From Jay Stooksberry at the Independent Voter Network:
When it comes to national elections, the deck is stacked against any candidate who doesn’t have a (D) or (R) next to their name.
Even third party candidates realize that they are dead in the water before they even had the chance to mount an effort against the two-party duopoly. Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein recently posted a “pre-mortem eulogy” that satirically characterizes her campaign that was “prematurely and surreptitiously extinguished by her many enemies.”
It’s time for third parties to change the narrative. It’s time for two prominent political groups – Green Party members and Libertarian Party members – to forego the losing effort of third party campaigning and join forces. Greens and libertarians – the two top political parties outside of the “big two” – need to stop fighting over the electoral scraps left over by Democrats and Republicans, and create a meaningful grassroots coalition that focuses on their shared ideological agendas.
Instead of spinning their wheels on trying to gain access to 50 state ballots, Greens and libertarians should focus their activism and fundraising efforts going toward the issues they champion.
Take the recent example of the Keystone XL pipeline. Greens focused their critique of this project for its obvious environmental impact and how the use of a dirty fossil fuel – such as oil from Canadian tar sand – contributes to climate change. Meanwhile, libertarians opposed the project due to the excessive use of eminent domain that was needed for the pipeline to be built. Though approached from different angles, the opposition to such political moves would be stronger if the duplication of efforts was streamlined.
But that’s just one example. J.E. Robertson writes, “There is significant overlap between the policy goals of the Green Party and those of the Libertarian Party.”
Greens and libertarians, of either the non-partisan or non-partisan type, are fairly large and diverse pools of people with varying positions and varying reasons for those positions. There’s definitely some overlap. I’ve known self-identified greens who were more anti-statist than many libertarians, and self-identified libertarians who were more statist than many greens.
A couple of examples of the “greens who are more anti-statist than many libertarians” that come to mind are:
– Keystone XL. A lot of allegedly “libertarian” think tanks agitated in its favor, using exactly the same reasoning as state-leftist supporters of other “eminent domain for economic development” deals. “It will create jobs!” and so forth. When it was New London taking the Kelo home and others to build a convention center on that basis, libertarians correctly called bullshit. But when TransCanada wanted to seize private property from thousands of owners to build a pipeline, all of a sudden it was “the free market at work.” Many greens may have had reasons other than my reasons for being on the right side of the issue, but at least they WERE on the right side of the issue.
– Intellectual “property” monopolism. I attended a Green Party event at which Percy Schmeisser spoke in the early 2000s, describing how Monsanto contaminated his canola seed with its “Roundup Ready” gene and then sued him over it. If I had closed my eyes, I would have sworn I was at a Cato event. Libertarians have tended to be OK on Monsanto in particular, but on intellectual “property,” the Greens seem to be better than average versus many libertarians.
– Nuclear power. I’m somewhat skeptical of Greens’ environmental concerns, although not entirely dismissive of them. But the fact is that the next nuclear power project which doesn’t demand massive government subsidies (or “private” subsidies put in place by government as rate hikes on monopoly pricing) for construction, then rely on the Price-Anderson liability cap to operate because no private insurer will cover them for worst-case scenarios, will be the first, at least to my knowledge. Let me know if nuclear can ever succeed as anything other than a big-government boondoggle and I might reconsider.
I’m always happy to work with the Greens where they and Libertarians agree, and to promote open debate where they don’t. And while I disagree with substantial portions of both the Green Party and Peace and Freedom Party, I’ll still vote for either rather than vote Republican or Democrat, as well as when the LP shits the bed with something like Barr/Root 2008.
Mises.org and other pro-capitalist think tanks…have been and continue to be largely funded by corporate/billionaire money…
The idea that hardcore libertarians and Austrians are somehow the well-connected darlings of the establishment is preposterous. Yes, the establishment types tolerated Hayek, and even celebrated some of his more “moderate” ideas, but when it comes to the hardcore Austrians, like Mises and especially Rothbard, they have been relentlessly shunned and marginalized. If your argument were correct, then the sorts of ideas espoused by the Mises Institute would be promoted regularly on Fox News, by conservative think tanks, and so forth. Instead, they are routinely ignored and occasionally ridiculed (when they can’t be ignored), precisely because they are so dangerous to the powers that be.
Every time I have a conversation with you here you make a similar appeal to “economic” authority…
That’s because you continue to promote obvious economic fallacies, such as your idea that a monopoly can exist without the help of the state. In fact, without the barriers to entry that only a state can provide, the only way a “monopoly” could arise would be if a firm somehow managed to provide (something very close to) perfectly optimal service — that is to say, the best possible product at the best possible price. And in the unlikely case that did happen, to decry the situation as an example of “monopoly” would be stunningly pedantic.
Or, to give another example, socialists continue to vigorously advocate a minimum wage as a way of helping the poor, even though virtually all economists thoroughly reject that idea, and have for decades. The fact that those on the far Left continue to cling to such silly economic superstitions makes it incredibly difficult to take them seriously.
…the same things you don’t like about government are also present in any capitalist firm or enterprise…
There are two things I dislike about government. The first is that it is evil. At its essence, it is rooted in violence. That is to say, unlike a job, one cannot “quit” government. Anybody that tries to do so will be subjected to violent retribution.
The other is that it is stupid. Virtually everything it does (or attempts to do) is based on trying to circumvent the laws of economics, by “improving” on the outcomes of the free market (which is an impossibility).
As for what sorts of firms might thrive in a truly free society (i.e. a society with no state), I do not pretend to know. Such a society might be dominated by capitalist, socialist, or agorist forms of enterprise. I suspect it might be a combination of the three, with some industries being more well suited to capitalist structures, others to socialist structures, and so forth. But that’s simply a guess. Anyone who tells you that they can predict the exact outcomes of the free market is either a fool or a liar. There are far too many variables for one person, or even a group of people, to ever calculate (which is one of the main reasons central planning will always fail).
Green: I disagree with your idea that the document you just cited is “good scholarship”. In fact, I think you are trying to turn it into a major example of ‘strawman argument’: You don’t really believe in anarchism, nor capitalism, nor anarco-capitalism. Yet you are citing a document which with you presumably disagree.
The document cited by Ianga, http://www.ozarkia.net/bill/anarchism/library/rg-anarcho-cap.html, destroys the ideas in your cite quite well.
Incidentally, Ianga’s document refers to David Friedman. In 1973, and reissued in 1989, he wrote a book called “The Machinery of Freedom”, in which he postulated his “Hard Problem”: The difficulty of anarchistic and minarchist Libertarian societies about financing their defenses, and specifically doing so without force. This is the problem, that I was unaware of in 1995, which I solved in early 1995 by thinking up the idea that I turned into my ‘Assassination Politics’ essay. cryptome[dotorg/ap[dothtm]
David Friedman re-re-issued “The Machinery of Freedom” in 2014, but I haven’t seen it yet. Does it acknowledge that I solved his “hard problem”? I don’t know yet. But I can imagine why people (anarchists, anarcho-capitalists, minarchist libertarians) are tending to avoid the issue: AP is just too ‘neat’ a solution to solve their favorite problem.
Some anarchists.
” This is precisely the reason why, contrary to your assertions, big business finds libertarianism (of the genuine Ron Paul/LP variety, not the fake Rand Paul/Tea Party sort) absolutely terrifying, and thus goes to such great lengths to smear, discredit and silence anyone who espouses genuinely libertarian ideas. Such ideas are, far and away, the biggest threat to the rigged crony capitalism upon which most of their fortunes have been built.”
If by “libertarian” you mean “libertarian socialist” or “anarchist” then I would agree with this assessment. But if by libertarian you mean Mises.org and other pro-capitalist think tanks, then you are utterly mistaken. In fact these sorts of think tanks are have been and continue to be largely funded by corporate/billionaire money (Mises himself was associated with the Rockefellers). It’s true though that capitalism needs the state and some laisse-faire ideas are a threat to profits.
“I would contend that you reject libertarianism for one of two reasons: either you have an extremely feeble understanding of economics, or you are intellectually dishonest. One (or both) of these reasons account for 99.9% of the cases of those who claim to oppose both authoritarianism and laissez-faire. Anyone who understands economics understands that a true free market is the only way to minimize oppression and tyranny, of all shapes and sizes.”
