Originally posted at LPWV.org
Class warfare arguments have long been the domain of socialists, big-government leftists, and others who believe that through government force, they can end oppression and be uplifted individually and economically. While many of the statements they make about class-based oppression and exploitation ring true, their solutions to those very real problems are not viable solutions. History has shown that government force only imposes greater exploitation of workers, greater tyranny by the political and ruling classes, and greater hopelessness for the regular people in America.
Capitalism does not exist anywhere in the world today. Not really, at least. The US economic system, based largely on the Keynsian theory of central management, has empowered a political class to enable a ruling class which have for over a century oppressed the American citizen and led to a gradual decline in the ability of people to be independently prosperous in modern society. This sort of central management is far closer to Marxist theory than it is to true capitalist theory as espoused by the Austrian school of economics. Central management has allowed for corruption to be centralized, created readily available paths for the most powerful mega-corporations in areas ranging from military contractors like Blackwater and Halliburton to retail giants such as Walmart, to impose draconian regulations and to even go so far as to lead to human death and suffering on a massive scale.
Regulations by the government may seem well-intentioned to the uninitiated. When the government says “we’d like to help the environment,” it’s natural for someone to believe that they are helping the environment by doing something such as limiting pollution and imposing penalties for polluters. While this may seem on the surface to be a noble goal, the truth of the matter is that what’s really happening is that a massive bureaucracy is being created. We all know that mega-corporations have a lot of control over the government we live under. It shouldn’t be difficult, then, to realize that if these mega-corporations didn’t want such regulations, they could have stopped them from coming into existence. They do want them, however, and here’s why. Those bureaucracies cost millions or even hundreds of millions of dollars a year to comply with. The regulations go vastly beyond simply saying “don’t pollute or you’ll get in trouble”, and instead create these massive, expensive bureaucracies. These compliance costs create a barrier to entry in many industries, which means that only the mega-corporations who can afford easily to comply, can do so at all. That drives up prices for the consumer, and absolutely prevents competition which would help to protect the consumer from the mega-corporations by allowing someone else to “do it better and cheaper.”
Another good example of this is the FDA. At many points in history, new medicines were developed by accident by brilliant individuals working at home. Now, it’s impossible for this to occur, since the FDA would regulate them out of existence. The pharmaceutical giants which love the FDA’s existence because it allows them to hold their power over that market also lobby for things like continuing marijuana prohibition to prevent medical marijuana from becoming popular. Many patients who use medical marijuana illegally suggest that it works wonders, yet the federal government maintains prohibition against it. It just isn’t profitable for the mega-corporations in the pharmaceutical industry. They can’t patent it.
Beyond that, the inherent corruption of the Keynsian-Marxist system we live under has created a new class – the non-productive political class of politicians and bureaucrats who contribute little if anything to society while working to enforce regulations that maintain the oppression of the most productive classes in society. The political class has one mandate from the ruling class which created it – to help the ruling class to maintain its power and build barriers to prevent others from becoming a part of the ruling class, while pretending to be somehow benevolent, and not looking or smelling like the ruling class to the majority of the citizenry.
It’s our belief as libertarians that the only way to empower working people is by removing the power from the corrupt political class which enables them to serve the ruling class. That means dramatically shrinking the size and scope of government at all levels. Only then can people be truly free to compete against the mega-corporations successfully. Socialism and corporatism (also known as the Keynsian economic model of central management) empower that political class to serve the whims of the ruling class, which allows for the exploitation of workers. A truly free market – which is something that we absolutely do not have in this state or this country today – would allow every individual to be a capitalist and to potentially, through their own hard work, entrepeneurship, and motivation, and to potentially join the upper class. Big government does not create trickle down wealth, it leads only to trickle-down poverty. Big government steals wealth from the people and delivers it into the hands of the ruling class through inflationary monetary policy, bailouts and corporate welfare, and by preventing free competition from rising up from the productive classes of society.
I hope you’ll join us in our fight to help regular people in the state of West Virginia achieve the prosperity they deserve.
105 responses so far ↓
1 Chris Cole // Jul 3, 2009 at 4:42 pm
This is nuts! This is the same man who said this in an earlier attack on Ayn Rand: “Throughout her career, Rand showed a genuine loathing for the productive classes of society – those who were not her beloved “capitalists”, but were the workers that allowed such people to do anything whatsoever. Face it – without workers, there’d be no industry. Yet while claiming moral superiority, Rand lambasted those very workers while championing the non-productive classes of society. By supporting statist Republicans, she championed the political class. In Atlas Shrugged, she clearly showed a love for the non-productive “management” class. On the other hand, her dislike for the productive class – those who actually do useful things and create useful things – was obvious in many of her writings.”
How is that not a class warfare argument?
2 mdh // Jul 3, 2009 at 4:44 pm
It is a class warfare argument. Re-read this essay if you don’t gt it. I am advocating class warfare arguments as a strategy for lib4rtarians.
I think you’re missing something important here, Chris.
3 Donald Raymond Lake // Jul 3, 2009 at 4:57 pm
Baleouts, less is more, rewarding the bad guys!
4 Andy // Jul 3, 2009 at 6:01 pm
Good article. I’ve been advocating that the Libertarian Party use class warfare arguements for years. Put the common man vs. the bankers, corporate fat cats, politicians, and bureacrats.
5 Third Party Revolution // Jul 3, 2009 at 6:02 pm
But aren’t Libertarians supposed to advocate free market?
6 mdh // Jul 3, 2009 at 6:22 pm
I am advocating a free market… read the *title* for fuck’s sake.
