Hello, everybody. Welcome to the weekend interview show. I'm your host Phillips, your administrator. Very special guest today Hans Hermann. Pop. He is a professor of Economics at UNLV. A senior fellow at the Ludwig. Von mises Institute, the editor of the Journal of libertarian studies and author of the books, a theory of socialism and capitalism the economic and ethics of private property democracy. The God That Failed and mr. Hafiz.
Is also the editor of the new book, The Myth of National Defense. Welcome to the show, sir. Thank you for having me on. Pleasure, I'd like to start with the end there. The myth of National Defense. You know, I'm a pretty, I suppose, radical libertarian
kind of guy. And a lot of times when arguing with status, I have to say, well, you know, there are a couple of basic reasons for government to exist, protective orders from foreign enemies and to provide, Fair trials, for the defense or for, you know, criminals and that kind of thing, but other than that, they need to leave us alone. And now What you're saying in this book? The Myth is National defenses. That actually there their basic. Bottom line exchange for existing is invalid.
Is that right? That's right. That's the fetus. We generally accept to the positional at least many people accept the position in the meantime that there's practically nothing that the free market cannot do better than, then the government.
But typically with one big exception and that is They claimed National Defense would be the thing for government is absolutely necessary and that cannot possibly be done by by private by private Alternatives. And this book, which I, for which I served as the editor unrolled, also chapter and introduction to it, but contributions are made from various people just book tries to Tries to show that one should have serious doubts, about the correctness of that ceases to
that. It might be possibilities to protect oneself from foreign aggression or also from internal crime more successfully than as can, can be done by governments. Okay, and in fact, while we're at it, we ought to go ahead and Define for the audience State as you mean it, I've read and you're worse than the last few weeks here that you defined the state as a monopoly on Ultimate decision-making and the power to
tax. All right, expand on that a little bit explain to people what you mean by that. I mean by that is the following that in any in any type of serious conflict that In in a given territory, there is one institution that claims. We are the ultimate judge to determine who is who is right? And who is wrong in this endless conflict, and this institution then also has the right to impose unilaterally without the consent of others, how much it
will. Cost to get this service from from the state delivered to be the ultimate judge in cases of conflict. And and and this this Monopoly, just will not believe position in a way explains. A fundamental flaw in the construction of of government and the, if, if you are On the ultimate judge in all cases of conflicts. Then you are also the ultimate judge in cases of conflicts that you yourself might have caused or provoked and naturally, you will then decide these conflicts
in your own favor. You will be more provocative and more involved in creating. Leaked then when people who are not, who are not the ultimate, the ultimate judge. And of course, if you have the Monopoly of texting, he cannot have competition in the area of taxing, obviously? Because if you would have there, then there would be nothing left to text and everybody could steal from everybody else so to
speak. But if you have someone happily of Step singers, as governments, do it then your incentives is good to speak. To get as much as you can get in terms of tax income. And The work s little for those things that you are supposed to work, as you can possibly get away with that follows to be from from the incentive structure that is created with the existence of a state. So many phenomena that we observe become perfectly
perfectly understandable. Once we were to be nice, assist, the state employees by and large. Our, this busy left work oriented less competent because they know that their salaries are paid out of all of Texas and they do not have to satisfy consumers. Well earlier at the beginning of that answer, you talked about as the ultimate decision maker. So I'd like to get back to the employer government employees do as little work as possible for the money because we get paid with tax money.
We come back to that. But you mentioned when they're the ultimate Arbiter of deciding who's right and wrong. Then, that also means in cases involving themselves and how they'll always decide in their own favor. And alright wondering, is that why you don't seem Differentiate in your writings between democracies and limited Republic's at all. I mean, I guess to you, and let me know I think which is, it comes to democracy immediately.
Right? I think drift this characteristic, all states share, whether it is a democracy or a republic, or a monarchy. All of all of the states. Have this characteristic to be the to claim that they are the ultimate judge and that they have texting that they have texting power. If they would not claim that then then we would deal with some sort of clubs. So this all states have in common.
That doesn't mean that that that it is not useful to make distinctions between different types of States, different types of States, operate in different ways. But nonetheless, this General fundamental flaws, they all have in common. So they will also be bad when it comes to protecting people. That is doing what they are supposed to what they are supposed to do.
And if you just look at the look at the world, you find in fact that this that is the case you have the United States government that has a defense budget of some 400 billion dollars a year and that employs. Spies and informants all over the world and was still incapable of preventing this.
This terrible attacks and September 2 years ago, you would think that an organization that if equipped with, with these budgets, which would certainly be able to do this and not only did the United. Government were not able to prevent it in many ways States provoked, this provoke, these conflicts by getting involved in. In the Exton, the Affairs of other countries, all around all around the globe. And that you only do get involved in the Affairs of other people.
Again, if you If you can rely on on taxing on texting power and don't have to spend your own money getting involved in other in other people's Affairs. So the United States, the government actually creates dangerous rather than preventing Danger from from occurring to its to its citizens. And in addition be nice. This government have as one would expect of an organization that gets its income from Texas.
Has disarmed, increasingly its own citizenry, and has made it there by far easier, for prospective gangsters or terrorists to to be Well, with their attacks, against against American civilians, it makes me more dependent on the state to protect us, but I did not get that question, please. I'm sorry. It makes us more dependent on the state to protect us when we it makes it makes us more dependent on the state to World protect us.
Yes. I think that, I think that's what, that's what states in general. Of course, like to create a large dependent. Class in all in all walks of life who have an interest in in preserving the state because they've received certain handouts from the state that the state necessarily must have taken from somebody else. Otherwise, you put my hand out anything. The main point here. Is that why should I why should it institution that can fund
itself out of, Texas? And that is obviously ultimate judge. Why should such an institution be particularly good in defending us? And the answer seems to be 43 and now they are not good at defending us, but the United States military was defense Ministry, actually, engages nothing defense of the United States, but interference in the Affairs of foreign foreign country, so it can be called more. Department of foreign aggression than a Department of National
Defense, right? And, you know, parenthetically it was actually called the department of War all the way up until the end of World War Two and America decided to become an Empire. They renamed it, the department, which was definitely be a more honest all the label for this specific part. And yes, I agree. Okay, so I understand what you're saying, that our government actually provokes enemies makes enemies for the American people to have to deal with.
And then how September 11th is a perfect example of how the trillions of dollars spent apparently. Don't do any good for defending the country. But I wonder what's the alternative. I mean if we're really surprised because defense what about all those stealth bombers and nuclear missiles and Trident submarines. Who are we going to put in charge of those? That's a difficult difficult question. What we do with all of these?
All of these weapons, I would think a weapons that can only only be used in a way that automatically implies the killing of innocent civilians such like Atomic weapons. They probably should be should be destroyed only weapons that can be used for a targeted response. Should in general be considered to be acceptable, acceptable weapons. That is weapons. That can make a distinction between the aggressor and innocent civilians between combatants and non-combatants
weapons. The use of which do not or does not allow to make this type of Distinction as as nuclear nuclear bombs, for instance. As in the case of nuclear bombs us is also weapon. Should be destroyed. I assume. Well, that leaves open the question about what about all the other countries? I mean, if America decided that we were going to go ahead and abolish the national government and just have a free Society
without a state here. There's still the matter of the Russians and their 5,000 nuclear weapons, right? Guess that this is true. But again, what one has to take into consideration? Is that in that every state that attacks? Another territory, eats some sort of support in its own population. That is you must Identify some sort of enemy. Otherwise, the population will not support. It States going to war the United States did that.
Obviously, when when they, when they went to Iraq, they had to portray Saddam Hussein as as an evil monster, capable of attacking the United States, which all turned out to be, turned out to be wrong. But nonetheless, this is up, but obviously necessary, in order to create a public opinion that allows you to do to do such a thing. Sing. But imagine that, you would have a territory in, which people in which, there would be no State, people will engage in self defense.
