There are three ways for a person to obtain something of value from another person: receive it as a donation, steal it by force or fraud, or exchange for it. It’s not much of an oversimplification to say that the advance of civilization has hinged on its movement from the first two methods to the third. The right to exchange, and the right to promise as part of a future exchange—the right to contract—are now taken for granted, but those rights are delicate and a whole complex of rights, assumptions, and obligations are subsumed by them. Their intellectual foundations are being undermined as the equality of rights implicit in contract and exchange gives way to a regressive inequality of rights: servitude.
The essence of exchange is choice; it’s voluntary. Both parties have the choice of whether or not to transact, and neither will do so unless they subjectively value what they receive more than what they give up. That is not to say that there will be equality of resources, bargaining power, or negotiating skill between the parties, or that they will be equally happy with their bargain, only that both parties have the same choice to accept or reject the proposed transaction. Exchange embodies that equality of rights between parties, but not an equality of outcomes.
The right to exchange implicitly assumes that parties are the best judges of their own interests, and that such determinations will be respected by both the parties and those outside the transaction. The rights to exchange and contract are individual rights, and the obligation to fulfill one’s side of the bargain an individual obligation. A collective entity such as a business can contract and exchange, but either the members of that entity have agreed that they will, collectively, do so, or have, by their membership in that entity, recognized implicitly or explicitly the right of those directing the entity to do so.
The concept of a social contract is a contradiction in terms. With whom does a society contract? An entity cannot contract with itself. The notion has come to mean acceptance by the governed of the government, whatever its form. However, individuals have no choice to opt out of the collective entity known as society, as they would any other voluntarily chosen entity they joined, and the social contract supposedly binds not just those who were part of the society when the contract was made, but future generations. Thus, the term social contract wrongly connotes voluntary choice of an institution whose establishment has always been the product of chance and force, and has no meaning at all for the unborn who will nevertheless be compelled to live under the government so established.
Exchange evokes hostility because it is a private decision in which the resulting agreement excludes everyone but the two parties, and it increases, by their own evaluations, their wellbeing. As it increases wellbeing, a rational government will do all it can to protect the rights of its citizens to contract and exchange for any licit purpose. However, a government relegated to protecting private contracts and exchange is a government subjugated; there is no opportunity for the exercise of coercive power. When contracts are breached, the government’s role is adjudication and remedy, not coercion. Even that role is unessential; parties can agree beforehand to nongovernmental dispute resolution.
Nobody goes into government to refrain from exercising power. Governments ban certain contracts and exchanges, or dictate their terms in the name of regulation. They are humanity’s most rapacious and regressive institution; they arrogate to themselves the right to legally engage in theft. Outlawing or regulating certain exchanges furthers larceny as well; enforcement offers opportunities for extortion and accepting bribes.
Historically, there has been a virtually straight line relationship between the share of activity within a society demarcated by voluntary contract and exchange and the progress made by that society. Voluntary exchanges and the private choices they incorporate are, by definition, made only when they enhance wellbeing. Once a government “escapes” the subjugation of enforcing private agreements and choices, they constrict the scope of such agreements and choices and extract value by force, that is, involuntarily, from the citizenry. Notwithstanding the delusions and lies of their many proponents, constricting choices and theft cannot further progress, they only retard, stop, or reverse it.
Neither the relationship between donor and recipient nor between thief and victim is that of equals. The proper characterization for both is servility: recipients begging donors for donations and victims implicitly or explicitly begging thieves to spare some of their property or their lives. If a truth serum could be administered to ensure an honest answer, perhaps no single question would be more psychologically revealing than whether a person prefers relationships of servility or equality. A preference for the former is the most accurate marker for sociopathy available, and is not a bad one for psychopathy, either.
So runs the sociopathic, psychopathic scam known as government. The productive are robbed and just enough is doled out to the beggars to keep them quiescent and voting correctly. The rest lines the pockets of the sociopaths and psychopaths, the “served.” This can be the only result when exchange is replaced with theft and begging as the basis of social and commercial interaction. Collectivist hostility to exchange stems not from its misattributed flaws, but from deep-rooted psychological hostility to a process that involves free choice and confers equally to both parties the option not to engage in it. Exchange presumes that individuals are capable of directing their own lives, and protecting the freedom to contract and exchange enshrines that autonomy. Freedom, exchange, and equality of rights under the law are inseparable.
As exchange dies, the nation founded in revolution and independence descends into docile servility. Equality of rights under the law, a difficult but not impossible goal, gives way to a deluded and malignant drive for equality of outcomes. Exchange, contract, and freedom are inconsistent with equality of outcome. In order for voluntary exchange to occur, both parties must have something to exchange, which implies both parties have produced something and either retained it or exchanged it for something else of value. Productive ability is not equally distributed. Nor is the ability to benefit from exchange; some are better at it than others.
Spurious promises of equal outcomes implicitly rely on begging, theft, and the coercive power of the sociopathic, psychopathic scam. There has never yet been a government in which the government, especially ones devoted to “equality,” did not become, in Orwell’s words, “more equal” than its begging and enslaved citizenry. Keep that in mind the next time you hear a blowhard bastard bloviating bromides about the beauty and nobility of “service.” You’re to be served…as the next course.
TWO OF THE MOST BEAUTIFUL WORDS IN THE LANGUAGE:
VOLUNTARY EXCHANGE
EXCHANGE YOUR DOLLARS FOR THIS GREAT NOVEL!
AMAZON
KINDLE
NOOK
STRAIGHT LINE LOGIC 
You can just say no, but it’s a rough road.
LikeLike
You said a mouthful there, brother. Better, and shorter, and more politely than I could.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you.
