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.
Well, this is a lot of comments.
Question to Stephan: who in this thread do you regard as having endorsed the window-breaking?
Roderick: “Question to Stephan: who in this thread do you regard as having endorsed the window-breaking? ”
Well, let’s see. Let’s not count people who simply said it was imprudent or whatever. I’ll not count that as endorsing it, even though I am suspicious that they did not come right out and oppose in rights grounds.
So, a for who endorsed it–did I say anyone here endorsed it? I critized the woman on the video for appearing to condone it; and of course those who actually did it. Who they are, I don’t know. But I was criticized for critizing the window breaking advocates. That seems like they think there is nothing to criticize in advocating such vandalism. If one is not in favor of this kind of vandalism, why object to my denunciation of it?
Keep in mind there were two threads–well, three. This one, the other one here http://praxeology.net/blog/2008/09/06/from-the-front/#comments; and Spangler’s http://www.bradspangler.com/blog/archives/1043
Over there, Spangler writes: “Asserting that you’re against aggression is a neat way to dodge the argument that questions about the legitimacy of certain property claims directly impact whether or not the matter under discussion qualifies as aggression or not.”
I take it he’s trying to leave open the possibilit Macy’s property is not “legitimate” and that this could determine whether the breaking was justified.
“Jeremy” wrote: “So a national convention is held in a major city, and the anarchists are to all be condemned because one window got broke?” Looks like he’s condoning it–maybe.
Niccolo de fumieo ” I am saying that. I don’t at all sympathize with Macy’s. It’s a capitalist company that receives subsidies in the form of tax breaks over competitors, trade barriers, etc.
They have been known for using coercive tactics to break up unions, but they aren’t the only ones doing that, God knows. I agree, I simply don’t sympathize with Macy’s and that their window is broken doesn’t really sadden me. I could even call it fair, on some levels.”
Sounds to me likehe’s trying to say it’s okay to do it to them–he doesn’t “symapathize” w/ them
Here, Brad said “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. ”
Darian: “I’m personally not hostile toward Macy’s but I can’t say I’m offended their window was broken.”
I love how our opinions must be forced into this absolutist dichotomy of yours.
Either I’m for it, or I’m against it!
God forbid we assert that there are degrees of vandalism just as there are degrees of legitimacy to property titles. And let heaven and hell be torn asunder lest we consider both intent and consequences in our own ethical analyses of the situation.
And if, like a graffiti artist writing on some bus stop, I could really give a damn, then I must be a Communist!
^ “like” =”as in the case of.” I did not mean to imply myself as the graffiti artist.
it does feel like mr kinsella sees, well everything, as black and white. which is fine.
but as bob said why all the focus on a few broken windows? i will unequivocally say it was wrong to break them (but then i am a pacifist and a vegan which maybe william and stephen can agree to dissapprove of!), but in viewing the events as they unfolded the VAST majority of violence was not against macys, but people (who, according to rothbard, are their own property). 800 or so were arrested w/o cause. in my view even donna braizille (sp?) – who as a member of the political class ought to be shamed and ridiculed at every opportunity (besides unlike, say james carville, shes not even entertaining as a talking head) – was aggressed against when she got peppersprayed.
This IS indeed an amusing comment thread. Nonetheless there are some things we might tease out of it for clarification.
As Bob and some others pointed out, the damage of ostensibly “private” property in the midst of this scenario was a minor incident, not directly related to the main goings on during the anti-RNC protest, which were the defense of life and limb against police aggression. The police were not acting in defense of Macy’s, most of them probably didn’t even know that had happened until long after the fact. It wasn’t like there was an orgy of property destruction going on.
The police were acting in defense of the State. As far as I can tell, it is a perfectly legitimate action to impede the State from operating. And it is perfectly illegitimate for the police to prevent free association and movement in defense of the State’s operations. So in any physical confrontation, the police are aggressors here.
Now taking the property destruction in isolation for a moment, and assuming for the moment that it was destruction of private property (owned by someone yet to be determined, perhaps?); in the larger scale of things, I can imagine some young anarchists, having been brutalized and intimidated by the Police, who nominally pretend to be protecting free enterprise and private property, striking back at what they (mistakenly) perceive as part and parcel of a system that objectively and concretely has demonstrated itself to be their Enemy. Is it wrong to do that? Yes, though the degree of harm done is minor in context.
Does it justify lumping everyone who was at the protests and engaging the police forcefully together as a bunch of commie hooligans? No.
