×

Usamos cookies para ayudar a mejorar LingQ. Al visitar este sitio, aceptas nuestras politicas de cookie.

image

Freedomain Radio, Freedomain Radio Podcast 1

Freedomain Radio Podcast 1

If the Twentieth Century proved anything, it is that the single greatest danger to human life are the thugs of the centralized political State, who extinguished more than 170 million souls during the bloodiest rampage in recorded history. By any rational standard, modern States are the last and greatest remaining predators – and that the danger has not abated with the demise of communism and fascism. All Western democracies currently face vast and accelerating escalations of State power and centralized control over economic and civic life. In almost all Western democracies, the State chooses:

where children go to school, and how they will be educated the interest rate citizens can borrow at the value of currency how employees can be hired and fired how more than 50% of their citizens' time and money are disposed of who a citizen's doctor is what kinds of medical procedures can be received – and when when to go to war who can live in the country …just to touch on a few. Most of these amazing intrusions into personal liberty have occurred over the past 90 years, since the introduction of the income tax. They have been accepted by a population helpless to challenge the endless expansions of State power – and yet, even though most citizens have received endless pro-State propaganda in government schools, a growing rebellion is brewing. State predations are now so intrusive that they have effectively arrested the forward momentum of society, which now hangs before a fall. Children are poorly educated, young people are unable to get ahead, couples with children fall ever-further into debt, and the elderly are finding State medical systems collapsing under the weight of their growing needs – and State debts continue to grow.

Thus, these early years of the twenty-first century are the end of an era, a collapse of mythology comparable to the fall of fascism, communism, monarchy, or political Christianity. The idea that the State is capable of solving social problems is now viewed with great skepticism – which foretells a coming change. As soon as skepticism is applied to the State, the State falls, since it fails at everything except increasing its power, and so can only survive on propaganda, which relies on unquestioning faith.

Yet while most people are comfortable with the idea of reducing the size and power of the State, they become distinctly uncomfortable with the idea of getting rid of it completely. To use a medical metaphor, if the State is a cancer, they prefer medicating it into an unstable remission, rather than eliminating it completely.

This can never work. A central lesson of history is that States are parasites which always expand until they destroy their host population. Because the State uses violence to achieve its ends – and there is no rational end to the expansion of violence – States grow until they destroy civilized interaction through the corruption of money, contracts, honesty, family, and self-reliance. As such, the cancerous metaphor is not misplaced. People who believe that the State can somehow be contained have not accepted the fact that no State in history has ever been contained.

Even the rare reductions are merely temporary. The United States was founded on the principle of limited government; it took little more than a century for the State to break the bonds of the Constitution, implement the income tax, take control of the money supply and the educational system, and begin its catastrophic expansion. There is no example in history of a State being permanently reduced in size. All that happens during a tax or civil revolt is that the State retrenches, figures out what it did wrong, and plans its expansion again. Or provokes a war, which silences all but fringe dissenters.

Given these well-known historical facts, why do still people believe that such a deadly predator can be tamed? Surely it can only be because they consider a slow strangulation in the grip of an expanding State somehow better than the quick death of a society bereft of a State.

Why, then, do most people believe that a society will crumble without a coercive and monopolistic social agency at its core? There are a number of answers to this question, but generally they tend to revolve around three central points:

dispute resolution; collective services; and, pollution.

Dispute Resolution

The fact that people still cling to the belief that the State is required to resolve disputes is amazing, since modern courts are out of the reach of all but the most wealthy and patient, and are primarily used to shield the powerful from competition or criticism. In this writer's experience, to take a dispute with a stockbroker to the court system would have cost more than a quarter of a million dollars and taken from five to ten years – however, a private mediator settled the matter within a few months for very little money. In the realm of marital dissolution, private mediators are commonplace. Unions use grievance processes, and a plethora of other specialists in dispute resolution have sprung up to fill in the void left by a ridiculously lengthy, expensive and incompetent State court system.

Thus the belief that the State is required for dispute resolution is obviously false, since the court apparatus is unavailable to the vast majority of the population, who resolve their disputes either privately or through agreed-upon mediators.

How can the free market deal with the problem of dispute resolution? Outside the realm of organized crime, very few people are comfortable with armed confrontations, and so generally prefer to delegate that task to others. Let's assume that people's need for such representatives produces Dispute Resolution Organizations (DROs), which promise to resolve disputes on their behalf.

Thus, if Stan is hired by Bob, they both sign a document specifying which DRO they both accept as an authority in dispute resolution. If they disagree about something, and are unable to resolve it between themselves, they submit their case to the DRO, and agree to abide by that DRO's decision.

So far so good. However, what if Stan decides he doesn't want to abide by the DRO's decision? Well, several options arise.

First of all, when Stan signed the DRO agreement, it is likely that he would have agreed to property confiscation if he did not abide by the DRO's decision. Thus the DRO would be entirely within its right to go and remove property from Stan – by force if necessary – to pay for his side of the dispute.

It is at this point that people generally throw up their arms and dismiss the idea of DROs by claiming that society would descend into civil war within a few days.

Everyone, of course, realizes that civil war is a rather bad situation, and so it seems likely that the DROs would consider alternatives to armed combat.

What other options could be pursued? To take a current example, small debts which are not worth pursuing legally are still regularly paid off – and why? Because a group of companies produce credit ratings on individuals, and the inconvenience of a lowered credit rating is usually greater than the inconvenience of paying off a small debt. Thus, in the absence of any recourse to force, small debts are usually settled. This is one example of how desired behaviour can be elicited without pulling out a gun or kicking in a door.

Picture for a moment the infinite complexity of modern economic life. Most individuals bind themselves to dozens of contracts, from car loans and mortgages to cell phone contracts, gym membership, condo agreements and so on. To flourish in a free market, a man must honour his contracts. A reputation for honest dealing is the foundation of a successful economic life. Now, few DROs will want to represent a man who regularly breaks contracts, or associates with difficult and litigious people. (For instance, this writer once refrained from entering into a business partnership because the potential partner revealed that he had sued two previous partners.)

Thus if Stan refuses to abide by his DRO's ruling, the DRO has to barely lift a finger to punish him. All the DRO has to do is report Stan's non-compliance to the local contract-rating company, who will enter his name into a database of contract violators. Stan's DRO will also probably drop him, or raise his rates considerably.

And so, from an economic standpoint, Stan has just shot himself in the foot. He is now universally known as a man who rejects legitimate DRO rulings that he agreed to accept in advance. What happens when he goes for his next job? What if he decides to eschew employment and start his own company, what happens when he applies for his first lease? Or tries to hire his first employee? Or rent a car, or buy an airline ticket? Or enter into a contract with his first customer? No, in almost every situation, Stan would be far better off to abide by the decision of the DRO. Whatever he has to pay, it is far cheaper than facing the barriers of existing without access to a DRO, or with a record of rejecting a legitimate ruling.

But let's push the theory to the max, to see if it holds. To examine a worst-case scenario, imagine that Stan's employer is an evil man who bribes the DRO to rule in his favour, and the DRO imposes an unconscionable fine – say, one million dollars – on Stan.

First of all, this is such an obvious problem that DROs, to get any business at all, would have to deal with this danger up front. An appeal process to a different DRO would have to be part of the contract. DROs would also rigorously vet their own employees for any unexplained income. And, of course, any DRO mediator who corrupted the process would receive perhaps the lowest contract rating on the planet, lose his job, and be liable for damages. He would lose everything, and be an economic pariah.

However, to go to the extreme, perhaps the worst has occurred and Stan has been unjustly fined a million dollars due to DRO corruption. Well, he has three alternatives. He can choose not to pay the fine, drop off the DRO map, and work for cash without contracts. Become part of the grey market, in other words. A perfectly respectable choice, if he has been treated unjustly.

However, if Stan is an intelligent and even vaguely entrepreneurial man, he will see the corruption of the DRO as a prime opportunity to start his own, competing DRO, and will write into its base contract clauses to ensure that what happened to him will never happen to anyone who signs on with his new DRO.

Stan's third option is to appeal to the contract rating agency. Contract rating agencies need to be as accurate as possible, since they are attempting to assess real risk. If they believe that the DRO ruled unjustly against Stan, they will lower that DRO's contract rating and restore Stan's.

Thus it is inconceivable that violence would be required to enforce all but the most extreme contract violations, since all parties gain the most long-term value by acting honestly. This resolves the problem of instant descent into civil war.

Two other problems exist, however, which must be resolved before the DRO theory starts to becomes truly tenable.

