Not So Crazy Libertarian Ideals – Page 33

All Laws Are Backed By The Threat Of Death

A lot of people, either willfully or ignorantly, haven’t comprehended the fact that all laws are backed by the threat of force. I like to point this out whenever one of my statist friends advocates for a new law that seemingly carries minor consequences. Usually I’m rewarded for me efforts by being accused of making a hyperoblic statement or being ridiculous. But facts are facts and laws are violence:

On the opening day of law school, I always counsel my first-year students never to support a law they are not willing to kill to enforce. Usually they greet this advice with something between skepticism and puzzlement, until I remind them that the police go armed to enforce the will of the state, and if you resist, they might kill you.

I wish this caution were only theoretical. It isn’t. Whatever your view on the refusal of a New York City grand jury to indict the police officer whose chokehold apparently led to the death of Eric Garner, it’s useful to remember the crime that Garner is alleged to have committed: He was selling individual cigarettes, or loosies, in violation of New York law…..

The problem is actually broader. It’s not just cigarette tax laws that can lead to the death of those the police seek to arrest. It’s every law. Libertarians argue that we have far too many laws, and the Garner case offers evidence that they’re right. I often tell my students that there will never be a perfect technology of law enforcement, and therefore it is unavoidable that there will be situations where police err on the side of too much violence rather than too little. Better training won’t lead to perfection. But fewer laws would mean fewer opportunities for official violence to get out of hand.

If a person I’m debating is especially touchy they will usually reply with a variation of, “So you don’t support any laws? You’re fine with people murdering other people?”

Anarchism isn’t the opposition to all laws but the full comprehension of the fact that laws are backed by the threat of force. Therefore we put it on individuals to decide what they’re willing to enforce. Historically stateless societies had laws against initiations of force such as assault, murder, rape, theft, and other situations where one person was clearly harming another. These laws existed not as decrees written by men in marble buildings but by the actions of individuals.

Consider murder. Most individuals are will defend themselves if somebody tries to murder them and will go so far as to kill their attacker. The same goes for assault. Somebody being assaulted is typically willing to defend themselves to the point of escalating to deadly force is their attacker continues to escalate matters. Rape is another crime where victims are generally willing to escalate matters to deadly force if necessary. Theft, although seldom reaching such a drastic point, can result in somebody killing a thief, usually if the thief attempts to interfere when the rightful owner arrives to retrieve their property.

But very few people are willing to post a sign on a road with an arbitrarily selected limit and kill anybody who exceeds it. They may be willing to support a speed limit if somebody else is willing to enforce it but that is different than being willing to take the responsibility upon themselves.

The other factor in stateless law is whether members of a community will tolerate it. Let’s return to murder. If somebody was attacked and circumstances escalated to the point where the intended victim killed the aggressor would members of the community support it? Historically most communities were fine with that by the fact members didn’t see it as necessary to punish the would-be victim. The same could not usually be said for individuals who attempted to enforce victimless “crimes.” If you murdered somebody who exceeded your arbitrarily posted speed limit it is likely other members of the community would view you as a murdered and retaliate. In stateless societies each individual was a lawmaker and the community was the check and balance.

Laws are threats of force. The question is whether you’re willing to use that force to prevent a certain action. If you’re not then you have no business asking somebody else to do. If you are then you have no need to have others write it down and vote on it. That is the basis of anarchist law and that is why stateless societies tended to be far more peaceful than their statist neighbors and why the number of laws were very few.

The Imaginary War On Cops

An ongoing war on cops continues to be waged. The situation has become so dire that Obama himself has signed a law to established a special warning system for threats against cops, which will allow cops to drop everything and give themselves the utmost priority. There’s just one problem: the war on cops isn’t real.

With all of the media, blog, and social media coverage of the supposed war on cops you might not realize that this year is looking to be one of the safest years to be a law enforcer:

Despite urgent warnings from police and others about a “war on cops” allegedly linked to the Black Lives Matter protest movement, statistics show 2015 is in fact shaping up to be one of the safest years for law enforcement in a generation.