Every time I have a conversation with you here you make a similar appeal to “economic” authority, absent an actual argument. As if there is no problem with the economic scholarship at the root of the statist, capitalist, and imperialist reality we live in. I submit to you that if you really investigate the reasons you oppose “statism” and “government” then you will find that the same things you don’t like about government are also present in any capitalist firm or enterprise (eg the same authoritarian principles).
I’ll take a look at the link you cite (it’s long and I’ve already noticed some logical errors in it, but it takes awhile to properly digest anything).
“Since I’ve been an anarchist for 15-16 years, and was familiar with anarchist views before then, I don’t need them to tell me what I believe. I have seen it before and it outlines a different type of anarchism than what I believe. I’m not sure why you are recommending this site since you have said you are not an anarchist, whereas I am. Perhaps I am missing some context.”
Just want to briefly comment on this. Like Paulie I don’t agree with every conclusion in AnFaq (as free individuals, anarchists frequently disagree with each other), particularly when it comes to how economic life would work in post-capitalism. But that’s not why I linked to it. I linked to it because it is good scholarship. Most actual anarchists (eg, non anarcho-capitalists) would agree with that assessment (that the AnFaq is good scholarship and is an accurate representation of what anarchism is and has been about), even if they don’t agree with the economic ideas endorsed by AnFaq. So while Paulie has every right to disagree with the AnFaq, he’s wrong if he’s saying the AnFaq isn’t a good scholarship or isn’t an accurate representation of what anarchists have and do believe.
As for Jim and other sheeple-tyle Ls, let’s do a quick summary of the principles animating the mainstream/sheeple/Fauxnews view of the world.
War is Peace (endless war is the product of “civilization”, people who want peaceful cooperation are either “idiots” or “insane”)
Freedom is Slavery (economic and political self-determination = slavery; authoritarian control of economic/political life = freedom)
Ignorance is Strength (via fidelity to the mantras of corporate media we are strong)
I keep hoping some of you will actually read it and try to debunk it (so far it hasn’t happened).
I read it many years ago, and I have neither the time nor desire to do so again. Fortunately, I don’t have to, as it has already been debunked:
http://www.ozarkia.net/bill/anarchism/library/rg-anarcho-cap.html
(Note: I haven’t read through the entirety of the linked essay, but having skimmed it, it appears to be more than adequate to refute the Anarchist [sic] FAQ — a task which, after all, is not difficult, but merely tedious.)
Surely you already believe that the political system in the USA favors big business.
Of course. This is precisely the reason why, contrary to your assertions, big business finds libertarianism (of the genuine Ron Paul/LP variety, not the fake Rand Paul/Tea Party sort) absolutely terrifying, and thus goes to such great lengths to smear, discredit and silence anyone who espouses genuinely libertarian ideas. Such ideas are, far and away, the biggest threat to the rigged crony capitalism upon which most of their fortunes have been built.
Ultimately, I reject Libertarianism because despite its ostensible anti-statism, in reality it mostly endorses the values and attitudes at the heart of the state and statism, including the hierarchical subjugation of workers.
I would contend that you reject libertarianism for one of two reasons: either you have an extremely feeble understanding of economics, or you are intellectually dishonest. One (or both) of these reasons account for 99.9% of the cases of those who claim to oppose both authoritarianism and laissez-faire. Anyone who understands economics understands that a true free market is the only way to minimize oppression and tyranny, of all shapes and sizes.
On many of the points raised by GWOA and Darcy, Mary Ruwart’s Healing Our World is an amazing resource.
http://www.ruwart.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Healing-Our-World-The-Other-Piece-of-the-Puzzle-1993.pdf
hmm didn’t subscribe
It’s worth rereading if you haven’t read it recently. And, from the same author, on the general subject of this thread, http://aaeblog.com/2006/11/24/greensleeves-was-all-my-joy/ is invaluable.
CAH
See https://mises.org/library/rothbards-left-and-right-forty-years-later#6 if you haven’t already, and the rest of the essay if and when you get a chance, if you haven’t done so already.
==We are tired of your nonsense.===
The cut and paste regurgitation is certainly old.
==Since I’ve been an anarchist for 15-16 years, and was familiar with anarchist views before then, I don’t need them to tell me what I believe. I have seen it before and it outlines a different type of anarchism than what I believe. I’m not sure why you are recommending this site since you have said you are not an anarchist, whereas I am. Perhaps I am missing some context.===
I know. I just LOVE it when people tell me what I believe. LOVE IT.
Though unlike yourself and a few others here, I am definitely an-cap.
Green WO Adjectives: No, you have simply found a WACKY text, one that even you don’t believe in (because you aren’t an “anarchist”) and you are challenging people to “debunk” it. Stop doing that! We are not obliged to “debunk” any given nutty text you may happen to find on the Internet.
You have already demonstrated how illogical you are. We are tired of your nonsense.
Your anarchist FAQ sucks. Prime example:
“But is this correct? Considering definitions from the American Heritage Dictionary, we find:
LIBERTARIAN: one who believes in freedom of action and thought; one who believes in free will.
SOCIALISM: a social system in which the producers possess both political power and the means of producing and distributing goods.
Just taking those two first definitions and fusing them yields:”
You can’t just “fuse” two definitions like this! Like “Anarchist Statist”. DOES NOT WORK!!!
“LIBERTARIAN SOCIALISM: a social system which believes in freedom of action and thought and free will, in which the producers possess both political power and the means of producing and distributing goods.”
These people are nuts! What is “political power”? A person who can VOTE has “political power”.
No, I’ve already thought about all the issues it raises and I have read it before, I just don’t have time to explain it all here.
“I wish I had time to explain every error in that FAQ.”
Well, that’s why I keep linking to it. I keep hoping some of you will actually read it and try to debunk it (so far it hasn’t happened). I’m betting that as you (not necessarily you, but Libertarians generally) try to debunk it, they’ll become more conscious of the contradictions in their own position, and a process of transformation might occur. Generally speaking I can’t link to this sort of critique enough because unlike big-L Libertarianism, anarchism gets no play whatsoever in the media.
All that said, yeah..if texts like Harrington’s “Socialism: Past and Future” or Schweikart’s “After Captalism” were available online, I would probably link to them instead. But “Anarchist Faq” makes many of the same points quite effectively as is easily accessible online.
Yeah, I’m not right wing, either. I wish I had time to explain every error in that FAQ.
“I’m not sure why you are recommending this site since you have said you are not an anarchist, whereas I am. Perhaps I am missing some context.”
I’d be inclined to question your anarchist credentials in the same way Bob Black criticizes the credentials of “right-wing anarchists” who want to reproduce the conditions of the state without calling it a state…..Yes I know, you’re something of a Carsonite who claims to be opposed to capitalist oppression, yet here you are participating in a discussion forum with hard-core capitalists and lo and behold….none of them grasp the contradictions between liberty/autonomy and capitalist-imperialism. So imho you don’t seem to be propagandizing for anarchism very effectively..
But the main reason I link to the AnFaq alot, despite identifying as a market socialist myself, is it is provocative. It was originally aimed at debunking anarcho-capitalism (now mislabeled as anarchism in the media) and remains essential to that end. Given that the values of market socialism and anarchism are largely congruent, I see (anti-capitalist) anarchists as ideological allies. I’d rather be considered an anarchist than a Leninist; that’s for sure.
While this provocation usually causes anger at first, eventually it can lead to soul-searching and reformulation of beliefs. I didn’t become an anti-capitalist until I read anarchist theory, so I tend to see anarchist theory as critical to breaking down the myths associated with capitalism.
The “Capitalist Myths” sections are very good, as are the sections criticizing the Bolsheviks and elaborating on the Russian and Spanish revolutions. All told it is a really excellent piece of scholarship, which elaborates fairly accurately on what anarchism is and the differences between various anarchisms.
By the way, I call what I believe libertarian anarchism, not anarcho-capitalism or capitalism of any kind.
“By the way, question for the Leftists: On the one hand, you say that big business controls the political system in America. On the other hand, you say that a true laissez-faire system (and even anarchy) would greatly benefit big business. If both those things are true, why don’t we have such a system?”
