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.
@Roderick: “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.”
Roderick, let’s take this a bit further. Suppose it’s true that in a free market a Wal-Mart or Macy’s could exist (despite the anti-corporate views of anti-market anarchists?). Surely it’s true that in a society like ours, riddled with state laws and regulations, no enterprise can get off the ground without “playing ball” to some extent. My focus is on who is the enemy: it is the state. As I said above, I do believe, and I believe you do too, that we can distinguish the state from the myriad private actors and businesses in society–even though virtually all these people “play ball” to a certain degree, and even though many are corrupted to a certain degree–and even though the bulk of individuals at least tacitly support the state’s legitimacy. If it is legitimate to treat large companies as essentially criminals (which is the implication of holding that it is not trespass to destroy their property) because they lobby, pay taxes, pay bribes, and so on, then it’s legitimate to treat basically anyone except a market anarchist as a criminal, and to regard violence against them as permissible (so long as it’s proportionate, I suppose). As a libertarian, I reject this. Why is one a libertarian if not to oppose interpersonal violence and lawlessness?
Moreover, in my view, if Macy’s and Wal-Mart are “fair game,” that means they are basically part of the state. Which means that the Fortune 500 is nothing but a department of the state. Now, this either means Mises’s views on the socialist calculation problem are wrong, or the globally dominant productivity of American industry–despite, not because of, the shackles of the state–is merely a myth. Which is it?
Surely it’s true that in a society like ours, riddled with state laws and regulations, no enterprise can get off the ground without “playing ball” to some extent. My focus is on who is the enemy: it is the state.
Do you apply this same single-mindedness to say, Mexican immigrants? Or does your courtesy only extend to corporations?
If it is legitimate to treat large companies as essentially criminals (which is the implication of holding that it is not trespass to destroy their property) because they lobby, pay taxes, pay bribes, and so on, then it’s legitimate to treat basically anyone except a market anarchist as a criminal, and to regard violence against them as permissible (so long as it’s proportionate, I suppose). As a libertarian, I reject this.
Your hero, the homophobic bigot Hans Hermann Hoppe, treats Mexican immigrants as essentially criminals (which is the implication of holding that immigration is trespass). As I recall, you share his views. As a so called libertarian, you seem to embrace this coercion against a class you presume is guilty, much like the coercion you criticize here.
Sorry if this moves us off topic, but the similarity and hypocrisy here is kind of stunning.
To say that the enemy “is the state,” is naive at best.
No, the enemy is not “the state,” it is much deeper than that. The enemy is the parasitic class – of which the state is the most prominent member, but hardly the only one.
Your excuse for coercive, union busting activities by both Macy’s and Wal-Mart for the mere fact that they are, “playing ball,” is ridiculous and offensive to those struggling to survive because of it. First, it shouldn’t matter one iota how you must behave to “get off of the ground.” Evil is evil. Wrong is wrong. There is evil in the world and it must be punished, period. Second, Wal-Mart and Macy’s are already “off the floor,” so why are they STILL accepting corporate welfare? Why are they still transgressing on the rights of the poor?
Christ! Are you really so concerned about John Guilt that you refuse to pay attention to the facts?
As far as your qualifier goes, it’s a false dichotomy, first. And second, the massive inefficiencies of larger corporations are too many to name and yes they are a net loss to producers.
On the false dichotomy, you refuse to acknowledge the parasitic nature of these companies and the state. They live off of the production of others. Whereas others do indeed produce and act on their own, these viruses suck off of their wealth – nothing more.
Niccolo,
Your excuse for coercive, union busting activities by both Macy’s and Wal-Mart
I’ve heard this claim made before about Wal-Mart, but never any specifics. What exactly are Wal-Mart’s coercive, union busting activities?
Niccolo,
By corporate welfare, do you mean “getting back some of your tax money” ?
I think I get it !
i) William is made of meat
ii) meat is made of food
iii) food is subsidized by the government
from i, ii and iii
iv) I own part of William’s body and can thus rightfully kick his ass
A.B.
First, on net, the parasitic class and the corporations in it receive more of the ill-gotten loot by definition.
