Is privatisation of state facilities true capitalism?

JackCuyler:

Brainpolice:

Homesteading theory does not describe the rise of monarchies, or any state for that matter. If this were the case, we must concede to the points of the socialists that private property inevitably leads to the state. This is why I think that this analysis of monarchy actually harms the case for libertarianism.

That becomes an argument of semantics.  What makes a state?  Is Vatican City a state?  It is recognized as such by other rulers.  It is quite clearly private property.  Is the pope, as head of the organization that owns the propery, the head state or merely a landlord?  For that matter, in a libertarian sense, what is the difference between a landlord and a monarch?

 

Considering that a monarchy nonetheless imposes taxation and controls a monopoly on basic services such as law and defense through the exclusion of competition, it qualifies as a "state" as much as any other. Usually we go by the Weberian definition here.

Is a fuedal landlord's dominion, even if it is considered to be "private" (in legal terms in particular), legitimate under a libertarian theory of justice in property? According to Rothbard, no, and the peasants have the moral authority to claim the fruits of their labor.

Fred Furash:

Ok I seem to understand now, I think I'll be reading Hoppe's books then. Which book in particular are you guys referring to?

Also another question, if rather than what things currently appear to be (a cycle of new elected rulers) we actually just have a bunch of organisations such as the CFR, bohemian grove, etc. making sure each election is won by the people they choose, and that this is all just an unbroken chain of puppets, does this change anything? Doesn't this make the current democracies more like monarchies (the organisations in general are interested in the preservation of the country's wealth)?

Not really. CFR's control of the president is not secured by law. They do not have exclusive control of the president, and their own internal organization is not based on private property either.

 

Brainpolice:

Is a fuedal landlord's dominion, even if it is considered to be "private" (in legal terms in particular), legitimate under a libertarian theory of justice in property? According to Rothbard, no, and the peasants have the moral authority to claim the fruits of their labor.

I wasn't thinking in terms of feudal landlords, but simply landlords.  If I legitimately aquire a plot of land and build (or contract to have built) apartment complexes on said land, do I not have the right to charge my tenants rent?  Do I not have the right to create and enforce rules for the use my property (pet policy, speed limits in the parking lots, noise restrictions, etc.)?  My tenants of course have the right to claim the fruits of their labor.  They also have the right to live somewhere other than in one of my apartments, and I have a right to insist they do if they break the rules one too many times or stop paying their rent.

This does not describe the typical state or monarchy, as there is choice involved.  However, as in the case of Vatican City, it can be argued that private property can, in fact, result in a state, or at least something similar to a state.

 

JackCuyler:

 

That becomes an argument of semantics.  What makes a state?  Is Vatican City a state?  It is recognized as such by other rulers.  It is quite clearly private property.  Is the pope, as head of the organization that owns the propery, the head state or merely a landlord?  For that matter, in a libertarian sense, what is the difference between a landlord and a monarch?

The difference between a landlord and a monarch is that the monarch is the only supplier of security in his domain, and therefore if you have a conflict with the monarch there is no independent party that you can appeal to for justice.

 

Stranger:

The difference between a landlord and a monarch is that the monarch is the only supplier of security in his domain, and therefore if you have a conflict with the monarch there is no independent party that you can appeal to for justice.

Is Vatican City a state, and is the pope a monarch, in your opinion?

Brainpolice:

 

It can easily be interpreted to imply that he's pushing the notion that fuedal monarchy pretty much is anarcho-capitalism, or that anarcho-capitalism is merely a modernized version of the same thing. It appears that he's using the comparative analysis of monarchy and democracy to make a case for anarcho-capitalism, but then all of the ugly implications of monarchy that people hold will then be superimposed onto anarcho-capitalism.

Thankfully most people are not as stupid as you are and will not confuse the two thanks to Hoppe's laser-sharp writing.

 

JackCuyler:

Stranger:

The difference between a landlord and a monarch is that the monarch is the only supplier of security in his domain, and therefore if you have a conflict with the monarch there is no independent party that you can appeal to for justice.

Is Vatican City a state, and is the pope a monarch, in your opinion?