The first is the challenge of reciprocity, or geography. If Bob has a contract with Jeff, and Jeff moves to a new location not covered by their mutual DRO, what happens? Again, this is such an obvious problem that it would be solved by any competent DRO. People who travel prefer cell phones with the greatest geographical coverage, and so cell phone companies have developed reciprocal agreements for charging competitors. Just as a person's credit rating is available anywhere in the world, so their contract rating will also be available, and so there will be no place to hide from a broken contract save by going ‘off the grid' completely, which would be economically crippling. The second problem is the fear that a particular DRO will grow in size and stature to the point where it takes on all the features and properties of a new State.

This is a superstitious fear, because there is no historical example of a private company replacing a political State. While it is true that companies regularly use State coercion to enforce trading restrictions, high tariffs, cartels and other mercantilist tricks, surely this reinforces the danger of the State , not the inevitability of companies growing into States. All States destroy societies. No company has ever destroyed a society without the aid of the State. Thus the fear that a private company can somehow grow into a State is utterly unfounded in fact, experience, logic and history.

If society becomes frightened of a particular DRO, then it can simply stop doing business with it, which will cause it to collapse. If that DRO, as it collapses, somehow transforms itself from a group of secretaries, statisticians, accountants and contract lawyers into a ruthless domestic militia and successfully takes over society – and how unlikely is that! – then such a State will then be imposed on the general population.

However, there are two problems even with this most unlikely scare scenario. First of all, if any DRO can take over society and impose itself as a new State, why only a DRO? Why not the Rotary Club? Why not a union? Why not the Mafia? The YMCA? The SPCA? Is society to then ban all groups with more than a hundred members? Clearly that is not a feasible solution, and so society must live with the risk of a brutal coup by ninja accountants as much as from any other group.

And, in the final analysis, if society is so terrified of a single group seizing a monopoly of political power, what does that say about the existing States? They have a monopoly of political power. If a DRO should never achieve this kind of control, why should existing States continue to wield theirs?

Collective Services

Roads, sewage, water and electricity and so on are also cited as reasons why a State must exist. How roads could be privately paid for remains such an impenetrable mystery that most people are willing to support the State – and so ensure the eventual and utter destruction of civil society – rather than cede that this problem just might be solvable. There are many ways to pay for roads, such as electronic or cash tolls, GPS charges, roads maintained by the businesses they lead to, communal organizations and so on. And if none of those work? Why, then personal flying machines will hit the market!

The problem that a water company might build plumbing to a community, and then charge exorbitant fees for supplying it, is equally easy to counter. A truck could deliver bottled water, or the community could invest in a water tower, a competing company could build alternate pipes and so on. None of these problems touch the central rationale for a State. They are ex post facto justifications made to avoid the need for critical examination or, heaven forbid, political action. The argument that voluntary free-market monopolies are bad – and that the only way to combat them is to impose compulsory monopolies – is obviously foolish. If voluntary monopolies are bad, then how can coercive monopolies be better?

Due to countless examples of free market solutions to the problem of ‘carrier costs', this argument no longer holds the kind of water it used to, so it must be elsewhere that people must turn to justify the continued existence of the State. Pollution

This is perhaps the greatest problem faced by free-market theorists. It's worth spending a little time on outlining the worst possible scenario, and see how a voluntary system could solve it. However, it's important to first dispel the notion that the State currently deals effectively with pollution. Firstly, the most polluted resources on the planet are State-owned, because State personnel do not personally profit from retaining the value of State property (witness the destruction of the Canadian cod industry through blatant vote-buying). Secondly, the distribution of mineral, lumber and drilling rights is directly skewed towards bribery and corruption, because States rarely sell the land, but rather just the resource rights. A lumber company cannot buy woodlands from the State, just the right to harvest trees. Thus the State gets a renewable source of income, and can further coerce lumber companies by enforcing re-seeding. This, of course, tends to promote bribery, corruption and the creation of ‘fly-by-night' lumber companies which strip the land bare, but vanish when it comes time to re-seed. Auctioning State land to a private market easily solves this problem, because a company which re-seeded would reap the greatest long-term profits from woodland, and so would be able to bid the most for the land.

Also, it should be remembered that, in the realm of air pollution, governments created the problem in the first place. In 19th century England, when industrial smokestacks began belching fumes into the orchards of apple farmers, the farmers took the factory-owners to court, citing the common-law tradition of restitution for property damage. Naturally, the capitalists had gotten to the State courts first, and had more money to bribe with, employed more voting workers, and contributed more tax revenue than the farmers – and so the farmers' cases were thrown out of court. The judge argued that the ‘common good' of the factories took precedence over the ‘private need' of the farmers. The free market did not fail to solve the problem of air pollution – it was forcibly prevented from doing so through State corruption.

The State, then, is no friend of the environment – but how would the free market handle it? One egregious example often cited is a group of houses downwind from a new factory which works day and night to coat them in soot.

When a man buys a new house, isn't it important to him to ensure that it won't be subjected with someone else's pollution? People's desire for a clean and safe environment is so strong that it's a clear invitation for enterprising capitalists to sweat bullets figuring out how to provide it.

Fortunately, since we have already talked about DROs and their role in a free market, the problem of air pollution can be solved quite easily.

If the aforementioned group of homeowners is afraid of pollution, the first thing they will do is buy pollution insurance , which is a natural response to a situation where costs cannot be predicted but consequences are dire. Let's say that a homeowner named Achmed buys pollution insurance which pays him two million dollars if the air around or in his house becomes polluted in some predefined manner. In other words, as long as Achmed's air remains clean, the insurance company makes money.

One day, a plot of land upwind of Achmed's house comes up for sale. Naturally, his insurance company would be very interested in this, and would monitor the sale. If the purchaser is some private school, all is well (assuming Achmed has not bought an excess of noise pollution insurance!). If, however, the insurance company discovers that Sally's House of Polluting Paint Production is interested in purchasing the plot of land, then it will likely spring into action, taking one of the following actions:

buying the land itself, then selling it to a non-polluting buyer; getting assurances from Sally that her company will not pollute; paying Sally to enter into a non-polluting contract.

If, however, someone at the insurance company is asleep at the wheel, and Sally buys the land and puts up her polluting factory, what happens then?

Well, then the insurance company is on the hook for $2M to Achmed (assuming for the moment that only Achmed bought pollution insurance). Thus, it can afford to pay Sally up to $2M to reduce her pollution and still be cash-positive . This payment could take many forms, from the installation of pollution-control equipment to a buy-out to a subsidy for under-production and so on.

If the $2M is not enough to solve the problem, then the insurance company pays Achmed the $2M and he goes and buys a new house in an unpolluted neighbourhood. However, this scenario is highly unlikely, since the insurance company would be unlikely to insure only one single person in a neighbourhood against air pollution – and a single person probably could not afford it!

So, that is the view from Achmed's air-pollution insurance company. What about the view from Sally's House of Polluting Paint Production? She, also, must be covered by a DRO in order to buy land, borrow money and hire employees. How does that DRO view her tendency to pollute?

Pollution brings damage claims against Sally, because pollution is by definition damage to persons or property. Thus Sally's DRO would take a dim view of her polluting activities, since it would be on the hook for any property damage her factory causes. In fact, it would be most unlikely that Sally's DRO would insure her against damages unless she were able to prove that she would be able to operate her factory without harming the property of those around her. And without access to a DRO, of course, she would be hard-pressed to start her factory, borrow money, hire employees etc.

It's important to remember that DROs, much like cell phone companies and Internet providers, only prosper if they cooperate. Sally's DRO only makes money if Sally does not pollute. Achmed's insurer also only makes money if Sally does not pollute. Thus the two companies share a common goal, which fosters cooperation.

Finally, even if Achmed is not insured against air pollution, he can use his and/or Sally's DRO to gain restitution for the damage her pollution is causing to his property. Both Sally and Achmed's DROs would have reciprocity agreements, since Achmed wants to be protected against Sally's actions, and Sally wants to be protected against Achmed's actions. Because of this desire for mutual protection, they would choose DROs which had the widest reciprocity agreements.

Thus, in a truly free market, there are many levels and agencies actively working against pollution. Achmed's insurer will be actively scanning the surroundings looking for polluters it can forestall. Sally will be unable to build her paint factory without proving that she will not pollute. Mutual or independent DROs will resolve any disputes regarding property damage caused by Sally's pollution.

