Journal of Libertarian Studies 20, no. 1 (Winter 2006)
- EDITORIAL by Roderick T. Long. Many of the individualist anarchists, and in particular those thinkers associated with Benjamin Tucker’s journal Liberty, sought to combine a political theory based on individual sovereignty and self-ownership with an economic theory based on the labor....
- THE SPOONER-TUCKER DOCTRINE: AN ECONOMIST'S VIEW by Murray N. Rothbard. First, I must begin by affirming my conviction that Lysander Spooner and Benjamin R. Tucker were unsurpassed as political philosophers and that nothing is more needed today than a revival and development of the largely forgotten legacy that they left to political philosophy....
- THE LABOR THEORY OF VALUE: A CRITIQUE OF CARSON by Robert P. Murphy. This is an impressive work. It first attempts to rehabilitate the classical labor theory of value (by giving it a subjectivist spin), and then traces the history of capitalism to show that it was founded by, and necessarily relies upon, State aggression....
- KEVIN CARSON AS DR. JEKYLL AND MR. HYDE. By Walter Block. On the one hand, he shows familiarity with the important libertarian contributors to the field of political economy. On the other hand, familiarity with libertarian authors seems to have been wasted on Carson, as he adopts the labor theory of value as the basic building block of his analytic framework....
- FREEDOM IS SLAVERY: LAISSEZ-FAIRE CAPITALISM IS GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION: A CRITIQUE OF KEVIN CARSON. By George Reisman. Carson's book centers on the incredible claim, self-contradictory on its face, that capitalism, including laissez-faire capitalism, is a system based on state intervention, in violation of the free market...
- LAND-LOCKED: A CRITIQUE OF CARSON ON PROPERTY RIGHTS. By Roderick T. Long. In 1888, France's leading libertarian periodical, Gustave de Molinari’s Journal des Économistes published a favorable and appreciative review of Benjamin Tucker’s Liberty....
- CARSON'S REJOINDERS, by Kevin A. Carson. This is not, properly speaking, a rejoinder—obviously, since Rothbard’s article predates my book. But since it was chosen to set the tone for this symposium issue, and includes some comments on individualist anarchism in general, I’ll make a few remarks anyway....
SUBSCRIBE NOW
Comments (73)
This looks to be a fascinating issue. If I subscribed today, would I be able to obtain it, or would I just get the next issue when it is released?
Published: April 3, 2006 4:50 PM
It is commendable that the LvMI publish such a critic -- and an entire journal edition debating the matter.
Published: April 3, 2006 10:34 PM
The economic value of a good or service is what someone thinks it is (people often put different values on the the same object). This is true BY DEFINITION (it is not a matter that needs to be "proved").
The price a person offers for a good will be less than or equal to the value they place upon it.
The "cost of production" (labour cost or other costs) does not determine economic value - it has nothing to do with economic value.
If the costs of production are greater than the value that any potential buyer places on a good that just means that the producer will either have to sell at a loss or not sell at all.
Why waste a long article dealing with the labour theory of value?
One might as well write a careful refutation of the "four elements" (Earth, Fire, Water, Air) theory of the physical world.
Published: April 4, 2006 3:39 AM
First we have an article on Dr Carson's Labour Theory of Value, and now we have an article on Dr Carson's theory of "capitalism".
A capital good is a good used to make other goods - for example if sepecially shaped stone helped in the making of flint handaxes this stone would be a capital good.
"Monopoly profits".
It is rather rare that two things will be equally useful.
For example two men may own wells. But the well of Mr Smith is much closer to town than the well of Mr Jones - so people prefer going to Mr Smith's well to get their water (so he can charge a higher price for the water).
Let us say that Mr Jones' well dries up and there is no other source of water for the town than Mr Smith's well - he can now charge a even higher price. And the implications for policy from all this? There are no implications.
Mr Smith has had some good fortune and the customers (and Mr Jones) have had some bad fortune - oh dear, how sad, never mind.
As for banking - as is pointed out by Dr Reisman (and, as he reminds us, by many other people over the last few centuries). One can not lend out money that one has not got (without creating a boom-bust cycle).
"I want to build a factory, but I have not get the money and no one will give me an interest free loan".
Dr Carson's "monopoly profits of the capitalist".
Do we really need a formal article to show that Dr Carson is in error?
Have the population become so brain-dead that they can not see that "unless everone gets interest free loans whenever they want to build a factory, factory owners are getting moneopoly profits" is nonsense?
I know we are supposed to be polite, but it is very irritating (to say the least) that a man (such as Dr Carson) can make a living writing nonsense - and it is also very irritating that other people waste time writing formal articles refuting the nonsense.
Most people (such as me) do not have the luxury of earning a living in such a way.
I suppose my "oh dear, how sad, never mind" comment could now be turned on me.
Published: April 4, 2006 3:58 AM
This is a new low for the QJAE.
Why does anyone take this guy seriously?
Published: April 4, 2006 5:29 AM
The problem with subscribers to the labor theory of value is a fundamental misunderstanding of what "labor" is. Labor is nothing more than HUMAN CAPITAL. Labor-value theorists may be somewhat right when they claim that wealth originates with labor, but they miss the entire process:
1. A worker leases his human capital, which he is SOLE PROPRIETOR of, to somebody else for a given period of time per day for predetermined task(s).
2. If the worker plans properly, he will run a surplus in his HUMAN CAPITAL-leasing enterprise. That surplus comes in the form of savings after all expenses for life have been met.
3. The worker can then covert his human capital surplus into other factors of production, such as land or capital goods. Conversely, he can reinvest his HUMAN CAPITAL profits into his HUMAN CAPITAL enterprise in the form of education or other forms of self-improvement.
This is how the capitalist system works. WE ARE EITHER ENTREPENEURS, OR WE ARE SLAVES.
I wonder what the world would be like today if Marx and other labor-value theorists took the next logical step and realized that the workers (on the free market) already owned 100% of all labor factors of production.
Published: April 4, 2006 11:02 AM
Carson ought to be taken seriously because his history of the development of capitalism is spot on. His actuall "version" of economics is not necessary to explain the fact that it is a state monopoly capitalist society we live in. In short, the second half of his book is pretty much in line with Rothbard's own analysis of the American situation.
I am excited to be recieving this edition of the journal: Tuckerite individualism was, for me, as for others, my stepping stone to anarcho-capitalism, and I still remain firmly sympathetic to it.
Published: April 4, 2006 12:10 PM
I found the attempted rebuttals to Carson, along with the comments thus far posted here, to be rather disappointing. The aspect of Carson's work that I find most important and compelling is his insistence, with more fervor than any other free market economist that I am aware of, that the present system of plutocratic/mercantilist/state-capitalist/corporatist/neofascist/whatever-you-want-to-call-it rests thoroughly on state interventionism and always has. If this is true, then the system that dominates the modern capitalist countries is no more legitimate from an authentically libertarian perspective than that of the Communist mafias who ruled the nations of Eastern Europe or the feudal oil barons of the Persian Gulf.
I have yet to encounter a single orthodox an-cap/Austrian/right-libertarian who is willing to address this question in a thorough and satisfactory manner. This leads me to the conclusion that the common "libertarian" defense of the present system, or something approximating it, is rooted in simple cultural, ideological, aesthetic, national or civilizational biases rather than a rigorous application of libertarian principles.
Not a one of the four critics of Carson made any effort to address this question with any seriousness or depth. Murphy starts with a "Well, gee, I never really thought about it, you might be right" type of approach and then proceeds to provide a critique of certain technical aspects of what I would consider a secondary issue when criticizing Carson's work, namely, his adherence to the labor theory of value. Even if Carson were totally wrong on this question, it does little to refute his broader arguments concering political economy that I have already mentioned.
Long proceeds in a manner similar to Murphy, criticizing Carson's adherence to usufructuary rather than Lockean conceptions of property rights. Again, this seems to be a secondary question. Carson himself concedes that there is room for a plurality of property systems in his version of libertarianism.
While Murphy and Long's rebuttals are intelligent and civil, I'm not sure the same can be said for Block or Reisman. I'm particularly disappointed in Block's review, as I admire much of his other work. He emphatically recognizes that there is indeed a great difference between lassez faire and state-capitalism (a core component of Carson's entire argument), pretty much concedes that the present system is the latter rather than the former, and then proceeds as if this is no big deal and we should accept something approximating the present system anyway. Some of Block's other comments remind me of something a Bible-banger might say: "It's in the Word of Mises! I believe! Praise Rothbard! Amen!" (Note: I believe such an ad hominen response to Block is appropriate in this case given that he equates Carson with a flat-earther!).
Reisman's critique is the weakest of all. The very title of his rebuttal shows he is setting up a false dichotomy. In his rather lengthy and rather condescending attack on Carson, he barely mentions the role of state intervention in maintaining the present system, whether in history or today. The best he does is a few "well, yes, there have been state intervetions" comments. In his labeling of Carson as a "Marxist", he also completely ignores the entire tradition of anti-Marxist and anti-capitalist thought that goes at least as far back as Proudhon.
What about what Rothbard himself said? He explicitly stated his support for expropriating allegedly "private" interests who receive more than 50% of their revenue from state intervention and opening these up for homesteading, also stating that John Kenneth Galbreath's proposal of 75% was not radical enough. To dismantle the state, it is also necessary to dismantle the state/capital alliance that is the core component of modern states and the resulting plutocracy. Otherwise we have nothing more than a situation where the former bosses reinvent themselves as a new class of bosses just as the former Communist apparatchik reinvented themselves as state-capitalist oligarchs following the collapse of the Soviet system and just, as Carson points out, the old feudal classes reinvented themselves as a state-capitalist mercanilist class during the Industrial Revolution.
Published: April 4, 2006 12:26 PM
This was inadvertantly posted too early, even before it arrived in the mails. But if we are going ere, I suppose it is better that it be on the side of more information rather than less.