That is bigger, would be heavily armed far, more heavily than they currently are. There would be operating malicious in existence. There would be Mighty insurance companies in existence that 52 of various of EB, various property. Owners in these three territories against various contingencies, including terrorist attacks and so on and so forth.
In such a territory, there would be, there would be no one who would have done anything that an opposing State could use as an excuse to attack because in such in the subject, Free Society. Nobody would engage in provocative, provocative affects insurance companies would actually Outlaw of people who are insured from engaging in provocative Behavior.
So it would be very difficult to Define an enemy and you must have an enemy in order to persuade your own population to go along with your warm making plans. So the best three four, five people would also be found wealthier. You see like you have you have would have extremely wealthy societies. Have heavily-armed who have engaged in in nothing but peaceful commercial relationships with the rest of the world. What motive could you possibly
have? And what motive could you possibly sell to your own population to protect place like this? Right at this point. It's only our aggression overseas that could justify any action against us here. Like, I see, which I don't mean to divert too much off of the war topic for now, but you did mention. Society where everything is privatized and we're big insurance companies, protect property, that kind of thing and that brings to mind.
I mean, I guess that's what you call the natural order to write the sides definitely Market without a state interference. All right, and that brings to mind. Well, what about monopolies and Company towns and Pinkerton Thugs? And I mean there's I'm sure that gigantic segment of the Population of this country including myself, who? Wouldn't want to live in a corporate USA anymore than a statist USA. No equipped with a corporatist USA.
You said only means that there exists in the United States that companies that have to find voluntarily paying clients for their services. I cannot see anything wrong with wrong with this. The only difference that exists between had said big firms on the one hand and The government, some people consider the government even to be a big firm. The only the only difference is that the government can insist. You must pay a certain amount whether you like the service that you get or not.
Otherwise, you will be locked up, but there is no such thing as Fort of our locking you up or threatening to lock you up or General Motors to do the same to you. If you Break off ties with General Motors or Ford. So I I do not think that we have to be afraid of anything that happens in the free market. You might be a riot in the sense that many of these huge industrial conglomerates would not even have come into existence.
If it were not for the state, creating them, giving them special advantages as compared with smaller more efficient competitors. Swipe, I believe that, you know, environment were governments would not have Lydia regulate the economy. We would have a far more Fierce competition taking place that current music, a sense of fossil
fuels. Our competition would lead to the break up of many of these super sized companies that have, that could be brought into existence only because they were protected largely from Petition through government regulations. So you don't think we have to worry about for example private armies of Pinkerton thugs working on behalf of the corporation, you know using violence can Strikers or no? I mean, this is something in the history of the United States. Where do you want to go on strike?
On the Rockefellers? Just hire some. Pinkerton private Army thugs to come because again it because it depends on what you described as a strike. If if a Takes place that involves the destruction of property of the form was a farm owner. Then, of course, the the owner of the firm is entitled to use violence against the strikers, if the strikers and actually only work with errors. So this people just say we will not work for you unless you change your opinion.
And go home, then of course, it would not be permitted to use violence against them. But if if they if the damaged properties and of course violence can be, can be used against them and I think currently the exists to a certain extent, a lawless State of Affairs because labor unions are exempt from the normal laws of liability. Flying to everyone else, they can cause damage from the property and with the property of others without being held liable. For the damage that occurs.
They can do things that a private person could never do. If I, for instance, wanted to rent out my house, and the first person who made me an offer made, an offer that I found unacceptable. And he had to leave my house and would know remain in front of my front door, and prevent anybody else from entering my premises and making me another offer. Do I have the right to kick this person off of my premises?
And I think, yes, of course, I have the right to do this and private employers, currently are not entitled to do this in this with labor union them. So I think that exists the certain as the certain miss that that striking workers were mistreated in the past. I think in many cases, they got
to be exactly what they deserve. Well, you know, I refer you to the Ludlow massacre in Colorado where John Rockefeller jr. Ordered the massacre of bunch of men women and children and no one was responsible for it. I do not know the details of suspect of this particular case, you might you might well be right. Labor activists are communists and I'm sure, you know, had a pretty revolutionary tactics and that kind of thing. But at the same time, you know,
it's even in a free market. I mean, it's perfectly, okay, for group of workers to come together and form an organization and bargain collectively, and then you're just buying their labor on the free market for however, much they get their price. My emphasis is Private property rights are so to speak the basics of the foundation of a free society and they have to be protected. And this is this is allegedly, what governments are supposed to do and coming back to the beginning of of our
conversation. In a way. It is very funny that an institution that finances and funds Itself by Texas. That is by expropriating. Property owners in in some way or other that institutions, as such as government is considered to be a good protector of private property. Because in fact, it is private property protector that first must expropriate before. It can have the resources in order to engage in any type of protection. For in in the very nature of
government. There is already a contradiction built in And expropriation expropriating property protector. That would be a nice description of of a government indicating in a way. What is fundamentally wrong with us Institution? That is a pretty big contradiction right off the bat. Of course. There's also the doctrine of eminent domain right, where all the land really belongs to the state first and then they let you hold some of it as well.
Right, right, and they would like to introduce that, of course, with respect to all on incomes, also that they can just take your income way. There any tips, or any time they they feel because ultimately, they consider some that themselves but the owner of all of your income, Just let you have a certain certain amount left over to you. Our Guest today is Hans Hermann. Hop is Professor of Economics at UNLV and a scholar of the Ludwig.
Von mises Institute. You can read his archives at Lew Rockwell.com, sir in the introduction to your book democracy, The God That Failed, you can trust Woodrow, Wilson's democracy which I put in ironic close there with the old Habsburg monarchy is of Europe and you come down on the side of the Kings, why? Yeah. This is also one of the great myths of modern history that the transition from old style. Mom, article systems to modern
style. Democracies represents some sort of civilizational progress in a way that is easy to understand. Why is this this arises? Because history is always written by the victors. A of forces in history just added for the Soviet Union would have come out, successful office, Cold War how how textbooks would be different now from what they are. So the America being a successful, the most successful country.
So to speak date, they write history and since America has become at least after after Lincoln was bigger, typical typical democracy. They'll present history to us. Ask this transition was a great, great progress. And the American neoconservatives, will one of the Mungo warmongers in the Iraq case? Is they even go? As far as to say that with the development of a constitutional democracy for which they consider the United States would be the best example.
So we have arrived at the end of history. There is so to speak. No ideological institutional progress to be made anymore. We have, we have constructed the wisest political system that can be constructed.
And if you Alice's opinion, then, of course, it is not difficult to see how these people then also feel entitled that they can impulses system to the rest of the world, because they are so certain that This is the, the end point, but but as I explained in my book there, so this this is fundamental and very simple, simple error. I would claim for instance, that if the United States would have stayed under King George that, the economic progress might have been faster and better than what
actually took place. And the fundamental reasons for this simply to be the following. Akane, if a perfect, the owner of the country and he considers these, the citizens, as his, as his tenants, and his interest is, yeah, to preserve the value of of the country, because as the owner, he can pass it on to Future Generations, he is interested in preserving the Capital stock that is embodied in in countries.
And if you have a democratic caretaker, like parliamentarians ruin prime minister's or presidents of people like this who are just for a certain period of time in charge. They are not the owner of the country. They can just make use of Of the country during this period of time. They cannot pass it on to the next Generation to whoever they wish. So they have a short-sighted view and because they are not
the owner of the Capital stock. They will increase current income at the expense of of capital consumption, but this their motto will be what I cannot. Loot within the next four years. I will not be loot ever again in the future. The example. I think that I give my students frequently before this is to explain, this difference is the following. Imagine. I give you.
I have a house or two houses. And in one case, I tell you, you'll I make you the regular owner of this house, you can And sell it in the market, you can pass it on this form of inheritance and so forth. And in the other case, I tell you, for four years or six years, or whatever time span is, you can make use of the house. You can keep all the income that you can derive from the house, but you do not own the house at
this. You cannot sell the house in the market and you cannot pass it on to Future Generations. Does that? Make a difference in how you behave, vis-à-vis your house. In the emphasis. Of course. It's us. In one case, your interest is so to speak, to, for the caretaker, it is to, to get as much money as I can, possibly can out of all of this house in the shortest possible time, even if the house and afterwards lies in Ruins because the ruins that, if the Capital stock, I do not own. I do not.
