Epicurus ibn Kalhoun:Statism is only due to massive disparities in wealth.
Please learn some economics. Capitalism is possible to disparities in wealth.
The state relies on consent. People love noble lies like leftists love emotional narratives.
Capitalism is possible to disparities in wealth.
It could be. But the concept of the rule of law (dating back at least to Hammurabi) was only possible w massive power disparities (wealth = power). Capitalism may or may not have a causal relationship w statism. But property sure does; or more specifically, abundance of said property. Now, if you argue capitalism's basis in property protection it's prime basis (as I'm sure you do), I don't see how you can make the jump to anarchist capitalism outside of ahistorical theory.
IOW; the theory is solid. Sure, market government... okay. I tend to agree with Chomsky that such a society would be a nightmare, economically (not necessarily socially). But, hey... I can't say that it would be a nightmare. Maybe it works out better than anything we've had before.
But property in history has been the source of statism. Most of the earliest laws deal w economic issues; even the 10moral laws of judaism contain one about not stealing, and another about not coveting. The modern democratic state was designed as a protection of the merchant and business classes, who had been growing in power due to various circumstances against the landed aristocracy and the poor unbridled masses.
[This is why the labor movement, imo, was so progressive. Those without began to cooperate in unison, giving them much greater economic power. Once cannot argue the standard of living is far higher today than it was in 1900, or even 1920 ]
The state relies on consent...
...of those with the power to exercise control. Or are you saying slaves consented to their position?
In States a fresh law is looked upon as a remedy for evil. Instead of themselves altering what is bad, people begin by demanding a law to alter it. ... In short, a law everywhere and for everything!
~Peter Kropotkin
Epicurus, law and the state are not the same thing. The state has only become the major source of law in the past century or two.
law and rule of law are not the same thing either. The rule of law is a soveirgnty thing. It is synonymous with statism.
You are entirely mistaken. The rule of law implies nothing about the state. Have you read anything about customary law, English common law or Roman law (before Justinian)? I suggest the works by Bruno Leoni and Bruce L. Benson freely available in the mises.org literature section. You will find the state need not have anything to do with the 'rule of law'.
William: It won't equalize incomes, and no rational person would want that. " We can not concern ourselves with social status," Why not?
It won't equalize incomes, and no rational person would want that.
" We can not concern ourselves with social status,"
I don't really want to comment or read anything here.I have near zero in common with many of you.I may return periodically when there's something you need to know.
Near Mutualist/Libertarian Socialist.
Evilsceptic: "bargaining power is distorted by regulations and different parties get screwed depending on the situation, generally I would say it that labour is being exploited more on average but companies (especially small buissiness) can get a bad deal when it comes to state sponsored unions." I agree however workers are ALWAYS disadvantaged. " but other than that can't see how "anarcho capitalism" could go wrong," It takes time to see it but tendencies its followers exhibit are :- vulgar libertarianism, knee jerk anti-leftism,cultural conservatism,thin libertarianism,unconcern for authoritarianism, elitism etc. "Sorry, never read any of those guys I am kind of new to economics and political theory, but I do intend to read some carson to broaden my exposure to economic and political ideas after I finish the main austrian stuff." Fair enough.I've yet to read a full Carson work but I know of some of his ideas. Roderick Long's main ideas can be picked up from blogs articles same with Brad Spangler and charles johnson(aka radgeek) I'd say your coming close to being left-libertarian but not quite there yet
"bargaining power is distorted by regulations and different parties get screwed depending on the situation, generally I would say it that labour is being exploited more on average but companies (especially small buissiness) can get a bad deal when it comes to state sponsored unions."
I agree however workers are ALWAYS disadvantaged.
" but other than that can't see how "anarcho capitalism" could go wrong,"
It takes time to see it but tendencies its followers exhibit are :- vulgar libertarianism, knee jerk anti-leftism,cultural conservatism,thin libertarianism,unconcern for authoritarianism, elitism etc.
"Sorry, never read any of those guys I am kind of new to economics and political theory, but I do intend to read some carson to broaden my exposure to economic and political ideas after I finish the main austrian stuff."
Fair enough.I've yet to read a full Carson work but I know of some of his ideas. Roderick Long's main ideas can be picked up from blogs articles same with Brad Spangler and charles johnson(aka radgeek)
I'd say your coming close to being left-libertarian but not quite there yet
Libertyandlife: " Scott did you really just call us conservatives? " I guess it's not strictly true but some here anger me with knee jerk anti-leftism and a range of other issues. "Left Rothbardians: Kinda like regular Rothbardians except they are shameful of the connotations that "capitalism" bring, so they distinguish themselves with superficial labels." Hmm maybe.In anycase no really interested as I'm not much of a Left-Rothbardian anymore more Rothbard inspired. "Freedom from the government, indiscrimination, realistic, working and workable, open to everyone, benefits everyone and free in every aspect." As is left-libertarianism.
