Posted by
Andrews on Sunday, August 02, 2009 12:52:30 AM
I have written many times on the differences between political and economic power. I wrote a very lengthy discussion in "
Greed Versus Evil", and a much more concise summary in "
Power - Political and Economic". I probably wrote about it a dozen other times as well, but it hardly seems worth it to go back and find all of them. In fact, the point being so simple, it seems strange that I have to keep mentioning it.
But I do.
Again and again, people talk about concentrating "power" in the public or private sector. Talk about "economic" power as contrasted with "political power". Over and over debates are conducted as if these two concepts are in some way comparable.
So, one last time, let me make this as simple as possible.
Private individuals have only one power. The ability to produce and trade, that is "economic power". They can choose where they expend their labor and how they dispose of their property. That is the entire extent of their power.
Government power, on the other hand, is the ability to use deadly force, to use the threat of force to confiscate goods, or compel obedience, or simply to kill. The power of government is the power to kill, to imprison and to confiscate. Private individuals have none of that power*.
So, when the debate is whether "power" should be in the private or public sector, think of what this really means. It does not mean will the state or private individuals be able to kill, it means this: Should we allow the state to use deadly force in more situations, or should we leave individuals free to control more of their own production and exchange.
The fact is this: "Public sector power" means that more areas of everyone's life will be subject to the threat of government intervention backed by the threat of deadly force. While "private sector power" means that deadly force will be involved in fewer exchanges. In other words, the every time the misnamed "economic power", by its nature" increases, the threat of violence decreases.
Now, there are some who will argue that those who have "economic power", that is rich people, can use that "power" to buy the government's ability to use force. However, that is only true tot he degree we give the government power. As I wrote in "
Transparency, Corruption and Reform", bribery and corruption are only problems because we have given the state so much power. Yes, when the state has enough power that it would give someone tremendous advantage, people will try to gain that power. But the solution is not to give the state even more power. Instead, let us strip the state of as much power as we can. Then there will be little or no reason to try to buy state power, as what power it has will be so constrained, it will be worthless for pursuing private ends.
Which brings me back to my point.
The two "types of power" are nothing of the kind. Though linguistic deception makes them seem comparable, they are nothing of the kind. Government power is the ability to use physical force, concentrated in the hands of a small group. What is called "economic power" or "private sector power" is diffuse, being nothing but the individual ability to dispose of his own labor and property.
To confuse the two is to confuse the convenience store clerk with the armed robber. One does nothing but provide goods in exchange for money, the other uses deadly force to demand his desires be fulfilled. How can anyone think the two have anything in common?
----------------------------------------------------
* Individuals have a very limited version of this power, in that they can use deadly force in defense of themselves, their property or the lives of others. But this is not part of the "economic power" of which many complain, and being an individual right is still diffuse, unlike the concentrated government power.