Published: April 4, 2006 12:47 PM
Keith,
I think the reason Block is so brutal with Carson is that he believes (justifiably) that Carson is intentionally conflating free market capitalism with state capitalism. It wouldn’t be quite the offence if it was out of pure ignorance, but then it wouldn’t warrant the rebuttal in the first place. Carson appears on the one hand to have sufficient understanding to know the difference, and yet on the other, goes to great length to deal with them as if they are the same. What’s worse than understanding a topic and yet intentionally propagating incorrect and confusing arguments about it?
Throwing the baby out with the bathwater is supposed to refer to an accidental intellectual oversight. Throwing the baby out intentionally is a more serious offence to some. So when a prominent (?) libertarian/anarchist austro-sugar coats, and advocates a fatally flawed Marxist economic theory which was demolished long ago, it just strikes one as more than a little subversive. It sort of makes you go “hmmmm�.
Published: April 4, 2006 5:17 PM
Keith: It's true that Reisman's has a lot of "well gee there have been some state interventions" bits, and to a "free market anti-capitalist", this may appear to be breath-takingly naive, realize that the opposite also holds. I think I speak for all laissez-faire proponents when I say we're at least as dumbfounded by the way in which Carson conviently ignores the state's hindrance of the many aspects of capitalism. It really looks like's fishing to attribute to (what LF proponents appear to be) minor interventions the total transformation of the economy. It forces him to sympathize with (if not advocate) statist interventions, as long as he likes them.
In fact, one case of this isn't even mentioned in the symposium. In his book, Carson alleges that one of the State's devious plots to shut down individual production is to subsidize long-distance shipping and transportation. So, apparently, the State can levy huge tariffs on imports, wage trade-disrupting wars, demonize anyone who tries to bring cheap products in from other countries, and punish each stage of any multi-stage production process, but because of an undocumented claim that government "subsidizes shipping on the high seas", I'm supposed to believe that a stateless world would see far fewer goods impored? Not even Tucker alleged long-distance transportation subsidies. (And of course, it's odd that Carson would believe a free market would be worse at something than the State's bureaucratic agencies.)
Published: April 4, 2006 8:12 PM
Paul,
It's interesting you say that about Carson because Carson makes similar suggestions about Block in his rejoiner. In the eye of the beholder, perhaps?
If anything, I think Carson goes out of his way distinguish between lassez faire and state-capitalism, more so than any other free-market economist that I am aware of. Some of the controversy stems from conflicting definitions of
"capitalism", which Carson defines more narrowly than orthodox Austrians typically do. Much of the hostility to Carson seems rooted in his claim that the bargaining power of labor would be much elevated in the absence of state intervention, particularly if property rights were redefined on the usufructuary model.
As a thought experiment, let's remove from the debate the aspects of Carson's thought Misesians find most objectionable (property theory, LTV) and let's define "capitalism" in whatever way anyone wants to define it. Even if we do this, do the actually existing state-capitalist/corporate-mercantilist classes that actually rule the actually existing modern nations come out looking any better with a consistent application of libertarian principles? I'm not sure that they do.
Much of this debate seems to me to be oriented far too much towards side issues. Agree with Carson's usufructuary approach to property rights or not, Carson (in both his book and his rejoiner to Roderick Long) explicitly states his willingness to accept a plurality of property systems in his own libertarian vision. Carson is also on record elsewhere as opposing the legal prohibition of wage labor, which is the standard Tuckerite view. Maybe in a genuinely free market economy, labor relations would turn out the way Carson says they would. Maybe they wouldn't. "Let the best team win".
This brings me back to my earlier point. What do we do about the actually existing state-capitalist system that actually rules us? Forget about it? Ignore it? If not, then what do we do about it?
Published: April 4, 2006 10:40 PM
Person,
I would certainly be the first to recognize that the state interferes with voluntary exchange (call it "capitalism" if you wish) in many ways. And exactly who are the primary beneficiaries of these many, many interventions? Street vendors? Kids with lemonade stands? Those guys with the "Will work for food signs"? I doubt it.
Reisman in particular makes much sport of Carson's "subsidy of history" argument but it's a serious question. Forget pre-industrial Europe, what about state-capitalist development in the United States alone? Slave labor, large scale expropriation of the original inhabitants, overtly statist means of acquiring not just local lands but entire regions of the country (Louisiana Purchase, Mexican War, Indian Wars, Alaska, Hawaii, the US Civil War and much else). Even Rothbard himself recognized this. In fact, at one point his Radical Libertarian Caucus in the LP had a "land reform" plank calling for defacto reparations to Indians and Mexicans.
Reisman also attempts to depict Carson as something approaching a Unabomber-like technophobe opposed to the technological progress of modernity. I think this is at the very least a misinterpretation. I'll certainly concede that there is indeed a strand of this kind of thinking among some anti-capitalist anarchists (the primitivist John Zerzan comes to mind). But I've never noticed that this is Carson's view. What he seems to object to is not innovation per se but innovation by statist means. Reisman's comments on this matter reminded me of the arguments I've heard in defense of Stalin from commies over the years: "He industrialized Russia, didn't he?" Why not make similar claims concerning the Egyptian pyramids? "Well, of course, the pyramids didn't arise from a purely free market. There were indeed some interventions like slavery and conquest and massacres and all. But we shouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater and ignore the contributions of Ramses to architecture, history and civilization even if he might have been a flawed figure."
I would not consider the interventions Carson describes to be "minor". Let's take some of the examples you mention. Tariffs, for example. The purpose of tariffs is to restrict competition on behalf of politically connected economic interests, most of whom just happen to be from the state-capitalist/mercantilist class. Imperialist wars are the best example of all. On whose behalf are these wars conducted? US interventions in Latin America to protect the feudal plantations of the United Fruit Company and other similar interests are well-known. What about the oil cartel behind much of US intervention in the Middle East? What about coercive monopolies imposed by the patent system (see the pharmaceutical industry)? What about the efforts of agribusiness to wipe out traditional family farms via federal agricultural policy (see Jim Bovard's "Farm Fiasco" or "Harvest of Rage" by Joel Dyer)? What about the de facto slavocracy of the prison-industrial complex? What about all of those corporate interests whose R&D costs are underwritten by the military-industrial complex? What about the state-subsidized mega-university system? What about the banking cartel of the Federal Reserve system? What about "urban renewal"? What about "public-private partnerships"? What about the "medical-industrial complex". We could go on for days talking about this kind of thing.
Yes, I would include subsidies to shipping and transportation in this. It goes without saying that this would not have been as much of an issue in the horse and buggy days of Benjamin Tucker, though I do recall that the individualist-anarchists were actually very critical of the railroads' relationship with the state. I hate to open the whole "Wal-Mart" can of worms, but a standard an-cap defense of Wal-Mart and other similar corporations is that they are simply able to outcompete their local rivals with lower prices. However, would their prices be as low if they had to operate in a fully free-market, including paying for their own shipping and transportation costs minus any subsidies/intervention to highway construction, energy, aviation, water transport, etc. and if they had to buy their own local land rather than simply steal it via eminent domain? BTW, it's amazing that someone like Walter Block would be so blinkered concerning such a matter given that many of his other writings deal extensively with state involvement in transportation systems.
Not "minor" interventions at all, from where I see it.
Published: April 4, 2006 11:27 PM
Carson entire framework is built on a foundation disproven a long time ago. The labor theory of value is obselete. There's no 'recasting'. He's trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. Seriously, it's time to move on to realistic foundations, like, say, the subjective theory of value. I can't believe people are actually debating stuff like this:
- LTV
- in a "free market" there would be no interest
- in a "free market" there would be no profit
- rent is illegitimate
- class theory (what happened to methodological individualism?)
- it's more efficient to grow your own food
What it boils down to is that people like Carson and Preston have innate leftish intuitions which despite a century of evidence to the contrary, they can't let go of, so they stretch the ideology to fit their intutions rather than come up with theory to fit actually observed facts. It's the lowest form of scholarship.
Published: April 5, 2006 4:10 AM
Keith Preston associates (in one of his comments above) captialism with "neofascism".
Fascism was about increasing the size and scope of the state (see the definitions of Fascism offered by the leading Fascists and what they actually did in office - by the 1930's Italy had the biggest state owned sector outside the Soviet Union and the rest of the economy was dominated by regulations).
As for the "bargaining power of labour".
The United States had the highest wages in the world before unions were of any importance.
Not only do, government supported, unions create unemployment and other economic damage - they also, in the end, mean LOWER wages than would otherwise be the case.
An employer should be allowed to fire any worker who joins a union (if that is what the employer wants to do) - if you do not like that go and work for someone else, or set up your business (many small business people earn LESS money than skilled workers, but they are their own boss).
And if a union tells people to break their contracts of employment then the unions funds should be open for civil action.
As for "pickets" (a military term) - this is obstruction, and a system based on the threat of violence (see W.H. Hutt's "The Stike Threat System").
As for cooperatives - go and set one up, no one is stopping you.
"But I want my low interest (or no interest) loan" - actually in Britain in the 1970's the gtovernment handed out some of these loans (and grants) the cooperatives still tended to go bust.
Of course "fraternities" (or "friendly societies") did vast good for factory (and other) workers - in providing medical care and pensions (and so on).
Indeed 85% (and rising) if industrial workers were members of Friendly Societies in Britian by 1911 (when the government messed everything up).
But that is not what you are taling about.
Published: April 5, 2006 5:09 AM
Steve,
You make no effort to address the points that I raised in my previous posts. Instead, you continue to hammer away at secondary matters concerning Carson's work that I suggested I would be willing to hypothetically concede for the sake of argument.
As for class theory, surely you must be aware of the central role of class theory in the work of many leading libertarian theorists including Rothbard, Albert Jay Nock, Franz Oppenheimer, Samuel Edward Konkin III, etc.
As for the innate leftist intuitions of Carson and myself, Carson is a former Burkean paleocon and I am squarely within the "third position" camp, heavily influenced by European New Right thinkers like Alain de Benoist, Tomislav Sunic, Alexander Dugin, Troy Southgate and others. I was involved with the radical left subculture for a few years when I was in my early twenties and was generally repulsed by what I found there. In fact, many of the more hard-core anarcho-leftoids, like the dullards around infoshop.org, consider me to be a "fascist".
When the left calls you a fascist, and the right calls you a communist, I suspect that you are probably on the right track.
