Peter Griffin: I'm new to Austrian economics but I'm pretty sure that capitalism can exist without any kind of help from the state I think it should be like this, FREE MARKET = CAPITALISM
I'm new to Austrian economics but I'm pretty sure that capitalism can exist without any kind of help from the state
I think it should be like this, FREE MARKET = CAPITALISM
Then why has capitalism always and only existed with the state? That is, capitalism in every nation has always been correlated with the state's support for capital. The Central bank in England, yes?
The Origins of Capitalism
And for more periodic bloggings by moi,
Leftlibertarian.org
liberty student: Peter Griffin:I'm new to Austrian economics but I'm pretty sure that capitalism can exist without any kind of help from the state I think it should be like this, FREE MARKET = CAPITALISM You are correct. Feel free to ignore the mutualists and their self-defeating redefinition games.
Peter Griffin:I'm new to Austrian economics but I'm pretty sure that capitalism can exist without any kind of help from the state I think it should be like this, FREE MARKET = CAPITALISM
You are correct.
Feel free to ignore the mutualists and their self-defeating redefinition games.
I'm not a mutualist.
Black Bloke: He's not a mutualist though. And he has etymology, history, and social convention on his side. It is the heterodox minority (e.g. Austrians, Randians, and the like) that uses the term "capitalism" in a sense meaning free market.
He's not a mutualist though.
And he has etymology, history, and social convention on his side. It is the heterodox minority (e.g. Austrians, Randians, and the like) that uses the term "capitalism" in a sense meaning free market.
You want to call me a Mutualist, libby? Fine.
I like Mutualism and I take a lot away from Kevin Carson. I think he's intelligent and runs circles around people like George Rice-man.
I am not big on the LTV, but only for the scientific basis of it. I'm a Mutualist in the way Tucker was a Mutualist, but I tend to side with Bastiat on more politically economic issues and then with SEK3/PJ Proudhon/Benjamin Tucker on many economic organization issues.
Flawed argument. Correlation is != casuation.
If you find something evil that wobbles, push it. - Gary North
Brainpolice:I'm not a mutualist.
Right. Ok, well then. Left-Libertarians also engage in self-defeating redefinition games.
Niccolò:I like Mutualism and I take a lot away from Kevin Carson. I think he's intelligent and runs circles around people like George Rice-man.
You better hope Irenicus doesn't see that slander at George.
Carson is a leftist, not a libertarian. He plays idiotic redefinition games, the statists and unwashed masses say capitalism is bad, and he shouts, HELL YES! I DISTANCE MYSELF FROM CAPITALISM!
Well, one day, mutualism just might attract enough attention, that the state, statists et al decide to treat it the way they treated the term anti-war, liberal, libertarian, anarchist and you can bet Kevin Carson will be running backwards, pants flapping in the wind, shouting HELL YES, I DISTANCE MYSELF FROM MUTUALISM!
I also don't like that Carson likes to talk sh!t about the Mises Institute on his blog.
Though I find Reisman impressive (and Niccolo's swipes at him immature), I do not maintain the same opinion of his exchange with Carson. Funnily enough, on some aspects of economics they're in agreement (e.g. on costs.) Carson performs a valuable function in reminding a lot of libertarians that there is no free market right now. Ask either Niccolo or BP what their position on private property is, and then look up the mutualist one, to see where they differ. I find the semantics games trite, so I won't get involved in those. Carson does have the decency of being intellectually honest in his treatment of libertarianism and Austrian economics, which is more than I could say of most leftists.
-Jon
To darkness I condemn you...
Niccolò:Second, if a majority wanted a state, they would be free to form one, as long as they didn't push it on others. It seems unlikely, however, that states ever arise from the bottom up, but rather come from a hierarchical system already established. The idea that people want government or ever establish governments seems silly to me. I think they more or less just tolerate it and support it over what is presented to them as even worse alternatives.
Of course, if a majority wanted a state, they would be able to push it on others, whether it was right to do so or not.
As for states rising from a hierarchicy already established, I imagine you're right. On the other hand, hierarchies form naturally amongst men, based on character and ability. How do you prevent such hierarchies, natural as they are to us, inevitable really, from progressing towards states?
Carson is a leftist, not a libertarian.
You keep repeating this false paradigm of a dichotomy between "left" and "libertarian", which somehow completely blurs any distinction between "right" and "libertarian". There is no logical necessity that in order to be a "libertarian" one must be of "the right" or that whatever is called "the left" is always absolutely the polar opposite of libertarianism in every single aspect. You should know better, but you're falling into the very trap that Rothbard pointed out in "Left and Right: The Prospects For Liberty". Perhaps you should give the work a thorough reading for a better understanding of the left-libertarian perspective, since obviously you continue to have a misconception of what this is all about.