Second, “getting back your tax money,” you mean, getting back your competitors tax money over your competitor? Quite a convenient justification!
Third, it’s deeper than that. There is a concentrated effort to keep Americans ignorant of the other alternatives and it involves the corporations of the parasitic class. The media, for example.
Fourth, so, if I was just given a big piece of confiscated land for doing nothing from the government, I’m just “getting my tax money back.” You do realize how ridiculous that is, right?
Micha,
Have you ever heard of the textile company, TOS Dominicana?
Three degrees removed from Wal-Mart? (TOS Dominicana -> Hanes -> Wal-Mart) That isn’t exactly what your statement about Wal-Mart implied, but nevertheless, I’ll bite.
From this website:
Worker’s rights to freedom of association and collective bargaining are protected by Dominican law, international law, and applicable codes of conduct. Article 333 of the Dominican Labor Code bars employers from engaging in practices that impede workers’ efforts to join in trade unions. Some of the actions taken by the company include threats and harassment, surveillance of workers’ activities, the mass dismissal of union members, and the repeated targeted dismissal and attempted dismissal of union officers. In one instance union members were targeted for mass dismissals; between April 12 and 16, TOS Dominicana terminated 31 employees, and of those 31 workers, 29 were union members.
Some of the activities described on this website could be considered coercion, but we would need to know more details. What constitutes “threats and harassment”? The threat of firing if one joins a union? But surely employers have the right to threaten termination of employees who unionize, just as employees have the right to threaten strikes or quitting if employers don’t meet their demands.
Vulgar libertarians are often accused of taking the side of big business rather than the free market. But isn’t it similarly problematic to take the side of labor unions as a knee-jerk response?
“First, on net, the parasitic class and the corporations in it receive more of the ill-gotten loot by definition.”
This is ill-defined. If the state builds a highway which makes it easier for me to export my goods, I am receiving from the state, but I am not guilty of anything as long as I didn’t lobby for the construction of the road.
“Fourth, so, if I was just given a big piece of confiscated land for doing nothing from the government, I’m just “getting my tax money back.” You do realize how ridiculous that is, right?”
Yes, the guy making this claim is indeed ridiculous : you can see the straw coming out of his shirt.
A.B:
If yourt point is that we cannot distinguish between anybody who recieves favor from the state cause WE ALL DO, I think your argument is out of place. Sure, we all recieve benefits from the state in way or another. But not all the beneficiaries of the state benefit equally nor all seek benefits in a systematic way as say…coorporations? Nor some systematically depend of such subsidies to exists as buisness (again, you think military contractors and weapons builders will be as big and as powerfull without the state armamamentist career paid from the pockets of the citizens?)
“Three degrees removed from Wal-Mart? (TOS Dominicana -> Hanes -> Wal-Mart) That isn’t exactly what your statement about Wal-Mart implied, but nevertheless, I’ll bite.”
The two companies are tied together quite clearly. Almost all of TOS Dominicana’s production goes to Wal-Mart.
In any case, the anti-union practices by Wal-Mart are too numerous to name. Their ability to coerce and harass employees is rather well documented. Are you going to say, “well, if they whip you and chain you to each other, just leave,” now? It’s not that simple when so many trade barriers on the market exist, limiting competition for the workers to revert to.
“Some of the activities described on this website could be considered coercion, but we would need to know more details. What constitutes “threats and harassment”? The threat of firing if one joins a union? But surely employers have the right to threaten termination of employees who unionize, just as employees have the right to threaten strikes or quitting if employers don’t meet their demands.”
Not when their lots are handed to them through the government – i.e. on the dime of the workers.
A.B.
It is a rather poor argument to say that because all “benefit” from the state all must be parasites. SEK3 pointed this out. It is a net benefit or hazard.
Workers receive a net loss. Large corporations like Macy’s and the banks receive a net gain. In many cases, all of their gain comes from government. Even going further, by seeking profit through the state – not indirect “benefit” through monopolized roads – then you are a parasite.
As for the straw man, if you’re going to just throw out random names to “logical fallacies,” at least get them correct.