Now as for the legitimacy of Macy’s (or any large corporation) as private property, it’s a big tangle, given that for all we know there would be no Macy’s in a free market. Certainly “intellectual property” plays a large part in their “profits”, as well as fractional-reserve based financing and various other forms of fraud. (as is true of almost any major corporation)
But Mr. K made a good point that the existing capital, if it were liquidated or legitimately homesteaded, would belong to someone. Even the most hard-headed socialist should acknowledge that (if even that the “someone” would be a collective or some such thing).
So destroying property could be considered an aggression against whomever that “someone” is. Until the “someone” is identified, we can’t assume that the damager is the legitimate possessor.
(to the extent that the capital was “purchased” with a bank loan, it could possibly be considered to be the joint property of everyone holding currency, however – so there may be some degree of damage that I am legitimately entitled to wreak upon Macy’s… given my current bank balance, not a whole lot though hehe, maybe I’m entitled to stick a pin in one of the walls… )
Very well said.
But this doesn’t address the fact that Kinsella is condemning thousands of people who actually took to the streets and stood up to the state, on the grounds that they don’t care enough that someone broke a window and they used the word “comrade” in a positive manner.
@christhamrin: “but as bob said why all the focus on a few broken windows? i will unequivocally say it was wrong to break them (but then i am a pacifist and a vegan which maybe william and stephen can agree to dissapprove of!), but in viewing the events as they unfolded the VAST majority of violence was not against macys, but people (who, according to rothbard, are their own property). 800 or so were arrested w/o cause. in my view even donna braizille (sp?)”
Of course, as an anarchist, I oppose the state and all it does; and I believe I said in my post very clearly that: “Of course, the so-called RNC 8 should be freed. Of course, the state is the real enemy.”
But I believe it is clear that the state and state actors are not libertarians or anarchists. The “anarchists” who defend the vandalism; let’s call them “vandanarchists”–are not libertarian, at least not to that extent, IMO. So, my goal was to make it clear that they are not on our side.
I never criticized their disobeying the cops. Only their disregard for private property (by defining it as “not really private property”) and condoning of same.
@Anna Morgenstern: “As Bob and some others pointed out, the damage of ostensibly “private” property in the midst of this scenario was a minor incident,”
Note the implicit justification of criminal trespass by simply using scare quotes to relegate Macy’s to the status of leper-outcast-unclean! (Thomas Covenant reference.)
” not directly related to the main goings on during the anti-RNC protest, which were the defense of life and limb against police aggression.”
It may have been “minor” but a genuine libertarian simply classifies some minor aggression as “minor” if need be, while not scoffing at the idea that it is aggression.
“The police were not acting in defense of Macy’s, most of them probably didn’t even know that had happened until long after the fact. It wasn’t like there was an orgy of property destruction going on.”
This could be. But a single critique of this “minor incident” has flushed out several who have contempt for real, existing private property rights. I have no compunction in stating that they are not my kind of libertarian. If I am not “their kind” of anarchist–thanks for the compliment, and vive la difference!
“The police were acting in defense of the State. As far as I can tell, it is a perfectly legitimate action to impede the State from operating. And it is perfectly illegitimate for the police to prevent free association and movement in defense of the State’s operations. So in any physical confrontation, the police are aggressors here.”
I agree, and never denied this.
“Now taking the property destruction in isolation for a moment, and assuming for the moment that it was destruction of private property (owned by someone yet to be determined, perhaps?);”
Certainly not owned by the unemployed window-smashers.
“…in the larger scale of things, I can imagine some young anarchists, having been brutalized and intimidated by the Police, who nominally pretend to be protecting free enterprise and private property, striking back at what they (mistakenly) perceive as part and parcel of a system that objectively and concretely has demonstrated itself to be their Enemy. Is it wrong to do that? Yes, though the degree of harm done is minor in context.
Does it justify lumping everyone who was at the protests and engaging the police forcefully together as a bunch of commie hooligans? No”
I agree; and I did not (intend to) do that. I was clarifying a difference I believe exists between standard libertarianism and the lack of respect for property rights of some soi-disant anarchists.
“Now as for the legitimacy of Macy’s (or any large corporation) as private property, it’s a big tangle, given that for all we know there would be no Macy’s in a free market.”
“We” don’t know this at all.
“Certainly “intellectual property” plays a large part in their “profits”, as well as fractional-reserve based financing and various other forms of fraud. (as is true of almost any major corporation)”
Macy’s relies on IP? How so?
