28
Jul
2014
Potpourri
==> Someone decides to take this “private law” stuff into his own (costumed) hands. A lawyer explains the government’s interest in maintaining its monopoly. Comedy ensues. (HT2 Sam T.)
==> Noam Chomsky on what’s wrong with libertarians. That could be a book! But probably not for the reasons he cites.
==> In light of the ObamaCare ruling, Alex Tabarrok reminds us of Arrow’s Impossibility Theorem. And no, he doesn’t use a Lemma to prove that Obama must be declared dictator.
==> Jon Gruber has seriously painted himself into a corner. That’s way worse than losing a bet to David R. Henderson.
==> If you want to freak yourself out, look at Nick Rowe discussing the views of Scott Sumner.
Lawyer guy on the left hand side of the screen:
“there’s the fact that you don’t have legal authority to do it”
Apart from that, it’s A-OK.
having said that, if superhero guy doesn’t commit a crime, then by all means go ahead…
From what I saw, he wasn’t even ‘taking the law into his own hands.’ Everything he did was legal for a citizen to do as per self defense.
“Chomsky: Well what’s called libertarian in the United States, which is a special U. S. phenomenon, it doesn’t really exist anywhere else ”
Okay, then quit blaming libertarians for European Fauxterity.
” Actually that has been believed in the past. Adam Smith for example, one of his main arguments for markets was the claim that under conditions of perfect liberty, markets would lead to perfect equality”
http://www.antistatist.org/articles/2012/04/15/dr-noamsky-or-how-i-learned-stop-worrying-and-love-state
Chomsky doesn’t realize that anarcho-syndicalist enterprises would be private. They would be independently controlled by only portions of the population. They would not be public enterprises because then they would be state enterprises.
What is Chomsky’s real beef with libertarianism? Simple. He has mistakenly identified corporatist enterprises that have state protection, subsidy and/or monopoly/oligopoly in our existing society as representative libertarian/anarcho-capitalist enterprises.
He also falsely attributes working class improvements to state intervention, and asserts ex cathedra that they do not take place in unfettered capitalism. A good dose of historical research will prove that claim untenable.
That’s not exclusive to Chomsky. All leftists think free-markets co-opt the state and hamper the democratic process. Zeitgeist adherents think the same.
Corporatism=capitalism.
The seed of leftism is totalitarianism.
Leftism is the philosophy that effectively leads an individual to believe: “If I do not have some legally binding, partial ownership property right over a means of production, regardless of what I do, then the world becomes full of “unaccountable private tyrannies” to me, and I therefore have the right to engage in anti-mutually consensual activity in order to take by force direct ownership power over production processes, so as to gain my “dignity” and my “humanity”.”
The reason why this philosophy persists, in terms of ideas, is the total lack of understanding and appreciation for the radical difference between ownership of the means of production in a feudalist and/or despotic society, with means of production ownership in a division of labor society. Most ideas surrounding property is still based on the belief, which is of course very much accurate in feudalism, that to not own a means of production is to not truly benefit from it. The image of feudal lords owning vast swaths of land and capital, where the non-owning serfs physically benefit very little if at all from that property.
In a division of labor on the other hand, private ownership of capital represents a completely opposite relationship. All the massive sums of capital owned by capitalists in a division of labor are almost ENTIRELY devoted to the physical benefit of non-owners. It is a world of difference for you to own a factory in feudalism as a lord, and you owning that same factory in a division of labor. In the latter case, your ownership is to provide me with physical goods that in almost all cases, I myself lack the knowledge and skill to produce. I am materially better off being a non-owner of Toyota for example, than I would be if I owned the entire company and had to make the many decisions needed to run the company, decisions that require me to have knowledge I don’t actually have, but others do, namely, the existing owners. If I owned the company, the company would go bankrupt within a very short time.
Division of labor is the flip side of the coin of division of knowledge. Vain and emotionally sensitive self-centered simpletons such as most leftists, don’t want to consider themselves as less knowledgeable than their employers. It offends their delicate sensibilities to accept that they are intellectually inferior to others. So they have developed this mystical ideal of their non-owning “class” having superior information and knowledge than the owning class. Private owners are allegedly not needed at all. They bring no additional knowledge to the table that the cerebrally superior working class cannot learn and improve upon.
Chomsky is a good example of a debutante who believes he can dabbke whimsically and sporadically in all branches of inquiry in order to fully develop himself. Being a cog in the wheel of real life production needs is offensive to his holistic, polymath ideal for humanity. For the individual to focus and specialize in learning about and improving the production of a particular product, will, according to leftists, turn the human being into a simpleton brute bordering on a lower animal. In order to fully develop as a human is allegedly meant to develop, he individual must have control over more and more means of production, and like a population of little Da Vincis, contribute value in many different fields.
There is no humility in the leftist camp. They are all closeted tyrants who would cause tremendpus death and destruction if they had more control over production while the individual regardless of their political persuasion had less control. They refuse to view other individual private property owners as producers and providers of goods that the leftist could not even dream of having. They really have no appreciation of just how much of their standard of living depends on divison of labor and knowledge. Like fish in a fish bowl having no awareness of the water that sustains them.
Unrelated but I can’t talk like that to regular people. Their eyes glaze over and I’m painted as fringe.
While it’s nice to be around like-minded people, it does reinforce the fact that we’re isolated in space, and no one can hear us scream.
MF said:There is no humility in the leftist camp. They are all closeted tyrants who would cause tremendous death and destruction if they had more control over production while the individual regardless of their political persuasion had less control. They refuse to view other individual private property owners as producers and providers of goods that the leftist could not even dream of having. They really have no appreciation of just how much of their standard of living depends on division of labor and knowledge. Like fish in a fish bowl having no awareness of the water that sustains them.”
Truedat.
It all comes down to excessive pride and lack of humility…
Nick Rowe wrote:
“But if you don’t want the government-owned central bank owning all that stuff, then maybe you need to increase the inflation target or NGDP level path growth target, so you get a smaller central bank.”
NGDP doesn’t grow without the central bank “owning more stuff.” More NGDP requires more fiat paper, and more fiat paper means more on the central bank’s balance sheet.
Threats are fruitless unless they are backed by what is being threatened.
Of we want a smaller balance sheet at the central bank, then we should want fewer and smaller OMOs, which means less inflation and lower NGDP.
I think his point might be that central banks only end up owning lots of stuff if we end up in a recession, or at ‘the zero lower bound’. From his POV, if the central bank has a credible NGDP target, the net result is a smaller central bank balance sheet.
I am proposing an even smaller balance sheet, because the size Rowe says not to worry about with NGDPLT, is still way too big for the preferences of individuals constrained to voluntary association, and mine.
A reduction in the central bank’s balance sheet, as a solution to the problem of an increasing balance sheet, isn’t solved by increasing the central bank’s balance sheet less than some imaginary huge number.
Just look at what they’re saying. Buy up all bonds if necessary. Buy up the stock market if necessary. Buy up real estate if necessary. I don’t trust this “if the CB is credibly threatening higher NGDP, then the market will do the job and the CB won’t actually have to increase its balance sheet.”. This belief is flawed because it assumes a threat alone without backing it with actual action can be sufficient. Threats are empty if not backed by action.
Sorry,messed the wording up in that second paragraph. Hope the meaning is transparent enough.
“is still way too big for the preferences of individuals constrained to voluntary association, and mine.”
so you’re conflating economics with Libertarian political ideology.
“I don’t trust this “if the CB is credibly threatening higher NGDP, then the market will do the job and the CB won’t actually have to increase its balance sheet.”.
What they’re saying is that the unit of currency should have a certain value in terms of certain goods over time. And they think that if this value is expected by market participants, it will be so, because the market will treat the currency unit as such. (This is my understanding of it anyway).
The problem for the monetarists is that monetary policy loses its usual ability to affect nominal values when the CB can’t directly lower short term interest rates. This is when the New Keynesians step in and say that fiscal policy can do the job which monetary policy can no longer do. Monetarists, however, believe that if there was a credible nominal target, you would never end up in such a situation.
so you’re conflating economics with Libertarian political ideology.
Buying up bonds to “help the economy” is also a political ideology.
But then, all of economics reduces to the individual pursuing the satisfaction of *his own* subjective preferences, such that, yeah: assuming that the goal is to “help the economy”, interfering with individual preferences will always be counter-productive.
they don’t see themselves as helping ‘the economy’ at the expense of individual preferences.
The goal is to maximise the individual’s ability to satisfy their preferences (within the existing constraints – i.e. not to create more constraints).
then again, the question is whose preferences are you referring to. In a model this might be simple, but in real life it’s more complicated.
This issue affects all schools of economics, including austrian.
“they don’t see themselves as helping ‘the economy’ at the expense of individual preferences.”
That is because their political ideology is one of government control and property rights violations.
“The goal is to maximise the individual’s ability to satisfy their preferences (within the existing constraints – i.e. not to create more constraints).”
The existing constraints are unnecessarily and unjustly too constraining to the individual. What you perceive as more constraints with more strict protection of individual property rights, is in fact a removal of constraints that such violations introduce.
Violence is constraining. Peace is liberating. No, the state is not an institution whose sole ideal purpose is to prevent the one or two crazy land owners who would shoot otherwise peaceful but trespassing starving individuals. The state is much more than that, and it is silly to pretend that states should exist so as to prevent killings of trespassers, especially when states themselves are perceived by those with such a naive view as tasked with killing trespassing invading armies.
then again, the question is whose preferences are you referring to
The individual’s. All individuals *as* individuals.
All economic action takes place at the individual level. Only individuals can engage in economic activity.
Economics begins and ends with the individual: An individual employs means to alieve some felt uneasiness, and a different individual, seeing the action of the first, can himself profit by supplying the means, assuming he values what he will receive in return more than his leisure time.
That is all of economics in a nutshell. Central planning cannot help this process.
This individual thing. It is accurate to say that all economic activity takes place at the individual level. It is also correct to say that all thinking takes place at the level of individual neurons, and even neuron activity occurs at the level of molecules, atoms and quarks. Nonetheless, we do not try to describe thoughts by working out individual neuron activity, but we treat the mind as an emergent phenomena. I don’t want to argue whether this is “more than the sum of its parts” thing, but we *treat* it as though it were, if only because we cannot treat it at an individual level.
It seems possible that economic activity may treated in the same way. Whilst all activity is by individuals, an emergent phenomena may occur, such that we can treat it as a group phenomena, not at the individual level.
I don’t want to argue whether this is “more than the sum of its parts” thing
Yes you do; That’s where your argument necessarily leads.
Your objection relies on this distinction.