Here is another answer to your question. See the link for a more through discussion.
http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secD1.html
:”The most obvious interaction between statism and capitalism is when the state intervenes in the economy. Indeed, the full range of capitalist politics is expressed in how much someone thinks this should happen. At one extreme, there are the right-wing liberals (sometimes mistakenly called “libertarians”) who seek to reduce the state to a defender of private property rights. At the other, there are those who seek the state to assume full ownership and control of the economy (i.e. state capitalists who are usually mistakenly called “socialists”). In practice, the level of state intervention lies between these two extremes, moving back and forth along the spectrum as necessity requires.
For anarchists, capitalism as an economy requires state intervention. There is, and cannot be, a capitalist economy which does not exhibit some form of state action within it. The state is forced to intervene in society for three reasons:
1. To bolster the power of capital as a whole within society.
2. To benefit certain sections of the capitalist class against others.
3. To counteract the anti-social effects of capitalism.
I don’t have time to read, much less answer, most of the last few comments but this caught my eye:
Since I’ve been an anarchist for 15-16 years, and was familiar with anarchist views before then, I don’t need them to tell me what I believe. I have seen it before and it outlines a different type of anarchism than what I believe. I’m not sure why you are recommending this site since you have said you are not an anarchist, whereas I am. Perhaps I am missing some context.
“When it comes time for you to enforce your “democratic control” in the end, it will come down to the aggressive use of force to MAKE people comply with the “democratic control”
I’m kind of confused. So you’re saying you don’t favor democratic control of the means of production by the workers who work there. But you do favor “free association”? Think it through and you’all see the contradiction. If you don’t favor “democratic control” then you favor “authoritarian control”. That is, you favor control and management of workplaces hierarchically by owners. But how else is an owner going to maintain exclusive control of the workplace without the threat of force? Consequently the ownership of the factory by the boss is dependent on relations of force and the limitation of “free association” by these relations of force (eg, I can’t squat on land or use tools that are is already “owned”, so I must pay rent to access them). So the mode of ownership you are describing REQUIRES government. This is why authentic ANARCHISTS agree with the goal of democratic control of the means of production by the workers who work there. They’ve thought it through and they realize this is the mode of production least consistent with government tyranny and most consistent with the values of liberty and free association.
“Libertarians are in favor of free association, and we are in favor of freedom of opportunity. In a real free market, which we have never had in the United States, the market would not be manipulated by politicians and giant corporations because the politicians would have no power to do so, and the giant corporations, unable to use the force of government to protect their market share, would collapse under their enormous weight. ”
But the only sustainable way you could stop giant corporations from using their capital to influence government and regulatory decisions is to extend ownership of these corporations to the workers who work there. And this is precisely what socialists propose to do. If you leave ownership relations in place, including ownership of giant corporations and the means of production, then we will inevitably get the same government that we have…eg the government that is consistent with the maintenance and reproduction of the capitalist mode of production that we live in.
If you’re interest in liberty is authentic, I suggest you take a look at the Anarchist Faq, which is highly provocative, but is a good summary of what anarchists believe and why.
http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/index.html
If different stages of civilization are “environmentally dirtier” than others, then it’s meaningess to allege that “GENERALIZED CIVILIZATION” or “GENERALIZED CAPITALIST IMPERIALISM” is “environmentally damaging.” At what stage? A curve must be shown, and it must be a complex curve that takes into account
1) local resources
2) local capacity to exploit resources
3) environmental cost of shipping
4) the shaping of environmental responses by cost-increasing bureaucracy (which interferes with the development of the kind of “comparative advantage” that results in the profit surpluses that can be directed toward making factories cleaner)
5) the local social culture (does the local culture value a clean environment at any level? traditionally? How mathematically and scientifically well-educated are the environmentalists in the area? See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dtbn9zBfJSs )
6) local priorities. What priorities should environmentalists set? (See prior video.)
Further, you might both be calling the same “pattern found in nature” different things. Clearly, you both have an emotional bias. (Perhaps one is more rational than the other. The stereotypical “left-socialist” Darcy has clearly seized on standard socialist-collectivist-Marxist emotional rhetoric.)
At least some formulations of civilized favors voluntary human action. Virtually zero formulations of “capitalist imperialism” (especially when used as a pejorative, as it is here) favor voluntary human action.
Maybe closely tied to the initial stages of “civilization,” which must focus more on basic levels of adaptation, and are not advanced enough to allocate resources to cleaner energy, etc. Over time, technologies have emerged that are increasingly less-damaging to, and more selected for benevolent impact upon, the environment. As a counter-response, bureaucracy increasingly and decreasingly preys on human productivity in various areas, irrespective of “right and wrong” via predatory government action.
Here’s an example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zmDENxTPn8Q – Eben Bayer: Are mushrooms the new plastic?
And another: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVBEwn6iWOo –
Water, Energy and Life: Fresh Views From the Water’s Edge
(Human “environmental” health may have far more to do with water quality than any local municipal water board is willing to admit, which requires removing government control of the water supply. It may be that with vitamin K2 supplementation with crystalline water consumption may be able to clean the body and keep it healthy and free of many diseases even in dirty environments.)
Environment should not be viewed in isolation from “mitigation of damage caused by environment” strategies, such as SENS
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPqGrKg_HqA
“By the way, question for the Leftists: On the one hand, you say that big business controls the political system in America. On the other hand, you say that a true laissez-faire system (and even anarchy) would greatly benefit big business. If both those things are true, why don’t we have such a system?”
Surely you already believe that the political system in the USA favors big business. Let’s put it this way–the status quo favors big business. “Laissez-faire” benefits big business in some ways and doesn’t in others. Government policy largely follows this reality. The essential thing to understand is that private capital ultimately drives the state, not some imaginary “government” that is somehow distinct from the interests of that capital.
So the real answer is this….we have the government that best fits the interests of capital (for example, capital needs imperial expansion, which requires a strong military). Libertarians want more laisse-faire and in some ways that are congruent with the interests of capital accumulation, and in some ways not. But we can assume that if big capital really wanted to get rid of institutions like mandatory public education or welfare, they would get rid of them (and maybe they will eventually, once they are no longer of use).
Ultimately, I reject Libertarianism because despite its ostensible anti-statism, in reality it mostly endorses the values and attitudes at the heart of the state and statism, including the hierarchical subjugation of workers. Libertarians ought to understand it is contradictory to associate their ideology with the “economic growth” caused by modern capitalism without also embracing the imperialism at the heart of modern capitalism…but in fact (unlike honest capitalist-imperialists) they do just that, and thereby confuse alot of well-meaning people.
There is an old text by Bob Black that elaborates on some of these issues. Let me quote a few passages
http://www.inspiracy.com/black/abolition/libertarian.html
“My target is what most libertarians have in common — with each other, and with their ostensible enemies. Libertarians serve the state all the better because they declaim against it. At bottom, they want what it wants. But you can’t want what the state wants without wanting the state, for what the state wants is the conditions in which it flourishes. My (unfriendly) approach to modern society is to regard it as an integrated totality. Silly doctrinaire theories which regard the state as a parasitic excrescence on society cannot explain its centuries-long persistence, its ongoing encroachment upon what was previously market terrain, or its acceptance by the overwhelming majority of people including its demonstrable victims.
A far more plausible theory is that the state and (at least) this form of society have a symbiotic (however sordid) interdependence, that the state and such institutions as the market and the nuclear family are, in several ways, modes of hierarchy and control. Their articulation is not always harmonious (herein of turf-fights) but they share a common interest in consigning their conflicts to elite or expert resolution. To demonize state authoritarianism while ignoring identical albeit contract-consecrated subservient arrangements in the large-scale corporations which control the world economy is fetishism at its worst. And yet (to quote the most vociferous of radical libertarians, Professor Murray Rothbard) there is nothing un-libertarian about “organization, hierarchy, wage-work, granting of funds by libertarian millionaires, and a libertarian party.” Indeed. That is why libertarianism is just conservatism with a rationalist/positivist veneer.
Libertarians render a service to the state which only they can provide. For all their complaints about its illicit extensions they concede, in their lucid moments, that the state rules far more by consent than by coercion — which is to say, on present-state “libertarian” terms the state doesn’t rule at all, it merely carries out the tacit or explicit terms of its contracts. If it seems contradictory to say that coercion is consensual, the contradiction is in the world, not in the expression, and can’t adequately be rendered except by dialectical discourse. One-dimensional syllogistics can’t do justice to a world largely lacking in the virtue. If your language lacks poetry and paradox, it’s unequal to the task of accounting for actuality. Otherwise anything radically new is literally unspeakable. The scholastic “A = A” logic created by the Catholic Church which the libertarians inherited, unquestioned, from the Randites is just as constrictively conservative as the Newspeak of 1984.”
