Fazil Mihlar has an article in the Vancouver Sun titled Saint Wal-Mart?. (Conical hat tip to LRC.) The question mark is superfluous – it’s the usual right-libertarian hagiography of Wal-Mart.
He includes his e-mail at the end of the article, so I wrote him the following note:
I read your article on Wal-Mart with interest. But I think you’ve left out one important source of Wal-Mart’s low prices – government intervention.
Wal-Mart stores frequently acquire their land by eminent domain; in other words, they get to acquire land at lower prices than those at which the owners would be willing to sell voluntarily.
Once in business, such stores further benefit from various sorts of corporate welfare, both the direct kind and such indirect forms as the mass of regulations that have the indirect effect of making it harder for small companies to compete with big ones. As companies grow, diseconomies of scale eventually surpass economies of scale, placing a natural curb on their growth; but government regulation, by stalling competition, allows companies to continue growing past this point by externalising their costs.
Moreover, Wal-Mart’s entire business model depends heavily on federal transportation subsidies; so its competition with local businesses doesn’t exactly occur on a level playing field.
Both Wal-Mart’s critics and its defenders usually see it as an embodiment of the free market. But to me Wal-Mart looks like just one more special interest feeding at the taxpayers’ trough.
I’m opposed to Wal-Mart because I like the free market.
If others want to mail him, he’s at fmihlar@png.canwest.com.
As an addendum, I should add that I favor the Carsonian standard over the original Rothbardian standard because enterprises fail or succeed (and thus, ultimately, exist or don’t exist) based on their margin of profit.
I’m going to side with Sheldon here. I think there is plenty of evidence of Walmart getting an inordinate amount of benefit from various state subsidies. Clearly in a freed market, that would be quite different. They may be bigger, but I suspect they would be smaller.
Up here in Canada, in Ontario at least, Walmart is notorious for asking for an getting tax breaks, the lifting of zoning restrictions and the building of roads in exchange for opening a Walmart in a particular location. If they don’t get their way, they often go to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB, the developer’s best friend) and get it anyway.
This isn’t just about Walmart though. Other big-box stores do the same thing – Canadian Tire, Home Depot, Rona, Costco etc.
In Ottawa, there even seems to have been some shenanigans and collusion between city government and a big box store to the purposeful benefit of the store. After building the road access to a development site given to Home Depot at reduced rates, the city then began a massive road construction project in front of one of Home Depot’s smaller, locally run but long standing competitors, a small Home Hardware store. The city shut down the access to this store’s parking lot about 2 weeks after the Home Depot opened, ostensibly to widen a road. Needless to say, the added competition coupled with the physical impairment to the store put the Home Hardware out of business, after 35 years.
No one is saying that Walmart and other big box stores wouldn’t exist in a free market or are incompatible with a free market. The idea is though that they clearly get a greater advantage and benefit from the state interference than do smaller, more local stores, to the point where they actively pursue these advantages. And there are documented cases, as Roderick has linked to, that show outright dependence on the state to survive and expand.
Unless people here are arguing that Walmart et al do not lobby or otherwise request those special privileges, but merely take advantage when they are presented. I can’t imagine in a system like ours any business who wouldn’t. And that leaves smaller, local retailers simply unable to compete.
“surely Walmart (not “Wal-Mart,” guys) would be better off if you removed their purported “subsidies” and their penalties (taxes and regulations).”
Arguably.
A question for Kevin. You mention above “the decentralizing potential of electrical power” in your argument that, in the absence of state subsidies for long-distance transportation, production would tend to be organized along local lines. Have you, or as anyone, researched the effect of state subsidies for electricity generation (and telephone service) on the viability of rural communities? In the US, the rural electrification program and universal service subsidies for telephony serve to transfer wealth from urban and suburban to rural areas. Given the scale economies in the production of electricity and communications services, is it likely that locally based, craft production in areas far from urban centers would be economically viable without state subsidies?
Sorry, make that “Have you, or has anyone. . . .”
Kevin Carson writes: “Wal-Mart’s business model is heavily reliant on susidized roads. It supplanted competitors which had local supply chains.”
Yes, but Wal-Mart found the roads there, it didn’t create them, and it used them better than its competitors to serve consumers. I can’t see that as anything but good. I don’t know what you think they could have done differently (apart from avoiding the things we all agree are bad — eminent domain, etc.) to be praiseworthy. Or is it that no one can be praiseworthy for anything they do in our economy?
As for Wal-Mart’s competitors, if they didn’t take advantage of these roads once they were there to better serve their customers, then of course they should fail.
Kevin Carson writes: “What would you think of the ‘argument,’ in response to claims that welfare recipients benefit at the expense of the industrious, that the industrious could pursue the welfare recipient’s ‘business model’ and go on welfare also?”
In the case of a welfare recipient, it would appear that you’re talking about a pure parasite — someone who is a net tax consumer. I would not agree that Wal-Mart is a net tax-consumer. Also, using roads that are already there that you didn’t ask for is not the same as taking money from your fellow man on an ongoing basis.
Sheldon Richman writes: “What I get from my analysis is a caution against rhapsodizing about Walmart as some sort of hero of the free-market revolution. Identifying the moral status of a corporate-state creature is easier than determining what action toward it is legitimate.”
Aren’t we all “corporate-state creatures,” then? Is no entrepreneur’s success in business laudable?