According to the Officer Down Memorial Page (ODMP), which keeps data on officer deaths going back over 100 years, 24 officers have been shot and killed by suspects this year. This puts the US on pace for 36 non-accidental, firearm-related police fatalities in 2015. Each one of such deaths is a tragedy for the officers killed, their families and the communities they serve, but this would be the lowest total in 25 years, aside from 2013 which saw 31 such deaths.

Considering all of the terrible deeds cops have been caught doing this year this statistic may seem surprising. But it just goes to show that most people prefer nonviolent solutions to societal problems. Instead of forming lynch mobs and hanging random police officers the vast majority of people have been demanding law enforcers be made to wear body cameras when on duty, face consequences when they perform a misdeed, and be subjected to jury trails when there’s any question about their actions. The public wants accountability, not blood.

Why is there all this hubbub about a war on cops then? Because the State relies on having a powerful, unaccountable police force to maintain its power. Law enforcers today are primarily revenue generators. The more power they wield the more revenue they can generate.

Civil forfeiture is a classic example of this. Under civil forfeiture laws an officer can confiscate property by just saying they believe it’s related to a drug crime and the burden of proving its not falls onto the rightful owners. Since the expense of proving property stolen under civil forfeiture isn’t related to a drug crime is commonly higher than the value of the property the rightful owners seldom goes through the process. Such a scheme only works if officers remain unaccountable because the moment they are accountable they will refuse to confiscate property unless very real evidence exists implying it is tied to a drug crime.

And civil forfeiture laws aren’t the only example of this. Consider the lowly speeding ticket. If you send the municipality that issued it a check the matter goes away. Fighting it, on the other hand, is usually an expensive process because it requires a hearing and those can only be obtained during normal working hours, which means taking time off of work. In addition to that the process is generally one sided because it’s your word against the officer’s and the average judge is apt to side with his fellow over you.

With more people demanding police officers be held accountable the State is in a tough spot. Failing to act on the people’s demands will further raise questions about its legitimacy amongst the people. Expanding law enforcers power to make them even better revenue generators will raise such questions even faster. Therefore it must make it appear as though police officers are targets and need more power to protect themselves against those evil criminals that want them and everybody else dead.

Don’t fall for it. Look at the data and realize that law enforcers today are much safer than law enforcers were in the past.

New Wealth Is Constantly Being Created So Take Advantage Of It

Neoliberals, communists, and socialists focus primarily on wealth distribution. Much of their rhetoric revolves around the top one percent holding a majority of the world’s wealth. In their eyes there is only so much pie to go around and the top one percent have a vast majority of it while everybody else has to fight over scraps. The error of this viewpoint is that wealth isn’t fixed, it’s constantly being created.

I think part of the problem is people often mistake fiat currency for wealth. Fiat currency, as the name implies, indicates nothing more than a number some oligarch commanded to be created. Wealth, on the other hand, is the abundance of valuable resources and material possessions.

Throughout the entire history of our species wealth has continued to increase. As our agricultural knowledge increased food became more plentiful. As our metallurgical knowledge increased tools became more plentiful. As our mining knowledge increased raw materials became more plentiful. Human history is the history of more knowledge leading to more wealth. Today electricity, running water, and a plethora of home appliances are common in first world household. Internet access, automobiles, pocketable computers, 3D printers, and an almost uncountable number of other products that didn’t even exist merely a generation ago are now widely available. Their isn’t a single pie we all eat from, new pies of constantly being baked at an every increasing rate.

If you only believe there is a fixed amount of pie you focus on taking pie from others. This, in my opinion, is one of the biggest flaws in neoliberalism, communism, and socialism. Instead of trying to take pie by seizing the means of production and increasing taxes a more effective strategy is to start baking pies.

This is where agorism shines. Agorists aren’t trying to seize means of production or increase taxes. They’re focused on creating more wealth. Whether via creating more efficient means of production, preventing the State from taking a cut of everybody’s wealth, or simply creating wealth that has been forbidden by the State agorists are focused on creating more for everybody instead of redistributing what is already there.