“You might object that what I’ve said may apply to the minarchist majority of libertarians, but not to the self-styled anarchists among them. Not so. To my mind a right-wing anarchist is just a minarchist who’d abolish the state to his own satisfaction by calling it something else. But this incestuous family squabble is no affair of mine. Both camps call for partial or complete privatization of state functions but neither questions the functions themselves. They don’t denounce what the state does, they just object to who’s doing it. This is why the people most victimized by the state display the least interest in libertarianism. Those on the receiving end of coercion don’t quibble over their coercers’ credentials. If you can’t pay or don’t want to, you don’t much care if your deprivation is called larceny or taxation or restitution or rent. If you like to control your own time, you distinguish employment from enslavement only in degree and duration. An ideology which outdoes all others (with the possible exception of Marxism) in its exaltation of the work ethic can only be a brake on anti-authoritarian orientations, even if it does make the trains run on time.
My second argument, related to the first, is that the libertarian phobia as to the state reflects and reproduces a profound misunderstanding of the operative forces which make for social control in the modern world. If — and this is a big “if,” especially where bourgeois libertarians are concerned — what you want is to maximize individual autonomy, then it is quite clear that the state is the least of the phenomena which stand in your way.”
“Hospers thought he could justify wage-labor, factory discipline and hierarchic management by noting that they’re imposed in Leninist regimes as well as under capitalism. Would he accept the same argument for the necessity of repressive sex and drug laws? Like other libertarians, Hospers is uneasy — hence his gratuitous red-baiting — because libertarianism and Leninism are as different as Coke and Pepsi when it comes to consecrating class society and the source of its power, work. Only upon the firm foundation of factory fascism and office oligarchy do libertarians and Leninists dare to debate the trivial issues dividing them. Toss in the mainstream conservatives who feel just the same and we end up with a veritable trilateralism of pro-work ideology seasoned to taste.
Hospers, who never has to, sees nothing demeaning in taking orders from bosses, for “how else could a large scale factory be organized?” In other words, “wanting to abolish authority in large-scale industry is tantamount to wanting to abolish industry itself.” Hospers again? No, Frederick Engels! Marx agreed: “Go and run one of the Barcelona factories without direction, that is to say, without authority!” (Which is just what the Catalan workers did in 1936, while their anarcho-syndicalist leaders temporized and cut deals with the government.) “Someone,” says Hospers, “has to make decisions and” — here’s the kicker — “someone else has to implement them.” Why? His precursor Lenin likewise endorsed “individual dictatorial powers” to assure “absolute and strict unity of will.” “But how can strict unity of will be ensured? By thousands subordinating their will to the will of one.” What’s needed to make industrialism work is “iron discipline while at work, with unquestioning obedience to the will of a single person, the soviet leader, while at work.” Arbeit macht frei!”
“Libertarians complain that the state is parasitic, an excrescence on society. They think it’s like a tumor you could cut out, leaving the patient just as he was, only healthier. They’ve been mystified by their own metaphors. Like the market, the state is an activity, not an entity. The only way to abolish the state is to change the way of life it forms a part of. That way of life, if you call that living, revolves around work and takes in bureaucracy, moralism, schooling, money, and more. Libertarians are conservatives because they avowedly want to maintain most of this mess and so unwittingly perpetuate the rest of the racket. But they’re bad conservatives because they’ve forgotten the reality of institutional and ideological interconnection which was the original insight of the historical conservatives. Entirely out of touch with the real currents of contemporary resistance, they denounce practical opposition to the system as “nihilism,” “Luddism,” and other big words they don’t understand. A glance at the world confirms that their utopian capitalism just can’t compete with the state. With enemies like libertarians, the state doesn’t need friends.”
Once a dollar is paid to the government, it is in the hands of those who have sought power without much accountability, (because the democracy is not very democratic and has too many bureaucratic layers). This situation can be correct, but until then, paying one’s taxes and allowing the current government to continue operating as it does, does more harm than good. As Thoreau said:
The state has not become more benevolent since Thoreau wrote the prior. In fact Historians confusing his work in the 1800s for a work of 2006 might well mistake his reference to “the Mexican War” as the “draconian and irresponsible” war of prohibition the USA has mistakenly foisted on its own population and the population of Mexico.
If one dollar goes to that kind of bullshit, you can count me out, I will not comply, I will not participate, I will refuse. …I am not a patriot of such a nation, I am not a citizen of the U.S.A., but a citizen of the free country that was intended by the abolitionists and modern libertarians.
The republic is corrupted, the democracy is degraded and scarcely recognizable, the liberty of privacy is now blotted out by nationwide cell-phone and computer networks that jack directly into the heart of big brother.
When I think of “draconian and irresponsible” this bloated kleptocracy, such as we have, is what comes to mind.
…Not a minor reduction in the amount of such a government.
Gary Johnson’s trillion-dollar reduction is, at most a 1/50 reduction in outstanding liabilities(actually murdering and enslavement) that were promised the working poor of America (the good of which will never be paid, the evil of which will be paid in full), and even that is considered “draconian and irresponsible”?
And if the government is capable of paying its debtors by debasing(reducing the value of) the currency, would even that be truly good? Those who had provided well for themselves and invested their savings well will then have been rewarded less than the irresponsible and less-productive who have relied on direct payments from the government to keep pace with inflation.
It seems that rewarding a life of saving and scrimping and squeaking by redistribution to the lazy and wasteful is perhaps very “draconian and irresponsible.” The person who saves $8 of every $10 by eating less nutritious food is then made the dupe of the person who spends $8 of every dollar, and is later bailed out by the big-spending government. The former person gets cancer from his diet, and dies a horrible death, the latter more conventionally “irresponsible” person is “bailed out” and allowed to avoid the death-by-cancer.
These differences must be paid close attention to, in calculating the full measure of the term “draconian.”
It is draconian to spend away the dollars of the productive on items of malevolence, as much as it is to claim those malevolent items are actually benevolent(an intellectual mistake made manifest in physical reality by government theft and redistribution).
The government wants to spend money on the drug war that both socialist faux-Left and libertarian-Left decry. But only the libertarian side of the argument says, “If you treat me as your dupe and smack me in the face, the promise of a later Sugarcandy Mountain is no compensation for the smack.” …Especially because my imagination can provide a better “heaven” than the planners of social security can even imagine.
There is no benevolent future that features drug prohibition or an IRS unbound by common law. When these things are gone, and the government feeds and houses the poor with a “guaranteed minimum income,” and there is no war (just defense of the individual), we can revisit whether ceasing such payments would be draconian and irresponsible.
Darcy G. Richardson wrote:
Well, OK, should we then assume that not slashing the federal budget at all is something that Darcy G. Richardson would consider to not be “draconian and irresponsible”? Perhaps not. The term “draconian” has to do with finding the right threshold level, it’s a complex assessment. No less a Leftist than Ralph Nader has suggested that the Federal Reserve Cartel should be disbanded. At Green Party meetings, if you take a hard moral stance against the Federal Reserve, approximately 1/3 to 2/3 of the people there will either passively or actively agree with you.
Federal Reserve debt, is, in fact, a delayed form of force, because “It’s a fraud that not one in on thousand American citizens understand.” (Paraphrasing G. Edward Griffin in his book “The Creature From Jekyll Island. I believe that Harry Browne had more pessimistic estimates in his book “You Can Profit From a Monetary Crisis.”) As any card-carrying libertarian can tell you, fraud is “a delayed form of force, or theft.” This is true because the revealed preference(purchase) exploited in a fraud depends on deception, and cannot survive without it. If people saw through the trickery, they wouldn’t buy the items that are the substitutes in a fraud. …Consider two examples: labeling wood as food is a fraud, but it’s only properly considered a crime if you label poison as food, or wood as food, with intent to defraud. Imagine that I have opaque packages labeled “Apple Pie” and when opened, they are realistic plastic models of Apple Pie, such as are sometimes displayed in restaurant displays to entice customers. People simply cannot eat the plastic, and the delayed form of theft would be revealed when the packaging is opened. People may eat the poison, and die, constituting a theft of life, which has aspects to it that make civil compensation impossible.