I would not agree that Wal-Mart is a net tax-consumer. Also, using roads that are already there that you didn’t ask for is not the same as taking money from your fellow man on an ongoing basis.
That’s a bit too simplistic though.
Walmart may not be a net tax consumer, but when the actions of the state allow it to get land at lower than market prices, are given preferential regulatory treatment by towns and cities or are given tax breaks by those cities to attract them still gives them an advantage that their competitors do not have and allows them to reinvest the money they would have had to spend on these things into other capital, thus giving them competitive advantage. That is a competitive advantage that comes directly from that state interference in the market.
And it is not always the case that the “road was already there”. My local Walmart was built after the city specifically built a road for it and a Loblaws Superstore in an open field. In many places that is SOP for any kind of development – commercial or residential (and indeed on of the factors in creating the housing boom).
And of course it should be recognized that nothing is identical all over the US and Canada…in some places, a Walmart may in fact have no state advantages. But in many places, they do and have varying levels of help, from merely waiving xoning rstrictiosn, to the building of roads and sewers to attract the big box stores like Walmart, to local governments invoking eminent domain to get the land for them in the first place.
On the whole, Walmart benefits enough from this for it to become part of their business and expansion model.
I had written: “I don’t disagree with most of this–but in this case, how does the critique differ from a standard libertarian one that opposes subsidies and regulations? How does it get the conclusion (that some left-libs have) that walmart is therefore not the owner of its property, and is subject to vandalism or “worker sitins” and the like?”
Sheldon Richman:
“Stephan, did Roderick say the sort of things you mention in your last sentence? What I get from my analysis is a caution against rhapsodizing about Walmart as some sort of hero of the free-market revolution.”
There have been dozens of posts about this issue previously (see the end of this post for a collection of some). If you recall, there were a bunch of hooligan “anarchists” throwing bricks at Macy’s windows during the Republican Convention in Minessota. Some left-libertarians defended this on the grounds that Macy’s is just a big corporation and not “the real” owner of its stores–as if this means that the hooligans are! Others make similar arguments re worker sit-ins of factories when they are laid off. When I and others pointed this out, and how horrible this view is, several of the intellectual left-libertarians chimed in on the discussion. IIRC, Long and Carson never explicitly said that the brick throwers were wrong on the grounds they were violating property rights of Macy’s. IIRC, they said things like, they don’t think the brick throwing is a good idea–but, again, if memory serves, they seemed to studiously avoid making the implicit or explicit claim that Macy’s owned its property and therefore the brick-throwing was criminal and wrong. Now, they are free to correct me if I’m wrong. But that is my recollection.
yes–see links below: http://aaeblog.com/2008/09/09/say-what/comment-page-2/#comments Roderick wrote: “I certainly don’t favour hurling rocks at Macy’s windows — whether or not Macy’s turns out to be a legitimate target. Even if a target is legitimate, I think that’s only a necessary condition, not a sufficient one; violence against an aggressor has to have some practical relation to combating the aggression, for one thing. … I should add that I consider that a constraint of justice, not just of prudence. … 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!”
Roderick is not in favor of it. But he holds open the possibility that Macy’s is not a legitimate property owner–even if he doesn’t think this justifies throwing rocks, it does justify it for some. Now he does not say they are not legitimate–he just says it’s possible. I agree: it’s possible. but who has the burden of proof: I say: those who advocate it. Until they satisfy it I will assume they are legitimate owners and that vandalism is criminal/trespass. It’s the *libertarian* position to take.
Carson wrote in that thread: “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.”
So, Carson thinks it’s “idiotic” to throw bricks, but again, he too does not say it’s trespass of a violation of Macy’s rights. Maybe it violates the “workers'” rights, since they, I suppose are the true owners.
In the same thread, Brad Spangler wrote: “Regarding “…I certainly don’t favour hurling rocks at Macy’s windows”. Neither do I. I think it’s a poor choice of tactics. I just disagree about the assertion that it’s a moral issue deserving of condemnation. 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.”
HEre: http://bradspangler.com/blog/archives/1043
one Darian W says: “I’m personally not hostile toward Macy’s but I can’t say I’m offended their window was broken.”
Nicolo del fiume: in response to my comment: “I’m talking about those breaking windows the other day. I thought you were justifying it and saying Macy’s is the enemy, etc.” he wrote: “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.”
And this is my concern. My concern is that when Carson et al. make statements like Macy’s or Walmart or anything big or anything corporate could not exist in a free market, the next step (taken by some, at least) is, well, then they are not legitimate owners NOW of their property, and they are fair game for vandalism, sitins, etc. If they merely want to say, hey, Macy’s is the owner of its property but ought not be getting or lobbying for state subsidies or regulations, then I would agree.
In this thread: http://polycentricorder.blogspot.com/2008/09/man-and-his-window.html one lefty wrote: “”Wanton window smashing is stupid and certainly useless if not harmful (see Crimethinc for its “defense”, I won’t bother relaying it). But let’s not pretend even for a f*cking instant that braking these windows violated anyone’s liberty or capacity. Or EVEN that breaking windows was a particularly “violent” act! Is pouring fake blood over draft records violent? It certainly does far more expensive damage.””
***
Sheldon goes on:
“Identifying the moral status of a corporate-state creature is easier than determining what action toward it is legitimate.”