Not care for it. I only care for the term detail. Would you do the same thing? However, if you were at the regular owner of the house and the answer is, of course, you would not do this. You would be interested in drawing a current income from the house, but you would be at the same time interested in preserving the Capital stock off
the house. The house should be intact and stay intact because you just want to pass upon in the future generation and If you don't keep it intact, you would notice us because the price in the market that you will get for the house would continuously fall. So, in the same sense, I think a king has more long-term perspective.
He is interested in preserving the existing capital and Democratic caretakers are people who are short-term oriented and increase their current income at the expense of of capital consumption and capital. Cattle destruction that is that is one major advantage of of monarchies today. There's another one this and that is an advantage that most people initially think of, as a disadvantage that is most people tend to think, isn't it great about?
Democracies that that everybody can become a president or prime minister were asking on the monarchy to become king by accident of birth. So to speak, in people argue, for instance, set in all other areas. We reason that competition is better than Monopoly. And isn't democracy and example, where the exist competition for governmental position scorers in the monarchy case there exists, a monopolist will go one guy and only he can be added whoever he determines as his successor to can be it.
But in but in fact the situation is such that we want competition. Only insofar as the production of goods is concerned that if The Earth is dead. If we have a monopolist, they everyone to have people competing against each other, in order to make sure that the quality of this would improve symptoms the price of the good false, but we do not necessarily want to have competition when it comes to the production of bad things. And this is precisely what governments produce?
I mean you if they attack somebody week. I cannot say that this is a good that they do a person. They do something bad to a person and they can never do anything good unless they have done something bad before, do we want to have competition in that area too. And again, there I put very much doubtless. You can say the following look in the Monarch gets to his position by accident. Of birth. That makes it possible that he is the best guy that they have
Eustace cannot exclude. That he is a bad guy if he is a bad guy. However, there is his family's a dynasty who was very much concerned about roses. This King was this clean, the ruins, the position of of the dynasty if he is too crazy, the She has an interest tool either surround them with close advisers, who curtail his stupidity. So to speak and or if it needs to be done. They might be even going to
distribute. The determine the close relatives to kill to kill the king in order to preserve to preserve the Dynasty on the other hand, because he gets us to Mission by accident of birth. He can also be a decent and harmless. Dilatant can be a nice. A nice Uncle Phil to speak. At least that is not excluded by precisely because it is accidental that he gets his position. And now think about how their Democratic politicians come into the improve their position.
They must be successful. They're not dogs. eggs, Liars, swindlers, bribers even people, possibly with engaged, in many cool things in order to rise to a higher ranking positions that if they have characteristics, that that in normal normal, normal parts of life would be considered to be Um, yeah, I'm desirable characteristics for a democracy, virtually ensures, that only bad and dangerous. People will ever rise to the top flus bad and dangerous, people will rise to the top.
So I think even in this regard, monarchies are significantly Superior over over democracies. Okay, and I interrupt you here just to defend you because I know that somebody's just tuning in the audience and turn it in on the radio. And they don't know, the guy I'm interviewing here guys is a total Anarchist anarcho-capitalist and he's not for monarchies or democracies at all, but he's in this.
Over Sation comparing and contrasting, the two and saying, if you have to have a state, a monarchy might be better than a democracy for these reasons, right? I don't want anybody thinking that I'm interviewing a royalist here on the interview show. This guy's the most Anarchist guy I've ever met. I'm reading his articles and he's calling Hayek. A statist. Believe that knowing that is important in thinking. Yes. Markie is only presented.
So to speak as a second, the second best, or the better of two. Two evils rather than solution. And the idea is might be interesting to hear the idea that I had before. I came up with this reconstruction of monarchies, and, and democracies is very similar and analogy, the look at the system, like, like slavery, there, exist, two types of slavery, they exist. The type that we had in the United States. Where you Private owners of slaves and they exist.
The type of slavery that we had in the Soviet Union. Very few people have ever considered that to be a Savory system. But the two criteria of slavery applied perfectly. Also in the case of the Soviet Union that is you could not run away.
If you try to run away they would shoot you and And and the Communists could assign you to certain tasks to to do certain work and that is exactly what the slave master also can do, he can prevent you from running away and assigned useful to certain tasks, but the difference between the two systems is very similar to the idea in democracy and monarchy the in one case, in one case, globish a flaming Stalin's.
Of course, they were not the private owner of the sleigh, that if it could not Sell them in the market or solarwinds their services out, but they could make use of them. They put the sign them to certain amount of work with the privates slave owner. Of course, can sell to slave and Brent. Thus the services of this lace out. And the question is, then if you only have a choice to be a slave, would you rather want to be a privately owned slaves? Well, would you rather?
Want to be a slave like in the Soviet Union, that is publicly owned and there, you notice of against the same sort of thing, privately, owned slaves by and large treated, much better than publicly owned slaves or in the Soviet Union. For instance, the life expectancy of people in the last two decades of the Soviet Union fell worse life expectancy for for slaves in During periods of private State.
We've generally arose in the, obviously, in the interest of the slave owner, fertility rates for privately owned slaves, for normal fertility rates, just like other people. For in the Soviet Union. They they declined it was a relatively rare occurrence that a private slave owner would kill the slaves because that is the ultimate Act of Of capital consumption, you have an investment in this life. You would not just want to waste it away.
But in the Soviet Union, where you only can can take advantage of the labor of the labor force, but you don't own this. You don't understand if millions of people in peace time, we'll wasted away in in various industrial projects without any
without any problem whatsoever. That is about the value of human life in Soviet Union, was it infinitely lower than what the value of the private slaves, to a slave by the slave owner, slave owners in the South who decided that it was actually, now that they go back and do their books. It's cheaper to go ahead and let her slave die by new one. Then go through the bunch of medical care. And, oh, yeah. Yeah, you see, I'm not saying that these considerations can never appear, but it is not.
It is not difficult to see that from the point of view of sister. Of the slave owners in the Soviet Union this fall. So to speak the standard attitude that you have toward towards people. So all in all I wanted to do here is just explain some speak a little analogy with doing the Democracy case. And the monarchy case that I try to show 11, is the the Lesser evil, the monarchy and here of two evils of slavery for the
sleep. But slavery seems to meet less evil than the public slavery that existed in other places. And also on the subject of monarchies, and democracies you brought up the American Revolution. And I just wanted to point out that there were a lot more forces at play during the American Revolution than just economics. I mean, there was the whole idea of the divine, right? Of kings. And the claim of the Continental Congress that in fact, everyone has that divine right to be their own King.
And so you're not fit to be the ruler of us, a free people. And that kind of You're so, I wonder if maybe we're making the same mistake as Karl Marx and reducing everything to economics. When, in fact, there's religious attitudes and all different sort of things that come into account besides economics. That's a, no. I absolutely agree. Of course, with economic ideas of very important, but but they are other things such as
religion and culture. Oh sure, which are as important and you will see in my mind, democracy book, in particular, how sympathetic I am towards the idea of the session isn't as a means in a way to create you have to create smaller smaller
units of more homogeneous. Of people there to allow it, people of different different religion, of different language of different culture to live together, according to their own, to their own lights and engage in free trade with other with other small territories who might internally have very different religious structural linguistics. Ballistic structure and so forth. So I, if I promote as a second best alternative.
Also, the idea of pulse to what the our Elites have in mind for us. That is the ideal of a one-world State. My, my view is Be far better for for mankind, not only economically but also culturally and socially and so forth. If we would have instead, the world that would consist of whatever, tens of thousands of independent, political units, and, and free cities engaged in in free trade with, with each other, but being internally quite different from some other place.
