Stephan Kinsella thinks Kevin Carson and William Gillis are anti-market. Good grief! Come on, Stephan, you’re not George Reisman!
Addendum:
Happily, I misunderstood Stephan; our disagreement is smaller than I’d thought. See the comments section.
150 Responses to Say What?
Trackbacks/Pingbacks
-
BradSpangler.com » Reindeer games at the Mises Institute -
September 9, 2008
[…] UPDATE 2: And even more still elsewhere… Share This […]
Roderick,
Could you address my questions on your “From the Front” post? Thanks.
Roderick, unless I didn’t express myself clearly enough, I did not imply this about Carson at all, nor do I think it. From what I can tell he would be a market, mutualist anarchist who opposes state-intertwined capitalism, as do I.
I was referring to the anarchists who oppose private property rights, who do not oppose aggression on principle, who believe Macy’s is some kind of evil entity to be destroyed. I was distinguishing between genuine libertarian anarchists, on the one hand (meaning left-libertarians, anarcho-capitalists, anarcho-libertarians, market libertarians, mutualists) from socialist “anarchists” — those who are opposed to private property and capitalism itself.
Note: I referred to the socialists as “anarchists” in scare quotes; but I referred to mutualists and left-anarchists without scare quotes; and I wrote, “Left-anarchisism suspicious of the admixture of state and business is one thing; socialist “anarchism” is another.”.
Also, I referred to: “seizure by the police of “anarchist” and anarchist literature, including some by mutualist-libertarian Kevin Carson.”
But I see I did leave out a line in the first para — it was late at night. I meant to clarify the that the market anarchists had tried to join the commie-pseudo-anarchists march, and that’s how Carson’s literature got mixed in(but to be honest I’m not sure, the reports are confusing).
Anyway I’ll try to post a clarification.
I was referring to the anarchists who oppose private property rights, who do not oppose aggression on principle, who believe Macy’s is some kind of evil entity to be destroyed.
Down with Macys!
Seriously though, I think Carson would say all large firms today benefit from state intervention (e.g. the highway system, laws which only large firms can pay lawyers to satisfy, etc). So, logically Carson should be opposed to Macys as well as ADM and Lockheed.
Anon73,
“Seriously though, I think Carson would say all large firms today benefit from state intervention (e.g. the highway system, laws which only large firms can pay lawyers to satisfy, etc). So, logically Carson should be opposed to Macys as well as ADM and Lockheed. ”
Yes, but I don’t think that mere passive benefiting justifies destruction of property. You benefit from state intervention in many ways too. Is your property fair game for me?
I don’t know what it means to “be opposed” to Macy’s, apart from being opposed to state intervention. Does this mean it’s legitimate to smash a Macy’s window? Or is this just a justification for typically impoverished leftists to shoplift?
@Geoffrey — It’s not just a question of benefit, but of direction. To the best of my knowedge, you mostly take no part in directing the state. OTOH, if a corporation the size of Macy’s and its business leadership abstained from lobbying for favors and the making of donations to ruling class politicians, then Macy’s would undoubtedly be famous for this.
If Kinsella wants to claim I’m not an “anarchist’ as he defines it (scare quotes for his kind), I’m more than happy to let him!
1. I oppose “rights” and deontology as sloppy statist thinking, so while I don’t oppose de facto property, rent, etc systems in a Freed Market, I don’t think a piece of paper or a title grants some divinely unimpeachable property.
2. While I “oppose” aggression on principle, that doesn’t mean I won’t “initiate” it as need be to maximize freedom.
3. Yes, Macy’s is some kind of evil entity! I’m mean for god’s sake! Can the vulgar libertarianism in this room get any thicker? If a corporation only has “20%” benefits from welfare, what does that mean in the context of its competition that’s been driven largely out of business? How can we even attempt to measure the effects of scale-inflations?
Wanton window smashing is stupid and certainly useless if not harmful (see Crimethinc for its “defense”, I won’t bother relaying it). But let’s not pretend even for a fucking instant that braking these windows violated anyone’s liberty or capacity. Or EVEN that breaking windows was a particularly “violent” act! Is pouring fake blood over draft records violent? It certainly does far more expensive damage.