But you are mixing things together here: is it corporate status alone that is the problem–or receiving or lobbying for state subsidies and benefits? Because the latter is what Roderick focused on–not the corporate form. And anyone, including leftist individuals, can benefit from, and indeed lobby for, state subsidies and the like. So what has the corporate status to do with this?
In my view, the attack on “vulgar libertarians” by Carson is attacking a strawman. Sure, there is some truth to it when it comes to some Randians, but even they grant that modern corporations and businessmen are wrong to be pro-state etc. And I myself have stopped using the term “capitalist” as a synonym for libertarianism, due in part to arguments by some left-leaning libertarians. But any sensible libertarian realizes that we have a quasi-fascist system now, and that we are opposed to all the political things the left-libertarians rail against. Where we differ, as far as I can tell, is on (a) our preferences–they seem to yearn for some agrarian, Shire-like past with no international or national trade, localism, no Marxian alienation of workers from their “labor,” blah blah blah–hey, man, whatever floats your boat, but that ain’t libertarianism; (b) our predictions: they seem to predict kibbutzes and self-sufficient basket-weaving hobbies, growing your own vegetables, knowing your pharmacist, doctors making housecalls, whatever–who cares?; (c) views on the legitimacy of companies employing the corporate form–many of them are against “bigness” and/or (?they are never clear) the corporate form; and (d) the political implications of the preceding–some apparently think it implies that modern corporations are “therefore” not property owners, and thus anything goes against them (even if they think it’s not “prudent” or whatever to do this now).
Brad Spangler:
“@Stephan – re: “How does it get the conclusion (that some left-libs have) that walmart is therefore not the owner of its property…”
“You’re here asking Sheldon to advocate a position that might not necessarily be his own.”
If it’s not his own, then we don’t have any disagreement, and his post, and Roderick’s, are trivial, since any libertarian agrees with these mundane observations.
“You may recall that I previously asked you to articulate a libertarian standard of guilt that you specifically subscribe to which recognizes a point at which the nominally private enterprise is in fact the actually statist appendage of the state. Without which, one could (for example) perhaps incorrectly say Lech Walesa was not being virtuous when he hopped that first fence to lead a Solidarnosc strike against the Polish state owned shipyard that was not necessarily *identical* to the Polish state (in the eyes of Polish law, anyway).
“You refused to articulate such a standard, apparently opting to confuse the matter of the burden of proof lying with Walmart’s accusers with the matter of simply inquiring as to whether or not you already agree with the existing Rothbardian standard (which one ought to be able to suppose you’ve been exposed to previously). That standard was most explicitly stated in “Confiscation and the Homestead Principle”, but was basically illustrated in principle in “For A New Liberty” and “Ethics of Liberty”.”
For those libertarians who refuse to acknowledge property rights of some people or firms, they are in effect advocating violence against these people. The burden of proof, and the burden of argumentation, is on them, not me. My default position is indeed the libertarian one: I am opposed to violence prima facie; and remain opposed to it unless it can be found to be justified. Since I”m a libertarian, that means I’m opposed to prima facie aggression, interpersonal violence, unless you can show that it’s basically defensive or retaliatory–unless you can clearly show that the victim of the violence is really a criminal or not the owner of the property you are taking from him. And excuse me, but I don’t think mundane observations such as that Walmart should not receive or lobby for subsidies, or that Walmart ships things on–gasp–public roads–satisfies that burden of proof or argumentation. If you do, then you have a lower threshold for justifying violence than I do.
“Rothbard drew the line at half of enterprise revenue coming from statist privilege / favors / subsidies.”
I don’t know if I agree with this, but even if I do, no one has come close to showing Walmart or Macy’s are in this camp, and I seriously doubt they could. The claim seems ludicrous to me.
Mike:
“I’m going to side with Sheldon here. I think there is plenty of evidence of Walmart getting an inordinate amount of benefit from various state subsidies. Clearly in a freed market, that would be quite different. They may be bigger, but I suspect they would be smaller.”
So what? Some of this is trivially, obviously true; the rest is just wild-ass guessing, and utterly irrelevant. Its own relevance would be to justify declaring them to be basically criminals so that they are not property owners, so as to justify looting or vandalizing their property–and these off-the-cuff armchair observations do not justify this, so what is the point?
“Up here in Canada, in Ontario at least, Walmart is notorious for asking for an getting tax breaks,”
Horrors!
” the lifting of zoning restrictions and the building of roads in exchange for opening a Walmart in a particular location. If they don’t get their way, they often go to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB, the developer’s best friend) and get it anyway.”
Horrors!
“No one is saying that Walmart and other big box stores wouldn’t exist in a free market or are incompatible with a free market.”
Maybe not, but what some are saying is that they are not legitimate property owners, that they are essentially criminal, or “part of the state”–and therefore, that it’s not a crime to vandalize or loot or squat on their property.
***
Other posts:
Left-Libertarians on Corporations “Expropriating the Efforts of Stakeholders” http://blog.mises.org/archives/009070.asp
Long on the Corporation
http://blog.mises.org/archives/008924.asp
Left Anarchists and Progressive Taxation
http://blog.mises.org/archives/008541.asp
Down with anti-market “anarchists”
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/022743.html
VAndarchists rejoice!
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/022829.html
The Conflation Conflict
http://mutualist.blogspot.com/2008/12/conflation-conflict.html
Say What?
http://aaeblog.com/2008/09/09/say-what/
(here, Roderick says, in response to my “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.” and “I certainly don’t favour hurling rocks at Macy’s windows — whether or not Macy’s turns out to be a legitimate target. Even if a target is legitimate, I think that’s only a necessary condition, not a sufficient one; violence against an aggressor has to have some practical relation to combating the aggression, for one thing.”)