" Scott did you really just call us conservatives? "
I guess it's not strictly true but some here anger me with knee jerk anti-leftism and a range of other issues.
"Left Rothbardians: Kinda like regular Rothbardians except they are shameful of the connotations that "capitalism" bring, so they distinguish themselves with superficial labels."
Hmm maybe.In anycase no really interested as I'm not much of a Left-Rothbardian anymore more Rothbard inspired.
"Freedom from the government, indiscrimination, realistic, working and workable, open to everyone, benefits everyone and free in every aspect."
As is left-libertarianism.
liberty student: Scott F: liberty student: "It won't equalize incomes," Not completely but it will close the gap quite a lot. "You can't know that without claiming prescience." Statist privilege and intervention cause a large disparity of income and general wealth in relative comparable terms- so abolition of such would reverse this to some extent. Scott F: liberty student:"and no rational person would want that." So your ok with some in their mansion and some homeless(the homeless not wanting such a state of affairs and not purposely bringing it about. "Non sequitur." That's a large disparity of wealth. Scott F:In anycase massive disparties in wealth are only due to statism. "Prove this claim." How could a large disparity of wealth arise otherwise? Look a history.Statist privilege and intervention has artificially disadvantaged some while artificially advantaging others throughout all of history.Even ignoring the natural differences in people statism has resulted in massive inequality.It's put up barriers to others trying to rise up the ladder so to speak.This cannot be emphasised enough.It's pretty obvious actually. Scott F: liberty student:" and exposed the absolute lunacy of the "we're all equal" mentality." Very Very Few left-libs hold "we're all equal" in the most absolute sense of we're all the same in very single way.It would be wrong to say all belief in equality is belief we're all equal in every single way.That's a straw man.There's many kinds of equality. " Income equality is only possible where effort and results are equal. " I don't think many genuinely favour absolutely equal incomes and I think those same few understand it's impossible.Somewhat similiar incomes does seem possible. " most left libs are economically ignorant, " Aka look outside AE paradigms and do not toe the orthodox line.In anycase I favour AE. " Learning economics would require thinking in a disciplined logical manner, and accepting facts that may conflict with emotional narratives and in turn may stimulate self-actualization." I don't see AE as incompatible with left-libertarianism.I think An-cap's read into AE their assumptions.
Scott F: liberty student: "It won't equalize incomes," Not completely but it will close the gap quite a lot.
liberty student: "It won't equalize incomes,"
"It won't equalize incomes,"
Not completely but it will close the gap quite a lot.
"You can't know that without claiming prescience."
Statist privilege and intervention cause a large disparity of income and general wealth in relative comparable terms- so abolition of such would reverse this to some extent.
Scott F: liberty student:"and no rational person would want that." So your ok with some in their mansion and some homeless(the homeless not wanting such a state of affairs and not purposely bringing it about.
liberty student:"and no rational person would want that."
So your ok with some in their mansion and some homeless(the homeless not wanting such a state of affairs and not purposely bringing it about.
"Non sequitur."
That's a large disparity of wealth.
Scott F:In anycase massive disparties in wealth are only due to statism.
"Prove this claim."
How could a large disparity of wealth arise otherwise?
Look a history.Statist privilege and intervention has artificially disadvantaged some while artificially advantaging others throughout all of history.Even ignoring the natural differences in people statism has resulted in massive inequality.It's put up barriers to others trying to rise up the ladder so to speak.This cannot be emphasised enough.It's pretty obvious actually.
Scott F: liberty student:" and exposed the absolute lunacy of the "we're all equal" mentality." Very Very Few left-libs hold "we're all equal" in the most absolute sense of we're all the same in very single way.It would be wrong to say all belief in equality is belief we're all equal in every single way.That's a straw man.There's many kinds of equality.
liberty student:" and exposed the absolute lunacy of the "we're all equal" mentality."
Very Very Few left-libs hold "we're all equal" in the most absolute sense of we're all the same in very single way.It would be wrong to say all belief in equality is belief we're all equal in every single way.That's a straw man.There's many kinds of equality.
" Income equality is only possible where effort and results are equal. "
I don't think many genuinely favour absolutely equal incomes and I think those same few understand it's impossible.Somewhat similiar incomes does seem possible.
" most left libs are economically ignorant, "
Aka look outside AE paradigms and do not toe the orthodox line.In anycase I favour AE.
" Learning economics would require thinking in a disciplined logical manner, and accepting facts that may conflict with emotional narratives and in turn may stimulate self-actualization."
I don't see AE as incompatible with left-libertarianism.I think An-cap's read into AE their assumptions.