Has so a radical decentralization of of the world rather than the current projects of creating ever more centralization and ultimately aspiring to create create a world state. I'm so glad you brought that up because really I mean throughout the 20th century, the leaders of the movement for the world. State have been the permanent family establishments in America, such as The Rock. Tyler's, the harriman's in the bushes.
They're the ones who want this world State acting, what they perceive to be their own long-term interest who also obvious reasons. Yes. I think those people who are in command of the American government, the hope of course, that it will be the American government that will play the leading role in this future world. Government incident.
There is are also intentions to to create obviously, a One World Currency. And again, my I'm sure that the American leaders expect that that they will be the ones that are the dominating people when it comes to the running of this world Central Bank, which issues one wall, paper currency paper
currency. Yes. I think these sorts of Tendencies underway, not only in the United States. Days, they have drawn many Europeans and Asian's influential people into these circles to. And and it is important that in the general public, some sort of alternative Vision. If promoted tools has won World Vision, which the which the elites present to us. What a big part of their elitist. One World system that they're setting up is free trade agreements, right?
NAFTA, and GATT and the free trade area of the Americas. The European Union, of course started off as a free trade zone and I wonder how you see the correlation there between opening up all the markets. And I mean basically in fact, I think this is something I read on mises that borders are created to keep products. That's what they're for. And I just wonder you know, if we if we Have such open borders and free trade with everyone and everything.
At some point. Are we going to have ten thousand tiny little sovereignties? Or are we just going to have one big state over the whole planet? Let me just, that's possible to choose, which way it goes. Let me talk about the defense, the industry trade agreements. That mean They are free trade agreements. Only in name American Waters of the North American Free Trade Agreement of some sort of document or well above 1,000 pages and the Free Trade Agreement.
Only needs two sentences. So whoever wants to send something else can send it out and brother wants to buy something from somebody abroad can do so too. So have little to do with free trade. That is more an agreement between To give advantages to select Industries involved in those countries in the European Union. The European case. It is basically the same is basically the same thing.
It has nothing to do with free trade, but it has to do with with harmonizing the packs and the regulation structure that exists in European countries and and makes them that makes them so to speak. Equally uncompetitive. If you have text a in Germany and you have text be in France, then the European integration, make sure that those Germany and France has both types of taxes. You have Germany regulates the beer industry and France, regulates the baking industry.
Then the European integration consists in Germany, regulates baking and beer brewing in France. Does this say? That's free trade. Rockefellers. That doesn't, that's, that's free trade. Rockefeller style or whatever. But addresses. This is not really what? What economists usually described as as free trade. This is an upward harm and harmonization of Taxation and regulation. In, in order to present.
Basically that people have a reason to move from one place to another, they want to reduce competition between the between the between the various countries. And Not by accident. Do they complain? Especially about your such spoilers as Switzerland? And Liechtenstein for instance, which are not numbers of the European community, and have lower taxes, and less
regulations. And, and people in put their money in those places rather than put their money into countries of the European community, and the European community of Of is annoyed at this and wants to force them. Also, to adopt the same bank secrecy laws. The same taxation rules that exists in integrator Europe. So, this is the type of of free markets that the, the elites have F in heaven. Mind, has nothing to do with
genuine free trade. This has just just to do with regulating the market in such a way that it benefits the government connected Industries in in the various participating States. What do you say to people who say that the move toward a world state? Is simply a natural course. They say, look at history and you had tiny little city-states and grease. And and then the size of the countries just got bigger and
bigger. And now we're ready to merge North and South America together and merge all Europe into one nation and that we eventually have to have a world government kind of idea. I mean, you can, you can see that these Tendencies have existed as long as Mankind exists. So to speak. There is this tendency is towards centralization and tendencies towards decentralization.
The centralizing Tendencies happened, the stronger one over the Long Haul of of History. I don't have a chip in my democracy that would to God That Failed book on this on this issue on this issue too. And again, we can explain why Why? That is, look, if you ask yourself. How aggressive will you be in your own behavior? And you construct two examples? In one case you have to pay for your own aggression, out of your
own resources. You must buy your own bodyguards, you must provide the ammunition weapons and so forth. And you must do the fighting. And in the other case, you can You can take the resources of other people, make other people. Be your bodyguard and so forth. That is being the position of the text of the taxing State. On the what circumstances will you likely be more keen to engage in aggressive behavior.
The answer is, of course, if you have the right to tax, then you will be likely more aggressive than you would be if you had to pay all of all of the expenses expenses connected with an aggression. Out of your own pocket, so it's not difficult to explain why States aggressive and then they come into conflict with each other because people move move away from one to the other states.
All begin very small. And then there is, people vote with their feet from, go to places that are more moderate in terms of taxes and regulations states. Don't like See that happening because of their milk cows. I'm looking for to speak on on other grounds. Not, they're not their own, and then they get involved in a war and the competition between States. In war, if eliminative not, like Ford and GM, can all stay in existence, even though they compete against each other.
The competition must not end with one. Must smash the other. Other but in a, you know, when States get into constant within with each other, then their result must be one must smash the other because you cannot have two texting agencies and to ultimate judges on the same territory only once. And then you need to explain what states will tend to win in these wars. And what states that the to lose in these wars.
And if everything else is roughly the same, we can It states that are moderates as far as Taxation and regulation is concerned and whoo-hoo. Over a relatively prosperous population will tend to beat in the long run states that are this moderate more brutal in terms of Taxation and regulation because they are populations grow by by and large. HP, poor populations, and in a war, you need productive.
Populations who provide you with ammunition and soldiers and, and foodstuff two feet per feed the soldiers and so forth. So it is a moderate states that tend to be the more, the more brutal, more brutal States because they had a deal, they have a more productive populations. Explains why she like boot Great Britain became a big superpower. And then after the Great Britain by the United States became a
big, big super power. They were more moderate internally wealthier internally and can can beat other other states who are more precious internally and also unproductive internal. He's relatively easily. It explains even phenomena such as why is it that the United States for instance was in its foreign policies, comparitively aggressive as compared to the former Soviet Union? The Soviet Union. So that people don't
misunderstand me here. I have nothing good to say about the Soviet Union's, the most, oppressive, most brutal terrible regimes that that one. And imagine they have from firsthand experience from that because my parents were refugees from from East. Germany were expropriated there. So I have no sympathy whatsoever for that system, but the Russian leaders knew full well that they had basket-case economies.
And they knew full well that they would only be able to militarily succeed against other. If those countries, who are far smaller than They themselves or if they will large, if they would engage in some sort of surprise attack where you don't have to rely for a lengthy period of time on a product of population. So it was as evil as they were internally. They were of course, rational enough to recognize that their that their external Ambitions could not possibly be fulfilled
with basket. Cake Basket Case, economy's what? United States you just have the opposite. You have governments that are at least comparatively speaking moderate as compared with many many other places and they're terrible as compared to what happened in the 19th century, but nonetheless relatively speaking Still Still among the better ones, but they know of course if they would come out on important is almost invariably in any type of military conflicts.
Successfully at the not only, the superior, size, the economy far, more productive. So if you know that you will win in any of these conflicts, of course, you will engage in Far More conflicts. And if you are afraid that you will lose, Whether it will be very difficult for you to win them. So it is not an accident. I think that the United States is involved in all sorts of little Affairs, all over the world and makes itself enemies all over the world in a completely.
Unnecessary way. Okay, what let's take a break right here and when I get back we'll talk about this permanent state of warfare that like you say, America apparently. Can't afford to carry on at least for now and where this might lead in the future. Our Guest today is hands Herman, hot is Professor of Economics at UNLV and a senior fellow at the Ludwig von mises Institute. We are talking about the individual, the state democracy free economics, and all the rest
of that. So, play a little song and take a break everybody. Stay right there. You listening to radio chaos, 95. .9 FM in Austin, Texas. All right, everybody. We're back on the weekend interview show. I'm your host Philip, Drew administrator. My guess. Is on top. He is a professor of Economics at the University of Nevada. Las Vegas. Senior fellow at the Ludwig. Von mises Institute. He's the author of the new book, The Myth of National Defense.