Just keep in mind that you brought it up first …:
Choice, by definition, is not subject to the scientific laws of cause and effect.
For purposes of economic analysis, neurons are the means by which our soul accomplishes what it wants (via the brain).
Harold:
“It seems possible that economic activity may treated in the same way. Whilst all activity is by individuals, an emergent phenomena may occur, such that we can treat it as a group phenomena, not at the individual level.”
Such as? What could you and I possibly do that cannot be explained by what we individually did, but what the group of “you and me” did?
Guest. I meant I did not wish to get into details as to whether the phenomena were a separate thing, or whether we simply treat them as such.
“Choice, by definition, is not subject to the scientific laws of cause and effect.
For purposes of economic analysis, neurons are the means by which our soul accomplishes what it wants (via the brain).”
This is speculative. The existence of the soul is not certain.
MF. I refer you to my analogy earlier of gas laws. The behaviour of gases is of course due to the behaviour of the individual molecules. Nevertheless, we can derive relationships based on gas behaviour which do not refer to individuals.
For groups of people, similar phenomena may exist.
I suppose a reasonable argument would be that there is no need to look for emergent phenomena if the entirety of behaviour can be explained by attention to the individual. Similarly, gas laws can be derived from statistical thermodynamics based on movement of individual molecules. This gives a theoretical validation to the observed relationships. However, we still do not have enough information about the individual molecules to fully describe the behaviour any real gas -although helium is close. If we can’t do it for something as simple as a gas it seems unlikely we can do it for a human.
I do not accept the position of Guest that choice is not subject to cause and effect. There is no reason to believe that choice is not an effect caused by smaller components of the mind.
To stop at the mind when seeking explanation for behaviour such as choice seems arbitrary. Why not go larger to groups or smaller to cells?
From a practical point of view, we cannot explain very much at the moment by reference to cells. However, we can obtain some information, and I don’t see why we should not in principle look deeper for explanations. Unless we are to accept that neurons are the method by which the soul accomplishes what it wants, which seems a cop out to me.
Harold:
“MF. I refer you to my analogy earlier of gas laws. The behaviour of gases is of course due to the behaviour of the individual molecules. Nevertheless, we can derive relationships based on gas behaviour which do not refer to individuals.”
“For groups of people, similar phenomena may exist.”
SUCH AS?
I hope you realize that continuing to give me examples of emergent behavior in chemistry is not actually an answer to the question of an example of human social life that can only be explained by some emergent behavior theory and cannot be fully explained by the individuals, their minds, bodies and actions.
Harold:
Isn’t it possible, indeed likely, that the buck of emergent behavior stops with individual human consciousness? That we can’t know of any social emergent behavior even if it did exist, because our minds are structured so as to consider our individual actions as not past causally determined?
Transposing emergent behavior from chemistry and physics over to social life seems to be an unjustified leap. That it is based solely on the assumption that if something is true about atoms and molecules, then it must be true of individual consciousnesses as well.
Where is the evidence that what you do in social life cannot be traced to your own actions but is determined from without?
I always chuckle when libertarians are so timid about violence. I have no qualms with violence because there are times when it is the answer. I recall some libertarians as being in favor of debt peonage, a practice that I believe should be punishable by fifty years imprisonment.
Samson,
The NAP prohibits violence, not aggression. If you think that attacking people unprovoked is the solution to anything, I will ask you to stay far away from me.
Whether I can think of an example does not affect the theoretical position of whether such a phenomena may exist.
There have been many genocides and massacres throughout history. It is possible that learning about the conditions that lead to such events are better studied from a perspective of groups than individuals. We may find that if you take groups of people arranged in certain ways, then treat them in certain ways, particular results will follow. Of course, the results are the collective effects of every individual action, but you could never explain the group behaviour in terms of the individuals due to the compexities.
“Isn’t it possible, indeed likely, that the buck of emergent behavior stops with individual human consciousness?” Rather the opposite, consciousness seems a very good example of emergent phenomenon.
“That it is based solely on the assumption that if something is true about atoms and molecules, then it must be true of individual consciousnesses as well.” I am not saying it must be true, but it may be true.
“Where is the evidence that what you do in social life cannot be traced to your own actions but is determined from without?”
My internal conditions are affected by external conditions. My actions are affected by the actions of others.
“That we can’t know of any social emergent behavior even if it did exist, because our minds are structured so as to consider our individual actions as not past causally determined?”
The emergent behaviour would not be studied on the basis of individual actions, so even if it were the case that our minds were structured as you describe, this limitation would not prevent us from discovering such phenomena.
Words transposed above, but I think you got my meaning.
In case anybody is still looking here, I just came across this in Human Action:
“In the face of this state of affairs we cannot help withholding judgment
on the essential statements of monism and materialism. We may or may not believe that the natural sciences will succeed one day in explaining the production of definite ideas, judgments of value, and actions in the same way in which they explain the production of a chemical compound as the necessary and unavoidable outcome of a certain combination of
elements. In the meantime we are bound to acquiesce in a methodological
dualism.”
He is saying pretty much that we need not worry about whether thoughts are cause by cells, because on a practical basis we do not have enough knowledge to treat stuff as originating in cells. This is a question Mises was happy to dodge.
That was then, this is now. We now have a lot more information about neuroscience, and the question becomes one we are possibly able to address.
Harold:
So are we possibly able to address it now, or are we able to address it now?
I think we can do a much better job now than in Moses time, but we cannot answer all the questions. We are in a position where addressing the problem makes practical sense, whereas in Mises time it did not.
For example. we can measure responses that indicate a choice has been made before a person is consciously aware of it. This is the sort of data that we can use to address the question.
That should be Mises, of course. I haven’t gone biblical on this one.
*a certain nominal value
Philippe:
“so you’re conflating economics with Libertarian political ideology”
No, Rowe was making a political argument (i.e. “If you don’t want a big balance sheet, then you should support X=NGDPLT”).
I am disagreeing with his political solution by way of pointing to the economics, and concluding that the solution isn’t good enough and does not even work.
“What they’re saying is that the unit of currency should have a certain value in terms of certain goods over time.”
No, they’re saying that a unit of currency should be continually devalued over time from what it otherwise would have been valued, regardless of the supply of goods. Supply goes up, a unit of currency must buy less than it otherwise would have bought. Supply goes down, same thing.
The notion of a planned value of money vis a vis goods is based on their faith that constant and permanent aggregate money spending growth will never generate any significant real supply problems in the long run, and provided “fiscal” policy is in order, should lead to permanent real growth and minimal disruptions.
“And they think that if this value is expected by market participants, it will be so, because the market will treat the currency unit as such. (This is my understanding of it anyway).
The problem for the monetarists is that monetary policy loses its usual ability to affect nominal values when the CB can’t directly lower short term interest rates. This is when the New Keynesians step in and say that fiscal policy can do the job which monetary policy can no longer do. Monetarists, however, believe that if there was a credible nominal target, you would never end up in such a situation.”
It is the means by which this “credible threat” is implemented that is so haphazardly being throen to the wind with such comments as “buy up whatever is necessary to force NGDPLT.”
That is the political, ideological argument I am addressing.
so you’re conflating economics with Libertarian political ideology
“Philippe” has made this nonsense argument before. Austrian analysis includes looking at the impact of violent intervention in the market vs. the absence of such intervention. The default non-intervention position is the NAP. The fact that either Mises and/or Hayek did not believe that the NAP should apply in every case (as libertarians do) does not change this analysis.
The funny thing is that he actually believes we can’t legitimately know or claim that he is promoting an ideology himself.
It is also funny because he seems to believe that he isn’t promoting any ideology in his allegedly purely economic arguments simply because he can think of many others who without any deep debate about it, might agree with him.
We’re the only ones pushing an ideology Roddis, because we’re not ideologically pushing the state to control people’s economic lives. That is “scientific” you see.
Bob
“Austrian analysis includes looking at the impact of violent intervention in the market”
Bob, this is a statement of libertarian political ideology.
You’re just too stupid and ignorant to understand that it is.
“You’re just too stupid and ignorant to understand that it is.”
I love to see this kind of civility from Austrian opponents.
“Bob, this is a statement of libertarian political ideology.”
A statement of political ideology would include a judgement, not just an observation.
Perhaps you shouldn’t be throwing out charges of stupidity.
bob describes state involvement in the economy as ‘violent intervention’ due to his ‘libertarian’ political beliefs. Non-‘libertarians’ would not describe it as such.
p.s. Richie, Bob is a notorious troll and the exact opposite of civil.
No, you are the troll. Furthermore, I don’t think I’ve seen Bob call you “stupid”, or a “half-wit”, or a “liar”, or mentally retarded, …
Perhaps if “violence” itself is only ideological and not descriptive in any sense. Yet, I think libertarians and non-libertarians alike agree that that just isn’t so.
Violence can be observed without it being considered just or unjust.
“I think libertarians and non-libertarians alike agree that that just isn’t so.”
for example, bob would describe all government spending and issuance of money as ‘violent intervention’. Non-‘libertarians’ would not describe it in that way. So clearly they do not agree, KP.
“for example, bob would describe all government spending and issuance of money as ‘violent intervention’. Non-’libertarians’ would not describe it in that way. So clearly they do not agree, KP.”
Doesn’t matter what Bob would *peculiarly describe* as violence, as in that sentence he didn’t.
Is there nothing out there that the government does that you don’t consider to be violent?
“Doesn’t matter what Bob would *peculiarly describe* as violence, as in that sentence he didn’t.”
what do you mean it doesn’t matter. Are you not aware that bob considers things such as government spending to be examples of ‘violent intervention’?
“Is there nothing out there that the government does that you don’t consider to be violent?”
Spending money or issuing money is not violent. These are things that governments do.
I mean exactly what I said.
The statement in question, “Austrian analysis includes looking at the impact of violent intervention in the market” makes no mention of Bob’s (or libertarian) views on violence. Just “violence”.
“Spending money or issuing money is not violent. These are things that governments do.”
I didn’t ask “what are some non-violent things that governments do?”, try to keep up, please.
“I didn’t ask “what are some non-violent things that governments do?”
You asked me: “Is there nothing out there that the government does that you don’t consider to be violent?”
I don’t consider spending or issuing money to be violent.
“makes no mention of Bob’s (or libertarian) views on violence”
whatever.
“You asked me: ‘Is there nothing out there that the government does that you don’t consider to be violent?'”
I think that’s a double-negative. If not, my mistake, here it is re-worded, positively:
“Is there something out there that the government does that you do consider to be violent.”
“whatever”
Sounds like the (possibly narrow) point goes to Bob. Good job, Bob!