Epicurus ibn Kalhoun: So your ok with some in their mansion and some homeless(the homeless not wanting such a state of affairs and not purposely bringing it about.) In anycase massive disparties in wealth are only due to statism.\ "Correction; Statism is only due to massive disparities in wealth." what's your reasoning for that conclusion.I'm willing to listen. Very Very Few left-libs hold "we're all equal" in the most absolute sense of we're all the same in very single way.It would be wrong to say all belief in equality is belief we're all equal in every single way.That's a straw man.There's many kinds of equality. "OMG Thank you! If I have to explain this to someone one more time, I'll rip my teeth out w my bear hands! " Haha.No problem.I grasped that pretty quick after some thinking when I became left-lib.Then I read Rothbard's egalitarianism as a revolt and I saw those sorts of errors.I once liked that piece.Now I consider it embarrassing and reactionary.
So your ok with some in their mansion and some homeless(the homeless not wanting such a state of affairs and not purposely bringing it about.) In anycase massive disparties in wealth are only due to statism.\
"Correction; Statism is only due to massive disparities in wealth."
what's your reasoning for that conclusion.I'm willing to listen.
"OMG Thank you! If I have to explain this to someone one more time, I'll rip my teeth out w my bear hands! "
Haha.No problem.I grasped that pretty quick after some thinking when I became left-lib.Then I read Rothbard's egalitarianism as a revolt and I saw those sorts of errors.I once liked that piece.Now I consider it embarrassing and reactionary.
Why not?
You do understand that value is subjective and nothing is inherently valueable, correct?
This sums up my problem with egalitarianism. There can't be different kinds of equality. Two (or more) entities are either equal or not; A or NOT A. When the "left-libs" say "No, we do not value absolute equality," they necessarily mean that they value inequality to some extent. Anything that is not absolute equality is by definition, inequality. There can be varying degrees of inequality, not of equality. There is only one 2=2, but we can find infinite things that don't equal 2, some closer to 2 than other.
I understand that maybe equality is just shorthand for "closer to equal than unequal," but then left-libs have the curious problem of explaining why they really value a particular level of inequality. The logical positions are either "I value absolute equality but recognize that it is impossible" or "I don't value equality."
they said we would have an unfair fun advantage
"Correction; Statism is only due to massive disparities in wealth." what's your reasoning for that conclusion.I'm willing to listen.
The idea for statism I would say just exists naturally within the hearts of man. As does the idea of libertarianism People tend to both; 1) want to protect themselves and 2) think themselves right first. The problem is this is simply not able to express itself in an authoritarian way when wealth (IOW power, wealth being the most effective form of power) is largely inequalized.
How could one tax you w/o the military power to threaten you? And how does one have a strong military w/o the means to pay for it?
"How could one tax you w/o the military power to threaten you? "
By having you believe that the tax is legitimate. If all tax-payers in the USA refused to pay tax, there is no way that the government would be able to carry out its demands.
As a very brief illustration, 1/3 of the 1860 USA refused the legitimacy of that state and it took half a decade for the other 2/3 to get them to accept their legitimacy again. If all the taxpayers had revolted, what could the government have done?
Left-Rothbardians sound to me like socially "progressive" agorists.
Well, I consider myself a left-libertarian and a left-Rothbardian. By left-libertarian I have in mind a few (related) ideas:
That the primary impact of government intervention has been, and must always be, to secure privilege for a favored class (i.e. "the rich") and that any 'welfare state' is there to prevent riots and co-opt the dissidents
That a free market would tend towards more equality and less concentration than we have now, and smaller firms in general
That businesses face two constraints on size: economies of scale push them to grow larger, and calculation problems restrict their size. Subsidies and corporate welfare allow a business to exceed the size that would result on the market, making labor worse off and securing a position against competition.
That, in addition to honoring the NAP, my ideal society would also not have racism and sexism. For instance, a 'traditionalist' society with segregated soda fountains would not appeal to me, and neither would one where women are considered valuable insofar as they get married and pump out babies. Because of the lack of choices, I couldn't call such a place a free society.
That government is the primary source of the loss of freedom, but not the only one, and that the real issue is freedom, not government.
By left-Rothbardian, I mean that I accept the economics of MES in addition to being a left-libertarian. I also mean by this that I believe that libertarianism is properly a "leftist" philosophy (Bastiat saw on the left) and that the true enemy of libertarianism is conservatism, not socialism (which Rothbard called a confused middle-of-the-road position.) I also mean that I would find a well-intentioned socialist commonwealth safer and more conducive to freedom than a conservative one - but neither is a good idea. Finally, as a strategic point, I mean that we're also more likely to find converts on the left than the right, and that Chomsky, Gravel, Zinn, and company are more likely allies than the Tea Party.