Published: April 5, 2006 6:55 AM
Paul,
I equate STATE-capitalism with neofascism, as does Walter Block in his critique of Carson. As far as I am concerned, you can call the non-state sector "capitalism" all you want. It's a matter of semantics that is mostly irrelevant to the finer technical points we are arguing.
Is the corporate mercantilism that I describe in my prior posts not about increasing the scope of the state? Does the military-industrial complex raise or reduce the overall amount of state intervention in the economy? If it raises the level of intervention, then who are the beneficiaries of these interventions?
Did I even mention labor unions is my previous arguments? How is the role of labor unions even relevant to the questions that I raised? Perhaps wages were higher for American workers in early state-capitalist development than they were in, say, Spain or Italy. A valid historical case can be made that American slaves were treated better than the slaves in the South American countries during the same era. But so what? This has nothing to say about the validity, from authentically libertarian principles, of the system itself. Even Mao tse-tung himself and the Communist leader of Vietnam Lee Duan were shocked by the brutality of their little brother, Pol Pot, next door in Cambodia. Does this justify Chinese or Vietnamese Communism?
You're not addressing my arguments. You're diverting the debate into other, secondary, side issues.
Published: April 5, 2006 7:17 AM
Person,
The state CLEARLY subsidizes long-distance shipping and transportation.
In fact, the stated primary mission of most navies in the world is to secure SLOCs, or Sea Lines of Communication (aka maritime trade routes).
Also, it no coincidence that growth in "big business" has closely mirrored heavy government subsidization of long-distance shipping. This first happened with Gov't-subsidized railroads in the mid-to-late 19th Century, again in the 1920s, and exponentially after WWII with the introduction of the internstate highway system. How many national chains and franchises existed before the Interstate Highway System?
The question you must be asking yourself is why does the State do this? Well, Big Government loves Big Business, and vice versa. It's a lot easier for the State to shake-down and coerce a few thousand CEOs than it is to shake-down tens of millions of entrepeneurs. In exchange, Big Business gets to restrict competition and restrict barriers of entry.
I am not saying that Big Business and long-distance trade is bad in and of itself. However, I am saying that more long-distance trade occurs now under a State Capitalist System then would have under a free market system.
Published: April 5, 2006 8:17 AM
Thank you, Nick! At last, someone who gets its!
Published: April 5, 2006 8:37 AM
Thanks Keith. However, aside from his critiques of State Capitalism, I disagree with almost everything else Carson says: Labor Theory of Value (that one really gets me), no interest in a free market, no profit in a free market, absentee landlordism is illegitimate, and the fact that Carson seems to miss the point that not everybody can work for themselves; after all, most tasks require 2 or more people.
- rent is illegitimate
- class theory (what happened to methodological individualism?)
- it's more efficient to grow your own food
Published: April 5, 2006 8:48 AM
Keith: I think you're making my point for me. So tariffs are "obviously" to protect the interests of some capitalist class (and of course, not the small producer who also competes with the imports). But then, if the government lifted tariffs, that would increase the distance the average good is transported, and that would hurt small producers. So no matter what, you can't win! Whatever the government does -- including *lifting* regulations or failing to impose "pro-worker" interventions! -- is a conspiracy against the individual producer!
And you claim the government "intervenes" for oil companies in the Middle East. Yes, it does. But does this mean they'd be unable to pay the local owners to extract it otherwise? No. If the US gov. stopped intervening, whatever revolution would happen, would happen, and they'd buy from the new local owners under that system. Even if they had to defend that claim, they could hire private security (much cheaper than the government security). And even if they refused all access, would that still mean they'd cut off oil? No, thanks to the fungibility of oil, even if they didn't sell to the nice Americans, they'd sell to Switzerland instead. And then whatever oil would have been sold to Switzerland would be sold to the US. Small constraint added to the distribution network -- a penny a gallon at the outside. Whatever subsidy there is to transportation is obliterated by tariffs and the things I listed.
(I should add at this point you don't properly distinguish between subsidies to *specific businesses* and subsidies to *business*. Most are of the former kind.)
Let's take your Wal-Mart example. So (I'll just focus on a representative element) roads were government funded. But what you neglect is that Wal-Mart's founders were reacting to this pre-existing infrastructure. They didn't lobby for it themselves. If it hadn't been there, they would have used their big brains to adapt to whatever would have been there in its absence. Furthermore, if you divide the costs of the road system out by the users, it's clear they're getting a great deal. If you don't beleive the free market could replicate this, that's an indictment of the free market, not of government -- hardly a libertarian position. What's more likely is that Wal-Mart is hindered by government, not helped. Transportation would be easier, not harder.
This is what I mean when I say Carson's position is reaching. He's all too willing to take -- literally -- anything, even non-intervention, as a government "subsidy" to capitalism or large-scale production.
Published: April 5, 2006 8:52 AM
Person,
While I agree that people who think roads couldn't be created on the free-market are generally not libertarian, I don't think being a libertarian means thinking that the free market could generate anything we might deem useful (e.g., roads). Being a libertarian -- fundamentally -- means believing that the initiation of aggression is wrong, and believing in the homesteading principle of private property.
Just because one believes that initiating aggression is criminal, doesn't mean that he has to believe that in a world where such was consistently prosecuted as criminal (e.g., in a world where there was no State) does not mean that one has to believe that roads would be possible in a world without States.
Of course, it is an indictment of the free market, and libertarianism tends to be associated with a strong belief that the free market works. But that strong belief that the free market works isn't fundamental to libertarianism (which is, after all, a legal/moral position). Strong belief that the free market can accomplish anything useful and productive is an economic belief (one almost exclusively held by Austrians).
--Dave H.
Published: April 5, 2006 9:08 AM
David: That's a good point. But still, think about what such a position is then saying: "I support the free market, and I believe it would be bad at providing some good, and I believe that its being bad at providing this good, is a good thing, and that's why I support the free market." Huh?
Published: April 5, 2006 9:22 AM
First, I gotta say that I disagree with much of Carson's economics, for reasons others have pointed out. That said, I think Carson's view of history is closer to the tradition of Rothbard than any of the replies.
Perhaps this statement is indicative:
"Furthermore, if you divide the costs of the road system out by the users, it's clear they're getting a great deal. If you don't beleive the free market could replicate this, that's an indictment of the free market, not of government -- hardly a libertarian position"
Hardly. The whole point of state intervention is to give *someone* a good deal. Of course, the point that Rothbard made, and apparently many Austrians currently fail to realize, is that the unstated part of that deal is that someone else gets a raw deal. So to argue that big business wouldn't get such a good deal on roads in a true free market is NOT an indictment of the market. Further, I think there is truth to the assertion - it's fairly obvious to me that our public road system is underpriced (if only because eminent domain was utilized in its creation - although there are certainly other bases for this assertion).
Finally, as someone who has actually worked in an international corporation, I can relate from first hand experience that much of the current structure of these animals is in response not only to direct state demands, but also to socialist/marxist train of thought that top-down management, ala military organization, is the best way to deal with problems. Management consultants with military experience are beyond common - it's almost a pre-requisite.
To say that current business models are what a free-market would create is a failure of critical analysis.
Published: April 5, 2006 9:33 AM
quasibill: First, about roads, Carson doesn't merely say roads are underpriced. He actively cheers on the inefficiencies that result from poor transportation systems. I can guarantee you, if a private organization, with private funds, invented a long-distance teleporter, in five minutes, he would be hammering away a new essay alleging that this invention was obviously the result of state subsidies and obviously could not otherwise exist, becasue the inventors traveled to the research facility (that they used to invent it) on government roads. Where to even begin with that, I don't know.
Second, I think you neglect the point I was making about roads -- "business" in general is the least of the beneficiaries. They adapt to whatever's there. The main benefit is the small consumer who gains the ability to travel anywhere at no marginal infrastructure cost. Nor does the "good deal" of the roads imply that someone got a bad deal -- it was a difficult coordination problem which may have been hard for private businesses to replicate. However, I believe as a libertarian it could have easily been replicated. Nor do I think the road system in general is underpriced -- government always over pays. (I would agree that at the margin, use of particular roads at particular times is underpriced, but correcting this would favor large, capitalized businesses at the expense of smaller producers -- hardly what Carson wants!)
You're correct that some roads have been built on land from eminent domain, but Carson doesn't consistently object. If a business had a factory (from whence it got huge evil profits) along a critical strip of land which would facilitate better transportation between small producers, and refused to sell it, Carson would be livid, and have no problem seizing the land for the small producers.
I don't understand your point about military/business organization. I don't deny that government influences the structure businesses take, just that Carson is extremely selective in predicting the direction of this influence.
Published: April 5, 2006 9:49 AM
“…I disagree with much of Carson's economics, for reasons others have pointed out. That said, I think Carson's view of history is closer to the tradition of Rothbard than any of the replies.�
This comment underlines the problem: The more Rothbardian a person’s understanding of history, and the better that person’s understanding of the principles of economics, the more responsible he should be held for espousing blatantly incorrect Marxian economic ideas.
Carson’s detractors are not disputing that state capitalism is bad or that we suffer under it today to varying degrees in various segments of the market. The point is Carson reiterates such truths that are practically universally held by the Austrians, and then, as if it somehow follows from these truths, draws incorrect Marxist economic conclusions.
We live in a statist society where individuals, even those working in the market, have been influenced by statist ideas. To the extent that the state influences the way we think and act and do business, to that extent the market has been perverted. This does not refute or dilute Austrian economic theory in the least, but rather confirms it.
I’m with Block. This discussion is pretty painful.
Published: April 5, 2006 10:12 AM
I thought I'd give a scenario and the reactions to it, to prove my earlier point. If you believe your potential reaction has been misrepresented (which ever side you stand on), please speak up.
Scenario: government research facility invents cheap teleportation device and releases the patent and specs to the public.
Austro-libertarian reaction: "Wow, this is great news! This will dramatically benefit many people. Of course, my support of libertarianism is unshaken. If only the government hadn't mucked up the economy, a private entrepreneur would have come up with this a lot sooner, and without the taxation that this entailed."