Brad,
“@Geoffrey — It’s not just a question of benefit, but of direction. To the best of my knowedge, you mostly take no part in directing the state. OTOH, if a corporation the size of Macy’s and its business leadership abstained from lobbying for favors and the making of donations to ruling class politicians, then Macy’s would undoubtedly be famous for this.”
Huh? I don’t see why Macy’s would be famous for this in a largely passive unlibertarian society. I hardly see the absence of fame for this as being justification for destruction of property. I think the burden of proof is on those who wish to justify destruction of property. They need to show what Macy’s active rights violating (lobbying) activity has been. Even then, as I’ve said, I’m not sure it justifies smashing random Macy’s storefront windows.
William,
“3. Yes, Macy’s is some kind of evil entity! I’m mean for god’s sake! Can the vulgar libertarianism in this room get any thicker? If a corporation only has “20%” benefits from welfare, what does that mean in the context of its competition that’s been driven largely out of business? How can we even attempt to measure the effects of scale-inflations?”
I’m not a vulgar libertarian.
What does this part mean? ““20%” benefits from welfare,”
An important question is who has done the driving of competition largely out of business? Has Macy’s lobbied the state to do this for it? If so, please provide the evidence. A lot of the big corporations actively lobby the state for offensive purposes, sure. But I don’t just assume that every corporation is thoroughly evil and in bed with the state.
@william: “If Kinsella wants to claim I’m not an “anarchist’ as he defines it (scare quotes for his kind), I’m more than happy to let him!”
In my What It Means to Be An Anarcho-Capitalist, http://www.lewrockwell.com/kinsella/kinsella15.html , I argue: “To be an anarchist only means that you believe that aggression is not justified, and that states necessarily employ aggression. And, therefore, that states, and the aggression they necessarily employ, are unjustified.”
Now, the crypto-statists I see yammering about breaking Macy’s windows apparently don’t believe aggression is unjustified.
“1. I oppose “rights” and deontology as sloppy statist thinking, so while I don’t oppose de facto property, rent, etc systems in a Freed Market,”
What do you mean, you “oppose right” or “oppose rent”? Everyone has some theory of property rights: they believe there is some rightful controller of a scarce resource. Either it’s the natural owner (homesteader or successor in title), or a thief, or the state or the group. To choose any of these other than the natural owner means to favor theft–taking it away from him and awarding it to some other entity. To choose him, is to choose libertarian property rights.
“I don’t think a piece of paper or a title grants some divinely unimpeachable property.”
Nor do libertarians.
“2. While I “oppose” aggression on principle, that doesn’t mean I won’t “initiate” it as need be to maximize freedom.”
Here we have the coherence of so-called “anarchists” on full display.
“3. Yes, Macy’s is some kind of evil entity! I’m mean for god’s sake! Can the vulgar libertarianism in this room get any thicker?”
If favoring Macy’s over the hooligants makes me a vulgar libertarian–then so be it.
“Wanton window smashing is stupid and certainly useless if not harmful”
It is necessarily harmful since it is a violation of property rights.
“But let’s not pretend even for a fucking instant that braking these windows violated anyone’s liberty or capacity.”
this is why I say some of these people do not respect property rights: you seem to oppose violence only against the body, but not trespass against homesteaded property.
“Is pouring fake blood over draft records violent? It certainly does far more expensive damage.”
The state is criminal, and it has no claim to property. Macy’s is different. Call me crazy, call me “vulgar,” but I just can’t get worked up about Macy’s or “Wal-Mart.”
Hi Stephan,
Sorry if I misunderstood you — and I’m glad you don’t think Kevin C. is anti-market. But the reason I thought you did think so is that you said this:
Yes, the mutualists and left-anarchists have some good insights about how the state has distorted and corrupted the corporate and business world. But anarchists–real anarchists, i.e., anarcho-libertarians–are not opposed to the market and free enterprise
It sounded as though you were drawing a distinction between mutualists and real anarchists, and that the distinction involved real anarchists not being opposed to the market (which would mean mutualists are opposed to it).
You also seemed to think that the RNC Welcoming Committee (not just some of its members, but the group as such) is anti-market. You say you’re not familiar with William Gillis; he was one of the chief speakers on the tape you saw, and this is hardly anti-market anarchism.
I also don’t think it’s quite fair to say that the woman on the tape “condones the breaking of a Macy’s window.” I disagree with her, but her position was a bit more nuanced than that.