There are other benefits as well, which are almost unsolvable in the current system. Imagine that Sally's smokestacks are so high that her air pollution sails over Achmed's house and lands on Reginald's house, a hundred miles away. Reginald then complains to his DRO that his property is being damaged. His DRO will examine the air contents and wind currents, then trace the pollution back to its source and resolve the dispute with Sally's DRO. If the air pollution is particularly complicated, then Reginald's DRO will place non-volatile compounds into Sally's smokestacks and follow them to where they land. This can be used in a situation where a number of different factories may be contributing pollutants.

The problem of inter-country air pollution may seem to be a sticky one, but it's easily solvable. Obviously, a Canadian living along the Canada/US border, for instance, will not choose a DRO which refuses to cover air pollution emanating from the US. Thus the DRO will have to have reciprocity agreements with the DROs across the border. If the US DROs refuse to have reciprocity agreements with the Canadian DROs – inconceivable, since the pollution can go both ways – then the Canadian DRO will simply start a US branch and compete.

The difference is that international DROs actually profit from cooperation, in a way that governments do not. For instance, a State government on the Canada/US border has little motivation to impose pollution costs on local factories, as long as the pollution generally goes north. For DROs, quite the opposite would be true.

Finally, one other advantage to DRO's can be termed the ‘Scrabble-Challenge Benefit'. In Scrabble, an accuser loses his turn if he challenges another player's word and the challenge fails. Given the costs of resolving disputes, DROs would be very careful to ensure that those bringing false accusations would be punished through their own premiums, their contract ratings and by also assuming the entire cost of the dispute. This would greatly reduce the number of frivolous lawsuits, to the great benefit of all.

The idea that society can only survive in the absence of a centralized State is the greatest lesson that the grisly years of the Twentieth Century can teach us. Our choice is not between the free market and the State, but between life and death. Whatever the risks involved in dissolving the central State, they are far less than the certain destruction which will result from its inevitable escalation. Like a cancer patient facing certain demise, we must open our minds reach for whatever medicine shows the most promise, and not wait until it is too late.

Learn languages from TV shows, movies, news, articles and more! Try LingQ for FREE

Freedomain Radio Podcast 1 自由领域|| Freedomain Radio Podcast 1 Freedomain Radio Podcast 1 Freedomain Radio Podcast 1 Podcast 1 de la radio Freedomain Radio Freedomain Podcast 1 フリーメインラジオ・ポッドキャスト1 프리덤인 라디오 팟캐스트 1 Podcast 1 radia Freedomain Podcast 1 da Rádio Freedomain Freedomain Radio Podcast 1 Freedomain Radyo Podcast 1 Подкаст Радіо Свобода 1 自由域广播播客 1

If the Twentieth Century proved anything, it is that the single greatest danger to human life are the thugs of the centralized political State, who extinguished more than 170 million souls during the bloodiest rampage in recorded history. |||||bất cứ điều gì|||||||||||||bọn côn đồ|||nhà nước tập trung||||||||||||cuộc tàn sát||| ||||||||||||||||||暴徒|||||||||||||||||| ||||||||||||||||||çeteler|||merkeziyetçi||||söndürdü|||||||en kanlı|||| ||vigésimo|siglo|demostró|cualquier cosa|||||||||||||matones||||||||||||||más sangrienta|||| |||||||||||||||||||||集中的||||灭绝|||||||最血腥|暴行||| Si el siglo XX demostró algo, es que el mayor peligro para la vida humana son los matones del Estado político centralizado, que extinguieron más de 170 millones de almas durante la racha más sangrienta en la historia registrada. Se o século XX provou alguma coisa, é que o maior perigo para a vida humana são os bandidos do Estado político centralizado, que extinguiram mais de 170 milhões de almas durante a mais sangrenta carnificina de que há registo na história. By any rational standard, modern States are the last and greatest remaining predators – and that the danger has not abated with the demise of communism and fascism. |||||||||||||||||||giảm bớt|||sự sụp||chủ nghĩa cộng sản||chủ nghĩa phát x ||||||||||||||||||||||end|||| |||||devletler||||||||||||||azalmadı||||||| |||||||||||||||||||disminuido|||demise||||fascismo |||||||||||||||||||减弱|||灭亡|||| Por cualquier estándar racional, los Estados modernos son los últimos y mayores depredadores restantes, y el peligro no ha disminuido con la desaparición del comunismo y el fascismo. All Western democracies currently face vast and accelerating escalations of State power and centralized control over economic and civic life. |||||||tăng tốc|||||||||||| ||||||||||||||||||sivil| |||||vastas|||escalaciones||||||||||| |||||||加速|升级||||||||||公民| Todas las democracias occidentales enfrentan actualmente vastas y aceleradas escaladas del poder estatal y el control centralizado sobre la vida económica y cívica. Все западные демократии в настоящее время сталкиваются с масштабной и ускоряющейся эскалацией государственной власти и централизованного контроля над экономической и гражданской жизнью. In almost all Western democracies, the State chooses: ||||民主国家|||

where children go to school, and how they will be educated the interest rate citizens can borrow at the value of currency how employees can be hired and fired how more than 50% of their citizens' time and money are disposed of who a citizen’s doctor is what kinds of medical procedures can be received – and when when to go to war who can live in the country |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||harcanır||||||||||||||||||||||||||| ||||||||||||||||toman|||||||||||||||||||||||dispuestos||||ciudadanos||||||||||||||||||||||| dónde van los niños a la escuela, y cómo serán educados la tasa de interés a la que los ciudadanos pueden pedir prestado el valor de la moneda cómo se pueden contratar y despedir empleados cómo más del 50% del tiempo y dinero de sus ciudadanos son dispuestos quién es el médico de un ciudadano qué tipos de procedimientos médicos se pueden recibir – y cuándo cuándo ir a la guerra quién puede vivir en el país …just to touch on a few. ... solo para tocar unos pocos. Most of these amazing intrusions into personal liberty have occurred over the past 90 years, since the introduction of the income tax. ||||侵入|||||||||||||||| ||||ihlaller|||||||||||||||| La mayoría de estas asombrosas invasiones a la libertad personal han ocurrido en los últimos 90 años, desde la introducción del impuesto sobre la renta. They have been accepted by a population helpless to challenge the endless expansions of State power – and yet, even though most citizens have received endless pro-State propaganda in government schools, a growing rebellion is brewing. |||||||||||||||||||||||||||tuyên truyền||||||||đang hình thành |||accepted||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||brewing |||||||çaresiz|||||genişlemeleri|||||||||||||||||||||isyan|| |||||||desamparada|||||expansiones||||||||||||infinita|||||||||||creando Han sido aceptados por una población impotente para desafiar las infinitas expansiones del poder del Estado - y, sin embargo, a pesar de que la mayoría de los ciudadanos han recibido una interminable propaganda a favor del Estado en las escuelas públicas, se está gestando una creciente rebelión. Foram aceites por uma população impotente para contestar as infindáveis expansões do poder do Estado - e, no entanto, apesar de a maioria dos cidadãos ter recebido uma interminável propaganda pró-Estado nas escolas do governo, está a formar-se uma rebelião crescente. State predations are now so intrusive that they have effectively arrested the forward momentum of society, which now hangs before a fall. |sự xâm l|||||||||||||||||||| |侵害||||||||||||forward movement|||||||| |saldırılar||||müdahaleci|||||durdurdu||||||||||| |depredaciones|||||||||||||||||pende||| Las depredaciones del Estado son ahora tan intrusivas que han efectivamente detenido el impulso hacia adelante de la sociedad, que ahora cuelga ante una caída. Государственные хищники теперь настолько навязчивы, что фактически остановили поступательное движение общества, которое теперь зависло перед падением. Children are poorly educated, young people are unable to get ahead, couples with children fall ever-further into debt, and the elderly are finding State medical systems collapsing under the weight of their growing needs – and State debts continue to grow. ||pobremente||||||||||||||||deuda|||ancianos||||||||||||||||||| Los niños están mal educados, los jóvenes son incapaces de salir adelante, las parejas con hijos caen cada vez más en la deuda, y los ancianos están viendo colapsar los sistemas médicos del Estado bajo el peso de sus crecientes necesidades - y las deudas del Estado continúan creciendo.