(In this thread, Geoff Plauche had some very good criticisms of the lax standards employed by Carson and even Long in this regard.)
Spangler: Reindeer games at the Mises Institute
http://bradspangler.com/blog/archives/1043
Limited Liability, Paleo-libertarianism, Left-Libertarianism: Recent Posts and Debates
http://www.stephankinsella.com/2008/12/limited-liability-paleo-libertarianism.php
Left-Libertarians on Corporations “Expropriating the Efforts of Stakeholders”
http://blog.mises.org/archives/009070.asp
Enemies of what state?
http://c4ss.org/content/211/comment-page-1#comment-323
Mutualism, Localism, Free Trade, Multi-National Enterprises
http://blog.mises.org/archives/009652.asp#comment-518942
In which little heads pop up for air
http://leftlibertarian.org/archives/5875
Re: Dyslexic Vandarchists of the World–Untie!
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/024335.html
Left Anarchists and Progressive Taxation
http://blog.mises.org/archives/008541.asp
Kinsella on the Chicago Sit-in: “Shoot ’em”
http://www.freedomdemocrats.org/node/3177
Mutualist Comments on IP
http://www.againstmonopoly.org/index.php?perm=593056000000000401
Down with anti-market “anarchists”
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/022743.html
A Man and his Window
http://polycentricorder.blogspot.com/2008/09/man-and-his-window.html
@Stephan — re: “For those libertarians who refuse to acknowledge property rights of some people or firms, they are in effect advocating violence against these people.”
And, conversely, those who refuse to denounce fake property rights are themselves advocating aggression.
You’re using circular logic and thus missing the point, because the entire question under discussion is whether the asserted property rights are actual property rights or not.
I would not, for example, assert that Harriet Tubman was violating property rights when she helped slaves escape, for example, because slaves were not actual property of the slave owners in any ethical sense — regardless of what the State said was property or not. You seem to leave the door open for an Antebellum Kinsella to have made such a claim, though.
I mentioned above that here http://aaeblog.com/2008/09/09/say-what/ Geoff Plauche had some very good criticisms of the lax standards employed by Carson and even Long in this regard– here are some of them:
***
Anon73,
“Seriously though, I think Carson would say all large firms today benefit from state intervention (e.g. the highway system, laws which only large firms can pay lawyers to satisfy, etc). So, logically Carson should be opposed to Macys as well as ADM and Lockheed. ”
Yes, but I don’t think that mere passive benefiting justifies destruction of property. You benefit from state intervention in many ways too. Is your property fair game for me?
***
#
Brad,
“@Geoffrey — It’s not just a question of benefit, but of direction. To the best of my knowedge, you mostly take no part in directing the state. OTOH, if a corporation the size of Macy’s and its business leadership abstained from lobbying for favors and the making of donations to ruling class politicians, then Macy’s would undoubtedly be famous for this.”
Huh? I don’t see why Macy’s would be famous for this in a largely passive unlibertarian society. I hardly see the absence of fame for this as being justification for destruction of property. I think the burden of proof is on those who wish to justify destruction of property. They need to show what Macy’s active rights violating (lobbying) activity has been. Even then, as I’ve said, I’m not sure it justifies smashing random Macy’s storefront windows.
***
William,
“3. Yes, Macy’s is some kind of evil entity! I’m mean for god’s sake! Can the vulgar libertarianism in this room get any thicker? If a corporation only has “20%” benefits from welfare, what does that mean in the context of its competition that’s been driven largely out of business? How can we even attempt to measure the effects of scale-inflations?”
I’m not a vulgar libertarian.
What does this part mean? ““20%” benefits from welfare,”
An important question is who has done the driving of competition largely out of business? Has Macy’s lobbied the state to do this for it? If so, please provide the evidence. A lot of the big corporations actively lobby the state for offensive purposes, sure. But I don’t just assume that every corporation is thoroughly evil and in bed with the state.
***
Roderick,
I’ll go ahead and reply to this here too:
“I also don’t think it’s quite fair to say that the woman on the tape “condones the breaking of a Macy’s window.” I disagree with her, but her position was a bit more nuanced than that.”
But she did say she wouldn’t condemn it. That’s not quite the same as saying she favored it, but it’s close. She’s not opposed to it.
***
20% is enough? That seems awfully low. And how does one arrive at this arbitrary percentage? Moreover, how exactly does one calculate with respect to a particular corporation what percentage it gets? How do we calculate all the things like public road infrastructure, regulations, tax structure, labor laws, public education, and the like? It also seems like passive benefits get lumped in with benefits actively sought after in this calculation, and treated as equally bad. How much do I benefit passively from state-regulated capitalism, I wonder? Am I to be blamed to the extent that I passively benefit? And finally, are we really to expect that the window smasher performed some careful calculation before smashing the window to determine beyond a reasonable doubt that Macy’s meets the 20% threshold? This whole argument seems pretty suspect to me.
***
Roderick,
“According to this story Macy’s has spent thousands lobbying the govt. on “legislation involving banking, immigration, law enforcement, apparel tariffs, labor matters and other issues.” It doesn’t say what side they took on these issues but I doubt that it was pristinely libertarian.”