Free market mutualist reaction: "Obviously this proves the malevolence of the State. This will put many small-scale producers out of business, just as the State wanted. All governments should ban this. Well, small producers can use it to get their stuff to market, but that's it."
Published: April 5, 2006 10:30 AM
"Nor does the "good deal" of the roads imply that someone got a bad deal -- it was a difficult coordination problem which may have been hard for private businesses to replicate."
I think clause 1 and clause 2 are inherently contradictory. If private contract is too expensive to accomplish your goal, by definition, the other party gets a raw deal when you exercise eminent domain. And when you look at the details, you'll notice that small, unsophisticated types fair far, far worse in eminent domain than wealthy or politically connected types. For a good case study, read about the process used to build 476 around Philadelphia - through some of the most expensive real estate in the state, as well as through some of the cheapest. The fact that they needed eminent domain puts the burden of proof on anyone that's arguing that noone got a raw deal.
""business" in general is the least of the beneficiaries. "
Hardly - business benefits as much as any other user, in proportion to the amount they use the underpriced commons. But the broader point is in trying to define what is business. As you note, business has adapted to this subsidy provided by the state. That is, in part, Carson's point, and one worth acknowledging. The current system did NOT arise from a free market. And in truth, a free market would generally reward local producers over large centralized producers - Hayek even acknowledged this point empirically in "Road to Serfdom".
As far as government overpaying, that's often true, but that has no relation to the price of use. Again, that's the whole problem with everything in the welfare state - the state can't price its goods or services properly because it doesn't work in the market. And it also ignores the fact that, by definition, the government does underpay when it pursues eminent domain litigation.
I agree that often, mutualists like Carson make arguments that are not consistent. And I'll even agree that I see some of that in Carson (the whole absentee landlord issue is a rotten premise that sinks much of the ensuing analysis). But people are making grave mistakes in ignoring some of his other points that are valid merely because of his economic problems. I'll have to look again, but I seem to remember Rothbard once complimenting Marx's critiques of mercantilism, while also criticizing Marx's political and economic suggestions. That's the kind of critical analysis that seems to be missing in much (but not all) of the responses to Carson's writings.
Just to make it clear, I couldn't disagree more with his economics, particularly interest rate issues, and also really disagree with many mutualists that revolution could ever result in a stateless society of any stripe - the revolutionaries will inevitably seek to use their newfound power to create the order that they desire. I haven't read enough of Carson on this last issue to know where he stands on that point, but it seems to be a common thread in those circles that revolt against current states is to be encouraged.
Published: April 5, 2006 10:51 AM
We don't have to imagine what Carson would say if we are willing to wait for him to tell us. But I would guess that he wouldn't be livid but rather would try to be dispassionate, and that he would not simplistically be willing to seize land that blocked minor producers - certainly not if the state did the seizing on their behalf - but would be willing to have the occupiers seize it and then make their own arrangements with the small producers. (I don't share his view of occupiers gaining this sort of adverse possession, by the way, though I haven't sorted out a general approach in my own mind yet.)
For what it's worth, as when and if any concealed subsidies to long distance transport, large farms, etc. were abolished, the true economies of scale and so on would emerge; most likely the historical effects of past actions would continue (no point reversing out a sunk cost), so that many larger groupings that weren't worth setting up would turn out to be worth maintaining now they are there. But if any of them couldn't sustain themselves they would go under (think the competition to big steel works from steel mini-mills).
Published: April 5, 2006 11:11 AM
"Nor does the "good deal" of the roads imply that someone got a bad deal -- it was a difficult coordination problem which may have been hard for private businesses to replicate." I think clause 1 and clause 2 are inherently contradictory. If private contract is too expensive to accomplish your goal, by definition, the other party gets a raw deal when you exercise eminent domain.
First, they're not contradictory -- I was talking about the general coordination problems (transaction costs for e.g. tolls), not eminent domain, which I addressed separately. If you can provide a level of road service and taxation such that the level of service is the same as a private road and the taxation is less than what each user would have to pay, I would consider that a good deal at no one's expense. Of course, I think the privat option would be cheaper.
"'business' in general is the least of the beneficiaries. " Hardly - business benefits as much as any other user, in proportion to the amount they use the underpriced commons. But the broader point is in trying to define what is business. As you note, business has adapted to this subsidy provided by the state.
Now it's your turn to be contradictory. If business adapts to whatever's there, "business" in general doesn't benefit. Morever, on an underpriced commons, a business has to "get in line like everyone else", whereas on a market, they can outbid other users entirely. (Though again, since they adapt to this, there's no *general* benefit to business.)
. And in truth, a free market would generally reward local producers over large centralized producers - Hayek even acknowledged this point empirically in "Road to Serfdom".
If Hayek did say this -- and you'll have to pardon me if I ask for a quotation -- I've lost all respect for him. I don't believe anyone who says non-violent business practice X is always better or always worse. It varies from time to time and place to place and industry to industry. Reisman and I criticize Carson's analysis of small-scale production because of his poor arguments, not out of a love for large-scale production as such.
As far as government overpaying, that's often true, but that has no relation to the price of use.
Sure it does. You have to compare *all* of its underpaying and overpaying, not just look at its underpaying and deem whatever it's involved in as uneconomical.
And it also ignores the fact that, by definition, the government does underpay when it pursues eminent domain litigation.
True, but you severly overestimate the magnitude. Unlike the founders of Disneyworld, government doesn't go incognito and pretend to be a small buyer; it openly declares it wants the property, and then the owner says, hot diggity, a buyer with bottomless wealth -- better hold out!
The bottom line is that whatever true points Carson makes, he's extremely selective about what interventions he highlights.
Published: April 5, 2006 11:24 AM
P. M. Lawrence: I'm sorry you misinterpreted a reductio ad absurdum as fantasy, and my use of "livid" as an allegation of mental illness on the part of Carson. When you "sort out" your thoughts on this issue, I'd be glad to hear them, but not until.
Published: April 5, 2006 11:38 AM
I find it odd that a number of people on this thread keep calling Carson a Marxist. To my knowledge he is not a Marxist or even a neo-, post-, or quasi-Marxist. There seems to be a confusion and conflation among a number of people here between socialism and Marxism. Marx was not the first nor the only socialist thinker. So...unless you have textual evidence demonstrating conclusively that Carson is actually a Marxist and not just some other brand of socialist (or, more precisely, mutualist), then please stop calling him a Marxist. It's just sloppy.
Published: April 5, 2006 12:27 PM
"First, they're not contradictory -- I was talking about the general coordination problems (transaction costs for e.g. tolls), not eminent domain, which I addressed separately. "
Well, then we agree to disagree. Anytime someone claims that there is a "problem" for the free market that can be solved by government fiat, I see that as a refutation of the axiom that the market is superior because both parties benefit from an exchange. If you say that I will not sell my house at a price you think is fair, it is, to me, inherent that you want to rip me off if you then invoke force to take my house.
"If you can provide a level of road service and taxation such that the level of service is the same as a private road and the taxation is less than what each user would have to pay, I would consider that a good deal at no one's expense."
Except, perhaps, at an owner's or private competitor's expense - just because the government can afford to run an outfit at no profit doesn't mean others should have to compete in the same vein. Of course, this would be okay for private charity, but that's unlikely to persist in a purely commercial setting.
"Now it's your turn to be contradictory. If business adapts to whatever's there, "business" in general doesn't benefit."
Only contradictory because you are confusing terms, and that is exactly the point Carson makes. Business, in general, receives no extra benefit. Certain types of business, i.e., large centralized, top-down models, do. Absence the state subsidy, these models would be inherently less competitive.
"If Hayek did say this -- and you'll have to pardon me if I ask for a quotation -- I've lost all respect for him."
Well, I don't have the book handy, but it's either Chap. 4 or 5, where he refutes the argument of the socialists that government interference is required to prevent monopoly. Hayek cites to a study (which he points out is done by a group that had apparent sympathy with the socialist argument) that revealed that large centralized markets, dominated by a few players, were more common the more socialized the economy was. He continued in the discussion by comparing late 19th century Germany and Britain, and noting that cartels were more common in the pre-socialist German state. If you lose respect for Hayek because of that, well, I'll just leave it at that.
"Sure it does. You have to compare *all* of its underpaying and overpaying, not just look at its underpaying and deem whatever it's involved in as uneconomical."
This makes absolutely no sense to me whatsoever. If I understand your point, I disagree. You look at what effect a subsidy has on the industry you're studying. That's what a study is.
"it openly declares it wants the property, and then the owner says, hot diggity, a buyer with bottomless wealth -- better hold out!"
It's brutally apparent from that statement that you have never been involved in an eminent domain proceeding. Most often, the condemnee receives pennies on the dollar for the property he loses. Ever notice those houses that are within a couple of feet of a 4 lane highway? Ever wonder why someone would build that close? They didn't - the state seized only a portion of their land so that it could argue that it only needed to pay a small amount. The nearly useless resulting property is soon after abandoned as unlivable. On the other hand, land owners with the ability to pay for good attornies and a few politicians usually do end up with close to value or better.
"The bottom line is that whatever true points Carson makes, he's extremely selective about what interventions he highlights."
The same can be said for Reisman, and yet I don't dismiss everything he writes out of hand. His work is among the most mixed-bag on this site, but he often does make valid points.
Published: April 5, 2006 1:15 PM
Sorry I missed your response, Nick:
In fact, the stated primary mission of most navies in the world is to secure SLOCs, or Sea Lines of Communication (aka maritime trade routes).
This is definitely a different perspective. When you look at this, you say, "bad government for protecting peaceful merchant ships!". When I look at this, I say "bad pirates for attacking peaceful merchant ships!". If your argument is that long-distance trade is "inefficient" because of thieves, that's not much of an argument.
Also, it no coincidence that growth in "big business" has closely mirrored heavy government subsidization of long-distance shipping. This first happened with Gov't-subsidized railroads in the mid-to-late 19th Century,
Actually, the most efficient railroad was James Hill's, with few subsidies (and no unambiguous subsidies).
How many national chains and franchises existed before the Interstate Highway System?
Sears? Woolworths? Montgomery Ward? And of course, they were larger than the ones that came after.
