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.
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.
Hey! I’m a true Scotsman.
Stephan Kinsella said this above: “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.”
This would appear on its face to disqualify from the ranks of “libertarians” those who hold a Georgist or geo-anarchist view of property rights, which Henry George justified in an explicitly natural rights framework, and which Thomas Paine also illuminated in his essay “Agrarian Justice.” Before Thomas Paine, there was also the Quaker John Woolman, who stated in Chapter 13 of his essay “A Plea for the Poor”:
“Suppose twenty free men, professed followers of Christ, discovered an island unknown to all other people, and that they with their wives, independent of all others, took possession of it, and dividing it equitably, made improvements and multiplied. Suppose these first possessors, being generally influenced by true love, did with paternal regard look over the increasing condition of the inhabitants, and near the end of their lives gave such directions concerning their respective possessions as best suited the convenience of the whole and tended to preserve love and harmony, and that their successors in the continued increase of people generally followed their pious examples and pursued means the most effectual to keep oppression out of their island. But [suppose] that one of these first settlers, from a fond attachment to one of his numerous sons, no more deserving than the rest, gives the chief of his lands to him, and by an instrument sufficiently witnessed strongly expresses his mind and will. Suppose this son, being landlord to his brethren and nephews, demands such a portion of the fruits of the earth as may supply him and his family and some others; and that these others, thus supplied out of his store, are employed in adorning his building with curious engravings and paintings, preparing carriages to ride in, vessels for his house, delicious meats, fine-wrought apparel, and furniture, all suiting that distinction lately arisen between him and the other inhabitants; and that having this absolute disposal of these numerous improvements, his power so increaseth that in all conferences relative to the public affairs of the island, those plain, honest men who are zealous for equitable establishments find great difficulty in proceeding agreeable to their righteous inclinations while he stands in opposition to them. Suppose he, from a fondness for one of his sons, joined with a desire to continue this grandeur under his own name, confirms chief of his possessions to him, and thus for many ages, on near a twentieth part of this island there is one great landlord and the rest generally poor oppressed people; to some of whom from the manner of their education, joined with a notion of the greatness of their predecessors, labour is disagreeable; who therefore by artful applications to the weakness, unguardedness, and corruption of others, in striving to get a living out of them increase the difficulties amongst them; while the inhabitants of the other parts who guard against oppression and with one consent train up their children in plainness, frugality, and useful labour live more harmonious.
If we trace the claim of the ninth or tenth of these great landlords down to the first possessor and find the claim supported throughout by instruments strongly drawn and witnessed, after all we could not admit a belief into our hearts that he had a right to so great a portion of land, after such a numerous increase of inhabitants.”
This discussion is amusing.
Professor Long said:
“Rothbard at one time thought any company that got more than 50% of its revenue through govt. intervention was fair game.”
Brad said:
“I see the legitimacy of property claims by major corporations as doubtful for a variety of reasons. Lacking a legitimate owner, destruction of such unowned material (which doesn’t even qualify as property) is not even violence.”
Professor Long said:
“Assuming Macy’s isn’t the owner, then by 1960s Rothbardian standards it’s not unowned, it’s owned by its current users (= the workers). That would seem to make the breakage morally problematic! (In any case it’s the workers who are going to have to clean it up.)”
and:
“So what do you think of Rothbard’s 50% position?”
I think that the problem is in thinking that just because the current holder of certain property is sufficiently complicit with state activity to count as an “aggressor,” that any such property as he or she purports to hold is essentially ununowned, or automatically owned by holder’s employees.
Instead, one should ask:
(1) Was the property (or the purchase money used by the current holder to acquire the property) taken from some identifiable rightful owner(s)? If so, it (or a pro rata share of its monetary value) should go back to the victim(s) and/or their heirs, successors, or assigns.
Examples:
(a) This means to the “tenants” who had originally possessed and farmed land, were conquered, and thereafter made to pay “rent” to some absentee landlord, etc.
(b) In the case of a public school built with property tax revenues, those property owners (presuming their title was good), then the property could be granted to a corporation, with shares issued to the appropriate taxpayers in accordance with their proportional contributions. Note: the school would NOT go to the teachers, who salaries themselves had been paid for by the same taxpayers. Agents of the state shouldn’t reep the benefits of having assigned to a particular educational post when a school is emancipated by becoming its owners.
2. Supposing to the contrary that the current holder is an “aggressor,” but came to acquire a particular piece of property legitimately (by growing vegetables on previously-vacant-and-uninhabited land, and wishes to sell said vegetables on the market.
In that case, I would want to oppose the view that simply by virtue of being an “aggressor,” that just anyone could go up and steal those vegetables. In stead, at this point it’s useful to consider the current holder as holding the vegetables as constructive trustee for the benefit of his prior victims. As such, he has an obligation to preserve their value, and may not give them away to a related party. He MAY sell them at their market rate (with the proceeds of the sale, thereafter being held in trust for the benefit of his victims). Note: that destruction of the vegetables by protestors incensed by the “aggressor” status of the current holder would presumably be a violation of the rights of the current holder’s prior victims (who are the beneficiaries of this constructive trust).