I think that libertarianism can range between someone like Kevin Carson and someone like Walter Block. If someone accepts the principle of voluntary association, then they are a libertarian by definition regaurdless of anything particular that they adhere to beyond that. I think that such a pluralist perspective that aknowledges such a range is a form of thick libertarianism. Confining libertarianism to minarchists and anarcho-capitalists is too thin and sectarian, and frankly ignorant of the history of libertarianism. If we want to be technical, minarchists should not qualify as libertarians to begin with. It makes no sense to consider minarchists libertarians while anarchists without the "capitalistic" leanings are considered enemies.
He plays idiotic redefinition games
It's not a redefinition game to use the original and most common usage of a term and to point out the inherent error of misusing free market theory to defend corporatist economies. There's nothing semantic or particularly diversionary about that.
I haven't seen much by the way of "talking ***". I've seen some criticism of certain individuals associated with the institute, most of which hasn't been meaningfully addressed. Walter Block's response to Carson, unfortunately, was to straw man him as a "marxist", despite the fact that his position is essentially a form of individualist anarchism. George Reisman's response was even worse, amounting to a laundry list of straw men based on misconceptions.
Ask either Niccolo or BP what their position on private property is, and then look up the mutualist one, to see where they differ.
In the sense that I endorse it, I define private property in an ethical sense as the natural product of labor and voluntary exchange or gift. Anything being called "private property" beyond this I see as a fraud. I do not accept "private property" in a purely legalistic sense, as in whatever the state happens to call "private", thus I draw clear distinction between the status quo of property titles and property rights or a legitimate claim to property. Neither do I necessarily accept "private property" if the term is used to refer to any property that happens to be exclusively controlled, as stolen property and state property can be and is exclusively controlled.
I think that there is a lot of stupid semantics over private property and that those who claim to oppose private property most often actually support some limited or particular form of it but they call it by some other name such as "personal property" or "possessions". I think that in particular situations there can be some kind of private commons or private property that has a policy that effectively makes it "public" in a meaningful sense (see Roderick Long for an exposition on this concept).
I interpret Proudhon subtley. On one hand, I think that it is a misconception to interpret "property is theft" as an absolute statement either pro or con (indeed, taken at face value such a statement is logically incoherant, since the concept of theft relies on the concept of legitimate ownership in order to make any sense), as it has two corrolaries: "property is impossible" and "property is liberty". Each statement refers to a particular context. Socialists who grab onto "property is theft" as an absolute statement against private property are misreading Proudhon, as it refers more to property in the context of an arbitrary legal privilege that can be traced back to thefts than anything else, and they are ignoring the contexts in which Proudhon quite blatantly endorses private property as the only meaningful counterweight to the state.
This position is, in theory, consistant with both mutualism and what's called "anarcho-capitalism", hence making mutualism and "anarcho-capitalism" not as far off as some may like to think. In terms of the labor theory of property (as opposed to value), the two are in total agreement and only disagree in terms of terminology. Wherein they meaningfully differ is in the accessement of what the outcome of freedom of association with respect to property allocation would tend to be. I honestly find myself somewhere in the middle of the two accessments.
On one hand, I do not see anarcho-capitalism as a uniform model, I do not think that a free market would be dominated by a small number of centralized and vertically integrated incorporated firms, I see a possible role for voluntary labor unions as a simple form of collective bargaining, I see the possibility of more individual propietorship and the expansion of enterprenuership, and I see some co-ops as a possibility. On the other hand, I don't see mutualism as a uniform model either, I think that some of the mutualist questioning of the division of labor is misguided or silly and I reject the labor theory of value.
Overall, I do think that the natural of an outcome of a free market would result in an increase in prosperity across the board that could be construed as somewhat egalitarian (in comparison to the status quo at least). Of course, I don't think that it would lead to absolute equality of wealth or ownership in any absolute or consistant sense (nor would I find such a scenario desirable at all), but I do think that workers and consumers would be greatly benefited and in some ways labor would gain much more bargaining power relative to capital. I do not think that wealth being concentrated in the hands of a small few while the majority of people are just above the substinance level is the natural outcome of a free economy, nor do I find such a scenario desirable.
So, there's a bit of an exposition of my own perspective. I don't see anything about it that merits red-baiting or the attacks that I've recieved from various anarcho-collectivists and anarcho-syndicalists.
Do People really want Anarchy? - Quite simply & undeniably - as it stands today - the Answer is No!!
some may not like this Answer - some may chosse to write pages of diatribe to conceal this answer - but this does not change this answer.
IMHO if we were able to take a survey you would find that most people are currently Minarchists, and are probably unaware of this themselves.
