Calling All Americans

[JennyB]

[tepista]

that is so hoax I can't even laugh

[Dr. Medulla]

What is the crime rate for assaults by fictional black males?

[eumaas]

In a lot of pain right now so I can't write much.

Last year or the year before, I read a magazine article about libertarians switching to the Democrats. The argument was that they felt they'd achieved all they could within the GOP—free markets, low taxes—and thought that the Democrats were a better bet for privacy and civil liberties issues. I thought the whole thing seemed more speculative than based on any real evidence. Based on the libertarians at Volokh, they're welded to the dying GOP and convinced that Obama is a hardcore Marxist. Completely unglued. Which makes this election a lot like '32 again—just a massive unraveling of all the old certainties. It's a time of opportunity, that's for sure.

See, that's my problem with a Republican libertarian or the vulgar libs in the LP: they don't really know what a free market is. Free market does not just mean rollbacks of social programs and shit like that. It also means getting rid of patent laws, subsidies, and all the other garbage corporate welfare that erects monopoly-protecting barriers to entry. Carson's old "program for anarchists" is worth reading--get rid of the corporate welfare first and after we've got the parallel institutions to replace it, THEN get rid of welfare for the poor--most libertarians do it in reverse and furthermore never get around to breaking the corporations. There's nothing free about this market. There have never BEEN free markets under capitalism--it's ALWAYS been statist.

If the left-libs take over the LP, I'll be a lot more enticed towards the party.

The idea is not so much taking it over as abandoning it and agitating outside of it. It's about undermining its legitimacy and so allowing the word libertarian to be redefined towards agorism and mutualism.

[Dr. Medulla]

See, that's my problem with a Republican libertarian or the vulgar libs in the LP: they don't really know what a free market is. Free market does not just mean rollbacks of social programs and shit like that. It also means getting rid of patent laws, subsidies, and all the other garbage corporate welfare that erects monopoly-protecting barriers to entry. Carson's old "program for anarchists" is worth reading--get rid of the corporate welfare first and after we've got the parallel institutions to replace it, THEN get rid of welfare for the poor--most libertarians do it in reverse and furthermore never get around to breaking the corporations. There's nothing free about this market. There have never BEEN free markets under capitalism--it's ALWAYS been statist.

The whole free market movement has never been about actual free markets. It's been about gutting individual rights and protections (safeguarded by govt) and transferring power to large corporations. Turn everything into a for-profit model and rig the game so that only the already established can grow fatter. It is protectionism, but instead of covering trade between nations, it's about protecting the wealthy business interests against labour's share by killing those laws and aspects of govt meant to offer some type of worker protection. It is, as has been observed in discussions on this board, ideological cover for selfishness and greed.

[eumaas]

See, that's my problem with a Republican libertarian or the vulgar libs in the LP: they don't really know what a free market is. Free market does not just mean rollbacks of social programs and shit like that. It also means getting rid of patent laws, subsidies, and all the other garbage corporate welfare that erects monopoly-protecting barriers to entry. Carson's old "program for anarchists" is worth reading--get rid of the corporate welfare first and after we've got the parallel institutions to replace it, THEN get rid of welfare for the poor--most libertarians do it in reverse and furthermore never get around to breaking the corporations. There's nothing free about this market. There have never BEEN free markets under capitalism--it's ALWAYS been statist.

The whole free market movement has never been about actual free markets. It's been about gutting individual rights and protections (safeguarded by govt) and transferring power to large corporations. Turn everything into a for-profit model and rig the game so that only the already established can grow fatter. It is protectionism, but instead of covering trade between nations, it's about protecting the wealthy business interests against labour's share by killing those laws and aspects of govt meant to offer some type of worker protection. It is, as has been observed in discussions on this board, ideological cover for selfishness and greed.

The whole free market movement? No. Rand, some of the Austrians, all of the Chicago school, and the mainstream Republican shit? Yeah, sure. As Carson says, it's the "them pore ole bosses need our help!" movement. Now that is definitely what most people think of when they say free market, but it's been rather a hijacking of the original term, as is "libertarian" itself. That's the sense you're using it in and I agree with you there.

But others like Murray Rothbard, Samuel Edward Konkin III, Roderick Long etc have been much more consistent. I don't view the left anarcho-capitalists as enemies any more because I realized that their idea of "capitalism" is wholly unlike modern capitalism, whereas of course right anarcho-caps and right-libertarians are still bastards. Rothbard wasn't entirely consistent over his lifetime (he swung from right to left to right again), but much of his work displays sound, consistent reasoning even if he went off the rails at the end there. I think it was a huge mistake of him to call his system "capitalism," though. Luckily there is a movement in the left-wing of the anarcho-capitalist group and it's called agorism. It differs mainly in tactics from the Rothbardians, but it has the advantage of dumping the word "capitalism," which is frankly a confusing and worthless word since it refers to two radically different systems.