Thus, these early years of the twenty-first century are the end of an era, a collapse of mythology comparable to the fall of fascism, communism, monarchy, or political Christianity. ||||||||||||||||||||||||||chế độ quân chủ||| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||monarchy|||political Christianity ||||||||||||||çağ||||||||||||||| así||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| The idea that the State is capable of solving social problems is now viewed with great skepticism – which foretells a coming change. ||||||||||||||||||báo trước||| ||||||||||||||||||belirtiyor||| ||||||||||||||||escepticismo||presagia||| As soon as skepticism is applied to the State, the State falls, since it fails at everything except increasing its power, and so can only survive on propaganda, which relies on unquestioning faith. |||||||||||||||||||||||||||propaganda||||sorgusuz| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||se basa|||fe

Yet while most people are comfortable with the idea of reducing the size and power of the State, they become distinctly uncomfortable with the idea of getting rid of it completely. ||||||||||||||||||||notablemente|||||||deshacerse||| Sin embargo, mientras la mayoría de las personas se sienten cómodas con la idea de reducir el tamaño y el poder del Estado, se sienten visiblemente incómodas con la idea de deshacerse de él por completo. To use a medical metaphor, if the State is a cancer, they prefer medicating it into an unstable remission, rather than eliminating it completely. |||||||||||||||||không ổn định|thuyên giảm||||| ||||||||||癌症||||||||unstable remission||||| |||||||||||||ilaç vermeyi|||||remisyon||||| Para usar una metáfora médica, si el Estado es un cáncer, prefieren medicarlo hasta lograr una remisión inestable, en lugar de eliminarlo por completo.

This can never work. |||succeed Esto nunca puede funcionar. A central lesson of history is that States are parasites which always expand until they destroy their host population. |||||||||寄生虫||||||||| |||||||||parazitler||||||||| |||||||||parásitos||||||||huésped| Una lección central de la historia es que los Estados son parásitos que siempre se expanden hasta destruir a la población anfitriona. Because the State uses violence to achieve its ends – and there is no rational end to the expansion of violence – States grow until they destroy civilized interaction through the corruption of money, contracts, honesty, family, and self-reliance. |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||honesty||||自力更生 |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||para|||sözleşmeler|dürüstlük|||| Porque el Estado utiliza la violencia para lograr sus fines - y no hay un fin racional para la expansión de la violencia - los Estados crecen hasta destruir la interacción civilizada a través de la corrupción del dinero, los contratos, la honestidad, la familia y la autosuficiencia. As such, the cancerous metaphor is not misplaced. |||có tính ung thư|hình tượng ung thư|||không sai |||癌症的|||| |||kanserli||||yersiz |||||||desubicada Como tal, la metáfora cancerosa no está fuera de lugar. People who believe that the State can somehow be contained have not accepted the fact that no State in history has ever been contained. las personas||||||||||||||||||||||| Las personas que creen que el Estado puede ser contenido de alguna manera no han aceptado el hecho de que ningún Estado en la historia ha sido contenido.

Even the rare reductions are merely temporary. |||||sadece| |||reducciones||| Incluso las raras reducciones son meramente temporales. The United States was founded on the principle of limited government; it took little more than a century for the State to break the bonds of the Constitution, implement the income tax, take control of the money supply and the educational system, and begin its catastrophic expansion. ||||||||||||||||||||||||bağları|||Anayasa||||||||||||||||||| ||||||||||||||||||||||||lazos|||||||||||||||||||||| Estados Unidos fue fundado sobre el principio de un gobierno limitado; tomó poco más de un siglo para que el Estado rompiera los lazos de la Constitución, implementara el impuesto sobre la renta, tomara control de la oferta monetaria y del sistema educativo, y comenzara su catastrófica expansión. There is no example in history of a State being permanently reduced in size. ||||||||||kalıcı olarak||| All that happens during a tax or civil revolt is that the State retrenches, figures out what it did wrong, and plans its expansion again. |||||||||||||cắt giảm|||điều|||||||| |||||||||||||reduces its scope||||||||||| |||||||||||||kısar||||||||||| |||||impuesto||||||||se retrae||||||||||| Todo lo que sucede durante una revuelta fiscal o civil es que el Estado se repliega, se da cuenta de lo que hizo mal y planea su expansión nuevamente. Or provokes a war, which silences all but fringe dissenters. ||||||||một số ít|những người phản đối ||||||||边缘| ||||||||marjinal|muhalifler |||||||||disidentes O provoca una guerra, que silencia a todos menos a los disidentes marginales.

Given these well-known historical facts, why do still people believe that such a deadly predator can be tamed? ||||||||||||||||||thuần hóa |||||||||||||||捕食者|||驯化 ||||||||||||||||||evcilleştirilebilir |||||hechos|||||||||mortal|predador|||domesticado Dados estos hechos históricos bien conocidos, ¿por qué todavía hay personas que creen que un depredador tan mortal puede ser domesticado? Surely it can only be because they consider a slow strangulation in the grip of an expanding State somehow better than the quick death of a society bereft of a State. ||||||||||nghẹt th|||||||||||||||||thiếu thốn||| |||||因为|||||strangulation|||||||||||||||||devoid of||| ||||||||||boğma|||kolları||||||||||||||yoksun||| ||||||||||estrangulación||||||||de alguna manera|||||||||despojada||| Seguramente solo puede ser porque consideran que una estrangulación lenta en la represión de un Estado en expansión es de alguna manera mejor que la muerte rápida de una sociedad desprovista de un Estado.

Why, then, do most people believe that a society will crumble without a coercive and monopolistic social agency at its core? ||||||||||sụp đổ|||ép buộc||độc quyền||||| ||||||||||collapse|||||||||| ||||||||||çöker|||||||||| ||||||||||se desmoronará|||coercitiva||||||| Entonces, ¿por qué la mayoría de las personas creen que una sociedad se desmoronará sin una agencia social coercitiva y monopolista en su núcleo? There are a number of answers to this question, but generally they tend to revolve around three central points: Hay una serie de respuestas a esta pregunta, pero generalmente tienden a girar en torno a tres puntos centrales:

dispute resolution; collective services; and, pollution. uyuşmazlık|||||kirlilik

Dispute Resolution Resolución de conflictos

The fact that people still cling to the belief that the State is required to resolve disputes is amazing, since modern courts are out of the reach of all but the most wealthy and patient, and are primarily used to shield the powerful from competition or criticism. |||||bám chặt vào||cái|||||||||tranh chấp||||||||||||||||||||||||bảo vệ|||||| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||protect|||||| |||||tutun|||||||||||anlaşmazlıkları|||||mahkemeler||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||se aferran|||creencia||||||||||||||||||alcance||||||ricos||||||||escudo|||||| In this writer’s experience, to take a dispute with a stockbroker to the court system would have cost more than a quarter of a million dollars and taken from five to ten years – however, a private mediator settled the matter within a few months for very little money. ||||||||||nhà môi giới chứng||||||||||||||||||||||||||người hòa giải||||||||||| ||||||||||股票经纪人||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||||||tartışma|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||arabulucu||||||||||| En||escritor||||||||corredor de bolsa|||||||||||||||||||||||||||resuelto|||||||||| En la experiencia de este escritor, llevar una disputa con un corredor de bolsa al sistema judicial habría costado más de un cuarto de millón de dólares y habría llevado de cinco a diez años; sin embargo, un mediador privado resolvió el asunto en pocos meses por muy poco dinero. In the realm of marital dissolution, private mediators are commonplace. ||||hôn nhân|ly hôn||người hòa giải|| ||||婚姻的|divorce|||| ||alanında||evlilikle ilgili|boşanma||arabulucular||yaygındır ||ámbito||matrimonial|||mediadores||comunes En el ámbito de la disolución matrimonial, los mediadores privados son comunes. Unions use grievance processes, and a plethora of other specialists in dispute resolution have sprung up to fill in the void left by a ridiculously lengthy, expensive and incompetent State court system. ||khiếu nại||||||||||||||||||khoảng trống||||||||||| ||||||abundance of||||||||||||||||||||||||| ||şikayet||||birçok|||uzmanlar|||||ortaya çıkmak||||||boşluğu||||saçma derecede||||||| los sindicatos||queja||||pluralidad|||||disputa|||han surgido||||||||||ridículamente||||||| Los sindicatos utilizan procesos de quejas, y ha surgido una plétora de otros especialistas en resolución de disputas para llenar el vacío dejado por un sistema judicial estatal ridículamente largo, costoso e incompetente.