The pope is a near-monarch, in that he cannot directly name his successor, he can only select the men who will pick his successor.

 

 

Stranger:

Brainpolice:

 

It can easily be interpreted to imply that he's pushing the notion that fuedal monarchy pretty much is anarcho-capitalism, or that anarcho-capitalism is merely a modernized version of the same thing. It appears that he's using the comparative analysis of monarchy and democracy to make a case for anarcho-capitalism, but then all of the ugly implications of monarchy that people hold will then be superimposed onto anarcho-capitalism.

Thankfully most people are not as stupid as you are and will not confuse the two thanks to Hoppe's laser-sharp writing.

 

Personal attacks and petty insults are not called for. Provide an argument. Otherwise, it is you being childish here. I don't believe that anyone here is stupid, just wrong perhaps.

Oh, and I do have "Democracy: The God That Failed" right here on my bookshelf, as it has been for a number of years now. It was an interesting read that is both insightful and simultaneously wrong in some of its assertions (particularly the talk about immigration and conservatism, which I find to be a deviation in the conservative direction). I view it as a good criticism of political democracy, but a bad defense of monarchy. But apparently noone is allowed to the commit the sin of not falling 100% into line with Hoppe.

Stranger:

JackCuyler:

Stranger:

The difference between a landlord and a monarch is that the monarch is the only supplier of security in his domain, and therefore if you have a conflict with the monarch there is no independent party that you can appeal to for justice.

Is Vatican City a state, and is the pope a monarch, in your opinion?

The pope is a near-monarch, in that he cannot directly name his successor, he can only select the men who will pick his successor.

 

Actually, he probably could unilaterally change that rule, but that's neither here nor there.  How about the first question?  Is Vatican City a state?

 

Len:

You constantly confuse rational discussion for advocacy.

I don't care what you advocate or don't advocate. You said that private and public monopolies were almost the same thing (fact) and now it looks like you are saying otherwise.

Incentives differ between various state structures;

But the diferences are irrelevant from the point of view of consumers/citizens/subjects.

It can easily be interpreted to imply that he's pushing the notion that fuedal monarchy pretty much is anarcho-capitalism, or that anarcho-capitalism is merely a modernized version of the same thing. It appears that he's using the comparative analysis of monarchy and democracy to make a case for anarcho-capitalism, but then all of the ugly implications of monarchy that people hold will then be superimposed onto anarcho-capitalism.

He still characterizes monarchical rulers as exploitative and thus to that extent inefficient/unjust. If I recall he identifies the rise of monarchies as the formation of a state - what he is doing is trying to provide a revisionist account of feudalism and show how compared to it, democracy is flawed. And this is important given the degree to which democracy is hailed to be progressive, and is worshiped.

-Jon

Juan:

Len:

You constantly confuse rational discussion for advocacy.

I don't care what you advocate or don't advocate. You said that private and public monopolies were almost the same thing (fact) and now it looks like you are saying otherwise.

You're really comprehension-challenged, I'm afraid. Whether they're "almost the same thing" depends entirely on what aspects you're comparing. Morally, both are evil. Economically, there are all sorts of differences--starting with who are the victims, and who the beneficiaries, of the evil. It seems like you have a manichaean outlook whereby you classify things as good or evil and, having done so, can't conceive that there's anything more to say on the subject.

Incentives differ between various state structures;

But the diferences are irrelevant from the point of view of consumers/citizens/subjects.

They're very relevant, which (for example) is why so much money is spent on lobbying in the US. The goal of lobbying is to make oneself a beneficiary, and someone else a victim, of government coercion. All sorts of economic consequences flow from the various details distinguishing one state from another. Your refusal to recognize this, let alone discuss it, strikingly recalls Christian types who refuse even to examine "heretical" ideas on the grounds that anything other than flat condemnation leaves one "tainted" with heresy. In other words, discussing the state somehow makes everyone involved into a statist.

--Len

 

Len:

They're very relevant, which (for example) is why so much money is spent on lobbying in the US.

Whether consumers are subjected to 'private' monopolies or 'public' monopolies is irrelevant from the point of view of consumers. Your evasive posts won't change that fact.

