Economics Essay--09/15/09

Many paradigms exist which outline a vision of rights for man. Ayn Rand’s Man’s Rights, advocates a simple set of values based upon logic and her personal interpretation of the historical relationship between individuals and government. The dynamic between man and his sovereign was one of subordination in Rand’s opinion, as every government has promoted an ‘altruist-collectivist doctrine’ which places the individual at the whim of the ruling polity. These systems of government are tyrannical and amoral, insofar as they applied stringent moral codes upon individuals but operate without any ethical constraints themselves. Rand defines a right as a moral principle sanctioning man’s freedom in society; she conceives this definition from what she considers mans most pertinent fundamental right—the reins to his own life. As a corollary to a man’s right to his life, he possesses the volition to freely act in his own best interest, without coercion from external forces. Rand labels this a ‘positive’ right. Man’s fellow citizens have no obligations except to refrain from infringing upon his rights, a ‘negative’ right. Property rights and the right to trade are imperative to man’s sustenance, and as such, must be upheld—a corollary to the right to life.
Rand asserts these basic rights to be contingent upon the reality that a government’s monopoly on power, which places it in diametric opposition to individual citizen’s as their most dangerous threat of possible enslavement. The havoc wreaked by governments historically evinces the veracity of this argument (e.g., genocides, agricultural-slavery). The role of government should be to protect man’s rights and enable his ability to flourish, while never serving as an impediment to his pursuit of happiness. Through liberated experimentation, civilization lurches forward and progresses. State or majority tyranny inhibits individual’s private efforts to thrive, and consequently, society’s ability to evolve towards betterment.
A state may come into existence in a multitude of ways, and theories abound in how the process occurs. In Dictatorship, Democracy and Development, Mancur Olson delineates a coherent algorithm for state formation and uses anthropological evidence, historical themes and patterns, and economic reasoning to buttress his assertion.
Peace is a desirable state for economic as well as moral reasons. Olson describes peace as a public-good to be provided by some ruling entity, specifically an autocrat or democratic polity. In a state of anarchy, Olson echoes Hobbes assertion that life would be nasty, brutish and short, believing production would be miniscule without social tranquility—a rationale for establishing an orderly governing body.
With this supposed motive in place, Olson discusses the inability of large groups to voluntary work harmoniously in the manner displayed by small groups. Humans evolved in small groups of fifty to one-hundred persons, where each individual bears the benefits and costs of their respective behavior—the fruits of cooperation outstrip the cost significantly. If a large group can produce an aggregate net-gain they still may not muster voluntary cooperation. The magnitude of individual’s incentive to cooperate is diluted by the dispersion of benefits over a large population, and the costs remain as likely to be individually great—dissipating the net-gain on a micro-level.
A state of anarchy will eventually feature a leader who amidst the tumult and chaos comes to the fore as ‘head roving bandit’ Olson predicts. He believes this warlord will be rationale, provided he possesses an adequate time-horizon. The head bandit would profit by forcefully instilling peace and other public-goods upon society, so he may reign through taxation as he reaps the benefits of a productive domain. In short, Olson believes the coalition with the greatest capacity for organized violence has reason to expect profit from erecting an institution which provides public-goods(peace included), and taxes prolifically—facilitating the development of civilization and a state.