“In what sense, then, does Kant believe Euclidean geometry can rightfully claim apodeictic certainty? Certainly not, as is often assumed, by pointing to the empirical world and saying “See, it’s true!” That would be to remain in the empirical perspective, which, as he says in K2:A24, can only tell us about “the contingent character of perception”. Rather, its necessity can be explained only from the transcendental perspective: only by regarding geometrical propositions as describing the way in which we must present space to ourselves in our sensible experience. Kant is arguing that Euclidean geometry describes the form of our perception of things in space, not the way they are actually related. And this, as we shall see, is not only plausible even today, but it leaves open a place for other geometries which might adapt the Euclidean model in such a way that it can apply to empirical reality itself (i.e. to the physics of space).”
http://staffweb.hkbu.edu.hk/ppp/srp/arts/KEGP.html
“The lower the inflation target, the greater the quantity of assets that must be purchased by the central bank (as a share of GDP.)”
Could someone clarify this? To me it seems that exactly the opposite is true.
What I mean is, if the Fed instituted a 0% inflation target tomorrow, wouldn’t it mean stopping all asset purchases immediately or even selling some?
It’s amazing how rare it is to come across an informed critique of libertarianism. I mean, I can usually get some value out of learning how other people’s political philosophy differs from mine, but I usually get nothing out of reading people explain their problems with libertarianism. It sounded as if Chomsky had never even bothered to read libertarian literature before.
Rare? You’ve found one? Where?
Have you also found anyone who also understands violent intervention, voluntary exchange and economic calculation. I haven’t.
Most of the time I find good critiques it is one libertarian challenging the libertarian orthodoxy or through libertarians debating contentious issues with each other. But, as far as who, specifically, outside libertarians, that I’ve seen come up with challenging critiques, I can’t think of a lot of names off the top of my head. Gene Callahan has forced me to think more deeply on my beliefs on different issues, although he can be such a D about it (I’m Irish and Sicilian, and I can be like that, too) that it often takes a cool off period before I consider his critiques. But, still I get value out of his critiques from time to time, and Blackadder/Josiah on this blog, and people on other sites and in real life have forced me to think deeply on my beliefs.
I mean, in order for me to even become an ancap, I had to completely abandon most of my beliefs. I used to say (years ago) that the best economic system was clearly socialism, but the corrupting influence of power would make it nearly impossible to implement. Now, I want to throw up every time I think back to those days.
So, I’ve learned not to trust my beliefs unless I’ve taken the time to really study them. Apparently, I’m susceptible to accepting incorrect views on a wide variety of topics that I’m not well versed in. And that knowledge helps to keep me more humble, and open to ideas I only have a surface understanding about. So, when I come across libertarian principles that I haven’t taken the time to study thoroughly, I don’t just assume libertarians are right.
Unfortunately, most people who criticise libertarianism have less knowledge on the subject than I do, and I don’t get much of anything from reading them, but I’ll still find some people who have complaints on specific issues that help to illuminate matters for me.
I agree about Gene. I do hope he is able to appriciate that.
I think it is pretty clear that Gene isn’t suffering from a self-confidence problem. So, I’m pretty sure he assumes that everything he says is an enlightening moment for most people. See, I have that Irish D in me, too.
Like LK, Gene Callahan loves me.
http://consultingbyrpm.com/blog/2014/05/libertarian-battles.html#comment-488156
Yeah, that is a perfect example of him being a D. I think he is intelligent enough to understand that explaining how harsh ostracism can be in order to deter violent behavior doesn’t mean that you advocate starving people to death. The point of your example is to enlighten people on how punishing ostracism can be, because most people think it is a toothless penalty. Unfortunately, most people would rather win an argument than understand the point that is being made.
What frustrates me about that precise example is that our opponents will simultaneously claim it is toothless AND heartlessly violent depending on their mood.
Ah yes, the million times exposed conflation of non-violence with anti-charity.
If you don’t want a gun pointed at you as a means to take your wealth, then that proves you want poor people to die of starvation.
They have nothing. We’ve won the debate.
Can I drill down a little on some of the sentiments being expressed here? Regarding Dan’s comments that there don’t seem to be challenging critiques of libertarianism except from libertarians, it seems to be this may be saying two things: 1) there are no challenging philosophical critiques of libertarians from serious philosophers; and 2) the critiques of a Chomsky, who is really making a lay person’s critique about the potential negative consequences of libertarianism based on what he sees as the evidence and likely consequences of such a philosophy, are wholly unpersuasive. I presume the same goes for similar arguments from other nonprofessional lay people. I note that MF has also thrown in his supporting view that “leftists” — I assume people who believe in a welfare state, or in a state where the government taxes to prevent destitution in the elderly, starvation of children, degradation of the environment, etc. — are closet tyrants who would cause tremendous
death and destruction. (Maybe I don’t have MF’s definition of leftists right, I’m not sure — but I’m afraid I might be one!)
Now with regard to the first point, there are a number of serious philosophical arguments against libertarianism on both the left and right sides of the spectrum (and indeed as I’m sure everyone here already knows, libertarianism has been largely rejected in the philosophical community) and the web is sufficiently filled with some of them that it hardly seems necessary to provide cites. All one need do is a google search. Are they right or wrong? This I leave to the philosophers. Unless one IS a philosopher, however, I think it’s a little nervy to just dismiss these opposing viewpoints as dopey.
With regard to the second point, Chomsky’s, or the layman’s criticism, I have really been thinking hard about this. I’ve read half of Rothbard’s Anatomy of the State, and some of Bob’s book on capitalism, and also gone to many of the sites recommended to me by various bloggers on this site. No need to say this does not make me anything more than an unfortunate dabbler, but I do have to work for a living, and this stuff is not always easy.
BUT I think I have noticed what in my mind is a tendency to discount some of the empirical evidence suggesting that some aspects of libertarianism might result in scary things happening, and to argue as though any evidence to that effect is either trivial or doesn’t exist at all. For example, Tom Woods and one or two others argue that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was of no economic benefit to blacks, and unnecessary. Aside from the substantial scholarly work, again available all over the web, disagreeing with this view, the very claim — that blacks in the Jim Crow South in the 1940s were economically no worse off than blacks in the South after Jim Crow was dismantled, seems on its face to be nearly impossible to believe unless one very much wants to believe it. Certainly in the absence of overwhelming evidence, which does not appear to exist, the claim would have to be a little suspect, wouldn’t it? Likewise, the claim that no need exists for environmental regulation because one can just sue polluters under tort law seems to ignore the difficulties of individuals filing suit against large corporations, not to mention the question of how individuals are going to enforce “judgments” against anybody, much less large companies, in the Ancap world. And the defenses of sweatshops I’ve read verge almost on the preposterous. I’ve seen arguments to the effect that there really weren’t any sweatshops or they were kind of nice, which I’m not sure even deserve a respectful response, but again if one desired such a response, a little historical research provides it pretty fast. And I’ve read the economic argument that, “well, this is the best opportunity available in many countries.” That may in fact be absolutely right, but it’s hardly a defense of inhuman conditions, nor do desperate people choosing desperate working conditions seem like much of a recommendation for a sweatshop. Why not simply enforce reasonable working conditions and a minimum wage — that would seem to solve some of the inhuman conditions problem, and indeed for the most part apparently has in the western world.
To come back to the enforceability of judgments in Ancapistan, I know that Bob Roddis has little patience with arguments against the many nonviolent forms of coercion that he believes are possible, but are they really practical? Who will enforce voluntary ostracism against a neighbor? How will it be achieved when neighbors can’t agree on just about anything in our world? This is particularly true when one is expecting some kind of enforcement of a judgment between, say, a rich person and a poor person. In the world we live in today, the rich have enormous power — is there some reason to think they will have less influence in Ancapistan? Who will want to enforce a judgment in favor of the poor against the rich in a libertarian world? I certainly wouldn’t. The rich have the means of production, jobs, influence with other rich people, and private security. While we’re at it, if we COULD get concerted community action against a wrongdoer going, how are we going to insure due process of … something … in Ancapistan? Who’s going to insure than an unpopular creep isn’t unfairly subjected to temporary starvation or whatever other “nonviolent” coercion we imagine?
Look, I’m not being dismissive of libertarian ideas, and I have a lot more to learn. But I will tell you, it freaks me out a little when people act like, “look, this is freakin’ obvious — why doesn’t everybody see it? They must be totally dumb or venal leftists.” I urge you to consider that that proposition is wrong, and that there is some significant empirical evidence suggesting that the Utopian vision of libertarianism may not work quite the way we all hope.
I notice when it comes to Bob’s Christian posts, a lot of people have no trouble seeing that there is no evidence in support of Bob’s religious views (which, by the way, I happen to like reading, and I don’t think require evidentiary support, because they’re religious), but when it comes to evidentiary issues surrounding some of the claims of libertarianism, it seems to me like some of us are willing to believe what a very very few heterodox historians have to say, without much serious critical evaluation. Obviously, we all want to believe what we want to believe, but as I’m sure you know critics of Austrian economics and libertarianism often describe them as closed systems incapable of falsification by any evidence, no matter what it is. Although I’m not an Austrian or a libertarian, personally I’d just as soon both camps added no more fuel to that fire.
“I’ve read half of Rothbard’s Anatomy of the State, and some of Bob’s book on capitalism, and also gone to many of the sites recommended to me by various bloggers on this site. No need to say this does not make me anything more than an unfortunate dabbler, but I do have to work for a living, and this stuff is not always easy.”
Did you really just write a lengthy critique about libertarianism, while admitting you are uninformed on the subject, in order to challenge my point that it is rare to come across informed critiques against libertarianism?
My favorite part of his (John’s) entire comment is how he says there exists empirical evidence of how bad a libertarian world would be. “Evidence” gathered by the same people you (Dan) reference in your original comment.
My complaint is that nearly every time I read someone critiquing libertarianism, they seem to be speaking from ignorance on the subject. It’s not just that I find most critiques unpersuasive. Of course, I don’t find them persuasive or I wouldn’t be a libertarian. I just also believe their critiques aren’t even accurately representing libertarianism. For example, your response above about Tom Woods and the Civil Rights Act is not accurate. You misinterpreted the libertarian position on that issue, and so your response doesn’t even begin to address our position.
“but when it comes to evidentiary issues surrounding some of the claims of libertarianism, it seems to me like some of us are willing to believe what a very very few heterodox historians have to say, without much serious critical evaluation.”