Bush's time preference carried the day. The existence of millions of drones with longer time preference, whose time preference doesn't actually affect policy decisions, is completely irrelevant.

That is false. I think the argument can easily be made that the Iraq war(or any other war) benefits the military-industrial complex. War exists because there are hundreds of thousands of people who profit by it - these people do affect policy decisions. If Bush was an absolute and eternal monarch he would be working for the military just as he is now.

The idea that Bush can somehow do as he pleases is wrong. He's just a figurehead representing an oligarchy. And you can't easily say that this oligarchy acts based on short term self-interest.

http://praxeology.net/GM-PS.htm

"Everywhere, when societies originate, we see the strongest, most warlike races seizing the exclusive government of the society. Everywhere we see these races seizing a monopoly on security within certain more or less extensive boundaries, depending on their number and strength.

And, this monopoly being, by its very nature, extraordinarily profitable, everywhere we see the races invested with the monopoly on security devoting themselves to bitter struggles, in order to add to the extent of their market, the number of their forced consumers, and hence the amount of their gains.

War has been the necessary and inevitable consequence of the establishment of a monopoly on security.

Another inevitable consequence has been that this monopoly has engendered all other monopolies. "

Juan:

I think the argument can easily be made that the Iraq war(or any other war) benefits the military-industrial complex.

At the cost of bankrupting the nation. The actual cost of the war is in the trillions; today's gas prices are a direct result of the war (except to the extent that inflation contributes); the military is overextended; terrorist recruiting is way way up; the entire world hates the US; etc. It's less than certain, but not much less, that the US empire is dead and this war killed it.

Which will not only pauperize the nation, but also the military-industrial complex. We're repeating the history of the British empire, and companies like Halliburton will fare about as well as the East India company did.

The idea that Bush can somehow do as he pleases is wrong.

Um, we were all there, chump. We know perfectly well that there's more to it than issuing a royal decree. However, we also know perfectly well that he wanted the war, and he got it.

--Len

Brainpolice:

What don't you understand about "legally restricted competition"? Yes, that's effectively a gaurantee that the profits will go to you if they go to anyone because there are no other people for them to go to in the given area. Logic 101. This is especially true with respect to the patent monopoly, which is nothing but a legal gaurantee of future profits.

It's close, but no cigar.  Profits are not guaranteed, not even effectively guaranteed, by a lack of competition.   This is especially true with patent monoploies, where there is little chance of a government bail out.  Do you realize how many patents are issued whose owners never profit from the invention/idea, or indeed, lose money on the deal?  Say I invent and patent a widget.  Just because no one else is allowed to make a widget does not mean that people will actually buy the widgets I produce.  The widget may be an incredibly unuseful/unpopular/unwanted good.

Just to be clear, I am in no way defending monopolies.  I am simply attempting to clarify the difference between a state monopoly and a state-enforced private monopoly.  When a state provides a service, and outlaws competition, we are forced to accept and fund the service.  If the service is not profitable, taxes will be raised to make up the difference.  There is no "going without" a state service.  On the other hand, when the state grants and enforces J.K. Rowling's monopoly on the production of Harry Potter stories, she and her publishers still assume some actual risk that the market will reject the stories.  Granted, there is less risk than if other authors were allowed to produce Harry Potter stories, but there is still a significant amount of risk.

It's less than certain, but not much less, that the US empire is dead and this war killed it.

In that case we should really thank Mr. Bush ?

Juan:

It's less than certain, but not much less, that the US empire is dead and this war killed it.

In that case we should really thank Mr. Bush ?

Since getting rid of the state is good, destroying our economy and standard of living in the process is also good? Mercy mercy me.

 

JackCuyler:

When a state provides a service, and outlaws competition, we are forced to accept and fund the service.

That's exactly the same thing the state does when it grants a 'private' monopoly - it outlaws competition (isn't that the definition of monopoly ? Oh well...)

If the service is not profitable, taxes will be raised to make up the difference.

In the case of 'private' monopolies, the same effect is achieved by regulation.