“But Mr. K made a good point that the existing capital, if it were liquidated or legitimately homesteaded, would belong to someone. Even the most hard-headed socialist should acknowledge that (if even that the “someone” would be a collective or some such thing).”
Well, yes, even Hitler would acknowledge this, so it is not really saying that much. The devil is in the details.
“So destroying property could be considered an aggression against whomever that “someone” is. Until the “someone” is identified, we can’t assume that the damager is the legitimate possessor.
(to the extent that the capital was “purchased” with a bank loan, it could possibly be considered to be the joint property of everyone holding currency, ”
No, it couldn’t possibly be considered this way. This is ridiculous.
“however – so there may be some degree of damage that I am legitimately entitled to wreak upon Macy’s… given my current bank balance, not a whole lot though hehe, maybe I’m entitled to stick a pin in one of the walls… )”
Whatever this bizarre anti-enterprise theory is, it ain’t libertarianism, let’s be clear on that. You guys have a radically different view of right and wrong than we libertarians do. We pin ours on the notion of aggression against private property claims–defined in basically Lockean terms. You clearly do not. What’s wrong with us each making our own positions clear? We libertarians are not at all embarrassed or reluctant to clearly and coherently state our own views, reasons therefor, and distinctions as between our views and those of others, even “allies” of a sort.
@Darian W: “But this doesn’t address the fact that Kinsella is condemning thousands of people who actually took to the streets and stood up to the state, on the grounds that they don’t care enough that someone broke a window and they used the word “comrade” in a positive manner.”
I am condemning no one. At most I am saying those who believe it’s justified to trespass on the private property of a business like Macy’s are not libertarian. Since they are not libertarian, I am not sure why they would view this as a condemnation. I wouldn’t take it as an insult if they say I’m not a good anti-market anarchist–I’d take it as a high compliment. If they really want to be libertarian, it’s easy–just adopt a principled stance against aggression, and for peace, prosperity, cooperation, and private property. I’m not stopping them.
So, Stephan, what are your criteria for determining how much state involvement a private business has to have before it becomes an extension of the state and so not a legitimate proprietor? And is it an absolute cut-off or a matter of degree?
@Roderick: “So, Stephan, what are your criteria for determining how much state involvement a private business has to have before it becomes an extension of the state and so not a legitimate proprietor? And is it an absolute cut-off or a matter of degree? ”
Roderick: I have not had occasion to figure this out. I do not see the need. The need would arise if we had some kind of post-revolutionary war crimes tribunal, I suppose (http://www.bradspangler.com/blog/archives/889); I don’t know of much done in this regard other than Block’s Toward a Libertarian Theory of Guilt and Punishment for the Crime of Statism (http://www.walterblock.com/publications/block_theory-guilt-punishment-crime-statism.pdf). But I really think if we ever achieved any kind of victory we’d be looking for conciliation, compromise, negotiation, and a peaceful way forward (for most people, no offense Bill Clinton). I believe some of the “agorist” or more naive-utopian minded might think we need to decide this now, but I don’t. The only way we will ever progress is if more people become more aware of the virtues of libertarianism–peace, prosperity, cooperation, civilization, and the libertarian private property ethic that underpins it. “Countereconomics” by disaffected losers who resent the universe won’t do it, IMHO.
I think it’s sufficient to establish that there is a state, and that it is distinct from society. I know that you believe it is. If you combine this basic insight with the basic libertarian precepts–cooperation, conflict-free interaction, private property rights–then IMO you arrive at the view that not only is the libertarian rule of first-user=first-owner right and applicable to some “ideal” state of affairs–but it applies to any real-world messy-life situation too. Only in a world where everyone is equally culpable and evil, where no state is identifiable, where there is an eternal, chaotic, “anarchic” war of man against man, of all against all, would the rule not apply (for who could apply it?). In our world, any rule that castigates basically all of society for being enmeshed in the web of the state is self-defeating, futile, wrong, victim-blaming, and really, to be honest, nihilistic and evil.