Come on, man. How can you say that when you are the one claiming to not be well versed on these subjects. If I didn’t put much serious critical evaluation into my views then I’d still be a liberal. I’ve read 100’s of books on political philosophy, economics, and economic history, read countless articles, and watched countless videos, and I’ve paid for courses on these topics. I don’t support positions I don’t fully understand.
… disagreeing with this view, the very claim — that blacks in the Jim Crow South in the 1940s were economically no worse off than blacks in the South after Jim Crow was dismantled, seems on its face to be nearly impossible to believe unless one very much wants to believe it.
Jim Crow: Government Against Market Forces
http://archive.mises.org/13502/jim-crow-government-against-market-forces/
[“]In December, 1918, the validity of the Kentucky law for the separation of races on trains was attacked in appeals to the Supreme Court by the South Covington and Cincinnati Street Railroads and the Covington and Erlanger Railway Company. These companies had been convicted in the lower courts for failing to provide separate coaches or compartments for Negroes.[“]
Racism and discrimination can be expensive, and one of the only ways they can be maintained successfully is if bigots have access to political institutions that allow them to impose enormous costs on others at relatively trivial costs to themselves.
John,
There are many, many trivial critiques of criticism, probably about a 20:1 ratio to more serious arguments. I once read an angry screed where the writer claimed that in Ancapistan, a homeowner could prevent the utility company from coming out to read the meter, claiming that it was trespassing. Set aside the simple concept of easements and contract law and think about it from the side of the utility company. If you owned a company that provided a service and your customer stopped paying for it, what would you do? Cut. Off. The. Power. Right? But this is the majority of the offal we deal with.
In the trivial column, we have psychological critiques like this one, These can be very convincing to the ignorant, but they make assumptions that are simply ridiculous. The guy who wrote the article I mention here assumes that everyone “retreats to their plot of land” and that there is no social cohesion. This is typical of Republican arguments.
There is a class of more sophisticated critiques that generally take the form of assuming that some aspect or service of government is vital (water safety regulations, police, education, highway construction) and then proceed from the unstated assumption that the private market is incapable of supplying that thing. Douchebag Sam Seder likes to use this one because it’s easy to trip someone up over the radio with it. I think that about 90% of these can be easily dismissed or reduced to a question of which would provide the service more efficiently, business or government? The other 10% is things like defense, courts, and police, and many libertarians concede those and accept a minimal state. Others fight the good fight and try to show why even those can be provided privately.
Next are the critiques of libertarian society, which typically characterize it either as feudalistic. Chomsky gives a weak form of that in his interview. The usual problem with these arguments is that they envision the same kind of political power we have today, except that it has been taken out of the hands of the voters and co-opted by big business. But libertarian ideas are all about preventing political power from arising at all. That is the reason for the dogged insistence on property rights, which serves as a check, an absolute limit on what is acceptable before violent retaliation is called for. Political power is all about undermining property rights. Ask Noam Chomsky to elaborate on some of the ways that private companies would abuse their position in Ancapistan and he will likely give you a bunch of scenarios that could not arise without some form of state power to enable them.
This site has a bunch of rebuttals to libertarian arguments. He shows better knowledge than most, but still gets a lot wrong. But if you don’t know the philosophy thoroughly, it can be easy to be persuaded by straw men and question-begging.
John, I appreciate the thought and time you put into the debate between libertarian thought, and other thought.
Libertarianism is actually extremely simple to understand, at least in terms of ethics, because that is what it is. Yes there are many tomes devoted to its explications. But at root, it is an ethic on just uses of force.
I will ask you just one question, and I believe that you thinking about this question will help shine light on where libertarians are coming from. Well, I should say where I am coming from:
Do you believe there is an internally consistent argument which I ought to accept that says you are ethically justified in initiating (unwanted) physical force against my person or homesteaded/traded property?
If your answer is something along the lines of “Generally no, but there might be rare cases where I am justified”, then you are already in significant agreement with libertarian ethics. Not fully, but significantly.
But you are not in agreement with me. It is praxeologically impossible, meaning I cannot agree with it even if I tried thinking it and tried acting upon it, to accept the argument that initiating force against my person or property is ethically just. For if I did think it were just, then I would not regard such activity as an initiation of force, but consensual physical force. I cannot praxeologically think and act against something, and regard it as ethically just, at the same time. I may very well think I could, but I would only be contradicting myself.
What libertarianism is, is an ethic that says it is unethical to initiate force against an individual’s person and property.
Now, if you want to disagree with that, then the only way you could possibly act on that disagreement, would be for you to…initiate physical force against my person or property!
If you put yourself in my shoes, and in every other person’s shoes, is it really so “nervy” to think that the claims being made by anti-libertarians are not at all convincing? How convincing could someone possibly be when their goal is to use your body or property in a way you do not approve?
How could any reference to “empirical evidence” prove to me today right now that I should contradict myself and say that OK fine, you’re right, I now see the light, I finally now consent to non-consensual force against me!?
“What libertarianism is, is an ethic that says it is unethical to initiate force against an individual’s person and property.”
If tax revenue is the property of the state, then the state is not ‘initiating force’ when it demands payment or enforces payment according to your statement above.
Right-wing libertarianism is not “an ethic against the initiation of force”. It is a political ideology based on particular beliefs about the nature of property and about who legitimately owns what property.
Philippe,
Please explain yourself in terms of a change in taxation.
For example, let’s say that the US congress passes a new, nationwide tax on e-cigarettes. Please justify the view that the additional money that users of e-cigarettes must pay in making their purchase already belonged to the government.
You got off easy Bob:
http://consultingbyrpm.com/blog/2011/11/god-as-author.html#comment-28993
Golden oldies.
A 1 2 3 o’clock 4 o’clock rock…
Just to try to be clear, my point is there are many philosophical critiques of libertarianism. I understand some may not find them convincing, but I think it is a stretch to claim they aren’t good or interesting. There at also what might be called the common sense critique of libertarianism. This is what Chomsky is saying I think: “anyone can see libertarianism won’t work as a practical matter. The market doesn’t police itself.” There really does seem to be some evidence to this effect. Again, saying that evidence is gathered or believed only by “those people” only seems to me to make my point. I just listened to Tom Woods critique of the Civil Rights Act’s effectiveness not one day ago. I understand that some think I misunderstood him, but I wonder if the bloggers on this site recognize just how often that explanation is used to discount criticism of positions that seem potentially untenable based on the real world evidence. If it is really so that libertarianism is like Marxism — one need 10,000 hours of study to understand why it makes sense, while there seem to be a lot of difficult questions concerning it’s workability that occur to very many highly educated people for which there seem no adequate answers, well, that could signal a problem.
“For example, Tom Woods and one or two others argue that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was of no economic benefit to blacks, and unnecessary.”
This is not his position, nor the position of other libertarians. Libertarians support the parts of that act that repealed laws that violated the NAP. We just oppose the new laws that were created by that act. We also believe that repealing the unjust laws helped black people and was an economic benefit. We also believe that the addition of new unjust laws hurt black people and was of no economic benefit.
Like I said, you didn’t even accurately summarize the position of libertarians before you attempted to knock it down. And one doesn’t need 10,000 hours to understand our positions. I recommended a few books that you could read that would help you understand us. Yet, even though you haven’t read them, yet, you keep coming back to tell us why libertarianism is wrong before you even understand the basics. I don’t understand why people do this, but it is a common theme in the critiques against libertarianism. I’m not saying that most people who critique libertarianism don’t spend 10,000 hours studying it first, I’m saying they sound like they don’t even take the time to read one book on the subject.
“I understand that some think I misunderstood him, but I wonder if the bloggers on this site recognize just how often that explanation is used to discount criticism of positions that seem potentially untenable based on the real world evidence.”
First off, you did misunderstand him. Second off, the real world evidence is on our side. Third off, yes, we are aware. Go back and look at my frustration with how rare it is to come by an informed critique. You noting this frustration is not an argument that shows the frustration is unjustified.
“Again, saying that evidence is gathered or believed only by “those people” only seems to me to make my point.”
What? How many times do I have to say the same thing to you before it sinks in? Libertarians believe the empirical evidence is on our side. We also fully understand that people with differing political philosophies think the evidence is on their side. You coming along thinking we don’t use empirical evidence, or that we are unaware of the empirical evidence that other schools of thought use to bolster their views, is nonsense. You keep telling us the evidence shows X, but it is not that we are unaware of that idea, it’s that we believe you are wrong.
“Most of the time I find good critiques it is one libertarian challenging the libertarian orthodoxy or through libertarians debating contentious issues with each other.”
That’s pretty much it. Libertarianism isn’t a part of mainstream culture, so most critics only learn of it in their spare time, rarely do they go in depth. The best criticisms come from within, either dissenting libertarians or ex-libertarians. The best criticisms I can think of come from “post-libertarians” and egoists, in my opinion.
I am sorry to be late in responding to Dan and to MF’s comments above Dans’ comments. On Dan’s comment that he is tired of people constantly misrepresenting libertarian positions and that I misrepresented Tom Woods, I think the discussion between us is exactly what’s concerning me. As I said earlier, I believe Tom Wood’s views on the economic effect of the Civil Rights Act are heterodox, shared by very few historians or economists, and after reading about the issue some, I think they should be treated with a large grain of salt, or at least should not be regarded as definitive on the subject. Specifically, I said that, based on a video I had watched, Wood believed the civil rights act of 1964 was of “no economic benefit to blacks and therefore unnecessary.” This was perhaps too general, as what Woods said was that the Act was of no economic benefit to blacks and therefore unnecessary from the economic perspective, as blacks in the 40s and 50s actually did as well economically as they did after the Civil Rights Act was passed. I do think my meaning in this regard was pretty easy to extract from my comments. Regardless of what Dan personally believes, I also think it is fair to say that Woods believes that repealing parts of the Act that violated the NAP — or anything about the Act — really had very little or no effect on African-American economic progress in America. Woods cites to Thomas Sowell for some of this data. My point, which I kind of think was hard to miss, was that a note of caution about “facts” like these, and the conclusions to be drawn from them, is in order. The Woods discussion is called “Thought Controllers Call Ron Paul Extreme” and can be found on YouTube.
Dan took the position that I was simply wrong about what Woods said — in other words, the underlying premise was just wrong, and that this is usually the case with critics of Libertarianism. I should get my facts straight before I criticize.
I feel like I see this type of response a lot on this site when someone raise facts or interpretations or statements that call a Libertarian point into doubt — “you’re misrepresenting us, you don’t know what you’re talking about, you can’t make a coherent argument so you just misrepresent our positions or call names.”