But when theft and fraud reach epic proportions, a tragic thing happens: most human brains are unable to contemplate the destruction caused by the fraud.
Since 1913, the U.S. dollar has lost 97% of its value. Additional value has been lost due to the fact that, unlike gold and bitcoin, dollars are difficult to hide from police power, and taxes are paid upon them. Additionally, one is no longer allowed to transport dollars freely, so they cannot truly be considered absolute “capital.”
Instead, dollars have become something in-between “capital” and “fraud.” As capital, they depreciate quickly, and do not act as a very good store of value. One is thereby incentivized to put them into government-approved “banks” (not actually true banks, but all different brand names slapped onto the Federal Reserve, DEA, IRS, and other asset-stealing sociopathic entities).
These entities behave like deranged monsters, roaming the countryside without any accountability whatsoever.
To an educated person like myself, this seems to be “draconian and irresponsible.”
To a person who is uneducated, removing the free handouts that form a small fraction of the money inserted into the system seems “draconian and irresponsible.” That’s the nature of the fraud used to sell the immense fraud.
Recently, Obama has begun talking more like a classical liberal. Up to this point, his attorneys general have behaved like the aforementioned “monsters roaming the countryside.” He has not taken up the prospect of the fireside chat, nor have his actions “checkmated” the prison industrial complex. He has been marginally better than George H. W. Bush on gay rights, gun rights, and immigration, as indicated by his campaign websites. He has been as bad, or even slightly worse than even George W. Bush on whistleblowers, the Bill of Rights, and NSA spying.
He is in a position to make real change, very boldly, but I fear that such bravery would simply entice the bankers to deal with him as I suspect they dealt with JFK.
So, I applaud the baby-steps taken by Obama in the right direction, (as I attempt to forget the steps backward he has taken, such as by assassinating U.S. citizens without trial by jury) as much as I fear a future that will usher in more totalitarian presidents.
Obama inherited a broken system, and, unlike Lieutenant Colvin in his favorite TV series, “The Wire,” I fear that he lacks the will to buck the system.
Change may well likely come from a confluence of events that take on emergent properties, not by the conscious choice of any one individual, but from statistical overlap of the choices of millions, spurred to reaction by misfortune inherent in inflationary feeding of totalitarian agencies within the U.S. government(IRS, DEA, FDA, EPA, etc.). This manner of change is shown in the movies “V for Vendetta” (as dominoes falling), and the novel “The First Immortal” by James Halperin. Halperin predicts that the pseudo free market will triumph over purely illegitimate totalitarianism, and that all drugs will be legalized, simply because it would be systemically less intelligent if they were to remain illegal.
Though true, within pseudo-capitalism a lot of powerful people are paid to remain “systemically stupid” because it allows them to make money beating up on other humans they do not personally know (individually-concentrated gains, systemically-distributed harms).
The only thing we know is that the former systems are more consistent with human diversity and flourishing, and the latter is consistent with systemic suffering and destruction.
So, it seems to me that what is draconian and irresponsible is to allow this government, this trail of tears, to continue along its current path.
Even Gary Johnson and Ron Paul are not radical enough for my taste, and are not a change in kind, but in degree. That said, at least they represent a child’s steps in the right direction.
Categorizing any perpetuation of the current system strikes me as draconian and irresponsible.
Maybe Darcy doesn’t notice that the hand that feeds the poor with one hand beats them with a nightstick held by the other. If this failure to properly map reality is true, it is not really an insult to Darcy. I felt the same way when I was in 6th grade, before I had read Hayek, Rand, Mises, and Heinlein. Then, in college, I read Heinlein and began to consider myself a capitalist, in the sense that I viewed drugs, DNA, and gold as capital, though I suspected that the Federal Reserve was capitalist and did not, therefore, consider myself a capitalist, since the Federal Reserve chooses winners and losers.
The thing that made me a left-libertarian, or classical liberal was noticing that “the hand that feeds” is very inefficient, tiny, inconsistent, and “the hand that bludgeons” is system-wide and applied uniformly to everyone, (though in different ways).
We give the government money so it can feed the poor, so we can turn our backs on the poor.
If we did not do this, we could feed all the poor, by holding daily banquets in our neighborhoods, and hiring those who were “almost useless at labor” for “very low wages” commensurate with their capacity to do useful work. This would have to directly spring from our personal compassion and work, so we pawn it off on a sociopathic, intolerant, and totalitarian government. This is the measure of our smallness and incomprehension, not our “caring” and “empathy.”
We give the government money so it can feed the poor, and instead, it beats them with truncheons and puts them in prisons. According to David Simon, only 7% of the U.S. prison population are now imprisoned for violent crimes (down from ~30% in the 1980s) that have a victim or “corpus delicti” (INJURY+INTENT TO INJURE). This is the sickness of uncaring, and lack of compassion. It cannot be cured by a reduction in the deficit, nor anything other than a systemic change in direction.
Is it “draconian and irresponsible” to put young and old in prison for long prison sentences for things that are not even properly considered crimes?
I think so. This is why I think Darcy is very wrong. Once she parts with the value lost to inflation, she doesn’t see to what projects that value has been directed.
This is simply an incomprehension of scale and an inability to comprehend what is happening “out of sight.” …Much as the German public in the late 1930s failed to comprehend what was happening to the Jews when they were “out of sight.”
“Out of sight, out of mind” is a failure to look at the system, not a failure to empathize with direct evidence.
The result is a “draconian and irresponsible” government.
Short Answer (Binary): I don’t know. Is it time for the people who want to use force to achieve political ends to work with the people who don’t want to use force to achieve political ends? –That’s one way to look at it.
Long Answer (Complex): Another way to look at it is to notice that between 1/3 and 2/3 of the Greens are basically idiots, and know nothing about Economics, and that, once you put it to them in terms they can understand, they then become libertarians. Of course, you have to know “What kind of ignorance (or other perverse motivator)” you’re dealing with, or you will not convince the Greens of their error.
Essentially, the Greens are willing to “go to the barricades” to put people like Che Guevara and Bill Clinton in power. Of course, they’re also willing to put people like George Bush and Bernie Sanders in power, since they’re actually the same person, and the Greens are just too dumb to know it. (Che Guevara, for his part, was a murderous prison guard who shot 14 year old kids in the head for “being capitalists.” His own diary admits as much.) Perhaps as many as 1/3 of the Greens are pure Marxist thugs, much like the behavioral disorder kids in “The Wire” in all matters of political philosophy(“Might makes right”+”incapable of intellectual honesty”). By my estimate, it’s more like 1/20 to 1/10 of all Greens are pure Marxists who don’t understand Hayekian (Basic) Economics.
Basically, the obvious strategy should be: Extend the olive branch to the 1/3 who are idiots, and know enough to reconcile libertarianism with their less-informed beliefs. Make the others look like the power-lusting morons they are, as publicly as possible. This is politics 101.
…Which, of course, Libertarians themselves are completely incapable of understanding, since they’ve all stepped through the door labeled “Doesn’t Care About Winning Elections.”
In short, human stupidity has found a way to conserve energy: Take away energy from all things that are not currently obviously destroying one’s private affairs. For 95% of people, this happens to be “politics.” …Until there’s a crisis, and they’re told to “Get onto the trucks, where you will be taken to housing that has warm showers.” …At which point it’s too late.
Green_w_o_Adjectives “I’m for democratic control and management of the means of production”
Two words…. “Gang Rape”
When it comes time for you to enforce your “democratic control” in the end, it will come down to the aggressive use of force to MAKE people comply with the “democratic control”
Libertarians are in favor of free association, and we are in favor of freedom of opportunity. In a real free market, which we have never had in the United States, the market would not be manipulated by politicians and giant corporations because the politicians would have no power to do so, and the giant corporations, unable to use the force of government to protect their market share, would collapse under their enormous weight.
The use of oil and coal would eventually be eliminated through innovation. I have personally invented products which are environmentally friendly, because I had a need for it. This is how better energy solutions will come into being. Better technology new ideas, all of them will benefit from a free market, because, as anyone who has ever invented something will tell you, Bringing a product to market is not cheap. Couple that with giant corporations (unwilling to share the market with competition) using government to squash ideas, bringing a new idea to market is nearly impossible.