The main divisions in the left-libertarian camp come out of property rights theory (with an especial emphasis on how land differs from other property). Some are Lockeans (Rothbardian anarcho-capitalists and agorists), others are Georgists (geolibertarians/geoanarchists), others are Ingalls-Tuckerites (mutualists), and still others are Stirnerite egoists. That's just on the individualist-anarchist camp. Then on the social-anarchist side (with which mutualism overlaps actually), there are Bakuninite collectivists, others are pure anarcho-syndicalists, and still others are communists (based mainly on Kropotkin).

The fact is, any realization of anarchism would mean panarchy--a whole variety of systems existing all at once. During the Spanish Revolution pretty much every variety was represented--it just panned out that way without even that much theoretical knowledge involved. Because of the basic principles of voluntary association, non-coercion and the like shared by all varieties of anarchism (excluding the rather dickish right-wing anarcho-caps), every one of these can coexist in different communities. The breakdown of the state would mean a reversion to local economies and local culture as well. Walmart and the like cannot exist without the state subsidization of transportation and communication. People would adopt whatever would be convenient--personally I think it's most likely to be the Ingalls-Tucker to Bakunin spectrum since it's much easier to establish property legitimacy based on occupancy-and-use (Ingalls-Tucker) or just banding together for common good (Bakunin's collectivism). But if anybody wanted to take it further in either direction (rightwards towards Locke or leftwards towards Kropotkin), there would be so much freed up land and resources that I wouldn't see any major disputes arising.

[eumaas]

I linked to it above but seriously, this is a great piece:
http://mutualist.blogspot.com/2007/11/n ... trine.html

The comments are worth reading as well.

EDIT: also this as a definition of markets: http://mutualist.blogspot.com/2006/03/w ... rkets.html (I recommend you read this one, Jon)

[Dr. Medulla]

See, that's my problem with a Republican libertarian or the vulgar libs in the LP: they don't really know what a free market is. Free market does not just mean rollbacks of social programs and shit like that. It also means getting rid of patent laws, subsidies, and all the other garbage corporate welfare that erects monopoly-protecting barriers to entry. Carson's old "program for anarchists" is worth reading--get rid of the corporate welfare first and after we've got the parallel institutions to replace it, THEN get rid of welfare for the poor--most libertarians do it in reverse and furthermore never get around to breaking the corporations. There's nothing free about this market. There have never BEEN free markets under capitalism--it's ALWAYS been statist.

The whole free market movement has never been about actual free markets. It's been about gutting individual rights and protections (safeguarded by govt) and transferring power to large corporations. Turn everything into a for-profit model and rig the game so that only the already established can grow fatter. It is protectionism, but instead of covering trade between nations, it's about protecting the wealthy business interests against labour's share by killing those laws and aspects of govt meant to offer some type of worker protection. It is, as has been observed in discussions on this board, ideological cover for selfishness and greed.

The whole free market movement? No. Rand, some of the Austrians, all of the Chicago school, and the mainstream Republican shit? Yeah, sure. As Carson says, it's the "them pore ole bosses need our help!" movement. Now that is definitely what most people think of when they say free market, but it's been rather a hijacking of the original term, as is "libertarian" itself. That's the sense you're using it in and I agree with you there.

Acknowledging the wider interpretation of the term that you discussed above, I was referring to the more more common, layperson understanding of "free market" (similar to your objections to my previous use of the term "corporatism" beyond its political theory usage). That said, for tactical or even just pragmatic reasons, left free marketers—the group you cite—need to decide whether it's worthwhile fighting for ownership of the term or just abandon it for something else.

[JennyB]

that is so hoax I can't even laugh

I know -- didn't she learn anything from Morton Downey Jr?

[101Walterton]

Just bumped this to say "go make history" !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! and the world a better place to be

[BostonBeaneater]

I'll call it now. Either the black chap sits in the big seat or the cities will burn and riot.

[BostonBeaneater]

I'll call it now. Either the black chap sits in the big seat or the cities will burn and riot.

Either way I'm excited.

[eumaas]

and the world a better place to be

I don't think that's a necessary result at all.

[101Walterton]

and the world a better place to be

I don't think that's a necessary result at all.

Yes it wil believe me. The majority of the worlds population (which is not white) will see the US in a different light.

[eumaas]

and the world a better place to be

I don't think that's a necessary result at all.

Yes it wil believe me. The majority of the worlds population (which is not white) will see the US in a different light.

Perceptions do not always create realities.