I’m sure that happens from time to time, so maybe it’s frustrating and elicits frustrated responses, but personally I’m actually interested in understanding what the real Libertarian responses are, and how Libertarians deal with evidence that may tend to undermine some claims about the philosophy. To be candid, I think I have seen some real trouble on this site dealing effectively with practical criticisms or concerns about Ancapistan. While I recognize it’s not the duty of people on this site to educate me, insulting me, or claiming I don’t know what I’m talking about, particularly about issues where I’m fairly obviously at least more or less right (what Woods said, for example) tends to make me question whether the criticisms of Libertarianism or Austrianism as hermetically sealed, evidence rejecting schools of thought don’t have some merit.
That being said, I very much appreciate MF’s comment above on Libertarianism, ie, that Libertarianism, when examined is the most moral form of societal organization, and (by implication, I think) should be employed regardless of whether consequences for some are worse or better than in the current system. This strikes me as the most powerful argument for Libertarianism and one I need to think about a lot more before I have anything to say about it. It seems to me it must be true that if, by employing logic, we can essentially deduce that Libertarianism is the most just of all systems, then by definition it should be implemented. I don’t know if it’s in fact true, but conceptually it’s certainly a formidable argument.
“For example, Tom Woods and one or two others argue that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was of no economic benefit to blacks, and unnecessary. Aside from the substantial scholarly work, again available all over the web, disagreeing with this view, the very claim — that blacks in the Jim Crow South in the 1940s were economically no worse off than blacks in the South after Jim Crow was dismantled, seems on its face to be nearly impossible to believe unless one very much wants to believe it.”
John, the reason I take exception with your description here is you start off saying he believes the Civil Rights Act was of no economic benefit. Then you follow that up by talking about the Jim Crow laws, which all libertarians oppose. So, we would say that getting rid of Jim Crow laws would be an economic benefit from an Austrian perspective, and it is the just thing to do from a libertarian perspective. Unfortunately, we believe all the new unjust laws that were created prevented the Civil Rights Act from improving matters on a net basis. Had they simply eliminated the awful Jim Crow laws and any other law violating the NAP, then we would have seen a positive economic benefit. If you’re going to bring the Jim Crow laws into the discussion then you should perhaps note that libertarians oppose laws like that with every fiber of their being. Otherwise, the way you brought them into the discussion makes it seem like you have no idea what we are talking about.
Plus, don’t insult us by saying we must believe X because we just really want to believe it. At least present a friggin argument about why our facts are wrong.
“Regardless of what Dan personally believes, I also think it is fair to say that Woods believes that repealing parts of the Act that violated the NAP — or anything about the Act — really had very little or no effect on African-American economic progress in America. Woods cites to Thomas Sowell for some of this data. My point, which I kind of think was hard to miss, was that a note of caution about “facts” like these, and the conclusions to be drawn from them, is in order. The Woods discussion is called “Thought Controllers Call Ron Paul Extreme” and can be found on YouTube.”
See, that isn’t an accurate statement. He believes that the unjust laws that were created by the Civil Rights Act eliminated the benefits from eliminating awful things like the Jim Crow laws. I mean, when I’m criticizing you for being imprecise, and then you respond with imprecise descriptions, don’t be surprised that you get called out on that. This was my whole point in my original comment. If you want to challenge what we believe then accurately state our position, and then show exactly why you think it is wrong.
Also, I find it extremely insulting that you constantly act like we just take libertarian scholars words to be the gospel, and aren’t cautious about the facts, and the conclusions to be drawn from them. The whole reason I’ve devoted so much time to studying political philosophy, economic history, and economics is because I disagreed with libertarians and thought liberals were right. But I hadn’t heard the libertarian arguments before and I wanted to give them a fair hearing. It was after I took the time to study the views and determine their merit that I became a libertarian. It amazes me that you complain that I bring up all the studying I have done (saying you don’t have time to put 10,000 hours into studying) in one breath, and then act like we just accept their words as gospel in the next. If I was going to just accept their words as truth without verification, then I wouldn’t have sacrificed so much of my time to eliminate my ignorance on these topics.
Not only that, we constantly recommend books, articles, etc. to support our positions, so you can determine whether we are right or not. And when I recommend things for you to check out, I always point out that this doesn’t necessarily mean we are right, or that you’ll be convinced, but you’ll at least better understand our position. If you really are just searching for the truth, then why don’t you explain what fact presented by Tom Woods that you disagree with and why? Give me something to work with.
You seem to think saying, “Aside from the substantial scholarly work, again available all over the web, disagreeing with this view, the very claim…” is some kind of argument. Do you think we are unaware that our views are not in the majority? Do you think we are unaware that other people disagree with us? You point out shit that is blindingly obvious, and then insulting imply that we just ignore this information because it doesn’t agree with us. No, we are fully aware that other scholars disagree with our positions, and we believe they are wrong, and we believe we have the facts and the economics on our side. If you want to add something to the conversation then point out a fact that you believe is wrong and show us why. Or point out some aspect of Austrian economics that you believe is wrong and explain why. But for the love of Almighty, please stop pointing out that our views are minority views as if that point has any merit on the correctness of our positions.
“I’m sure that happens from time to time, so maybe it’s frustrating and elicits frustrated responses, but personally I’m actually interested in understanding what the real Libertarian responses are, and how Libertarians deal with evidence that may tend to undermine some claims about the philosophy.”
Then go read the books from Rothbard, Hoppe, Woods, Rockwell, Murphy, etc. Then once you have done that you’ll have your answers. Sorry to be blunt, but if you think spending time commenting on blogs with us is the best way to achieve the understanding you say you want to have, then you are sadly mistaken.
“I feel like I see this type of response a lot on this site when someone raise facts or interpretations or statements that call a Libertarian point into doubt — “you’re misrepresenting us, you don’t know what you’re talking about, you can’t make a coherent argument so you just misrepresent our positions or call names.”’
What fact, interpretation, or statement did you make that calls into question the libertarian position that the Jim Crow laws were awful, needed to be repealed, would be economically beneficial to repeal, and that adding new unjust laws through the Civil Rights act was counterproductive, immoral, and eliminated the gains that would’ve been seen from the elimination of unjust laws?
“Now with regard to the first point, there are a number of serious philosophical arguments against libertarianism on both the left and right sides of the spectrum (and indeed as I’m sure everyone here already knows, libertarianism has been largely rejected in the philosophical community) and the web is sufficiently filled with some of them that it hardly seems necessary to provide cites. All one need do is a google search. Are they right or wrong? This I leave to the philosophers. Unless one IS a philosopher, however, I think it’s a little nervy to just dismiss these opposing viewpoints as dopey.”
We don’t just dismiss their ideas as dopey. We study economics, philosophy, and history in order to determine who we believe is correct. We don’t see which viewpoint is supported by the most philosophers and just assume they are right. We listen to the words of Ludwig von Mises and take it upon ourselves to be informed.
Ludwig von Mises – “Economics must not be relegated to classrooms and statistical offices and must not be left to esoteric circles. It is the philosophy of human life and action and concerns everybody and everything. It is the pith of civilization and of man’s human existence.
To mention this fact is not to indulge in the often derided weakness of specialists who overate the importance of their own branch of knowledge. Not the economists, but all the people today assign this eminent place to economics.
All present-day political issues concern problems commonly called economic. All arguments advanced in contemporary discussion of social and public affairs deal with fundamental matters of praxeology and economics. Everybody’s mind is preoccupied with economic doctrines. Philosophers and theologians seem to be more interested in economic problems than in those problems which earlier generations considered the subject matter of philosophy and theology. Novels and plays today treat all things human–including sex relations–from the angle of economic doctrines. Everybody thinks of economics whether he is aware of it or not. In joining a political party and in casting his ballot, the citizen implicitly takes a stand upon essential economic theories.
In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries religion was the main issue in European political controversies. In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries in Europe as well as in America the paramount question was representative government versus royal absolutism. Today it is the market economy versus socialism. This is, of course, a problem the solution of which depends entirely on economic analysis. Recourse to empty slogans or to the mysticism of dialectical materialism is of no avail.
There is no means by which anyone can evade his personal responsibility. Whoever neglects to examine to the best of his abilities all the problems involved voluntarily surrenders his birthright to a self-appointed elite of supermen. In such vital matters blind reliance upon “experts” and uncritical acceptance of popular catchwords and prejudices is tantamount to the abandonment of self-determination and to yielding to other people’s domination. As conditions are today, nothing can be more important to every intelligent man than economics. His own fate and that of his progeny is at stake. [p. 879]
Very few are capable of contributing any consequential idea to the body of economic thought. But all reasonable men are called upon to familiarize themselves with the teachings of economics. This is, in our age, the primary civic duty.
Whether we like it or not, it is a fact that economics cannot remain an esoteric branch of knowledge accessible only to small groups of scholars and specialists. Economics deals with society’s fundamental problems; it concerns everyone and belongs to all. It is the main and proper study of every citizen.”
Is the sole purpose of the US to provide a laboratory for Nick Rowe?
“Monopoly” seems like a category error here.
That definition of the state comes from Max Weber. Go take it up with him.
Yes indeed, people talk as if the central bank monetary policy was isolated from government fiscal policy and these two provide independent tools. People talk that way, but really the two are closely related, I think that’s one one the few points the MMTers got right.
The MMTers want to take this to the logical conclusion and just merge it into a single policy where government just prints money directly to allow open ended fiscal policy, skip the QE masquerade, and get down to good honest counterfeiting. What they don’t get is that in order to scam someone, it is necessary that you know something they don’t know, making it obvious would rather defeat the point.
I used to think that asking MMT and MM types what I assumed was a rhetorical question of “If the central bank doesn’t inflate enough, would you support me if I successfully counterfeited money in my basement and bought hookers and beer, such that price inflation indexes and/or aggregate spending indexes rose by a more “optimal” rate?” I just assumed the question once asked would reveal clearly to them just how parasitic and unfair the state’s counterfeiting operation really was.
Then I learned with honest shock that most of them doubled down and said they would support me doing that. Not sure how sincere any of them were, because it is possible they just jealously defended their awkward beliefs with no real worry because they didn’t think I was serious or could do it anyway. But the fact that they chose to say that was troubling to me. If even only a small fraction were serious, it means I am debating people who would rather be exploited sheep and not really think too much about the world they live in. Much like reasoning with suicide bombers would likely be a tall order, so too is it a challenge to reason with people who don’t want to rise from their dogmatic slumbers of apathy, cynicism, and/or moral cowardice. To convince these people, you not only deal with the arguments themselves, but also their self-esteem and sense of self.
If libertarianism were easy, everyone would already be acting it.