Thus the belief that the State is required for dispute resolution is obviously false, since the court apparatus is unavailable to the vast majority of the population, who resolve their disputes either privately or through agreed-upon mediators. |||||||||||||||||court system|||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||aparatı|||||||||||||||||||| por lo tanto||creencia|||||||||||||||aparato|||||vasta||||||||||privadamente||||| Por lo tanto, la creencia de que el Estado es necesario para la resolución de disputas es obviamente falsa, ya que el aparato judicial no está disponible para la gran mayoría de la población, que resuelve sus disputas ya sea de manera privada o a través de mediadores acordados. Assim, a crença de que o Estado é necessário para a resolução de litígios é obviamente falsa, uma vez que o aparelho judicial não está disponível para a grande maioria da população, que resolve os seus litígios de forma privada ou através de mediadores acordados.

How can the free market deal with the problem of dispute resolution? |||||tratar|||||| ¿Cómo puede el mercado libre abordar el problema de la resolución de disputas? Outside the realm of organized crime, very few people are comfortable with armed confrontations, and so generally prefer to delegate that task to others. |||||||||||||đối đầu vũ||||||ủy quyền|||| |||||||||||||armed confrontations||||||委托|||| ||||||||||||silahlı|çatışmalar|||||||||| ||ámbito||||||||||armadas|confrontaciones|||||||||| Fuera del ámbito del crimen organizado, muy pocas personas se sienten cómodas con confrontaciones armadas, por lo que generalmente prefieren delegar esa tarea a otros. Let’s assume that people’s need for such representatives produces Dispute Resolution Organizations (DROs), which promise to resolve disputes on their behalf. ||||||||||||||||||||adına ||||||||||||||||||||en nombre Supongamos que la necesidad de las personas de tales representantes produce Organizaciones de Resolución de Disputas (DRO), que prometen resolver disputas en su nombre.

Thus, if Stan is hired by Bob, they both sign a document specifying which DRO they both accept as an authority in dispute resolution. ||||||||||||||||||||otorite||| ||Stan||||||||||especificando||||||||||| Así, si Stan es contratado por Bob, ambos firman un documento que especifica qué DRO aceptan como autoridad en la resolución de disputas. Assim, se Stan for contratado por Bob, ambos assinam um documento que especifica qual a DRO que ambos aceitam como autoridade para a resolução de litígios. If they disagree about something, and are unable to resolve it between themselves, they submit their case to the DRO, and agree to abide by that DRO’s decision. |||||||||||||||||||||||accept|||| |||||||||||||||||||||||uymak|||| Si no están de acuerdo en algo y no pueden resolverlo entre ellos, presentan su caso al DRO y acuerdan acatar la decisión de ese DRO.

So far so good. Hasta ahora todo bien. However, what if Stan decides he doesn’t want to abide by the DRO’s decision? |||||||||acatar|||| Well, several options arise. |||surgen

First of all, when Stan signed the DRO agreement, it is likely that he would have agreed to property confiscation if he did not abide by the DRO’s decision. |||||||||||||||||||没收||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||mülkün el konulması||||||||| Thus the DRO would be entirely within its right to go and remove property from Stan – by force if necessary – to pay for his side of the dispute. ||||||||||||quitar|||||||||||||||

It is at this point that people generally throw up their arms and dismiss the idea of DROs by claiming that society would descend into civil war within a few days. |||||||||||||||||||||||rơi vào||||||| |||||||||||||reddetmek||||||||||inmek||||||| Es en este punto donde la gente generalmente levanta los brazos y descarta la idea de los DROs alegando que la sociedad descendería a una guerra civil en unos pocos días.

Everyone, of course, realizes that civil war is a rather bad situation, and so it seems likely that the DROs would consider alternatives to armed combat. |||||||||||||||||||||||||conflict Por supuesto, todos se dan cuenta de que la guerra civil es una situación bastante mala, por lo que parece probable que los DROs consideren alternativas al combate armado.

What other options could be pursued? |||||izlenebilir |||||seguidas ¿Qué otras opciones se podrían seguir? To take a current example, small debts which are not worth pursuing legally are still regularly paid off – and why? ||||||||||merecen||||||||| Because a group of companies produce credit ratings  on individuals, and the inconvenience of a lowered credit rating is usually greater than the inconvenience of paying off a small debt. |||||||kredi notları|||||rahatsızlık|||düşükleşmiş||notu|||||||||||| |||||||||||||||reducida||||||||||||||deuda Thus, in the absence of any recourse to force, small debts are usually settled. ||||||sự can thiệp||||||| ||||||appeal||||||| ||||||başvuru||||||| así|||ausencia||||||||||saldados This is one example of how desired behaviour can be elicited without pulling out a gun or kicking in a door. Đây||||||||||khơi gợi|||||||||| ||||||||||sağlanabileceği|||||||||| ||||||||||provocada|||||||patada||| Este es un ejemplo de cómo se puede provocar un comportamiento deseado sin sacar una pistola o patear una puerta.

Picture for a moment the infinite complexity of modern economic life. Imagina por un momento la complejidad infinita de la vida económica moderna. Most individuals bind themselves to dozens of contracts, from car loans and mortgages to cell phone contracts, gym membership, condo agreements and so on. |||||||||||||||||||hợp đồng căn hộ|hợp đồng căn hộ||| ||||||||||||抵押贷款||||||||||| ||bağlar||||||||||||||||||||| ||se obligan||||||||préstamos||hipotecas|||||||contratos de condominio|acuerdos||| La mayoría de los individuos se comprometen a docenas de contratos, desde préstamos de automóviles y hipotecas hasta contratos de telefonía móvil, membresías de gimnasio, acuerdos de condominios y así sucesivamente. To flourish in a free market, a man must honour his contracts. |||||||||onurlandırmak|| |prosperar|||||||||| A reputation for honest dealing is the foundation of a successful economic life. Now, few DROs will want to represent a man who regularly breaks contracts, or associates with difficult and litigious people. ||||||||||||||||||hay kiện tụng| ||||||||||||||||||好诉讼的| ||||||||||||||||||dava açan| ||||||||||||||||||litigiosos| (For instance, this writer once refrained from entering into a business partnership because the potential partner revealed that he had sued two previous partners.) |||||kiềm chế|||||||||||||||kiện||| |||||kaçındı|||||||||||açıkladı||||dava açtı||| |||||se abstuvo||||||||||socio|||||demandado|||

Thus if Stan refuses to abide by his DRO’s ruling, the DRO has to barely lift a finger to punish him. Vì vậy|||||||||||||||||||| |||se niega||acatar||||decisión|||||apenas|||||castigar| All the DRO has to do is report Stan’s non-compliance to the local  contract-rating  company, who will enter his name into a database of contract violators. |||||||||||||||||công ty đó||||||||||người vi phạm hợp ||||||||||不合规||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||ihlalcileri Stan’s DRO will also probably drop him, or raise his rates considerably. |||||bajará||||||considerablemente Es probable que el DRO de Stan también lo desprecie o que aumente considerablemente sus tarifas.

And so, from an economic standpoint, Stan has just shot himself in the foot. |||||açıdan|||||||| |||||punto de vista|||||a sí mismo||| Y así, desde un punto de vista económico, Stan se ha disparado en el pie. He is now universally known as a man who rejects legitimate DRO rulings that he agreed to accept in advance. ||||||||||||kararları||||||| ||||||||||||decisiones||||||| Ahora es conocido universalmente como un hombre que rechaza las decisiones legítimas del DRO que aceptó de antemano. What happens when he goes for his next job? What if he decides to eschew employment and start his own company, what happens when he applies for his first lease? |||||tránh né||||||||||||||| |||||avoid||||||||||||||| |||||kaçınmak|||||||||||||||kira |||||evitar|||||||||||||||arrendamiento Or tries to hire his first employee? ||||||çalışan Or rent a car, or buy an airline ticket? Or enter into a contract with his first customer? No, in almost every situation, Stan would be far better off to abide by the decision of the DRO. ||||||||||||adhere to|||||| ||||||||||||acatar|||||| Whatever he has to pay, it is far cheaper than facing the barriers of existing without access to a DRO, or with a record of rejecting a legitimate ruling. ||||||||||karşılaşmak||||mevcut olan||||||||||||||

But let’s push the theory to the max, to see if it holds. To examine a worst-case scenario, imagine that Stan’s employer is an evil man who bribes the DRO to rule in his favour, and the DRO imposes an unconscionable fine – say, one million dollars – on Stan. ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||không thể chấp|||một|||| |||||||||||||||贿赂|||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||rüşvet verir|||||||||||uygular||akıl almaz||||||| ||||||||||||malvado|||sobornos|||||||||||impondría||injusta||||un millón||| Para examinar un escenario de peor caso, imagina que el empleador de Stan es un hombre malvado que soborna al DRO para fallar a su favor, y el DRO impone una multa desmesurada – digamos, un millón de dólares – a Stan.