Maybe it's just my background, but it seems to me that a lot of things in this post can be dealt with by reference to mathematics. For instance, you say there can only be one kind of equality, but in math, we're used to working with a variety of equivalence relations, and we understand things to be equals with reference to the task at hand. For a simple example, consider modular arithmetic, with varying values of n. Stepping outside of math, we consider 4 quarters to be identical in some senses with a dollar bill (equally worthless, equally low and decreasing purchasing power) but clearly there is a sense of equals in which they are not equal. Similarly, a lemon and a lime are equally servicable if you need acid. An apple and a rock are equally servicable as a doorstop.
For another instance, you suggest that maybe equality means "closer to equal than unequal." A suggestion on a similar line would be "as close to equal as possible" which invokes, for me anyway, the idea of a limit - thus refuting your claim that left-libs actually value "a particular level of inequality."
William: Why not? " You do understand that value is subjective and nothing is inherently valueable, correct? " Value in the philosophic or economic sense? I believe there's no intrinsic value but philosophically I believe in objective value and economically I still (for now- I've not read Carson's arguments against it yet) hold to STV. But that does not give reasons to ignore social status and seek to make the poor better off. That's a complete non sequitur.
" You do understand that value is subjective and nothing is inherently valueable, correct? "
Value in the philosophic or economic sense?
I believe there's no intrinsic value but philosophically I believe in objective value and economically I still (for now- I've not read Carson's arguments against it yet) hold to STV.
But that does not give reasons to ignore social status and seek to make the poor better off. That's a complete non sequitur.
Explanatory value subjectivism doesn't exclude the possibility of objective (ethical) values.
It could be that there is no such thing, but explanatory value subjectivism itself isn't an argument, as far as I see.
The state is not the enemy. The idea of the state is.
mikachusetts: Very Very Few left-libs hold "we're all equal" in the most absolute sense of we're all the same in very single way.It would be wrong to say all belief in equality is belief we're all equal in every single way.That's a straw man.There's many kinds of equality. " There can't be different kinds of equality. " So equality of rights aka equal rights can't exist? boom- you've killed libertarianism. So equal ability(minus exceptions due to deformity etc) of all humans to have the potential to reason and capability to come to right conclusions doesn't exist ? you've killed Austrian Economics,philosophy, science and pretty much all human endevour. However your argument does not follow. " Two (or more) entities are either equal or not; A or NOT A." True.But it depends on what kind of equality or inequality your referring to. X can be equal in one way and inequal in another way.There's no contradiction there. " When the "left-libs" say "No, we do not value absolute equality," they necessarily mean that they value inequality to some extent." Which is true.I do not believe in equality of human talent i.e. all humans do not have the same talents or the same degree of talent or that humans are all as moral as each other, to give two major examples. " Anything that is not absolute equality is by definition, inequality." To some extent this is true but left-libertarians are rational in that we accept some inequality of certain kinds in inevitable.But even where this is the case it does not follow from " we cannot eliminate all of X inequality e.g. poverty to " we should not seek to minimize X inequality such as poverty ".Rothbard implies this argument and it's fallacious.He is essentially implying we should not seek to change much in the world so that because suffering will always exist to some degree we shouldn't do ANYTHING about it which is clearly false and seems quite evil/ uncaring. " There can be varying degrees of inequality, not of equality." I disagree. " There is only one 2=2, but we can find infinite things that don't equal 2, some closer to 2 than other." People are not equations.It's less simple than that. "I understand that maybe equality is just shorthand for "closer to equal than unequal," " Sometimes it does mean that. in other cases like Equal opportunity it means absence of all ARTIFICIAL barriers.Your adding into the idea of equality impossible situations which is a strawman and makes equality look absurd.But no one -sensible- includes the idea of that which is impossible in the idea of equality of certain kinds so your claiming a position we do not hold to make it look silly just as Rothbard had done. "but then left-libs have the curious problem of explaining why they really value a particular level of inequality." Ok lets take the difference in how moral people are.It's a matter of choice.I can argue to work to level how moral people are but I can never eliminate immorality of some degree so it would be false for me to include that in my goals. Basically where I accept kinds of inequality it's because they cannot be otherwise.It is impossible.But even where it is impossible to remove a kind of inequality it does not follow nothing should be done about it at all.That would be like saying since cancer can't be cured then cancer patients shouldn't have drugs to ease the symptoms. " The logical positions are either "I value absolute equality but recognize that it is impossible" or "I don't value equality." Your thinking in absolutist simplistic terms and ignoring nuance.Your implying that there is only one kind of equality - which is essentially saying all kinds of equality are the same or something like it- which does not follow.Your offering a false dichotomy but that doesn't surprise me that An-caps would do so.