Well, that’s certainly more clear, precise and tangible than some fuzzy X% calculation. One should still seek more certain proof that Macy’s was on the wrong side before hurling rocks, however. I think this holds whether one is talking about private individuals or corporations.
***
Brad,
“@Geoffrey — Before the Microsoft anti-trust suit, MS was mildly famous in certain circles for its atypical (for a business its size) disdain for political class mutual back-scratching. After a “whiff of grape” from DOJ, things changed and they got all “civic minded” and “philanthropic”, of course. While that’s an anemic, if not pathetic example, Macy’s never rose to even THAT level of disengagement from the State. I evaluate their property claims accordingly. ”
MS was mildly famous in certain circles – that’s hardly broadly and loudly famous. I still object to your criterion of lack of fame as a justification for assuming that a corporation is a legitimate target for theft or destruction of property. It’s almost like guilty until proven innocent. Roderick was able to provide some actual evidence against Macy’s, but as I pointed out one should still find out what side Macy’s was on in those cases. Similarly with any other corporation. Even lobbying can be done for defensive purposes to prevent other companies from using the state to violate your rights. I don’t just assume they are all evil and in bed with the state. I also focus my attention and ire for more important targets: the state itself, the military-industrial complex with all its corporate contractors, government supported guilds and cartels of professions and corporations, etc. A lone clothing chain is rather low on my radar even if it is one of those corporations lobbying the state for benefits at everyone else’s expense.
***
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.
***
And, on this thread:
From the Front
http://aaeblog.com/2008/09/06/from-the-front/
Roderick,
“I thinking breaking the Macy’s window was a dumb idea (notice that the woman on the tape didn’t say she favoured it, though, only that it was complicated).”
But she did say she wouldn’t condemn it. That’s not quite the same as saying she favored it, but it’s close. She’s not opposed to it.
It would be impossible to sort out which profits are legit and which are not. I don’t think that’s the point. The point is to stop the machinery that makes illegitimate profits possible. That’s the state and its various methods of privileging and burdening.
Maybe not, but what some are saying is that they are not legitimate property owners, that they are essentially criminal, or “part of the state”–and therefore, that it’s not a crime to vandalize or loot or squat on their property.
And some are claiming they are as pure as the driven snow, a poor misunderstood victim of hatred of commerce who really do own all the property they have despite some of the questionable ways they come to hold it.
The question is, did they merely follow the incentives that the state created, as anyone would in the same situation, or do they actively seek them out and push for their creation?
I don’t know the answer. I don’t hold Walmart or Target or Home Depot to be completely evil arms of the state, but nor do I think they are innocent victims in the system that gives them such advantages.
So what is your criteria then for deciding if some private entity is complicit in the theft of the state and thus doesn’t rightly own the property is claims to?
I am more than willing to not consider Walmart in that category provided I know on what criteria we decide. I will even go so far as to say that there may be certain Walmart stores in different locations that are not part of this and some in other locations that are. I would think this would need to be taken on a case by case, store by store basis.
So, what is your criteria?
Again, Sheldon makes a good point.
Stephan,
Would you agree that property obtained via the interferences of the state or by direct use of government coercion to be unjustly obtained?
I think we can all agree that firms that obtain privilege from the actions of the state are part of the problem, correct?
So the question is, does Walmart and other Big box stores fit with this? Kevin and Brad seem to have some pretty obvious criteria for judging this. You clearly do not share Kevin and Brad’s criteria but its not clear what your criteria for judging the legitimacy of property claims in such a situation are.
Let’s not make this about Walmart, but rather any big box retailer or any other firm that behaves similarly. And that begs the question as to what can be done.
I would hope that though you do not agree with them, I hope you see that Kevin and Brad’s case against Walmart can be justified on libertarian grounds and is at least understandable given that perspective.
I’m hesitant to waste yet more time with the insincere Kinsella, but doesn’t anyone else enjoy the irony in this argument:
“My default position is indeed the libertarian one: I am opposed to violence prima facie; and remain opposed to it unless it can be found to be justified. Since I”m a libertarian, that means I’m opposed to prima facie aggression, interpersonal violence, unless you can show that it’s basically defensive or retaliatory–unless you can clearly show that the victim of the violence is really a criminal or not the owner of the property you are taking from him.”
juxtaposed with Kinsella’s defence of ultimately killing the Mexicans who “trespass” on the public roads to do business with a private interest who legitimately owns the property he deals with?
Pray tell, Stephan, why doesn’t the Mexican own the body that you take from him? Because he is using the public road in a way that YOU disapprove of? Is that why he’s now adjudged a criminal in your world? What if I disapprove of WalMart’s use of the same road? Shouldn’t I be allowed to advocate the taking of WalMart’s property, at least, since you’re advocating so much more based on the same argument?
Or is the reality that you truly are either disingenuous or colossally incapable of recognizing the massive holes in your own logic?
Unfortunately (for you), you’re not debating any of the strawmen that you want to debate. You’re debating people who have well thought out, rational positions, quite unlike all the radical ones you so enjoy linking to ad nauseum. Try actually responding to what Brad, Roderick or Kevin write, instead of some offhand comment from someone else from 6 months ago. Perhaps you may even be able to convince someone that you have a clue about what you’re talking about then.