For some reason these disaffected “anti-corporate” types, who appear to largely be stuck in dismoded Marxian economics and social analysis, have no comprehension of the way real enterprise works. It’s as if a bunch of Che-teeshirt wearing grad students whose Republican daddies paid for their scholarships to Princeton and never worked a day in their lives were railing against “Wal-Mart.” They have some inexplicable, useless, and self-destructive (in the Darwinian sense; would that we had not short-circuited Darwinism with our modern capitalist largesse) animus against commerce and market life. Hey, to each his own–but it’s not libertarian (IMHO), and it certainly doesn’t justify breaking the windows of merchants. They may feel “alienated” (though how pampered grad students and trust-fund babies can be alienated from labor you don’t actually perform with your own hands is a mystery), but to assume, Marx-like, that this is a natural condition of actors on the market is antiquated, to say the least.
So I would of course as a libertarian favor a rule whereby non-state actors having some color of title to property have a presumptive right to use it as owners until someone else can establish a better claim thereto. Pocahantas’s great—–grandniece can establish a better claim to the property than you? Fine. Hand it over. Such cases would be rare; and covered by title insurance. In the meantime: the world is for the living. Rand was not wrong about everything.
We as libertarians must–we must–support productive achievement, commerce, the market, freedom, free enterprise, the division of labor, economies of scale, individualism, and, above all, as Nozick said, capitalist acts between consenting adults–which these ignorant savages rail against.
Enough. Yes, we can appreciate the caution against vulgar libertarianism. But it is too much. Give me George Reisman’s “vulgar” libertarianism any day over the rock-throwing–and condoning–NON-libertarian misfits.
Wow, Kinsella has just set up a gigantic straw man (and a personal insult to people such as myself).
Wow, Kinsella has just set up a gigantic straw man (and a personal insult to people such as myself).
Kinsella:
I´ve being reading all this discusion including your last answer to the question of profesor Long and I wonder: There is no actuall degree in which some people or group of people actually BENEFIT (not only in monetary terms, but in power terms) from the state than the rest?
Your claim that the left opposes coorporations cause they are attached to “marxists” economics, is an strawman. Sure many in the left do, but a great deal of others (namely marchet anarchists, agorists, mutualists etc…) do not. I think you have evaded continiously the point and the point is that corporations exist and get most or many of their profit THANKS TO STATE PRIVILEDGE GIVEN TO THEM. That goes from subtle and not obvious stuff like when Kevin Carson points how the whole system of transport that makes possible the coorporations to operate, exists thanks to the state. Or how labor laws give workers little chance to stand up against their coorporate bosses. In other cases it is more obvious form of priviledge. Think of the military complex…how many million dollars will companies like Loocked Martin, who exist only to sell weapons to the state, cease to recieve if the state didn´t exist at all and did not engage in “armamentists careers” or wars of agresion? And the list goes on…”intelectuall property” laws, subsides, tax cuts, coorporate welfare, etc…
You may want to discuss this, by 1) Denying such priviledges exist 2) That without such priviledges the coorporation will still exist. But saying that we have to see the end of the state to actually go and judge who profits by it or that leftists hate coporations cause they believe X or Y theory of labor is just an evasive. You are simply pretending the problem does not exist, or it is not serious enought or that we cannot measure its real impact even if it exists, and you are ignoring the real reasons that most left libertarians hold against the coorporation. There is no way to have a discusion about the good or the evil of coorporations if you actually refuse to discuss the point others are actually making, and not the ones you imagine they are.
>That goes from subtle and not obvious stuff like when Kevin Carson points how the whole system of transport that makes possible the coorporations to operate, exists thanks to the state.
Though state is responsible for the current transportation system, and has skewed the transportation market to follow the demands of politics and not the people, I don’t think that it is fair to say it exists because of the state. Means of transportation are high-demand items. Though it is true that state intervention has shaped this demand (for example zoning laws making cars necessary to get anywhere in the ‘burbs) I think it is very difficult to say who has benefited most from it. But I should really read more of the Carson pieces you’re referencing before I jump in on it. 🙂
If an item was purchased with a loan “created out of thin air”, we’ve all been robbed by a certain amount, in order to purchase that item. Thus the item in question could be considered to be joint property of those robbed.
E.g. – if someone breaks into my house, takes $1000 out of my safe and buys a lamp, I would have a right to destroy the lamp.
I do recognize that for all practical purposes, someone has to be considered the owner of all this stuff right now, while the state exists. On the other hand, they can’t be considered fully legitimate, in the same way that someone who homesteaded or purchased a piece of property without a state would be.
We can’t pretend that the US is a “mostly capitalist”(in the good sense) or “largely free market” country. I mean, I guess you can, but it’s not. It’s mostly mercantilist with some threads of real fascism and socialism shot through it, and tiny bits of the market popping up here and there. The market aspects of our economy are the exception and are only tolerated by the powers that be because they’ve learned that they need some level of market operation in order to survive.