First of all, this is such an obvious problem  that  DROs, to get any business at all, would have to deal with this danger up front. En primer lugar, este es un problema tan evidente que los DRO, para conseguir algún negocio, tendrían que lidiar con este peligro desde el principio. An appeal process to a different DRO would have to be part of the contract. |itiraz||||||||||||| Un proceso de apelación a un DRO diferente tendría que ser parte del contrato. DROs would also rigorously vet their own employees for any unexplained income. |||một cách nghiêm|||||||| ||||evaluate||||||| ||||verificar||||||no explicada| Los DRO también evaluarían rigurosamente a sus propios empleados por cualquier ingreso no explicado. And, of course, any DRO mediator who corrupted the process would receive perhaps the lowest contract rating  on the planet, lose his job, and be liable for damages. ||||||||||||||en düşük|||||||||||sorumlu|| |||||||||||||||||||||||||responsable|| Y, por supuesto, cualquier mediador de DRO que corrompiera el proceso recibiría quizás la calificación de contrato más baja del planeta, perdería su trabajo y sería responsable de daños. He would lose everything, and be an economic pariah. ||||||||người bị ruồng ||||||||outcast ||||||||parya ||||||||paria Él perdería todo y sería un paria económico.

However, to go to the extreme, perhaps the worst has occurred and Stan has been unjustly fined a million dollars due to DRO corruption. |||||cực đoan||||||||||không công bằng|bị phạt||||||| |||||||||||||||haksız yere|cezalandırıldı||||dolayı||| ||||||||||||||||multado||||||| Well, he has three alternatives. He can choose not to pay the fine, drop off the DRO map, and work for cash without contracts. Become part of the grey market, in other words. A perfectly respectable choice, if he has been treated unjustly. |||||||||không công bằng ||saygın|||||||

However, if Stan is an intelligent and even vaguely entrepreneurial man, he will see the corruption of the DRO as a prime opportunity to start his own, competing DRO, and will write into its base contract clauses to ensure that what happened to him will never happen to anyone who signs on with his new DRO. ||||||||hơi mang tính doanh|khởi nghiệp|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||条款||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||emprendedor||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

Stan’s third option is to appeal to the  contract rating  agency. |||||apelación||||| Contract rating agencies need to be as accurate as possible, since they are attempting to assess real risk. If they believe that the DRO ruled unjustly against Stan, they will lower that  DRO’s  contract rating and restore Stan’s. |||||||không công bằng|||||||||||| |||||||haksız yere|||||||||||yenilemek|

Thus it is inconceivable that violence would be required to enforce all but the most extreme contract violations, since all parties gain the most long-term value by acting honestly. |||không thể tưởng tượng|||||||||||||||||||||||||| |||düşünülemez|||||||uygulamak||||||||||||||||||| |||inconcebible|||||||||||||||||||||||||| This resolves the problem of instant descent into civil war. |giải quyết|||||||| ||||||descend|||

Two other problems exist, however, which must be resolved before the DRO theory starts to becomes truly tenable. |||||||||||||||||có thể chấp |||||||||||||||||geçerli |||||||||||||||||sostenible

The first is the challenge of reciprocity, or geography. ||||||tính tương hỗ|| If Bob has a contract with Jeff, and Jeff moves to a new location not covered by their mutual DRO, what happens? ||||||||||||||||||karşılıklı||| Again, this is such an obvious problem that it would be solved by any competent DRO. ||||||||||||||capable| People who travel prefer cell phones with the greatest geographical coverage, and so cell phone companies have developed reciprocal agreements for charging competitors. ||||||||||||||||||đối ứng|||| ||||||||||||||||||互惠的|||| ||||||||||kapsama alanı||||||||karşılıklı|||| Just as a person’s credit rating is available anywhere in the world, so their contract rating will also be available, and so there will be no place to hide from a broken contract save by going ‘off the grid' completely, which would be economically crippling. ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||lưới điện||||||gây tê li ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||经济上致命 ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||şebeke|||||| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||paralizante The second problem is the fear that a particular DRO will grow in size and stature to the point where it takes on all the features and properties of a new State.

This is a superstitious fear, because there is no historical example of a private company replacing a political State. |||迷信的||||||||||||||| |||batıl||||||||||||||| |||supersticiosa|miedo|||||||||||||| While it is true that companies regularly use State coercion to enforce trading restrictions, high tariffs, cartels and other mercantilist tricks, surely this reinforces the danger of the State , not the inevitability of companies growing  into  States. |||||||||||||||thuế quan|các cartel|||chủ nghĩa trọng thương|||||||||Nhà nước||||||tăng trưởng|| |||||||||coercion|||||||cartels|||||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||kısıtlamaları|||karteller|||||||||||||||kaçınılmazlık||||| All States destroy societies. No company has ever destroyed a society without the aid of the State. |||||||||ayuda||| Ninguna empresa ha destruido jamás una sociedad sin la ayuda del Estado. Thus the fear that a private company can somehow grow into a State is utterly unfounded in fact, experience, logic and history. ||||||||||||||完全||||||| ||||||||||||||tamamen|asılsız|||||| ||||||||||||||totalmente||||||| Por lo tanto, el miedo a que una empresa privada pueda de alguna manera convertirse en un Estado es completamente infundado en los hechos, la experiencia, la lógica y la historia.

If society becomes frightened of a particular DRO, then it can simply stop doing business with it, which will cause it to collapse. Si la sociedad se asusta de un DRO en particular, entonces simplemente puede dejar de hacer negocios con él, lo que causará su colapso. If that DRO, as it collapses, somehow transforms itself from a group of secretaries, statisticians, accountants and contract lawyers into a ruthless domestic militia and successfully takes over society – and how unlikely is that! |||||||||||||thư ký|các nhà thống kê|||||||tàn nhẫn||lực lượng dân quân|||||||||| |||||||||||||secretaries||||||||||militia|||||||||| |||||||||||||secretarias||contadores|y|||||implacable|||||||||||| Si ese DRO, al colapsar, de alguna manera se transforma de un grupo de secretarias, estadísticos, contadores y abogados de contratos en una milicia doméstica implacable y toma el control de la sociedad con éxito - ¡y qué poco probable es eso! – then such a State will then be imposed on the general population. – entonces tal Estado será impuesto a la población en general.

However, there are two problems even with this most unlikely scare scenario. |||||||||improbable|| Sin embargo, hay dos problemas incluso con este escenario de miedo tan poco probable. First of all, if any DRO can take over society and impose itself as a new State, why only a DRO? ||tất cả|||DRO||||||||||||||| Why not the Rotary Club? |||Câu lạc bộ| Why not a union? Why not the Mafia? The YMCA? |Hiệp hội thanh ni The SPCA? Is society to then ban all groups with more than a hundred members? Clearly that is not a feasible solution, and so society must live with the risk of a brutal coup by ninja accountants as much as from any other group. |||||uygun|||||||||||||darbe|||||||||| |||||factible|||||||||||||golpe||ninja||||||||

And, in the final analysis, if society is so terrified of a single group seizing a monopoly of political power, what does that say about the existing States? |||||||||korkmuş|||||ele geçirmesi||||||||||||| They have a monopoly of political power. If a DRO should never achieve this kind of control, why should existing States continue to wield theirs? ||||||||||||||||sử dụng| ||||||||||||||||ejercen|suya

Collective Services

Roads, sewage, water and electricity and so on are also cited as reasons why a State must exist. |nước thải|||||||||||||||| ||||||||||belirtilmiştir||||||| carreteras|alcantarillado|||||||||citados||||||| How roads could be privately paid for remains such an impenetrable mystery that most people are willing to support the State – and so ensure the eventual and utter destruction of civil society – rather than cede that this problem just  might  be solvable. ||||||||||khó hiểu|||||||||||||||cuối cùng|||||||||thừa nhận||||||| ||||||||||aşılmaz|||||||||||||||||tamamıyla|||||||cede||||||| |las carreteras||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||soluble There are many ways to pay for roads, such as electronic or cash tolls, GPS charges, roads maintained by the businesses they lead to, communal organizations and so on. |||||||||||||peajes||||||||||||||| And if none of those work? Why, then personal flying machines will hit the market!