Geoff:
Could you address my questions on your “From the Front” post?
Lo, ’tis done.
William:
Despite what Stephan would no doubt consider your deviations, I doubt you really count as anti-market or pseudo-anarchist by his lights.
Roderick,
I’ll go ahead and reply to this here too:
“I also don’t think it’s quite fair to say that the woman on the tape “condones the breaking of a Macy’s window.” I disagree with her, but her position was a bit more nuanced than that.”
But she did say she wouldn’t condemn it. That’s not quite the same as saying she favored it, but it’s close. She’s not opposed to it.
@Roderick: Yes, it was my fault for the way I wrote that paragraph. When I wrote this: “Yes, the mutualists and left-anarchists have some good insights about how the state has distorted and corrupted the corporate and business world. But anarchists–real anarchists, i.e., anarcho-libertarians–are not opposed to the market and free enterprise.”
I did not mean to imply that mutualists and left-anarchists are not real anarchists (so long as they are not opposed to the market).
“You also seemed to think that the RNC Welcoming Committee (not just some of its members, but the group as such) is anti-market. You say you’re not familiar with William Gillis; he was one of the chief speakers on the tape you saw, and this is hardly anti-market anarchism.”
Right–I am not familiar w/ the RNC or gilllis. The scattered and nearly incoherent reports of all this that I saw were not clear; the tape didn’t identify people to me.
I am troubled by Gillis’ cavalier dismissal of rights, and his willingness to condone destruction of private property owned by Macy’s. I’m struggling to square this with your insistence that he’s not an anti-market anarchist.
“I also don’t think it’s quite fair to say that the woman on the tape “condones the breaking of a Macy’s window.” I disagree with her, but her position was a bit more nuanced than that.”
True; and I posted a disclaimer to that effect and told people to listen to it for themselves. I think it’s pretty clear she condones it, but is reluctant about explicitly admitting it. To me, even to have a question about whether it’s justified is problematic.
Well, I don’t agree with William G. about rights either, but lots of libertarians (utilitarians, for example) are dismissive of rights too, and think free markets are just a prudential strategy (Mises, for example).
As for Macy’s: Rothbard at one time thought any company that got more than 50% of its revenue through govt. intervention was fair game. William thinks 20% should be enough — though he also thinks “Wanton window smashing is stupid and certainly useless if not harmful.” Even if he’s wrong about all that, his position doesn’t seem far enough from Rothbard’s to disqualify him as a pro-market anarchist by your lights.
@Roderick: “Well, I don’t agree with William G. about rights either, but lots of libertarians (utilitarians, for example) are dismissive of rights too, and think free markets are just a prudential strategy (Mises, for example).”
I think it’s one thing to be skeptical of proofs of rights, and another to say you don’t believe in rights at all. People can say they are dismissive of rights but to the extent they have any opinion at all, any policy preferences–and they always do–they have some view of who should be able to control a given resource. Whether they can bring themselves to use the right word to describe their normative view is a separate issue: but it cannot be denied (IMO) that these people do have some implicit stance on some system of property rights. The libertarian view is not about how you prove this–it’s about the system of rights you endorse (for whatever reason, or for no reason at all). From our point of view, either you believe the homesteader of a scarce resource, or his transferee, should be the one to control that resource–or some latecomer, such as a criminal or mob or the state. So anyone who is more opinionated than a rock either holds a libertarian, or non-libertarian, view of property rights. As Rush said, if you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice. There is no way to evade taking one or the other side, unless, like my grandma or my poodle, you just sit it out.
Mises was a hardcore libertarian by this way of looking at it, despite his utilitarian basis for adhering to these principles.
“As for Macy’s: Rothbard at one time thought any company that got more than 50% of its revenue through govt. intervention was fair game. William thinks 20% should be enough — though he also thinks “Wanton window smashing is stupid and certainly useless if not harmful.” Even if he’s wrong about all that, his position doesn’t seem far enough from Rothbard’s to disqualify him as a pro-market anarchist by your lights.”
Well, let me put it this way: such people should at least be very distinct from traditional market anarchists and anarcho-libertarians. I am deeply opposed to such notions–by this standard, we all have no rights, we are all criminals, all victims of each other and criminals at the same time; anything is up for grabs. This is a recipe for a dictator to step in, as Rand pointed out about the dual role of the witch doctor knocking down man’s self-esteem and right to live, thus paving the way for Attila to step in.