If someone threw a rock through a window of a small business that was largely self-financed, then I would feel much more disapproval toward the rock-thrower.
Keep in mind, I’m not “cheering on” the people that damaged the shareholders of Macy’s property, but I think their crime was fairly minor.
I knew left-leaning market anarchists were going to gather criticism and condemnation from the more conservative elements, but man, I didn’t expect it to sound like an old man shaking his fist at those punk teenagers.
Stephan:
I have not had occasion to figure this out. I do not see the need.
Well, you’re criticising people for taking what you presumably regard as the wrong position on it. Why isn’t that an “occasion to figure this out”?
In our world, any rule that castigates basically all of society for being enmeshed in the web of the state is self-defeating, futile, wrong, victim-blaming, and really, to be honest, nihilistic and evil.
Sure, that sounds right. But you haven’t convinced me that anyone in this thread is defending any rule even remotely as extreme as that description. Who exactly do you take yourself to be attacking? Honestly, your argument reminds me of anti-libertarians who say “any view like libertarianism that denies the need for social cooperation and social order is bad, awful, vile, etc.”
@Roderick: “I have not had occasion to figure this out. I do not see the need.
Well, you’re criticising people for taking what you presumably regard as the wrong position on it. Why isn’t that an “occasion to figure this out”?”
I gave a compressed reason why I believe it is clear that it is wrong for protestors to in effect assume ownership rights over property nominally owned by others who are not state actors. I believe this is what those who defend the Macy’s attackers (and I am not saying there are a lot here, Roderick) on the grounds that Macy’s is “merely a corporation” (and corporations-like-those-that-exist-now could never-exist-in-a-stateless-society” are in effect arguing. It would imply a believe that one cannot identify the state, because everyone is the state–which views is as wrong as is the state’s propaganda that “we are all” the government b/c of democracy, etc.
“In our world, any rule that castigates basically all of society for being enmeshed in the web of the state is self-defeating, futile, wrong, victim-blaming, and really, to be honest, nihilistic and evil.
Sure, that sounds right. But you haven’t convinced me that anyone in this thread is defending any rule even remotely as extreme as that description. Who exactly do you take yourself to be attacking? Honestly, your argument reminds me of anti-libertarians who say “any view like libertarianism that denies the need for social cooperation and social order is bad, awful, vile, etc.””
Roderick, people here and on Spangler’s blog have talked about how non-violence is the health of the state; Macy’s is just a corporation; etc. I never claimed the window-breaking was a huge crime; that it justified the state’s treatment of these people; that it is not dwarfed by the state’s own crimes here and elsewhere. I simply objected to those people–who I gather are so-called “anti-market anarchists”–explicitly, or implicitly, claiming, that the window-smashing was not a crime, since it was not legitimate property of Macy’s–since it’s merely a “capitalist” “corporation.” It is this claim–a fairly narrow one–that I objected to–a fairly narrow objection. It is not the claim that the crime is minor that I objected to. It is the claim that it is not aggression that I object to. Implicit in this view is that it is not property… which implies that Macy’s status as capitalist business means it cannot own property — which, because Macy’s is quite obviously on the innocuous end of the spectrum, implies that huge swaths, if not most–if not all–society are based on illegitimate property (this is supported by Carson’s coment that “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”)–meaning everything is up for grabs. What’s wrong with burglarizing someone’s house, eh? It’s sitting on land that the builder didn’t “really” own; made of property that the supplier didn’t “really” own; and so on. Why is this overblown?
When, for heaven’s sake, did it become suspect for libertarians to stand up for private property rights, and against trespass, vandalism, destruction, and violence? When did it become obligatory for libertarians to not merely recognize that “big business” is problematically intertwined with the state, but to automatically accept contentious, unprovable assertions the condemn most if not all of western commercial firms as being quasi-state actors who have no valid title to their own property?
Macy’s is quite obviously on the innocuous end of the spectrum
There’s a used bookstore in Auburn called the Gnu’s Room. It’s quite obviously on the innocuous end of the spectrum. How does Macy’s get there? It’s obviously not anywhere near the superbad Halliburton end, but it doesn’t seem to be anywhere near the Gnu’s Room end either. Macy’s has its arms just as deep in the public trough as you’d expect a firm that humongous, in the existing political climate, to have (just Google around and you’ll see it hitting up city governments for massive amounts of stolen loot all over the country). So your suggestion that if Macy’s is tarred, all firms everywhere are tarred and we slide into some sort of nihilistic orgy of universal guilt seems, well, very puzzling.
