from the frontline trenches of the war on patterns

I posted the following comment to a Gothamist post relating a NYPD raid on a Queens-based warehouse containing eight trailer loads of goods which were subsequently plundered.

In a non-Kafkaesque world, the headlines would read:

"Brazen Bandits Make Off with $4.5m Worth of Goods, Kidnap and Take Hostages into Involuntarily Confinement".

The government is the only agency which should be prosecuted for counterfeiting; the crime of defrauding [and coercing] customers into exchanging one good for another good of inferior quality.

For a transaction in which both parties are fully aware of the nature of those items which they exchange, it cannot be justly said that there is a victimized party, i.e. when Ms. Tourist purchases a 'Gucci' purse in Chinatown neither party is harmed by the consensual exchange, and in fact both parties profit in the ex-ante sense.

I know that some of you think that perhaps there are other victims here that should be taken into consideration, perhaps the Gucci corporation, or the NYC Department of Finance which didn't steal, umm, 'collect' a sales tax on the transaction.

For one, the Gucci Co. can only be a victim if they were actively deprived of a physical good, or the use of that which they already own. In this case, fictitious rights to so-called "IP" is exactly that, a scam fostered upon the backs of society to prop up the sales revenue of pattern monopolists.

cranial tragedy

What's that poor excuse for government licensing requirements-- oh yes, oversight for public safety purposes.

Stories like the recent tragic crane collapse in Manhattan which killed seven [see the shocking NY Times report here] bring to light what I call counterfeit goods, the supposed 'public goods' which the intervention of government is allegedly providing but is not in reality. It's no surprise at all to me that such tragedies occur when society mistakenly relies upon a unaccountable government agency whose task is to oversee that crane operators know what they're doing.

This does not mean to say that I think that construction 'accidents' never just happen; I just think it more likely to be the case because of the existing statist-quo than perhaps what counterfactually might occur otherwise in a privately regulated industry.

I'm also quite interested to learn if the insurance companies that insure the crane operators rely on those very same government-approved credentials/licenses to be their sole assurance against underwriting an excessive risk.

In any case, the provision of the supposed oversight by government agency also tends to crowd out private efforts to do the same, especially if the insurance companies didn't overtly prefer a private evaluation of those same credentials.

the ghost of iceberg past

I just found an old post of mine-- okay it's not that old, but old enough that I didn't recognize the authorship as my own until I reached the end of the post.

"...Governments shouldn't attempt to regulate markets because they cannot. To the extent that they try to, they exaberate the problem on hand, and must seek to correct their earlier correction.

Secondarily, governments shouldn't attempt to "correct" markets, because to say a market has failed is a normative statement, and cannot be proven. In fact, the market is never "right" nor "wrong", as all a market consists of is billions of individuals trading property rights, and who is to say what two or more consenting adults agree to is incorrect?

Last, it's actually a joke to think that government "regulate" a market, because only markets can regulate themselves. The "regulation" that the government deems to provide is a poor substitute, and in fact in most times the regulatory bodies are captured by the special interests themselves, in a process known as regulatory capture. That's why our energy and telecommunication sector lags behind the world, and the biggest firms within that field are typically those that were granted monopolies by the same regulatory crew. And to think you call that "regulation".

As for suggesting that Wal-Mart must take their business elsewhere is to say that government has the right to dictate when, where and which private individuals are permitted to exchange goods. They are not "free" to take their business anywhere, as the word free implies that they have an un-interfered choice. Otherwise it is like saying that a person being mugged is "free" to choose his money or his life.

As for empirical observations, they are invalid as far as economic theory is concerned, since it is impossible to control for every variable. Economic theory can only be deduced from a axiomatic, a priori logic. To the extent that your observational data differs from theory, you must either admit that your data is incomplete or simply wrong."

post hoc ergo propter hoc

Despite the NYPD's best efforts, recorded crimes have continued to decrease year after year according to this NY Times report.

extortion license

But master plumber Robert Mengler mentioned another disturbing wrinkle.

"Master plumbers are also allowed to self-certify their work," he wrote. "There are certain licensed plumbers that have made lots of money by renting out their licenses. . . . The chances of this work being inspected is very, very, very low." -Article Link

Obviously the solution to this problem is to remove the need for licensing altogether, that system which erects trade barriers for the sake of protecting the profits of plumbers, electricians and other contractors from excessive competition in a medieval guild-like fashion.

Unfortunately, the NY Daily News takes the irrational populist view that developers are out to destroy neighborhoods, kill little old ladies, and ruin our lives. How pathetic.

one bad bite deserves no other

Nothing spells CYA over-reaction like city government.


This brouhaha occured after a KFC-Taco Bell joint was found to be infested with rodents a day after they were green-lighted by the NYCzar's Health Inspectors, leading the Department of Health to react by shuttering a record 89 food establishments around the city.

As I've argued before, it's not always that anarcho-libertarians have a beef with the goals of government; it's that in the [racketeering] job that they purportedly serve to justify their monopolizing or market-crowding existence is one marked by corruption, inefficiencies, and incompetency; a sure recipe for failure under free market conditions.