The problem that a water company might build plumbing to a community, and then charge exorbitant fees for supplying it, is equally easy to counter. ||||||||hệ thống ống|||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||aşırı||||||||| ||||||||tuberías|||||||exorbitantes||||||||| A truck could deliver bottled water, or the community could invest in a water tower, a competing company could build alternate pipes and so on. ||||||||||||||||||||alternatif|||| None of these problems touch the central rationale for a State. They are  ex post facto justifications made to avoid the need for critical examination or, heaven forbid, political action. ||||sau sự kiện|biện minh||||||||||||| ||eski||sonradan|gerekçeler|||||||||||etmesin|| |||||justificaciones||||||||||cielo|prohíbe|| Son justificaciones ex post facto hechas para evitar la necesidad de un examen crítico o, Dios no lo quiera, de acción política. The argument that voluntary free-market monopolies are bad – and that the only way to combat them is to impose compulsory monopolies – is obviously foolish. ||||||||||||||||||||zorunlu|||| |||||||||||||||||||imponer|obligatorios|monopolios|||tonto El argumento de que los monopolios voluntarios de mercado libre son malos - y que la única forma de combatirlos es imponer monopolios compulsivos - es obviamente insensato. If voluntary monopolies are bad, then how can coercive monopolies be better? Si los monopolios voluntarios son malos, entonces, ¿cómo pueden ser mejores los monopolios coercitivos?

Due to countless examples of free market solutions to the problem of ‘carrier costs', this argument no longer holds the kind of water it used to, so it must be elsewhere that people must turn to justify the continued existence of the State. ||||||||||||taşıyıcı|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| Pollution

This is perhaps the greatest problem faced by free-market theorists. It’s worth spending a little time on outlining the worst possible scenario, and see how a voluntary system could solve it. |||||||belirlemek||||||||||||| |vale||||||esbozando||||||||||||| Vale la pena dedicar un poco de tiempo a esbozar el peor escenario posible y ver cómo un sistema voluntario podría resolverlo. However, it’s important to first dispel the notion that the State currently deals effectively with pollution. |||||xua tan|||||||||| |||||dağıtmak|||||||||| |||||disipar|||||||trata|||contaminación Sin embargo, es importante disipar primero la noción de que el Estado actualmente trata de manera efectiva la contaminación. Firstly, the most polluted resources on the planet are State-owned, because State personnel do not personally profit from retaining the value of State property (witness the destruction of the Canadian cod industry through blatant vote-buying). ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||mua phiếu trắng|| |||||||||||||||||||tutma||||||||||||||||| |||contaminados||||planeta||||||||||||||||||||||||cod||||| En primer lugar, los recursos más contaminados del planeta son de propiedad estatal, porque el personal del Estado no obtiene beneficios personales al retener el valor de la propiedad estatal (testigos de la destrucción de la industria del bacalao canadiense a través de un evidente soborno por votos). Secondly, the distribution of mineral, lumber and drilling rights is directly skewed towards bribery and corruption, because States rarely sell the land, but rather just the resource rights. ||||khoáng sản|||||||thiên lệch||hối lộ|||||||||||||| ||||mineral|madera||perforación||||sesgada|||||||||||||||| En segundo lugar, la distribución de derechos minerales, de madera y de perforación está directamente sesgada hacia el soborno y la corrupción, porque los Estados rara vez venden la tierra, sino más bien solo los derechos sobre los recursos. A lumber company cannot buy woodlands from the State, just the right to harvest trees. |công ty gỗ||||rừng cây||||||||| |||||bosques||||||||| Una empresa maderera no puede comprar bosques del Estado, solo el derecho a cosechar árboles. Thus the State gets a renewable source of income, and can further coerce lumber companies by enforcing re-seeding. ||||||||||có thể||ép buộc|||||| |||||yenilenebilir|||||||zorlamak|||||| ||||||||||||coaccionar|madera|||imponiendo|| Así, el Estado obtiene una fuente de ingresos renovable y puede coaccionar aún más a las empresas madereras al hacer cumplir la reforestación. This, of course, tends to promote bribery, corruption and the creation of ‘fly-by-night' lumber companies which strip the land bare, but vanish when it comes time to re-seed. ||||||||||||||||||soymak|||çıplak||kaybolur||||||| ||||||soborno|||||||||madereras|||despojan|||||||||||resembrar| Esto, por supuesto, tiende a promover el soborno, la corrupción y la creación de empresas madereras 'de un solo uso' que despojan la tierra, pero desaparecen cuando llega el momento de resembrar. Auctioning State land to a private market easily solves this problem, because a company which re-seeded would reap the greatest long-term profits from woodland, and so would be able to bid the most for the land. |||||||||||||||||||||||||rừng cây|||||||||||| ihale etmek||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| Subastando||||||||||||||||reforestó||cosechar|||||||bosque|||||||ofertar||||| Subastar tierras del Estado a un mercado privado resuelve fácilmente este problema, porque una empresa que resembrara obtendría los mayores beneficios a largo plazo de los bosques, y por lo tanto podría ofrecer la mayor cantidad por la tierra.

Also, it should be remembered that, in the realm of air pollution, governments created the problem in the first place. ||||||||ámbito|||contaminación|||||||| Además, se debe recordar que, en el ámbito de la contaminación del aire, los gobiernos crearon el problema en primer lugar. In 19th century England, when industrial smokestacks began belching fumes into the orchards of apple farmers, the farmers took the factory-owners to court, citing the common-law tradition of restitution for property damage. ||||||các ống kh|||khói thải|||vườn cây ăn||||||||||||||||||||| ||||||bacalar||sindirme|dumanlar|||bahçelerine|||||||||sahiplerini|||||||||iade||| ||||||chimeneas||eructando||||||||||||||||||||||||| Naturally, the capitalists had gotten to the State courts first, and had more money to bribe with, employed more voting workers, and contributed more tax revenue than the farmers – and so the farmers' cases were thrown out of court. |||||||||||||||rüşvet vermek||istihdam ettiği||oylama||||||||||||||||||| ||||conseguido|||||||||||soborno||||||||||||||||||||lanzados||| The judge argued that the ‘common good' of the factories took precedence over the ‘private need' of the farmers. |||||||||||öncelik||||||| The free market did not fail to solve the problem of air pollution – it was forcibly prevented from doing so through State corruption. |||||||||||||||bị cưỡng chế||||||| |||||||||||||||forzosamente|||||||

The State, then, is no friend of the environment – but how would the free market handle it? One egregious example often cited is a group of houses downwind from a new factory which works day and night to coat them in soot. |rõ ràng|||||||||xuôi gió||||||||||||||bồ hóng |aşırı|||||||||rüzgârın altında|||||||||||kaplamak|||siyah toprak |egregio|||citado|||||||||||||||||cubre|||hollín Un ejemplo atroz frecuentemente citado es un grupo de casas en la dirección del viento de una nueva fábrica que trabaja día y noche para cubrirlas de hollín.

When a man buys a new house, isn’t it important to him to ensure that it won’t be subjected with someone else’s pollution? Cuando un hombre compra una casa nueva, ¿no es importante para él asegurarse de que no estará expuesta a la contaminación de otra persona? People’s desire for a clean and safe environment is so strong that it’s a clear invitation for enterprising capitalists to sweat bullets figuring out how to provide it. |||||||||||||||||tinh thần doanh nhân|các nhà tư bản||||||||| |||||||||||||||davet||girişimci|||terlemek|kurşunlar|||||| ||||||||||||||||||||sudor||||||| El deseo de las personas por un ambiente limpio y seguro es tan fuerte que es una clara invitación para que los capitalistas emprendedores se rompan la cabeza averiguando cómo proporcionarlo.

Fortunately, since we have already talked about DROs and their role in a free market, the problem of air pollution can be solved quite easily.