In such case, a question that arises is whether, supposing the total value of his outstanding obligations to prior victims exceeds the value of his vegetables, whether some one victim would be entitled to “levy and sell” up to the amount necessary to satisfy his own claim against the current holder, even this exceeds his proportional claim with respect to other victims?
Example: Let say, A steals $50 from B and $50 from C, totaling $100. Thereafter, A destroys $50 (where it is impossible due to the fungibility of cash, to determine exactly which bills had originally belonged to B v. C). May B come along and take $50 to satisfy entirely his own claim, or must he only take $25, thus leaving $25 to partially satisfy C’s claim?
The above reasoning may be difficult in terms of application to the messiness of the actual history of state intervention, but I think it is far better than asking, “how much of an aggressor does he have to be to be worthy of total divestment?”
Finally, a point raised earlier, which is well worth emphasizing is that, it is quite possible to be an innocent beneficiary of government intervention.
As such, we may lament all concentrations of wealth and growth of bigness (caused by the state capitalist system), and even use non-violent moral suasion to try to fight against that bigness (encourage people to boycott Wall Mart, patronize farmer’s markets, etc.), but, without a showing of either complicity with the government action which led to the receipt of these benefits, or a showing that property itself which was received was “stolen” (see foregoing analysis for treating this situation), then such property must not be taken from that owner, despite the fact that he or she almost certainly would never have become so wealthy on a truly freed market.
Regards,
Araglin
@Roderick: “So what do you think of Rothbard’s 50% position?”
“Rothbard at one time thought any company that got more than 50% of its revenue through govt. intervention was fair game.”
Roderick, I don’t know. I don’t know what “fair game” means. I do not believe it’s just to go around attacking property and committing violence against non-state actors. I suppose at some point a given corporation or person is so intertwined with the state you can consider them to be part of the state and “fair game.” But I think the contention that Macy’s falls into this category is ridiculous.
@william: “But Corporations are so profoundly removed and isolated from the free market, over-extended and deeply muddled in privileges granted by statist force that it’s almost impossible to tie their property back to real, actual existing human beings.”
As far as I can tell, most of this strange leftist hostility to “corporations” is based on confusion about the nature of corporations and economics. As for corporations, see my post here http://blog.mises.org/archives/004269.asp . As for economics, see Mises. The Marxian labor theory of the value is all just a bunch of claptrap. I’m starting to think it’s impossible to be a libertarian without being an Austro-libertarian, since so many libertarian deviations result from economic illiteracy.
““Windows getting broken” is simply not enough. And stopping at that and calling those whose fist (or head, in the instance where cops beat the crowd against one of the windows) went through some pane of glass “hooligans” is just a blind, impulsive cultural affiliation with the status quo.”
I’ll take this as a compliment. I want nothing to do with these hooligans.
“See in particular Peter Gelderloos’ HOW NONVIOLENCE PROTECTS THE STATE, for some popular arguments on this.”
It is not nonviolence that protects the state: it is tacit legitimization of the state due to erroneous political and economic views.
@John Kindley: “Stephan Kinsella said this above: “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.”
“This would appear on its face to disqualify from the ranks of “libertarians” those who hold a Georgist or geo-anarchist view of property rights, which Henry George justified in an explicitly natural rights framework, and which Thomas Paine also illuminated in his essay “Agrarian Justice.””
Yes. Georgists are clearly not libertarians. They are quasi-socialist cranks See my post here:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/012798.html:
“Rothbard just demolishes Georgism in his The Single Tax: Economic and Moral Implications and A Reply to Georgist Criticisms. I’m reading now Doherty’s excellent book, Radicals For Capitalism, and I must say that when I read the parts about “early” or “proto-libertarians” being influenced by Georgism (or being Georgists), it drives me nuts. I think this is even worse than nutty Galambosianism; even worse than the outright socialism and leftism that some libertarians flirt with in youth before they get some sense. At least no one pretends socialism is libertarian. Why anyone would ever think Georgism makes any sense whatsoever, or is compatible with libertarianism, I have no idea. It has always seemed to me to be pure economic crankism and yet another form of socialism. In my view, our libertarian movement and philosophy should have nothing to do with Georgism.
”
and
http://blog.mises.org/archives/005442.asp
Aside from the issue of limited liability (which has been re-hashed too many times to count), I think that the hostility to the ‘Corporation’ in the abstract springs by and large from the widespread and longstanding acceptance (by both the state and by many anti-statist leftists) of the ‘Concession Theory of Incorporation’ — that is, that a particular association of individuals, or lesser associations, can only come to enjoy legal personhood (which sounds scary to some kneejerk ‘individualists,’ but really means no more than being able as an entity to (i) hold property, (ii) enter contracts, and (iii) sue, and be sued) by the conferral by the state to that association of some measure of its ‘sovereignty’ (sic).