7 Donald Raymond Lake // Jul 3, 2009 at 7:04 pm
mdh via Third Party:
Thx, some folks are just too dumb to pay attention!
8 Mik Robertson // Jul 3, 2009 at 7:17 pm
AFTER conquest and confiscation have been effected, and the State set up, its first concern is with the land…. In its capacity as ultimate landlord, the State distributes the land among its beneficiaries on its own terms.
–Albert J. Nock, Our Enemy the State
9 Fred Church Ortiz // Jul 3, 2009 at 8:16 pm
This whole emulate the socialists kick is really starting to get silly. Any one of these arguments could have stood for libertarianism on its own without padding it with Che-speak.
It’s also questionable whether anyone whose bribes are current is technically part of the ruling class. Would the officeholders hesitate for a second to throw any one of them to the fire if it netted towards their own political survival?
10 Susan Hogarth // Jul 3, 2009 at 8:23 pm
Paulie,
When you are reprinting from another site, could you post the link to the original? Something like “Originally posted at LPWV’s website”.
11 little bit // Jul 3, 2009 at 9:36 pm
Great article mdh. Where is Paulie’s commentary?
12 Donald Raymond Lake // Jul 4, 2009 at 1:14 am
Who cares bout Paulie’s comment?
His verbiage is like my urine:
light yellow like weak lemon aide!
Paulie [or whom ever he really is]
does not yet cross the line to ’saboteur’
but he sure exhibits a lot of the
‘agent provacatuer’ behaivor…….
There is lots and lots of Reform Party
room for this shadowy dude…..
13 Michael Seebeck // Jul 4, 2009 at 2:09 am
Well-written, Matt. It’s refreshing to see someone pivot the populist class-warfare argument of rich-vs.-poor into libertarian terms of government-vs.-people to get the message across in this manner, for several reasons. First, it shows how it’s done properly, both in terms of the pivot and in framing the argument. Second, it shows that a populist tone to the message can work, and we should do more of it. Third, it’s completely true!
People don’t necessarily get Keynesian vs. Austrian economics, but they do get “How has government/big business/corporate America/bankers screwed you today?”
This would make a great fundraising letter, among many other things.
14 libertariangirl // Jul 4, 2009 at 8:47 am
Paulie [or whom ever he really is]
does not yet cross the line to ’saboteur’
but he sure exhibits a lot of the
‘agent provacatuer’ behaivor……
me_ lol , no he doesnt , not at all . agent p’s are more like Chuck geshliders , Jim Davidsons , even Eric Dondero’s . But Paulie , never.
15 Andy // Jul 4, 2009 at 8:51 am
Here’s an article that was posted on http://www.LewRockwell.com a while back which is similiar in theme to the article above.
Same As It Ever Was: Libertarians Battle the Corporate State
http://www.lewrockwell.com/ostrowski/ostrowski51.html
16 Robert Milnes // Jul 4, 2009 at 9:43 am
Pharmaceuticals & big corporations using FDA to keep marijuanna illegal? I don’t think so. MJ could be profitable. It is a morality decision. Masses of people think Mj & drug abuse is immoral. Therefore government uses its power to make & keep it illegal. With their tacit approval.
17 Gene Trosper // Jul 4, 2009 at 9:48 am
I would be happy if I would never see or hear the name Chuck Geshlider ever again in my lifetime.
18 little bit // Jul 4, 2009 at 11:19 am
@16 WOW No, big corporations have contracts with prisons…they need to keep them full. That is more productive for them than to legalize mj.
19 libertariangirl // Jul 4, 2009 at 11:36 am
Exactly!
20 libertariangirl // Jul 4, 2009 at 11:38 am
GT _ everyone who crosses Chuckies path gets that feeling! lol
21 Erik Geib // Jul 4, 2009 at 12:01 pm
The prison argument comes off sounding too Alex Jones-ish.
All one has to do for the marijuana / corporate argument is look at how the lumber industry didn’t want to compete with hemp when it came to paper. As a result, the idea of the “killer weed from Mexico” came about after a quick, ridiculous discussion from “experts” before Congress.
I don’t smoke, but the legislative history of weed is absurd.
22 Michael Seebeck // Jul 4, 2009 at 12:38 pm
The reason that that Big Pharma wants to keep MJ illegal is simple–that plant puts them out of business. Ask Steve Kubby for much more info on the business side.
As for the legalities, it always seemed kinda stupid to me that just because something is in one column on a list somewhere makes it legal and unregulated, in a second column makes it legal and regulated, and a third column makes it illegal–stupid because the lists are determined not by anything resembling common sense and science but by fear, money, and politics.
Let’s face it, if science and common sense were used, MSG, HFCS, Aspartame, Saccharin, and Tobacco would be illegal, MJ would be legal, and Cheerios wouldn’t be called illegal by the FDA…
23 Michael Seebeck // Jul 4, 2009 at 12:41 pm
Erik is also right @21 about the lumber industry, because during WWII hemp was not only legal but robust and a necessary resource for the war. Nowadays that attitude is still there, but not as much in today’s recycled world.
Sorry, Milnes, it’s not a morality thing. That excuse died with alcohol prohibition.
And if it were a morality thing, then all that shows is the declining influences of moral sources in the nation, which may or may not be a bad thing.
24 Michael Seebeck // Jul 4, 2009 at 12:41 pm
Sorry, that should be “so-called moral sources.”