If the aforementioned group of homeowners is afraid of pollution, the first thing they will do is buy pollution insurance , which is a natural response to a situation where costs cannot be predicted but consequences are dire. ||bahsedilen|||ev sahipleri|||||||||||||||||||||||||||tahmin edilemez|||| ||mencionada|||propietarios|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||grave Let’s say that a homeowner named Achmed buys pollution insurance which pays him two million dollars if the air around or in his house becomes polluted in some predefined manner. ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||được xác định trước| biraz||||||Ahmet|||sigorta||öder|||||||||||||||||önceden tanımlanmış| In other words, as long as Achmed’s air remains clean, the insurance company makes money. ||||||Achmed'in||||||||

One day, a plot of land upwind of Achmed’s house comes up for sale. ||||||ngược gió||||||| |||arsa|||rüzgârın estiği yönde||||||| ||||||a favor del viento||||||| Un día, un terreno a sotavento de la casa de Achmed sale a la venta. Naturally, his insurance company would be very interested in this, and would monitor the sale. Naturalmente, su compañía de seguros estaría muy interesada en esto y haría seguimiento de la venta. If the purchaser is some private school, all is well (assuming Achmed has not bought an excess of noise pollution insurance!). ||alıcı|||||||||||||||||| Si el comprador es alguna escuela privada, todo está bien (suponiendo que Achmed no haya comprado un exceso de seguro contra la contaminación acústica!). If, however, the insurance company discovers that Sally’s House of Polluting Paint Production is interested in purchasing the plot of land, then it will likely spring into action, taking one of the following actions: |||||||||||||||||||||||||harekete geçmek|||||||| ||||||||||||||||||||||||probablemente|actuará||||||||

buying the land itself, then selling it to a non-polluting buyer; getting assurances from Sally that her company will not pollute; paying Sally to enter into a non-polluting contract. |||||||||||||cam kết||||||||||||||||| |||||||||||||garantiler|||||||||||||||||

If, however, someone at the insurance company is asleep at the wheel, and Sally buys the land and puts up her polluting factory, what happens then? ||||||||dormido|||al volante||||||||||||||

Well, then the insurance company is on the hook for $2M to Achmed (assuming for the moment that only Achmed bought pollution insurance). ||||||||sorumlu|||||||||||||| ||||||||responsable|||||||||||||| Thus, it can afford to pay Sally up to $2M to reduce her pollution and still be cash-positive . así|||puede permitirse||||||||||||||| This payment could take many forms, from the installation of pollution-control equipment to a buy-out to a subsidy for under-production and so on. |||||||||||||||mua lại|||||||||| ||||||||kurulumu|||||||||||sübvansiyon|||||| |||||||||||||||||||subsidio||||||

If the $2M is not enough to solve the problem, then the insurance company pays Achmed the $2M and he goes and buys a new house in an unpolluted neighbourhood. ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||temiz| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||no contaminada| However, this scenario is highly unlikely, since the insurance company would be unlikely to insure only one single person in a neighbourhood against air pollution – and a single person probably could not afford it! ||||||||||||||sigortalamak|||||||mahalle||||||||||||

So, that is the view from Achmed’s air-pollution insurance company. What about the view from Sally’s House of Polluting Paint Production? She, also, must be covered by a DRO in order to buy land, borrow money and hire employees. How does that DRO view her tendency to pollute?

Pollution brings damage claims against Sally, because pollution is by definition damage to persons or property. |||||||||||||kişilere|| Thus Sally’s DRO would take a dim view of her polluting activities, since it would be on the hook for any property damage her factory causes. ||||||kötü||||||||||||||||||| ||||||pobre||||||||||||responsable||||||| In fact, it would be most unlikely that Sally’s DRO would insure her against damages unless she were able to prove that she would be able to operate her factory  without  harming the property of those around her. And without access to a DRO, of course, she would be hard-pressed to start her factory, borrow money, hire employees etc.

It’s important to remember that DROs, much like cell phone companies and Internet providers, only prosper if they cooperate. |||||||||||||sağlayıcılar||başarır|||işbirliği yaparlar |||||||||||||proveedores||prosperan||| Sally’s DRO only makes money if Sally does not pollute. Achmed’s insurer also only makes money if Sally does not pollute. |công ty bảo hiểm||||||||| |sigortacı||||||||| Thus the two companies share a common goal, which fosters cooperation. |||||||||teşvik eder|

Finally, even if Achmed is not insured against air pollution, he can use his and/or Sally’s DRO to gain restitution for the damage her pollution is causing to his property. ||||||sigortalı|||||||||||||||||||||||| ||||||asegurado|||||||||||||||||||||||| Both Sally and Achmed’s DROs would have reciprocity agreements, since Achmed wants to be protected against Sally’s actions, and Sally wants to be protected against Achmed’s actions. |||||||thỏa thuận tương hỗ||||||||||||||||||| Because of this desire for mutual protection, they would choose DROs which had the widest reciprocity agreements. ||||||||||||||más amplios||acuerdos

Thus, in a truly free market, there are many levels and agencies actively working against pollution. así||||||||||||||| Achmed’s insurer will be actively scanning the surroundings looking for polluters it can forestall. |||||||||||||ngăn chặn ||||||||||kirleticileri|||önlemek |||||escaneando||entorno|||contaminadores|||prevenir Sally will be unable to build her paint factory without proving that she will not pollute. Mutual or independent DROs will resolve any disputes regarding property damage caused by Sally’s pollution.

There are other benefits as well, which are almost unsolvable in the current system. |||||||||khó giải quyết|||| |||||||||çözülemez|||| |||||||||insolubles|||| Imagine that Sally’s smokestacks are so high that her air pollution sails over Achmed’s house and lands on Reginald’s house, a hundred miles away. |||các ống kh|||||||||||||||||||| |||bacaları|||||||||||||||||||| |||chimeneas||||||||navegan|||||||Reginald||||| Reginald then complains to his DRO that his property is being damaged. Reginald||||||||||| Reginald||şikayet eder||||||||| His DRO will examine the air contents and wind currents, then trace the pollution back to its source and resolve the dispute with Sally’s DRO. |||||||||akımları||izlemek||||||||||||| If the air pollution is particularly complicated, then Reginald’s DRO will place non-volatile compounds into Sally’s smokestacks and follow them to where they land. ||||||||||||||hợp chất|||||||||| ||||||||Reginald'ın||||||bileşenler|||||||||| This can be used in a situation where a number of different factories may be contributing pollutants. ||||||||||||||có thể|| |||||||||||||||katkıda bulunuyor|kirleticiler

The problem of inter-country air pollution may seem to be a sticky one, but it’s easily solvable. ||về||||||||||khó giải quyết||||| ||||||||||||zor||||| Obviously, a Canadian living along the Canada/US border, for instance, will not choose a DRO which refuses to cover air pollution emanating from the US. ||||||||||||||||||||||phát ra||| ||||||||||||||||||||||kaynaklanan||| Thus the DRO will have to have reciprocity agreements with the DROs across the border. ||||||||||||||biên giới If the US DROs refuse to have reciprocity agreements with the Canadian DROs – inconceivable, since the pollution can go both ways – then the Canadian DRO will simply start a US branch and compete. |||||||||||||không thể tưởng tượng||||||||||||||||||| ||||reddederse||||||||||||||||||||||||||şubesini||

The difference is that international DROs actually  profit  from cooperation, in a way that governments do not. For instance, a State government on the Canada/US border has little motivation to impose pollution costs on local factories, as long as the pollution generally goes north. For DROs, quite the opposite would be true.

Finally, one other advantage to DRO’s can be termed the ‘Scrabble-Challenge Benefit'. ||||||||adlandırılabilir|||| ||||||||denominada|||| In Scrabble, an accuser loses his turn if he challenges another player’s word and the challenge fails. |trò chơi Scrabble||||||||||||||| |||suçlayan||||||||||||| |||acusador||||||||||||| Given the costs of resolving disputes, DROs would be very careful to ensure that those bringing false accusations would be punished through their own premiums, their  contract ratings  and by also assuming the entire cost of the dispute. |||||||||||||||||cáo buộc|||||||phí bảo hiểm||||||||||||| |||||||||||||||||suçlamalar|||cezalandırılacak||||primleri||||||||||||| This would greatly reduce the number of frivolous lawsuits, to the great benefit of all. |||||||không cần thiết||||||| |||||||gereksiz|davalar|||||| |||||||frívolas|demandas||||||

The idea that society can  only  survive in the absence of a centralized State is the greatest lesson that the grisly years of the Twentieth Century can teach us. ||||||||||||||||||||đau thương|||||||| ||||||||||||||||||||korkunç|||||||| ||||||||||||||||||||espantosos|||||||| Our choice is not between the free market and the State, but between life and death. Whatever the risks involved in dissolving the central State, they are far less than the certain destruction which will result from its inevitable escalation. |||||||||||||||||||||||leo thang |||||dağıtmak||||||||||||||||||tırmanışı |||||disolver|||||||||||||||||| Like a cancer patient facing certain demise, we must open our minds reach for whatever medicine shows the most promise, and not wait until it is too late. ||||||ölüm|||||||||||||umut vaat ediyor|||||||| ||||||muerte|||||||||||||||||||||