Dynamically speaking, once this theory received widespread acceptance, only those corporations who cooperated with the state continued to be recognized; further, those corporations who cooperated most extensively grew and flourished, and tended to be imitated even by (innocent) others. By contrast, the state systematically enfeebled, suppressed, and/or destroyed those corporations that posed a challenge to the omni-competent state (as detailed by the work of people like Robert Nisbet, Harold J. Berman, and others). As such, one sees a survivor bias, where the corporations that are around now, and especially those which are prominent, tend (on the whole, but not without exception) to be thoroughly corrupt.
If instead, one follows Gierke and the English Social Pluralists like Maitland, Figgis, etc., in denying the ‘Concession Theory,’ one can reject the silly ‘liberal’ and ‘nominalist’ view that only natural persons (and not groups of persons striving in association to achieve some common purpose) can qualify for legal personhood, while remaining resolutely anti-statist. This view makes it possible to hold “bad corporations” (like the state) quae entities accountable for their misdeeds (in addition to and not in lieu of their agents, functionaries, etc.), rather than just saying “when I say I condemn the ‘state,’ I really don’t mean it, I’m really just using a shorthand for the people that compose it from time to time.”
Cheers,
Araglin
You’re contemptuous dismissal of Georgism as making no sense whatsoever and being totally incompatible with libertarianism strikes me as odd and overdone. As I’m sure you’re aware, that Old Right hero of the paleolibertarian LRC crowd, Albert Jay Nock, was a huge admirer of Henry George. I don’t think you can say that Nock was just stupid, or characterize this as a youthful indiscretion. Granted, Nock was also sceptical, and rightly so, of the Georgist evangelism of his day. Nock was rightly a conservative, and therefore sceptical about the best laid plans of mice and men and organized campaigns for this or that, as well as being a “philosophical anarchist.” There are certainly practical problems with implementing the Georgist idea, but I think its underlying natural rights point is hard to refute, a point that was eloquently made by Thomas Paine and John Woolman in addition to George.
I don’t think you have any authority or standing whatsoever to banish the Georgist idea from the realm of respectable “libertarian” thought, and your overblown condemnation of Georgism just highlights that lack of authority and standing.
P.S. My last comment was of course addressed to Stephan Kinsella.
Georgism is so ridiculous I don’t think it’s worth fighting over.
I certainly don’t condone the deliberate smashing of any windows either–in any context–for a variety of reasons, but for god’s sake can we check the context and get some perspective here?
Perhaps whomever was actually responsible–that is, the actual individuals who did the window smashing–should make restitution for the smashed windows. But if none of the 9 people being detained in St. Paul’s gulag (last I heard, anyway, they were still being held) can be shown to have actually had anything to do with the window smashing in question, then they shouldn’t be held accountable for it, and even if they really were responsible, they sure as hell shouldn’t be charged on bogus “terrorism” charges and held in the gulags.
If there are people who want to wail and gnash their teeth over a couple of broken windows, they’re certainly free to do that. Have at it. But based on what I’ve read and have heard, the bulk of the violence directed at HUMAN BEINGS came from the POLICE in the forms of tear gas, concussion grenades and assaults on people who had the chutzpah to dare speak out against what the state is doing to people in this country and in other countries around the world.
St. Paul cops beat people mercilessly (just as they had in Denver: http://radgeek.com/gt/2008/09/09/cops_are/), stalked people, rounded up 250 WHO HAD DONE NOTHING, and made up BS stories about protesters planning to take hostages, and concocted evidence of “explosives” (b/c, you know, having household cleaners in your possession is sure evidence of being a “terrorist”).
Reading this comments thread is just SURREAL. I just heard last night that another band of Wall Street pigs are about to get their parasitic butts bailed out by the working people of this country AGAIN–hell, I can’t believe there isn’t MORE unrest in the streets! And I know this may not be polite to mention in mixed company, but who some of the beneficiaries of this fraudulent financial system (besides the Wall Street pigs themselves)? The largest companies have NOT exactly held on to their market shares thanks to free markets and gold-based money, but have instead benefited from this highly regulated, fiat money-driven STATIST economic system in which we actually live. That is, thanks to the “creative” financial innovations of state-privileged BS artists Bear Stearns, Lehmann Bros., et. al., and the other corporate welfarist scumbags.
So yes, bemoan the breaking of Macy’s and Wells Fargo’s windows if you like, but as for a lot of other people, we know who the real terrorists are, as Betsy Schaal-Gilman said, and we choose to focus on THEM and their massive, massive crimes against human beings all over the world. It was THEIR henchmen, the thugs in blue, who ran riot in the streets of the Twin Cities brutalizing PEOPLE.