I have to admit to a fascination with the MMTers. I always figured that once people understood that the government created funny money out of nothing (and the government had been quite obscure about that process), they would be appalled and demand change. I never expected “leftists” to support handing the process over to themselves with the masses saying zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz to all of it.
I also figured that Keynesianism was doomed by the events of 2008 and never expected them to double down.
I also figured that the Neo-Cons were doomed by the Iraq war and then by them supporting Al Qaeda in Libya and Syria. Nope.
Am I going out on a limb by suggesting that our opponents are not going to debate or engage us on the merits?
It’s not real world events that undermine the validity of certain notions. It’s bets about inflation that do that.
Well, fiat often lands somewhere other than rising prices at Walmart. I think most of the younger aspiring economist now understand this.
I was being fecetious, mocking the way Brad Delong sent Bob Murphy off to rethink his view of the economy under Paul Krugman’s guidance after the inflation bet debacle.
I get it now.
“Haha! Your side loses! Only 114,873 innocent people have been killed because of the Iraq invasion. Neocon theory FTW bitchez!”
Am I going out on a limb by suggesting that our opponents are not going to debate or engage us on the merits?
The Conservatives will engage you on the merits, so long as you acknowledge that, to the extent that the Constitution protects individual liberty and defends against collectivism, it does good; and that none of the world’s problems are caused by the defense of individual liberty.
You also have to qualify your anti-war position, since the only people we hear about being anti-war are Leftists who oppose the stated purpose (key word: “stated”) of American foreign policy, which is the defense of Americans from commies and terrorists, as if free markets had anything to do with other countries’ problems.
We see America’s foreign policy as mainly defensive; That’s why it’s so difficult to reach us.
But we already at least *think* we’re pro free markets and anti-“wars of initiatory violence”, so if you can show us that our government has lied to us about our wars, then that will help a lot.
Aside: We see “pre-emptive” strikes as defensive against threats of violence, so we, consistent with our belief in individual liberty, don’t see anything wrong with this. It’s OK to defend yourself when threatened.
You have to show us that our foreign policy is based on collectivism. We would oppose our foreign policy if we thought it was violating others’ individual rights.
The “conservatives” suffer from the same “progressive” fantasies as the left but applied to different situations in different ways. They see the US governnment as a magical transformative nanny, but only as to foreign governments and local minorities. I very seriously suggest that everyone run out and get Richard C. Gamble’s book on WWI.
http://tomwoods.com/blog/creepazoid-leftist-clergy-salivated-over-world-war-i/
They see the US governnment as a magical transformative nanny, but only as to foreign governments and local minorities.
This was never my position. I think you’re describing NeoCons, which come from the Left.
We don’t see ourselves as nannies, honestly. We wouldn’t care what other countries do, except that their Commies and Islamic terrorists keep trying to squash free markets everywhere they go, and we want to take defensive measures against them.
Domestically, we mistakenly view America as something that can be collectively owned, and so, consistent with the right of ownership, see illegal immigrants as trespassers/invaders and simply want to protect what’s ours, and to protect our form of government from the direct influence of those who have zero rights as citizens.
Except for our belief that some things can be owned collectively, everything else we believe is consistent with private property rights.
We don’t want to nanny anyone or tell other countries what to do. That’s not our motivation.
I always find it curious and nonsensical that Chomsky seems to imply that libertarianism ought not exist as a viewpoint. Sure, he disagrees with libertarianism, but to say, “what’s called libertarian in the United States, which is a special U. S. phenomenon, it doesn’t really exist anywhere else,” is strange.
Does he mean that the viewpoint represented by “libertarians” is simply nonexistent in other areas of the world, or that it is called something different? If its called something different, than why does he care so much about the name attached to the particular viewpoint? Who gives a ****?
Chomsky is often vague and it always shows. Libertarians deny ‘positive freedom’ on the basis of its arbitrariness. He has absolutely no logical basis for demarcating valid ‘positive rights’ and invalid ‘positive rights.’
His curios, adamant desire to co-opt the term “libertarian” makes no sense. Why doesn’t he just use the terms currently supplied by society, so that he doesn’t have to re-explain his positions every time people necessarily become confused by his idiosyncratic terminology? Because, like all boring intellectuals, instead of clarity, they revel in their obscurity.
One reason why Rothbard is popular is because he was never obscure. His prolific writings made clear his stances on virtually every issue, and established him as the superior intellectual.
I can’t find it, but I remember Hayek saying of Rawls, something like, “he could never define social justice.” This will forever characterize the debate.
Hank,
this quote may help you to understand:
“One gratifying aspect of our rise to some prominence is that, for the first time in my memory, we, “our side,” had captured a crucial word from the enemy. Other words, such as “liberal,” had been originally identified with laissez-faire libertarians, but had been captured by left-wing statists, forcing us in the 1940s to call ourselves rather feebly “true” or “classical” liberals. “Libertarians,” in contrast, had long been simply a polite word for left-wing anarchists, that is for anti-private property anarchists, either of the communist or syndicalist variety. But now we had taken it over”
Murray Rothbard, ‘The Betrayal of the American Right’ (p.83)
Yes, and “liberals” used to believe in economic liberalism.
Meanings of words change. Big whoop. Who cares?
Did you somehow construe my comment for me wanting the term “libertarian” to be applied to left-wing anarchists?
I never denied that this was how the term was applied historically. My point is that it doesn’t matter.
“I never denied that this was how the term was applied historically. My point is that it doesn’t matter”
Rothbard clearly thought that it mattered. And so does Chomsky, which is why he points out that historically it referred to anti-capitalist anarchists (and that outside of the US it often still does).
“His curios, adamant desire to co-opt the term “libertarian” makes no sense. Why doesn’t he just use the terms currently supplied by society”
You could say exactly the same thing about Rothbard.
Rothbard was using the popular term during the time, so no, you can’t say exactly the same thing about Rothbard.
Phillipe, I understand you are anti-Rothbard.
You can now move along since this is the only salient point you can possibly make.
You are anti-libertarian, and you think they should not exist. Great. Its not an argument.
“Rothbard was using the popular term during the time, so no, you can’t say exactly the same thing about Rothbard.”
Rothbard doesn’t agree with you:
“One gratifying aspect of our rise to some prominence is that, for the first time in my memory, we, “our side,” had captured a crucial word from the enemy. Other words, such as “liberal,” had been originally identified with laissez-faire libertarians, but had been captured by left-wing statists, forcing us in the 1940s to call ourselves rather feebly “true” or “classical” liberals. “Libertarians,” in contrast, had long been simply a polite word for left-wing anarchists, that is for anti-private property anarchists, either of the communist or syndicalist variety. But now we had taken it over”
“His curios, adamant desire to co-opt the term “libertarian” makes no sense.”
It makes no sense to you because you don’t know anything about the history.
Look I can quote it too! As quoted here, Rothbard agrees with me!
“One gratifying aspect of our rise to some prominence is that, for the first time in my memory, we, “our side,” had captured a crucial word from the enemy. Other words, such as “liberal,” had been originally identified with laissez-faire libertarians, but had been captured by left-wing statists, forcing us in the 1940s to call ourselves rather feebly “true” or “classical” liberals. “Libertarians,” in contrast, had long been simply a polite word for left-wing anarchists, that is for anti-private property anarchists, either of the communist or syndicalist variety. But now we had taken it over”
The reason quoting this makes no difference, is because it does not address any points I made. Yes, I already agreed the word changed meaning. So whats your point?
I know what I ate for breakfast this morning. This is historical.
“Hey look everyone, I am against libertarianism!” – Phillipe
“I don’t care!” – Everyone
“it does not address any points I made.”
it addresses these specific points which you made:
“to say, “what’s called libertarian in the United States, which is a special U. S. phenomenon, it doesn’t really exist anywhere else,” is strange.”
No, it’s not strange.
“Does he mean that the viewpoint represented by “libertarians” is simply nonexistent in other areas of the world, or that it is called something different? If its called something different, than why does he care so much about the name attached to the particular viewpoint? Who gives a ****?”
Why did Rothbard give a ****? The meaning of words matters to people.
“His curios, adamant desire to co-opt the term “libertarian” makes no sense. Why doesn’t he just use the terms currently supplied by society, so that he doesn’t have to re-explain his positions every time people necessarily become confused by his idiosyncratic terminology?”
You could say the same thing about Rothbard.
“Meanings of words change. Big whoop. Who cares?”
See above.
“I never denied that this was how the term was applied historically. My point is that it doesn’t matter.”
See above.
“Rothbard was using the popular term during the time, so no, you can’t say exactly the same thing about Rothbard.”
No he wasn’t. Yes you can.
the argument made by libertarians originally was that capitalism and private property were coercive institutions opposed to liberty. Using the word ‘libertarian’ to describe people who support capitalism and the institution of private property is very strange from that point of view.
Yes, the meaning changed. Once again, no substantial point is made by Phillipe.
Philippe:
Pretty sure pointing a gun at two people who agree to trade money for labor, such that the ownership of any means of production used by the person recieving the money, still rests with the person paying the money, is infringing upon the freedom of the people making the exchange. I am also pretty sure that the root word of libertarianism, i.e. liberty, means freedom.
Is it possible the original libertarians themselves “co-opted” a term, i.e. “liberty” and changed the meaning of it?
Liberty before libertarianism did not mean owning means of production. It did not mean abolition of wage labor. It did not mean absence of private property.
I don’t care one iota whether or not the term libertarianism was used differently by other people, or if it still used differently by other people.
Words are meant to be owned by you, they aren’t meant to own you. Yes yes, to the person who wants authority over them, from either the majority rule, or the social good, or governmnt, and who then say they are against authority, it is only natural that even words would become symbols of authority, and you would seek to subjugate others the way you want to be subjugated. Use this term this way or else you violate a sacred duty to be chained to the habits of dead people.
Maybe consider everything anybody ever says as “[their name]-ism”, and save ourselves the fruitless quibbling over definitions which are by nature purely subjective anyway.
“I always find it curious and nonsensical that Chomsky seems to imply that libertarianism ought not exist as a viewpoint.”
That’s not what he implies. He says it is wrong to describe as ‘libertarian’ people who support coercive institutions, people like Rothbard for example.
Basically the whole of your comment was uninformed and wrong.
MF,
maybe try to understand the argument that private property and capitalism are themselves coercive institutions.
You may disagree with the argument, but at least try to understand it.
maybe try to understand the argument that private property and capitalism are themselves coercive institutions.
We already understand from where you’re coming: You believe that private property removes from use resources which others could also use, and that since no one is born with a right to property you see no reason why being a later user of a resource would somehow mean that he is less entitled to use it than an earlier one; They were both born without a right to that resource.