I don’t see why left libertarians can’t have their own suspicions and (right-) libertarians can’t have theirs, without either side being “convinced” of the other’s suspicions. I have no interest in convincing Kinsella at this point. We’ve offered our positions, and they’re either true or false – but that can’t be confirmed by a single scholar. It can only be confirmed by what comes about in a genuine free market.
I don’t see, for example, why Carson has to “prove” his prediction to Kinsella. First of all, it’s not provable – nobody knows what would happen in genuine free market conditions. It’s a prediction, and so it is not falsifiable. Kinsella and company clamoring for “proof” is a complete red herring, since there is no “proof” to give. It’s a subjective judgement based on personal values and beliefs coupled with some data, but not sufficient data to make anything like a solid prediction.
We can come up with all the data we want, and it may make arguments stronger or weaker, sure. But, ultimately, what a free market would look like is probably so different than any of us suspect that it’s useless. It’s better to understand our own motivations and values, and to use that reflection to come up with better arguments against force and fraud.
The problem Kinsella and company have, I suspect (but cannot prove, ahem, nor do I want to) is that we left libertarians are thinking for ourselves, instead of bolstering the Misesian libertarianism they’ve built an institution around. Instead of internalizing both their free market principles and their subjectively-chosen application to current political and economic affairs, we’re applying the same principle in a different manner, according to OUR subjectively-chosen priorities.
You can’t build an organization like LvMI unless you have a certain degree of ideological conformity, so it’s in their interests to promote this conformity as the only libertarianism. But it’s not, and Kinsella will have to deal. I just want to offer that after reading so many of his arguments against left libertarian positions (there is not just one) that this is not about him being unconvinced by the evidence, but about challenging Misesian libertarianism’s subjective value judgements with competing value judgments.
More irony: If your grandfather lost his farm in an eminent domain taking so that a Walmart store could be built there, your grandfather would have no right to interfere with the trespasser in any way whatsoever. If your grandfather had a window factory that he shut down, but his employees continued to work there after he locked the doors, he would have every right to kill them.
This thread has indeed been hijacked by red herrings. The question is this: is Walmart a trespasser in my example above, yes or no? If yes, explain how a trespasser becomes a free-market libertarian hero and world savior. If no, explain how the original property owner could legitimately lose his/her property rights under eminent domain. Try to stay on topic while you do so. Thanks.
I think that Kinsella is being reactionary to left-libertarians precisely because it undermines a certain ideological uniformity that LvMI is meant to be built around. What I find disingenous is the claim of being value-free, when clearly Kinsella and others are making certain normative value judgements (namely, the inherent superiority of certain modes of economic organization) about the economy and putting them foreward as a criteria for being a libertarian. Left-libertarians have tended to question those value judgements, and hence are suspected to not be “true libertarians”.
To an extent, I see this as insufficient pluralism on the part of LvMI, which is to say that it has become rather monocentric, a bit of an echo-chamber. The thinking is too one-dimensional, and hence left-libertarians get lumped in with Chomskyites and the emotional RevLeft types. Since LvMI has built itself around certain normative assumptions, anything that challenges those assumptions is assumed to be some sort of left-statist deviation. The problem is that this is a false dichotomy, since many left-libertarians do not strictly fit into either the vulgar social anarchist or the vulgar ancap paradigm.
*facepalm*
EXACTLY.
If we could get beyond our opinions and focus on principle, we could use this energy for something good.
Sheldon Richman:
“It would be impossible to sort out which profits are legit and which are not. I don’t think that’s the point. The point is to stop the machinery that makes illegitimate profits possible. That’s the state and its various methods of privileging and burdening.”
Yes. We libertarians are of course against this. So why single out Walmart? By imprecise, lax standards, 99% of society is criminal/suspect. Where does that get us?
Mike:
Not me. This is a strawman.
Why is this “the” question? Say they are actively pursuing it. So then what? Most companies and most people do, to one extent or the other. Are you guys trying to smuggle in some implicit “clean hands doctrine”–only libertarians can own property?
I think that we have to presume possession is legitimate, absent a good reason to overturn it; and we have to assume that nominal title is legitimate, absent a good reason to overturn it. My basic view is that all property rights arise from comparison of claims, and that the person with the best connection and claim to the resource defeats all inferior claims. The best claim is the connection between a homesteader (or his trasnferree in title) to a given resource, since with respect to him, all other claimants are latecomers, and the prior-later distinction is essential.
So, the qustion is, in concrete situations, does someone other than the presumed owner have a better claim? Or, can we come up with generalizations about various classes of people? Sure. The state itself does not benefit from the presumption, nor do criminals–they steal things from victims; and victims have superior claim. Walmart in my understanding is essentially private, though it is not lily-white. Its trucks drive on state roads, as do we all. It takes advantage of eminent domain laws to get somewhat lower prices on its real estate purchases, on occasion (I would be willing to bet that this is less than 1% of all their stores.) Even here, it pays for the stores; and the previous owner is also compensated. And how many of these owners also vote Republican or Democrat and rally for antitrust laws and minimum wage regulations to be applied to Walmart? None of them are lily white either.
Mike:
Sure. I find it hard to believe thogh that all this is about a small number of stores PURCHASEd by Walmart via eminent domain. Waht is the argument–that they don’t own these stores? That the original owner has a bettre claim to it than Walmart? I’d entertain this claim–and th owner has to disgorge the compensation he received. Sure. Fine. I think Manhattan should be given back to the Indians too. So what?