What I said was not a straw man, it was your argument. You say that when these corporations receive subsidies over everyone else, they are just “getting their tax dollars back.” That is equivalent to what I posted. You don’t like it, of course, because it isn’t conducive to your argument. You, however, don’t understand. Nothing that these corporations create is valid. It is all the product of a grand exploitation of producers. Through regulations on labour, trade barriers, etc. they possess an oligarchy, through which they would be incapable of making their profit without.
If it is legitimate to treat large companies as essentially criminals (which is the implication of holding that it is not trespass to destroy their property) because they lobby, pay taxes, pay bribes, and so on, then it’s legitimate to treat basically anyone except a market anarchist as a criminal
I don’t see how that follows. Surely the extent to which they are successfully creating new aggressions as opposed to taking advantage of existing ones makes a difference (cf. Ron Paul’s defense of earmarks). Macy’s actually gets new subsidies passed on its behalf; the average person doesn’t.
Moreover, in my view, if Macy’s and Wal-Mart are “fair game,” that means they are basically part of the state.
I think Walter Block makes a reasonable distinction here, where he argues for treating the ruling class as broader than “the state” but narrower than “everyone who seeks subsidies or other benefits from the state.” The question is whether Macy’s falls into the ruling class by that definition. All I’m saying is that the answer isn’t obviously no.
Arguing about net loss or net gain from the state is arguing in term of property value, not property rights. If we are discussing rights, coercion, morality, we should be concerned with property rights, not the subjective value of those rights. It’s not about who benefits from whom, it’s about who owns what.
Drug smugglers strongly benefit from the state (because they essentially sell on the market their ability to dodge the state which would otherwise be worthless), Coyotes also benefit from the state. Would SEKIII argue that these are “exploiters” because they are net beneficiary from the state? Of course not, this distinction is absurd.
In terms of property right, there is no ambiguity that a government employee are thieves for example. I think the same would extend to many government contractors, but Macy’s ? Give me a break.
I don’t think you can argue property rights without addressing property values.
The victim of theft has the right to take some part of the thief’s property in compensation, but does not have the right to take all of it. It is proportional to the scale of the theft, and may reflect other circumstances. The victims of statism have the right to take some part of the beneficiaries of statism’s property in compensation. Since the state opposes this, it can be easier for the victim to claim one’s share by destroying property than by taking it.
One has the right to claim one’s share. One has the right to destroy one’s property. Therefore, one has the right to destroy one’s share.
Marja,
You are correct in pointing out that as far as retribution is concerned, property value is important.
What I am trying to stress is the fact that when some people’s property value increase because of the action of the state, it does not make them thief or exploiters. Sorting out the thieves from the non-thieves relies on property rights.
Ghertner’s assumptions about my views on immigration are completely incorrect, but I choose not to discourse with someone who chooses to hurl false charges against decent libertarians. It’s uncivilized and not done.
Roderick: “Surely the extent to which they are successfully creating new aggressions as opposed to taking advantage of existing ones makes a difference (cf. Ron Paul’s defense of earmarks). Macy’s actually gets new subsidies passed on its behalf; the average person doesn’t.”
Subsidies? I am unaware of that. If they do, and are a net tax sucker, that’s worse.
“I think Walter Block makes a reasonable distinction here, where he argues for treating the ruling class as broader than “the state” but narrower than “everyone who seeks subsidies or other benefits from the state.” The question is whether Macy’s falls into the ruling class by that definition. All I’m saying is that the answer isn’t obviously no.”
It seems obvious to me that an innocuous consumer apparel and merchandising chain store is prima facie a good thing, and that if it is so evil that it is “fair game,” that would imply that a huge part of society is just criminal–which, again, means that Macy’s and any company “worse” is basically part of the state. That we live already in fascism or totalitarianism–what a remarkably productive and commercially glitzy totalitarianism!
Sure, I’d be open to coherent, sane, calm, non-biased, even-handed “evidence” that Macy’s is basically criminal–coupled with a coherent and libertarian-compatible theory of criminality (such as Walter Block’s sketch). I would think that if an enterprise is basically tax-subsidized–a net tax-eater instead of a tax-payer, that is a good sign it’s just parasitical, if not criminal. But again: if you assume that Macy’s and companies “like them” or worse, or the Fortune 500, are all next tax-eaters, that implies something is wrong with the Misesian calculation argument, because if they are all tax-eaters, where is the wealth coming from?