And his last one, which is, I've read the introduction to his incredible democracy, that God That Failed and you can look them up. His website phonecopy.com is H oppe and also arrives Lew Rockwell.com. You can find Archives of his many articles.
Let's see. Okay. So when we left off, we were talking about how the Soviet Union never tried to take over the world because they knew they couldn't their economy could not afford to do it and how in the country as free and strong as America is, we can produce enough that that say, for example, the neoconservatives in charge of American policy. Now believe that the American people have the unlimited capacity to overthrow the whole
world for them. And I wonder we seem to be on this course, and I haven't been seeing many Neo cons getting fired lately or anything. So it looks like, you know, Syria Iran, Saudi Arabia, or on the list for this Administration, they would very much like it to be anyway, so I guess What I like to ask you is, where is this state of Perpetual war going to lead? What is going to happen to the core of the Empire as we expanded? All states, like twice. He's twice.
He's always good in all in order to tell the old population, that it's time to give up some of their rights and hand them over to the government and make the government even stronger. So, because of that, you can, you can predict that we will go from one little crisis to the, to the Experiment. They were happy with with 9/11 in a way because that gives them the possibility of introduce something like the patriarch.
The Patriot Act, the people rally behind the administration when when soldiers fight in informed in foreign countries, but but of course, all of this has to be paid for somehow, not only Socially, which we already see how difficult this is to finance. All of these adventurous there in Iraq, first to bomb the place to ground and then and then use American taxpayers and taxpayer money to rebuild the place to build the place back up, but it is also expensive in the sense
that the time. I'd come by engaging in this foreign policy, increasingly loses Goodwill among among other people. I think if you would take a survey, the world all over and would ask people, you know, if you couldn't live in your own country anymore and would have to seek refuge in The Refuge someplace. Where would you go? I think America would ring by far number one and that would be even far more pronounced. So if America would just mind its own business, and leave
other people alone. Let other people do their nonsense that they want to do. They will have to learn themselves as long as they are, no immediate danger to the security of the United States. Why interfere there. You always interfere only on one side of the population in these countries and you automatically make the other part of the population, your enemies. And there is no need to make these to make these enemies to ask.
I think n as the size of the territory controlled by the United States in. Pieces and you will get you all to get FL more internal Warfare, not terrorist, terrorist activities, withdrawing from inside. Well, it also brings up the question of whether we can afford an economically. I mean, we're in a recession right now. I know the newspaper said that we had what 17% growth in the last quarter. I don't know whose algebraic calculations are ya.
I know I fix the doll. So those are probably just sent of these numbers and they have also something to do with with the fact that G&P Hadji and P is is calculated, for instance. Every military expenditure is considered to be included in in G&P. Even though they don't contribute anything to to human well-being. After all. They're just tanks getting shot
down there and standing. Around doing nothing to benefit any any Americans in anyway, nonetheless, you have to pay for for all of these materials and Manpower at the spending for the Iraq war is going into their calculations for the gross national product. Yeah, yeah. Yeah, you see that 440 in order to calculate the value of government services because they are not sold and and brought on in the market you simply take. Whatever it costs to build them.
And then you say this is so to speak and valuable valuable product valued at such-and-such a price because that's the amount of money. It costs are to cost us to produce 24. Even even things that are not sold and have no buyer. I'd have no National seller even even though things are included in gross national product. Yes. It's still here. We are in the middle of building the world. We have seven trillion dollars almost of accumulated national debt. Almost half a trillion dollar
deficit just this year. So then the question is, as powerful an economy. As America does have, you know, with all their funny numbers notwithstanding, can we really afford to overthrow all these Rogue States and bring them all into the International Community at gunpoint? No, obviously not. I mean, you you already see that you are on, on a begging spree, for money, to go to other countries, to just help you out in, in Iraq.
And if these attacks on the American occupying forces in Iraq continue, you will not be able to to withdraw easily. Just this will be a permanent permanent Financial bird.
And it is, and contemplating going to places like Iran, which has far bigger population is far more difficult to control also, because of its geography, and two forces, almost almost Unthinkable. So no formula for military reasons, they cannot, they cannot go on and on and on they will have to interrupt and then choose. Selected selected targets. So even the most powerful and richest nation in the history of the whole world can't take over the world. No, I'm not.
No. I've got played no other Empire. Could do it know that the United States cannot if there would be two or three front War they would already be incapable of fighting. Let's say, let's say China would will try to invade Taiwan of the form of Mosa, put the United States, engage in such a thing. The answer would be, no. They don't have the military power to have to be stationed in Iraq, and at the same time, fight fight a war, they also.
So I think they have the impossibility of Adventures. Because they seem I mean Taiwan and China is a perfect example. I think this current group of foreign policy people would do everything they could to intervene in this situation. The politicians people who sometimes have no concept of scarcity, and they are probably stimulated in This Feeling by being in control of an institution to like the federal reserve's of can print money at will.
That gives you the results. So to speak that you can just accomplish whatever you want by, just printing up the money, but the consequence will be just, this will be a hyperinflationary conditions and you will get problems internally. That is stood, there will be a rebellion of the United States population if that happens because that's what white bulbs, their Pension funds, their plans, for retirement, and so forth, so you It's very difficult in the Mover to pull off. Right.
Well, it's not the TV is always going to blame inflation on wages. Going up instead of the government creating money out of nothing. Right? Right, right. Some foreign speculators who who do these sorts of things instead of asking oneself. The simple question. Who, who is it in the United States who can print money and who cannot? And the answer is there's only one institution that can do it and everybody else is concerned. To be a counterfeiter if they do it earners, they're not the ones
causing. It must be the fed. And of course it is all the. So it is it is all this effect because the government is the only institution that prints money and since they have the right to print money, they will use of power. They will print it. I mean, imagine I would I would appoint you.
You to the position where you are, the only person in the country that can print US dollar notes and nobody else could could do it. Everybody else would be labeled, a counterfeit of, would you would you print on us? And the answer is, of course, it costs. You nothing to print them and then you can go out and buy a real things with these things. So, of course, you will do it. You want to have a new car, you want to have to?
House and you find out that you have far more friends than you ever thought, they also come to you because you have to Magic want and I think politicians by and large many of many of them believe that with this with this tool in hand the money creation tool in hand. You can you can find almost everything under the sun. Well Sir, John Maynard Keynes said that it would make everyone on earth a millionaire. I guess. Almond taking into account. How little a million dollars would be worth by.
Then. He actually, which is not frequently quoted by contemporary Keynesian school that he had actually in his name's main book on money employment and interest at passage where he said that If people would follow his monetary schemes of is he engaging in inflation that he could abolish scarcity within one generation, which is almost a religious fanatic, religious belief and has very little to do with economics, but it tells you something about canes and it tells you something about the
20th century that the man was these views. Would become the most famous economist of the 20th century. Well, I supply side. I'm so glad I got an economist on the phone because I think I've been trying to work this out. I believe I remember learning in school supply side and demand side economics are just two sides of Keynesian Theory. And so when they say that George Bush is has a conservative economic policy or whatever. They're really still only talking about the right.
Side of casing. Socialism ripe. It's not like the Republicans follow nieces Doctrine. No, no that the difference between the Republicans and the Democrats. In this regard. I think is only is only the first under Republicans. The government power grows faster than under Democrats, because everybody expects it grows less fast, and you get away with actually growing faster. And the Democrats, everybody expects, it will grow very fast. And so they must curtail their desires a little bit.
But for instance, under Bush, the government size could do far far more so than under the Clinton and under Reagan, the government sighs. Boo. Astronomically to the Republicans, have far too good
and image in all of this. And when it comes to the Keynesian aspects, the only difference is this the Democrats would The Democrats would sort of speak in inflate and in-depth themselves for the purpose of all sorts of social policies and the Republicans would do it for all sorts of military purposes. This is, this is, this was a big stick of of Reagan, whoo-hoo, indebted the United States as nobody had before.
