Image: Matt Collins
Will Turner: “If we can outrun her, we can take her. We should turn and fight.”
Captain Jack Sparrow: “Why fight when you can negotiate?”
—Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest
From countless films and books we all know that, historically, pirates were criminally insane, traitorous thieves, torturers and terrorists. Anarchy was the rule, and the rule of law was nonexistent.
Not so, dissents George Mason University economist Peter T. Leeson in his myth-busting book, The Invisible Hook (Princeton University Press, 2009), which shows how the unseen hand of economic exchange produces social cohesion even among pirates. Piratical mythology can’t be true, in fact, because no community of people could possibly be successful at anything for any length of time if their society were utterly anarchistic. Thus, Leeson says, pirate life was “orderly and honest” and had to be to meet buccaneers’ economic goal of turning a profit. “To cooperate for mutual gain—indeed, to advance their criminal organization at all—pirates needed to prevent their outlaw society from degenerating into bedlam.” There is honor among thieves, as Adam Smith noted in The Theory of Moral Sentiments: “Society cannot subsist among those who are at all times ready to hurt and injure one another.... If there is any society among robbers and murderers, they must at least ... abstain from robbing and murdering one another.”
Pirate societies, in fact, provide evidence for Smith’s theory that economies are the result of bottom-up spontaneous self-organized order that naturally arises from social interactions, as opposed to top-down bureaucratic design. Just as historians have demonstrated that the “Wild West” of 19th-century America was a relatively ordered society in which ranchers, farmers and miners concocted their own rules and institutions for conflict resolution way before the long arm of federal law reached them, Leeson shows how pirate communities democratically elected their captains and constructed constitutions. Those documents commonly outlined rules about drinking, smoking, gambling, sex (no boys or women allowed onboard), use of fire and candles, fighting and disorderly conduct, desertion and shirking one’s duties during battle. (The last could lead to the “free rider” problem in which the even division of loot among uneven efforts leads to resentment, retaliation and economic chaos.) Enforcement was key. Just as civil courts required witnesses to swear on the Bible, pirate crews had to consent to the captain’s codes before sailing. In the words of one observer: “All swore to ’em, upon a Hatchet for want of a Bible. When ever any enter on board of these Ships voluntarily, they are obliged to sign all their Articles of Agreement ... to prevent Disputes and Ranglings afterwards.” Thus, the pirate code “emerged from piratical interactions and information sharing, not from a pirate king who centrally designed and imposed a common code on all current and future sea bandits.”
From where, then, did the myth of piratical lawlessness and anarchy arise? From the pirates themselves, who helped to perpetrate the myth to minimize losses and maximize profits. Consider the Jolly Roger flag that displayed the skull and crossbones. Leeson says it was a signal to merchant ships that they were about to be boarded by a marauding horde of heartless heathens; the nonviolent surrender of all booty was therefore perceived as preferable to fighting back. Of course, to maintain that reputation, pirates occasionally had to engage in violence, reports of which they provided to newspaper editors, who duly published them in gory and exaggerated detail. But as 18th-century English pirate Captain Sam Bellamy explained, “I scorn to do any one a Mischief, when it is not for my Advantage.” Leeson concludes, “By signaling pirates’ identity to potential targets, the Jolly Roger prevented bloody battle that would needlessly injure or kill not only pirates, but also innocent merchant seamen.”
See what we're tweeting about
15 Comments
Add CommentA crook is a crook is a crook.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA better title for the article might have been Blackbeard meets Adam Smith, since at least Blackbeard was a real pirate.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA better title for the article would have been "Blackbeard meets Adam Smith", since then it would have been a meeting between 2 historical figures instead of a meeting between a fictional character and an economist (admittedly, a subtle difference).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnarchy is not chaos, although it is used interchangeably, even in this article, it is not. The proper meaning of Anarchy is "without Government". Somehow in the popular culture it is believed that the absence of Government will lead to an orderless society. Although, it is difficult for some to fathom, that is not true, and the Pirate's Society is just another proof of that, even in the seemingly orderless group the laws still exist that guide their behavior. Irrational violence of individuals against each other is detrimental to the profitable enterprise, hence even pirates adhere to a code of mutually agreed rules of conduct. The most successful Pirate Crews were the ones that followed these guidelines. Only if the Captain became tyrannical the pirates would vote him out of his office (killing him) and elect a more suitable individual to maximize their return on investment.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf only the same could be said of US Congress.
It has finally dawned on me why the Perestroika in Russia in early 90's had failed. In order to help the “Russkies”, America had sent to Mr. Yeltsin our finest Harvard-bread Socialists – the Dr. Jeffrey D. Sachs Ph.D. & Co. Mr. Sachs and his crew were trying to rebuild a new facade on the same old half-demolished and discredited Socialist foundation.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSomeone had said that “insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.”
Therefore, it does not matter that Socialism, and its variant – Fascism, had failed in the Soviet Union, in Nazi Germany, in Mussolini's Italy, in Mao's China, in Latin America, in Asia, in Africa, with exactly the same results of unspeakable human suffering. If only different “actors” would be involved they would make all the difference. No way Jeff, if the foundation is flawed the building will still be crooked and unstable no matter who builds it.
