|
|
||
To Alter Or To AbolishChapter 14BoundariesWritten by Darrell Anderson. 1. A robot may not injure a human being, or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm. The Three Laws of Robotics, Isaac Asimov, I, Robot Sometimes the only thing individuals can offer in exchange for something they need or want is their own energy — their labor. When individuals offer their labor to other people they do not enslave themselves, but merely use their labor to provide certain deliverables that the other party has negotiated. What people receive in return for those deliverables depends upon the contract or agreement they make. At a fundamental level humans are continually negotiating and contracting their time and the products of their labor in exchange for other things that might satisfy their pursuit of happiness. People are continually in a process of evaluating and providing for their needs and wants by exchanging something of value for something of value. All humans are simultaneously producers and consumers. The concept of property teaches that individuals do not truly own resources but possess title to use those resources and to create boundaries between themselves other people. When individuals exchange property for property, they are exchanging titles to property, and creating new boundaries. Continually changing boundaries means a continually changing system. The concepts of property, rights, contracts, and consent teach that people cannot immediately meet their needs or wants simply by taking things possessed by other people. Expropriating things that are not your property is theft and almost every culture recognizes this fundamental principle. Along with the principles of scarcity, the inherent lack of self-sufficiency, and voluntary exchange, the concepts of property, rights, contracts, and consent inherently teach that unless people self-produce, they must exchange something of value in order to obtain those things they need or want. As long as members of a society embrace such concepts then theft is wrong. Unfortunately, people do not live in the Garden of Eden where the challenges of scarcity are reduced. Scarcity implies inherent natural limits to obtaining resources.[1] Humans must produce to sustain their energy flows. As the familiar adage goes, “TANSTAAFL — there ain’t no such thing as a free lunch.”[2] Unlimited physical resources might allow people to disregard some of the challenges associated with limited knowledge and using resources. However, eliminating the challenge of limited physical resources does not eliminate all challenges associated with limited knowledge because limited knowledge affects everybody’s ability to predict reliably how their actions affect other people. Not only must people consider how to use their knowledge and resources, they also must consider how using their knowledge and resources — or not using them — might affect other people. With only limited knowledge, effectively predicting the outcome of actions is difficult. Obtaining complete knowledge is impossible and obtaining additional knowledge might prove too costly. Because humans are incapable of knowing in all aspects how their decisions might affect other people, everyone seeks order or guidance in constructing their decisions. This challenge of limited knowledge, as applied to the relationship with other people, consists of two components:[3]
In other words, not only must humans consider what they know and do not know, they must also consider what other people know and do not know. Other people might have knowledge that they do not possess, including knowledge about the impact of their actions. As long as consensus opinion rejects “might makes right,” then all people possess certain rights and privileges. Each individual possesses certain standing to use their resources as they see fit — as long as that use does not trespass upon the boundaries of other people. Understanding where those boundaries might lie is critical to living quiet, peaceable lives, pursuing happiness, and promoting mutual survival. Maintaining observable societal boundaries helps people offset some of the limits of seeking additional knowledge. Fundamentally, those boundaries are better identified through social and cultural customs. Recognizing the rights of other people establishes known boundaries. Although people might not know all there is to know regarding any decision they might make, customs and boundaries provide information to govern the actions they might consider. Recognizing the need to establish boundaries does not mean the process is easy. One challenge associated with these limitations of knowledge and resources is communicating those boundaries to everybody — the concepts of forewarning and defining trespass.[4] Another challenge is determining specific principles to guide people in order to properly communicate and enforce those boundaries — the concepts of restitution and restoration of order.[5] Restitution: the act of restoring what was lost through trespass. Restitution contains two important aspects that promote social order:[6]
Both elements tend to reduce violence. Reducing violence promotes mutual and individual survival. That the process of establishing and recognizing boundaries is challenging does not mean the process is impossible. An essential characteristic of humans is their ability to reason.[7] Using reason allows people to continue discovering and recognizing the limits of their knowledge and resources.[8] That ability provides opportunities to recognize boundaries in a social system model beyond “might makes right.” All humans are creatures of limited knowledge, every day confronting the principle of scarcity. Although some individuals easily recognize limitations, some do not, and all people do not always understand all inherent limitations at all times. Therefore boundaries, both in customs and contracts, provide known information to help people stay within their limitations and not to trespass against other people or property. Property titles define physical boundaries and help provide for an orderly community. Individuals are at liberty to move about and pursue their happiness, but they must do so in an orderly fashion, within established boundaries. Violating another individual’s boundaries motivates the injured party to act against his or her own will and judgment, against the limitations of their own knowledge.[9] Because all individuals desire to prevent trespass, understanding those limitations and boundaries helps people maintain an orderly community. Boundaries provide reasonably predictable patterns of human action. Those boundaries help to limit the conflicts that might result from each individual pursuing their happiness in a world of limited knowledge. Without such respect the alternative is continual conflict, disorder, and violence — costly and sometimes deadly choices. Knowable boundaries promote mutual survival. Every community of people must face the challenge of maintaining social order. Fundamentally that means protecting the natural right to each individual’s life, the natural right to produce, and associated rights to lawfully obtained property. Finis. Next: Chapter 15 — Law Endnotes [1] Sowell, Knowledge and Decisions, p. 45. [2] The acronym usually is attributed to author Robert Heinlein, from his book The Moon is a Harsh Mistress. [3] Barnett, The Structure of Liberty, pp. 35–36. Barnett calls this process the First-Order Problem of Knowledge. [4] Barnett, The Structure of Liberty, pp. 84–107. Barnett calls this process the Second-Order Problem of Knowledge. [5] Barnett, The Structure of Liberty, pp. 108–131. Barnett calls this process the Third-Order Problem of Knowledge. [6] Benson, The Enterprise of Law, p. 71, citing Lon L. Fuller, “The Law’s Precarious Hold on Life,” Georgia Law Review 3, (1969), p. 539. [7] Rand, Capitalism, p. 16. [8] Hayek, The Constitution of Liberty, p. 41. [9] Barnett, The Structure of Liberty, p. 322. |
||