The question you must be asking yourself is why does the State do this? Well, Big Government loves Big Business, and vice versa.
That's one theory. Another is that as government get more power, government has more power to sell, so more people buy. How did government get this way? Well, some people, and I'm not going to name any names, grant it the authroity to punish those they don't like, based on poor economic theories, and they gladly vote it the power it asks for.
Published: April 5, 2006 1:26 PM
Geoffrey,
“…please stop calling him a Marxist�
I just did a check to see if i was guilty of this, and i actually didn't find one statement in the whole thread claiming Carson to be a Marxist. On the other hand, I did say that I believe some of his economics to be of a Marxist nature, but I don’t think that’s a very controversial observation.
In fact Carson himself refers to Marx as he defends the Labor Theory of Value as follows:
“In fact, the idea that the producer is informed of the “socially necessary labor� product, ex post facto, by the price it fetches on the market, was put forth by Marx in his early arguments with Proudhon (see the quote from The Poverty of Philosophy in my rejoinder to Murphy above). So the actual case is just the reverse: the “mud pie� argument was an exercise in intellectual laziness by those who were too ignorant of what they were criticizing to be aware that Marx had “answered� it before it was ever made.�
Published: April 5, 2006 1:26 PM
"For what it's worth, as when and if any concealed subsidies to long distance transport, large farms, etc. were abolished, the true economies of scale and so on would emerge; most likely the historical effects of past actions would continue (no point reversing out a sunk cost), so that many larger groupings that weren't worth setting up would turn out to be worth maintaining now they are there. But if any of them couldn't sustain themselves they would go under (think the competition to big steel works from steel mini-mills)."
I agree totally, and as I noted before, I think there is a problem with Carson wishing to correct these historical problems with the use of force (seizing the property). Although, as he points out, Rothbard at certain points was certainly at least sympathetic to his view.
"I find it odd that a number of people on this thread keep calling Carson a Marxist."
Agreed here, too. I started reading Reisman's critique and quickly went into scan mode as he insistently repeated that Carson was a Marxist. It's unfortunate, because he did have some good points but his resort to calling his opponent a slur detracts seriously from any point he makes. I expect to hear such analysis from the Hannitys, O'Reillys, and Limbaughs of the world, not from someone on this site.
Published: April 5, 2006 1:30 PM
Well, then we agree to disagree. Anytime someone claims that there is a "problem" for the free market that can be solved by government fiat, I see that as a refutation of the axiom that the market is superior because both parties benefit from an exchange.
Then you clearly are not following my point. I *agree* that the market is better, but that proves my point! The state build roads. But the market is better -- the market would have made better, cheaper roads, and long-distance transportation would be even cheaper.
If you say that I will not sell my house at a price you think is fair, it is, to me, inherent that you want to rip me off if you then invoke force to take my house.
And again, I never said I supported eminent domain, just that Carson is inconsistent in his opposition it.
"If you can provide a level of road service and taxation such that the level of service is the same as a private road and the taxation is less than what each user would have to pay, I would consider that a good deal at no one's expense."
Except, perhaps, at an owner's or private competitor's expense -
What owner? My hypothetical assumed it bought the land fairly (exept taht the funds therefor came from taxation). And what competitor? Your argument is that government is bad because it's more efficient than private competitors?
"Now it's your turn to be contradictory. If business adapts to whatever's there, "business" in general doesn't benefit."
Only contradictory because you are confusing terms, and that is exactly the point Carson makes. Business, in general, receives no extra benefit. Certain types of business, i.e., large centralized, top-down models, do. Absence the state subsidy, these models would be inherently less competitive.
Then you misunderstood my point still. Specific, top-down businesses benefit. Top-down business as such does not (when *all* interventions are accounted for, not just the ones Carson chooses to focus on)."If Hayek did say this -- and you'll have to pardon me if I ask for a quotation -- I've lost all respect for him."
Well, I don't have the book handy, but it's either Chap. 4 or 5, where he refutes the argument of the socialists that government interference is required to prevent monopoly. Hayek cites to a study (which he points out is done by a group that had apparent sympathy with the socialist argument) that revealed that large centralized markets, dominated by a few players, were more common the more socialized the economy was. He continued in the discussion by comparing late 19th century Germany and Britain, and noting that cartels were more common in the pre-socialist German state.
That's not the same thing, and that should have been clear to you. Hayek was marking an argument regarding competition prevailing on a free market, not about scale of production, which you earlier alleged.
"Sure it does. You have to compare *all* of its underpaying and overpaying, not just look at its underpaying and deem whatever it's involved in as uneconomical."
This makes absolutely no sense to me whatsoever. If I understand your point, I disagree. You look at what effect a subsidy has on the industry you're studying. That's what a study is.
Right, and my point, which (again) you misunderstand is that *if* you're going to do a study, you can't *merely* look at subsidies in one direction; you have to account for them *all*. Carson looks at subsidies allegedly favoring large-scale production, and totally ignores all the interventions that punish it. That's the problem."it openly declares it wants the property, and then the owner says, hot diggity, a buyer with bottomless wealth -- better hold out!"
It's brutally apparent from that statement that you have never been involved in an eminent domain proceeding. Most often, the condemnee receives pennies on the dollar for the property he loses. ...
And once again, you've misunderstood my point about government not even making a good effort to get a cheap price on legitimately purchased land.
It seems like you've misunderstood every point I've made. Not just disagreed with, but actually responded to a different argument. I would suggest re-reading. Not as a slight, but because you are responding to a misreading of my posts.
Published: April 5, 2006 1:41 PM
"That's not the same thing, and that should have been clear to you. Hayek was marking an argument regarding competition prevailing on a free market, not about scale of production, which you earlier alleged"
Yes, it is. Hayek's point was that concentration of market power into a few hands is LESS likely in a free market than in a highly socialist market. He in fact directly references the scale of production issue as one of the reasons. Butchering a qoute from memory but he says something like the argument in favor of economies of scale is overrated. That there are often even stronger countervailing pressures that tend to disaggregate large firms. And it is quite often the first act of socialist governments to mitigate or reverse these pressures.
"Carson looks at subsidies allegedly favoring large-scale production, and totally ignores all the interventions that punish it. That's the problem."
Okay, I'll agree with that critique - I just hope you're as willing to apply it to those who claim business is the persecuted class, like Reisman, by citing to only interventions that harm big business. I'm getting the vibe that you don't, but I could be wrong about that.
As far as misreading, it is clear that we are talking past each other, as I get the distinct impression that all of your statements are in response to misreadings of my posts...
Published: April 5, 2006 2:54 PM
"The state build roads. But the market is better -- the market would have made better, cheaper roads, and long-distance transportation would be even cheaper."
This is not necessarily true. The market is better, but not always cheaper. Just ask any robber or burglar. Granted, market based roads would have responded more to consumer needs, but what consumer desires exist now are heavily influenced by the existence of the roads built to government specs. Cause and effect are not unidirectional in this arena. Consumers have adjusted their expectations and adapted to the presence of roads that they probably wouldn't have paid for in the first place, if it had been left to the market. Your argument that the current roads would have been cheaper again misses the entire point of the pricing mechanism, which only works in a free market. It is actually more akin to Carson's labor theory of value, which I don't subscribe to.
The current road system would only have been made if an entrepreneur could (or believed he could)have charged sufficient prices to cover the capital investment plus return a handsome profit (to compensate for the enormous risk and time preference issues involved). I have serious doubts that we would have the current system of interstates if the market would have been left to its own devices.
"What owner? My hypothetical assumed it bought the land fairly (exept taht the funds therefor came from taxation). And what competitor? Your argument is that government is bad because it's more efficient than private competitors?"
Well, I guess I missed that assumption on your part, so I'll leave that issue aside now. As for competitors, surely you can acknowledge that government interference in a selected market can drive competitors out (and in fact, this is often the moving intent for interference) as the state can subsidize one aspect of its functioning from general tax revenue, allowing it to offer a good or service at a price that's below what a private actor could? Have you read any of the articles on this site about the University system here in the States?
"Then you misunderstood my point still. Specific, top-down businesses benefit. Top-down business as such does not (when *all* interventions are accounted for, not just the ones Carson chooses to focus on)."
Well, we'll disagree on this one, too. The system of open interstates, created in straight lines through eminent domain, clearly favors centralized producers who can harness the economies of scale in production, and yet have the distribution and shipping costs subsidized by the cheap availability of the interstates. This is clearly just such a benefit to all centralized producers. Are there other, countervailing pressures caused by the state? I'm sure there are, but you've yet to detail any and explain how they swamp out this massive market distortion. You just assert that they exist, and that they do, as a matter of faith. I'm not convinced.
Published: April 5, 2006 3:11 PM
Person,
I am not saying that long-distance trade is “inefficient�; I am stating that subsidized long-distance trade may make foreign-produced goods cheaper, hurting the marginal domestic producer. In the absence of trade subsidies via naval power, the domestic producer would not have been “crowded out�. See my point?
As for the question of “bad gov’t vs. bad pirates�, shipping lanes need not be protected by government vessels. Naval privateering was quite popular before the 19th century, and was still used up intil the Treaty of Paris in 1856.
A paper entitled "Privateering and National Defense: Naval Warfare for Private Profit" by Larry J. Sechrest, written in a previous JLS, examines privateering. http://www.mises.org/journals/scholar/Sechrest6.PDF
In fact, the US Constitution has a clause for Letters of Marque to be granted to protect merchant ships by privateers. Cong. Ron Paul introduced a letter of marquee after 9/11 to take out the Taliban.
Sears didn’t even have a brick-and-mortar store until 1925, and didn’t expand until after WWII http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sears#Sears. Woolworth’s Didn’t grow rapidly until the 1960s, and Montgomery Ward’s brick-and-mortar stores were almost entirely built in the late 1920s.
Published: April 5, 2006 4:19 PM
Paul Edwards, you yourself state: " So when a prominent (?) libertarian/anarchist austro-sugar coats, and advocates a fatally flawed Marxist economic theory which was demolished long ago, it just strikes one as more than a little subversive. It sort of makes you go “hmmmm�." He's not advocating a flawed "Marxist" theory. Without speaking to the validity of Carson's theory, it is a subjectivized mutualist theory.