Fast forward almost twenty years, to present day US. After indulging itself for more than half a century in its own Socialistic experiments, dated back to FDR and his “New Deal”, every US Government program, in Mr. Sachs own admission, had failed in every aspect across the board, – public safety, 9/11, “Drug War”, FEMA, FDA, Iraq, Afghanistan, Welfare, Corporate Welfare, Financial Services, Health Care, etc. Name just one program that had succeeded. Therefore, what we need, by the definition of insanity, more of the same “kool aid”. We need a different government program to fix all other failed government programs. With the new “actors” in the White House it will certainly work. It was the Bush's White House that failed, no it was Clinton's White House, no it was Bush Sr. White House that failed, etc., etc...
How about eliminating the government programs and reducing the US Government to its original Constitutional limits? What a novel idea. They don't teach that at Harvard.
What is the difference between Economic Policies of Clinton, Bush and Obama?
Clinton policies is when in a dark room you are looking for a black cat.
Bush's policies is when in a dark room you are looking for a black cat you know is not there.
Obama's policies is when in a dark room you are looking for a black cat you know is not there, nonetheless, every fifteen minutes you shout: – ” I got it...”.
Wrong article comment. Meant for "The Failing U.S. Government--The Crisis of Public Management"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOK that actually makes pretty good sense when you think about it!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRT
www.true-privacy.net.tc
Hey themoralhazard, while some of that sounds reasonable, it just fails the test of reality. What works for 100 people, or 10, 000 people, is not necessarily what scales up to 300 million or more. While big government is inefficient and often bloats and wastes, tiny or non-existent government has problems all its own too....
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou want to go back to original "minimal" goverment "outlined in the constitution"... you can't turn back the clock... were there HUGE corporations back then? NOTHING like those today. If you think they have too much sway right now (and they do) imagine if there were zero governmental hold on them.
Rip roaring hands off let the market control everything, is great for growth, but devastates everything that gets in its way (the workers, the environment, etc).
Do I think our government is bloated and could stand to be trimmed way back? Yes.
Do I want anarchy or complete hands-of government? No way, that would suck for everyone but the rich.
A democracy is only as its people, which is why they have never lasted long, and why the US is a Federal Republic, not a Democracy. Pirates were the ultimate expression of the ideals of capitalism, & we see how that went. The more things change, the more they stay the same...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI don't recall the guy's name, but a book was published, a few years, ago, detailing the exploits of a pirate/naturalist who sailed the Seven Seas with various pirate groups---detailing the orderliness, the rules, and the democratic nature of the enterprise. Captains were indeed voted into office or off the ship while this particular pirate collected samples of the flora and fauna he found on their exploits---the writings upon which the author stated Darwin cited in his own exploits.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe Bretheren Court represented said pirates from all the world's waters; and they conducted a democratic vote (with a few fist o' cuffs).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn the end the majority agreed to abide by the pirate code.
So all that Jack Sparrow had said, was true!
If only the Somalia pirates had a pirate code to live by.
"themoralhazard" may have posted his comments on the wrong page (and sounding like his medications are being supplied by Rush Limbag), however, the article on "Pirate Economics" is another example of "Money is the root of all Morality."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn the illusion of "free enterprise" and the "original Constitutional limits" that "themoralhazard" is expousing, he fails to take into consideration that companies AND people do what you Inspect rather than what you Expect. That is why when Enron and Lehman Brothers and the big oil and food cartels in this country write the rules, there is no protection for the rest of US. The ONLY hope for the rest of us is that when we starve, the big companies starve too.
The Field Museum in Chicago had a display on pirates this summer (not sure if it is still around) that bore out the tenets discussed here. Much of the program involved the daily machinations of pirate life. Captains, besides being democratically elected, usually received only twice the "booty" of regular hands. Can one imagine that in "lawful" corporate America. There was equity among deckhands in ways that weren't borne out in the conventional society of that time, so one can see the appeal.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAn alternative to the theory presented is that trust is needed for any organization to sustain itself. But in an ethical egoist systemm, this trust is merely prudential, as pirate Captain Sam Bellamy did explain, I scorn to do any one a Mischief, when it is not for my Advantage. But this would be applicable to the pirate crew itself, so cooperation may have occured, but with everyone watching their back to seek their advantage or avoid any disadvantage. But that brings us back to the myth of piratical functional anarchy. Therefore something is amiss with the Adam Smith-style analysis as offered by Leeson. Lurking within this analysis is a Machiavellian prudence that sees all others as merely allies and as potential enemies and only oneself as a friend. But no society can last under this sort of egoism unless others are fooled into thinking that the priate enterprise is all for one and one for all, as happend in the modern-day enterprise called Enron. Therefore, as Plato argues in his dialogues Apology and Crito, prudence must give way to genuine dialogue and a sincere joint effort towards truth and justice. Captain Bellamy would have to become Socrates, but of course then he would have to stop being a priate.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.semantifi.com/qi/browseApps.action
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this