Stephan Kinsella said “Georgism is so ridiculous I don’t think it’s worth fighting over.”
And that remark just underscores my conviction that Kinsellaism is utterly ridiculous and not worth taking seriously.
@Kindley: Thanks John; I do think we sound, principled, economically literate Austro-anarcho-libertarians ought to wash our hands of anti-market, Marxian, economically illiterate types, or at least go our separate ways.
Wow, Roderick, you really know how to stir things up.
I think Stephan defines libertarianism and anarchism way too narrowly.
For one thing, there’s really no such thing as someone who doesn’t believe in “private property,” in the sense of a set of social conventions regulating who has priority of access rights to a given resource. Even in an anarcho-communist or anarcho-syndicalist society, any random person who just walks into a factory off the street and starts fiddling with a stamping press is apt to get some trouble from the work collective with primary access rights. So even if the p-word is a big no-no for them, in fact they do believe in property; it’s just a different set of property rules.
IMO anyone who starts from the basic axiom of self-ownership and believes in the non-aggression principle is a libertarian, regardless of what property rights template they use to define aggression.
Re the labor theory of value, I’ll just say that I’ve yet to see anyone making the blanket assertion that Bohm-Bawerk, Mises, or whoever, proved it (or the classical political economists’ cost theories) wrong, who demonstrates any actual idea either of what the “disproved” doctrines actually stated, or what were the actual issues in contention between them and Austrianism.
Regarding Rothbard’s 50% criterion and others less stringent, I think it’s a mistake to focus on percentages of revenue. How does one quantify the benefit from a state protection against competition, as opposed to a direct subsidy? The entire business model of warehouses on wheels and just-in-time supply chains is piggybacked on a massively subsidized system of long-distance distribution, and the cartelizing effects of “intellectual property” on most sectors of the economy is probably too enormous to grasp. In my opinion it’s a safe guess that none of the Fortune 500 would exist outside the total web of state subsidies and protections under state capitalism.
As Araglin said, complicity must be addressed. And I don’t know anything about Macy’s in particular. But I live about a half-hour drive from Bentonville, and Wal-Mart is a central player in NW Arkansas’ “growth machine.” It’s probably the biggest single player (or maybe tied with the Jim Lindsey real estate machine) in the Northwest Arkansas Council, which lobbies heavily for infrastructure subsidies and a “proactive” government-business coalition to bring industry to the area. The Waltons are probably the single biggest factor behind creating the regional airport here, lobbying behind the scenes and getting seven local governments to pass an “emergency” measure creating a Regional Airport Authority, with no prior public debate. And my impression is that the local management of large corporate chains like Wal-Mart is an integral part of the growth machine in most localities, besides using their political clout to shield themselves from matters of simple justice, like sewer and utility hookup fees that reflect the actual costs they impose on the system.
At the federal level, the exchange of personnel between senior corporate management and boards of directors, on the one hand, and all the Assistant and Under-Secretaries, and deputy and assistant directors of regulatory agencies on the other, is such that it is meaningless even to distinguish the “private” Fortune 500 corporation from the state as such. The nominally “private” sector large corporation is part of an interlocking directorate with the regulatory state. It would make about as much sense to try to distinguish “private” landlords from the state in, say, France ca. 1300.
I agree with Stephan regarding the problem of expropriating relatively innocent people. But Rothbard’s 50% threshold, or any threshold short of 100%, even when a corporation’s profits result overwhelmingly from state action, would carry the danger expropriating whatever indefinite minority of total equity resulted from legitimate business activity–as well as many innocent small shareholders who had some of the stock in their IRA or 401k. But in this case, as with the thorny issues involved in undoing primitive accumulation in land (e.g., “el patron” or “the squire” may have a few dribs and drabs of his own labor mixed into the latifundio he collects rent on, although the vast majority of it was developed by peasant laborers who initially paid tribute for access to vacant and unimproved land), not doing anything ratifies the expropriation entailed in a *majority* of equity. That Rush lyric is a good one: if you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice. IMO the only sane course, albeit imperfect, is to adopt a rule that minimizes expropriation of innocent parties and offers a venue for redress.
In any case, even when a corporation can be demonstrated to derive most of its profit from state action, and to be a legitimate target for worker homesteading, random smashing of windows strikes me as incredibly idiotic. If Macy’s falls into the category of legitimate targets, the proper response for those of us on the outside is to support the store’s workers against its management. As Malatesta noted long ago, it is stupid for workers to destroy the means of production.
P.S. Washing our hands of everyone who isn’t a principled libertarian is a good recipe, IMO, for winding up in the principled libertarian ghetto of a Homeland Security internment camp one of these days. We desperately need ad hoc coalitions to scale back the state, in its particular areas of activity, made up of all the people who oppose that facet of state activity. I don’t put much stock in governing coalitions, but I believe very stongly in coalitions to pressure the state from outside into scaling back. And excluding a Georgist from, say, a coalition to repeal the DMCA and WIPO Copyright Treaty, based on a litmus test of libertarian purity, strikes me as *extremely* ill-advised. Why not just go whole hog and take the Randroid approach of excluding even libertarians who don’t believe in liberty for the “right reason”?