The fact that more pie is constantly being created should be taken advantage of by everybody. Why relegate yourself to taking what already exists when you can create something better? There’s no reason to limit yourself like that.

Law Enforcers Have It Too Easy

Law enforcement agents are being more heavily scrutinized now than they have been in the past. This is a much needed trend since law enforcers have been acting (and still continue to act) with very little accountability. In addition to raising awareness of the dangers created by allowing law enforcers to act without accountability this trend has also given rise to two extremes. One extreme wants to see every law enforcer gunned down in the streets. The other extreme wants everybody to get down on their hands and knees to lick the boots of every law enforcer. While most people are asking what can be done to hold law enforcers accountable for their actions the two extremes are embroiled in a battle of rhetoric.

Neocons tend to lean towards the boot licker extreme. Scott Walker is a classic example of this. To prove his piety he typed an article claiming that law enforcers today are being targeted far more than law enforcers were when he was growing up. Because he’s running for president (at least I think he is, I can’t be bothered to remember all of the completely irrelevant Republican candidates) he had to blame Obama but even setting that point aside his claims are bullshit:

Walker was born in 1967. In a blog post a few months ago, my former intern Dan Wang looked at the fatality and homicide figures for police going back to the 1960s. Here are a few notable numbers he found:

“More officers were feloniously killed in the 11 years between 1970 and 1980 (1228 deaths) than in the 21 years between 1993 and 2013 (1182 deaths).” Walker would have been 3 in 1970 and 13 in 1980.

Between 1971 and 1975, when Walker would have been between age 4 and 8, an average of 125 police officers were feloniously killed per year. Between 2006 and 2010, the average was 50. In 2013, just 27 officers were feloniously killed. In 2014, it was 51. So far this year, the number of cops killed with firearms is down 16 percent from last year. Two of those officers were killed by other cops.

If you look at the rate at which cops are killed, the numbers are even more dramatic. There are quite a bit more police officers today than there were in the 1970s. So in 1975, for example, when Walker was 8, there were about 411,000 cops on the street, and 129 police officers were feloniously killed. That’s a rate of 31.38 murders per 100,000 officers. In 2013, the rate was about 5. Last year it was higher at 9.4, but that still means the rate was about 3.5 times higher than when Walker was growing up.*

To put those rates into perspective, consider the death rate for fishermen, the most dangerous job in America: 131 deaths per 100,000. Even if you factor in traffic fatalities and other accidents, policing isn’t among the 10 most dangerous jobs in America. Another way to look at these figures: The murder rate for police officers is about the same of the overall murder rate in cities such as Bakersfield, Calif.; Louisville; and Omaha.

The rate of assaults on police officers has been falling, too. So you can’t argue that cops are safer solely because they’re killing more criminals, or because they have better equipment (though there’s evidence that the latter has helped). People are just less likely to attack police today than they’ve been in the past. And that’s despite the increased public scrutiny.

Even with the much deserved increase in scrutiny being a police officer today isn’t nearly as dangerous as it was in decades past. In fact law enforcement isn’t even in the top 10 list of deadliest jobs. You’re more at risk being being an aircraft pilot than you are being a cop.

As an anarchist I don’t believe the State is a legitimate entity. Because of that I don’t believe the State has any business involving itself in law enforcement. I believe government law enforcement agencies; be they federal, state, or local; should be disbanded and replaced with market solutions. With that said, I don’t agree that police officers should be gunned down in cold blood. Many law enforcers should be charged with the crimes they’ve committed and forced to pay restitution. Some officers are almost certainly deserving of being declared outlaws. In other words justice, real justice, should be served. Murdering officers ensures justice won’t be served.

Licking their boots also ensures justice won’t be served. So long as a handful of people are given authority over everybody else, a concept I hope to see abolished someday, that handful should be scrutinized with extreme prejudice. Every action they take should be analyzed under a public microscope. Nothing they do in their official capacity should be private. Boot lickers whine that such transparency makes law enforcers’ jobs harder. Good! Their job should be hard. The second wielding authority becomes easy it gets abused. Justice can only be served if those tasked with providing it are subject to oversight.

Law enforcers have it too easy today. That needs to change. But gunning them down in cold blood isn’t the answer.

End The Bathroom Wars

Out society is finally, albeit slowly, moving away from ruthlessly enforcing strict binary gender identities. For reasons unknown to me this is making some people very uncomfortable. Those uncomfortable souls lack any real argument for why this move is unacceptable so they’ve resorted to emotional appeals. The most common form of this manifests in an obsession with bathrooms. When a transgender individual expresses a desire to use the bathroom of the gender they identify as implications that they’re really sexual predators wanting to prey on innocent girls are made (apparently these bathroom obsessed individuals don’t realize female-to-male transgender individuals exist).

In the most recent episode of this bathroom obsession a bunch of high school students staged a walkout:

(KMOV.com) – More than 150 students walked out of Hillsboro High School over a dispute about the use of the girl’s locker room by a transgender student.

The walkout lasted for about two hours. Roughly 30-40 people showed support for senior Lila Perry, who wants to use the girls’ locker room during gym class. Perry was born a male but said she has identified as a female since 13.

“There’s a lot of ignorance, they are claiming that they’re uncomfortable. I don’t believe for a second that they are. I think this is pure and simple bigotry,” said Perry.

A short distance away, a counter protest was being held by people claiming they have relatives at the high school.

“Boys needs to have their own locker room. Girls need to have their own locker room and if somebody has mixed feelings where they are, they need to have their own also,” said protester Jeff Childs.

I’m a peacemaker by nature… you’re not buying that, are you? Admittedly I’m an extremely opinionated man with an obvious bias on this topic. But like Thorgeir Thorkelsson my bias doesn’t prevent me from being capable of advocating for a mutually beneficial outcome.

The fact of the matter is the strict binary gender identity is becoming a thing of the past (and good riddance, people should be free to define themselves on their own terms). That being the case segregating bathrooms by gender is silly. Why not just give everybody an individual stall so they can do their business in peace? It would allow these bathroom obsessed individuals to finally calm the fuck down and alleviate us men from ensuring we’re always in compliance with proper bathroom etiquette.

This is the setup at the Kitty Cat Klub in Minneapolis. The bathroom area is located in the basement. It’s composed of individual stalls and a common sink for hand washing. In my opinion it’s the best setup because it isn’t based on assumptions about customers and fulfills customers’ expectations that a bathroom will be made available.

You Keep Using That Word: Monopoly Edition

Monopoly is one of those words that gets thrown around too loosely. The word monopoly means, “exclusive control by one group of the means of producing or selling a commodity or service.” So monopoly actually defines a condition that only exists under government interventionism. But the word, like so many other words, has been twisted by the State. Today monopoly implies any company that has become extremely large. Case in point, Google:

BRUSSELS — European Union lawmakers have overwhelmingly backed a motion urging antitrust regulators to break up Google. The non-binding resolution approved Thursday by the European Parliament is the strongest public signal yet of Europe’s concern with the growing power of U.S. tech giants. The resolution is a largely symbolic protest vote without immediate impact. But it was approved with a large majority — 384 votes to 174, with 56 abstentions — showing widespread political backing. Andreas Schwab, German conservative lawmaker and co-sponsor of the bill, said it was a political signal to the European Commission, which is tasked with ensuring a level playing field for business across the 28-country bloc. “Monopolies in whatever market have never been useful, neither for consumers nor for the companies,” he said. Google declined to comment.

Google isn’t a monopoly. In fact it’s not even close to being one. Every single product and service it provides is also provided by others. I’m proof of this since I use very few Google products or services. Most of my searching is done using DuckDuckGo. My e-mail is handled by my server sitting in my dwelling. My phone is manufactured by Apple and runs iOS. None of my laptops are Chromebooks.