There may or may not be other examples, aside from Reisman, but I don't think I was hallucinating about the confusion.
Also, referencing Marx does not a Marxist make.
Published: April 5, 2006 5:20 PM
Hi Geoffrey,
"He's not advocating a flawed "Marxist" theory. Without speaking to the validity of Carson's theory, it is a subjectivized mutualist theory."
Well, if what you say is true, then i stand corrected and his economics isn't of a Marxian leaning. And I certainly agree that referencing Mises, for instance, or even claiming to be a Misesian, does not a Misesian make. So the same would apply in reference to Marx.
On the other hand, if i put forth an economic argument and cite Mises's work in support of my position, i hope someone will think it politically incorrect to suggest that my arguments are of a Misesian nature.
Published: April 5, 2006 6:32 PM
that's someone will NOT think...
Published: April 5, 2006 6:34 PM
The point I'm trying to make is merely that Marxism is only one variety of socialism and just because Carson's theory may appear or be socialist does not mean that he is in any way a Marxian. There are poitns of agreement between socialism in general and Marxism, but espousing some elements of the former does not make one the latter. The labour theory of value is also not uniquely Marxian.
Published: April 5, 2006 6:55 PM
Person, if you read what I wrote carefully, you will find I made no accusations of fantasy, just that I pointed out that we could always get clarification from Carson eventually instead of having to imagine what he meant, nor did I construe "livid" as meaning anything about mental illness. Also, my specific mention of sorting my ideas on one point out related just to that one point - to see if there was a general approach to property that could substitute for the one in place that governments used to grant it to those it chose on terms it chose.
Published: April 6, 2006 12:41 AM
Person,
On the tariffs question, I think you're falling once again into the error of evading the central thrust of my argument by veering off into peripheral side issues. Yes, some individual small producers or workers may benefit from a particular tariff (or not), but that is not the principal purpose of tariffs. Instead, tariffs are used primarily for the cultivation of monopolistic privileges for state connected economic elites, i.e, corporatists, mercantilists, state-capitalists, etc. This is an elementary principle of political economy and economic history. It's probably in the encyclopedia. Your argument is like saying that the first purpose of war is to provide job sercurity for supply clerks at military bases. That may well be a quaternary effect (or even intention) but it's not the principal purpose of war.
I agree with what you say about oil. I make the same argument to those who defend military intervention in the Middle East on the grounds that "we need oil!". But US intervention on behalf of the oil industry is not just for the purpose of protecting their ability "to buy oil". The purpose is to control the oil supply according to a monopolistic pricing system established through state-created cartelization and protected by US imperialism.
In a free market, Wal-Mart might well attempt to establish or maintain their own interstate transportation systems. But they would have to bear the full cost of their shipping and transportion needs rather than passing these on to the general public via taxation and subsidy (Are you familiar with the public choice school?). In a free market, Wal-Mart and other similar corporations would have to pass these costs of production on to their consumers rather than the producing classes at large. This would in turn undermine their ability to undercut their local competitors with lower prices the way they do now. Take away other statist privileges like eminent domain, zoning laws, construction subsidies, "public-private partnerships" and the like and they're really hurting.
Published: April 6, 2006 9:37 AM
"Hayek was marking an argument regarding competition prevailing on a free market, not about scale of production, which you earlier alleged"
Yes, it is. Hayek's point was that concentration of market power into a few hands is LESS likely in a free market than in a highly socialist market.
RIGHT. Market *power* is less concentrated. That's a completely separate issue from whether factories/production methods will be large or small scale. If all zippers in the world are produced in a small town my multiple organizations, there can be a HUGE scale of production and yet still be vigorous competition and well-dispersed market power.
He in fact directly references the scale of production issue as one of the reasons. Butchering a qoute from memory but he says something like the argument in favor of economies of scale is overrated.
And you're quite clearly missing the focus of that statement, if you and I are thinking about the same statement. He was refuting the old socialist/fascist argument about "It's *so* inefficient having all these factories. Why not just roll them all into one big one?" The argument was not that there are *small* returns to scale, but that merging them into one has serious negative consequences, mainly that it sidesteps the discovery process of market. That is, if there is no free entry into producing that, they will go lax in finding better methods and removing the unnecessary.
"Carson looks at subsidies allegedly favoring large-scale production, and totally ignores all the interventions that punish it. That's the problem."
Okay, I'll agree with that critique - I just hope you're as willing to apply it to those who claim business is the persecuted class, like Reisman, by citing to only interventions that harm big business. I'm getting the vibe that you don't, but I could be wrong about that.
I am as willing, but business *is* a persecuted class. The only reason we don't see it as clearly is that their persecution results in successful business men have three houses, not four, or simply not existing. It's hard to drum up sympathy for that, even though that means that lots of goods for poorer people aren't getting produced. The difference between Reisman and Carson is, quite frankly, that far more of Reisman's pass the laugh test ("tariffs don't help small domestic producers, really!" "unions don't scare away investment, I promise!"). Plus, like I said before, Carson attacks long-distance transportation with such glee that you'd think he *wants* transportation method to always suck.
Published: April 6, 2006 12:15 PM
qb:
This is not necessarily true. The market is better, but not always cheaper. Just ask any robber or burglar. Granted, market based roads would have responded more to consumer needs, but what consumer desires exist now are heavily influenced by the existence of the roads built to government specs. ... Your argument that the current roads would have been cheaper again misses the entire point of the pricing mechanism, which only works in a free market. ...
The current road system would only have been made if an entrepreneur could ...(snipped for space)
I agree I overconstrained my explanation when I said the "road" system would be better. government did indeed heavily facilitate the preference for roads over e.g., railroads, canals, aviation. But the point is, the transportation system would likely have been even *better*.
As for competitors, surely you can acknowledge that government interference in a selected market can drive competitors out (and in fact, this is often the moving intent for interference) as the state can subsidize one aspect of its functioning from general tax revenue, allowing it to offer a good or service at a price that's below what a private actor could?
True, but what I was considering was a road system that *is* tax-funded but still makes it so each person's taxes are less than what they would pay for a private road, and quality is roughly the same. The existence of such a condition would be a serious indictment of the free market's ability to provide goods and services. I don't think such a condition exists (being libertarian and all). Ergo, I think transportation is more expensive than in the absence of a state. Ergo, the absence of a state would hurt small scale local producers in this respect. Ergo, I strongly disagree with Carson's predictions.
Well, we'll disagree on this one, too. The system of open interstates, created in straight lines through eminent domain, clearly favors centralized producers who can harness the economies of scale in production, and yet have the distribution and shipping costs subsidized by the cheap availability of the interstates. This is clearly just such a benefit to all centralized producers.
And I have a little more faith in markets to provide goods than you do. (Well, not so much "faith" as "well-founded conjecture.") For some reason -- I'm sure you'll understand -- I think government is a big failure at most of what it does. Transportation is no exception. If anything, I think its involvment in this area is a huge roadblock (please pardon the pun) to innovation and quality in general. I think you'd see much better, much cheapter transportation. So I think the whole "interstate subsidy" argument is missing the forest because of all the stupid trees in the way.
Are there other, countervailing pressures caused by the state? I'm sure there are, but you've yet to detail any and explain how they swamp out this massive market distortion. You just assert that they exist, and that they do, as a matter of faith. I'm not convinced.
Please. *No one* has provided a compelling case. This is because it's extremely difficult to stick a number on all the interventions one way and the other way, and compare them. Except the burden of proof falls on Carson for bringing up the argument.
Published: April 6, 2006 12:29 PM
NB:I am not saying that long-distance trade is “inefficient�; I am stating that subsidized long-distance trade may make foreign-produced goods cheaper, hurting the marginal domestic producer. In the absence of trade subsidies via naval power, the domestic producer would not have been “crowded out�. See my point?
And this "subsidy" wholly consists of fighting pirates (who, I would argue, themselves count as a State with higher taxes and more brutality). The argument that domestic producers suffer "cause the pirates aren't killing the merchants" and that this is therefore bad ... well, doesn't cut a lot of ice with me.
As for the question of “bad gov’t vs. bad pirates�, shipping lanes need not be protected by government vessels. ... A paper entitled
Yeah, I'm familiar with the paper. Like, a thousand times over. All it proves is that, even if I concede the "but pirates support domestic production!" argument, government protection of shipping lanes is -- contrary to your point -- *more* expensive than private naval protection, and long distance trade *more* expensive than in the absence of a state.
Sears didn’t even have a brick-and-mortar store until 1925
The interstate system did have its major construction until the 50's. And then there were more and smaller franchises.
Published: April 6, 2006 12:35 PM
KP:
On the tariffs question, I think you're falling once again into the error of evading the central thrust of my argument by veering off into peripheral side issues. Yes, some individual small producers or workers may benefit from a particular tariff (or not), but that is not the principal purpose of tariffs. Instead, tariffs are used primarily for the cultivation of monopolistic privileges for state connected economic elites, i.e, corporatists, mercantilists, state-capitalists, etc. This is an elementary principle of political economy and economic history.
I don't think so. If that's the purpose, it's a very roundabout way of doing it. Tariffs as such benefit *all* domestic competitors, irrespective of size, and punish *all* importation of the tariffed good. They don't target any one producer. Only a direct subsidy or exemption can do that, and in that case, the exemption or the subsidy is causing the problem, not tariffs in general. What happens is, you *want* to believe that all interventions only hurt the small guy, so you dismiss any and all possibility, out of hand, that someone else suffers.
The purpose is to control the oil supply according to a monopolistic pricing system established through state-created cartelization and protected by US imperialism.
So then you agree oil would be cheaper absent state intervention? That transportation would be cheaper? That local producers would be more at a disadvantage at least in this respect?
In a free market, Wal-Mart might well attempt to establish or maintain their own interstate transportation systems. But they would have to bear the full cost
"Full" cost? "own" transportation system? Wal-mart isn't the only one benefiting from those roads, let's recall. Whatever tranportation system there would be, would have its costs distributed over all users, probably in rought proportion to use. The benefit of this cheap transportation is tremendous, and benefits everyone. To think that Wal-mart would have to pay for it all alone, or would constitute a majority user, is fantasy.