@Kevin: “For one thing, there’s really no such thing as someone who doesn’t believe in “private property,” in the sense of a set of social conventions regulating who has priority of access rights to a given resource. Even in an anarcho-communist or anarcho-syndicalist society, any random person who just walks into a factory off the street and starts fiddling with a stamping press is apt to get some trouble from the work collective with primary access rights. So even if the p-word is a big no-no for them, in fact they do believe in property; it’s just a different set of property rules.”
Excellent point. Some people are anti-conceptual and/or afraid to attach appropriate labels (word) to useful concepts.
“IMO anyone who starts from the basic axiom of self-ownership and believes in the non-aggression principle is a libertarian, regardless of what property rights template they use to define aggression.”
Well, I don’t have a strong disagreement with this, except it’s not an axiom; and non-aggression principle is just a shorthand for a particular view of property title assignment rules. That is, what is aggression depends on what property rights we have; and this depends on the particular proproperty rights assignment and allocation rule that one favors. Everyone, as you note, has some at least implicit property rights view. What is distinct about the libertarian rule is that it favors the rule that the first users of a scarce resource has a better claim than outsiders, non-users, or latecomers. This has a host of implications, for land etc., implications that rule out Georgism and other kooky anti-land views as being unmistakably unlibertarian.
“Re the labor theory of value, I’ll just say that I’ve yet to see anyone making the blanket assertion that Bohm-Bawerk, Mises, or whoever, proved it (or the classical political economists’ cost theories) wrong, who demonstrates any actual idea either of what the “disproved” doctrines actually stated, or what were the actual issues in contention between them and Austrianism.”
You lost me there; I believe Austrian economics is sound and the only scientific economics, and is incompatible with kooky Marxian notions of labor.
“Regarding Rothbard’s 50% criterion and others less stringent, I think it’s a mistake to focus on percentages of revenue. How does one quantify the benefit from a state protection against competition, as opposed to a direct subsidy? The entire business model of warehouses on wheels and just-in-time supply chains is piggybacked on a massively subsidized system of long-distance distribution, and the cartelizing effects of “intellectual property” on most sectors of the economy is probably too enormous to grasp. In my opinion it’s a safe guess that none of the Fortune 500 would exist outside the total web of state subsidies and protections under state capitalism.”
This is a reasonable point of view, but I think ultimately unprovable–and irrelevant. All we can do is oppose the subsidies and state intervention. My own view is the Fortune 500 would indeed exist in similar form as to now, but with some differences, sure. I really fail to see the relevance to all this counterfactual imagining. I mean our own lives would be vastly different, and vastly better, in a freer society; our very characters would probably be better, and superior. So what? What does one do with this, except recognize this as yet another ill effect of state intervention? These things are the symptoms of a disease. We have to oppose the disease.
“As Araglin said, complicity must be addressed.”
Well, that’s a huge imperative. I don’t know about that. Does anyone have an “obligation” to “address” complicity? This is all fuzzy-wuzzy, useless.
“And I don’t know anything about Macy’s in particular. But I live about a half-hour drive from Bentonville, and Wal-Mart is a central player in NW Arkansas’ “growth machine.” It’s probably the biggest single player (or maybe tied with the Jim Lindsey real estate machine) in the Northwest Arkansas Council, which lobbies heavily for infrastructure subsidies and a “proactive” government-business coalition to bring industry to the area. The Waltons are probably the single biggest factor behind creating the regional airport here, lobbying behind the scenes and getting seven local governments to pass an “emergency” measure creating a Regional Airport Authority, with no prior public debate. And my impression is that the local management of large corporate chains like Wal-Mart is an integral part of the growth machine in most localities, besides using their political clout to shield themselves from matters of simple justice, like sewer and utility hookup fees that reflect the actual costs they impose on the system.”
The greater the state’s role in the economy, the more we can expect it to be normal business practice to lobby and get involved with the state. This is no more surprising than seeing more people on welfare when there is a state run welfare system than when there isn’t. It is not a proper resopnse to break the windows of welfare recipients. The only proper response is to oppose the legitimacy of the welfare system and the state itself.
“At the federal level, the exchange of personnel between senior corporate management and boards of directors, on the one hand, and all the Assistant and Under-Secretaries, and deputy and assistant directors of regulatory agencies on the other, is such that it is meaningless even to distinguish the “private” Fortune 500 corporation from the state as such.”
This seems to be wildly overblown and un-nuanced. Of course there is a distinction, even if there is an unfortunate connection.