And all of this or large parts of it went into the military and then we Democrats dreamed about that, but the only difference would have been for them. So to speak to instead of spending the destroy these loans that they get from the public on or from the banks on a military boondoggle. See would spend them on welfare boondoggles. Who gets more welfare the rich or the poor in this country? That is one have to Define. What welfare is the government
spending tax money. Whether it's whether its food stamps or welfare, check or whatever they are, but the beauty, the exists, of course, also also welfare policies that consists in in granting a certain producer, higher higher, import tariffs imposed on his foreign competitors. Is that which are not that easy to measure. You don't actually give anything to the American producer, all
you? more difficult for the foreign competitor to compete against, which is no way you can, of course, also call welfare or corporate corporate welfare have not studied in great detail, but the basic idea is that most of the redistribution Ins takes place. So to speak within the middle class, from one group of the middle class to other groups of the middle class, but that does not mean that welfare to the poor does not play an important role. Also it does.
I mean look, we have Medicare and Medicaid Medicare. Are Provisions, we have food. We have food stamps. We have housing allowance. Most of those handouts. Of course, do go to poor people, rather than to, than the relevant to middle class people. And again, you can see, this is also something that that there have that there has to be some redistribution from which to the poor you Would expect that under especially under Democratic conditions. Again, I always use this example.
Imagine we would have one man. One vote on a worldwide scale with soap will state what what sort of government would be likely to get. Now, we would like to get an Indian Chinese coalition government, right? Given But they give him the size of those of those countries. And in order to be re-elected. What would these Indian Chinese government Coalition likely decide how to deal with the Western World. They would Rob them blind. Right? I mean, huge taxes on them and
say, you have whatever two cars. Go on vacation. Do this insist nice thing, and look how we live here. So massive redistribution of income has to be handed over from from the West to these countries. So yes, and the same thing has also happened within each country within Germany was in France within the United States as they gradually expanded the franchise, you know, initially the franchise was quite severely restricted to in terms of age.
And also, in terms of property requirements, that people had to fulfill, because people were afraid that, if people who have no property consult, they will, of course, built themselves. The property of those people who do have property and this is after the extent of the franchise gradually in the 19th century, practically everywhere in the Western Bloc. This is of course, basically what Has happened.
We have seen in all countries. The rise of socialist will be United States called liberal movements. I mean, in Europe, Liberals are social Democrats and liberals in Europe are free marketeers. Some of the would be, it would be the right. It would be the free market in America. They are social Democrats, right worth in liberals, in Europe. Still the most free market oriented people. So, but you see it as a
franchise was expanded. Socialists horses, became stronger, and stronger, and stronger, and classical liberal forces. That is also just wanted to have minimal minimal government. The government dedicated to know more than the night Watchman to just make sure that nobody beats you and the steals from you. Those people declined in
importance. Because the masses were attracted by by the Socialist Promises of making them Rich by ripping off people who are in better shape than they themselves, are not recognizing that in the long run. Of course, you harm yourself the most by it because the more which people there are the better off. We are also the poor people in those countries. Most people have no idea how I'm that. How desperate conditions. Will people in other countries
have to live? The question is how easy it is to get the people live in a society where there's 1% own 95% of all the property. It's not because that 1% is so much smarter and more talented than everybody else. It's because their themes to know those sorts of things are never as a result of Market competition.
Note that there is There's no one who is set that talented and at least and also these these talents do not continue to exist from generation to the Next Generation to the Next Generation. So the even if some people accumulate great fortunes very frequently. They are also quickly dissipated again in the following Generations because they draw a Playboy's of the father. Father was a successful entrepreneur. This conservative attitudes and the sun became liberal Playboy's
and waste money away. It's the state, then that allows the 1% to continually control so much of the wealth. It's not the result of what they call economies of scale. And that kind of thing. We're to inaudible remark extent. Remember I recall, I mentioned that before that many large corporations bows, their existence to legal protection by the Eight just recall the case of Chrysler, which was a number of years ago, on the verge of bankruptcy. Why didn't it go bankrupt?
Because it was considered to be too big to fail and was kept artificially in existence. Otherwise, it would have broken up into most likely to smaller, smaller components. The same thing does not happen. However, to a mom and pop store. The disabled, if a mom and pop store goes out of business. Nobody will intervene on their behalf, most likely because they have no lobbyists in Washington, that that can wine and dine these members on the roles of Congress and make these
decisions. Okay, so, If the state was abolished the left believes that, everything will be great. Right? The Communists think that once the state is abolished. Then the whole world will be a wonderful Brotherhood of mankind. And yeah you tend to think that when the state is abolished everything will work out. All right to but in different ways. So and if anyone can explain what you mean and what you think?
They mean, and the differences between the two, I mean you have to, As Long As mankind is what it is to have to reckon with the existence of Murderers and rapists, and bullies and and frauds and and evil people. In general. This this is very this is part of part of mankind. The only thing that we are capable of doing things that to set up an institution that makes life as hard as possible for these types of people. Not that we will eliminate them
completely. People that we make it more difficult for them than it currently is. And I think the system that that I have, in mind, if something would operate something like this apart, from apart, from self-defense, apart from safety, friends.
I think the most important role as, as peacemakers and as judges, Would be played by with the played by insurance companies and it is instructive to to compare to the feet, the operation of insurance companies with the state to see where the advantages and lie of this natural natural order to be very convincing here because people hate insurance companies. So this one Not everything that insurance
companies would be done. If insurance companies would be subject to standard normal normal competition. It would not be subject to Ridiculous rules imposed by governments on them, but take some example, for instance, with an insurance company. If they wanted to have a client, would they be able to get away with saying, look, I insure you
against damage to your property. But the first thing that you have to do is hand me your weapons, everybody, every normal person would Tell you must be crazy. What kind of insurance company is that that asked me to just hand in hand to the only tools that I can use for self-defense, over to the insurance company, but this is what states typically do, right? And in states, in the United States, that is not quite as far progressed, as it is in most
other. But that is a temp of all states, to disarm the public entirely, which seems to be contradicting the purpose of providing protection. Then the next then. See State insurance companies would even give you a discount in the premium that they charge you if you can show them that you are armed and even more. So if you can show them that, you know, how to handle arms in the same way as insurance companies, give you a discount.
If you have a vault at home, instead of leaving your jewelry on the kitchen, on the kitchen table, this mess likely them. If something happens, and that they have to have to pay up. Insurance companies would be good at preventing crimes from
taking place. Not that they can prevent it in all cases, but they have a financial incentive to be good at it because whatever they prevent, they don't have to pay up because insurance companies and indemnify people for damage or states of course, never indemnify any so even if it is their fault that something happens to me. Don't say I'm sorry. And know, I will compensate you for my mistake. Insurance companies do this. So, whatever they can prevent. They don't have to pay.
The state has no such incentive. If it doesn't prevent. It doesn't have to pay. So preventing his means walk. I don't do it. The next thing is what people want this, if something has happened that I get my stuff back, dilute the stolen goods. Insurance companies have Good at that, too. They have an incentive. Forget you sit what they find. They don't have to replace.
They don't have to pay for it. If you have any experience with the local police, the local police doesn't even searched after F stereos and cars and things like that when they are when they are stolen. And again, they have no incentive whatsoever. Their salaries entirely independent of success or not success in this, in this area. And then The worst is that people want the criminals to be apprehended and punished an insurance company.
Again, would have an incentive to find these people because it could then Force the criminals to compensate the victims. Instead of the insurance company has to have to compensate having to compensate the victims. First cut. The current system is, of course, perverse. So if they catch is the Government police catches these people at all, and they are only successful in capital kind crime
cases in all others. The rate of discovery for are no. But if they, if they get these people, what happens to them if they are incarcerated, is the victim than compensated by by the criminology at us know. As a matter of fact, the victims and have to pay for the incarceration of the common law so that he can play table tennis there and eat you sleep. And study law and walk out for that. He gets stronger. Once he gets out of prison and all of that at the expense of
the victims. So you can see that the entire these different entirely different population, from what we currently see. You don't you don't think there'll be private prisons and people making a lot of money off of holding people in cages. I wonder not the at the bottom line. Who's going to protect the rights of the accused. You know what I mean?