Frankly, I resent the idea that a group of people using “democratic control” would, somehow, have power over what I do/produce. There was a book written about such thinking..
Sincerely,
Steve Scheetz
P.S. I have no problem working with members of the Green Party on those issues we agree upon, but when it comes to economic equality?
The height of selfishness is to use force against someone attempting to take advantage of an opportunity you yourself cannot or will not take advantage of it.
By the way, question for the Leftists: On the one hand, you say that big business controls the political system in America. On the other hand, you say that a true laissez-faire system (and even anarchy) would greatly benefit big business. If both those things are true, why don’t we have such a system?
This sounds like you are saying something like, “I will listen to what others have to say, but I will not move one centimeter off my position.”
If that’s what it sounds like to you, I suggest you clean your ears out. I think what I’m saying is pretty clear — if we agree on something, I’m happy to work with you on that specific thing. As for the things where we disagree, we will just have to go our own separate way on those.
The Feldman thing is a red herring. I was specifically talking about not compromising on issues where we disagree with other minor parties, e.g. we shouldn’t agree to support a carbon tax, in exchange for the Greens agreeing to oppose background checks for firearms.
As for spending cuts, I’m all for any spending cut (even 0.01%) — as long as there are no strings attached.
dgr: a doctrine that rejects any governmental role in shaping, promoting, stimulating or influencing economic and social justice.
me: OK, so let’s say half of all federal spending involves maintaining domestic tranquility and the other half does what you say. Rather than sending all these funds to DC for their cut, what if it were returned to all citizens in a dividend, or what Milton Friedman called a negative income tax?
Are you more interested in government manipulation of the citizenry or in allowing people to live decent lives of their choosing with a baseline income?
Langa: My motto when it comes to this kind of thing is: “Always cooperate, but never compromise.”
me: Can you put some meat on this bone? This sounds like you are saying something like, “I will listen to what others have to say, but I will not move one centimeter off my position.”
IIRC, Dr. Feldman is proposing something like a 13% Federal spending cut, with half (he says) are favored by the Rs and the other half the Ds. If he followed the Langa Motto, he would not back down from this position. OK, but maybe he can’t get 13% but he could get 8%. Sounds like a pretty good compromise to me.
You?
“You are truly insane.”
Well, that’s certainly classy. Then again, I suppose it’s a compliment coming from an austerity ghoul like the commentator, a guy who obviously believes in the myth of laissez faire capitalism — a doctrine that rejects any governmental role in shaping, promoting, stimulating or influencing economic and social justice.
According to Jim, all power should be left in the hands of those who control private wealth and property. Everything, in his view, comes down to property, profits and markets. “Don’t take my stuff!” The greater the income inequality, the better.
Oh, what joy a libertarian future holds, beginning, course, with Gary Johnson’s 2012 promise to immediately slash the federal budget by $1.4 trillion (or $1.6 trillion, depending on what day of the week you asked him) — a draconian and irresponsible proposal that would assuredly wreak havoc on the nation’s most vulnerable citizens, punishing the poor while enabling the incomes of the wealthy to soar to even greater heights.
Green WO Adjectives quoted andsaid, and I reply inline:
“” you are against the concept of private property””
“Ultimately, the concept of private property you are referring to depends on and reinforces the state”
You are clearly insane. “Private property” does NOT “depend on and reinforces the state”. Currently, the state commonly protects “private property”, but guns can do an excellent job at that, too. Problem is, “The state” wants to force us to depend on it to protect private property.
” It is actually the key institution at the heart of the capitalist-style state. Anarchists reject property, capitalism and the state.”
You are clearly insane. Anarchists reject the state. They do not reject property, nor ‘capitalism’.
“Once you understand how private property and the state and mutually reinforcing institutions,”
Since you clearly don’t understand what anarchists believe, we will reject your silly conclusions.
“then if one’s libertarian convictions are genuine (and not simply a front or a means to gain power over others), one tends to turn against capitalism.”
You are clearly insane. Libertarians certainly have no reason to “turn against capitalism”, and you haven’t explained why that should occur.
“Thinking seriously about liberty ultimately leads us towards the road of libertarian socialism.”
Spoken like a true insane partisan. Libertarianism is fairly close to the diametric opposite of socialism. “Socialism” amounts to “group rights”, not “individual rights.
“Given your prior posts I don’t expect you to understand that, but if you’re ever in a position when you’re ready to think out of the box there is a long online document, based on exhaustive and authoritative scholarship, that explains it (anarchism, the philosophy of liberty, etc) all in detail. So you don’t need to ask me any questions, just read this……”
“http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/index.html”
I will look at it, but you are still insane.
“Just to clarify though… I make no claim to be an anarchist.”
Which explains why you know very little of anarchism, and most of what you ‘know’ is wrong.
I am for social justice.
Oh! An SJW “Social Justice Warrior!” Insane.
“I don’t oppose the notion of property, I just think that property should be based on the product of actual work or labor.”
Property is currently based more on the product of machines, robots, that “actual work or labor”. The thinking of your kind hasn’t advanced in 200+ years. See “alienation of labor”.
“Capitalist economics depends on a form of ownership that must be maintained by a state, ”
WRONG! While it CAN be maintained by a state, that doesn’t mean it MUST be so.
“and which grants the owner a “right of increase” on the basis of ownership, whereby the owner gets profit from ownership simply because of ownership, rather than from actual work.”
What is your definition of “actual work”? And what’s wrong with “ownership”? People who pay money for something, “own” it. Shouldn’t they benefit from that?
” Interest (usury), rent, and patents are all forms of exploitation”
No, they are not. If I expend the money to build, say, an apartment complex, I should have the right to profit from it, which is the substitute for selling it.
“(based on state-granted privileges similar to the privileges of feudal landlords)”
WRONG! It is not currently considered a “privilege” to buy something and then rent it to others.
” that ultimately depend on relations of government-sanctioned force.”
It may currently use government-sanctioned force to enforce ownership, but that isn’t necessary.
” The whole point of imperialism (the evil that Libertarians rightfully decry but don’t perceive the root cause of) is for the property owners behind the state to gain more property, more markets, more monopolies, more patents, etc.”
Anyone that works and saves is entitled to earn from those savings.
“The US government itself does not profit from imperialism (or if it does, that’s not the reason for imperialism anyway)…the profits go to the private capitalists who have empowered and control the state.”
And anarchists want to shut down such a dependency.
“There are of course other reasons to be against capitalism. Capitalism reinforces authoritarian dynamics in human organization and human relations (it shouldn’t be a surprise why capitalist elites have use for authoritarian educational institutions). ”
Actually, it is quite voluntary. If I want to work for a business, and they want me to do that, we agree. If either one doesn’t agree, there is no employment.
“It is essentially a means of ruling people without people fulling perceiving that they are ruled (preferable to direct rulership, to be sure). Surely we can do better.”
Getting rid of the state is better. I have actually proposed a mechanism to do exactly that. You haven’t.
“So what socialists hope for is to transition to an economic system where enterprises are self-managed and economic authority is as decentralized as possible.”
The words “as decentralized as possible” ring hollow and dishonest.
” The ultimate goal is to democratize decision-making to the point that people have a say in decision-making to the extent that decisions effect [sic] them.”
That’s the problem. If a person has a right to do something with his assets, that might affect others, he is entitled to do that.
“Previously, this last notion was simply too utopian to be practical, but new communicative technologies actually revive the possibilities of democratic and/or consensus based economic organization.”
It still won’t work properly.
And of course there is ecological degradation, which caused to some degree by human population exceeding its limits
What are its “limits”? People thought in the 1960s (Erlich) that the world would be starving by today. Hasn’t happened, due mostly to the advance of technology invented by “capitalists”, for which they have the RIGHT to profit.
“and to some degree by the cultural atmosphere of hedonism and liberal individualism that is associated with capitalism.”
Nothing wrong with that.
” Realistically, ecological degradation is actually quite closely tied to imperialism, which is in turn closely tied to capitalist economic imperatives.”
No, it’s “closely tied” to CIVILIZATION. Look at China today. Civilization emits pollution.
“As has been pointed out by radical and libertarian commentators alike, many the choices that have led us down the path of ecological degradation have actually been linked to military utility (eg Autobahns, tanks, planes).”
You are truly insane.
” you are against the concept of private property”
Ultimately, the concept of private property you are referring to depends on and reinforces the state. It is actually the key institution at the heart of the capitalist-style state. Anarchists reject property, capitalism and the state. Once you understand how private property and the state and mutually reinforcing institutions, then if one’s libertarian convictions are genuine (and not simply a front or a means to gain power over others), one tends to turn against capitalism. Thinking seriously about liberty ultimately leads us towards the road of libertarian socialism.
Given your prior posts I don’t expect you to understand that, but if you’re ever in a position when you’re ready to think out of the box there is a long online document, based on exhaustive and authoritative scholarship, that explains it (anarchism, the philosophy of liberty, etc) all in detail. So you don’t need to ask me any questions, just read this……
http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/index.html
Just to clarify though… I make no claim to be an anarchist. I am for social justice. I don’t oppose the notion of property, I just think that property should be based on the product of actual work or labor. Capitalist economics depends on a form of ownership that must be maintained by a state, and which grants the owner a “right of increase” on the basis of ownership, whereby the owner gets profit from ownership simply because of ownership, rather than from actual work. Interest (usury), rent, and patents are all forms of exploitation (based on state-granted privileges similar to the privileges of feudal landlords) that ultimately depend on relations of government-sanctioned force. The whole point of imperialism (the evil that Libertarians rightfully decry but don’t perceive the root cause of) is for the property owners behind the state to gain more property, more markets, more monopolies, more patents, etc. The US government itself does not profit from imperialism (or if it does, that’s not the reason for imperialism anyway)…the profits go to the private capitalists who have empowered and control the state.
There are of course other reasons to be against capitalism. Capitalism reinforces authoritarian dynamics in human organization and human relations (it shouldn’t be a surprise why capitalist elites have use for authoritarian educational institutions). It is essentially a means of ruling people without people fulling perceiving that they are ruled (preferable to direct rulership, to be sure). Surely we can do better. So what socialists hope for is to transition to an economic system where enterprises are self-managed and economic authority is as decentralized as possible. The ultimate goal is to democratize decision-making to the point that people have a say in decision-making to the extent that decisions effect them. Previously, this last notion was simply too utopian to be practical, but new communicative technologies actually revive the possibilities of democratic and/or consensus based economic organization.
And of course there is ecological degradation, which caused to some degree by human population exceeding its limits and to some degree by the cultural atmosphere of hedonism and liberal individualism that is associated with capitalism. Realistically, ecological degradation is actually quite closely tied to imperialism, which is in turn closely tied to capitalist economic imperatives. As has been pointed out by radical and libertarian commentators alike, many the choices that have led us down the path of ecological degradation have actually been linked to military utility (eg Autobahns, tanks, planes).
This thread itself is a perfect example of why “joining forces” with the Greens is a silly idea for the LP. The Left is not bad on foreign policy, and on some civil liberties issues (although they are terrible on others).
But when it comes to economics, or any issue that is even tangentially related to economics, the vast majority of those on the Left are absolutely clueless. Their “understanding” of the subject is basically limited to a mixture of Marxist myths and Keynesian propaganda, with a healthy dose of conspiracism, thrown in for good measure.
So, yeah, I agree we should work with them on areas of agreement, but we should definitely avoid any “entangling alliances” (to borrow a phrase).
My motto when it comes to this kind of thing is: “Always cooperate, but never compromise.”
That said, of course the Greens and Libertarians should form alliances on issues of mutual agreement.
These go beyond ballot access and fighting the duopoly. They include substantial issues like opposition to foreign intervention, welcoming immigrants to our shores (who are here for opportunity, not welfare) and opposition to crony capitalism and the intrusive government violation of civil liberties by such heinous operations as the FBI, CIA, NSA, Homeland Security, local police depts., et alia.
>I’m for democratic control and management of the means of production and not a command-and-control economy.
Ah, the old three wolves and one sheep take a vote on whom to eat for dinner.
That democracy thing always works so well, especially if you’re part of the mob voting to take away the life or rights of the minority. Most people will always vote to steal from the productive minority.
Green WO Adjectives: You said,
“I’m for democratic control and management of the means of production and not a command-and-control economy.”
In other words, you are against the concept of private property. You are for Communism.
“Command and control economies are characteristic of capitalist and state capitalist economies.”
They aren’t SUPPOSED to be!!! Free market is where it ought to be at.
“Socialism, properly understood, is about the decentralization of power and authority,”
Nuts! Full decentralization of power an authority is property described as the “free market”. “Socialism” is the CENTRALIZATION of power and authority in what is ostensibly the public interest, but which is in reality centralized government control.
“while capitalism is about the centralization of power and authority in ever fewer hands.”
THAT IS NUTS!! The government limits control to a few thousand people, employed by the government; the free market puts the control in everyone’s hands, to the degree they participate in the free market. People like you focus on a few powerful people, not the million+ small business owners.
“The whole problem with capitalist ecology is economic power and authority is centralized in the hands of the few which causes irrationalities because what the elites in control perceive to be in their benefit is not necessarily in the interest of all.:
Number them! You are probably a factor of 100 off, in the wrong direction!
“The funny thing about most arguments associating socialism with command-and-control is they are really arguments against the top-down bureaucracies associated with capitalist economics. Lenin never minced words that what he was instituting was a heavily bureaucratic form of state capitalism.”
By the time the Communists murdered a few tens of millions of peasant farmers (the Kulaks) in the early 1930’s, it was clear that Communism wasn’t the benevolent force they had claimed to be.
“democratic control”
Dictatorship of the proletariat?
I’m for democratic control and management of the means of production and not a command-and-control economy. Command and control economies are characteristic of capitalist and state capitalist economies. Socialism, properly understood, is about the decentralization of power and authority, while capitalism is about the centralization of power and authority in ever fewer hands. The whole problem with capitalist ecology is economic power and authority is centralized in the hands of the few which causes irrationalities because what the elites in control perceive to be in their benefit is not necessarily in the interest of all.
The funny thing about most arguments associating socialism with command-and-control is they are really arguments against the top-down bureaucracies associated with capitalist economics. Lenin never minced words that what he was instituting was a heavily bureaucratic form of state capitalism.
As far as who pollutes more…imperialist/capitalist or state capitalist….they both have terrible records. They are both driven by the capitalist need to accumulate capital at the expense of the common good. If you want to do away with the ecological problems that either one causes, then we need more genuine popular self-determination and democratic control of the economy, rather than the authoritarian command-and-control economics characteristic of capitalism and bankster rule (and planning) of the economy and government.
Paulie: You said, “Well, to be clear, I don’t call myself a capitalist either. But most Greens are not for nationalizing or socializing most of the means of production, as far as I know.”
Taxation is theft. Taxation is merely a somewhat diluted form of “nationalizing” or “socializing” an asset.
Greens are violent, because they support the threat of violence against people who don’t want to subject themselves to theft-by-taxation.
Command and control economies massively misallocate resources due to distorted or absent market signals. That creates pollution and waste. It also impoverishes society over time, and poorer people have less time or patience to think about environmental quality because the are busy surviving and keeping a roof over their heads.
I was trying to figure out which comment you were responding to when it occurred to me you are responding to the article headline.
“Law and lawyers are hardly immune from the corrupting influence of money.”
As if legislators and civil-service bureaucrats are not.
“Sometimes”
Every time, period, without exception. There is not a government on Earth, in human history, that has tried to “abolish capitalism” that did not, in addition to the catastrophic human toll it inflicted, wreck absolute havoc on the environment.
“but ultimately the record of capitalist/imperialist nations is alot worse, and the American military is the single biggest fossil fuel emitter worldwide.”
The blind spot that self-professed environmentalists have the ecological catastrophe inflicted by the USSR and the Communist regime in China, is pretty remarkable. Does make one wonder if the environment is their real concern.
“”Ultimately, the problem with social ownership in these cases is it was insufficiently democratic–that is these institutions were top-down state capitalist bureaucracies that did not take the long-term interests of people into account.””
No true Scotsman would do such a thing, right?
And bureaucrats and politicians are?
Not me. I’m for free association. It would still most likely be a different kind of mixed economy, with lots of cooperative, communal and mutual aid efforts and communities, as well as true free market elements.
No, it’s based on many years of systems analysis which I don’t have the time to reproduce here.
Ecological degradation is very severe in command economies, and in the US the regime is a bigger polluter than private industry. We don’t know the full extent because a lot of it is secret, especially in the military. And it also protects nominally private polluters.
Untrue.
Which is, yes, government. Thank you for making my point.
This is easy. NO
“Others view pollution as trespass.”
Please don’t tell me you are one of those Libertarians who think torts and lawsuits will solve our ecological issues. Law and lawyers are hardly immune from the corrupting influence of money.
“Yes, we reject the upward wealth redistribution and fossilizing of existing power players at the top of the heap by shielding them from competition that is the net effect of government intervention in the economic ecosystem.
The main reason this is misleading is you (Libertarians) would retain (and expand) (authoritarian) capitalist ownership of natural resources. So in effect you do endorse government intervention to “fossilize” the position of “existing power players”. To claim that the problems caused by fossil fuels would simply go away in a “free market” is pretty much wishful thinking, as it does nothing to address the ownership, knowledge, and incentive issues that drive the problems associated with ecological degradation such as climate change. Governments serve the interests of property owners. If you wish a revolution in how the “market” works then what is really required is a revolution in “ownership” relations. To do away with “government intervention” without also reevaluating who owns what and how, simply leads to the foundation of a new government serving the interests of those who have maintained control over their property and wish to continue doing so.
“Social ownership through monopoly government has proved to be a massive environmental disaster in many cases. ”
Sometimes, but ultimately the record of capitalist/imperialist nations is alot worse, and the American military is the single biggest fossil fuel emitter worldwide. Ultimately, the problem with social ownership in these cases is it was insufficiently democratic–that is these institutions were top-down state capitalist bureaucracies that did not take the long-term interests of people into account. Socialism is not a panacea to the problems of imperialism and ecological degradation…however we don’t have much of a chance of solving these problems without getting past capitalism.
Well, to be clear, I don’t call myself a capitalist either. But most Greens are not for nationalizing or socializing most of the means of production, as far as I know.
“But Ithere are too many issues separating libertarian capitalists/AnCaps and the Left, and even though the US Greens are progressive capitalists/neokeynesians, I do include them as part of the US Left.”
It’s 2015, dude. The GPUS is the only left party in the room. The only people still calling the GPUS “capitalist” at this stage are internet sectarians.
GWOA said: “Yet it is hard to come together on something like opposition to Keystone because many Libertarians accept the zombie corporate narrative that climate change is a hoax.”
I will believe in human-caused ‘global climate change’ when I hear of the existence of an ACCURATE, REPRODUCIBLE computer global cllimate model that predicts the existing pattern of changes which have, so far, been measured. Such a model will tell us a lot more about what can be expected from existing, and future, practices.
Consider that in the 1970’s, the Loony Left opposed nuclear power. How many billions of tons of CO2 has been put into the atmosphere since then, that wouldn’t have occurred if we had adopted the equivalent of France’s nuclear industry? And indeed, in about 1970 scientists were actually predicting a GLOBAL ICE AGE!. Could it have been that one of the arguments against nuclear power in the early 1970s was that “since we’re heading into an ice age anyway, we need all the CO2 in the atmosphere that we can get!”
The offshoot of Fred Newman’s group is Independent Voting, not IVN. IVN is much more willing to consider the problems with top-two than Independent Voting is. Also IVN is centered in San Diego and Independent Voting is centered in New York city.
It makees sense for any one or any group to work together around things they all/both see as shared issues. Presidential Debates as one, but also expansion of the US “national security state” as another etc.
But Ithere are too many issues separating libertarian capitalists/AnCaps and the Left, and even though the US Greens are progressive capitalists/neokeynesians, I do include them as part of the US Left.
And isn’t the Independent Voters Network an offshoot of the Newman-Fulani nexus/cult? Or am I confusing IVN with a similarly named group that is?
“”I just think there needs to be something of a “ceasefire” where we stop throwing barbs and petty insults at each other (which both Gary Johnson and Jill Stein have been guilty of)””
They both criticize each other, which is fair and to be expected. They were running against each other in 2012, and likely will be again in 2016. I wouldn’t expect anything less from them, to be willing to say why they think voters should vote for and support them and their party instead of the other. Their disagreements are not small or trivial.
They’re also co-plaintiffs in the presidential debate lawsuit, as Nick noted. I don’t think there’s any choice to be made between both parties competing for votes and standing on their respective platforms, vs. working together on debate exclusion, and ballot access, and other institutional areas of concern for third parties. I don’t even think it would really work to either’s benefit, to avoid running candidates in the same elections, much less some kind of explicit merger.
As for areas of agreement, sure, we can work with the Greens and those on the left, and we have, but I don’t see any reason for us to do so any more than we do the Const. Party and those to the right. Why pursue an “alliance” in one direction but not the other?
I agree with Jed @2:53 pm. However, IPR just would not be the same without jokes about PLAS and PLAN-SS. Just so long as we keep both in a balanced perspective, like the Tao.
Not every alliance between Libertarians and Greens is PLAS. I just think there needs to be something of a “ceasefire” where we stop throwing barbs and petty insults at each other (which both Gary Johnson and Jill Stein have been guilty of). We can work together on areas of agreement, and disagree civilly.
Yes, but look on the bright side – at least it isn’t PLAN-SS!
I don’t think it’s a hoax, but even if I did I would still oppose eminent domain abuse and liability caps.
Others view pollution as trespass.
Honestly, I think in a true free market fossil fuels would not be very competitive. Most people don’t even begin to grasp the full chain of ripple effects by which monopoly government subsidize those market “decisions” and cripple alternatives with red tape.
Social ownership through monopoly government has proved to be a massive environmental disaster in many cases.
Yes, we reject the upward wealth redistribution and fossilizing of existing power players at the top of the heap by shielding them from competition that is the net effect of government intervention in the economic ecosystem. We reject the crippling effect that welfare dependency and red tape (occupational licensing, and many other things) has on the poor, and the destruction of innovation fostered by making big business welfare-dependent as well.
I disagree. We oppose the status quo. As the author says in the article:
Greens and libertarians share similar views on interventionist foreign policies, the death penalty, Wall Street bailouts, whistleblower protections, military spending, the Affordable Care Act, marriage equality, domestic surveillance, auditing the Federal Reserve, prison reform, marijuana legalization, due process, police brutality, the War on Drugs, and the excesses of crony capitalism.
….
The agenda promotes what could be considered fairly moderate positions: annually auditing the Department of Defense, promoting efficiency in government, incentivizing charitable donations, etc. Then there are a few more “radical” propositions: breaking up the “too big to fail” banks, removing fast track options for international trade agreements, ending unconstitutional wars, and defending civil liberties.
Regarding alliances – we should work where we agree, although I don’t expect a merger any time soon if ever.
The Libertarian and Green Parties do work together by both being members of COFOE (Coalition for Free & Open Elections), which raises money for ballot access lawsuits. Other parties on the COFOE board are Constitution, Socialist, Reform, and Prohibition.
Obviously Ls and Gs can, have and will continue to work together on civil liberties issues. Eg opposition to the drug war and the spy state in addition to other issues like gay marriage brought up in the article.
Yet it is hard to come together on something like opposition to Keystone because many Libertarians accept the zombie corporate narrative that climate change is a hoax. For many Libertarians, the people/government have no business regulating a coal plant–the externalities associated with the coal plant are simply the business of the “owner” and any regulation of that coal plant should take place on “the market”. Human survival in the 21st century depends on thoroughly rejecting this kind of thinking. If we are going to continue to use markets to distribute fossil fuels, then we must find ways to fairly adjudicate externalities at the point of production. This means social ownership of natural resources, not private exclusive ownership.
It gets worse when we consider the question of wealth inequality. Many Libertarians utterly reject any kind of wealth redistribution. In this way, they are even more zealous defenders of the status quo (and the corruption associated with that status quo) than the duopoly parties. This stance is also utterly incompatible with the economic and social change we desperately need.
So while there was a time I bought into the notion of such alliances, and I wish the advocates of such alliances well, ultimately what we need is a new populist party that is serious about solving the problems we are faced with, rather than the fusion of in-congruent ideological parties.
Sounds like PLAS to me.
We cooperate with the Greens as often as possible on issues where we agree. See, e.g. the lawsuits against the Commission on Presidential Debates.