25 libertariangirl // Jul 4, 2009 at 12:46 pm
The answer to why MJ is illegal is all of the above . Too many people in prison and courts , money that way; big lumber doesnt want hemp because its cheaper and better , money that way ; big pharma cuz Mikes right it would cut into their business , money that way .
simply it is worth much more money illegal
26 scatterbrain // Jul 4, 2009 at 3:37 pm
Yet another “libertarian” uses socialist terms to further his goals. I’m getting sick of it; its insulting when capitalists use left-wing theory to justify what me and many others who consider his theories and dogmatic thinking, quite frankly, horseshit. (Looking at you Brad Spangler!)
“Keynsian-Marxist system” ? Just random word grabbing designed to shock and weaken the reader; its not a real argument, its just a quiet rant, a reinteration of some right-propertarian prophet who can never be questioned.
27 Gary Chartier // Jul 4, 2009 at 7:31 pm
Scatterbrain, class analysis has a long history within classical liberalism and libertarianism, a history that’s clearly independent of Marx.
1. Consider the libertarian class theory developed by Comte and Dunoyer in the early nineteenth century.
2. Consider Franz Oppenheimer’s distinction, in The State, between those who employ the economic means of acquiring wealth and those who employ the political means.
3. Consider Rothbard’s analyses of the role of politically well-connected big business types in the growth of the state.
4. Consider SEK3’s explicit development of “agorist class theory.”
No one says you have to agree with any of these folks. But at least do them the courtesy of acknowledging that none of them was either a Marxist in disguise or a libertarian manipulatively employing Marxist rhetoric–each was articulating what he regarded as an authentically libertarian perspective that highlighted the relationship between the state and economic elites.
28 mdh // Jul 4, 2009 at 10:31 pm
@13 – Thanks Mike!
29 mdh // Jul 4, 2009 at 10:38 pm
@25 – Libertarianism is inherently left-leaning. There are “right-libertarians”, such as the RLC crowd, Bob Barr, etc. The ideology at it’s core, however, is a left philosophy.
A right-libertarian is not truly ‘right’, either, they’re just a lot more right than centrist or left libertarians. They are still far left of George Bush, Barack Obama, or John McCain.
Of course, interpretations of ‘left’, ‘right’, ‘libertarian’, and even ’socialist’ are subjective. If you read my essays, expect my own biases and definitions to be utilized. Someone who self-identifies as a socialist is likely to disagree with some of them.
30 John C // Jul 4, 2009 at 11:07 pm
I am a fan of all the recent Matt Harris pieces.
31 paulie // Jul 5, 2009 at 9:10 am
Che-speak is good. For too many years libertarian arguments have been stilted rightwards until the line has been blurred. We need to reach other audiences in terms that make sense to them.
32 paulie // Jul 5, 2009 at 9:11 am
I usually do. If I forget, please feel free to fix it.
33 paulie // Jul 5, 2009 at 9:13 am
I agree.
Most of it was in person as we were hanging out the last few days as well as talking on the phone as the article was being written while I was on my way back up here.
I didn’t have as much time online so I am just getting to it now.
34 mdh // Jul 5, 2009 at 9:21 am
My lord, you guys weren’t kidding about my face being red. This is my first sunburn in years.
Oh well, for a good cause!
I think that Matt dude could end up being an awesome activist so I definitely would call yesterday’s outreach a success.
35 paulie // Jul 5, 2009 at 9:31 am
Lots of people, judging by their responses, and you, judging by the fact that you are commenting on it. There’s that scroll function, you know…
LOL. You’ve been drinking too much urine Don, everything starts to resemble it to you.
I am Paul, and Paulie is how we say Paul in New York, where I grew up. What’s it to you?
Saboteur of what? Would you rather that I not repost these articles here for your discussion, as I did with this one?
If you don’t like having this article available here, the simple solution is to not read it; there are well over 3,000 others open for comments on IPR.
If none of those are interesting to you, you can well, you know, go away.
The same goes for my comments, just as it does for yours: you are not under any obligation to read them or respond to them.
If other people do want to see them, you have no veto here.
No thanks.
36 paulie // Jul 5, 2009 at 9:35 am
I agree.
I think one of the many other things “How has government/big business/corporate America/bankers collusion screwed you today?” would make is a great youtube and essay contest.
37 paulie // Jul 5, 2009 at 9:50 am
Andy,
Good article by Ostrowski, but I think Matt’s is different in tone and intended audience. I’ll let him speak on the details of that if he feels like it before I say anything in greater detail on that.
38 paulie // Jul 5, 2009 at 9:52 am
As a natural plant that grows wild and/or can be grown by people at home, patches in national forests, etc., it is too difficult for pharma corporations to control. They can’t profit if anyone can grow their own.
39 paulie // Jul 5, 2009 at 9:55 am
lg
That’s Agent P, aka Agent Pee, aka Agent P(ee)-Funk to you, young lady.
Secret agent coded transmission over and out.
40 paulie // Jul 5, 2009 at 9:58 am
That too, and many other things…
41 paulie // Jul 5, 2009 at 10:11 am
All one has to do for the marijuana / corporate argument is look at how the lumber industry didn’t want to compete with hemp when it came to paper. As a result, the idea of the “killer weed from Mexico” came about after a quick, ridiculous discussion from “experts” before Congress.
Lumber was just one of many industries involved, along with government agents like Anslinger who found themselves out of work after the repeal of prohibition, and sensationalist “yellow” newspapermen like Hearst – much the same coalition we are fighting
in the struggle for prohibition repeal today.
‘
Certainly, the police-prison-industrial complex – a vast empire that makes many billions and is growing – is no exception.
I don’t smoke, but the legislative history of weed is absurd.
I don’t either.