Published: April 6, 2006 12:45 PM
Person,
Regarding naval subsidies to global trade – A naval presence does more than just actively “fight pirates�. It also plays a major role in search and rescue, technical assistance, aiding in navigation, etc. These all help to drive down maritime insurance premiums and lowers risk for traders. Just like in your local neighborhood, an absence of government security forces would not resort in a total lack of security. On the contrary, residents would provide for their own defense and hire private security guards/police to protect them. There is nothing different on the high seas, nor is anything different for the Coast Guard.
Many highways were built in the 1920s and the trucking industry exploded in the 20’s. In fact, the railroads started lobbying heavily in the 1920s for regulation of the booming trucking industry because it was cutting in on their action. The following quote is from EH.net (the Economic History Encyclopedia) for “The Economy of the 1920s�:
“A complaint of the railroads was that interstate trucking competition was unfair because it was subsidized while railroads were not. All railroad property was privately owned and subject to property taxes, whereas truckers used the existing road system and therefore neither had to bear the costs of creating the road system nor pay taxes upon it. Beginning with the Federal Road-Aid Act of 1916, small amounts of money were provided as an incentive for states to construct rural post roads. (Dearing-Owen, 1949) However, through the First World War most of the funds for highway construction came from a combination of levies on the adjacent property owners and county and state taxes. The monies raised by the counties were commonly 60 percent of the total funds allocated, and these primarily came from property taxes. In 1919 Oregon pioneered the state gasoline tax, which then began to be adopted by more and more states. A highway system financed by property taxes and other levies can be construed as a subsidization of motor vehicles, and one study for the period up to 1920 found evidence of substantial subsidization of trucking. (Herbst-Wu, 1973) However, the use of gasoline taxes moved closer to the goal of users paying the costs of the highways. Neither did the trucks have to pay for all of the highway construction because automobiles jointly used the highways. Highways had to be constructed in more costly ways in order to accommodate the larger and heavier trucks. Ideally the gasoline taxes collected from trucks should have covered the extra (or marginal) costs of highway construction incurred because of the truck traffic. Gasoline taxes tended to do this.�
Clearly, at least the railroads thought the subsidized road network was helping the trucking industry. Of course, the railroads were heavily subsidized as well, but they thought they were unique in this regard.
Published: April 6, 2006 2:03 PM
"If anything, I think its involvment in this area is a huge roadblock (please pardon the pun) to innovation and quality in general"
Well, you're wrong about my faith in the market - I have plenty of faith. I just realize that where we are now has nothing to do with the free market. Regardless, you're missing the point that what is now considered "better" is influenced by the existence of these self-same highways that were built outside of market preference.
For example, it is highly unlikely any private market actor would have built the WV turnpike which serves part of my extended family. The return on investment would have been very low. Yet business has adapted to its presence and centralized producers now dominate in markets surrounding it, where before the existence of the turnpike, small, local producers flourished.
The market prioritizes values at the time in question, and absent state intervention, much of the country would not have been worth having a 4 lane highway through.
"I am as willing, but business *is* a persecuted class"
I was afraid you were one of those. Business is no more persecuted than any other "class", and in many instances, large, well connected businesses are some of the primary beneficiaries of our socialized state.
"The argument was not that there are *small* returns to scale, but that merging them into one has serious negative consequences, mainly that it sidesteps the discovery process of market. That is, if there is no free entry into producing that, they will go lax in finding better methods and removing the unnecessary."
I'm having a hard time unravelling that, but I'll repeat the point by a direct quote:
"Modern methods, it is asserted, have created conditions in the majority of industries where the production of the large firm can be increased at decreasing costs per unit with the result that the large firms are everywhere underbidding and driving out small ones...This argument singles out one effect sometimes accompanying technological progress; it disregards others which work in the opposite direction; and it recieves little support from a serious study of the facts." Serfdom, p. 50. Hayek then goes on to compare England and Germany.
It has nothing to do with anything about "they will go lax in finding better methods and removing the unnecessary". It is definitely about the benefits of large scales of economy being overstated because of the presence of socialist policies that reinforce it. I'm not sure how you could misread it except for intentionally.
Published: April 6, 2006 2:38 PM
Person,
It appears from your answers that you have a serious misunderstanding of the issue of cost in general versus cost to an individual.
Just because transportation would be cheaper in general if left to the market does NOT necessarily imply that it would be cheaper to a given individual or business. In fact that is exactly why socialism exists - to defray the costs suffered by certain individuals off onto the taxpaying class as a whole. The whole point is obviously to make it cheaper for certain individuals or classes than it would be otherwise. Government is incompetent in general, sure, but it does succeed at re-distributing wealth fairly well.
So your assertion that transportation as a whole would be cheaper, while likely true, does nothing to refute the argument that for an individual actor like Wal-Mart, it would likely be more expensive, as they no longer could spread the costs among the taxpaying base. The same is true of protection services (navies, etc.) while there would likely be less spent overall, the costs would fall entirely on those who use the service, so for them, the costs could increase.
Once again, the market is not magic. It merely prioritizes and coordinates values in a manner no centralized planner could ever replicate.
Published: April 6, 2006 2:52 PM
I don't want to take up a lot of space, because I've already made a blog post on the subject.
But the epigraph to my book is a quote from Bohm-Bawerk, to the effect that the ball was in the labor theorists' court, and that he was ready to engage them on whatever errors of analysis he might have made, and on any attempt on their part to maintain the labor theory in face of his criticisms. Nevertheless, he said, any such defense of the labor theory would have to be on a different basis than those of the past--no more "appeals to authority," no more "dogmatic phrases," but an argument that addressed his criticisms head-on and answered them rationally.
Today, I find the shoe is on the other foot.
I wrote the section on value theory in my book as an attempt to take up B-B's challenge. In so doing, I made a good faith effort to understand what he was actually saying it and answer it directly--NOT to talk past him without a careful reading.
Now it's the adherents of subjectivism who smugly assert that Bohm-Bawerk or Mises "disproved" the labor theory, who appeal to authority, and who repeat "dogmatizing phrases." Paul Marks, perhaps the worst example of that tendency on this thread, repeats platitudes about what "everybody knows," without having the vaguest idea of what I actually wrote, of what the labor theory of value really entailed, or what are its real points of difference with the subjective theory.
I find the labor theory crudely caricatured as a theory of intrinsic value, I find appeals to strawmen like sunk costs and "mud pies"--all, apparently, with absolutely no awareness of what the classical political economists themselves had to say about these things. All these criticisms from people who get their ideas second hand, and have no idea what the people they're criticizing actually said.
I should add that there are many Austrian critics who are not guilty of this failing. Murphy and Long, for example, did an excellent job of reading what I actually wrote and directly engaging my ideas. Their thoughtful criticisms required a lot more effort and thought to answer, in my rejoinders, than did the vitriol of Block and Reisman. In reading the latter, as Person says of someone else in this thread, I got the impression they were answering arguments they made up themselves.
On the historical issues, the differences between (on the one hand) Person and (on the other) Keith and quasibill are explained quite well in quasibill's last post. No doubt a free market road construction company could do a cheaper and more efficient job than the state. But the free market would be hard put to provide any service more cheaply than one can get it by stealing it--which is exactly what a state subsidy amounts to. On the tariff issue, no less authorities than Mises and Rothbard called it the mother of cartels. The decisions to adopt high tariff walls in the late 19th century, and to move toward low tariffs under FDR and the subsequent Bretton Woods regime, were made by essentially the same state capitalist interests. They actually saw their interests, at different times, as being served by different policies--imagine that!
Person, it's not accurate to say I applaud the "inefficiencies" caused by poor transportation. That's begging the question. My argument is that any "efficiencies" of large scale that only exist when part of total cost (transportation cost) is externalized are illusory. When all the costs appear on the ledger, increased transportation costs offset increased productive economies of scale at relatively low levels of output. Producing above that scale is MORE inefficient. And highway subsidies did not begin with the Interstates. They began after WWI, with the system of federally designated state highways.
One other thing: Paul Marks, if you could be bothered, with all the trouble in your life, to read my comments in my response to the Rothbard article, you might find out that the Greene-Tucker idea of mutual banking has nothing to do with inflating the money supply. In fact, their critique of the state's banking entry barriers directly parallels Rothbard's critique of similar barriers in the life insurance industry. The mutual bank, in fact, is not "lending" money at all, but issuing currency against the "borrower's" own property in exactly the same way an existing commercial bank does in a second mortgage or home equity loan. The difference, under the present system, is that market entry barriers (capitalization requirements and licensing) artificially reduce competition to supply the service, and enable banks to charge a monopoly price for the service--exactly what Rothbard said about the life insurance industry. Apparently, reading the article and knowing what you're talking about before you shoot your mouth off is one of those "luxuries" you can't affort. But thanks for awarding me that PhD.
Published: April 6, 2006 3:35 PM
Given all the disagreement here even between people who reject Kevin's basic economics and accept the Austrian method, maybe a JLS symposium on state monopoly capitalism is in order? Effects can be discussed and remedies explored. Its a subject that is over due. (Though the recent Economics of Fascism conference covered a deal).
Published: April 6, 2006 5:27 PM
I'll second that. Perhaps Stromberg's articles "The Political Economy of Liberal Corporatism" and "State Monopoly Capitalism and Empire" (the latter of which appeared in JLS) could be the jumping off point.
Published: April 6, 2006 6:16 PM
Keith Preston writes: "I have yet to encounter a single orthodox an-cap/Austrian/right-libertarian who is willing to address this question in a thorough and satisfactory manner."
Well, this might be a matter of definition, no? There are plenty of essentially Rothbardian thinkers (including Brad Spangler, Wally Conger, and myself) who make the very points Preston asks for, and (as far as I can see) don't backslide into defending the existing corporate system -- but once we adopt that position, do we still count as "orthodox an-cap/Austrian/right-libertarians"? Those of us who take that position tend to call ourselves left-libertarians, precisely because we take that position.
