67 replies to this topic

[JLL]

Not sure I like the term 'crony capitalism', but Stossel does make a good point about corporatism not being capitalism:

[KalaBeth]

While the case in point does sound pretty darn criminal.... I'd be wary of saying "this isn't real capitalism" - for exactly the same reason some folks say Soviet Russia wasn't "real" Communism.


Yes, they're not following the Adam Smith textbook. They're not following the understood "rules of the game" where you get ahead by actually building a better product instead of cutting political deals.

But no political or economic system gets a fresh slate. None of them get to run in an idealized environment with the Perfect Men. Knowing that men are not angels, any system must be quite fault-tolerant, able to keep running despite all the sand in the gears and smart but selfish people looking for that one perfect exploit.

...like "crony" capitalism.

Capitalism's strength is not that it is a perfect system... its points of failure have been pointed out for a couple centuries now.

But its strength is that by providing a productive outlet for self-interest, it still manages to produce a better material quality of life overall for most people than command economies or share-alike utopias... neither of which deal with the fallible human element in nearly so fault-tolerant a manner.

So I'd say while it's very much an exploit of the system, it's a fairly unavoidable one so long as you have both private enterprise and governmental power. It's an abuse of the system - but it is one endemic to the system.

Or, to paraphrase Churchill
"Capitalism is the worst economic model ever.... except all the others that have been tried."

Not sure I like the term 'crony capitalism', but Stossel does make a good point about corporatism not being capitalism:

[tunt01]

common, but not standard operating procedure for the US. it is an example of crony capitalism, but the US looks like a country run by preachers compared to a place like Russia.

Edited by prophets, 01 February 2010 - 07:22 PM.

[niner]

Not sure I like the term 'crony capitalism', but Stossel does make a good point about corporatism not being capitalism:

And yet... Some people who consider themselves capitalists promote corporatism anyway. The recent US Supreme Court decision allowing corporations to make cash donations to political campaigns fell along the usual ideological lines. I guess that those ideological lines don't really have as much to do with capitalism as is sometimes claimed.

[DairyProducts]

The last time I thought John Stossel had something interesting to say was in 5th grade.

[rwac]

The recent US Supreme Court decision allowing corporations to make cash donations to political campaigns fell along the usual ideological lines. I guess that those ideological lines don't really have as much to do with capitalism as is sometimes claimed.

The recent decision did not allow corps to make donations to campaigns. That has been forbidden since 1907 and continues to be so.

It's about corps spending money on speech (ads, etc) not coordinated with the campaigns.
That was banned under McCain-Feingold, all the money had to be channeled through PACs. That ban has now been lifted.

On the flip side, the unions are now free to spend money on ads too.

[JLL]

While the case in point does sound pretty darn criminal.... I'd be wary of saying "this isn't real capitalism" - for exactly the same reason some folks say Soviet Russia wasn't "real" Communism.

That's a good point, I hate it when socialists do that. Although, I agree that Soviet Russia was not real communism (to me, communism is when everything is owned by the workers and not the state - I guess some people call this communist anarchism) but socialism. But a common argument that Russia was not proper socialism either, which just makes no sense.

I would say that capitalism is simply the idea of private property being the basis of law. Socialism and communism, on the other hand, deny private property.

To me, things like taxes (a violation of private property) is incompatible with capitalism. Thus, just about every country in existence today is something in between capitalism and socialism. Some countries are more socialist than others. I'd argue that the bigger the government, the more socialist the state.

Hence, perhaps instead of "this isn't real capitalism" I should've said "the problems you see with the system are a result of the socialist tendencies of the government". I think corporatism is a side effect of socialist policies, not something that is inherent to capitalism -- in fact, pure capitalism is incompatible with corporatism.

Capitalism's strength is not that it is a perfect system... its points of failure have been pointed out for a couple centuries now.

Which failures might those be?

So I'd say while it's very much an exploit of the system, it's a fairly unavoidable one so long as you have both private enterprise and governmental power. It's an abuse of the system - but it is one endemic to the system.

Very well said.

Or, to paraphrase Churchill
"Capitalism is the worst economic model ever.... except all the others that have been tried."

Yeah, I don't think Churchill knew what he was talking about

[JLL]

The last time I thought John Stossel had something interesting to say was in 5th grade.

Maybe that's when you stopped thinking for yourself.

[JLL]

Not sure I like the term 'crony capitalism', but Stossel does make a good point about corporatism not being capitalism:

And yet... Some people who consider themselves capitalists promote corporatism anyway. The recent US Supreme Court decision allowing corporations to make cash donations to political campaigns fell along the usual ideological lines. I guess that those ideological lines don't really have as much to do with capitalism as is sometimes claimed.

I've no doubt that that's true. I think they're either wolves in sheep's clothing or just clueless.

Corporatism cannot exist without government handouts; government handouts cannot exist without taxes; taxes cannot exist without a violation of private property.

[niner]

On the flip side, the unions are now free to spend money on ads too.

Yes, the Republicans are fond of pointing this out. They never mention that the unions have a minuscule fraction of the resources that corporations have.

[rwac]

Yes, the Republicans are fond of pointing this out. They never mention that the unions have a minuscule fraction of the resources that corporations have.

Sure unions don't have access to as much money as some companies do.

But it's unions that spent $millions in 2008. SEIU by itself spent $85 million.
I bet political contributions are a significant fraction of SEIU expenses, which is not the case with most companies.
After all, politics is their bread and butter.

[DairyProducts]

The last time I thought John Stossel had something interesting to say was in 5th grade.

Maybe that's when you stopped thinking for yourself.

Actually 5th grade is when I stopped believing things that people on the television told me. It's very much when I started thinking for myself.

My problems with Stossel are less about what he's saying (although there is plenty to discuss there) and more about that he is saying something on a medium that is going to inherently dumb down whatever message it's sending out. For this he will always appeal to middle-brow "intellectuals," which is why I found him interesting then and don't now.

Edited by DairyProducts, 07 February 2010 - 05:59 AM.

[EmbraceUnity]

The most radical intervention in the market in the history of the world was the state creation of the limited liability corporate person. The so-called debate between free markets and intervention is a false one. Unless one is willing to be entirely consistent about free markets, including the elimination of corporate personhood, then we are really just debating about the degree of intervention. It is far from the case that less intervention is always a good thing. When there are a whole set of interlocking regulations that may have achieved a sort of balance, and removing one could produce dire consequences. It was exactly this type of deregulation which produced the recent financial crisis.

Not to mention that the wealth inequalities that are an inherent byproduct of capitalism allow the powerful an unfair advantage in steering legislation.

Thus, anyone seriously concerned with removing undue influence from government must strike at the heart of it, at interventions like corporate personhood. Other mechanisms can also come into play, such as the estate tax, in the interest of preserving freedom from the corrupting influence of aristocracy.

Pragmatism regarding regulations is a necessity, considering the entrenched nature of our regulatory structure. So unless one is some sort of "anarcho"-capitalist or some other ridiculous thing, and believe in tearing down all government, then one must look at regulations on a case by case basis.

[JLL]

I am an anarcho-capitalist.

[EmbraceUnity]

I am an anarcho-capitalist.

You and four other people.

[JLL]

I am an anarcho-capitalist.

You and four other people.

Well, it's not quite that bad. I was surprised to find many like-minded individuals when I first stumbled upon sites like freedomainradio.com.

"Whenever you find that you are on the side of the majority, it is time to pause & reflect." -Mark Twain

[EmbraceUnity]

Anarcho-capitalism is an oxymoron. That said, it is a coherent worldview. It is based on ridiculous premises, but it is coherent if one is actually serious about it and not just using it as a rhetorical device. Though, in practice, if one is aiming to do anything less than overthrowing the government, I refer you to my statement above that regulation is a case by case issue

At the root of "anarcho"-capitalism is the claim that homesteading grants land ownership rights to a person and their heirs in perpetuity. This, of course, has been challenged by thinkers on both the Right and Left since the early days of capitalism. Herbert Spencer, Henry George, John Stuart Mill, you name it.

It is absurd on the face of it that one can have an exclusive right to land without obligations. If all land becomes owned, which is very nearly the case, it is possible to be a trespasser on the entire Earth. The Earth does not belong to any single person.

Anarcho-capitalism also assumes that we have free will, which is an internally contradictory philosophical assumption. Our choices are a result of the cause and effect of all the atoms interacting with each other since the Big Bang. We did not choose the composition of atoms in our brain, nor the arrangement of matter in our surrounding environment. If cause and effect was not true, then free will still could not exist since nothing could be caused.

Children are rightly considered to be without most rights or responsibilities because their ignorance generally precludes the possibility of rational decisionmaking. Yet, why should one assume we magically gain the ability of rational decision-making on our 18th birthday? People exploit the cognitive vulnerabilities in others every day via marketing, confidence schemes, fraudulent health claims, gambling, and all sorts of things.

Rights are a construct. Markets and property rights are a means to an end, not an end in and of themselves. The goal is happiness. That is the only rational basis for ethics.

The most damning thing about anarcho-capitalism is that it could never work. It is a system which requires self-interest and by definition creates inequalities of wealth as a result of inheritance, luck, talent, geography, and many other variables. A self-interested person with a disproportionate amount of wealth relative to his peers has a disproportionate amount of power, which can be used for rent-seeking. This rent-seeking, if it doesn't result in the reinstitution of the nation-state or something worse like feudalism, it would create impediments to the free market that create unfair advantages for the rich, to the detriment of everyone else.

Edited by progressive, 07 February 2010 - 08:07 PM.

[JLL]

Anarcho-capitalism is an oxymoron.

I see nothing in your link that shows it is an oxymoron.

At the root of "anarcho"-capitalism is the claim that homesteading grants land ownership rights to a person and their heirs in perpetuity.

Why do you think it is at the root of anarcho-capitalism? I haven't heard this argument even being made by ancaps, let alone being proposed as the "root" of anarcho-capitalism.

Anarcho-capitalism also assumes that we have free will, which is an internally contradictory philosophical assumption. Our choices are a result of the cause and effect of all the atoms interacting with each other since the Big Bang. We did not choose the composition of atoms in our brain, nor the arrangement of matter in our surrounding environment. If cause and effect was not true, then free will still could not exist since nothing could be caused.

Why would it assume we have free will? I don't see how it makes a difference. And if the inexistence of free will contradicts anarcho-capitalism, then surely it contradicts any other model of society as well.

Besides, who cares about atomic scale free will -- as long as it appears to us to be free, it's enough. Don't be a smartass. Anarcho-capitalism is an idea that says people are better off when you don't give the guns to only a certain group of people and expect them to act nice. That is where the word "anarchism" comes from. "Capitalism" comes from property rights. Two very simple concepts.

Children are rightly considered to be without most rights or responsibilities because their ignorance generally precludes the possibility of rational decisionmaking. Yet, why should one assume we magically gain the ability of rational decision-making on our 18th birthday?

Anarcho-capitalism does not say anything about gaining abilities to rational decision-making on 18th birthdays.

Rights are a construct. Markets and property rights are a means to an end, not an end in and of themselves. The goal is happiness. That is the only rational basis for ethics.

Indeed.

The most damning thing about anarcho-capitalism is that it could never work.

It worked before.

It is a system which requires self-interest and by definition creates inequalities of wealth as a result of inheritance, luck, talent, geography, and many other variables.

Yes. And this is a bad thing because? The world is inequal in all aspects. Man can try to make it equal but will fail in doing so, because it requires force, which is in itself unequal. Equality through force, now there you have your contradiction.

A self-interested person with a disproportionate amount of wealth relative to his peers has a disproportionate amount of power, which can be used for rent-seeking. This rent-seeking, if it doesn't result in the reinstitution of the nation-state or something worse like feudalism, it would create impediments to the free market that create unfair advantages for the rich, to the detriment of everyone else.

There's a good essay on whether anarchism leads to new states, but I doubt you're interested in reading it. Instead I would ask you, if that is how you view the world, how is it that you don't apply the same logic to governments? If rich people in anarchism will turn the world into feudalism, why won't governments? You're not applying your own logic rigorously enough.

And need I point out that feudalism was not the result of anarchism in the first place.

[JLL]

I really find it incredible that when you ask people to imagine a world without a special group of people who have all the power, they instantly envision the worst of nightmares. And yet, they fail to see any problem in the idea of having a special group of people who have all the power. If man is inherently evil, how can giving power to a certain group of evil people be a good idea?

[EmbraceUnity]

[quote name='JLL' post='381738' date='Feb 7 2010, 02:37 PM'][quote name='progressive' post='381728' date='Feb 7 2010, 02:48 PM']At the root of "anarcho"-capitalism is the claim that homesteading grants land ownership rights to a person and their heirs in perpetuity.[/quote]
Why do you think it is at the root of anarcho-capitalism? I haven't heard this argument even being made by ancaps, let alone being proposed as the "root" of anarcho-capitalism.[/quote]

Then I doubt you have actually read Rothbard. I guess I don't blame you since it is long, boring, and absurd, but considering it is the fundamental text of your stated ideology it might be worth a look-see.

In Man, Economy, and State, Rothbard's supposed magnum opus (aka snooze-a-thon divorced from the human condition), this was articulated clearly.

The first sentence of that section reads, "...the origin of all property is ultimately traceable to the appropriation of an unused nature-given factor by a man and his “mixing” his labor with this natural factor to produce a capital good or a consumers’ good."

If the origin of all property is ultimately traceable to the appropriation of unused land, and property rights are the central tenet of anarcho-capitalism, then I would say it is pretty darn fundamental.

[quote name='JLL' post='381738' date='Feb 7 2010, 02:37 PM'][quote name='progressive' post='381728' date='Feb 7 2010, 02:48 PM']Anarcho-capitalism also assumes that we have free will, which is an internally contradictory philosophical assumption. Our choices are a result of the cause and effect of all the atoms interacting with each other since the Big Bang. We did not choose the composition of atoms in our brain, nor the arrangement of matter in our surrounding environment. If cause and effect was not true, then free will still could not exist since nothing could be caused.[/quote]

Why would it assume we have free will? I don't see how it makes a difference.
[/quote]

This is probably an even more absurd statement. The entire book Man, Economy, and State, was supposed to ultimately rest on a "rational" understanding of human behavior known as "praxeology." The first sentence from which the rest of the book was meant to follow is as follows:

"The distinctive and crucial feature in the study of man is the concept of action. Human action is defined simply as purposeful behavior." Chapter 1, Verse 1

Purposeful behavior is a synonym of free will.

[quote name='JLL' post='381738' date='Feb 7 2010, 02:37 PM']And if the inexistence of free will contradicts anarcho-capitalism, then surely it contradicts any other model of society as well.[/quote]

Progressives, social democrats, and so forth have no illusions about free will. Hence why we are often considered "paternalistic." Of course I'd rather be paternalistic than an ideologue for a social system that is inherently absurd.

[quote name='JLL' post='381738' date='Feb 7 2010, 02:37 PM']Besides, who cares about atomic scale free will -- as long as it appears to us to be free, it's enough. Don't be a smartass. Anarcho-capitalism is an idea that says people are better off when you don't give the guns to only a certain group of people and expect them to act nice. That is where the word "anarchism" comes from. "Capitalism" comes from property rights. Two very simple concepts.[/quote]

The fact that the central tenet of your philosophy is based on something that you recognize as an illusion should be slightly troubling. It is a dirty little secret though, because if word gets out that we aren't entirely responsible for our own place in society we might start to sense some injustices. That would be bad for business.

[quote name='JLL' post='381738' date='Feb 7 2010, 02:37 PM']Anarcho-capitalism does not say anything about gaining abilities to rational decision-making on 18th birthdays.[/quote]

Then when are they gained? Birth? Conception? Have they always existed in our immortal souls? Clearly some of us never truly gain this ability and others have a relative abundance of it at a young age (as far as human rationality in general goes). If our actions do not always align with our intents, then our "purpseful actions" are working toward the wrong purpose. If the reason for this is fraud, marketing, addiction, or some other psychological manipulation, then we are not really free, and should be protected from these harmful influences. That is perfectly in line with the harm principle.

The closest one can come right now to approximating a regulatory system without a nation-state is an electronic reputation system, sousveillance, and so forth. The problem is that these are corruptible and often suffer from being on the wrong end of the network effect. The Ripple Project is "dormant" now for this exact reason. Using the nation-state structure we have now to perfect and bootstrap these sorts of systems would be a GOOD thing, just as the government's creation of the Internet was a good thing. This is what I mean by government policies being case by case.

[quote name='JLL' post='381738' date='Feb 7 2010, 02:37 PM'][quote name='progressive' post='381728' date='Feb 7 2010, 02:48 PM']The most damning thing about anarcho-capitalism is that it could never work.[/quote]

It worked before.[/quote]

Oh right, in Atlantis! I can't believe I forgot about that. Silly me.

[quote name='JLL' post='381738' date='Feb 7 2010, 02:37 PM'][quote name='progressive' post='381728' date='Feb 7 2010, 02:48 PM']It is a system which requires self-interest and by definition creates inequalities of wealth as a result of inheritance, luck, talent, geography, and many other variables.[/quote]

Yes. And this is a bad thing because? The world is inequal in all aspects. Man can try to make it equal but will fail in doing so, because it requires force, which is in itself unequal. Equality through force, now there you have your contradiction.[/quote]

My point was that there is always force. Inequality allows the use of force to cement and intensify inequality to an even greater extent. Since there will always be force for the forseeable future (aka the State or analogous mechanisms), using our stored-up grassroots progress in making the State at least somewhat accountable to the public is entirely 100% totally completely absolutely undeniably justifiable in every way.

[quote name='JLL' post='381738' date='Feb 7 2010, 02:37 PM']There's a good essay on whether anarchism leads to new states, but I doubt you're interested in reading it. Instead I would ask you, if that is how you view the world, how is it that you don't apply the same logic to governments? If rich people in anarchism will turn the world into feudalism, why won't governments? You're not applying your own logic rigorously enough.[/quote]

Governments absolutely gang up on other governments... that has been the main spectacle of political theater since.... Hammurabi. Governments already have turned international politics into something akin to feudalism. The realist assertion that international relations is "anarchic" is false. It is a whole mixed up ball of alliances, enemies, norms, NGOs, supranational organizations, and so forth corralled by the hegemon known as the United States.

I flirt with the idea of world federalism as a solution to this, in conjunction with obsoleting the functions provided by the state with non-governmental systems (open source, reputation systems, sousveillance, mutual credit, etc)

[quote name='JLL' post='381738' date='Feb 7 2010, 02:37 PM']And need I point out that feudalism was not the result of anarchism in the first place.[/quote]

It sprang up after the fall of Rome. Competition between warlords is the natural state of affairs unless there is some intervening reason for it not to be. Such as one warlord winning and setting up a nation-state, or perhaps through creative and cooperative resistance to it as was seen briefly in Spain during their civil war. Markets are good at creating interdependence, but that alone is hardly enough. There needs to be a ton of supplementary systems to deal with security, scarcity, access to accurate information, and so forth.

Mutualism is a far more pragmatic ideology that is anti-authoritarian and pro-property rights, though I am not a mutualist. It explains how non-governmental collective organization, especially as enabled by communications technology, can compliment or supplant the competitive forces in the market.

Edited by progressive, 07 February 2010 - 11:56 PM.

[JLL]

At the root of "anarcho"-capitalism is the claim that homesteading grants land ownership rights to a person and their heirs in perpetuity.

Why do you think it is at the root of anarcho-capitalism? I haven't heard this argument even being made by ancaps, let alone being proposed as the "root" of anarcho-capitalism.

Then I doubt you have actually read Rothbard. I guess I don't blame you since it is long, boring, and absurd, but considering it is the fundamental text of your stated ideology it might be worth a look-see.

In Man, Economy, and State, Rothbard's supposed magnum opus (aka snooze-a-thon divorced from the human condition), this was articulated clearly.

The first sentence of that section reads, "...the origin of all property is ultimately traceable to the appropriation of an unused nature-given factor by a man and his "mixing" his labor with this natural factor to produce a capital good or a consumers' good."

If the origin of all property is ultimately traceable to the appropriation of unused land, and property rights are the central tenet of anarcho-capitalism, then I would say it is pretty darn fundamental.

Actually, I've read Rothbard and do not find him boring at all But you're right, I haven't read Man, Economy and State... still on the reading list. Thanks for reminding me though.

I find the Lockean idea of mixing labor with nature to make something your property, but I'm not yet entirely sure that his idea of dividing land based on continous use is optimal. That said, I haven't heard any better ideas either, so at the moment that's what I'm going with.

In any case, I thought the main point of your argument was the "and their heirs" part -- I don't think that is too relevant for anarcho-capitalism. But homesteading certainly is one of the crucial principles. To me, homesteading is not just about owning land, however, but rather a fundamental concept of why we own ourselves.

This is probably an even more absurd statement. The entire book Man, Economy, and State, was supposed to ultimately rest on a "rational" understanding of human behavior known as "praxeology." The first sentence from which the rest of the book was meant to follow is as follows:

"The distinctive and crucial feature in the study of man is the concept of action. Human action is defined simply as purposeful behavior." Chapter 1, Verse 1

Purposeful behavior is a synonym of free will.

I still don't see what this has to do with anything. And why is purposeful a synonym of free will? I doubt bees have free will, and yet their behavior is purposeful.

Progressives, social democrats, and so forth have no illusions about free will. Hence why we are often considered "paternalistic." Of course I'd rather be paternalistic than an ideologue for a social system that is inherently absurd.

Are you speaking for all social democrats? Because I know plenty of people who call themselves social democrats and yet believe in free will.

Anyway, I don't see how it follows from a lack of free will that forcing people to do things is a good thing?

The fact that the central tenet of your philosophy is based on something that you recognize as an illusion should be slightly troubling. It is a dirty little secret though, because if word gets out that we aren't entirely responsible for our own place in society we might start to sense some injustices. That would be bad for business.

I don't recognize it as an illusion, I believe free will exists. I think the argument from atomic scale is irrelevant; as of yet, there's no way to prove the existence or the inexistence of free will, so whether it merely appears to us to be free will or whether it actually is free will is not important to me. What is important that it seems as if I'm in charge of myself.

My argument was that regardless of free will or no free will, I don't see how anarcho-capitalism is worse for people than the alternative.

Then when are they gained? Birth? Conception? Have they always existed in our immortal souls? Clearly some of us never truly gain this ability and others have a relative abundance of it at a young age (as far as human rationality in general goes). If our actions do not always align with our intents, then our "purpseful actions" are working toward the wrong purpose. If the reason for this is fraud, marketing, addiction, or some other psychological manipulation, then we are not really free, and should be protected from these harmful influences. That is perfectly in line with the harm principle.

I'm sure there are varying theories even among anarcho-capitalists, but I've always found it more appealing to grant rights to someone once they no longer live with their parents. Some magical age limit just seems, well, magical.

I don't see how the existence of psychological manipulation means that we should be protected from it. Protected from it by whom? The world is full of hazards, because that is the way the world is. Does it mean we should choose some people from among us to protect us from those hazards? What if some people don't want to be protected? Shall they be forced?

Oh right, in Atlantis! I can't believe I forgot about that. Silly me.

That's funny. I believe the not-so-wild west and medieval Iceland are the famous examples here.

My point was that there is always force.

Why?

Inequality allows the use of force to cement and intensify inequality to an even greater extent.

You don't think the goverment vs people is an example of inequal positions?

Since there will always be force for the forseeable future (aka the State or analogous mechanisms), using our stored-up grassroots progress in making the State at least somewhat accountable to the public is entirely 100% totally completely absolutely undeniably justifiable in every way.

A state that is accountable for its actions... now there's a utopia.

Governments absolutely gang up on other governments... that has been the main spectacle of political theater since.... Hammurabi. Governments already have turned international politics into something akin to feudalism. The realist assertion that international relations is "anarchic" is false. It is a whole mixed up ball of alliances, enemies, norms, NGOs, supranational organizations, and so forth corralled by the hegemon known as the United States.

No, it is not false. Alliances, enemies, norms -- these are all part of anarchy. You don't think norms happen in the free market? Of course they do. Until there is a one world government, the relationship between governments is anarchic.

While I sometimes enjoy this type of discussion, I've yet to see even one case where it changes someone's mind. We can talk about this stuff all day long, but in the end, it boils down to a fundamental question of morals.

I think it's wrong to use violence except for self-defence -- that is, I subscribe to the non-aggression principle. This inevitably leads to the idea that all forms of government are unacceptable. The two are mutually incompatible. Since you are a proponent of states, you clearly are also a proponent of using violence as a means to an end. I doubt I can change that with any argument.

In addition to the moral argument, there is the economic argument -- that free markets produce more wealth and happiness than the alternatives. But to discuss the economic aspect is, in my opinion, fruitless, because no amount of economic reasoning will change a person's view as long as they don't agree on the moral principle. And I've yet to find a way to change a person's moral principle.

Here's a funny piece about conversations with statists.

[mike250]

Not sure I like the term 'crony capitalism', but Stossel does make a good point about corporatism not being capitalism:

And yet... Some people who consider themselves capitalists promote corporatism anyway. The recent US Supreme Court decision allowing corporations to make cash donations to political campaigns fell along the usual ideological lines. I guess that those ideological lines don't really have as much to do with capitalism as is sometimes claimed.

nothing wrong with the decision. drawing a firm line between government power and the inviolability of freedom of speech is a compliment for the court despite the bitching of some.

Edited by mike250, 08 February 2010 - 11:31 AM.

[mike250]

The goal is happiness. That is the only rational basis for ethics.

true but utilitarianism is misguided and irrational much like AHUFAEIT- Anarcho-have-your-freedom-and-ea​t-it-too

Edited by mike250, 08 February 2010 - 11:27 AM.

[EmbraceUnity]

The goal is happiness. That is the only rational basis for ethics.

true but utilitarianism is misguided and irrational much like AHUFAEIT- Anarcho-have-your-freedom-and-ea​t-it-too

It cannot both be rational and irrational at the same time. If you would like to claim that many people fail to factor in enough variables into their cost/benefit calculations, then I will agree.

[mike250]

The most radical intervention in the market in the history of the world was the state creation of the limited liability corporate person. The so-called debate between free markets and intervention is a false one. Unless one is willing to be entirely consistent about free markets, including the elimination of corporate personhood, then we are really just debating about the degree of intervention.

All the complaints I've ever heard about corporate "personhood" come down to a complaint that corporations supposedly have rights that people actually don't have (they don't), so the solution is to take away all the rights of all the people that belong to the corporation. The real solution however is simply to point out that corporations are no more permitted to violate rights than individuals are. (And if they are, that needs to be fixed.)

As far as limited liability is concerned, it is a legitimate concept, and if done right a legitimate practice. However it’s important to understand that limited liability does not apply to criminal law. That is, if an employee of a corporation commits a crime, he is personally liable for his actions. In no way does acting on behalf of a corporation shield people from breaking the law. (Of course that is not universally true, but that is a corruption of the law, not a part of limited liability.)

[mike250]

The goal is happiness. That is the only rational basis for ethics.

true but utilitarianism is misguided and irrational much like AHUFAEIT- Anarcho-have-your-freedom-and-ea​t-it-too

It cannot both be rational and irrational at the same time. If you would like to claim that many people fail to factor in enough variables into their cost/benefit calculations, then I will agree.

what I meant is this: your claim that the only rational basis for ethics is happiness (I persume you mean individual happiness here) is correct however using the philosophy of utilitarianism (which you linked to earlier) to achieve that happiness is incorrect.

Edited by mike250, 08 February 2010 - 02:06 PM.

[EmbraceUnity]

Actually, I've read Rothbard and do not find him boring at all But you're right, I haven't read Man, Economy and State... still on the reading list. Thanks for reminding me though.

I find the Lockean idea of mixing labor with nature to make something your property, but I'm not yet entirely sure that his idea of dividing land based on continous use is optimal. That said, I haven't heard any better ideas either, so at the moment that's what I'm going with.

In any case, I thought the main point of your argument was the "and their heirs" part -- I don't think that is too relevant for anarcho-capitalism. But homesteading certainly is one of the crucial principles. To me, homesteading is not just about owning land, however, but rather a fundamental concept of why we own ourselves.

The belief in continuous use as a basis for property is a good one, but it is not the standard "private property" model. This would put you at odds with Rothbardian anarcho-capitalism, and more in line with mutualism and other such left-libertarian philosophies. http://en.wikipedia....free-marketeers

I still don't see what this has to do with anything. (regarding purposeful action and free will being synonymous)

I guess I need to quote again from the beginning of the book.

"It is this fundamental truth —this axiom of human action—that forms the key to our study." Chapter 1, Verse 3

And why is purposeful a synonym of free will? I doubt bees have free will, and yet their behavior is purposeful.

The Bees are fascinating creatures. However, he was somewhat playing word games, as are you. The definition of purposeful is intentional or having a purpose.

According to the Stanford Encyclopedia, the most broad definition of free will comes from Hume. (relevant parts in bold)

1.1 Free Will as Choosing on the Basis of One's Desires

On a minimalist account, free will is the ability to select a course of action as a means of fulfilling some desire. David Hume, for example, defines liberty as “a power of acting or of not acting, according to the determination of the will.” (1748, sect.viii, part 1). And we find in Jonathan Edwards (1957) a similar account of free willings as those which proceed from one's own desires.

One reason to deem this insufficient is that it is consistent with the goal-directed behavior of some animals whom we do not suppose to be morally responsible agents. Such animals lack not only an awareness of the moral implications of their actions but also any capacity to reflect on their alternatives and their long-term consequences. Indeed, it is plausible that they have little by way of a self-conception as an agent with a past and with projects and purposes for the future. (See Baker 2000 on the ‘first-person perspective.’)

All the other definitions are more narrow and generally depend upon even higher human traits.

The Rothbard text also has a footnote on this subject in Chapter 1 which also confirms animal behavior to be irrelevant to the discussion.

Progressives, social democrats, and so forth have no illusions about free will. Hence why we are often considered "paternalistic." Of course I'd rather be paternalistic than an ideologue for a social system that is inherently absurd.

Are you speaking for all social democrats? Because I know plenty of people who call themselves social democrats and yet believe in free will.

Any social democrat, by virtue of being a social democrat, implicitly is recognizing either that there are constraints upon our free will or that there is no free will. If human action could not be manipulated by marketing, fraud, addiction, and other such things then clearly there would be no need to care about them.

Anyway, I don't see how it follows from a lack of free will that forcing people to do things is a good thing?

I will refer you to the Harm Principle.

" That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others." John Stuart Mill, On Liberty chapter 1

It is the most categorical position for individual liberty that exists. Indeed, it preserves freedom far more than "anything goes." One is not free if one is being harmed by the actions of others, be it an individual, a corporation, or the government. On the flip side, victimless actions such as drug abuse cannot be considered crimes as long as the individual was fully aware of what he was doing. (If someone sold you a bottle of soda laced with cocaine to get you addicted, without warning you beforehand, that would not be justifiable)

I don't recognize it as an illusion, I believe free will exists. I think the argument from atomic scale is irrelevant; as of yet, there's no way to prove the existence or the inexistence of free will, so whether it merely appears to us to be free will or whether it actually is free will is not important to me. What is important that it seems as if I'm in charge of myself.

My argument was that regardless of free will or no free will, I don't see how anarcho-capitalism is worse for people than the alternative.

If free will (purposeful action) does not exist, then the "key" to the study of anarcho-capitalism does not exist. The is the first premise upon which all of his other claims are supposed to rest.

If you are confortable with having a philosophy that is without intellectual justification, I suppose that is ok. Perhaps you are anarcho-capitalist for utilitarian reasons.

That is absurd for the reason of rent-seeking, which I previously articulated. Nevertheless, if you believe you have a utilitarian justification, then I will again refer you to my statement about government regulation being case by case, because actions have an average marginal utility. Nobody is going to hold a vote about whether we should become anarcho-capitalist overnight. Yet, we are making small decisions all the time, and may very well never become anarcho-capitalist, and thus you must act accordingly.

I don't see how the existence of psychological manipulation means that we should be protected from it. Protected from it by whom? The world is full of hazards, because that is the way the world is. Does it mean we should choose some people from among us to protect us from those hazards? What if some people don't want to be protected? Shall they be forced?

This again makes me wonder if you have studied the basic tenets of "anarcho"-capitalism, which absolutely accepts the harm principle. The idea is that security would be provided by private insurance companies that are vertically integrated to handle security. Supposedly, there would also be consortiums to deal with contract enforcement and dispute resolution.

You asked me why anarcho-capitalism is an oxymoron. It is for this reason. Sure there may be no nation-states with a monopoly on force, in theory. (and in theory only, because of rent-seeking) Yet, that doesn't mean that the world would free of hierarchy and free of force, which is what anarchism is. That force would just be privatized. At the end of the day, there are still some nice men with guns that, in theory, are supposed to enforce legal documents. There would still be prisons, execution, fines, and all sorts of things.

I believe the not-so-wild west and medieval Iceland are the famous examples here.

After some research about the Icelandic Commonwealth, it seems like a relatively decentralized network of pre-capitalist chieftains, but certainly not anarcho-capitalist. Private property did not really even exist as a concept until the Enlightenment, but was probably more akin to pre-capitalist "personal property." The anarcho-capitalist Roderick Long argues that it wasn't anarcho-capitalist because you could not form your own start-ups. While there was no monopoly on force, if you could not form your own startups, then clearly you are at the mercy of some kind of oligarchy on force. Not much better.

Again, the fact that it is a bunch of chieftains and private court systems and such means that at the end of the day you are at the mercy of men with weapons enforcing laws.... not quite anarchism.

As for the Wild West, it was absolutely not anarcho-capitalist. There were limited liability corporate persons, sheriffs, the army and national guard, the pony express, courts, the US legal code, tariffs, and taxes.

You don't think the goverment vs people is an example of inequal positions?

Sure it is. It was established by the elites to cement this inequality (at times with sprinklings of the notion of justice thrown in there). That is what elites do... cement their own power. However, through centuries of grassroots struggle the states have become relatively accountable to the public at large. It would be very sad to tear that all down and allow the elites free reign to rent-seek.

No, it is not false. Alliances, enemies, norms -- these are all part of anarchy. You don't think norms happen in the free market? Of course they do. Until there is a one world government, the relationship between governments is anarchic.

While I sometimes enjoy this type of discussion, I've yet to see even one case where it changes someone's mind. We can talk about this stuff all day long, but in the end, it boils down to a fundamental question of morals.

I think it's wrong to use violence except for self-defence -- that is, I subscribe to the non-aggression principle. This inevitably leads to the idea that all forms of government are unacceptable. The two are mutually incompatible. Since you are a proponent of states, you clearly are also a proponent of using violence as a means to an end. I doubt I can change that with any argument.

The World Trade Organization, the World Court, the IMF, the World Bank, the UN, NATO, and all the other numerous transnational organizations which operate at the level above the nation-state clearly provide a framework that falls short of anarchy. If your country decides to do go against these institutions, and especially if it goes against the hegemon the United States, you can bet there will be an armed response or the threat of one.

This is not anarchy. Again, your anarcho-capitalism is an oxymoron.

If you subscribe to the non-aggression principle then you are not a utilitarian. You believe in an arbitrary deontological ethic. We live in a world with violence. Moral purity in any deontological sense is not possible nor is it a goal worth striving for. At the end of the day any utilitarian would support a stable government whenever the marginal utility of doing so is higher than the alternatives.

[EmbraceUnity]

what I meant is this: your claim that the only rational basis for ethics is happiness (I persume you mean individual happiness here) is correct however using the philosophy of utilitarianism (which you linked to earlier) to achieve that happiness is incorrect.

There are many types of utilitarianism. Preference Utilitarianism, Negative Utilitarianism, Prioritarianism, Hedonistic Utilitarianism, Classical Utilitarianism, and so forth. One might think that any or all of these are wrong, but any consequentialist philosophy based on aggregate happiness is utilitarianism. Even if you just invented your own version.

Egoistic hedonism is also rational since it is based on happiness, but it is missing the other pillar of ethics, which is compassion. It is a heartless philosophy no matter how "enlightened."

Edited by progressive, 08 February 2010 - 03:48 PM.

[EmbraceUnity]

All the complaints I've ever heard about corporate "personhood" come down to a complaint that corporations supposedly have rights that people actually don't have (they don't), so the solution is to take away all the rights of all the people that belong to the corporation. The real solution however is simply to point out that corporations are no more permitted to violate rights than individuals are. (And if they are, that needs to be fixed.)

As far as limited liability is concerned, it is a legitimate concept, and if done right a legitimate practice. However it’s important to understand that limited liability does not apply to criminal law. That is, if an employee of a corporation commits a crime, he is personally liable for his actions. In no way does acting on behalf of a corporation shield people from breaking the law. (Of course that is not universally true, but that is a corruption of the law, not a part of limited liability.)

Abolishing corporate personhood would not strip the rights of the individuals in the business whatsoever. However, shareholders would be personally accountable for the actions of their business just as partners in partnerships are liable.

Furthermore, when people go around knowingly spreading diseases and polluting, they get put in prison. If they murder people, they are often put away for life or executed. Corporations rarely have their charters revoked. Though, that is also a flaw of the system, and not in limited liability itself. Though limited liability leads to more corruptible institutions and inequality.

Limited liability was probably a necessary tool for industrialization, but nowadays it serves as a barrier to open source production. I don't think there is anything categorically wrong about limited liability corporations, I just think their usefulness needs justification. That justification no longer exists now that new modes of production have appeared.

[JLL]

Any social democrat, by virtue of being a social democrat, implicitly is recognizing either that there are constraints upon our free will or that there is no free will. If human action could not be manipulated by marketing, fraud, addiction, and other such things then clearly there would be no need to care about them.

So you are saying that your actions can be affected by marketing but not by your own thoughts? What exactly would constitute free will in your view?

Anyway, I don't see how it follows from a lack of free will that forcing people to do things is a good thing?

I will refer you to the Harm Principle.

" That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others." John Stuart Mill, On Liberty chapter 1

It is the most categorical position for individual liberty that exists. Indeed, it preserves freedom far more than "anything goes." One is not free if one is being harmed by the actions of others, be it an individual, a corporation, or the government. On the flip side, victimless actions such as drug abuse cannot be considered crimes as long as the individual was fully aware of what he was doing. (If someone sold you a bottle of soda laced with cocaine to get you addicted, without warning you beforehand, that would not be justifiable)

Then I agree with the Harm Principle. It seems to me like this is the same concept as the non-aggression principle. But you're not arguing for preventing harm to others, you're arguing for things like taxes, which is in contradiction to the Harm Principle.

If free will (purposeful action) does not exist, then the "key" to the study of anarcho-capitalism does not exist. The is the first premise upon which all of his other claims are supposed to rest.

That may be Rothbard's view, but it is not my view.

This again makes me wonder if you have studied the basic tenets of "anarcho"-capitalism, which absolutely accepts the harm principle. The idea is that security would be provided by private insurance companies that are vertically integrated to handle security. Supposedly, there would also be consortiums to deal with contract enforcement and dispute resolution.

Yes.

You asked me why anarcho-capitalism is an oxymoron. It is for this reason. Sure there may be no nation-states with a monopoly on force, in theory. (and in theory only, because of rent-seeking) Yet, that doesn't mean that the world would free of hierarchy and free of force, which is what anarchism is. That force would just be privatized. At the end of the day, there are still some nice men with guns that, in theory, are supposed to enforce legal documents. There would still be prisons, execution, fines, and all sorts of things.

There are very different theories of what constitues a 'hierarchy'. Is the relationship between an employer and an employee a hierarchy? If yes, then no, anarchy is not free of hierarchies, nor should it be.

Also, anarchy is free of force only in the sense that it prohibits the initiation of force. It does not guarantee that there won't be people who break this 'rule', however.

I have nothing against nice men who enforce legal documents, as long as there is no (unnaturala) monopoly on the business of legal document enforcement.

I agree that there would be fines, possibly executions, but I doubt prisons would emerge on the free market. I don't see how they would be financed, and I don't see the point of having prisons when compensation to the victim is much more just and desirable.

As for the Wild West, it was absolutely not anarcho-capitalist. There were limited liability corporate persons, sheriffs, the army and national guard, the pony express, courts, the US legal code, tariffs, and taxes.

Are we talking about the same time period and area here? As I understand it, all those things came later when the government took over those businesses. Before that it was basically all private businesss. I'll get back to you on this one once I find the relevant paper.

The World Trade Organization, the World Court, the IMF, the World Bank, the UN, NATO, and all the other numerous transnational organizations which operate at the level above the nation-state clearly provide a framework that falls short of anarchy. If your country decides to do go against these institutions, and especially if it goes against the hegemon the United States, you can bet there will be an armed response or the threat of one.

Well, you make a good point, and I do agree that all those organizations are bad, but as long as it is not mandatory for every country in the world to belong to these organizations, there is still anarchy on the level of countries.

But I am worried that the UN, for example, might slowly become a sort of one world government, which would be a very bad thing indeed.

This is not anarchy. Again, your anarcho-capitalism is an oxymoron.

I don't see how that would follow even if there was a one world government. It would just mean that the world is not anarcho-capitalist.

If you subscribe to the non-aggression principle then you are not a utilitarian. You believe in an arbitrary deontological ethic. We live in a world with violence. Moral purity in any deontological sense is not possible nor is it a goal worth striving for. At the end of the day any utilitarian would support a stable government whenever the marginal utility of doing so is higher than the alternatives.

I'm not a utilitarian, but I do claim that anarchism leads to more happiness than governments.

Minarchism leads to more happiness than big governments, but minarchism also leads to big governments, which is why advocate anarchism instead.

Am I understanding this correct that your main objection to anarchism is rent-seeking?