Mises had it right when he said that you could tell if a country is basically capitalist (in the good sense) or not: whether it had a functioning stock market. We do, and I am quite sure Mises would never agree with such a ridiculous claim that there is “no distinction” between the state and the Fortune 500 companies. Of course they are essentially private. The market is hampered, but it is not the state. If it were the state, it could not produce as much as it does (see Mises’s socialist calculation argument).
“The nominally “private” sector large corporation is part of an interlocking directorate with the regulatory state.”
Saying it’s “part of” is arguing by squishy semantics. Anyway, it’s where we would differ. I appreciate your criticisms of vulgar capitalism or libertarianism, but it is not vulgar to recognize that companies are hampered (and yes they support the state too, as do most people) and distinct from the state.
“It would make about as much sense to try to distinguish “private” landlords from the state in, say, France ca. 1300.”
I hear you, but I strongly disagree with this.
“I agree with Stephan regarding the problem of expropriating relatively innocent people.”
I am glad you use the word expropriating–which I take to be theft, which I take to implicitliy recognize the relatively legitimacy of Macy’s property rights in its stores.
“But Rothbard’s 50% threshold, or any threshold short of 100%, even when a corporation’s profits result overwhelmingly from state action, would carry the danger expropriating whatever indefinite minority of total equity resulted from legitimate business activity–as well as many innocent small shareholders who had some of the stock in their IRA or 401k. But in this case, as with the thorny issues involved in undoing primitive accumulation in land (e.g., “el patron” or “the squire” may have a few dribs and drabs of his own labor mixed into the latifundio he collects rent on, although the vast majority of it was developed by peasant laborers who initially paid tribute for access to vacant and unimproved land), not doing anything ratifies the expropriation entailed in a *majority* of equity. That Rush lyric is a good one: if you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice. IMO the only sane course, albeit imperfect, is to adopt a rule that minimizes expropriation of innocent parties and offers a venue for redress.”
Futile, ineffectual acts of destruction–aimed at property of wealth-producing companies, businesses, and employers–is immoral and insane.
Kevin, if the local manager of the Macy’s–or maybe even the “branch owner”, had there been one–had defended his store against the vandals with a shotgun, and injured, even killed, one of them, could anyone really say he was unjustified? No. Not any libertarian, anyway. And this brings up Rothbard’s example he used to show that you cannot kill hostages, by envisioning how the hostage/shield’s own agent could legitimately attack whoever was going to shoot (in “defense”) the innocent shield. Likewise, it cannot be both ways: either the store owner may use force to shoot the attackers, or he is a murderer if he does so. It is one way or the other, and only the latter conclusion can be reached if you are to say the vandals are justified–if you are to say their claim that the property is unowned, or owned by them (?), is correct. Since it is clear to any libertarian that the owner is indeed entitled to use force to defend the store, this rules out all the claims of the vandanarchists.
“In any case, even when a corporation can be demonstrated to derive most of its profit from state action, and to be a legitimate target for worker homesteading, random smashing of windows strikes me as incredibly idiotic.”
This is fine; but us libertarians are getting a bit concerned at hearing you guys merely condemn the “prudence” of this violence, while refusing to condemn it as immoral, wrong, criminal, trespass and a rights violation. I understand your reluctance to do so–because it undercuts this sort of property-agnosticism you guys seem to have, where we can’t know any property rights for sure due to the muddy past, so we have to assume it’s all “fair game” or chaos-anarchy or something. But this only highlights the difference between standard libertarianism and the “market anarchist” views that seem perilously close to advocating whole-sale marauding and vandalism and destruction.
“If Macy’s falls into the category of legitimate targets, the proper response for those of us on the outside is to support the store’s workers against its management.”
Yes, yes, IF, If, but it’s not a “legitimate target,” nor is Wal-Mart, IMHO.
“As Malatesta noted long ago, it is stupid for workers to destroy the means of production.”
Quite right.
Kevin,
Thanks for your contribution. As for your point about cost-theories: I think (your sometimes nemesis) George Reisman has actually shown that Bohm-Bawerk (and Weiser) in fact held to a version of the cost-theory of value, and Bohm-Bawerk showed how it was consistent with (and even entailed by) the marginal utility theory. I think Bohm-Bawerk was probably right about “labor theories” (with their emphasis on quanitities of socially necessary labor), rather than “the Law of Costs” (which serves in an immediate way to dictate the prices of reproducible goods in terms of the value of the factors needed to reproduce those goods). I think the real problem with Bohm-Bawerk was that he was dealing with more German (read Marxist) command-economy type socialisms, rather than earlier French anti-statist socialisms, and that, further, Bohm-Bawerk didn’t get much of the history right with respect to primitive accumulation, enclosures, and the like. however, these problems don’t invalidate his price theory and production theory themselves. And, in fact, as I mentioned on this blog one other time, when Bohm-Bawerk describes in book 2 of Capital and Interest what he calls “capitalistic means of production,” he drops a footnote which makes clear that he believes his theory applies to worker-controlled cooperatives and the like as well as more traditional “capitalist firms” where workers are paid wages. If you’re interested, I’d be happy to dig out the quote for you.