You Guys seem to treat Mutualism as a dirty word ("Mutualism is a biological interaction between individuals of two different species, where both individuals derive a fitness benefit") WIKI and would choose not to allow this interaction, methinks AnCaps are fundamentalists!! extremists!!
I find it distasteful that some would not even consider Minarchists as Libertarians, simply because we are not as Purist as AnCaps
Many AnCap's religeously spout the Dogma of the great anarchist philosophers, far be it from me to deride their teachings, but can someone here point me at one of their texts which shows that they have fully considered & understood the potential impact of forums like this, the internet & Direct Democracy as a means of combating the expansion & evils of the State?
However I choose to keep an Open Mind - can some of you ex minarchs out there explain to me what eventually swung you over?
UK Minarchist
Um, mutualism is also a political philosophy. Look it up. Anarchists would not choose to not allow anything (double negative, but so what), other than initiation of aggression.
Jon Irenicus: You Guys seem to treat Mutualism as a dirty word ("Mutualism is a biological interaction between individuals of two different species, where both individuals derive a fitness benefit") WIKI and would choose not to allow this interaction, methinks AnCaps are fundamentalists!! extremists!! Um, mutualism is also a political philosophy. Look it up. Anarchists would not choose to not allow anything (double negative, but so what), other than initiation of aggression. -Jon
Apologies - My Biggy
GWilly:However I choose to keep an Open Mind - can some of you ex minarchs out there explain to me what eventually swung you over?
Voting is a waste of time. The real power is in who decides what the options on the ballot are, and who counts the votes. Nothing is going to change through voting until those two things are taken away from the people who control them, and under the current system, the only way to take that power away is by voting.
It is a vicious circle.
Democracy is also rule by the majority tyranny. You can never be truly free if your right to such is susceptible to control by numerical superiority. A democracy cannot function where people have the right of personal and economic secession.
Ultimately, you realize how evil the state is, how many millions it has killed, how many more millions it will kill, the massive amounts of wealth it has stolen and destroyed, and there is no hope of bringing such a black prince back into the light.
If for no other reason, Riesman is 1337 h@x0rZ for totally pwning the ridiculous concept of opportunity cost (which is clearly a false and stupid idea that only a n00b could possibly accept) in his gargantuan book, Capitalism. GG, economic profit!!1one </sarcasm>.
(Amusingly, George Riesman the second most underrepresented libertarian thinker of all time)
http://libertarian-left.blogspot.com/
Yeah, that is one thing I am not so sure I agree with Reisman on.
Jon Irenicus: Yeah, that is one thing I am not so sure I agree with Reisman on. -Jon
He also doesn't believe in anarchy (going so far as to label it the opposite of rationality), or praxeology. I'm sure I've forgotten some other things that he's the odd man out about.
liberty student: Niccolò:I like Mutualism and I take a lot away from Kevin Carson. I think he's intelligent and runs circles around people like George Rice-man. You better hope Irenicus doesn't see that slander at George. Carson is a leftist, not a libertarian. He plays idiotic redefinition games, the statists and unwashed masses say capitalism is bad, and he shouts, HELL YES! I DISTANCE MYSELF FROM CAPITALISM! Well, one day, mutualism just might attract enough attention, that the state, statists et al decide to treat it the way they treated the term anti-war, liberal, libertarian, anarchist and you can bet Kevin Carson will be running backwards, pants flapping in the wind, shouting HELL YES, I DISTANCE MYSELF FROM MUTUALISM! I also don't like that Carson likes to talk sh!t about the Mises Institute on his blog.
That you ignore the importance of semantics is why you will lose in the end. Sorry. Words are important and defnining them is essential.
I don't care to defend any particular person - Carson or otherwise - so whateveryousay.
However, I think you're just bitter that people see that cpaitaism requires and justifies a state. You want this distinction to go away, because you were born into some right-wing paradigm that exploited the term.
As for any swipes at LvMI. I think many would be justified. It's become such a paleocon crap hole.
Jon Irenicus: You better hope Irenicus doesn't see that slander at George. Though I find Reisman impressive (and Niccolo's swipes at him immature), I do not maintain the same opinion of his exchange with Carson. Funnily enough, on some aspects of economics they're in agreement (e.g. on costs.) Carson performs a valuable function in reminding a lot of libertarians that there is no free market right now. Ask either Niccolo or BP what their position on private property is, and then look up the mutualist one, to see where they differ. I find the semantics games trite, so I won't get involved in those. Carson does have the decency of being intellectually honest in his treatment of libertarianism and Austrian economics, which is more than I could say of most leftists. -Jon
I don't really differ.
I assume two positions.
If natural rights are correct, people possess a right to possession of an object.
If natural rights are incorrect, people possess a right to the possession of an object that they have used based on the respect human beings are owed.
This is just compatibilism.
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap