On "Private Tyrannies"
If you have ever read much of the political philosophy and commentary of renowned anarchosyndicalist intellectual Noam Chomsky, then you are probably familiar with his view that large private business organizations are "private tyrannies" -- oversized and antidemocratic institutions that function according to that most hated of organizational principles, the hierarchy! FULL ARTICLE
Comments (67)
Ana Vasconcelos
I think Chomsky took R Coase argument "The Nature of the firm" over the top. As you may know Coase points out that those who highlight the market accept firms which are centralised and planning based organizations, exactly the opposite of the market. And he goes on saying that firms are accepted because they are a means of lowering transaction costs.
I think Coases argument is quite suttle and interesting.
Chomsky like all anarchocomunists just went over the top and states that firms are tyranicall.
Its just not very inteligent
Published: January 22, 2009 9:09 AM
Gil
This article is the standard steamer that makes anarcho-Capitalism an oxymoron. There will alway be an '-archy' of some sort. Likewise what mystical force does the State have? Someone has to own the land. If Joe Average owns a sovereign one acre he has the monopoly of force to protect his land. Simple.
I mean I still don't know whether to laugh or curse when I keep hearing Libertarians whine about getting a 'statist' "love it or leave it" yet love the private equivalent. Walmart has a monopoly over the land it controls and set the rules and regulations governing its land. The different nation-states compete on the world stage hence 'states' have no true monopoly. 'Tax slavery' is piece of horse manure rhetoric along with 'wage slavery'. The 'state' can only theoretically 'enslave' you if it forbids from renouncing your citizenship and leaving - period. "Oh but I don't want it leave, it's too much of a transaction cost for my comfort zone". Well tough faeces. Everyone else is expected to bear the transaction cost of leaving or loving it.
At the end of the day the U.S.A. (and many others) was created as a Constitutional Representative Democracy - chances are it was established before whinging Libertarians immigrated and therefore is legitimate. It wasn't established via force by a gang of thugs overrunning happy farming villages of Libertarians. Likewise the Constitution has an amendment process. Tough luck if the later amendments don't seem as Libertarian as the first ten.
Perhaps the most telling amendment is the 2nd one. If U.S. citizens think the government has overstepped its boundaries and has become a den of thieves and thugs then the people form militia groups and overthrow the government with terminal force. In other words, get your gun, shoot at real people, kill them, risked dying in the process, etc. if you believe the U.S. government has gone way too far. Period.
Published: January 22, 2009 9:18 AM
Pat
That famous passage about saber-toothed tigers and cage. He omitted the fact that people can make some weapons and fight against those tigers. One thing I can surmise from his text is that he is more concerned about business than state power. But what else is new?
Published: January 22, 2009 9:30 AM
I Hate Taxes
What if I refuse to go inside that cage ?
Chomsky would then threaten me and send his armed goons to force me to go into that cage or else they would shoot me dead.
So in what ways is Chomsky different than the tiger ?
At least the tiger wanders by randomly and I have a fighting or running chance against the tiger and chances are I will never meet the tiger.
Or I could even hunt down the tiger and sell it's fur for a profit.
But being caged up is the most dangerous and unsafe situation possible, because you are at the complete mercy of the key holder.
And what if the key holder is himself a saber-tooth tiger in disguise ?
But the fact that Chomsky would use the threat of deadly violence in order to force people inside the cage in order to "protect" them is completely schizoid and proves that Chomsky just wants power and control for himself and that he is a killing and looting predator himself.
In fact I love hunting and taking risks and it would be my pleasure to hunt down that tiger for it's fur and sell it for money.
Chomsky better not try to force me inside his cage or I will force him chopped into pieces to roast inside my oven !
Then I will share his cooked ass with the tiger !
Published: January 22, 2009 10:05 AM
Matt
Gil,
Of course there will always be an "-archy" of some sort. Yes, if you own a piece of land it is your monopolized private property.
But the "-archy" that exists on a private property extends no farther than the borders of that given property.
The difference between me and Walmart owning property and the government owning property is that Walmart and I toiled and saved our money and made a legitimate bid for that property, while the government took it at gunpoint. Even if the government makes a purchase of property, the purchase was made with money that was extracted at gunpoint from individuals taking part in a natural market, to the detriment of that market.
Government uses their monopoly of force to violate private property.
Re-read the article. It states these points quite well.
I do agree however with your second amendment point. I'd rather the revolution be intellectual rather than violent though.
Published: January 22, 2009 10:10 AM
I Hate Taxes
Gil,
I should not have to leave my country I was born in just because tyrants are killing and looting me.
Instead, it's the tyrants who should leave my country dead or alive ! I would leave them the choice to leave my country or leave this universe, one way or the other they would no longer pollute my country.
In fact, I think you should leave my country right now you worthless statist ! How dare you assault my private property and my freedoms !
There's place waiting for you in hell and I can hear the devil calling you late !
Published: January 22, 2009 10:15 AM
Geoffrey Allan Plauche
Gil,
An important difference between the state and Wal-Mart is that Wal-Mart (except to the extent that it makes use of the state through eminent domain, etc.) does not attempt to control any property beyond its own. It does not attempt to control my house and the land it is on, or the business I might hypothetically work for, and so on.
Your "love it or leave it" view assumes that the state rightfully owns all the property in its territory, or did before letting everyone use it under certain conditions; but you can't just assume this, it's the very issue in dispute - in other words, when you make this argument you're assuming what you're trying to prove. The notion that the US was formed by social contract is a fantasy. There was no unanimous, completely voluntary consent. And even if there were, I don't see how I would be bound by the mistakes of my ancestors.
Published: January 22, 2009 10:27 AM
I Hate Taxes
Matt,
"Government uses their monopoly of force to violate private property."
That's what the government wants you to believe, that they have the monopoly of force.
The reality is that the government does not have the monopoly of force !
Anybody can make or grab a weapon or device of some sort and fight back !
If you're willing to stake your life for freedom, you can fight back !
Since we are all going to die sooner or later, it's completely pointless to surrender and bend-over our entire life.
Obeying the government and stepping on our dignity will not make us immortal beings, in fact it's sucking the life out of us and makes this life miserable. We are living-deads under the tyrannical rule of the nation-sate !
Since we are mortals and will certainly die one day, I don't see why we should let the government threaten our lives in impunity !
It's not as if we would never die unless the government kills us.
Even if we do exactly everything the government commands us, we will end up dead.
So the government cannot take away something we never had. We never had immortality so this threat against our lives is a laughable one at best.
People, I have news for you, each and everyone of us will certainly die at some point in the future.
Wouldn't you rather die fighting against tyranny ? Fight for freedom and fight for respect rather than bend-over and being abused until you drop ?
Published: January 22, 2009 10:36 AM
Reason
Anarcho-Caps question: If you were introducing college freshmen, newbies all, to "no government" libertarianism of the propertarian sort, what three books/papers would you recommend they be urged to read? Thanks all.
ps. My buddy, a left-wing prof at a prestigious midwestern college, told me that he would put one selection in his syllabus.
Published: January 22, 2009 10:37 AM
Mark Knutson
Isn't chomsky just a re-packaging of the marxist hostility towards private business? Just another clever socialist cheerleader?
Published: January 22, 2009 10:38 AM
I Hate Taxes
In fact, I find absolutely NO FAULT on the government's part.
The government is just a competing interest using all the power at it's disposition to further it's own interest.
The government is doing exactly everything it should do to survive and grow.
The government is like a living entity and it does everything it must do.
The only fault I find is within the people, too coward and too pussy and too stupid to fight back and command respect.
It's the people's fault, not the government's fault.
You have all chosen "life" over freedom, then don't complain, bend-over, provide the lubricant and enjoy it when the government comes, LOL !
Published: January 22, 2009 10:42 AM
lukas
I wouldn't be so sure about that.
Published: January 22, 2009 10:43 AM
Current
I have some sympathy with Gil's view.
The Classical Liberal's were much more sensible about this than modern Libertarians are.
Folks here should read "The Consitution of Liberty" and Hayek's later work.
Published: January 22, 2009 10:47 AM
RickC
I remain at a loss as to how Chomsky gets so much press and respect. He has been over the top since the 60s. He is bully, if you don't think so check out how he treats detractors. It is well known that he has long dealt in manipulations of and even the outright fabrication of "facts". He was an apologist for one the the most murderous communist regimes - Cambodia -for years after the truth was known about Pol Pot.
For a large portion of the the time he was writing diatribes against the "imperialistic" U.S. he was on the Pentagon's payroll. It just goes on and on.
I think his self-defined anarcho-socialst philosophy is really just a cover for his true beliefs. He is quite simply a statist of the communist variety.
Published: January 22, 2009 10:51 AM
Joe Stoutenburg
Gil voices some ideas that reflect some of my recent musings. I don't share his conclusions, but I want to grant some of his points before I explain why my conclusions are different.
It has occurred to me that states could arise quite naturally out of market activity. I can explain best with an example. Suppose that a person develops land to make it suitable for habitation. He uses his legitimately obtained capital to clear it, to run utilities to locations where homes may be constructed, builds roads and so forth. While he could attempt to organize the sub-division of his property to allow complete ownership of each plot, he elects instead to retain some kind of ownership interest in the entire property. He may sell the right to build whatever structures (with reasonable restrictions written into the deed) one wishes but with the understanding that funds must be given up for the purpose of maintaining the infrastructure.
This land owner could make his deeds even more invasive. They could regulate more broadly the use and activities that may be undertaken on his property. People may favor these restrictions as enhancing the community. If so, they may voluntarily move their and accept the level and form of government offerred. This is consistent with liberty even if I might personally encourage people to reject some arrangements.
I see the problem with most governments as improper property rights. The initial rulers of nations typically declared large region of land as under their domain. There was no homesteading, no improvement to the property. Any person might have made the claim, but the person (or group of people) with the physical force available to back up the claim is the one who achieves ownership.
Even local governments are usually grants of land from the level of government above them. The intial ownership is what I challenge.
As an aside, Gil wrote:
The 'state' can only theoretically 'enslave' you if it forbids from renouncing your citizenship and leaving...
Do a little research on renouncing your American citizenship. You'll find that the U.S. government may continue to try to tax you even after you renounce your citizenship. And if its bureaucrats get the idea that you are renouncing your citizenship to avoid taxes (why would anyone do that?!?), the hammer may fall hard indeed. Even if you grant that the U.S. government may legitimately own all property within its borders, this is slavery by the standards that you offer.
Published: January 22, 2009 10:52 AM
Mike
"Anarcho-Caps question: If you were introducing college freshmen, newbies all, to "no government" libertarianism of the propertarian sort, what three books/papers would you recommend they be urged to read? Thanks all.
1. The Machinery of Freedom by David Friedman
This is probably the most "accessible" introduction to market anarchism, since it mostly focuses on the practical answers to the question of how the system would work, and so can appeal to utilitarians and deontologists alike.
2. The Market for Liberty by Linda and Morris Tannenhill
This takes a more moralist argument against the existence of government, and spends a good deal of time explaining how market forces could replace traditionally government goods like defense.
3. The Structure of Liberty by Randy Barnett
One of the most common objections to market anarchy is that society needs a mutually agreed upon way to arbitrate disputes. In this book, Barnett explains how the market for dispute resolution (which he calls "polycentric legal order") could replace the state court functions.
Hope this helps.
Published: January 22, 2009 11:25 AM
Barry
For a follow-up:
ABCDunlimited.com/ideas/chomsky.html
Published: January 22, 2009 12:19 PM
pbergn
Good article. The author does a good job at pointing out the significant difference between economic and political power. I never really liked Chomsky, since he was a Communist...
I must note though, that the author does not point out the fact that the significant accumulation of economic power will ultimately result in absolute political power, as well as, as one would agree, the accumulation of political power will surely lead to accumulation of economic power...
The author, while rightfully criticizing Chomsky as being a Statist (to say the least), forgets to address the fact that the accumulation of ANY kind of power in limited number of hands is a dangerous development and can be considered as a direct threat to the society adhering to the principles of freedom, of which the Free Market is one of the attributes. The author does not express any concerns about growing economic power of private corporations in the Western World, since he most likely considers that here is no threat in the mentioned developments in itself, by probably relying on Free Market forces and competition to constraint at some point of time this unrestrained growth...
Published: January 22, 2009 12:44 PM
Inquisitor
What sort of "contract" is a) binding on third parties who never consented to it b) cannot be broken even on pain of penalty c) signs away one's ability to revoke consent to it and d) circularly allows one to assume legitimacy over land never even so much as touched? Gee, the social "contract" I guess. Yeah, such a shame those libertarians had to fuck this logical nightmare up... it was working so well, enough people were deluded enough not to question it...
Published: January 22, 2009 12:53 PM
Inquisitor
I'd recommend For a New Liberty and Democracy - the God that Failed in addition to what Mike suggested. They're comprehensive. brief and excellent.
Published: January 22, 2009 1:08 PM
Inquisitor
"I see the problem with most governments as improper property rights. The initial rulers of nations typically declared large region of land as under their domain. There was no homesteading, no improvement to the property. Any person might have made the claim, but the person (or group of people) with the physical force available to back up the claim is the one who achieves ownership."
Indeed (not sarcastically this time), I hold the same position.
Published: January 22, 2009 1:18 PM
Pat
"ABCDunlimited.com/ideas/chomsky.html"
That was an interesting article, Barry. I am surprised that he would call himself a classical liberal. Then again, to be fair, he seems to believe libertarian socialism is the right heir to the Enlightenment philosophy and classical liberalism is its bastard child. But he clearly states anarchism or libertarian socialism is also opposed to the existence of a large government (The article is Notes on Anarchism). Which is rather strange considering his wish for a strong federal government. I would think it has to do with intellectual narcissism
Published: January 22, 2009 1:50 PM
Roderick T. Long
In good bipartisan spirit, here are my criticisms of Chomsky and my criticisms of O'Neill.
Published: January 22, 2009 2:00 PM
pbergn
Just to throw a monkey-wrench into the mix (for the sake of spicing things up a little):
What is the guarantee that any large corporation will not ultimately either become the de facto state or will simply buy it (by say proxy ruling through corrupt politicians)...
For example, mostly to you, Free Market Purists and Musketeers:
Do you realize that majority of seemingly diverse and competing with each other store chains are owned by a handful of corporations such as Krugger? What is to deter them from price fixing much like the gas stations in the US are doing now?
You, Freedom Loving Patriots, Purists, and Die-hards, have you ever wonder why the gas prices in a certain locale are almost identical?
Have you ever wondered why you by Kleenex tissues at almost the same price no matter what state or chain store you had luck to wander in?
Have you ever wondered why mom and dad's little corner stores practically stand no chance to compete in the age of Wal-Mart?
What makes us, the libertarians of different patchwork ever believe that the market forces will stop in any significant way the unprecedented consolidation of economic power in the hands of the few?
What makes you to believe that any new guy with a new idea will not be shot down right off the bat, or simply incorporated, as it is now being called?
Well, think about it, for any viable theory should have the capacity to withstand any criticism!
Published: January 22, 2009 2:07 PM
Roderick T. Long
pbergn,
Here's one answer.
Published: January 22, 2009 2:11 PM
Mike
"Do you realize that majority of seemingly diverse and competing with each other store chains are owned by a handful of corporations such as Krugger? What is to deter them from price fixing much like the gas stations in the US are doing now?"
Supply and demand. And the threat of newcomers into the market.
"You, Freedom Loving Patriots, Purists, and Die-hards, have you ever wonder why the gas prices in a certain locale are almost identical?"
Is this for real? What do you think would happen to a gas station that tried to raise the price of an essentially identical good? Identical gas prices are a sign that the market *works*
"Have you ever wondered why you by Kleenex tissues at almost the same price no matter what state or chain store you had luck to wander in?"
No. Because I understand economics.
"Have you ever wondered why mom and dad's little corner stores practically stand no chance to compete in the age of Wal-Mart?"
Lots of reasons. Some good, some bad.
"What makes us, the libertarians of different patchwork ever believe that the market forces will stop in any significant way the unprecedented consolidation of economic power in the hands of the few?"
Because that's not how the market works? And what on earth is "economic power" anyway? The power to meet consumer needs? This is a bad thing?
"What makes you to believe that any new guy with a new idea will not be shot down right off the bat, or simply incorporated, as it is now being called?"
I have no idea what you are asking here.
"Well, think about it, for any viable theory should have the capacity to withstand any criticism!"
Published: January 22, 2009 2:16 PM
pbergn
RE: Mike
Mike,
It is simple. What I mean is that the competition is gradually dying of as the companies grow bigger and become incorporated...
I am trying to convey the intuitive idea of reverse correlation between number of choices available to the consumers and the number of independent enterprises offering them.
After all, you can regard the State as one big corporation that has overgrown all others and have incorporated all others. It owns everything, and you simply, as a customer have no choice...
This is what exactly happened in Socialist and Communist countries. Everything was owned by the government, acting as the parent company for any others. So all products had the same price and same quality by the same logic as you have suggested above - the economic feasibility (and lack of competition, I must add)....
After all, a Socialist State could argue that it sells gasoline at a certain price because that is what is economically feasible for the state to produce and make some marginal profit.
What is the difference here between the large corporations consolidating and just one, albeit overgrown one, called State.
Again, there is significant difference between the State and corporations, for as long as there are at least a few left.
My point is that there is critical point when the number of competitors becomes so few, and conversely, their size and economic span grows so huge, that the distinction between the State and the entity holding the consolidated economic power becomes nominal...
Published: January 22, 2009 2:33 PM
Inquisitor
Gee, if only said "criticism" hadn't been deflected like a hundred times over (e.g. in Long's post.)
Published: January 22, 2009 2:35 PM
Joe Stoutenburg
pbergin:
What is the guarantee that any large corporation will not ultimately... become the de facto state...
None. As the old saying attributed to Thomas Jefferson goes, "the price of liberty is eternal vigilance."
What kind of guarantees are you able to offer?
Published: January 22, 2009 2:35 PM
RWW
What I mean is that the competition is gradually dying of as the companies grow bigger and become incorporated...
Mainly due to interventionist policies raising barriers to entry and propping up the favored enterprises.
Published: January 22, 2009 2:41 PM
Tudor
@pbergn
Do you realise you're actually contradicting yourself?
'Have you ever wondered why you by Kleenex tissues at almost the same price no matter what state or chain store you had luck to wander in?'
Because of competition? Because they all drive the price down as much as possible? And you see this as a bad thing?
That's why Ma and Pa's can't compete. Because the prices of the large store chains are too small, not too BIG!
'This is what exactly happened in Socialist and Communist countries.'
What happened was that the Red Army came and instated a puppet communist regime. NOT that the corporations took over (unfortunately).
Published: January 22, 2009 2:52 PM
Tudor
'vast institutions of private tyranny that are about as close to the totalitarian ideal as any that humans have so far constructed.'
I get sick to my stomach when reading stuff like that. People who say that should spend some time under a proper dictatorship, it would help them put things in perspective.
Published: January 22, 2009 2:56 PM
Mike
"That's why Ma and Pa's can't compete. Because the prices of the large store chains are too small, not too BIG!"
To be fair, there are a whole host of other reasons as well, not all of them libertarian.
Published: January 22, 2009 2:58 PM
RickC
pbergin,
I'll add my two cents. One thing that seems clear to me is that state involvement in the market is a prerequisite for the dying out of competition and the incorporation of more and more companies under the umbrella of larger corporations. Government regulations, for instance, always work to the advantage of the big boys and protect them from competition.
An example: A friend of mine works for a large heating and air corp. which already dominates a very large swath of the commercial industry. We were talking today about how his company is frothing at the bit for the new environment regulations sure to be coming. Why? The costs to implement will drive their smaller competitors out business.
Corporations, especially large ones, always grow conservative and inflexibile over time. Looking back over the last fifty years you can see this at work. Many formally household company names have disappeared. It is the new, bolder young companies who provide most of the innovation and economic growth.
The difference between government and corporations is simple. Government is the only one that can claim a legal monopoly of coercion. And it has no competition.
Published: January 22, 2009 3:09 PM
Reason
Thank you Mike and Inquisitor for your powerful suggestions. I think I have the basis covered...natural law, deontological, positivist, Randian....what else?
Professor Long's excellent discussion is definitely going on my list:
http://mises.org/etexts/longanarchism.pdf
Published: January 22, 2009 3:14 PM
bob
Gil, indeed there is always some power in society able to conquer other powers when it comes to applying physical force. anarchism is simply the attempt to prevent such physical confrontations, instead limiting organized physical force to competitively serve justice, by preventing one group or institution from monopolizing this power and granting itself greater and greater unjust powers.
Likewise, in pure anarchy and chaos, there is indeed some group that is more powerful than others at using physical force.
The difference between anarchism and anarchy is that anarchism is an organized, orderly attempt to prevent the monopolization of force, while advocating its use only to preserve justice and order, while anarchy is usually marked by unorganized, heavily-competitive, and unjust powers attempting to monopolize the use of force.
Published: January 22, 2009 3:40 PM
pbergn
RE: RickC
Rick,
You may be right, that the pressure from the government regulations accelerates the process of consolidation of smaller companies. But I think, it is not the only reason for the phenomenon to exist or accelerate.
Here is my justification of the logic that eventually there will be a very few companies left even in the uninhibited Free Market System:
With the exponential rise in complexity of modern day science and technology it is becoming increasingly difficult for the individuals, as well as smaller or newly emerging companies to establish themselves. Since the availability of investment capital plays more and more significant role (because it is more expensive than ever before to start a viable new business), and since it either already is (or will be at some point of time) concentrated in the hands of the few, that means they have competitive advantage on where to invest: what companies to create, destroy or buy...
There exists a critical level of divergence of capital distribution among the participants in the market relationship of the labor-sharing society, starting from which a chain reaction is started, which results in driving the divergence level to the maximum.
This is a direct and logical consequence of the primary purpose of the enterprise - to generate profit by all means. Enterprises having significant investment capital advantages simply cannot just sit on it - they have to invest to generate even more profit (since this is their raison d'être by definition). And since the legal and political structure of any geo-political entity is potentially corrupt or can be made corrupt with sufficient infusion of the investment capital, the transformation of the enormous economic power to the absolute political one is inevitable...
Alas, the Iron Rule of Oligarchy is always in effect!
Published: January 22, 2009 3:49 PM
Mike
"With the exponential rise in complexity of modern day science and technology it is becoming increasingly difficult for the individuals, as well as smaller or newly emerging companies to establish themselves. Since the availability of investment capital plays more and more significant role (because it is more expensive than ever before to start a viable new business), and since it either already is (or will be at some point of time) concentrated in the hands of the few, that means they have competitive advantage on where to invest: what companies to create, destroy or buy..."
This is 100% backwards. Advances in technology make it *easier* to start a new company. They make it *easier* to meet consumer demands. How could better technology make things harder? This makes no sense.
Published: January 22, 2009 3:53 PM
pbergn
RE: Mike
Mike,
You need more and more research, materials, people, etc. etc. It's not like you can build an electric bulb in your shed or build a steam-engine powered carriage anymore...
Now it takes more than that to compete...
One man is "no show" any more because of increased complexity and quantity of the offered goods and services.
You are right, in some way thing became easier, such as ordering pizza on-line, or buying stuff on eBay...
But think what would it take to strat a real enterprise. Just visualize the process for a second, and then imagine the competition...
Even take YouTube or Google... You think they were one-man ideas? Just a bunch of geeks who made it big?! Or take the example of Amazon.
Do you really think there were only a couple of geniuses who thought about selling stuff on-line, or searching stuff or counting the web site clicks?!
No, it just only a few had enough backing investment capital to start a business and remain successful.
It takes enormous amount of money, people and resources to produce something useful nowadays. And with all this increased taxes, what do you think, who could possibly make it big?!
And guess who is lobbying congress to raise the taxes, or initiate bailouts and stuff like that? You guessed it - the corporate lobbyists who would do everything to stifle the competition, and who, incidentally, own the biggest corporations...
Published: January 22, 2009 4:15 PM
pbergn
RE: Joe Stoutenburg
Joe Stoutenburg wrote:
"None. As the old saying attributed to Thomas Jefferson goes, "the price of liberty is eternal vigilance."
What kind of guarantees are you able to offer?
"
in response to my rhetorical question:
"What is the guarantee that any large corporation will not ultimately... become the de facto state..."
Joe,
Exactly! That is my whole point. How can you full-heartedly advocate for a socio-economical theory without guaranteeing that the outcome of the system is more advantageous? You see, if you profess something, you should be able to show, that your ideas are much better.
Now, I do agree that the Free Market theory is the best that the Mankind could have come up with so far. I am a strong supporter of this principles and philosophy. But you have to be objective. You have to let the overly-optimistic know that this system too, may result in rule of elites, and may be no better than, let us say, straight Communism in the end...
This is for the purposes of objectivity...
Published: January 22, 2009 4:39 PM
Pat
"And guess who is lobbying congress to raise the taxes, or initiate bailouts and stuff like that? You guessed it - the corporate lobbyists who would do everything to stifle the competition, and who, incidentally, own the biggest corporations..."
But surely, this begs the question as to why lobbying to the government? This is indeed happening while we have a government that is far from being limited (e.g.: control of the monetary system).
Published: January 22, 2009 5:00 PM
RickC
pbergen,
I'm laughing too hard to reply except to ask: Why aren't we already suffering under the rule of an all powerful single oligarchy? Or is there a time factor and we just haven't reached critical mass yet?
I'm sure the former billionaire who lives near here, and who just declared bankruptcy is wondering why all that economic power and advantage didn't shield him from the reality of the still-somewhat-free market and his poor business decisions.
Published: January 22, 2009 5:15 PM
pbergn
RE: RickC
Rick,
I respect your point of view, and I understand your optimism in this regard.
I did not suggest that I was absolutely right. I was just suggesting the mentioned outcome to be the most likely one based on my analysis of human nature and the fundamentals of Free Market theory.
Again, in my opinion the rule of oligarchy is the most likely outcome of the classical Free Market theory, as I have tried to demonstrate previously...
As to the question whether we've already reached that critical mass, or whether we ever will, allow me to refrain from directly answering it...
Published: January 22, 2009 6:24 PM
pbergn
RE: Pat
Pat wrote:
"But surely, this begs the question as to why lobbying to the government? This is indeed happening while we have a government that is far from being limited (e.g.: control of the monetary system)."
Pat, as I have demonstarted above the eventual marriage of power and capital is inevitable.
Since the State by definition possesses the monopoly on coersive power, and the private enterprises are designed to generate profit by re-investing the previous gains from the business activity, it is inevitable that to remove obstacles in pursuit of generating of even more profits, the commercial entities with enormous economic power will form a mutually profitable union with the holder(s) of political power, and will either merge or absorb the latter, effectively becoming one and the same...
This is the logical outcome of nature of power, any power in fact - to become absolute...
As they say: "Power corrupts. The absolute power corrupts absolutely."
Published: January 22, 2009 6:33 PM
Francisco Torres
Walmart has a monopoly over the land it controls and set the rules and regulations governing its land.
So do you in your own house. I fail to see your point. Also, possessing and using your land as you see fit does not make you a "monopoly". Monopoly has a very specific definition and means the sole supplier of a good or service, not the sole owner of its land.
The different nation-states compete on the world stage hence 'states' have no true monopoly.
You're disingenuously shifting the focus here. First you insinuate that an entity like Walmart is a monopoly within its rightfully owned land, and yet you try to prove that States are not monopolies by comparing them to each other OUTSIDE their own boundaries (!). You cannot have your cake and eat it, too. States ARE monopolies inside their political boundaries because they are the sole suppliers of certain services within that political boundary: at least, police and courts. Also, the States do not usually own all the land they control (save in a few very awful instances).
'Tax slavery' is piece of horse manure rhetoric along with 'wage slavery'. The 'state' can only theoretically 'enslave' you if it forbids from renouncing your citizenship and leaving - period.
A State can also enslave you if it extorts you. Just because the State does not physically keep you in a place does not mean it cannot extort a benefit from you without your consent, hence the use of the term 'slavery'. 'Wage slavery" instead is a misnomer since wages are agreed by employer and employed a priori.
"Oh but I don't want it leave, it's too much of a transaction cost for my comfort zone". Well tough faeces. Everyone else is expected to bear the transaction cost of leaving or loving it.
What you said seems to come from the "Put Out or Get Out" school of ethics.
At the end of the day the U.S.A. (and many others) was created as a Constitutional Representative Democracy - chances are it was established before whinging Libertarians immigrated and therefore is legitimate.
Considering that the founders were mostly libertarian themselves (except a couple of Federalists), and that the people that fought the revolution espoused libertarian ideals, yours becomes a very strange assertion. And how can something be legitimate just because it was put in place before we were here? Before I was born, people thought that phlogiston theory explained combustion - should we consider it legitimate because the theory was "here" before we were?
Published: January 22, 2009 7:09 PM
RickC
pbergin,
I'm sure that most here would agree with your analysis of the possibility of corporatism or merchantilism as it was known years ago, leading eventually to an oligarchy. I say possibly rather than inevitably that's all. The competitive mechanism, on which the free market idea rests, works quite well to keep the movement to oligarchy in check. That is if it's truly free.
It seems to me that if we want to see economic advancement and growth we have to allow companies to do what they do - attempt to maximize profits. It's the incentive thing.
The real problem re: oligarchy is centered on government and the power we give it. If you search out and read the full quote by Lord Acton you mention above, you will find that he was speaking specifically about centralized political power. As we've both noted, the state is coercive, and will always seek to expand its power. It will attempt to rope in companies and corporations in this drive for total power.
Our task as citizens is to prevent this, to limit government intrusion into the market and prevent the rise of an oligarchy. I don't think anyone ever guaranteed perfection in the system. Many of the founders of the U.S. recognized that sooner or later the citizens would be called upon to renew the republic. Franklin, right after the Constitution was signed said, "You have a Republic, as long as you can keep it."
Published: January 22, 2009 7:54 PM
P.M.Lawrence
Gil writes "At the end of the day the U.S.A. (and many others) was created as a Constitutional Representative Democracy - chances are it was established before whinging Libertarians immigrated and therefore is legitimate".
It wasn't created as a "Constitutional Representative Democracy" but as a republic, actually. That "therefore" doesn't work. If the reasoning were valid, it would prove the USA is illegitimate, because the rebels overthrew what was in place before. As it is, the question must be determined by other facts and arguments.
"It wasn't established via force by a gang of thugs overrunning happy farming villages of Libertarians".
They didn't do that to Libertarians, but to lots of others. See the Penobscot Expedition (which fortunately failed to wipe out the Loyalist settlement, unlike most other massacres and expulsions of Loyalists), the Black Seminoles and James Strang's assassination (and the following section) for just three case histories.
Published: January 22, 2009 7:58 PM
Gil
Well I.H. Taxes, if 'tyrants were looting and killing you' - would you fight back, leave or get pummelled? Who are these 'tyrants' then? The federal government of the nation-state you happen to reside? There are rules and regulation but you don't believe in obeying them because you don't believe in hierarchies? Would you go onto someone's private property and generally ignore him and his rules and regulations and leave when you were ready? If not, why not? I imagine you'd be on a rental blacklist because you believe your occupancy and modifications makes it your apartment.
BTW: Who's to say we live in the same country?
-----
F. Torres:
* Yes an private individual has monopoly over their land because the owner can exclude others.
Nope. Where there's more than one provider there's competition. There's no one world nation-state hence competition.
* If I were to go into a Walmart store I abide by their rules and regulations. They probably include me being reasonably neatly clothed, no animals (except a guide dog), no rude behaviour, etc. If I break these rules I get booted out. Simple. Walmart can only be overridden by the government they in turn happen reside (hopefully only with reasonble cause).
* Once I leave Walmart's premises they can't touch me (unless I pilfered something). I don't live in Thailand so I don't care what their rules and regulation. I dont' live the U.S.A. so don't care either. I do live in Australia so I should take care to know what the Australian rules and regulation are. (BTW: I do have a copy of the Australian Constitution on my computer) Yet if I travel to Thailand I abide by their rues and regulation when I'm in their country. If I travel to the U.S.A. I abide by U.S.A. rules and regulation (such as driving on the right side of the road for example). Would you seriously take drugs into Thailand or Singapore and act surprised when you're facing the death penalty. Would your defence amount to "I don't believe in nation-states and their rules so I do what I want"?
* Nope, tax slavery can be mean whatever Libertarian want it mean.
* So I come onto your land you'd tell me to 'love your rules or leave' (even more so if you were the sovereign owner). If I overstayed my welcome you'd just tell me to leave. If I was slow going about it you'd be justified in using physical force in throwing me out. You sure as hell wouldn't allow anyone imposing a consitution on you that would dilute your rights to your land and giving me any leeway.
* So you wouldn't mind me setting up a hut and a farm in your backyard and ignore when you compain 'you were here first'?
-----
P.M. Lawrence: Okay I guess I could say the U.S.A. was initially founded as a Constitutional Slaveowning Oligarchy as well. I'm sure you know if Australia became a Republic nothing much would change except no allegiance to the Queen and erasing 'Royal' off buildings and planes. Anyway I s'pose it matters whether people believe in Revolutionary Theory. Interesting such freedom was sought with (defensive) force not waiting around hoping for change.
Published: January 22, 2009 11:58 PM
mark
While there is no doubt a distinction between economic and political power - in my experience they most certainly do appear to co-operate with one another for mutual benefit to both sides - co-creation.
Regarding people choosing to work in corporations , under the authority of others - it could be argued that this choice is more psychological in nature
than economic. Erich Fromm, in his book "The sane society" deals with this extensively.
Published: January 23, 2009 1:30 AM
P.M.Lawrence
Gil wrote "I'm sure you know if Australia became a Republic nothing much would change except no allegiance to the Queen and erasing 'Royal' off buildings and planes".
That's the line the Australian Republicans are pushing onto people they want to dupe. Actually, a huge amount would change - though not all of it straight away. A whole load of valuable constitutional machinery would be removed without automatically being replaced. See Australians for Constitutional Monarchy for how the issues appear from the other side of that issue. I researched the area myself in depth last time around, so I know that their description is a lot more accurate. If nothing else, a republic tells politicians that they are in charge, that legitimacy is expressed in and through them, rather than that they are always somewhere below the top. It's a bad idea to encourage them, let alone to let them encourage each other.
Published: January 23, 2009 1:59 AM
David
Pbergn,
Rockefeller and Rothschild dominated corporations would not be able to exist as monopolistic and uncompetitive entities without the state's interference.
Published: January 23, 2009 6:19 AM
Joe Stoutenburg
pbergin:
You haven't told me your guarantees yet.
Published: January 23, 2009 12:19 PM
Joe Stoutenburg
Gill:
I'm interested to know your reaction to my statements regarding property rights. See the post dated January 22, 2009 10:52 AM.
Specifically, how do you respond to this section:
I see the problem with most governments as improper property rights. The initial rulers of nations typically declared large region of land as under their domain. There was no homesteading, no improvement to the property. Any person might have made the claim, but the person (or group of people) with the physical force available to back up the claim is the one who achieves ownership.
Isn't there a difference between the domination that you assert over your property and the domination of a nation state over the territory under its rule? You don't view the property ownership of a nation in the same way as clearly defined private property, do you?
Published: January 23, 2009 12:26 PM
autocrat
The following is an honest question, based purely out of curiosity from a fellow market anarchist.
Is it the established ideology here that, under the conditions of a true free market:
* Coercion through economic power utilized by economically powerfull entities would be justifiable, or at least ethically acceptable?
* Or that such coercion would be naturally stifled to the point of effective negligibility, and thus irrelevant for consideration?
* Or is it the generally established maxim that, without the ability to use direct physical force through an external agency such as the state, economic leverage is inherently devoid of the capacity to be used coercively.
Published: January 23, 2009 6:59 PM
Gil
Well it depends on what you mean by viable/reasonable 'homesteading'. Likewise at what point could a tenant modify an apartment (which was a bland empty apartment) to the point that he effectively homesteaded it via doing so much improvement that it no longer deserved to belong to the landlord?
Some here are determine to prove that 'state doesn't own anything' because the initial gain 'wasn't valid'. But what if it was? What is the reasonable time between obtaining land and working to 'homestead' it?
Published: January 23, 2009 8:02 PM
crosson
"* Coercion through economic power utilized by economically powerful entities would be justifiable, or at least ethically acceptable?"
Whether it's justifiable or not is really pointless. Using coercion of that magnitude would be a heavy expense for any economic power. And one has to come to the conclusion that unless a cartel exists this organization is either a government or a monopoly that is already suffering from diminished product quality and bloated operational expenses. Bottom line is a private economic power will not be able to leverage itself over the influence of others like a state can because people are alloted freedom of choice indefinitely. Even if Microsoft considers themselves successful in their propaganda campaign to force Vista onto it's market base you will always see folks freely moving to alternatives like MAC/Linux/Sun. Assuming no abuse is done in the way of private property such coercion usually will bring less returns because the cost that went into the campaign was so high.
* Or that such coercion would be naturally stifled to the point of effective negligibility, and thus irrelevant for consideration?
exactly
* Or is it the generally established maxim that, without the ability to use direct physical force through an external agency such as the state, economic leverage is inherently devoid of the capacity to be used coercively.
Typically speaking only the state holds the power of force. Now there are some clever market scheme's out there that may strongly and unfairly influence the purchase of a certain goods(Usually when government grants special privileges) but ultimately the consumer has the choice whether or not to do without. Direct force is not used. It may be that it's not impossible for private business's to discover some indirect way of force, the difference is people have more direct control over these companies by choosing to boycott their product. You cannot boycott the state, you may trick yourself into thinking you can change by swinging from one corrupt party to the next but fundamentally you cannot really make a huge impact in the accountability of your government.
Published: January 24, 2009 1:01 AM
pbergn
Re: David
David wrote:
"Pbergn,
Rockefeller and Rothschild dominated corporations would not be able to exist as monopolistic and uncompetitive entities without the state's interference."
David, as I have demonstrated above, the merger of unrestrained political and economic power is inevitable...
What most libertarians do not understand is that the most pervasive problem in all human socio-economic affairs, much like in many other fields is the problem of unrestrained growth, such as unrestrained monopolization of economic power, or unrestrained growth of political power, or unrestrained growth of money supply or unrestrained growth in resource consumption, etc, etc... What many seem to disregard is the fact that what can start as fair and balanced competition, if let run unrestrained, will grow out of proportions, and ultimately destroy the balance of comprising entities. This is precisely what is happening with unrestrained consolidation of many private much smaller economic entities under the corporate umbrellas, or unrestrained powers the Executive Power of the US has granted to itself.
David, I sincerely disagree with you on the fact that it is the government interference that creates those giant corporations, and inhibits the competition. I think it is the nature of Free Markets itself to create a handful of winners, that, then, if left unrestrained, would ultimately disturb the balance of political and economic power in a certain geo-political local or in the world, in general...
Published: January 24, 2009 2:36 PM
pbergn
RE: Joe Stoutenburg
Joe Stoutenburg wrote:
"[...] You haven't told me your guarantees yet."
Joe, I am talking about precisely that - the lack of thereof.
If the ultimate end-result of "pure" Classical Free Market theory is, essentially, Communism, resulting from the merger of powerful economic elites and holders of coercive power, then how can libertarians, or other strong proponents of classical Free Market theory claim that their solution is any better, except for postponing the inevitable?
The burden of proof lies on the strong proponents of the Classical Free Market Theory to demonstrate that their principles, and the theory they profess, if adhered to in its entirety, will, indeed, result in a better world, as it is intuitively understood by the overwhelming majority of human species...
To give you an idea where I stand on the whole Free Market Issue:
I am a proponent of a modified version of the Free Market System where the minimum levels of vital economic quantities are enforced through restriction laws by the designated coercive power: such as minimum wages or minimal environmental pollution laws, or laws that would prevent monopolization of a certain industry, or extreme social and economic polarization of the society, etc.; I am a strong proponent of Free Market competition driven by selfish motivation of the participants, in terms of gaining profits as part of their pursuit of happiness, as they understand it to be. In short I am a proponent of classical separation-of-powers principle with very weak Executive Branch (Central Government, if you will) with the bulk of the Executive, Legislative and Judicial powers given to the much smaller locales comprising a particular geo-political entity. I am NO anarchist in this respect, since I believe in minimal State acting as a designated broker between various socio-economic groups...
Hope this answers your question...
Published: January 24, 2009 6:31 PM
Patrick
Moderator: get some threaded (aka indented) comments on here! It's kinda hard to follow this long thread!
Published: January 25, 2009 1:41 AM
cro
-pbergn "What most libertarians do not understand is that the most pervasive problem in all human socio-economic affairs, much like in many other fields is the problem of unrestrained growth, such as unrestrained monopolization of economic power, or unrestrained growth of political power, or unrestrained growth of money supply or unrestrained growth in resource consumption, etc, etc..."
No we understand it quiet well and are very aware of your concerns and have addressed them for century's. Your idea of unrestrained growth is flawed. Fundamentally you will eventually run out of resource in which to grow with. This apply's in natural sciences as it does in other sciences. A tree therefore cannot grow 1000 feet tall. Nothing can continue to grow without consequence. We can only grant special privlages to those firms whom we allow in our government. Whether it be via lobbying or some other manner of corruption.
-pbergn " What many seem to disregard is the fact that what can start as fair and balanced competition, if let run unrestrained, will grow out of proportions, and ultimately destroy the balance of comprising entities." What fact is this? I'd like an example. I doubt you will be able to site any real world example to defend this previous statement. Right now you sound like a politician justifying his next bailout package. -pbergn "This is precisely what is happening with unrestrained consolidation of many private much smaller economic entities under the corporate umbrellas,"
This has happened due to consolidation of assets from large bankruptcies. The root cause is the result of a very credible theory known as the business cycle which was kicked into gear in the early 30's and escalated several times since. Especially after the dot.com bust. This relocation of assets is actually a healthy move in the economy and will help neighboring business's get additional capital. If we assumed your natural monopolistic theory was true we wouldn't see see the big dogs fail and swallowed by the small dogs. Instead it would be reversed.
-pbergn "David, I sincerely disagree with you on the fact that it is the government interference that creates those giant corporations, and inhibits the competition. I think it is the nature of Free Markets itself to create a handful of winners,"
Actually in most cases David is correct. The difference between you and him is David can site examples, you have no concrete evidence to support your argument. Now that said, monopolies are completely capable of existing in a free-trade society. They usually run in a degraded mode making it very easy for competition to enter the market. Monopolies typically offer poor quality at high cost. Consumers don't like this and thus incentive for competition is created. Would you like a real world example? You need look no further then Microsoft. I am making no judgment call on this company, only that recent products from them are of degraded quality at higher prices. Since they are desperate for sales they create other products which push incentives on consumers to upgrade. Unhappy with the quality or the preference of older products many consumers are looking elsewhere. This can be represented in the expansion of the open-source market and other software firms like Sun, Google, ect...
pbergn that, then, if left unrestrained, would ultimately disturb the balance of political and economic power in a certain geo-political local or in the world, in general..."
I would argue that with less political power you have less economic power you have. Your flaw is that you think there needs to be a balance. If you want less corruption in private industry take away the tool by which they receive this power, shrink your government. I have a personal theory that corruption in Government and private industry's are more or less correlated. The solution is shrink your government and make it ethical. Enforcing private property rights.
Published: January 25, 2009 11:08 PM
crosson
I am a proponent of a modified version of the Free Market System where the minimum levels of vital economic quantities are enforced through restriction laws by the designated coercive power: such as minimum wages or minimal environmental pollution laws, or laws that would prevent monopolization of a certain industry, or extreme social and economic polarization of the society, etc.;
Modified Version of a free market? Sounds awfully oxymoronish to me! In other words you advocate a dictatorial government which dictates which industries will be heavily governed/influenced and which industries will be allowed to flourish. I suppose you are wise enough to know what the minimum wage should be, and what anti-monopolization laws should entail or which industries should be governed and which should not? In other words your a proponent of our current system?
FYI to your minimum wage laws all they do is harm the people they're designed to protect. They increase un-employment, raise commodity and living prices among other things.
You advocate rules and laws over things which you have no understanding! Are you some kinda politician?
Published: January 25, 2009 11:25 PM
P.M.Lawrence
Crosson wrote "FYI to your minimum wage laws all they do is harm the people they're designed to protect. They increase un-employment, raise commodity and living prices among other things."
As currently implemented, they do all those things (although there are other ways of getting there that don't do them, like the approach of Professor Kim Swales and his colleagues, which I have also described here). But they do not harm the people they're designed to protect (the low paid), they help those and hurt other people who don't even get to be low paid.
Published: January 26, 2009 3:20 AM
Joshua Katz
While I agree with the article's conclusions, it seems some of the arguments are far too quick, and do not take into account what the world actually looks like. To distinguish between economic and political power, the dollar and the whip, one must first be sure that the economic power doesn't come from previous political power. I am not a slave because I choose to work for you, fine, and my hunger doesn't change the equation. Does it change the equation if I'm working for you because I'm hungry - and I'm hungry because I used to be a farmer - and YOU stole my land? If that's the case, then I am a wage slave. I am a wage slave when other options have been taken away by my employer.
Published: January 26, 2009 11:00 AM
Sheldon
Yeah, but why bother with a military when a simple "You're fired" ususally works? Of course any worker who persists on coming into work finds that force can be arranged.
Published: January 26, 2009 12:33 PM
ralph
The only problem with trying to separate economic power from political power is that the corporation exists only because of law. It is regarded as a separate entity by the power of law, and could not exist except by law. That, in itself, become a special protectionary privilege, since the owner is protected to a degree from liability by the corporation.
Exploring these various disctinctions are good, but ultimately yuou arrive at undecideable propositions, and law is simply not equipped to handle those propositions(see Godel's theorem).
Published: January 26, 2009 2:11 PM
adamant
"The truth is that workers in a corporation choose to be there because they prefer this to the available alternatives."
However the available alternatives are artificially constrained. While some workers might like corporate hierarchies, others would prefer to be self-employed or work in a co-op.
Published: January 26, 2009 11:45 PM
Ben O'Neill
For those interested, I have responded to Prof Long's critique on his blog at http://aaeblog.net/2009/01/22/chomsky-inc/
(I think there is a great deal of common ground between our views on these issues. In fact, they seem to me to be identical, notwithstanding Long's critique of the tone of my article.)
Published: October 20, 2009 11:06 PM