“I think we can all agree that firms that obtain privilege from the actions of the state are part of the problem, correct?”
But of course. And so do people. And so are the firms, and the people, harmed, and on net harmed, mostly.
quasibill:
“juxtaposed with Kinsella’s defence of ultimately killing the Mexicans who “trespass” on the public roads to do business with a private interest who legitimately owns the property he deals with?”
I’m against the state; its immigration laws; its immigration apparatus. I am not in favor of the state having or enforcing immigration laws. I wrote an article once that argued that public property nominally owned by the state is really owned by taxpayers who were soaked to pay for them. And that their wishes as to the property’s use is what ought to govern, absent a retunr of their property to them. And i argued that IF the proprietors wanted the roads to be open only to citizens or certain invitees, say, that does not violate the rights of the outsidres. They have no claim on the road. And I aslo argued that empirically, probalby 95% or more of the proprietors of the road do not want them to be use to aid an open borders policy.
This entire way of looking at it also focuses on *who has a claim to* a given resource. I think the taxpayers have a better claim to the raod, than outsiders. I think Walmart has a better claim to its property, than vandals.
Jeremy:
“I don’t see, for example, why Carson has to “prove” his prediction to Kinsella. First of all, it’s not provable – nobody knows what would happen in genuine free market conditions. It’s a prediction, and so it is not falsifiable. Kinsella and company clamoring for “proof” is a complete red herring, since there is no “proof” to give. It’s a subjective judgement based on personal values and beliefs coupled with some data, but not sufficient data to make anything like a solid prediction.”
I agree it’s not a proof. I disagree with Carson et al.’s implicit claim that they ahve estalbihsed it. they have not. And I disagree if and to the extent he or others base policy conclusions on their flimsy predictions.
Stephan asks: “By imprecise, lax standards, 99% of society is criminal/suspect. Where does that get us?”
If the standards are really lax, perhaps nowhere. If, on the other hand, the problem is not the laxness of the standards but the pervasiveness of the interferences in the market, then where it gets us is somewhere rather far from treating the complicit institutions as anything like saintly.
Government subsidies tend to amplify the market power of certain kinds of businesses, and then that amplified market power produces amplified market feedback. If the only government-created distortion in the market was, say, in transportation and communication infrastructure, perhaps that wouldn’t be such a big deal. But the government has explicit agendas regarding the transformations of markets, which have remained fairly constant across administrations. We’re not just talking about building highways, but about NAFTA Superhighways, and cities and towns transformed into shipping hubs, using tax dollars and eminent domain and federal matching grants for “redevelopment.” There are currently plenty of examples of this sort of development continuing, because the federal money has been pledged, even when it doesn’t make much local economic sense. The more activist government becomes, responding to the problems and failures built into its initial interventions with more interventions, the more the market is skewed, as everyone responds to realities that aren’t really much like market signals anymore. This stuff can build up to perfect storm proportions in small markets. The most authoritarian planned state could hardly match the clumsy conniving of local legislators in a crisis, when it comes to just forcing directions on commerce.
Now, I’m inclined to think that there are retail successes that are much easier to hate than Walmart, and lots of other businesses entities more odious. Walmart just strikes me as a fairly mediocre retail jack-of-all-trades, as much a symptom of a broken retail model as a particular villain. Anti-worker policies are all too common in retail, as is abuse and neglect of small suppliers. Maybe we could all pick on Amazon or eBay, both highly deserving targets, for awhile instead, as our symptoms of government-driven centralization.
Anyway, it’s worth considering the possibility that most of our economic environment is now built on foundations no serious libertarian could feel good about. Is the answer then to shrug, and say “well, what else could we do?” If next to nothing in contemporary society corresponds to the sort of arrangements where individual rights would be clear, then we have bigger problems than a few rocks that might be thrown. Seems like these narrow little pissing matches don’t get us very close to any real solutions.
So to make a long story short, Roderick and I both expressed our disagreement with Macy’s window-smashing, but failed to use the magic phrase “I double dog condemn it, so help me Mises!” And Kinsella has been obsessively bringing up Macy’s and shoehorning it into EVERY SINGLE FUCKING REFERENCE he’s made to left-libertarianism since. Perhaps a Captain Ahab allusion would be on point here.
I don’t understand, Kevin. Are you saying you’re against Macy’s window smashing?
Kevin, point taken, but what I disagree with is not only the windows-breaking-advocates (which admittedly does not include you or the frequent conical hat tipper), but also with (a) your assertion that Walmart owes its success to state intervention, or that large MNEs or corporations would not likely exist on a free market; and (b) the contention that a company like Macy’s or Walmart is not the owner of its nominal property, because it exists in an unfree world and is the “beneficiary” of some subsidies and participates to some degree in illiberal state actions.
So, I was not criticizing your form of stating your opposition, but rather your substantive position on point (b), as well as point (a).
I disagree with (a) because I have not seen a persuasive, thorough case made; and I state my disagreement because this position is used by some (not you) to justify the view that these companies do not deserve the protection of property rights.
I disagree with (b) because I, as a libertarian, have a strong preference for peace and a presumption that violent interference with the property possessed by or nominally owned by others is unjust unless the presmption can be overcome; coupled with my view that the only way to overcome this presumption in the case of relatively benign firms like Macy’s would be to have a threshold so low that it amounts to advocating chaos and war of all against all, to in effect drop one’s default advocacy of peace–to have a threshold so low that we basically regard almost everyone in society as serious criminals.