Cheers,
Araglin
Bob K.,
Oh, I’m concerned about police and police brutality too. Believe me. Much more so than the window smashing actually. It’s just that I like to know who I’m defending. If it’s someone who’s done something criminal, that’ll temper my defense. I’ll still condemn cops for being statist thugs, but I won’t defend the criminal activity of their victim either. I think Roderick and Kevin Carson have shown that it was not merely imprudent to smash the Macy’s window, but actually unjust too. It’s destruction of rightful property, if not Macy’s property then at least the workers’ property.
@Kevin: “P.S. Washing our hands of everyone who isn’t a principled libertarian is a good recipe, IMO, for winding up in the principled libertarian ghetto of a Homeland Security internment camp one of these days.”
Libertarians are a minority no matter how wide you draw the net.
And I see nothing wrong with being clear about what we stand for. I do not even disagree that we may have strategic reasons to ally with even anti-market anarchists. Maybe you market anarchists are a sort of bridge. I don’t know. But we can surely disagree on questions of tactic and strategy without being considered Randroids. In fact it is the conspiratorial, desperate marginal types in the ranks of the window-smashers that seem to view us real libertarians as vulgarian “capitalist tools.”
“We desperately need ad hoc coalitions to scale back the state, in its particular areas of activity, made up of all the people who oppose that facet of state activity.”
I would agree, if I thought we had a chance. As it is, i think it’s futile, so not sure “need” applies. But sure, it’s worth trying.
“I don’t put much stock in governing coalitions, but I believe very stongly in coalitions to pressure the state from outside into scaling back. And excluding a Georgist from, say, a coalition to repeal the DMCA and WIPO Copyright Treaty, based on a litmus test of libertarian purity, strikes me as *extremely* ill-advised.”
You may be right; perhaps he should not be “excluded”. Probaly he should not be. But why do I have to pretend to respect a bunch of nonsense? Why am I not free to call a spade a spade? If a UFO nut wanted to help me defeat the state, sure, I’d welcome him, but it doesn’t mean I have to pretend like UFO nuts are not UFO nuts.
“Why not just go whole hog and take the Randroid approach of excluding even libertarians who don’t believe in liberty for the “right reason”? “”
I agree–we should not do this, if we even could. That does not mean there is anything wrong with having a strong opinion about what is the soundest basis for and contours of libertarianism.
//The Marxian labor theory of the value is all just a bunch of claptrap.//
Well, yes. But so what? The LTV has absolutely no relevance to the issue at hand. If your property rights theory is based on self ownership and property being an extension of human will then when one’s extended will gets muddled by collectivism and artificial market conditions that convey privileges along the way, one’s claim is lessened.
“If your property rights theory is based on self ownership and property being an extension of human will then when one’s extended will gets muddled by collectivism and artificial market conditions that convey privileges along the way, one’s claim is lessened.”
With respect to whom? The question, even in a mixed economy, is who has the best claim to a resource. Unless its current nominal owners are criminal, then they have the best claim to it. If a previous ousted owner can show better title, fine by me. But this is unlikely. If the workers can somehow show better title–fine; but I see no way to do this. Certainly the disaffected, marginal rock-throwing vandanarchists don’t have a better claim to it.
To deny that Wal-Mart and Macy’s are private is moronic.
Geoffrey, as I said, I don’t condone the smashing of any windows, either. A few individuals went off half-cocked on their own and broke a couple of windows, and if it can be determined specifically who broke those windows, then they should have to make restitution to the owners. But I see no reason to presume that the whole lot of those demonstrators are all guilty of property destruction, or that that’s why they converged on St. Paul in the first place, which seems to be the implication underlying some of the criticism here.
It’s all fine and good to focus on a couple of smashed windows and express some outrage about it , and like I said, I don’t condone that activity. I just find it a little odd to focus on those incidents given the broader context of what happened last week.
“Certainly the disaffected, marginal rock-throwing vandanarchists don’t have a better claim to it.”
Stephan: Can you tell me specifically who you’re referring to as “rock-throwing vandanarchists”?
@Bob Kaercher: “Geoffrey, as I said, I don’t condone the smashing of any windows, either.”
It’s important to be clear here and not only “not condone” it, but to condemn it as criminal and wrong and trespass. For some reason, no one here except me will do this. And maybe Plauche.
“A few individuals went off half-cocked on their own and broke a couple of windows, and if it can be determined specifically who broke those windows, then they should have to make restitution to the owners.”
Okay, good. But others here are also cheering them on–condoning it.
“But I see no reason to presume that the whole lot of those demonstrators are all guilty of property destruction,”
A lot of people seem to be condoning it.