LikeLike
Pingback: Your Options: To Serve, Or To Serve, by Robert Gore | The zombie apocalypse survival homestead
Pingback: Your Options: To Serve, Or To Serve | NCRenegade
The concept that is the essence of individual moral agency, VOLUNTARY!
I have often though of how might our subsequent history have evolved had South Carolina, rather than firing on Ft, Sumpter, instead had joined with several other “slave States,” and filed a legal brief with the Supreme Court on the constitutionality of secession. The Court at that time would almost certainly have agreed that it was “constitutional.”
I long ago learned that whenever someone wants to force me to comply with their wishes, rather than persuading me of the value of their wishes – so as to enlist my acquiescence if not agreement, my Depth-con alert level rises to max.
The basis for such compulsions by government are either because it is alleged as being “virtuous” (a contradiction to the very concept of individual moral agency), or it is for “my own good.” Thereby displaying a blatant arrogance arising from their presumed wisdom in the face of my obvious ignorance!
Dave
LikeLike
That question is the one that Lincoln feared the most. SCOTUS at the time was heavily Southern the outcome would have been favorable to the slave states.
LikeLike
“The productive are robbed and just enough is doled out”
I use 75% as Government’s overhead for “public service” using our money.
Is there a better=more accurate %, I should be using?
LikeLike
I don’t think there’s any generally accepted number, but I think you’re in the right ballpark.
LikeLike
Pingback: SLL: Your Choice – To Serve Or To Serve | Western Rifle Shooters Association
One of your best essays. It should be required reading in every high school civics class and at the beginning of every college humanities class. The clarity of the lightning bolt.
LikeLike
Thank you.
LikeLike
We seem to know this in our private lives. We don’t to “impose” or “guilt trip.” We don’t want someone to keep us on the payroll because “he feels sorry for us.” We don’t want to be “put on the spot” or “hit up” for to contribute time or money to something. But as you say we extol the nobility of “public service”.
LikeLike
Lone exception but of limited utility. If Mr. Gore contracts me to ‘off’ him at a given time and place it would be in the State’s interest to nullify the contract.
LikeLike
I have a son, a BERNIE follower, who is forever telling me we need MORE regulation in this country, top down of course, and taxes need to be increased and the rich made to give up their gain. It does no good to argue with him, he wants everyone EQUAL, in pay, position, outcome, and profession. When I’ve asked him about the Clinton millions in speaking fees, and Bernie’s support from banks and Wall Street, he goes on about bringing down Wall Street, to stop all that, and that people need to be MADE to see the light about re-distribution. I think your latest is another masterful expression of the American Mind, and I thank you for it. Why I wonder, do so many like my son refuse to look ahead, and see what their Socialist/gangster vision will bring? It’s as if history didn’t exist, and doubling down on failed systems is the right touch. This current insanity can only end in catastrophe.
LikeLike
You may want to gently suggest that your son read my piece. You never know what will unlock a mind.
LikeLike
Sean – I’ve used the following ‘thought exercise’ with people that like to say they favor re-distribution and ‘equality’. It doesn’t necessarily change minds immediately but it sure frustrates them.
Leaving out all the odious details of how this is accomplished – let’s say we get all the wealth of the country and put it all in one big kitty on the table. We’ll divide it equally among all participants and off on our merry ways we go.
After 24 hours (or whatever period of time you want to choose) let’s look at all the parties. There is absolutely no way that the distribution of this wealth will remain equally divided – some will have spent all ‘their’ share on whatever moved them at the time – others will have increased their same share – and on…
Now what do we do? Start all over again with the re-distribution? At what intervals? Would .gov intervention help or hinder in this exercise? Exactly how?
I find the questioning puts them in a position to examine the real mechanics of such notions rather than just running along with the feel-good notions of ‘equality’. It’s also a great time to introduce them to ideas like time preference and other Misean economic concepts.
Naturally – YMMV.
LikeLike
Whenever someone has “invested” in their particular “unshakable vision of the truth,” it is almost always the hallmark of a self-esteem dependent on the avoidance of error. The emotions that are triggered, when potentially having to face error in such a mind, are such that said weakness results in evasion.
If this is true then no amount of reasoning with facts will dissuade them. Said mind can remain convinced of literally anything irrespective of facts to the contrary.
The only way I have found to counter such a mind, is by asking “non-threatening” questions – much as a therapist does. I cannot say it works in all cases but I have successfully gotten at least two young minds to begin to question their premises in this fashion.
At the “bottom line” you must somehow get through the barriers of the pervasive skepticism the young have of almost everyone older than 30. If their self-esteem is as I have theorized, then do so in a non-assertive way.
Dave
LikeLike
Reblogged this on The way I see things … and commented:
You’re to be served …
How far have we come
“As exchange dies, the nation founded in revolution and independence descends into docile servility. Equality of rights under the law, a difficult but not impossible goal, gives way to a deluded and malignant drive for equality of outcomes. Exchange, contract, and freedom are inconsistent with equality of outcome. In order for voluntary exchange to occur, both parties must have something to exchange, which implies both parties have produced something and either retained it or exchanged it for something else of value. Productive ability is not equally distributed. Nor is the ability to benefit from exchange; some are better at it than others.
Spurious promises of equal outcomes implicitly rely on begging, theft, and the coercive power of the sociopathic, psychopathic scam. There has never yet been a government in which the government, especially ones devoted to “equality,” did not become, in Orwell’s words, “more equal” than its begging and enslaved citizenry. Keep that in mind the next time you hear a blowhard bastard bloviating bromides about the beauty and nobility of “service.” You’re to be served…as the next course.”
LikeLike