The only Google services I really utilize are Google Maps and YouTube. I use Google Maps because I find the alternatives provided by Microsoft and Apple lackluster and choose YouTube because it has more content I’m looking for than Vimeo. But in both cases you’ll notice I mentioned competitors that exist.

If you want an actual example of a monopoly look up Ma Systems. Ma Bell was a company that enjoyed a government granted monopoly over telecommunications. But outside of government intervention in the marketplace you’re going to be hard pressed to find an actual monopoly so you may want to stop throwing that word around so willy nilly.

Embrace Automation

Believe it or not quite a few of my friends happen to be communists. One of them specifically dubs himself as an advocate of fully automated luxury communism. Unlike most forms of communism, fully automated luxury communism has a foundation to work from:

Located on the futurist left end of the political spectrum, fully automated luxury communism (FALC) aims to embrace automation to its fullest extent. The term may seem oxymoronic, but that’s part of the point: anything labeled luxury communism is going to be hard to ignore.

“There is a tendency in capitalism to automate labor, to turn things previously done by humans into automated functions,” says Aaron Bastani, co-founder of Novara Media. “In recognition of that, then the only utopian demand can be for the full automation of everything and common ownership of that which is automated.”

Bastani and fellow luxury communists believe that this era of rapid change is an opportunity to realise a post-work society, where machines do the heavy lifting not for profit but for the people.

I think phrases like “common ownership of automation” and “heavy lifting not for profit but for the people” are pretty nonsensical but the basic ideology, letting machines do all of the work, is what I’ve been espousing here. The reason I mention these fully automated luxury communists is because they’re the first communists I’ve come across that are screaming for more automation instead of bitching about machines taking jobs.

Imagine a world where food production is entirely automated and in such abundance nobody has to labor to produce it unless they enjoy doing so. Imagine buildings being constructed by squads of automated robots. Imagine abundances of energy being beamed down from orbital solar collectors. In such a world the necessities of survival would potentially be so cheap to produce and so abundant that even the poorest person could afford them.

Over the years I’ve shifted my views quite a bit. If you read the archives of this blog you’ll see my slow transformation from a constitutional libertarian to an anarcho-capitalist to a slightly more left-leaning anarchist to my current position today, which can basically be summed up as wanting to advance technology as much as possible for the purposes of liberation. Advancements in technology can enable liberation by lessening humanity’s dependence on centralized hierarchies. This strategy not only improves the overall quality of life but also don’t rely on the mob mentality of politics. To advance technology I don’t need to get a majority of people to vote my way. I can either directly create or partner with people creating new technologies. It’s the ultimate libertarian strategy because it relies on individual efforts instead of mobs.

Although I don’t subscribe to the communist part of automated luxury communism I do share a similar dream and can say I have far more in common with them then I do with many libertarians.

Work Is Replaceable

Technology has created more jobs than it has destroyed yet I’m still subjected daily to the whining of people worried about the jobs. What will happen to people working checkout aisles at convenience stores if everybody uses kiosks? How will employees at McDonald’s afford housing if they’re replaced by kiosks? Where will people working in manufacturing go if 3D printers make their jobs unnecessary? Then you have the people, usually old folks, bitching about the current generation not working as hard. You would think any 20-something working less than 80 hours a week was some kind of lazy bums. And don’t even get me started on the people worried that there won’t be as much work available in the future because of automation.

You’re reading this so I infer that you both have access to a computer and aren’t currently working (even if you’re at work). Two things about these inferences should amaze you. First, you have access to an incredibly complex piece of machinery that has went from non-existent to pervasive throughout society in roughly half of a century. Second, you don’t have to perform hard labor every minute of the day just to survive.

It’s true, automation has replaced a lot of jobs. It’s also true that automation has allowed us to work less than the previous generation and still enjoy a better standard of living. That’s the beauty of automation. Not only does it replace hard labor with easier jobs but it also allows us to generate the same wealth in less time.