It’s only absurd until you dig into it and figure out who the players are and why,
42 paulie // Jul 5, 2009 at 10:14 am
Sorry, Milnes, it’s not a morality thing. That excuse died with alcohol prohibition.
No. I’ve worked on a lot of legalization/decrim/medicinal rights campaigns. We are still dealing with it a lot today.
43 paulie // Jul 5, 2009 at 10:15 am
The answer to why MJ is illegal is all of the above . Too many people in prison and courts , money that way; big lumber doesnt want hemp because its cheaper and better , money that way ; big pharma cuz Mikes right it would cut into their business , money that way .
simply it is worth much more money illegal
Exactly.
44 paulie // Jul 5, 2009 at 10:52 am
Scare quotes unnecessary. We need many, many more libertarians using such language.
Can’t quite parse your sentence, but we are not necessarily capitalists. See
http://mises.org/story/2099#6
Roderick Long writes
See the rest of the essay for context and references.
Oh, and Brad Spangler is right on the money, although I’m not – at least yet – convinced that the existence of the LP is and always would be counterproductive.
See the rest of Long’s essay on why libertarians are the best inheritors of “socialist” terms, as you call them, more so than most so-called socialists today – and why these, and not the terms most present day self-identified libertarians usually use, are the best way to understand and sell libertarianism.
45 paulie // Jul 5, 2009 at 11:00 am
Roderick Long’s essay at http://mises.org/story/2099 is good for putting these ways of understanding left and right in historical and logical context.
46 paulie // Jul 5, 2009 at 11:01 am
Yes, doubleplusgood!
47 paulie // Jul 5, 2009 at 11:20 am
We should do this more. And you should come over so we can make fun of your lobster face, LOL
48 paulie // Jul 5, 2009 at 11:21 am
True. And we also flew the flag and took a lot of names, as well.
Bring me the head of Donna E.!
49 paulie // Jul 5, 2009 at 11:33 am
Also to give me a ride to eat somewhere, maybe qdoba, and bring the Tequila if you can. Some drunk commenting might be fun.
50 Andy // Jul 5, 2009 at 12:32 pm
“mdh // Jul 5, 2009 at 9:21 am
My lord, you guys weren’t kidding about my face being red. This is my first sunburn in years. ”
Geez, I didn’t think that the sun was that strong yesterday.
51 mdh // Jul 5, 2009 at 12:42 pm
I am just that pale.
52 Donald Raymond Lake // Jul 5, 2009 at 2:51 pm
mdh: There is pale and then there is ‘pasty’. I am so pasty [Mister White Bread?] that I am having blood work done. [true, no lie]
More to the task at hand [dismantling the Establishment Duopoly], when doing out door work [tabling, petitioning] bring enuf sun block for every one —– do not depend on the troops to be fully equipped.
53 paulie // Jul 5, 2009 at 2:58 pm
That may have had something to do with the fact that we were in it for hours before you showed up.
54 paulie // Jul 5, 2009 at 3:02 pm
Or you used to be, now you just look like a lobster
55 Donald Raymond Lake // Jul 5, 2009 at 5:20 pm
mdh’s red face is probably due to the FACT that he does not much exists out side of IPR:
“This is the qmail-send program at yahoo.com.
I’m afraid I wasn’t able to deliver your message to the following addresses.
This is a permanent error; I’ve given up. Sorry it didn’t work out.
:
Sorry, I couldn’t find any host named solitox.net. (#5.1.2)
— Below this line is a copy of the message.”
Libertarians, is there any ‘there’ there?
What are you scardicats afraid of…….
263 Eucalyptus Court
Chula Vista
CAlifornia
91910-3030
619.420.0209
56 paulie // Jul 5, 2009 at 5:51 pm
lolol
you are sending email to an old address.
Matt uses a different one now.
57 mdh // Jul 5, 2009 at 6:00 pm
Solitox was a Ron Paul campaign related network. It hasn’t existed in about a year. I don’t know where you got the old address from, but my real contact details are quite readily available. I’ve even received bizarre mailings from you via the postal mail, if you recall! One of them is posted here on IPR, and paulie actually has the other since it came in while he was in town here.
58 Dustin Kennedy // Jul 6, 2009 at 12:32 am
First of all, if the libertarian party cared about class warfare, why do a lot of them advocate sweatshops as a part of free market economics, abolition of the minimum-wage, and to those who think the Democrat’s form of regulation is the only type there is they are sadly mistaken. Real regulation would not allow just for mega-corps to pay back huge sums over and over and never be punished. In Marxism there would be no such thing as Mega-Corps. By the way there are various degrees of Captialism, just like there is various degrees of Socialism. Keynes advocated a mix between both, not Centrally planned economies.
Capitalism in its pure form, we all know is Laissez-Faire, the others are those such as State-Capitalism, Mixed Capitalism, etc.
Socialism in it’s pure form in my opinion is Anarcho-Syndicalism, or Anarchism in General(mainly because Libertarianism started out as advocating Socialism right after the French Revolution, until U.S. Fucktards hijacked it.) There are others that exist also Such as: Mutualism, Democratic Socialism, Libertarian Socialism, Market Socialism, Bureaucratic Socialism, Marxism, Luxembourgism, Communism, etc.
So as a Socialist myself, it’s ridiculous to categorize both Capitalism and Socialism as simply Laissez-Faire, Keynesian, and Marxism.
On a further note to those who want to actually learn the truths about Socialism read the works of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon or Mikhail Bakunin.