What you’re missing is that transforming a resource involves my time and labor, so for someone who has not transformed that resource to come and tell me what to do with it would be to commandeer my labor for his own purposes – i.e., he would be claiming to own my labor, making me out to be his slave.
I transform something for my own purposes. The pursuit of my own ends is the only reason it was transformed into something useful (to me) in the first place.
(Which is why capping profits disincentivizes production.)
I’m not a left-libertarian and I am not opposed to the concept of private property. Nonetheless I agree that private property can be coercive. I agree with most of what Gene Callahan has written on this subject (on his blog) – and Gene is a conservative.
for example:
http://gene-callahan.blogspot.co.uk/2010/05/confessions-of-recovering-ideologue.html
Like Gene I think that justice is the important principle.
Ya the whole comment was “wrong”! In fact, it was so wrong, its not even a comment! Its an uncomment!
Yes, libertarianism is so wrong, its not even a viewpoint whatsoever!
This is how much sense you make, along with Chomsky.
You have never made a positive argument in your life. All you do is attempt to bring down arguments through the use of logical fallacies.
Who knows what Phillipe asserts? Is he against the NAP? I have no idea. Is he against property? I have no idea. The only position he has is that he is against any person who says they are “libertarian.” Whoever takes this position, he is automatically the opposite. This is the only principle he follows.
He thinks, sometimes, people should have property. However, it should never follow a logical consistent formula. It should remain as vague as possible so that the State can take advantage of these property owners for the sake of social justice. What’s social justice? Well, I guess we should keep this one vague as well.
the problem is that you assert lots of things which you claim to be logical, which aren’t in fact strictly logical. You use pseudo-logic to dress up your political beliefs.
Philippe:
You’re the one whose arguments are being exposed as logically flawed, don’t even have the courage to make positive arguments about what you believe in.
Private property can NEVER be coercive. You not having access to property homesteaded/traded by others, because of either an impenetrable wall or a security guard with a gun pointed at you, is not coercion. It is a prevention of coercion. You stepping wherever you please is coercive if you step on land owned by someone else against their consent. It doesn’t matter if you are a wealthy celebrity on a drunken binge and have no idea where you are, or if you are a gentle, kind, starving teacher of blind children who rescues puppies. The owner is his own person and deserves to be happy according to what he has done for himself. His freedom and right to make his own choices should not suddenly disappear the moment a trespasser happens to be poor instead of wealthy.
What is coercive is using what someone else has acquired peacefully, for your own benefit and against theirs.
The individual is an end in themselves.
If I were starving to death, and I was so unproductive to my fellow man that I could not even work as someone’s servant in exchange for cabbage soup, or unable to go live in the wilderness and eat leaves and bugs to stay alive, if the only way I could live was to point a gun at someone and live as a parasite, then I would rather die than live as a parasite. Living a good life, is better than just life. Don’t believe me? Just ask if you would rather be tortured 24 hrs a day for the rest of your life, or be killed then and there.
A virtuous life is the only life worth living to me.
Philippe:
“maybe try to understand the argument that private property and capitalism are themselves coercive institutions.”
What don’t I understand?
Is it possible that maybe I do, and I still reject the arguments? Even the ones you believe are so clear cut and obvious displays of actual proofs that private property “can be” coercive?
Private property is a singular concept. Either it is coercive or it is not. This “can be” argument is really just you seeking to define coercion not according to principle, but according to whatever the hell you feel like that day. You want an escape hatch so that you can feel righteous and justified in property rights being violated when you believe they should be violated, while still paying lip service to private property rights as ethically just.
This is your M.O. Keep things vague and just keep claiming libertarianism is wrong.
Astroturfing FTW
Philippe:
“Like Gene I think that justice is the important principle.”
And like Hayek said of Rawls: You never bothered to define exactly what social justice is.
What if someone argued that justice is absolute homesteading/traded property rights? No exceptions?
Philippe:
Callahan wrote:
“But consider the institution of private property, which anarcho-capitalists often hold out as ‘peaceful’ and ‘voluntary,’ as opposed to the ‘violent’ and ‘coercive’ State. Well, it is true that private property is peaceful – just so long as everyone agrees to follow the same property rules, in other words, its peacefulness depends upon its voluntariness. But the latter is often absent. Many, many times, people fail to agree on just who owns what – and then private property turns violent and coercive.
“This, of course, is the classical left anarchist complaint about anarcho-capitalism: since it doesn’t do away with private property, it doesn’t do away with coercion at all — and the left anarchists are correct in pointing this out. (The problem with their solution is, of course, once you have done away with the State and with property, you have also done away with society.)
“And so, when Roderick Long writes: “Bob Sanders wonders (May 8th) why we would fear Uncle Grady the tax assessor. Surely the answer is: because Uncle Grady’s edicts are ultimately backed up by threats of violence from Uncle Sam” – he has also stated a reason for fearing anyone laying claim to any property whatsoever – ultimately that claim is backed by threats of violence.”
There is a problem in this reasoning. He is claiming that all possible disagreements with a property rights rule, are equally valid in exposing that property rights rule to be “backed by violence.”
Apparently an invading army and a drunken idiot who “disagree” with the property rights claim of the owner, are both showing that property rights are backed by violence. And that refraining from using force against the invading army and refraining from using force against the drunken trespasser are equally valid peaceful coexistences.
Callahan is trying to argue that all property rights claims are examples of coercion as long as at least one person disagrees with them, and all property rights violations are examples of peace as long as nobody defends them.
This is moral relativism. It is placing all property rights systems as peaceful as long as people agree, and all property rights systems as coercive as long as one person disagrees.
Fascism would be an example of a peaceful political system, if nobody fights back as they are marched into ovens, and nobody fights back as their factories are nationalized by armed men with badges.
It gets worse. Callahan’s logic would imply that coercion will always exist so long as there are nihilists in existence. In fact, Callahan could engage in a self-fulfilling prophecy by claiming that coercion exists as long as he thinks it exists.
Think about it. He is saying that coercion exists if people do not agree with a property rights claim. By merely thinking he’s being coerced, then even if he is in fact not being coerced, the mere fact that he thinks he is, would be sufficient for there to exist at least one person who “disagrees” with whatever the property rights happens to be.
Using Callahan’s logic: merely imagining coercion exists, would be sufficient to conclude that coercion exists.
What Callahan is proposing is to accept anyone’s claim of being coerced, no matter how outlandish it is, because all that is necessary is “disagreement”.
I do agree with one thing Callahan wrote though. The latter part of this comment:
“The actual way forward towards a less coercive society consists not in de-legitimizing the State, but in legitimizing it, in other words, promoting voluntary compliance with the State’s laws in so far as they are just, and working to change them peacefully in so far as they are not.”
Since justice demands the individual being free to choose who will “govern” him, it follows that states are by their nature unjust, and so the anarchist who seeks to delegitimizing the state is following the principle Callahan wrote in the latter part of that comment.
Justice demands removing property rights violations where A points a gun at B and signals “Pay me this much for protecting you from other thugs or else I will kidnap you and throw you into a cage.”
It doesn’t matter if A claims he is promoting or embodying “civilized society”. It is an initiation of force. Not “civilized” at all.
And it would be absurd to believe that civilized society requires B to not delegitimize A’s threats of force, but to keep paying A for “protection” and avoid the kidnapping and the cage, and to only focus on other things A might be doing to B.
Such activity as what Callahan wants is a destruction of anarchist civilized society, and replacement with permanent coercion where B is expected to obey A.
That is civilized cooperation between A and B. Since B is not actually fighting back, it is a peaceful interaction.
What Callahan believes betrays common sense and is nothing but a fear based apology for the state.
Funnily enough, Chomsky himself and many other forms of left-libertarians, wouldn’t qualify as libertarian in the original political use of the term either.
why’s that?
I won’t get into detail about the specifics of Chomsky now but the term was first used politically in an attack on Proudhon “Moderate anarchist, liberal, but not libertarian.” Proudhon, the man many on the libertarian-left all but worship today.
you are referring to this:
“The use of the word libertarian to describe a new set of political positions has been traced to the French cognate, libertaire, coined in a scathing letter French libertarian communist Joseph Déjacque wrote to mutualist Pierre-Joseph Proudhon in 1857, castigating him for his sexist political views.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism#Etymology
I know what I’m referring to, I quoted him for goodness sakes.
do you think Chomsky is a sexist?
While I think that “sexism” is a word that is infinitely malleable and thus meaningless. I’d say no. (The case can be made that he is, due to his views on porn but that just leads back to the hydra of sexism.)
(That has nothing to do with why I don’t think he’s a “libertarian”” in the original sense though.)
“That has nothing to do with why I don’t think he’s a “libertarian”” in the original sense though”
the only reason you have given for that so far is that ‘many on the libertarian-left all but worship Proudhon today’, and Proudhon was criticized by Dejacque for some of his views.
Not even that much.
“I won’t get into detail about the specifics of Chomsky now but…”
this quote may help you to understand:
…
“Libertarians,” in contrast, had long been simply a polite word for left-wing anarchists … But now we had taken it over
That is troubling; and I hate it when the Left does this (and they do it constantly). I consider it to be under-handed.
(By the way, you’re doing well with your quotes, as I’ve said on another occasion.)
From my experience, it isn’t typical of the Right to employ this strategy of obfuscation / rebranding – we don’t need to.
As an aside, this issue reminds me of the following article:
Corporatism Is Not the Free Market
http://reason.com/archives/2012/02/03/corporatism-is-not-the-free-market
Capitalism versus the Freed Market
My main beef with Phelps and Ammous’s essay is their use of capitalism to name the economic system that corporatism corrupted. Like many others, they believe that word “used to mean” the free market. To be sure, it was used that way beginning in the mid-twentieth century. But there was an older usage (of capitalist specifically), coined by free-market liberals like Thomas Hodgskin who predated Marx, associating it with government privileges for the capital-owning class.
…
It’s tempting to dismiss this as mere semantics. But we are trying to communicate, aren’t we? Libertarian theorist Roderick Long, however, shows that more than semantics is involved.
…
[“]In short, the term “capitalism” as generally used conceals an assumption that the prevailing system is a free market. And since the prevailing system is in fact one of government favoritism toward business, the ordinary use of the term carries with it the assumption that the free market is government favoritism toward business.[“]
Sorry for re-posting but my question may have been overlooked among many posts and I’m really curious as to the reasoning behind Nick Rowe’s claims.
“The lower the inflation target, the greater the quantity of assets that must be purchased by the central bank (as a share of GDP.)”