That's supposedly and I'm not saying now that the, that the government is doing a good job of it, but if somebody says, hey, that's the guy who did something to me. I still want my Bill of Rights to make sure that I have plenty of opportunity, to cross-examine the witnesses against me and everything before they lock me in a cage. YouTuber make me pay or do anything else you have, you would have courts in the same way.
The again, the insurance insurance companies, you can you can imagine enough to see how they would be in these in these situations. Look you have there are basically three scenarios you and I are insured with the same company. We both know that we could have a conflict with each other. We both Both expect from our insurance company that they have both Provisions. What they will do in case that you.
And I have a conflict with each other and then when we do, they follow their own rules, they follow the rules that we have agreed to and adjustment will be will be past. The other case is you are insured, with one company, uninsured with another again. We both know that cases like Can
occur. We both expect our insurance company to have Provisions. For this case in its contract, if the insurance companies come to the same agreement that if you are guilty, William guilties, and then the verdict is and forced just like it is just like it is now. And then we come to the most interesting case that is you are insured with one. I'm insured with the other and I want insurance companies. Do come to disagree in. Disagreements, my says, I'm right and you're says, you are
right now. Would they shoot it out? In this case? He has a seems to be. Of course. They will not shoot it out because shooting it out is extremely expensive. Insurance companies are by nature of defensive organizations. What would they do? Instead? They would just resort to Independent, third-party arbitration, but the emphasis is on Independent. If the arbitrator can Be anybody who is a member of insurance of your insurance company, you are a member of my insurance company.
You realize that currently, of course. Any arbitration is precisely again a member of the same organization to which already the first judge belongs for this would be very different. The arbitrator would also not know whether he will be chosen again in the future and he will have an incentive to come up with a verdict that is considered to be. To be by both insurance companies as fair and just verdict.
And also by implication, by the members of both insurance companies as fair and good verdict because otherwise, one or both insurance companies would lose clients. And if that were the case, they would no longer choose these types of arbitrators in, in future, in future cases. So, I say you would have a very nice.
Arbitration procedure set up in some regards similar to what you have in some regards, clearly Superior and we can see that such a thing actually exists already in the world because if you look at the relationships that say, the dean a German businessman, and an American businessman, do you think that the relationship between a German businessman and American businessmen are in principle list. Peace? Or more conflicts within the relationship between two American businessmen.
I doubt that. I think they have hired large, equally peaceful, and equally conflict load, but there is no overarching government in both cases. What do they do? So the German goes to his German Court, the American goes to the American court and then either either of the courts agree. He and, and force that whatever they agree upon or they don't agree, then they go to arbitration and then the enforce what the arbitration does.
So, in on the internet under International level, well by definition, so to speak, we live in a state of Anarchy because there's no overarching world government on the international level. We actually do with this type of arbitration already accepted. It is done by, State court that that I'm proposing can be done internally in each in each Society. Also. Well, what if the two insurance companies? Agree that I'm responsible but I disagree.
And you know, there's there's cronyism, you know, a lot of you hear the phrase, It's all about who you know, not what you know, and that kind of thing. And you know, you can have two guys who are good friends. Who work at different insurance companies. That agree that they're just going to go ahead and find me guilty and transfer this man from here, but the question that you have to ask yourself in this, It's just only could could this not also happen under the
current circumstances. Well, it surely does. I mean it truly does, right? And the question is only, is it more likely under the current circumstances or less? Like, and I think it is more like the another current circumstance. Again, he's always been this page, some hard to believe that that for every problem. We can we can develop a perfect solution. But our goal has to have to be as only to deal with this problem of evil bad people in the most efficient way.
Without without being able to exclude that, these things can happen all together. And I think these competitive insurance, companies were people can if they are dissatisfied. Leave one and two inch with ourselves with another are better. Guarantee that these cases that you For the head in mind fear that they do not occurs in then
under the current circumstances. I mean, this is that it's a general experience that I make when I talk about these things with with people that they realize that there can be still some problems arising under these Arrangements. Yes, that can be are the problems more likely, less frequent and less severe than they are under other circumstances, or are they more likely and Through the years and under other circumstances. That is the only question that
that we can address. And I think they, as he seems to be honest. And in favor of having more competition, having people pay voluntarily to insurance companies being able to withdraw from them. Well, what do you expect? If you must must remain with one frog, As we must know, right? We there's only one company that the chest, it will do all protection if you must stay with it and you must pay to it, but are you aren't satisfied or not.
Do you think that this firm will do more Mischief than if you could simply withdraw from the front, of course, you think they can do more Mischief, right? You cannot withdraw from them? Okay, so you've made very compelling arguments against the role of the state. As protector of the people from foreign enemies and against the state, as the Arbiter in matters of Criminal Justice or lawsuits. Those are the two basic most bottom-line functions of the American government.
And if you just really completely destroyed them both pretty much seems like. So all that being the case. I have to admit that I'm confused about your take on immigration. I guess I don't mean to oversimplify but I suppose Libertarians basically split into two camps one which takes the more conservative clothes. Borders, point of view, and the other that says, hey, everybody's an individual and there's a free Society.
We ought to have completely open borders and I wish I had a better understanding of your reasons for being closed, closed, borders. And ARCA said, I'm not sure. Yeah, I think the basic ideas is again, very simple. Just imagine we have a society and natural order in which every every Every resource is privately owned. So the private streets private schools, private private parts, private buildings, private Rivers, private Lakes.
There's nothing that is publicly of everything is privately up. Now, what in such a society would there exists something like our right for people to immigrate? When the answer seems to be no, of course not because every private property owner. Has of course the right to include or to exclude. I can let you on my property or I can expel you from my property. That is those are the two, the two most important rights that people have with regard, to their property, to invite people
onto it, and to expel them. From it. So whatever isn't it. Also a natural property, right? Of a human being to travel wherever he wants in his own room. But if somebody just says, I want to travel right through your living room right now, but would you say through my living room? There's only one door to mine. No, right to trespass. There are many places right now that you cannot go to.
I mean, wouldn't somebody be a prisoner in the middle of Central Texas and not be able to get to Washington State? If there's, we are normal, what normally you would have. First of all, the exists, of course, many people who have an interest in providing access to their property. Imagine you are old owner. Doesn't roll tone, of course has an interest in in having people on the road. Imagine you are have your the owner of the shopping center.
You have to interest if people come to the shopping center. So they exist both both Tendencies among men. You have once you want to attract people to come to your things. Mostly if you if you are engaged in commercial sings and on the other end, you also have desires in tendencies. To distance yourself from others and to, exclude others, from your property, which you do more in your, your your residential residential property than commercial property. Obviously, both both things are
possible. What I'm what I'm only advocating is. People must recognize again that the private property implies also the right to discriminate. Terminate at will and I don't have to give any justification for that whatsoever. And we live in a world where we are permanently outlawed from engaging in any type of discrimination. That is we cannot say I will not take you because you are German or because you are not married. Well, because you're homosexual your, because this, or that?
Or is that even though a private property owner, should have the right to say that, he must have caused also pay the price that With these types of discrimination, but all of these affirmative action and non-discrimination laws, what they have done is forcing people to live together and to accept as employees or students or, as a present apprentices people that they normally would not want to like to associate with, and this is not very healthy situation.
