Have fun tearing this apart.
To darkness I condemn you...
even if the so-called "voluntary exchange" was made when one party is at great economic disadvantage to the other(14). This includes times of extreme unemployment(15), where starvation of an unemployed worker and his family is a possibility
Because refusal to make a certain type of exchange, or to discontinue relations with an individual is coercion? In fact it's funny that he should use this argument to "refute" MNR without then examining Rothbard's responses to this argument in TeoL and MES.
I wonder if this moron, after justifying that this believes that anybody has the right to march into any rich person's house and lay claim to their possession. After all he does feel the poor have a right to the property of the rich.
Marc Linder and Ingrid Nygaard have shown that employers often denied workers bathroom breaks until federally mandated to provide them in 1998(16), which often led to health problems such as hemorrhoids, urinary tract infections, and renal damage
So work elsewhere?
I wonder, of course, why there happens to be such a lack of competition in the market place to make such a thing possible .
Rothbard, evidently, would consider the case of workers denied the right to use the bathroom at work free of coercion, since the workers' subservience came without the threat of direct physical violence- despite the fact that such subservience led to harm which, if inflicted immediately, would certainly be classified as violence.
And yet, they carried on working there.
Robert Hale, best known today among legal academics for his groundbreaking work in market relations and coercion(17), argued that coercion was not something limited to governmental actions, or private actions which threaten physical harm. Instead, "coercion" describes to some extent all private action. Any differences in coercion are purely a matter of degree along a continuum rather than a black and white distinction(18). Hale further argued that coercion "rarely took the form of direct physical compulsion that deprived individuals of all choice. Rather it operated as background constraints on the universe of socially available choices from which an individual might 'freely' choose."(19).
What was it Lenin said? "First, confuse the vocabulary"?
"Even a slave makes a choice. The compulsion which drives him to work operates through his own will power. He makes the 'voluntary' muscular movements which the work calls for, in order to escape some threat..."
Which threat would this be, the one of physical violence? I think a better slave analogy would be the man forced to pay his employees a certain amount upon pain of fines (backed by violence), or perhaps the people forced to pay taxes to support the parasites that uphold these rules.
Hayek states that "By 'coercion' we mean such control of the environment or circumstances of a person by another that, in order to avoid greater evil, he is forced to act not according to a coherent plan of his own but to serve the ends of another. Except in the sense of choosing the lesser evil in a situation forced on him by another, he is unable either to use his own intelligence of knowledge or to follow his own aims and beliefs."(21)
And Hayek was wrong, as Rothbard has pointed out. This quotation is very revealing though, this fool is just another idiot unable to come to terms with scarcity. Yes, people may not be able to follow their own "aims and beliefs" that's an unfortunate aspect of life I suppose. The author, of course, misses the point Rothbard makes, once again, that individuals will always aim to maximise their ex ante utility when free to do so. It's only after the state intervenes that individuals lose utility, since they are forcibly restrained from doing so (in the cardinal sense). Perhaps our author should read Rothbard before he embarks on a futile attempt to refute him.
The definition of coercion we can draw from Hale and Hayek is a larger, more comprehensive definition than that of Rothbard because it covers not only includes the theoretical liberties one might possess(for example, the legal right to change employment), but also the practical means of doing so(the ability to do so without, for example, being blacklisted- a variant of employers being able to hire whoever they wanted).
This fool seems to think if he changes the definition of the word coercion he wins the argument. Ok, if he wants to claim coercion, just replace it with the word "violence" and he has to refute the argument rather than just playing semantic games.
If we define a right as a legitimately enforcable claim his last point about "not being able to use theoretical rights is the same as not having them" is nonsense.
Thus, if the econometric and historical results of libertarian policies show an increase in the practical coercion as defined by Hale and Hayek, libertarianism has worked against the very principles it claims to support.
So to conclude his "moral refutation of liberty" consisted in changing the definition of word.
It is fair to examine the econometric analysis and historical record of the free-market capitalist ideas that would be in effect in a libertarian socie
Once again, this is nonsense that has been dealth with by various Austrians and libertarians, if only our author actually read up on what he was dismissing.
If looking for real-world historical scenarios, Chile is a prime example of libertarian ideas at work.
Only if the USSR is a prime example of democracy. Which would be far closer to the truth than to conflate neoliberal Chile with libertarianism. I wonder why the author doesn't use a real historical example.
BUT WHAT ABOUT THE POOR?
Nothing new here.