Does this help clarify things?
To be fair, Kevin, the fact that some people calling themselves left-libertarians somewhere condone window breaking at Macy’s does rip to shreds the left-libertarian case against Wal-Mart, somehow.
Mike D: “To be fair, Kevin, the fact that some people calling themselves left-libertarians somewhere condone window breaking at Macy’s does rip to shreds the left-libertarian case against Wal-Mart, somehow.”
That seems like a strangely collectivist way to approach the issue. Kevin has made a case against Walmart. Roderick has made a case against Walmart. Others who call themselves left-libertarians have made cases against Walmart, but that doesn’t add up to “the left-libertarian case.” Left-libertarians are not exactly a party-line crowd, as ought to be obvious from the differences between Kevin and Roderick’s work. But even if there was a party-line position on Walmart, it’s pretty likely that it wouldn’t be based on the particular set of property assumptions that, say, Stephan has advanced. It is possible that those assumptions are principled, but they are pretty obviously not the only possible principles. Presumably, “the case” would be “shredded” by some logical contradiction or hypocrisy, but only, I think, given a specific understanding of what is at stake.
“Some people…somewhere condone window breaking” doesn’t change Walmart’s (apparently undisputed) use of governmental means in the marketplace. Nor does it change the terms of the prediction about the viability of big-box chains in anarchy.
(I made it through maybe half of the comments on this thread, so, my apologies if what I say has already been addressed.)
There seem to be many interrelated but distinct questions in this thread.
The one I want to respond to is the claim that it is erroneous to uphold Wal-Mart’s success as something that the free market has made possible.
One question that I think doesn’t need to be brought in to address this claim, is whether, counterfactually, Wal-Mart’s business model would have (or would have had) greater or lesser success in a free market. If we can agree that the Wal-Mart does not operate in an industry that has (somehow) not been significantly distorted relative to a hyothesized free market, then that question doesn’t directly bear on the original claim.
One other question of positive analysis that might be on the table here concerns impact of Wal-Mart on ‘social welfare’, however that concept is understood. To address that question, we’d need to set aside (a) the institutional basis for the company’s success; (b) the extent to which the management of Wal-Mart has involved itself with politics, and the form that that involvement has taken; and, certainly, (c) the appropriate ethical judgment to hold concerning this involvement.
One side could argue that Wal-Mart’s management seized opportunities wherever they arose to bring value to consumers at lower cost to themselves and society; and that this added value outweighs whatever value may have been lost to society as resources were used up in influencing, and being influenced by, the political process.
Against that claim, the opposing side might argue that the more significant force here was that burning up of resourcess, including: (a) resources Wal-Mart (and, in strategic response, its competitors,too, potentially) expended to seek rents created in the political process; and (b) resources used up in defending against threatened interventions—relative to what ‘would have happened’ if Sam Walton hadn’t been born, say (?).
But what I imagine is a major motive at work in this discussion has been concern for more normative questions. Specifically, the closest one, as I see it, is whether Wal-Mart’s management has acted especially virtuously, ‘heroically.’ My first pass at a response to that is that it is too much to hope for, in general, that people *in their capacity as entrepreneurs* act heroically.
(1) Competition is ubiquitous. In a mixed economy in a federalist system, both market outcomes and political outcomes are highly contestable (though in the context of very distinct institutional incentives). Further, market and state are tightly interconnected in this system. As a result, competition tends to erode pesistent difference between the returns to productive activity and the returns to unproductive activity. By unproductive, I mean exactly what I referred to above, with the general idea being that resources are burned up to influence the distribution of resources rather than to allocate resources to their highest valued uses.
The ability of an entrepreneur to shift society, even incrementally, away from unproductive activity and toward productive activity, is thus highly constrained by the selection over time of entrepreneurs who make profits over those who make losses. (N.B. that the source of those profits—from political intervention or from benefiting consumers—is irrelevant to this process of selection over time.)
(2) That doesn’t mean, I hasten to add, that entrepreneurs *as people*, in practice, do not or cannot exert much influence in that regard. In their roles as consumer, investor, and resource-owner, it’s a very different story. People can and do often choose to sacrifice material well-being for other values, like ideology or other ethical beliefs. And it might be worth noting also that perhaps entrepreneurship as such is heroic; but that position clearly could have no bearing on how virtuous one particular entrepreneur is.
(N.B. that I referred above to entrepreneurs as an ideal type, i.e., the element of all human activity that corresponds to alertness to opportunities to advance one’s interests; in a world with sophisticated division of labor, the focus is on entrepreneurial activity that advances one’s own interests indirectly through advancing the interests of others.)
To be fair, Mike D, I don’t think it is fair to conclude anything from what other people say, unless it is “somehow” relevant to the case under discussion.
It might be ‘the last nail in the coffin’ for you, but I feel another line of argument is required to link the angsty behavior of others to the validity of the left-libertarian critique of Wal-Mart.
Wal-Mart, it is claimed, is successful, but by what standard? Is it successful because of the state influenced market place or in spite of it?
I withhold the mantel of “sainthood” for firms with less dubious and disputable track records.
-J
“To be fair, Kevin, the fact that some people calling themselves left-libertarians somewhere condone window breaking at Macy’s does rip to shreds the left-libertarian case against Wal-Mart, somehow.”
That may be, but as Bastiat taught, breaking windows creates prosperity. 😉