as this that wants to disarm you first as a condition of protecting you afterwards quite to the contrary insurance agencies would actually encourage you to own guns that you know how to safely handle these these instruments and would likely offer you a reduction in your premium that you have to pay if you can show that you are proficient in the handling of instruments of self-defense just as insurance companies offer you a reduction in the premium if you have a safe at home as compared to just storing your family heirlooms on top of the kitchen table so they would likely offer you a reduction in premium if you can show them yes I own a gun yes I have a training course yes I have a certificate that shows that I know how to handle these things and so forth so a very different type of treatment you would get there moreover insurance companies are by their very nature defensive organizations and I should emphasize this because states of course are by their very nature aggressive institutions because given that all people have a certain inclination to be aggressive some people more than others but assuming so to speak a natural inclination of being aggressive if you can externalize the cost of being aggressive onto other people because I don't have to pay all the price myself for being aggressive pay my own bodyguards pay for my own weapons but I can make other people to pay for my own aggression which I can of course once I can tax people then I will tend to be more aggressive than I would naturally be insurance companies who cannot resort to taxation must be aggressive aggression is an expensive proposition and you will have to charge higher premiums if you engage in aggressive activities if you charge higher premiums then of course you will tend to be less attractive most people will prefer not to be insured with aggressive agencies but with defensive agencies because this is this is less costly and not only this insurance companies will also make it a requirement of all the clients that they insure that they themselves should engage in non-aggressive behavior no insurance company would cover the risk for instance that I provoke you then you retaliate and then I go to my insurance company and complain about you having attacked me instead they would just say look you provoked first and then retaliation ensued and risks of this nature will not be covered so as a condition of insurance they will impose on you code of conduct that forces you to accept a behavioral style that is civilized so to speak that will also include that insurance companies will most likely insist that you do not engage in vigilante justice not that self defense under certain circumstances would be excluded but in order to make retaliation and permanent conflict to rule that out as far as possible they would insist if something has happened please come to us there will be some sort of regular procedure set in motion in order to avoid any unnecessary conflicts furthermore if we would have competition in the protection protection of private property rights we will get on the one hand a greater variety of law and on the other hand as I will explain in a minute a greater unification of law what will happen on the one hand is there might be insurance agencies or protection agencies that offer you to apply let's say canon law there might be others that offer to apply mosaic law there might be others that propose to use Islamic law and so forth these rules would only apply of course to people who are insured with the same company everybody being insured with one company knows these are the laws that will apply to me and everybody else who is insured with the same company they agree to this type of law and the law procedures so there we have would have a greater variety of laws everybody could live so to speak under those rules that he wants to accept in his own case on the other hand of course conflicts can also arise between members that are insured by different law agencies that have internally different types of law codes and it should be perfectly clear that in conflicts between members of different types of law codes then in order to resolve their conflicts we would have to have independent arbitration and in these independent arbitration of interagency conflicts there then a tendency would emerge of hammering out the principles of procedures punishment conflict resolution and so forth that can be said to be truly universal that is the smallest common denominator uniting, combining all the different internal law codes that exist so we would get a greater variety of law and at the same time an enormous incentive to create a unified international type of private law developed by arbitration agencies competing against each other in cases of interagency arbitration which brings me to my last point that is to say in such a situation with competing insurance providers we would first of all get contracts offered about what will be done in what cases currently when it comes to the question do we get any contracts offered the answer is of course no there is no contract offered at all the government only promises to do something but they never say what exactly it is that they will do and in addition they even change the rules of the game they engage in legislation they change the laws something that might be legal today might be illegal tomorrow and vice versa an insurance company that would say we will not promise you exactly what we will do and also we will reserve the right to change the rules of procedure as we go along without your consent again would not be able to get a single client to agree to such a thing and an insurance company would have to offer a contract that has provisions first for the first contingency that everyone can foresee that is what will you do in case I have a conflict with somebody insured by you just as you insure me that is what would you do in cases if two clients of yours have a conflict with each other obviously the contract would have to have provisions what to do in this case and secondly these contracts provided by insurance companies would also have to have provisions what do you do in cases when I have a conflict with a member of a different insurance agency and in order to be believable they must have a provision that says in such a case of course we will go to third party independent arbitration all insurance companies would likely have a provision such as this yes if conflict exists between client A and client B both clients are insured with a different company an independent arbitrator will be appealed to and there exists competition in the field of independent arbitration too that is no arbitrator can be sure that in the next case of arbitration he again will be approached with a task of being an arbitrator but other people can be approached as well and given the fact that he can be removed from his position his incentive is indeed to come up with a solution that is regarded as a fair solution by the clients of all companies involved in the dispute because otherwise he will most likely not be chosen again which again emphasizes this pressure of creating a body of law that is truly truly universal we would then have enhanced legal predictability in contrast to ever changing and flexible legislation we would have legal certainty instead of flexible laws and I think our private security and the protection of our property rights would be taken care far better than that is the case under the current monopolistic situations I know that these thoughts are familiar to some to some they might sound somewhat strange the first time you hear them I make you aware of the fact that I have written extensively on this subject and of course I urge you now to all buy my book if you don't already have it and I'm perfectly willing to sign it thank you very much