“Ghertner’s assumptions about my views on immigration are completely incorrect”
While I cannot know for sure what Micha meant and what your views are, I think he is wrong. It seems to me that Micha is claiming you subscribe to the welfare argument against immigration, which is definitly not Hoppe’s. Beside Hoppe’s opinion of homosexuality, whatever it may be, is entirely beside the point.
At a first glance, your article “A Simple Libertarian Argument Against Unrestricted Immigration and Open Borders” looks like a rephrasing of Hoppe’s. It ends with the conclusion – which I believe is correct – that
“Libertarians who righteously assume that their open borders view is the only principled one can only maintain this stance if they argue that the state should not ever establish any rules on property it asserts ownership of”
This is the view embraced, I believe, by Walter Block, and I also seems to me as the only correct libertarian view.
– Public property is built using tax money. Taxpayers have a legitimate claim against the state for their money, they are owed a compensation. The tax payers own a claim against the road as a way to be compensated for their tax, but it doesn’t mean that they have full property rights over it. They did not homestead the road, no one legitimately did. Even granting taxpayers this collective ownership of roads, without an explicit contract describing the rules of the road, there is no legitimate reason to treat the road differently from the commons.
– There are roughly four kind of opposition to immigration. The first is based on workers trying to restrict the supply of labor, it is pure coercion and has no place on a free market. The second is based on welfare, but immigrants cannot be held responsible for what the state hands out. The third is based on xenophobia, people do not want their neighbors to come from a different country. While on a free market they can enter covenants to prevent that as Hoppe suggests, for most people it’s a preference they can’t afford. They would like their neighbor not to rent or sell their house to immigrants, but probably can’t afford to buy him off. The last one is based on national security and is a separate matter (it’s about border control rather than border restrictions).
Now do you seriously believe people oppose immigration because it uses the pavement ?
Besides, if Hoppe’s argument is correct for immigration, it is correct for protectionism no matter what he claims. Much like many people would like to prevent immigrants from coming in, a lot of people would like to prevent import of goods from other country, why can’t they use their partial ownership of the roads to vote the trucks carrying foreign goods off of them?
Immigration restriction infringe on the right of immigrants to go freely on the commons, and restrict property owners from hosting immigrants. They are vicious and evil. Supporters of immigration restriction are supporting kidnapping, false imprisonment and the many thefts and murder needed to enforce them.
Kinsella,
Which charges of mine are false? That you and Hoppe treat Mexican immigrants as essentially criminals (which is the implication of holding that immigration is trespass)? Or that Hoppe is a homophobic bigot?
Are you denying that Hoppe wrote the following words?
“They-the advocates of alternative, non-family-centered lifestyles such as, for instance, individual hedonism, parasitism, nature-environment worship, homosexuality, or communism-will have to be physically removed from society, too, if one is to maintain a libertarian order.”
Or are you denying that these words express bigotry towards homosexuals?
As for the relevance of homosexuality to the immigration debate, Hoppe apparently found it relevant (as he also found it relevant to explaining Keynes’s economic theories. For what it’s worth, so did Rothbard. Shame on both of them.)
Here is Hoppe making the connection between homosexuality and immigration:
A second motive for the open border enthusiasm among contemporary left-libertarians is their egalitarianism. They were initially drawn to libertarianism as juveniles because of its “antiauthoritarianism” (trust no authority) and seeming “tolerance,” in particular toward “alternative” — non-bourgeois — lifestyles. As adults, they have been arrested in this phase of mental development. They express special “sensitivity” in every manner of discrimination and are not inhibited in using the power of the central state to impose non-discrimination or “civil rights” statutes on society. Consequently, by prohibiting other property owners from discrimination as they see fit, they are allowed to live at others’ expense. They can indulge in their “alternative” lifestyle without having to pay the “normal” price for such conduct, i.e., discrimination and exclusion. To legitimize this course of action, they insist that one lifestyle is as good and acceptable as another. This leads first to multiculturalism, then to cultural relativism, and finally to “open borders.”