@Roderick: “Macy’s is quite obviously on the innocuous end of the spectrum
“There’s a used bookstore in Auburn called the Gnu’s Room. It’s quite obviously on the innocuous end of the spectrum. How does Macy’s get there? It’s obviously not anywhere near the superbad Halliburton end, but it doesn’t seem to be anywhere near the Gnu’s Room end either. Macy’s has its arms just as deep in the public trough as you’d expect a firm that humongous, in the existing political climate, to have (just Google around and you’ll see it hitting up city governments for massive amounts of stolen loot all over the country). So your suggestion that if Macy’s is tarred, all firms everywhere are tarred and we slide into some sort of nihilistic orgy of universal guilt seems, well, very puzzling.”
Well, okay, Macy’s is on the innocuous end of the “chains” or whatever. So if we exclude “Gnu’s” and places like it, and just count Macy’s and above, only 3/5, say, of the economy is subject to vandalizing? Is it “bigness” we’re now supposed to be against?
Many of the vandanarchists seem to think any “corporation” (or is it merely a large firm?) are suspect b/c they could not exist in a real free market. Wow, these guys are such great business analysts.
only 3/5, say, of the economy is subject to vandalizing?
My point is that Halliburton and the Gnu’s Room are each a clear case; Macy’s, by contrast, isn’t close enough to either side to be a clear case, and reasonable libertarians can disagree about it.
Are you saying that before endorsing a principle of ownership we first have to look at what percentage of the economy it would call in question? That sounds awfully consequentialist.
Is it “bigness” we’re now supposed to be against?
No, it’s high degree of statist involvement. But under present conditions the two tend to be correlated.
Many of the vandanarchists seem to think any “corporation” (or is it merely a large firm?) are suspect b/c they could not exist in a real free market.
Maybe they do think that (and certainly there’s reason to think that stable bigness would be harder to achieve without the ability to socialise diseconomies of scale), but in order to think that bigness is suspect, one doesn’t have to believe that bigness couldn’t be achieved under a free market. All one has to believe is that under a system like ours, bigness can’t be achieved without statist involvement. By analogy: there’s no correlation in general between being well-fed and being a rat fink, but among concentration-camp prisoners there probably is.
“All one has to believe is that under a system like ours, bigness can’t be achieved without statist involvement. By analogy: there’s no correlation in general between being well-fed and being a rat fink, but among concentration-camp prisoners there probably is. ”
That’s a very good way of putting it.
“Nihilistic Orgy of Universal Guilt” would be a great name for a rock band.
@Roderick: “only 3/5, say, of the economy is subject to vandalizing?
My point is that Halliburton and the Gnu’s Room are each a clear case; Macy’s, by contrast, isn’t close enough to either side to be a clear case, and reasonable libertarians can disagree about it.”
I don’t know, Roderick: I haven’t seen a reasonable case made against Macy’s. I am myself not persuaded at all, since I have seen no case made against Macy’s (except for the rock-throwing, which I don’t regard “making a case”). I have no reason to think the rock-throwers really have a careful, libertarian theory and carefully weighed the evidence, then acted as judge, jury and executioner. Rather, there is a general anti-commerce bias among these people, and in response to a criticism of their vandalism, people are trotting out “possible” arguments that could maybe make this “arguable”.
“Are you saying that before endorsing a principle of ownership we first have to look at what percentage of the economy it would call in question? That sounds awfully consequentialist.”
If a rule would permit violence against most of our neighbors, then yeah, I would at least say we ought to give this a closer glance.
“Is it “bigness” we’re now supposed to be against?
No, it’s high degree of statist involvement. But under present conditions the two tend to be correlated.
Many of the vandanarchists seem to think any “corporation” (or is it merely a large firm?) are suspect b/c they could not exist in a real free market.
Maybe they do think that, but in order to think that bigness is suspect, one doesn’t have to believe that bigness couldn’t be achieved under a free market. All one has to believe is that under a system like ours, bigness can’t be achieved without statist involvement. By analogy: there’s no correlation in general between being well-fed and being a rat fink, but among concentration-camp prisoners there probably is.”
Interesting analogy, but I’m not sure it’s apt. I don’t regard our society as analogous to a concentration camp. Maybe the anti-market types do. There we would disagree.