" There can't be different kinds of equality. "
So equality of rights aka equal rights can't exist? boom- you've killed libertarianism.
So equal ability(minus exceptions due to deformity etc) of all humans to have the potential to reason and capability to come to right conclusions doesn't exist ? you've killed Austrian Economics,philosophy, science and pretty much all human endevour.
However your argument does not follow.
" Two (or more) entities are either equal or not; A or NOT A."
True.But it depends on what kind of equality or inequality your referring to. X can be equal in one way and inequal in another way.There's no contradiction there.
" When the "left-libs" say "No, we do not value absolute equality," they necessarily mean that they value inequality to some extent."
Which is true.I do not believe in equality of human talent i.e. all humans do not have the same talents or the same degree of talent or that humans are all as moral as each other, to give two major examples.
" Anything that is not absolute equality is by definition, inequality."
To some extent this is true but left-libertarians are rational in that we accept some inequality of certain kinds in inevitable.But even where this is the case it does not follow from " we cannot eliminate all of X inequality e.g. poverty to " we should not seek to minimize X inequality such as poverty ".Rothbard implies this argument and it's fallacious.He is essentially implying we should not seek to change much in the world so that because suffering will always exist to some degree we shouldn't do ANYTHING about it which is clearly false and seems quite evil/ uncaring.
" There can be varying degrees of inequality, not of equality." I disagree.
" There is only one 2=2, but we can find infinite things that don't equal 2, some closer to 2 than other."
People are not equations.It's less simple than that.
"I understand that maybe equality is just shorthand for "closer to equal than unequal," "
Sometimes it does mean that. in other cases like Equal opportunity it means absence of all ARTIFICIAL barriers.Your adding into the idea of equality impossible situations which is a strawman and makes equality look absurd.But no one -sensible- includes the idea of that which is impossible in the idea of equality of certain kinds so your claiming a position we do not hold to make it look silly just as Rothbard had done.
"but then left-libs have the curious problem of explaining why they really value a particular level of inequality."
Ok lets take the difference in how moral people are.It's a matter of choice.I can argue to work to level how moral people are but I can never eliminate immorality of some degree so it would be false for me to include that in my goals. Basically where I accept kinds of inequality it's because they cannot be otherwise.It is impossible.But even where it is impossible to remove a kind of inequality it does not follow nothing should be done about it at all.That would be like saying since cancer can't be cured then cancer patients shouldn't have drugs to ease the symptoms.
" The logical positions are either "I value absolute equality but recognize that it is impossible" or "I don't value equality."
Your thinking in absolutist simplistic terms and ignoring nuance.Your implying that there is only one kind of equality - which is essentially saying all kinds of equality are the same or something like it- which does not follow.Your offering a false dichotomy but that doesn't surprise me that An-caps would do so.
Epicurus ibn Kalhoun: "Correction; Statism is only due to massive disparities in wealth." what's your reasoning for that conclusion.I'm willing to listen. The idea for statism I would say just exists naturally within the hearts of man. As does the idea of libertarianism People tend to both; 1) want to protect themselves and 2) think themselves right first. The problem is this is simply not able to express itself in an authoritarian way when wealth (IOW power, wealth being the most effective form of power) is largely inequalized. How could one tax you w/o the military power to threaten you? And how does one have a strong military w/o the means to pay for it?
In some sense this is true -i.e. there might be inequality say and then a rich person asks for the state to artificially protect their wealth from change or expand the inequality.In that sense,Marxism has a point.
But I think large inequalities of wealth are only possible when statism creates barriers to entry - holding down some and grants artificial privileges to the wealthy/corporations/bosses/landlords - raising up others.
While I think some inequality of wealth will always exist the massive degree it exists now I believe is due to statism and the history of statist involvement.
I think the solution to what you say is to abolish the state and work to make sure it never arises again and also to work to voluntarily equalize wealth as much as is possible.
resist272727: Left-Rothbardians sound to me like socially "progressive" agorists.
Well not all Left-Rothbardians are agorists but this seems a reasonably favour assessment but instead of "progressive"(whatever that means) I think the phrase is culturally liberal in contrast to culturally conservative.
mikachusetts: Very Very Few left-libs hold "we're all equal" in the most absolute sense of we're all the same in very single way.It would be wrong to say all belief in equality is belief we're all equal in every single way.That's a straw man.There's many kinds of equality. This sums up my problem with egalitarianism. There can't be different kinds of equality. Two (or more) entities are either equal or not; A or NOT A. When the "left-libs" say "No, we do not value absolute equality," they necessarily mean that they value inequality to some extent. Anything that is not absolute equality is by definition, inequality. There can be varying degrees of inequality, not of equality. There is only one 2=2, but we can find infinite things that don't equal 2, some closer to 2 than other. I understand that maybe equality is just shorthand for "closer to equal than unequal," but then left-libs have the curious problem of explaining why they really value a particular level of inequality. The logical positions are either "I value absolute equality but recognize that it is impossible" or "I don't value equality."