Somehow, this makes Hoppe “decent,” while criticizing Hoppe’s blatant anti-gay and anti-immigrant bigotry is “uncivilized.” What a strange world Kinsella lives in.
Micha,
Most people in the world will strongly argue that you should be a slave of your government. Wanting to disassociate oneself from homosexuals is pretty tame in comparison, isn’t it?
A.B.,
It seems to me that Micha is claiming you subscribe to the welfare argument against immigration, which is definitly not Hoppe’s.
Where in my post did I claim this about Kinsella or Hoppe? What I did claim is that both Kinsella and Hoppe treat “Mexican immigrants as essentially criminals (which is the implication of holding that immigration is trespass).”
Note Kinsella’s own words:
If it is legitimate to treat large companies as essentially criminals (which is the implication of holding that it is not trespass to destroy their property) because they lobby, pay taxes, pay bribes, and so on, then it’s legitimate to treat basically anyone except a market anarchist as a criminal, and to regard violence against them as permissible (so long as it’s proportionate, I suppose). As a libertarian, I reject this.
Now, as you noted, there are multiple justifications given for restricting immigration (though I would argue that all of them can be reduced to a form of xenophobia), including both the welfare argument and the Hoppean “government owns the roads” arguments. And if the government owns the roads, and should act as a caretaker, and this somehow means restricting immigration, then it is legitimate under this view to treat immigrants as essentially criminals (which is the implication of holding that immigration is trespass).
As you pointed out, this argument proves far too much; it can be used to justify all sorts of protectionism, if put in the form of the government acting as caretaker of public property. I merely note the irony and hypocrisy of Kinsella telling left-libertarians to focus on the source of the problem – the state – when he and Hoppe commit the very same fallacy themselves.
A.B.,
Most people in the world don’t have strong views about political philosophy either way; they have no reason to think very deeply about the topic. They mostly just accept the status quo, perhaps with a slight bias towards its legitimacy.
Accepting the status quo unthinkingly is not a virtue, but it is certainly nowhere near as much of a vice as wanting an innocent group of people physically removed from society, or believing that a peaceful order cannot be maintained without physically removing this group from society.
I expect more out of Hoppe, partly because he should know better, and partly because his bigotry tarnishes the good name of libertarians everywhere. I don’t want my political philosophy associated with racism, sexism, homophobia, and other forms of collectivist hatred.
Ghertner is woefully mistaken in his assumptions about my views, which should be no surprise given his outrageous libels of Hoppe. I choose not to discourse with someone so incivil.
@Roderick: “I think Walter Block makes a reasonable distinction here, where he argues for treating the ruling class as broader than “the state” but narrower than “everyone who seeks subsidies or other benefits from the state.” The question is whether Macy’s falls into the ruling class by that definition. All I’m saying is that the answer isn’t obviously no.”
Roderick, is whether Macy’s “falls into” “the ruling class” now the question? If the answer is yes, does this mean Macy’s is criminal, or a non-owner of property? If so, we need a coherent, carefully developed concept of “the ruling class”–and, of course, one that is compatible with libertarian principles–and then a careful, clear, convincing case made in applying these principles to a particular company. To my mind, as a libertarian, the relevant criterion is whether Macy’s is basically part of the state or not–or, at least, causally responsible for state aggression. This inquiry is obscured IMO by Marxian economic confusions and alienation whining and non-rigorous anticapitalist criticisms.
As Esplugas notes here (English):
See also Yes, the US is, in essence, a free country, by Jonathan Wilde, weighing in on this.
Of course Hoppe is not a bigot or homophobe, and nor is this implied by what Ghertner quoted. This is silly. Some libertarians might buy into, and even use, the state’s contorted, PC definitions of “racism,” but sane people do not.
I happen not to favor the INS or state restrictions on immigration. Nor does Hoppe–he’s an anarchist, for God’s sake. But it is arguable from libertarian principles that it does not violate a foreigner’s rights if he is not permitted to use public property in another country. It violates the rights of citizens who have a real claim to the property and who disagree with the state’s immigration policies, but this harm is already contained in the state’s ongoing possession of the property and refusal to privatize it.