According to this story Macy’s has spent thousands lobbying the govt. on “legislation involving banking, immigration, law enforcement, apparel tariffs, labor matters and other issues.” It doesn’t say what side they took on these issues but I doubt that it was pristinely libertarian.
20% is enough? That seems awfully low. And how does one arrive at this arbitrary percentage? Moreover, how exactly does one calculate with respect to a particular corporation what percentage it gets? How do we calculate all the things like public road infrastructure, regulations, tax structure, labor laws, public education, and the like? It also seems like passive benefits get lumped in with benefits actively sought after in this calculation, and treated as equally bad. How much do I benefit passively from state-regulated capitalism, I wonder? Am I to be blamed to the extent that I passively benefit? And finally, are we really to expect that the window smasher performed some careful calculation before smashing the window to determine beyond a reasonable doubt that Macy’s meets the 20% threshold? This whole argument seems pretty suspect to me.
by this standard, we all have no rights, we are all criminals, all victims of each other and criminals at the same time
That seems to be inferring more from the position than seems to be in it.
such people should at least be very distinct from traditional market anarchists and anarcho-libertarians
Does “such people” include 1960s Rothbard? Or is itr the distinction between 50 and 20 that does it?
Anyone who is more opinionated than a rock either holds a libertarian, or non-libertarian, view of property rights
Well, he describes his view here. Does that fall neatly onto one side? If so, which?
Roderick,
“According to this story Macy’s has spent thousands lobbying the govt. on “legislation involving banking, immigration, law enforcement, apparel tariffs, labor matters and other issues.” It doesn’t say what side they took on these issues but I doubt that it was pristinely libertarian.”
Well, that’s certainly more clear, precise and tangible than some fuzzy X% calculation. One should still seek more certain proof that Macy’s was on the wrong side before hurling rocks, however. I think this holds whether one is talking about private individuals or corporations.
Geoff,
I doubt anyone is really committed to 20% as any sort of magic number here; it’s just being used as an example. But ignoring that for the moment, there are two different questions here: a) is 20% a reasonable standard, and b) is holding a 20% standard enough to disqualify someone from the ranks of market anarchism. You’re asking about (a), on which I have no especially strong thoughts at present. My disagreement with Stephan is about (b).
@Geoffrey — Before the Microsoft anti-trust suit, MS was mildly famous in certain circles for its atypical (for a business its size) disdain for political class mutual back-scratching. After a “whiff of grape” from DOJ, things changed and they got all “civic minded” and “philanthropic”, of course. While that’s an anemic, if not pathetic example, Macy’s never rose to even THAT level of disengagement from the State. I evaluate their property claims accordingly.
I certainly don’t favour hurling rocks at Macy’s windows — whether or not Macy’s turns out to be a legitimate target. Even if a target is legitimate, I think that’s only a necessary condition, not a sufficient one; violence against an aggressor has to have some practical relation to combating the aggression, for one thing.
Brad,
“@Geoffrey — Before the Microsoft anti-trust suit, MS was mildly famous in certain circles for its atypical (for a business its size) disdain for political class mutual back-scratching. After a “whiff of grape” from DOJ, things changed and they got all “civic minded” and “philanthropic”, of course. While that’s an anemic, if not pathetic example, Macy’s never rose to even THAT level of disengagement from the State. I evaluate their property claims accordingly. ”
MS was mildly famous in certain circles – that’s hardly broadly and loudly famous. I still object to your criterion of lack of fame as a justification for assuming that a corporation is a legitimate target for theft or destruction of property. It’s almost like guilty until proven innocent. Roderick was able to provide some actual evidence against Macy’s, but as I pointed out one should still find out what side Macy’s was on in those cases. Similarly with any other corporation. Even lobbying can be done for defensive purposes to prevent other companies from using the state to violate your rights. I don’t just assume they are all evil and in bed with the state. I also focus my attention and ire for more important targets: the state itself, the military-industrial complex with all its corporate contractors, government supported guilds and cartels of professions and corporations, etc. A lone clothing chain is rather low on my radar even if it is one of those corporations lobbying the state for benefits at everyone else’s expense.