I, like you, am not spending every moment of daylight hunting animals or gathering berries. Usually I put in around eight hours five days a week. For those 40 hours a week most of it is spent sitting on my ass in front of a computer. The most strenuous effort I have to put forth most working periods is moving my fingers thousands of times to different keyboard positions so I can properly enter in the correct sequence of characters to convince a computer to do what I would rather not do myself. Programming is much easier than automotive repair, which is what my father does. I also work fewer hours than he does.

In most cases when a job is replaced with automation it reduces the amount of physical effort needed overall. You know the socialist dream of abolishing work? It becomes a little more feasible everyday as we make better use of advancing technology. Human history is actually a lengthy demonstration of this point. This generation is lazier than the previous, the previous generation is lazier than its predecessors, and so on.

This is why I scoff at neophobes and why I roll my eyes when some union leader is bitching about the machines replacing jobs. I don’t want to struggle every waking hour to obtain enough food to eek out a substance living. Fuck everything about that! What I want to do is go home after doing what little work I need and enjoy myself. Machines can create more wealth than I can so let them do it. I’ll enjoy the product of their labor.

Rights Are Privileges, Right?

I wasn’t going for a theme with my titles today but the opportunity presented itself so I seized the moment. There are a lot of authors who write about guns that I respect. Bob Owens isn’t one of them. Although I won’t go so far as to call him a racist I will say that every time his writings touch on the subject of race he comes off sounding racist. That doesn’t sit well with me. Another thing that doesn’t sit well with me is his belief that gun ownership is a privilege that should be rightfully curtailed by the State.

This isn’t an idea he uniquely holds. Many self-proclaimed supporters of gun rights actually view gun ownership as a privilege. They only differ from the anti-gun crowd in what restrictions they believe should be put on gun ownership. Owens’ latest article is an example of a restriction that many supposed gun rights activists support:

A recent decision by the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals that says illegal aliens—what the left likes to call “undocumented immigrants”—enjoy a Second Amendment right to bear arms, even if their presence in this nation is criminal.

[…]

My basic, over-riding belief on the Second Amendment is that any case involving the right to keep and bear arms should be held to the legal standard of strict scrutiny, and that all law-abiding citizens and legal resident aliens should have the right to keep and bear arms.

Anybody who has been reading this blog for a while knows what I’m going to reference. When the list of crimes is so expansive that the average working professional commits three felonies a day the term law-abiding loses any meaning. Taken to its logical conclusion arguing that the right to bear arms is dependent on an individual being law-abiding is an argument that nobody should be allowed to own firearms.

As with most supposed defenders of gun rights, Owens felt the best way to support his argument for restriction was to summon the spirit of the most holy Founding Fathers:

Call me a “butter” if you want, but I don’t think for a second that the Founding Fathers would support the concept of granting criminal invaders the same legal status as legal immigrants, legal resident aliens, and citizens. Let’s hope that when this case makes it to the Supreme Court that the justices with the Fourth, Fifth, and Eighth circuit courts.

Praise be to the Founding Fathers!

This paragraph is laughable on so many levels. The most obvious is that the Founding Fathers were criminal invaders themselves. After tossing out the British and solidifying their power the Founding Fathers returned their attention to slaughtering the American Indian population.

Another reason it’s laughable is the way immigration was handled by the Founding Fathers. When they penned the Constitution they effective left the question of immigration entirely to Congress. It wasn’t until 1790 that Congress decided to write a law involving immigration. The Naturalization Act of 1790 established rules that allowed an immigrant to become a United States citizen. One of the more notable restrictions placed on naturalization by Congress was race. The restricted naturalization to “free white persons.” But I digress. While the act established rules for foreigners to become citizens it did not establish rules for deporting non-citizens. It wasn’t until 1882 that Congress got around to restricting immigration in some manner. It seems the Founding Fathers had little or not concept of legal or illegal immigration nor did Congress members of the time.