I'm not to sure about that. Why couldn't one aesthetically value not to big - subjectively defined - disparities of wealth and power?
JAlanKatz: Well, I consider myself a left-libertarian and a left-Rothbardian. By left-libertarian I have in mind a few (related) ideas: "That the primary impact of government intervention has been, and must always be, to secure privilege for a favored class (i.e. "the rich") and that any 'welfare state' is there to prevent riots and co-opt the dissidents" Right. As Kevin Carson says there's two kinds of government intervention. Primary:- privileges such as subsidies to the rich etc. Secondary:- which government puts in place to hide the injustice of primary and make the system seem humane e.g. minimum wage,welfare etc. That a free market would tend towards more equality and less concentration than we have now, and smaller firms in general "That businesses face two constraints on size: economies of scale push them to grow larger, and calculation problems restrict their size. " and also that government decreases Diseconomies of scale i.e. limiting factors on growth. "Subsidies and corporate welfare allow a business to exceed the size that would result on the market, making labor worse off and securing a position against competition." Agreed. Also while we're on this top the state artificially raises overheads.Overheads are the costs of running a business.The costs are raised by such things as the cost of filling tax reports, complying with regulations etc. clearly now to deal with those requires large bureaucracy in businesses.Smaller businesses and individuals have a harder time to keep up with these costs so artificial overheads reduce their amount or actually exclude them from the market -especially in the case of the poorest. "By left-Rothbardian, I mean that I accept the economics of MES in addition to being a left-libertarian." This is true of me too though I deny some things such as the rothbardian idea unions are cartels.
"That the primary impact of government intervention has been, and must always be, to secure privilege for a favored class (i.e. "the rich") and that any 'welfare state' is there to prevent riots and co-opt the dissidents"
Right. As Kevin Carson says there's two kinds of government intervention.
Primary:- privileges such as subsidies to the rich etc.
Secondary:- which government puts in place to hide the injustice of primary and make the system seem humane e.g. minimum wage,welfare etc.
"That businesses face two constraints on size: economies of scale push them to grow larger, and calculation problems restrict their size. "
and also that government decreases Diseconomies of scale i.e. limiting factors on growth.
"Subsidies and corporate welfare allow a business to exceed the size that would result on the market, making labor worse off and securing a position against competition."
Agreed.
Also while we're on this top the state artificially raises overheads.Overheads are the costs of running a business.The costs are raised by such things as the cost of filling tax reports, complying with regulations etc. clearly now to deal with those requires large bureaucracy in businesses.Smaller businesses and individuals have a harder time to keep up with these costs so artificial overheads reduce their amount or actually exclude them from the market -especially in the case of the poorest.
"By left-Rothbardian, I mean that I accept the economics of MES in addition to being a left-libertarian."
This is true of me too though I deny some things such as the rothbardian idea unions are cartels.
Brilliant! You've written a sort but concise left-libertarian primer.I'm working on something like this.
You conservatives crack me up
Now, now, left libs are never cracked up. Well, only by the very concept of being cracked up and even then it's a silent, sophisticated type of cracking up.
AdrianHealey:I'm not to sure about that. Why couldn't one aesthetically value not to big - subjectively defined - disparities of wealth and power?
Anyone can value whatever the want. Saying "I wish the there was not so large a gap between the wealthy and the poor" is a reasonable thing to say. Calling that equality is lunacy though. The reality is that we all desire unequality for an innumerable amount of traits (physical, emotional,geographical, temporal) and want only less inequality for a very traits (freedoms, incomes, etc.).
The issue is, one group is saying "we value equality and you don't," when the reality is they value inequality just as much as a non-egalitarian. If I remained opposed to near equality in "left" issues, but instead valued equality of skin color or sexual preference, could I become an egalitarian then? Of course not, because "equality" is reserved for very special traits that fit well with leftism.
Scott,
Please explain to me the nuances of the term "equals." I think my difficulty in understanding egalitarianism is due to my belief that equal means something very very specific and is without gray area.
On overhead: I'm into health food, so I like to use a health food example when I teach this concept in modern US classes. I show documentation about the state of competition in the milk markets pre-pasteurization laws - i.e that people avoided the commercial dairies of the day because their milk was lousy (the distillery dairies produced very subpar, very low cream milk), and the competition about cream content between small farmers and larger holdings - farmers used to go door to door, placing a sample of their milk next to the milk the customer had received from their usual supplier, and marking how much lower their cream line was - then talk about the economic impact on large and small companies of requiring pasteurization (the large ones were milking in less sanitary conditions and generally already pasteurized, the small ones with a couple cows couldn't afford such a machine and went out of business.) The point is clear: raising overhead equally on everyone leads to consolidation beyond what the market would have led to.