“or that that’s why they converged on St. Paul in the first place,”
Well, one would think there are enough juicy targets there, what with the Republican convention being there. But no, they break windows of private companies. Some priorities, eh?
“I just find it a little odd to focus on those incidents given the broader context of what happened last week.”
You’ll note that condemning it–esp. on property grounds–will get you roundly condemned as a “vulgar libertarian”.
““Certainly the disaffected, marginal rock-throwing vandanarchists don’t have a better claim to it.”
“Stephan: Can you tell me specifically who you’re referring to as “rock-throwing vandanarchists”?”
Whoever threw the rocks; and whoever defends them–such as the woman on the tape, as noted in my LRC post that Roderick linked to here.
Mr. Kinsella,
Bob Kaercher said: “Geoffrey, as I said, I don’t condone the smashing of any windows, either.”
To which you replied: “It’s important to be clear here and not only “not condone” it, but to condemn it as criminal and wrong and trespass. For some reason, no one here except me will do this. And maybe Plauche.”
I would point you to my above comment, which states in part as follows:
2. Supposing to the contrary that the current holder is an “aggressor,” but came to acquire a particular piece of property legitimately (by growing vegetables on previously-vacant-and-uninhabited land, and wishes to sell said vegetables on the market.
In that case, I would want to oppose the view that simply by virtue of being an “aggressor,” that just anyone could go up and steal those vegetables. In stead, at this point it’s useful to consider the current holder as holding the vegetables as constructive trustee for the benefit of his prior victims. As such, he has an obligation to preserve their value, and may not give them away to a related party. He MAY sell them at their market rate (with the proceeds of the sale, thereafter being held in trust for the benefit of his victims). Note: that destruction of the vegetables by protestors incensed by the “aggressor” status of the current holder would presumably be a violation of the rights of the current holder’s prior victims (who are the beneficiaries of this constructive trust) [you may substitute “window” for “vegetables” if you wish.]
“It’s important to be clear here and not only ‘not condone’ it, but to condemn it as criminal and wrong and trespass…”
You don’t approve of criminal trespass? Well, I applaud you for your moral courage in speaking out against the breaking of windows! Well done, sir! It’s certainly worth condeming, but I guess my mind’s been on the 19-year-old kid who was essentially tortured in the Ramsey Co. jail. And you don’t have to tell me that you condemn such statist brutality, I already know that you do. But I’d like to point out that there’s no evidence that he destroyed anybody’s property. And while I don’t know the detailed ins and outs of his political philosophy, he’s still worth a libertarian defense from statist aggression by virtue of his being a human being, and I would still maintain as much even if I was acquainted with his politics and found them somewhat objectionable.
“For some reason, no one here except me will do this. And maybe Plauche.”
Oh, come on. Even Mr. Plauche recognized that Roderick and Kevin condemned it, too.
“But others here are also cheering them on–condoning it.”
Hmmm…”cheering” and “condoning” property destruction? Granted, this has turned into a long thread and I may have missed something, but it seems to me that there are some here trying to place it in a certain context, and while they may possibly be doing so in error on some level, I don’t know how many people here are actually “cheering” and “condoning” property destruction.
“[O]ne would think there are enough juicy targets there, what with the Republican convention being there. But no, they break windows of private companies. Some priorities, eh?”
Well, Stephan, the protesters most likely shut down the convention its first day, the GOP’s claims of bleeding hearts for Really Fierce Rain Storm Gustav notwithstanding. Based on what I’ve heard, a lot of demonstrators blocked streets and prevented the delegates from getting to the Xcel Center that first day, and lo and behold, the Republicans cancelled the day’s events, supposedly in respect for Gustav’s victims. While I’m sure that was all mere coincidence, on the off chance that it wasn’t, then I’d say the demonstrators scored at least one little victory against that gang of war criminals by holding up their little love fest for at least one day. Hell, even your Paulian friends should be able to appreciate that in hindsight, considering the abusive treatment Paul’s delegates and supporters received at the hands of GOP bureaucrats.
“You’ll note that condemning it–esp. on property grounds–will get you roundly condemned as a ‘vulgar libertarian’.”
Oh, boo-hoo.
BTW, did I mention the tear gassing and concussion grenade assaults of demonstrators and the torture some of them suffered in the Ramsey Co. jail?
“Whoever threw the rocks; and whoever defends them–such as the woman on the tape, as noted in my LRC post that Roderick linked to here.”
If you’re referring to Betsy Schaal-Gilman, again I think it’s more accurate to say that she was trying to place the rock throwing in a context, however clumsy and in error it possibly may have been. And in case you’re thinking of going all ape-shit on her criticism of capitalism, I suggest that you should probably first have a discussion with her to see how she’s defining as “capitalism.”
But that would involve having a dialogue with someone you suspect doesn’t share your ideology, and how would that serve a libertarian who thinks that coalitions to scale back the state are “futile”?