Although I people would argue that it actually, We increase the health of the situation quite a bit because before there was especially in the South and the United States, systematic discrimination against anybody just for having brown skin, and that nowadays people aren't nearly as bigoted as they were because not since they were forced to allow blacks to come and sit at the lunch counter. They realized that this guy is just some guy just like that. Yeah, but you see at that time,
the state had lost that unit. We prescribed, what sort of discrimination people had to engage in. This is, of course, not the type of discrimination that I have that. I have in mind each private property owner determines how to discriminate and not to discriminate with respect to his private property. There is nobody who says, all private property owners must do that must discriminate in such and such a way. But this is the purpose of form of state laws, right?
They cover. So to speak you. You and me, and my neighbor and your neighbor and all of us now have to discriminate one. This not discriminate in the in the way that the state tells us to do. This is this is not the type of system that I would Advocate. I would Advocate the system you on your territory. You can discriminate in any way you want. I on my territory, can discriminate in any way I want. And, and this, and this will be by and large promoting peaceful peaceful. Some scripts.
Because if you force people to be together or force people to be separated from each other, who would like to be two together in both cases, you will create some sort of conflict but we had these cases. The busing cases where we've lost a black kids into predominantly white neighborhoods, or vice or vice versa. Most of the people that I have talked talked to about these problems, whether it's black or white.
They all thought that does allow the Reprogram, it did not promote better relationships between these these groups actually because they felt it was forced upon them until probably created even even more tension. It did not allow that friendships could be built because the people just simply live too far from each other and you just and you can to meet and hang out more with people that are in your immediate neighborhood made made me. In friendship even more difficult.
So I don't think any of these programs because what they're made for Success becoming see. Also say that the problems were really the government's fault in the first place to what else. It wasn't so much. The attitude was the attitude of the people but it was the state law that encoded it made it. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes, of course.
And this would, of course not exist in the, in natural order, the way I describe it. You would have plenty of discrimination, but would be very different types of discrimination at very different types of of places. But the general, the general idea, when it comes to immigration, come back to this, to this subject has to be. We would want to have people to come to the United States that are first invited by some. And that is in many, many cases,
of course not the case at all. They are not invited by anyone, by by any stretch of the imagination. And we would want to have people come to a place that by their very presence. So, to speak, enhance the value of the village, or town was country or whatever. It is. We would not want to have have bums from the third world coming here who lower the value of the property of those who are already here. And I think the United States in recent years have adopted so to
speak and affirmative action. Immigration policy were they have increasingly given up the idea of of looking for people who are Assimilable, who want to become American and, and who goes and whose presence is good for for the country, enhances the value of it. Look in the old days naturalism. What about each? And every one of these immigrants is still just an individual and yeah, if you have an individual, if he hasn't, he hasn't been beaten, but you see
like individualism case. A small role currently either, you know, scam exposed. What's the in a greater interest of America wasn't a better betterment of society. And and I don't see how anyone is supposed to be able to judge that, you know, you never know the guy. The illegal immigrant who comes to pick strawberries might be the guy who invents the new unified field Theory, or something someday or his son might, or who knows what is going to be the betterment of the country?
But he has to be invited by someone and said, many of them are not invited. And the other, the other ideas. Again, look what? What? What this country's in the past sometimes do with their, with their criminals. They 50 Cent to America and Central America. The symptom away, Australia, to, to uninhabited territory, just to get, get rid of them because they thought that their own country would so to speak suffer. If they would.
If they would stay there. It seems to be an idiotic policy to get to import to import people of who, you know, if we can easily predict. That the overwhelming bulk of the population would be opposed to their immigration, to the United States, because they are people that qualify as people that that are dangerous individuals to be here. Well, let's see. I guess I'm thinking of a
comparison point of view. Mike, bednarek who's running for president or running for the libertarian nomination. Anyway, right now for running for president. He, I'm not quoting him. I don't remember exactly how he put it, but I think the analogy was something like, a giant wall with a wide-open door so that, you know, there's a bouncer checking IDs to make sure that nobody is convicted felon from whatever country they're from on the way into the country.
But other than that, come on in that, give us your poor and you're tired and your huddled masses, and let them find a place to go and build the American dream for themselves and come on. And this is the land of liberty. He has no welfare. If you know, of course, there is water available to resolve. The problem is, our fault for being social is not their fault for being tired old man. That's right, but you have to deal of course, with the question. Now while the welfare state is
in effect. You cannot just say, look, the welfare state is bad. While the welfare state is in effect. We let these people come regardless and then we hope that the welfare state. Eventually break apart will collapse, but if it collapses,
what is that in place? Then you might have such a massive amounts of such a massive inflow of foreign us coming into having come into the United States that you will get Civil Wars. Imagines, a smaller states that say, Switzerland would say everybody who wants to come to Switzerland and can afford the fare can come to Switzerland, and he is inside. Told to all welfare handouts in Switzerland, the Swiss people are entitled to. What do you think? What happened to that?
Be a disaster? Operation sweats, but even that even then you think he was living on the street in Switzerland. This is more comfortable than working 50 or 60 hours in India to eat out of the garbage cans is more comfortable. There. You would be overrun in any case. And and when the welfare state, then collapses, you will have a
civil war on your hands. I think that it's a very unwise policy to just think that you create a catastrophic situation first and then all of the catastrophic situation like this Phoenix, out of the ashes is so satisfying, solution will arise. I don't think this is going to wrap. Okay. Well, if we could repeal the welfare state first then, would you be for a wide-open door? Is it, is it the fact that the welfare state will Up to us and Destroy America with immigration.
Then those symptoms would be in favor of decentralizing the power to determine the selection as much as possible. For instance. Why should it be the government that the federal government that determines its about the immigration policy? Why should it not be a community in Switzerland? For instance? It is the community where you want to reside that determines whether you will be accepted as a citizen or not.
The fountain said that not sound like a very unreasonable solution to me. That's where I want to live. And these people who live there will decide whether they want to have me or dealt because they have already made a major investment in this place. And I benefit as an immigrant from the already existing investment.
And these inhabitants might have for Justified to claim saying that the immigrants should just somehow Translate compensate them for all the already existing Investments is at that price. I mean, they have a hospital. They have schools, The Immigrant has nothing. Put nothing contributed to this. So he puts on and for instance, that people who get permission to emigrate so that has a large number of form workers, but they are not citizens.
I think that dude large number of foreign workers in almost any other country. You will be 20 percent or so of the labor force, but it is very difficult to become a citizen. And the citizens typically insisted somebody wants to become citizens, must be compared to C. Well, C must make a donation to The Community to compensate for the fact that the community has accumulated, since in the past to which the Immigrant did not contribute, but now he has to
pay his fair share. So, in some, in some localities in Switzerland, you have to pay millions of dollars in order to just become a citizen. Yeah, I think that seems to be a far wiser strategy to complete the individual communities. Determine what their admission standards are and then you will see for some places. The admission standards will be
very high. And for some places, the admission standards will be very low, but all I'm advocating is only people should be allowed to have their own admission standards and they Do not have to be uniform in any way. Yeah, that's the funny thing about the idea of Liberty. It seems that it's so consistent all the way across the board. You can apply the same principle of individual liberty to pretty much every question. And it really turns out that's a
state of solution. Just doesn't measure up to the free one approved. I think, I think that's really just the bottom line. Yeah, I think we are almost done with all our interview, right? If you have closing comments or anything you'd like to sum up to get across to people before I let you go. Yeah, I love what I can sum up. This just, this is just, of course, the conversation that is
not entirely systematic. If it could be and many questions that have Arisen, I probably did not address in full, but if you want to know more about these things. Go to my website on for / H A and S H OPP e.com. You will find some reviews of my latest two books. You can also order the books from from their various comments on on the books and so forth and you can if you have something good to say you can also Email me. Thank you. Great. Hey, I want to thank you very much for coming on.
Everybody. Listen to an interview of Hans Hermann. He is Professor of Economics at UNLV senior fellow at the Ludwig, von mises Institute of Austrian economics. He's the editor of the Journal of libertarian studies. And he's the author of a few books, but most importantly, democracy, The God That Failed, and the myth. With of National Defense. Thank you very much for coming on the show today, sir. I really appreciate it. Thank you for having me. Goodbye.