59 paulie // Jul 6, 2009 at 1:16 am
See recent articles at praxeology.net for a better understanding of the issues here:
http://aaeblog.net/2007/02/06/remembering-corporate-liberalism
http://praxeology.net/aotp.htm
http://www.cato-unbound.org/2008/11/10/roderick-long/corporations-versus-the-market-or-whip-conflation-now/
http://aaeblog.com/2009/06/22/pootmop-redux/
http://aaeblog.net/2008/06/27/pootmop/
Your thoughts?
60 mdh // Jul 6, 2009 at 6:42 am
@58 – First off, I’m happy to receive some feedback from your side of the fence.
“First of all, if the libertarian party cared about class warfare, why do a lot of them advocate sweatshops”
Like who? Sounds like randroidism to me – they’re the same people who say that WalMart has anything to do with free markets. It doesn’t.
“abolition of the minimum-wage”
I believe that the minimum wage also creates a sort of maximum wage. It hinders wage competition. Some corporations, as a token gesture, offer “50 cents above minimum wage” or somesuch. I believe that if we had real competition for labor, wages would rise and those employers who did not rise would have only the least competent workers on their team.
“Keynes advocated a mix between both, not Centrally planned economies. ”
My interpretation of the Keynsian economic school and every existing implementation thereof is that it advocates centrally planned economies managed by one private central bank which is a private corporation and effectively controls every aspect of the economy. This is the case in most “westernized countries”, including the US.
“Socialism in it’s pure form in my opinion is Anarcho-Syndicalism, or Anarchism in General”
Anarchism is inherently libertarian. In anarchism, the hyphenated adjectives would not matter at all and people would be free to join collectives such as anarcho-syndicalist or anarcho-communalist theory espouses, or they would be free to be a part of a capitalist free market as anarcho-capitalism espouses, or they would be free to go off and live as a hermit and never make contact with another human being again, feed themself, clothe themself, etc off the land as they please. Without a government monopoly on force, people can lead their lives how they see fit.
If you wish to understand true libertarianism, just consider the non-aggression principle. “Do not initiate force or fraud upon another.” I and many other (not all) libertarians believe that a free market is the best way to not do that. As long as all societies are voluntaryist, however, I have absolutely no problem with voluntary cooperative communities such as are envisioned by anarcho-syndicalists.
61 Kimberly Wilder // Jul 6, 2009 at 7:41 am
From The Tao Te Ching by Lao Tzu/Translated by Ursula Le Guin
57
Being Simple
Run the country by doing what’s expected.
Win the war by doing the unexpected.
Control the world by doing nothing.
How do I know that?
By this.
The more restrictions and prohibitions in the world,
the poorer the people get.
The more experts the country has
the more of a mess it’s in.
The more ingenious the skillful are,
the more monstrous their inventions.
The louder the call for law and order,
the more the thieves and con men multiply.
So a wise leader might say:
I practice inaction, and the people look after themselves.
I love to be quiet, and the people themselves find justice.
I don’t do business, and the people prosper on their own.
I don’t have wants, and the people themselves are uncut wood.
-
62 paulie // Jul 6, 2009 at 7:59 am
Mozart was a Red, and so is Matt.
63 paulie // Jul 6, 2009 at 8:00 am
@61
True dat…
64 mdh // Jul 6, 2009 at 8:54 am
Kimberly, you’re sounding like a libertarian. I thought you favored more government regulations?
65 mdh // Jul 6, 2009 at 8:55 am
Unless my essay has touched you so that you have decided to become a libertarian. In which case, I think I may be even better at this stuff than I thought.
66 paulie // Jul 6, 2009 at 10:02 am
I think Kimberly has definite libertarian tendencies but for some time she thought (or to some extent still thinks) that green/left goals (which I generally share) justify some use of monopoly state means, even if those are not the optimal means to achieve those goals. Kimberly can correct that if I am wrong.
What I would propose is that monopoly state means always end up serving the power of the monopoly state, even if they are undertaken with the best intentions, and that this power is antithetical to such goals. I would also propose that consistent adherence to non-initiation of force is the only way to achieve green/left goals in practice, and that a truly free market would naturally tend to achieve green/left goals without state/monopoly means.
67 Steven R Linnabary // Jul 6, 2009 at 10:07 am
Dustin has very masterfully created and debunked a straw man argument where supposedly libertarians advocate corporate “sweatshops” and substandard wages.
Libertarians in such a debate should remember that corporations are creations of the STATE. The state allows for the creation of corporations for two basic reasons: one, to give the bearer the possibility of perpetual life and two, to give the bearer protection from some liability.
The US founders were very much acquainted with Crown corporations such as the British East Indies Corporation which had been given monopolies in trade with colonies and which led directly to the American Revolution.
Not until the Jackson era were there truly American corporations, with all the privileges that entails.
Libertarians should resist the temptation to justify corporatism.
PEACE
68 Donald Raymond Lake // Jul 6, 2009 at 2:07 pm
Next Jeopardy! question: formally this system has been monikered ‘Merchantilism’ ……. as a bridge between government and the open market, and grew out of the British ’sea dog’ [Raleigh, Drake] raids on Spanish [government] gold ship ments.
69 paulie // Jul 6, 2009 at 2:08 pm
Not until the Jackson era were there truly American corporations, with all the privileges that entails.
Michael, Tito, Janet or Jermaine?
70 JT // Jul 6, 2009 at 4:15 pm
Steven: “Libertarians in such a debate should remember that corporations are creations of the STATE. The state allows for the creation of corporations for two basic reasons: one, to give the bearer the possibility of perpetual life and two, to give the bearer protection from some liability.”
You’re not seriously claiming that in a free society there wouldn’t be businesses in the corporate model, are you? Specifically, businesses based on the separation of managers and investors? That’s the essential characteristic of the modern-day corporation.