JAlanKatz:I also mean that I would find a well-intentioned socialist commonwealth safer and more conducive to freedom than a conservative one - but neither is a good idea.
How can anything be less safe than mass starvation?
Left v. Right is a distraction.
Clearly, this wasn't addressed to me, but I'd like a shot at it. There is no gray area, equal means equal. (Even there, though, if I prefer equality over inequality, it is likely that I also prefer less inequality to more, and this is a compromise with reality, not a contradiction.) The nuance, though, is with the area to which it is applied. 2 and 4 are congruent mod 2, but not mod 3. Two congruent triangles are sometimes said to be equal, but in a different sense are not, since they are not in the same place. We talk about equality in terms of some question being considered. One easy example of this is used in all libertarian circles, not just left-libertarian: equality of opportunity is distinguished from equality of outcome. We can say you and I should have equal amounts of money, or should have equal physical endowments, or should have equal opportunities, or should be literally the same person - all of these are different claims.
mikachusetts: Scott, Please explain to me the nuances of the term "equals."
Please explain to me the nuances of the term "equals."
Well there's different kinds of equality.
equal incomes,equal wealth ,equal rights,equality of the sexes,equality under the law,equality of 'races' ,equal treatment, equal consideration in morality etc.
Now if you want to be strict about it in some kinds of equality say equal wealth what we favour is not equality in the strict sense of uniformity- which is not possible and not desirable but equalization which is trying to make it as same as is possible.
While we're on this subject there's a number of things An-caps need to understand.
1. When politicians talk of equality they pretty much always are using it as rhetorical cover for taxes ,regulation and the like.They co-opt the language but never actually believe it just as they do with liberty and peace.So when you attack them for that you aren't actually attacking egalitarians but false egalitarianism.So when you over extend yourselves and go on a rant about how equality is immoral or stupid or whatever(which is not thin libertarianism by the way=contradicting yourself here) your attack positions statism is not really about and making yourselves look reactionary or rightwing in the process.Your conflating means i.e. statism with ends of equality.
2. The state is an inherently inegalitarian monster. The state likes to pretend it favours equality while implying inequality is natural or moral.
3. Rothbard was being reactionary when he opposed equality.He never completely shed his old right conservativism -culturally and otherwise.
4. When you engage in anti-equality rants often your engaging in status quo /corporatist/statist apologetics.
" The reality is that we all desire unequality for an innumerable amount of traits (physical, emotional,geographical, temporal) and want only less inequality for a very traits (freedoms, incomes, etc.)."
Which is what I've said all along by saying there's different kinds and no seriously favours equality in every single way imaginable.
" If I remained opposed to near equality in "left" issues, but instead valued equality of skin color or sexual preference, could I become an egalitarian then?"
Yes of course that what those positions imply, but left-libertarian support for equality is deeper than that.
I'm assuming that we're not talking about a world-wide socialist commonwealth. As Mises says, a small socialist commonwealth can get prices from the outside world. At the same time, why are you assuming that a fully conservative society would not be subject to the calculation problem? They would lack informative prices, too.
I disagree about left vs. right. It is just as consistent to be a conservative, or a liberal, as a libertarian. I tend to think that left and right describe what you'd like the world to look like, and libertarian/authoritarian describe the means you find acceptable. Nonetheless, the terms left and right originated in the French dispute between inherited hierarchy vs. individualism, with the left identified as the individualistic side. Both ideals still have adherents.
JAlanKatz: We talk about equality in terms of some question being considered. One easy example of this is used in all libertarian circles, not just left-libertarian: equality of opportunity is distinguished from equality of outcome. We can say you and I should have equal amounts of money, or should have equal physical endowments, or should have equal opportunities, or should be literally the same person - all of these are different claims.
We talk about equality in terms of some question being considered. One easy example of this is used in all libertarian circles, not just left-libertarian: equality of opportunity is distinguished from equality of outcome. We can say you and I should have equal amounts of money, or should have equal physical endowments, or should have equal opportunities, or should be literally the same person - all of these are different claims.
Exactly. And all libertarians should favour equal opportunities properly understood as allowing everyone possible access to activities voluntarily by the absence of barriers to entry coming from statism.
What does "fully conservative" even mean? I know about the French origin; it's the first paragraph of my article. The opposite of legal hierarchy is equality before the law, not individualism. The opposite of individualism is collectivism, not hierarchy. And any way, "left" doesn't mean "individualism" to 99% of the people. And that's really for the better, since it's an infinitely less descriptive term.
Like I argue in the article, this whole approach only presents false choices.
mikachusetts: AdrianHealey:I'm not to sure about that. Why couldn't one aesthetically value not to big - subjectively defined - disparities of wealth and power? Anyone can value whatever the want. Saying "I wish the there was not so large a gap between the wealthy and the poor" is a reasonable thing to say. Calling that equality is lunacy though. The reality is that we all desire unequality for an innumerable amount of traits (physical, emotional,geographical, temporal) and want only less inequality for a very traits (freedoms, incomes, etc.). The issue is, one group is saying "we value equality and you don't," when the reality is they value inequality just as much as a non-egalitarian. If I remained opposed to near equality in "left" issues, but instead valued equality of skin color or sexual preference, could I become an egalitarian then? Of course not, because "equality" is reserved for very special traits that fit well with leftism.
I'm in agreement with this post.
By inherited hierarchy, I meant to refer to the idea that your path in life is determined by tradition. By individualism, I mean to refer to the idea that you have access to choices about that path.
If there is no difference between left and right, how then is it possible that there are real debates between left-libertarians and right-libertarians? You want to boil every distinction down to capitalism or socialism, yet in the left-lib right-lib debate find real differences between people who both support free markets. (I'm assuming by capitalism you mean free market exchange.)
As for understood meanings: Imagine 100 people forming a society, living pretty much an-cap. Then one day, a conservative government is formed, and takes all the land, gives it to two people, and makes the rest renters. The left, we'd hope, would oppose this move. However, seeing that they're losing, they might propose some stopgap measures to mitigate the damage - rent controls, redistribution, and so on. Suppose we get a compromise - the land is taken, but rent is controlled. A while later, a stronger conservative coalition begins to speak about "property rights" and in general appropriate libertarian ideas - why is the government telling these 2 people how much rent they can charge? It's their property, damnit, and the government is the problem, not the solution. Why, if we let them charge what they want, they'll be more productive, and increased wealth will trickle down! An alien, visiting this scene, might well conclude that conservatism is all about free markets and rugged individualism (as opposed to establishing a hierarchy by creating rigid classes) and that the left is all about redistributive statism (as opposed to individualism.)
JAlanKatz: By inherited hierarchy, I meant to refer to the idea that your path in life is determined by tradition. By individualism, I mean to refer to the idea that you have access to choices about that path. If there is no difference between left and right, how then is it possible that there are real debates between left-libertarians and right-libertarians? You want to boil every distinction down to capitalism or socialism, yet in the left-lib right-lib debate find real differences between people who both support free markets. (I'm assuming by capitalism you mean free market exchange.)
There are real debates between individual people about real specific questions regarding economics and political philosophy. Some of these individuals create meaningless umbrella terms to lump various, and often contradictory, positions together. Some do it because they like the vague associations entailed with certain catchwords. Others do it because they have similar aesthetic tastes. For the most part, it's team-sports nonsense; artificial tribalism. Argue the positions, and drop the catchwords.
JAlanKatz: As for understood meanings: Imagine 100 people forming a society, living pretty much an-cap. Then one day, a conservative government is formed, and takes all the land, gives it to two people, and makes the rest renters. The left, we'd hope, would oppose this move. However, seeing that they're losing, they might propose some stopgap measures to mitigate the damage - rent controls, redistribution, and so on. Suppose we get a compromise - the land is taken, but rent is controlled. A while later, a stronger conservative coalition begins to speak about "property rights" and in general appropriate libertarian ideas - why is the government telling these 2 people how much rent they can charge? It's their property, damnit, and the government is the problem, not the solution. Why, if we let them charge what they want, they'll be more productive, and increased wealth will trickle down! An alien, visiting this scene, might well conclude that conservatism is all about free markets and rugged individualism (as opposed to establishing a hierarchy by creating rigid classes) and that the left is all about redistributive statism (as opposed to individualism.)
Rent controls and the like wouldn't do a lick of good (are you sure you accept the teachings of Rothbard in MES?); it would only use a destructive event as an excuse to create and perpetuate a destructive situation. Assuming you can't restore the expropriated land, and assuming post-expropriation, the "right" itself doesn't implement further anti-capitalist measures, the best way for the "left" to improve the lot of the renters as fast as possible is to let the free market be re-established.
This is offtopic, and I don't mean to sound condescending, but why do you guys (Scott F and JAlan) have double and tripple posts. Why not just edit one if noone has posted after you? It just makes the threads huge.
You see I understand some of your points Scott F, but most ancaps/voluntaryists/rothbardians (what have you) are really no different from you. The label is not neccesary. Besides unless your a mutualist or ansyndicalist, your not really left libertarians. All leftists like fixed economies of some sort. You don't. I'm sure left anarchists and libertarians like chomsky would group as the same, just as we do.
Freedom has always been the only route to progress.