Monday, April 17, 2006
Investing in Violent Industries
Here's a question someone asked me about a potential investment:
> Do you care if the above make weapons?
> or feed the military industry?
Here's my response (modified somewhat):
Probably the best way to answer that is to say that first and foremost, I believe in free markets for all voluntary economic activity except for cases of "tragedy of the commons" where a "common resource" is used above and beyond taxes paid to the government responsible for that common resource or that, given a choice, people would prefer to allocate the common resource for some other purpose.
I live in a low-crime town with a police force which is armed and trained for deadly violence to enforce the rule of law and I pay taxes which fund the police, paying for their guns and bullets. (Thankfully I can vote and influence other voters if I disagree with the laws or the enforcement of those laws.) The alternative to this controlled violence is what I would consider to be a far worse situation with likely much more corruption, fewer property rights, fewer personal rights, and a more arbitrary and unaccountable rule. So rationally, I'm quite happy that there are profitable businesses out there which sell guns and bullets to my town's police force (and I'm also happy for the constitutional rights and rule of law which is remarkably good at keeping these deadly people from abusing their situation, considering their advantages). I have no feeling of being tainted by funding this sort of violence with my taxes or my investments. I consider being defenseless a wonderful luxury for those who mingle within a place defended by someone else, especially when that someone else is fairly accountable to the the citizens of that town (compared to say The Mafia or some tribal warlord).
In terms of the military, I can't think of a time period when I would consider the world to be better off with an unarmed US than a well armed US, taking everything into balance. I suppose there are a lot of people today who would disagree with that.
> Do you care if the above make weapons?
> or feed the military industry?
Here's my response (modified somewhat):
Probably the best way to answer that is to say that first and foremost, I believe in free markets for all voluntary economic activity except for cases of "tragedy of the commons" where a "common resource" is used above and beyond taxes paid to the government responsible for that common resource or that, given a choice, people would prefer to allocate the common resource for some other purpose.
I live in a low-crime town with a police force which is armed and trained for deadly violence to enforce the rule of law and I pay taxes which fund the police, paying for their guns and bullets. (Thankfully I can vote and influence other voters if I disagree with the laws or the enforcement of those laws.) The alternative to this controlled violence is what I would consider to be a far worse situation with likely much more corruption, fewer property rights, fewer personal rights, and a more arbitrary and unaccountable rule. So rationally, I'm quite happy that there are profitable businesses out there which sell guns and bullets to my town's police force (and I'm also happy for the constitutional rights and rule of law which is remarkably good at keeping these deadly people from abusing their situation, considering their advantages). I have no feeling of being tainted by funding this sort of violence with my taxes or my investments. I consider being defenseless a wonderful luxury for those who mingle within a place defended by someone else, especially when that someone else is fairly accountable to the the citizens of that town (compared to say The Mafia or some tribal warlord).
In terms of the military, I can't think of a time period when I would consider the world to be better off with an unarmed US than a well armed US, taking everything into balance. I suppose there are a lot of people today who would disagree with that.
// posted by Bruce @ 4:35 PM 