Corporate welfare and government-granted monopoly shouldn’t exist, of course. But if you think corporations themselves wouldn’t exist in a libertarian society, you obviously don’t know much about economics.
71 Michael H. Wilson // Jul 6, 2009 at 7:29 pm
Been off the net for a week and it is good to see some dicsussion going on that merits some real replies instead of b.s. for a change. Good goin’ Matt.
72 Steven R Linnabary // Jul 6, 2009 at 8:45 pm
Michael, Tito, Janet or Jermaine?
LaToya, the talented one.
73 Susan Hogarth // Jul 6, 2009 at 8:51 pm
Kimberly @61,
I have a version of some of that as text on my homeblog:
http://www.colliething.com/
(see top right)
Amazing how much translations differ!
74 Steven R Linnabary // Jul 6, 2009 at 8:56 pm
But if you think corporations themselves wouldn’t exist in a libertarian society, you obviously don’t know much about economics.
Investment schemes have always been with us, even in the period between the Revolution and the Jackson era.
My point is that there is no valid reason for the state (and by extension, all citizens) to conspire or condone such schemes.
PEACE
75 George Phillies // Jul 7, 2009 at 7:10 am
The opposite of the free market is the political party monopoly market, in which a single organization has claimed the right to have monopoly ownership of the libertarian party political movement nationwide.
One consequence of this is seen in the report
http://www.thedailyliberty.com/story/2009/7/7/8312/52395
in which it is noted that the Barr campaign claims in 2008 to have received $10,000 in support from LNC, Inc. — an entirely legal transaction — and LNC, Inc. FEC filings that would have divulged the spending to the membership reveal that no such transaction took place.
LNC members I contacted were unaware of such a transaction, which they though was incompatible with policies they indicated that they believed had been adopted.
FEC filings are filed with legal penalties for the treasurer for false filings, but there is absolutely no indication that either treasurer filed anything except what he reasonably belied to be true.
In the presence of market competition, there would be a natural pressure on all sides to ensure that filings did the things that now have only legal pressure to support.
76 George Phillies // Jul 7, 2009 at 7:12 am
Perhaps, to be equally fair to both sides, I should have said that LNC filings — all for July 2008, claim that no such transaction took place, the point of the change being to use the same verb for both assertions.
77 Kimberly Wilder // Jul 7, 2009 at 8:25 am
Paulie at 66:
Yes to a lot of what you said. (It is wonderful how when you respect someone, you can hear them better than other people.)
Anyway…
Yes, I came into my political awareness largely as an “Advocate for Self Government” and Libertarian. And voted for the Libertarian Presidential candidate by write-in at least once.
I do not believe with some of the Green/left thinking. And, I totally get how the government (and even charity) is often used as an excuse by rich people to give themselves good jobs managing other-people’s-money on behalf of allegedly needy people.
I have been thinking along the lines of what you noted is it sometimes good to use the government’s monopoly power to achieve good goals.
I think there is a point of distinction I have. I think I believe that the government can be just a way to “pool money and align intentions” if a group of stakeholders want to get something done. Maybe I believe in small, local governments, getting things done if there is consensus among the locals to do it? Ie: build a road. I think a government is a much better way to plan and build a road than a corporation.
I also believe that the federal government has been used to good effect in the past to protect people’s rights against the power of state or local government when those governments discriminate. I think “civil rights” are a valuable thing for a government to protect.
Thanks for the dialogue.
I understand and value freedom.
I am not a classic green, a classic leftist, or a classic liberal.
And, I was a Libertarian first.
78 Kimberly Wilder // Jul 7, 2009 at 8:27 am
Susan at 73…
Very cool…
Great minds think alike!
I wonder if the quotation I have and yours are the same. They are very close. But, mine does not seem to mention anything about “religion”. The Tao Te Ching is very repetitious in ways, a kind of circling and meditating on the same subjects. Do you know what number section yours is from?
Peace,
Kimberly
79 JT // Jul 7, 2009 at 8:31 am
Steven: “Investment schemes have always been with us, even in the period between the Revolution and the Jackson era.”
Investment “schemes”? That sounds kind of ominous. Do you think raising capital by offering people stock in a company is an inherently suspicious activity? If so, why?
In fact, there’s nothing ominous about it at all. That’s how companies are able to raise enough capital to mass produce and distribute goods in a modern industrial economy (which wasn’t the US between the Revolutionary and Jackson era). I’m sure you buy these goods as well.
80 robert capozzi // Jul 7, 2009 at 9:50 am
All this talk of the Tao reminds me of Palin’s misguided statement that only dead fish go with the flow. Perhaps she overlooked electricity and water!
You must be in the flow to change its direction.
81 libertariangirl // Jul 7, 2009 at 10:11 am
were gonna get you yet to be a Lib , Kimberly , perhaps we’ll use our secret weapon and talk and talk and talk until you fall out then re-register you:)
82 Kimberly Wilder // Jul 7, 2009 at 10:38 am
LG:
Your secret weapon won’t work. I have a Libertarian who does the talking thing at my peace group…and I am immune…I just walk away!
But, I did join a left/Libertarian list-serve. It is just a little bit over my head, and sideways to what I like to talk about.
If there was a Libertarian martial arts group, I might join that…
83 Michael H. Wilson // Jul 7, 2009 at 11:56 am
A quik point or two. The markets in the U.S. are closed to some degree or another and always at the lower end. Examples: midwives were outlawed or found it difficult to practice thus depriving women, especially low income ones of an opportunity to have adequate healthcare at a lower costs. paralegals find it difficult to practice in many place. Denturist are legal in only 8 states. It is almost impossible to start a transportation business in many cities thus depriving people of an opportunity to own a business and an alternative service to get around. Housing regulation make it expensive to build in many places, especially on the west coast.