Just to be thorough it’s probably worth noting the Bill of Rights doesn’t mention a stipulation of citizenship anywhere. It makes reference to “the people” but not “citizens of the United States.” Setting aside the Founding Fathers’ views on race I think the wording of the Bill of Rights implies that it applies to all people within the United States, not just citizens.

I’m not of the opinion that the Bill of Rights grants rights. My definition of a right is an act not inhibited by a coercive hierarchy. If gun ownership, for example, is a right then it must be practicable by everybody, not just a handful selected by the State. The view expressed by Owens, and those who agree with him, would lead to an Orwellian dystopia where due process could be denied to somebody who wasn’t a citizen. I’m certainly not comfortable denying somebody accused of a crime a jury trial simply because they’re not a citizen.

If you call an act a right then list a bunch of stipulations that you believe should be placed on that act you’re arguing it’s a privilege, not a right.

Giving Versus Exchanging

“What do you do for a living?” “Me? Oh, I’m a programmer.” “You know computers? Can you help me fix mine?” How many of you have had this exact conversation? Judging by conversations with my computer savvy friends there is a 100% correlation between having computer knowledge and being asked to fix computers. The same applies to having any skill set. When I was working as a mechanic people would ask me to look at their cars when I wasn’t at work. The issue isn’t people asking me to fix their computers or vehicles but the expectation that I will do it for free.

Whenever somebody asks me to fix their computer or vehicles I have a standard response: “Absolutely! Let’s discuss prices.” Usually the person asking seems to be offended by that response. It’s as if they believe my time and knowledge, which they have admitted to wanting, are somehow worthless.

This may be the only time you’ll see my reference Atlas Shrugged. Although it’s dreck any novel that’s 1,000,000,000 pages long is likely to make at least one valid point if for no other reason than by accident. There is a scene where Objectivst Jesus is going to take Dangy on a tour of his holy land. Since he’s the messiah he has no need for worldly possessions or something and needs to borrow a car. When he calls up his disciple to ask to borrow the car a price in gold is negotiated. That scene stuck with me because both characters expected an exchange, not for one to give to the other (in fact Objectivist Jesus then made a quip about “give” being some kind of dirty work in his valley). Thinking back on it I think I understand why the novel is so popular with high school students who have been indoctrinated to “share” (really to give something of theirs up without compensation) for most of their lives. But I digress.

The difference between most people who ask me to fix their computers or vehicles and the scene I just described in Atlas Shrugged is that the former expects me to give while the latter expects an exchange. Giving dictates that somebody who has something should allow other people to have it without expecting any compensation. Exchanging dictates that goods and services have value and therefore are deserving of compensation.

When you ask somebody to borrow or do something for free you’re being hypocritical. First you’re implying you don’t believe the thing you’re requesting has any real value by not offering anything for it while also necessarily implying the thing has value by wanting it.

It’s a bit offensive to have somebody imply my skills are worthless and then ask to benefit from them. That’s not to say I expect everybody to offer me the usual market value of my time. Even a token offering is appreciated. For example, the cost of the time needed to fix a computer is usually higher than the cost of a box of cookies. But I’m still willing to fix a computer for people I know if they offer to bake me some cookies. Usually I’ll turn down the offer (then they’ll insist and bake them anyways) because it’s not about the payment, it’s about the acknowledgement that my skills are worth something to them (a token of appreciation if you will).

The idea behind an exchange is that two people are in possession of something the other wants. Both people feel as though they’ll be better off in the end if they exchange their thing for the other person’s thing. Exchanges are the foundation of markets so in a way markets are a mechanism for people to compliment one another. When you offer to make an exchange you’re complimenting the other person’s effort by saying effort is worth more than something you have.

If you’re one of those people who reflexively asks, “Will you fix my computer,” every time somebody says they make a living off of computers please stop. Instead ask something like, “What would you charge me to fix my computer?” At the very least please don’t get offended when the computer person asks for something in exchange. Their time, like your time, is worth money. Acknowledge that mutual worth.