Some, like Robert Nozick(38), even state that compulsory taxation for welfare purposes is equivalent to forced labor. This includes the payments most commonly associated with welfare- the Temporary Aid for Needy Families- as well as programs like food stamps and subsidized housing.
A position which the author seems woefully unable to refute.
I'm sufficiently bored by this nonsense to stop now, this fool is just another tired statist apologist. Successfully brainwashed by the state who seems unable to actually study libertarian or Austrian theory. If this fool had bothered to read TEOL, MES amongst other works almost everything he said could have been avoided. Not that he really said much, the whole of his first refutation was nothing but dancing around the issue and then changing the definition of a word and patting himself on the back.
Idiot.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
Yeah I liked how he just changed the definition of coercion such that it becomes all-pervasive. And he somehow managed to transform liberty from its negative sense to some chimera involving "positive" freedom. Nevermind the refutations of this way of viewing liberty as self-contradictory nonsense. He cannot even distinguish social from political authority. If he has a problem with social authority, it's kind of weird that he should want to remain in society at all, as it is inevitable in its formation. Presumably, right-libertarian societies would be in competition with left-libertarian ones, as well as less palatable options, meaning anyone that remained in right-libertarian societies would be showing they preferred the degree of social authority present in those as opposed to the more egalitarian left-libertarian societies. But people like him can't think outside the box, no.
Yet more proof that intellectual honest is not something statists are capable of. It's funny that he should cite TeoL and yet ignore the penultimate section of the book in which Rothbard devotes a chapter to Hayek's nonsense.
This definition of coercion is similar to that used by the great libertarian economist, Will Wilkinson.
scineram: This definition of coercion is similar to that used by the great libertarian economist, Will Wilkinson.
Coercion is a very complicated and interesting concept. I found this article to be especially helpful for explaining the different conceptions of coercion.
"I cannot prove, but am prepared to affirm, that if you take care of clarity in reasoning, most good causes will take care of themselves, while some bad ones are taken care of as a matter of course." -Anthony de Jasay
Not really in this case. There's a simple distinction between a situation in which one party in made worse off and a situation in which "victim" is simply not made any better off.
It's as Rothbard points out. If our author believes in this silly "market coercion" he must support the right of the worker to pull out a gun, hold it to the employers head and demand compensation for this in injustice. If not he's just being inconsistant.
It's so funny that people think abolishing government would hurt the poor, when in fact it would virtually end poverty.
LibertarianAnarchy.com - Government is immoral, unnecessary, and doesn't work!
Sage: It's so funny that people think abolishing government would hurt the poor, when in fact it would virtually end poverty.
Exactly why I have no sympathy for the poor who enslave themselves with their votes. All because they're think they have a right to the money of the rich.
GilesStratton: Sage: It's so funny that people think abolishing government would hurt the poor, when in fact it would virtually end poverty. Exactly why I have no sympathy for the poor who enslave themselves with their votes. All because they're think they have a right to the money of the rich.
I think that's an unfair and sweeping armchair mass-psychoanalysis of an entire economic class. It's not as if they have any meaningful control over the political system, and it certainly is not inherent to being poor that one is outright envious. This outright hostility to the underclass seems to be just a silly reversal of Marxian class theory, in which the underclass is characterized as the ultimate exploiters. Nevermind that this underclass was essentially created by the welfare state to begin with and that there are plenty of people in this underclass that are not exactly in love with the government (with its corrupt police system that enables their communities to be crime-striken and its institutional barriers to their upward mobility).
Your distain should overwhelmingly be for the power elites, not the peasantry.
I think you are nuts. With govt out of the picture poverty would virtually end (actually even stupid).
The best govt system man has deviced is done trough votes and yet they use it to enslave themselves ( totally out of this world).
Right to the money of the rich. What is money in this case??? Gold??? Countries with lowest rate of poverty also have the greatest income equality, better quality of life and social stability. I have yet to see an example of any society using your fiction philosophy.................sorry my bad .....................you guys already mentioned the internet.
Cesar: I think you are nuts. With govt out of the picture poverty would virtually end (actually even stupid).
Well poverty couldn't end simply because there are scarce resources in the world. But removing government interference would reduce poverty significantly as prices of goods dropped, supplies increased, and many more jobs would be in demand. Any success different countries have is done despite of the government- not because of it.
Am I the only one amused by his focus on not being able to take a bathroom break, and the fact that his last name is Loo?