The well to do benefit because they can afford the legal help to get around the barriers while low income people do without.
We call this an open society. Not so if the markets are closed.
84 paulie // Jul 7, 2009 at 12:20 pm
Indeed.
I think its forced monopoly nature precludes it from achieving good goals sustainably and from causing more harm than good.
I think, as a general rule, that it is better than centralization.
I don’t think anything like what we call today a corporation would or could exist in a real free market.
See Roderick Long’s articles that I linked in — I think — this thread for more on that.
A fully liable small business or workers cooperative may be the best way to build a road. In any case, most non-private highway roads today are privately and even some highways; before the interstate system which was designed for military-industrial purposes and exacerbated sprawl, most highways were privately built as well.
Which system is better? In my own experience, government roads are plagued with more outrageous cost overruns and delays, and tend to have more environmental problems.
Unfortunately, I believe the inevitable result of a federal government empowered to give people civil rights has been a federal government more capable of international mischief, domestic espionage, and many other evil things. There’s also some legitimate question IMO as to what extent the federal government needed to be used to achieve civil rights, and whether there could have been a better way.
Would a UN capable of collecting taxes, wielding armies and issuing worldwide regulations as a central world government be worth whatever problems it promised to solve?
Thank you as well. I’ve forgotten whether you told me, have you read this yet?
http://aaeblog.com/?s=greensleeves
85 Steven R Linnabary // Jul 7, 2009 at 12:52 pm
JT: Do you think raising capital by offering people stock in a company is an inherently suspicious activity? If so, why?
Raising capital through the creation of an artificial entity (the corporation) that is given “personhood” AND exemption from liability isn’t suspicious and/or immoral to you?
PEACE
86 Susan Hogarth // Jul 7, 2009 at 4:12 pm
Kimberly,
I do think they are from different sections, though I can’t offhand recall which mine came from.
87 robert capozzi // Jul 7, 2009 at 4:24 pm
srl, no, using the corporate form and its limited liability is hardly “immoral” IMO. At this stage, the rule of law has evolved to facilitate most commerce employing the corporate form. It may well be that the form is ultimately ill advised and should be transitioned away from.
I’m not convinced that’s the way to go in theory, but in practice the issue’s way, way down my priority list.
88 Steven R Linnabary // Jul 7, 2009 at 5:55 pm
RC, one of the hallmarks of libertarinism is taking responsibility for ones actions. Clearly corporatism limits responsibility!
But you are correct, this is way down my list. I would never try to run on a platform of abolishing the corporation…it’s just not on anybody’s radar.
OTOH, I don’t want get caught in debates defending the corporation, either. How many times have you argued against government schools and had the response “we can’t turn schools over to corporations?”
This whole debate started with Dustin @ 58 and his straw man argument against libertarianism.
PEACE
89 libertariangirl // Jul 7, 2009 at 6:48 pm
I also believe that the federal government has been used to good effect in the past to protect people’s rights against the power of state or local government when those governments discriminate. I think “civil rights” are a valuable thing for a government to protect.
me_ yes but they only end up protecting them when it is politically beneficial ,meaning the tides and the voters are turning that way .
during our civil rights battle , like any battle foir freedom , it was good , courageous people who did the actual fighting for change. just like always . then after the idea caught on , maybe , the fed gov would protect those rights.
90 JT // Jul 8, 2009 at 9:08 am
Steven: “Raising capital through the creation of an artificial entity (the corporation) that is given “personhood” AND exemption from liability isn’t suspicious and/or immoral to you?”
Not if you understand the modern corporation, which you obviously don’t. A corporation isn’t “exempt from liability.” Limited liability means that the people who buy stock in the company can only lose the amount they invested in it, and not more than that. A corporation is a form of a business that’s certified by the state as a legal entity in which management is separate from ownership. The corporation has rights derived from the individual rights of its participants, just like any other organization does (i.e., the right to speak publicly).
By the way, the LP is also incorporated. The members are like the shareholders and the staff is like the management. You against that?
91 Steven R Linnabary // Jul 8, 2009 at 11:28 am
By the way, the LP is also incorporated. The members are like the shareholders and the staff is like the management. You against that?
I was on the LNC when we became incorporated sometime between ‘93 & ‘96. It was discovered that our national incorporation had expired sometime in the seventies, and nobody had thought to renew it.
The reasons for re-incorporating were two-fold, IIRC. One was that we needed some legal entity with which to file lawsuits against draconian ballot access laws. Second was to provide legal shelter to us, to limit our personal liability against frivolous lawsuits.
There was a lengthy debate. I took the pragmatic approach and supported it.
PEACE
92 robert capozzi // Jul 8, 2009 at 11:37 am
srl, it’s an interesting question whether a passive investor is responsible for the acts of a corporation he or she invests in. or whether a creditor is.
as the economy gets more complex and globalized, the implications of abolishing the corporate form become more astounding.
when I was brainwashed by MNR, I too bought his “evils” of limited liability analysis. thankfully, I’ve deprogrammed myself!
93 mdh // Jul 8, 2009 at 11:53 am
This discussion is over-complicated needlessly. Individuals should be solely responsible for their own individual actions. That is all.
94 JT // Jul 8, 2009 at 12:21 pm
Steven: “The reasons for re-incorporating were two-fold, IIRC. One was that we needed some legal entity with which to file lawsuits against draconian ballot access laws. Second was to provide legal shelter to us, to limit our personal liability against frivolous lawsuits.”
