Friday, October 2, 2015

Power and Privilige

By Robert Wenzel

Whenever there is a situation where someone has the opportunity to make a  decision with regard to someone and how they can act in a given situation that person has a certain kind of power.

There is private sector power and government power.

In a private sector situation, a property owner may grant someone limited power in a situation or the property owner, himself, may exercise power over his property directly.

With government, of course, power is generally exercised without regard to private property.

What I want to discuss in this post is power itself. It can apply to private or government power, but it is obviously more abusive when it involves government.

The specific part of power I want to discuss is privilege and how certain people can get around power,

The first example is a minor example but it illustrates might point very well.

The other day at my office building somehow the discussion in the lobby came to my book, The Fed Flunks: My Speech at the New York Federal Reserve Bank,  I could see the lobby security guard was interested, so I asked him if he wanted a copy.

I went upstairs and brought down a copy, autographed it with a few pithy words about coming price inflation and gave it to him. The next morning when he saw me walking into the building, he came over and shook my hand and said some kind things about the book,

It just so happened that a couple of days later, at the last minute I switched the sports jacket I was wearing before heading to work and forgot to put in the new jacket my building swipe pass to get me to my floor in my office building.

I realized I did not have my building pass about a block before I got to my building.

Now, my building is a very high-security building and the lobby security guards don't break rules. If someone doesn't have a pass they can't get upstairs before office hours. Security is not allowed to let anyone up until 9:00 AM. I have seen this enforced time and again.

Since I get to the office between 5:30 AMm and 6:00AM, this was going to be a big problem. It meant I would have to head back home (20 minutes away) and waste a lot of time. But I knew the security guard that was on duty was the guard that shook my hand the other day. Thus, I thought he might overlook the rule not to allow anyone up without their swipe card. So I entered the building, explained to him what happened and he said, "Okay if no one is looking." And he swiped his card and I was on my way upstairs.

A more interesting situation occurred recently with a friend of mine. She comes from a very large near-third world country. Her mother is a very famous actress in the country. Her uncle is a very important movie producer. They live on an estate that has a full-time staff of 30 (including snipers on the roof). She was recently traveling in a Middle East country and was detained by police officials (It's complicated) but she was allowed to call her mother back home. After callig her mother, her mother immediately called the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister called the leader of the Middle East country. My friend, shall we say, was released very quickly---with apologies.

My point here is there is a lot of talk about "white privilege," when what is being referenced is just people working hard and getting ahead, That can be achieved with effort by anyone. There are no gates to such advance. Privilege comes into play when there is a point of power and most often, and most seriously, a government point of power, Most people are not going to see the rules changed or overruled for them at these points. But there is privilege for the few, be they celebrities, financiers of a regime or those in some other way related to the regime. In  those cases, the rules come down and the gates go up.

The only way to end this type of privilege is to eliminate government power, the fewer points of government power. the less points of privilege that cause access to be denied to most of us.

 Robert Wenzel is Editor & Publisher at EconomicPolicyJournal.com and at Target Liberty. He is also author of The Fed Flunks: My Speech at the New York Federal Reserve Bank. Follow him on twitter:@wenzeleconomics

22 comments:

  1. Government is a social institution. Take a hypothetical society of 1,000 people. They aren't going to agree on the rules of society. They select some leaders, they establish a justice system, and that's it. The law is above people. It defines property claims. It establishes when violence may or may not be used. Day 1 in anarchism I could see tremendous disagreement. No one has authority to establish any rules for anyone else, including private property.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Government--the state--is an anti-social institution, with its claimed monopoly on the use of force in its claimed area. The steps you describe are fantasy, it never happens that way. All the institutions you mention--property, justice administration, even law--predate the state and have flourished when allowed. You need some historical perspective. Check Mises.org.

      Delete
    2. I agree. You (Wags) need some historical perspective. You are very confused. Back to square one.

      Delete
    3. "Without government there would be a man with a chainsaw riding around on a motorcycle chopping people's heads off."

      There already is a man with a chainsaw on a motorcycle chopping people's heads off, it's called the government. He just doesn't spend much time in your neighborhood.

      Delete
    4. Exactly. The state has prevented the laws that arose before the State to evolve, and so a return to Anarcho-Libertarianism will require vast decentralization of power.

      Delete
    5. People want laws socially enforced on those bad people over there, not themselves. Ask people about "speeding". They almost all exceed the posted speed limit but the moment someone starts talking about raising it to reflect reality (sound engineering practice BTW) there is a huge uproar. What about those dangerous drivers over there? Without the absurdly low speed limit the cops can't punish them.

      That's the way people like their laws. Socially selective. The laws are for those other people, not themselves.


      Delete
  2. A related point is that, when people voluntarily help you, they are putting in their own effort or wealth to help you out. The people who want "government" to help others are just lazy, insolent hacks who cannot help with their own dollars or efforts, but want the benefits that come from stealing other people's labor or wealth to accomplish their objectives. They are no less than lazy thieves.

    ReplyDelete
  3. to Wags: We have 150 governments (countries). Anarchists are not against government, they are for increasing the number of governments from 150 to 7.1 billion.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you for pointing this out to Wags.



      Delete
    2. You forget the thousands of smaller, more local and often more corrupt local and state governments.

      Delete
    3. pssst. Fitz, I think he is referring to 7.1 individuals.

      Delete
  4. That's absurd. People are crazy. Society needs laws to govern behavior.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You're committing the fallacy of a false dilemma here Wags.

      Delete
  5. "No reasonable man ever suggested that the essential function of state and government, protection of the smooth operation of the social system against domestic gangsters and foreign aggressors, should be entrusted to private business."
    -Ludwig von Mises
    Economic Freedom and Interventionism (p. 194)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wags, has it occurred to you that Mises, prodigious intellect that he was, was not perfect? That maybe, just maybe, Mises was incorrect sometimes about some things? That not everyone agreed, or agrees, with the view that you quoted?

      Delete
    2. He was a hell of a lot smarter than Murray Rothbard and his followers. Even you abolished government, people would fight over the rules for a little while before establishing a new government. It's really easy to do, you just pick new leaders.

      Delete
    3. Is this a true intellectual stumbling block for you or are you being willfully ignorant?

      Delete
  6. No one is saying there should be no laws. We are saying the the having a monopoly create the laws is the least best way to accomplish it. As long as people cannot imagine having competing agencies provide government services, we will have monopoly government. As soon as people do imagine competing providers of government services, then monopoly government disappears.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No one has authority to make laws in anarchism. People don't have to go to your private court.

      Delete
    2. Wags, there is a PDF of a collection of essays titled "The Myth of National Defense: Essays on the Theory and History of Security Production".

      I suggest you read it, with specific emphasis on Section 4, chapt. 9-11. Possible answers to these things have been dealt with already. You are beating a dead intellectual horse, so to speak, my friend.

      Best wishes in your journey.

      Delete
    3. If they want to stay in business it's in their best interest to go to court.

      Delete
    4. That's the beauty of the NAP, the free market and competition. You actually have to provide a service so well people will voluntarily use your service.

      Delete