You support murder and theft like the internationally renowned thug Robert Mugabe, and you say we're stupid? lol That's actually pretty funny.
Cesar:The best govt system man has deviced is done trough votes and yet they use it to enslave themselves ( totally out of this world).
Whose votes? I never voted to be in this system, and I never voted to pay taxes or have an army. I never voted to pay for abortions, and I never voted to occupy Afghanistan. I never voted for public education, and I never voted for workplace regulation.
So if I can vote, how come all of these forces are on me, when I never chose the voting system, and I never voted for any of it? A system that dictates to it's constituents against their will, is tyranny. If I am free, then you must respect my free choices.
Cesar:Countries with lowest rate of poverty also have the greatest income equality, better quality of life and social stability.
Right, but none of that is due to government. That is due to capitalism. If you don't understand capitalism, how can you hope to understand free markets?
Cesar, you claim to have an MBA. Please tell us which college you attended. I want to know where I can get this degree without actually knowing anything.
If you find something evil that wobbles, push it. - Gary North
Brainpolice:. It's not as if they have any meaningful control over the political system, and it certainly is not inherent to being poor that one is outright envious.
It's not as if I actually said that either, as usual. The fact is the government relies on legitimacy given it by the people (as you said in a different context yesterday). The fact is through their votes the poor give the government this legitimacy, and why do they vote? For the money of those more wealthy. Not once did I say the poor were all envious. I said that poor votes on average are, and in doing so enslave themselves, whereas middle class voters just want to cure their white guilt.
Brainpolice:Your distain should overwhelmingly be for the power elites, not the peasantry.
I have disdain for both. With one exception, the poor that refuse to except welfare and use whatever honest means available to lift themselves out of poverty. Of course, most of the underclasses these days barely pass for animals with their attitudes and lack of social etiquette, so there's that too.
Cesar, check out this article by Roderick Long.
His conclusion : "A free society would see the virtual elimination of poverty."
...And take down that flag.
Who gives a damn about the poor anyway?
GilesStratton: Who gives a damn about the poor anyway?
Well, they are the class most harmed by government. If we care about victims of statism, then we should care about the poor.
Second, in terms of strategy we will make much better progress if we can harness the power of helping the poor. Nearly everyone opposes poverty, so if we can prove that anarchy will eliminate poverty, then a lot of people will be more open to a free society.
Also, it's just plain fun to prove to some ignorant statist that government actually hurts the poor.
Just as turning from a capitalist system to a socialist system, you get the opposite, a totalitarian state. The same happens when you try to turn a socialist state into a capitalist system, you get the opposite result.
Of course things are going to be worse if you take away all the bridges that a socialist society has provided for some(very few). And the author is right as to mean that libertarianism will result in massive poverty, the opposite of its intentions. Chile is a perfect example.
But what he fails to acknowledge is the fact that the socialist system is already in place, and the consequences of this is why the goals of libertarianism fail. DUH!!! He is trying to show liberty as if you wipe out your family's genetic history, your genes will be good. The disease has already been inculcated into you, eliminating the past is not going to change the disease but just make a profound lie when what was to cure the disease, seems to make it worse.
The political power has already been established, and once it is there it is not going anywhere but in a positive direction. Trying to change a slave society to a free one will not work if freedom is your goal. What needs to be established IS NO STATE in the first place, which is why these incremental movements to liberty just fuel the evidence for socialism as better and liberty flawed. The Libertarian Party and all others who want to "reform", are the fuel for socialism, regardless if they are sincere. The road to serfdom runs both ways.
The only way for liberty to achieve its intended goals is to be free from an already existing state. Anything else makes a mockery of liberty and gets people to trust socialism and listen to this guy.
Libertarians must stop the state from growth, not try to diminish it step by step. But the state always grows, limited government is truly utopian, so the only solution is to build a free society from the ground up.
Democracy is nothing more than replacing bullets with ballots
If Pro is the opposite of Con. What is the opposite of Progress?
Andrew:Just as turning from a capitalist system to a socialist system, you get the opposite, a totalitarian state. The same happens when you try to turn a socialist state into a capitalist system, you get the opposite result.
I'm going to assume that because you still follow the erroneous socialism/capitalism dichotomy, you aren't an anarchist.
Andrew:And the author is right as to mean that libertarianism will result in massive poverty, the opposite of its intentions. Chile is a perfect example.
Read that Roderick Long article I linked to above.
Chile? Umm, wasn't that a statist nation? How can the failure of statism illustrate libertarianism?
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