Could someone clarify this? To me it seems that exactly the opposite is true.
What I mean is, if the Fed instituted a 0% inflation target tomorrow, wouldn’t it mean stopping all asset purchases immediately or even selling some?
gienon, I must admit it sounds counterinutitive to me, too. Here’s what I can piece together:
1) The quote you’re asking about isn’t Rowe, but Sumner from a post on his blog, http://www.themoneyillusion.com/?p=18606
2) RebelEconomist on that blog asks the same question you do (I think), and Sumner replies that “There are lots of empirical studies that show the demand for base money slopes downward, as a function of the opportunity cost of holding base money.”
3) Rowe’s version of this statement is that “…if you don’t want the government-owned central bank owning all that stuff, then maybe you need to increase the inflation target or NGDP level path growth target, so you get a smaller central bank. (Too dedicated a pursuit of low inflation and the optimum quantity of money leads to communism, with government ownership of everything.)”
I must admit I’m still a bit confused by it myself, but let me try to throw something out there: in the event of higher inflation expectations, the penalty for holding cash is higher, resulting in an increased velocity (of existing money), which in turn increases NGDP. Or maybe the decreased demand for money reduces bank deposits, resulting in a smaller effective monetary base (via fractional reserve)?
I must admit that I am not sure at all whether I am making a good assessment or even a logical argument… but that’s what I’ve been able to figure out during my lunch break, and I thought it might either be helpful or induce one of the more knowledgeable people to set me straight.
Bob, did you ever end up getting my email? Well, not email, but message sent through the contact form.
I don’t think so?
I’ll resubmit it.
http://news.stanford.edu/news/2014/july/legitimacy-political-philosophy-072814.html
For political anarchists to be taken seriously is better than not being taken at all. Stanford philosophy prof.
I had been debating some socialist who suddenly has started to sound more knowledgeable and academic and causing some pain. I tried to do but the boxer is heaver than was anticipated. If anyone can add their opinion it might help me a bit. Here’s the response of the other person:
“So called Socialist Calculation Problem was a childish allegation and was well answered by Soviet Planners and Marxist Theoreticians more than 90 years ago. This is quite and interesting debate however and you should read the other side as well. As far as your rhetoric like “Failure of Socialism”, “State gonna decide for you” and “hard working people are doomed” is concerned, they simply show the lack of understanding of very basic concept of Socialism, historical facts, familiarity with Marxist Theory and intellectual dishonesty. And your declaration that German Fascism (National Socialism) was “Socialism” have discredited your arguments even further. Anyone having a slightest knowledge of history and economy can only laugh at it. I don’t want to waste my energies and time by going into this unending debate, nor this is an appropriate platform. You seem to be quite an “experienced” person and most probably would be familiar with the outcome of these kind of debates.
Crisis of over production are inherent into the very structure of capitalism. Monetary policy represents the dynamics of an economic system and is a method of running the system, it is not the system in itself. There were recessions, depressions (at least two) and crisis even before modern monetary mechanisms. Economies were more unstable before Central Banks and Austrian School of Economic is a “school” which serious bourgeoisie economists don’t take seriously themselves. Had states not increased money supply (through lower interest rates, public spending etc) there would have been a “2008” many decades ago. States are not responsible for the built in Over Capacity. This is the result of delaying the crisis by artificial means as par the ‘suggestion’ (rather orders) of the same representatives of ruling class who now are blaming monetary policies for everything while pocketing billions of dollars through state bailouts at the same time. What we are witnessing today is the outcome of very organic contradictions of capitalist mode of production.
Marx borrowed many concepts from classical bourgeoisie economists and developed them further. Adam’s “Labor Theory of Value” is not same as “Marx’s Theory of Value”. “Socially Necessary Labor Time” is what makes them quite different. BTW running away from Labor Theory towards so called circular reasoning of “Marginal-ism” is another example which shows the total bankruptcy of Neo Liberal Economics.”
Raja:
You can say:
1. Prices cannot exist without private property. Without private property, it would be like a person having two grapes in their left hand, a dollar in their right hand, and then calling a movement of the two grapes to their right hand and the dollar to their left hand an example of a price being revealed. Prices require the grapes and dollar to be owned by two separate parties. Calling the ruble denominations of means of production in a socialist economy “prices” is not even referring to the prices in the calculation critique, and so cannot possibly constitute an “answer.”
2. His response to “failures of socialism” is just hot air. Tell him to put up or shut up.
3. Emphasize that your use of the term “socialism” is by definition collective ownership and/or control of the means of production. By that definition, all anti-individual ownership of the means of production are all examples of socialism. Calling Nazism socialism is not displaying any misunderstanding of “history and economy.” Invite him to define socialism, and to be extremely detailed in the area of exclusive use (property) rights. Then ask what happens when production and technology and employment changes. What are recently unemployed workers justified in doing and not doing. Ask whether he believes it is just to point a gun at two people who exchange money for labor.
4. Ask him to prove exactly how private ownership over the means of production has “inherent” crises. Explain capitalism is not a historical concept, but an ethical one.
5. Direct his attention towards a critique of Marxism by Bohm-Bawerk. Also explain that Marx’s theory of “socially necessary labor time” was in response to criticisms of his earlier expositions that implied goods should be more valuable the more idle and unskillful they are, and in fact implies market competition. Then explain that in the very next paragraph after Marx’s mention of socially necessary labor time, Marx contradicted what he just wrote about socially necessary labor time.
6. Explain that the marginalist revolution was not “running away” from the LTV, but a solution to a major problem in classical thought. Also explain that the LTV has been refuted theoretically and cannot even be observed empirically.
I think there’s an important distinction between two views of the “labour theory of value”. Consider two statements:
[1] The value of a good is equal to the hours of labour invested in making that good.
[2] The ture cost of an outcome is equal to the amount of your life you give up in exchange for that outcome.
If the calculation problem is so trivially solved, why do Socialist centrally planned economies consistently fail? Why is North Korea much poorer than South Korea? Why did the productivity of Rhodesia collapse when Mugabe took over and started meddling with wealth redistribution? Why have the Russians made an active and conscious decision to restart the free market after many decades of central planning? If central planning is such a great idea, why are the people who tried it, so eager to give it up and try something else?
As for National Socialism, that’s somewhat more complex. There were many threads of political and economic thought that went into it, and their strategy evolved over time. The Albert Speer plan was absolute central planning, and it failed, but given the circumstances of the war at the time, there was very little chance of success. For other aspects of National Socialism, you have to read their early theory, and the welfare state theory from the Kaiser that provided background, and of course Italian Fascist theory (lots of Mussolini essays are available in English on the Gutenberg website).
My argument is that the defining feature of Socialism as a philosophy, is that when the rights of the individual come into conflict with the rights of the group, Socialists are happy to sacrifice the rights of the individual. From this perspective, the Nazis were certainly willing to sacrifice the rights of individuals. Although individuals were allowed to own property, it would quickly be confiscated unless that individual could demonstrate strong allegiance to the Nazi cause. Sure, there were a number of ultra-powerful individuals in the Third Reich, but this applies to every Socialist system… there were powerful individuals amongst the Soviet party machine, and powerful individuals in Red China as well. North Korea has a dictator who is obviously well fed, leading armies of marching soldiers so thin they look like uniforms thrown over sticks.
Anyhow, the links between National Socialism and other types of Socialism have huge amounts of web space devoted to them already. Just search it.
So called Socialist Calculation Problem was a childish allegation and was well answered by Soviet Planners and Marxist Theoreticians more than 90 years ago.
Calculation and Socialism | Joseph T. Salerno
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KseRuyAjlHY
… they simply show the lack of understanding of very basic concept of Socialism, historical facts, familiarity with Marxist Theory and intellectual dishonesty.
“Why Marxism?” An Evening at FEE with C. Bradley Thompson
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nt58gg1DQGk
And your declaration that German Fascism (National Socialism) was “Socialism” have discredited your arguments even further.
Why Nazism Was Socialism and Why Socialism is Totalitarian | George Reisman
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHpXjm78Pjs
Crisis of over production are inherent into the very structure of capitalism. Monetary policy represents the dynamics of an economic system and is a method of running the system, it is not the system in itself.
Smashing Myths and Restoring Sound Money | Thomas E. Woods, Jr.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HAzExlEsIKk
Answering the Same Old Arguments Against Sound Money | Thomas E. Woods, Jr.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h-PxMzSyujw
Why You’ve Never Heard of the Great Depression of 1920 | Thomas E. Woods, Jr.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=czcUmnsprQI
Hazlitt, My Hero | Jim Grant
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSPlT8o5ZKM
There were recessions, depressions (at least two) and crisis even before modern monetary mechanisms. Economies were more unstable before Central Banks …
Economic Cycles Before the Fed | Thomas E Woods, Jr.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TxcjT8T3EGU
Monetary Lessons from America’s Past | Thomas E. Woods, Jr.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91OIBnrjzLU
Peter Schiff – The Fed Unspun: The Other Side of the Story
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zdB9I79BQRI
Had states not increased money supply (through lower interest rates, public spending etc) there would have been a “2008″ many decades ago.
…
What we are witnessing today is the outcome of very organic contradictions of capitalist mode of production.
Ron Paul Calls the Housing Collapse in 2003
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9S3lXDOQ7ec
[2001]
Ron Paul: “This real-estate bubble will burst, as all bubbles do” (part 3)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KONpt9a6HrI
Peter Schiff was Right (2006-2007 Edition)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sgRGBNekFIw
[2012]
Don’t believe the hype — the U.S economy is not recovering, it’s getting sicker.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vcd5IO_LMBs
[2014]
We are in a Wall Street housing bubble
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hlkn5Ky5Z1Q
Marx borrowed many concepts from classical bourgeoisie economists and developed them further. Adam’s “Labor Theory of Value” is not same as “Marx’s Theory of Value”. “Socially Necessary Labor Time” is what makes them quite different. BTW running away from Labor Theory towards so called circular reasoning of “Marginal-ism” is another example which shows the total bankruptcy of Neo Liberal Economics.
The Birth of the Austrian School | Joseph T. Salerno
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZRZKX5zAD4
Even IF it worked, I still choose freedom. Freedom is priceless.
Are you in love with YouTube or something?
YouTube is quick, easy and ready available for most everyone. Those are good videos he linked.
I think that collection of videos blows the socialist calculation out of the water.
… We are in a Wall Street housing bubble …
Suddenly, Wall Street Is Bailing On Housing
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-08-01/suddenly-wall-street-bailing-housing
As for Gruber. One seeks the opinion of an expert either because it cannot be bought, or because it can be. Now we we know why his was sought.