What? YOU voted to make the LP an evil, perpetual, fictitious monster certified by the state? You should be stoned!
That’s sarcasm, btw. Though it’s hypocritical of you, based on what you’ve said here. Other corporations don’t file ballot access lawsuits, but they do get sued at times, often for absurd reasons (i.e., a cigarette company getting sued because a guy decided to smoke every day for 40 years and finally died of lung cancer). They also need legal standing for contract purposes. Nothing inherently wrong here, so long as the company doesn’t lobby for legal privileges not available to all.
95 paulie // Jul 8, 2009 at 12:24 pm
And the implications of failing to do so, doubly so.
96 paulie // Jul 8, 2009 at 12:28 pm
Or they can reorganize the corporation, and lose nothing real.
Meanwhile, noncontracting parties – workers, consumers, competitors or would-be competitors, neighbors – can suffer very real damages with no remaining recourse (or a socialized recourse which in turn causes monetary damages to non-contracting parties).
Why should some force(d) state monopoly issue such privileges?
97 paulie // Jul 8, 2009 at 12:30 pm
Probably was.
98 Steven R Linnabary // Jul 8, 2009 at 12:39 pm
Hey!!! I resemble that remark!
Seriously, this debate has gotten a bit far fetched. I would never propose ridding the world of corporatism in a debate. I was merely responding to Dustin @ 58!
IPR has gotten a bit slow the past few days…nothing to do but read Milnes “thoughts”!
This debate is just an amusement!
PEACE
99 paulie // Jul 8, 2009 at 12:41 pm
Though it’s hypocritical of you, based on what you’ve said here.
Working within the constraints of an existing unfair system is not the same thing as proposing to perpetuate it.
We can debate the relative morality of actions ranging from joining the armed forces, a single mother accepting government assistance, a company getting a government grant, a political party receiving “matching” funds, etc, and so on…but in no case does our practical adjusting to the existing reality mean that we do not seek to change it.
Face it: socialists sell newspapers, and libertarians drive on government roads – and there is nothing inherently wrong about either.
Nor would there be, even if it were the ultimate righteous goal to abolish money or privatize all roads.
100 robert capozzi // Jul 8, 2009 at 1:40 pm
pc, if we’re playing thought experiments, I certainly could imagine a stateless, common law regime in which there is a corporate form and equity and creditors are held harmless beyond asset impairment due to a provable tort.
101 JT // Jul 8, 2009 at 2:07 pm
Paulie, in response to me, Steve specifically said the following:
“Raising capital through the creation of an artificial entity (the corporation) that is given “personhood” AND exemption from liability isn’t suspicious and/or immoral to you?”
So the mere fact of a corporate business raising money from people investing in it is apparently “immoral” to him. Yet when I pointed out that the LP is itself a corporate entity, he admitted that he had *voted* in favor of that. Did you personally vote in favor of the roads being government-owned? No, and neither did I. Regardless of his reasons, that’s obviously hypocritical.
102 JT // Jul 8, 2009 at 2:21 pm
Paulie: “Why should some force(d) state monopoly issue such privileges?”
*What* privileges? Certifying a business with a certain structure for legal purposes counts as a state “privilege”? What are the political favors being done by that? That you can only lose the amount you personally chose to invest in a business that you don’t manage, as opposed to losing everything you own?
Corporate managers can and do go to jail for making bad decisions, you know. They aren’t shielded like government bureaucrats are.
103 paulie // Jul 8, 2009 at 6:03 pm
JT,
I addressed what privileges in 96.
While it’s true that corporate managers sometimes go to jail, bureaucrats sometimes do too. Both closely related forms of organization frequently shield the people involved from responsibility.
104 JT // Jul 9, 2009 at 7:48 am
Paulie: “I addressed what privileges in 96. ”
Not really. Unless, as I said, you think that only losing the amount you decided to invest in a business that you don’t even manage–as against possibly losing everything you own–qualifies as a “privilege.” I don’t. I think that’s just and sensible. And I love the productive capacity it yields as well.
If a corporate manager make decisions that have physically harmed other *unwitting* people–proven by credible evidence–then he should repay his victims as is possible and/or serve time. Fortunately, such cases are rare.
You’re right that bureaucrats occasionally do go to jail for theft. But sovereign immunity from lawsuits applies only to government officials.
105 paulie // Jul 9, 2009 at 8:03 am
A corporation can simply vanish and re-emerge under a new name, leaving outside parties holding the bag. Happens all the time.
Also, corporate managers who do wrong frequently manage to evade any personal responsibility behind a corporate shield. Not always, but it happens frequently.
State power is always behind this, in a fashion which is not readily apparent to many people, since it is regimes which grant corporations their charter, corporate personhood and noncontractual limited liability, and regimes which monopolize justice and force, by force.
Remove the state, and you have also removed the problem.
As for whether investors should be responsible for what is done with their money – well, it may lead to much greater oversight of corporate managers to prevent such liabilities from occurring in the first place, I would imagine.
The alternative, at present, is that it is the consumers, workers, competitors and would be competitors, and neighbors who take the risks and pay the price for corporate misdeeds in most cases. This is as a direct result of the merger between business and state; I propose to separate business and state, and make the business owners responsible for the actions of their business.
The current alternative usually means private profits at the same time that risks and costs are socialized (of course, the regime takes a cut of the profits too, and frequently a cut of the actual ownership as well).
Why not say that those who make the profits also bear the costs and risks?
Leave a Comment