Published: April 6, 2006 7:58 PM
Why must there a position that defends any existing system? Personally, I see the "an-cap/Austrian" thing as being merely opposed to force (and thus, the state). Why should this imply either corporatism or other isms?
Published: April 6, 2006 8:09 PM
Nor does the "good deal" of the roads imply that someone got a bad deal -- it was a difficult coordination problem which may have been hard for private businesses to replicate."
We all got a bad deal. Sitting in traffic (waiting in line like Soviet peasants for goodness sakes) and crawling along at a snails pace. Roads taking up so much land that they throw people out to the outer suburbs and thereby create conditions where more roads must be built.
How about this:
"So you got no job cause you got no car so you got no girl so there you are"
or this:
" Can't get a job cause I aint got a car
Can't get a car cause I aint got a job
So I'm looking for a girl with a car and a job
(Lost in America, Lost in America, Lost in America, Lost in America)"
Would the sorts of vicious circles, as described by the above poets, have been evident under economic liberty? I think not.
There has been little economising on land use under the path we did travel. Whereas if we did it the Proffessor Block way there would be much more tunneling and overpasses by now. Much less encroachment on nature. And a competitive framework between the various types of transport.
The canals would be all systems go. And moving heavy weights by water is so powerfully energy efficient that the adjustments we now might have to make (due to likely rising oil prices) would be a thing which would strike no fear in the hearts of even the most dedicated hand-wringers.
Since if anything the amount of surface area land used in transport (under the Block way of doing things) would be a tad under-supplied we might expect multi-level rail and roads by now. A rail-line above the road or canal........ So here we see the possibility of direct and rigourous competition between competing transport infrastructures that follow the same route!!!!! Now wouldn't THAT have been something?
What about all those shattered lives through road kill. That could never happen on private roads.
But how about the ubiquitous cold evil of height restrictions on buildings. The idea would have been so untenable we would have been spared this silent but devastating persecution.
Look one can see how there might have been some medium-term inefficiency to not having compulsion in this area. That there might have been this short period of inefficiency many decades ago.
But having short-circuited the market process we have lost all those innovations that would surely have come had the situation been left to individual genius and enterprise.
We can only guess at the wonders we missed out on.
Published: April 6, 2006 9:31 PM
Another thought:
Block and Reisman accuse Carson of confusing free markets with government intervention. Carson turns around and accuses Block and Reisman of the same thing. So what's going on?
I offer the following not as a complete but at least as a partial explanation.
Carson condemns various aspects of present-day "capitalist" society on the grounds that these aspects are the results of various governmental rights-violations past and present. But here some distinctions have to be drawn.
1. Some of the actions he points to as governmental rights-violations are ones that any Austro-libertarian must agree are indeed rights-violations -- various sorts of taxation, protection, expropriation, etc.
2. Others are ones that most Austro-libertarians will not regard as rights-violations; for example, Carson considers enforcing absentee land titles a rights-violation even if the land was not acquired violently.
3. Where the original actions are ones that Austro-libertarians will agree are rights-violations, in some cases the causal connection between those actions and the aspects Carson condemns is relatively straightforward and most Austro-libertarians will be committed to agreeing.
4. In other cases the causal connection depends on economic and/or historical theses that are controversial, and that any given Austro-libertarian might or might not accept. (For example, to what extent are the present structure of industry and the present distribution of property due to the enclosure movement?)
(So, for instance, Carson's claim that rent is unjust because absentee landlordship is inherently unjust is distinct from his claim that rent is unjust because the current division between the landed and the landless is the result of past expropriation. One could agree with either claim and disagree with the other. But I think neither Carson nor his critics always distinguish these claims as clearly as might be desirable.)
Now suppose an Austro-libertarian reads Carson and disagrees with him about #2 (as he will) and #4 (as he may). Then it will naturally seem to the Austro-libertarian that Carson is condemning as government interventions what are in fact perfectly legitimate market phenomena.
Well, that still leaves #1 and #3, no? True; but Carson's #1 and #3 are much intermingled with his #2 and #4, and the Austro-libertarian, now impatient and suspicious, may be inclined to read Carson's whole project as a conflation of free markets with government intervention, and toss the whole thing into the flames without further disaggregation.
What then will be Carson's natural reaction? "Maybe they disagree with me about #1 and #3 -- but they haven't rebutted my arguments for them. And anyway, the way they're dismissing my whole book, not just #1 and #3; they obviously disagree with my #2 and #4 also. But they couldn't do that if they were consistent Austro-libertarians. By rejecting #2 and #4 they show that they are willing to defend what I'd thought were uncontroversially rights-violating aspects of the present system as though they were free-market aspects. Obviously my critics are conflating free markets with government intervention."
So that's my theory for at least part of the reason that Carson and his critics can each accuse the other of conflating free markets with government intervention.
Published: April 6, 2006 10:39 PM
In the long run, absent state subsidy, distribution of property will become more even over time under anarchism. That's because the full cost of defending and maintaining claims of "enclosure" on property that is not productive will become very expensive even for wealthy landowners (I suspect Mr. Carson could make a convincing argument that all current governmental arrangements subsidize property defense for the wealthy at the expense of the poor).
And this will be true even if the property was aquired unjustly (if not illegally). To make strides toward the kind of equitable distribution Mr. Carson favors will require only the removal of the subsidy, and no outside or government force of any kind. Resorting to any kind of forced redistribution will invalidate the anarchic ideal by replacing one form of oppression of property rights with another. Remove the subsidy, and inertial will take care of the rest.
Published: April 6, 2006 11:38 PM
It sounds like a very minor point from your account Vince.
In a near-libertarian setup that costs issue would be solved simply by going easy on low wealth/income individuals tax-wise.
In a libertarian setup it might be covered by Rand's insurance idea.
And in an anarcho-capitalist setup it would be Hoppes private enforcement agencies also funded at least in part by insurance.
A minor point. Hardly an existential crisis.
Still I will have to read it myself I guess.
Published: April 7, 2006 12:26 AM
Roderick,
Your response to Keith Preston almost sounded like you agreed with his assessment. If it is mostly the left-libertarian Rothbardians who manage to avoid defending state capitalism, do the right-libertarian Rothbardians sometimes fall into the trap of defending it? Yet if they do fall into this trap, to the extent that they do so, do they not also fall away from defending libertarian ideals and fall away from the Rothbardian camp altogether?
In general, i have to confess to being confused on the left-right libertarian distinction. Was Rothbard a left libertarian? I have never detected a left or rightness in his writings, but rather a simple and pure libertarianness that upheld a pure libertarian ethic to the best that he had developed it during his time.
Published: April 7, 2006 12:43 AM
To Paul Edwards -- I use the terms "left" and "right" for lack of anything better, but they're slippery. Some of what I mean by them I explain here. Slipping occasionally from defending laissez-faire to defending state capitalism is certainly a right-making feature, though not the only one. Making the slip consistently makes one no longer a libertarian. But as Carson said on his blog some time a while back, he's come to prefer "vulgar libertarian" as a description of particular arguments rather than of people, since no libertarian makes the slip all the time. As for Rothbard, I'd say he was certainly a left-libertarian during the 1960s. And I'd say he shifted rightward during the 80s-90s, but more on cultural issues than on narrowly economic ones.
Published: April 7, 2006 11:04 AM
Roderick,
Your comment "and I regard libertarianism as properly rooted in egalitarianism" at your site struck me as worth a read, so i followed the link and located this gem:
"But, again like racism and sexism, statism is the kind of moral vice that tends to enter the soul through self-deception, semi-conscious osmosis, and a kind of Arendtian banality, rather than through a forthright embrace; it is a form of spiritual blindness that can, and does, infect even those who are largely sincere and well-meaning..."
So I'm glad i asked because this piece of insight struck me as correct and helpful.
And this statement
"...Murray Rothbard, in his advocacy of anarcho-capitalism, turns out to have been one of the most consistent and thoroughgoing egalitarian theorists of all time. As the author of Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature, Rothbard might very well turn over in his grave to hear himself so described;..."
is really interesting. I need to go over the entire article again to see if i can grasp what it is about Rothbard's thinking that is egalitarian in the sense that i think of the term. Perhaps i don't think of it in quite the way you mean it. Thanks.
Published: April 7, 2006 12:12 PM
Roderick,
From the economic commentary I've seem from you (on the Praxeology site and on the Libertarian Nation site), I'd have to say that, for all practical purposes, you are "one of us" as is Spengler, Conger, Samuel Edward Konkin III and, as I see it, Rothard himself.
You and Kevin may disagree over absentee landlordism and the labor theory of value, and to an economist these are no doubt very important questions. However, to a non-economist like me it's like watching the debate between Baptists and Presbyterians over the question of infant vs. adult baptism from an atheist's perpsective: Why worry about it?
I once saw a statement from you (sorry, I forget where) comparing the alliance between state and capital to the relationship between state and church during the pre-Enlightenment era. This is similar to my approach to class theory. I would compare the state to the monarchy, the state-corporate system to the feudal land barons and I think the best analogy to the authoritarian church would be the media, academia and the "white coat priesthood" (the medical-industrial complex).
My primary criticism of those whom Carson refers to as "vulgar libertarians" is rooted in the idea that I largely see them as the equivalent of those who championed the aristocracy against the monarchy ("We don't want the crown interfering with aristocratic privilege but keep those peasants down!") Obviously, that's very far removed for your perspective.
Incidentally, I would also regard Bob Murphy and Walter Block as "one of us" as well, all things considered. Both of them have produced much excellent material over the years denouncing imperialism, the police state, the warfare state and most of the other true monstrosities of statism. Murphy's response to Carson was intelligent, thoughtful and reasonable and while I though Block's response was rather shabby, it's something I can certainly forgive given that Block is the author of "Defending the Undefendable", an all time libertarian classic in my view.
Published: April 7, 2006 3:45 PM
Roderick and Paul,
I think there's more consistency in Rothbard's thought throughout his career than is sometimes recognized. He is sometimes accused of shifting rightward in the early 1990s (his paleo period) but if you go back and read some of his old articles from the Libertarian Forum many of them read like they were lifted from the Rothbard-Rockwell Report. He was raking womens' libbers ov