Too Much Capitalism, Too Fast
I’m sure that many of the readers of this blog who I attended school with me, and some that I didn’t, may think that my views on capitalism and the forces of the free market are disdainful and derogatory. For the record, this is an inaccurate assessment. Speaking from an objective standard, I believe that free markets are overall superior to central planning and that capitalism, and globalization for that matter, are beneficial systems of commerce. Through the progression of ideas, ideologies, and theories, free market systems have proven better than the alternatives. Of course when I speak of free markets, I mean relatively free markets. Markets need some constraints and regulations. I’m no economic libertarian.
However, much harm can be done in the name of free market capitalism. Like most things in life, changing the way things are done must be a gradual, incremental process. If change is brought about in a drastic and overwhelming way, then the system is shocked into submission, often leaving the situation worse off. The same applies to economic systems. Economies are delicate things. Transforming economic systems from centrally controlled market models to free and open market models very quickly will result in harms done to the system and the societies that the systems operate within.
A short time back, I wrote about Noami Klein’s polemic against economic shock therapy in her book The Shock Doctrine, or the transformation of economic systems from controlled markets to free markets. Klein called it the disaster capitalism complex. Her basic thesis has a classic Marxist-materialist slant; she argues that economic conditions, rather than prejudices or ideologies, are what shape the world. Klein fits this argument into a nicely packed monocausal theory about how capitalist overhauls of economic systems – economic shock therapy – bring about great harms. I’ll admit that I was buzzing on a leftist high after I read this book and probably gave it far too positive review than I should have. Like most monocausal theories, they tear at the seams if scrutinized. It is a bit absurd to argue that everything from post-Karina New Orleans, the tsunami in Indonesia, or the American invasion of Iraq is used primarily for capitalist to make their gain at others’ expense. Johnathan Chait, from The New Republic, has perhaps written the best critique of Klein’s Shock Doctrine. He debunks the bulk of Klein’s disaster capitalism complex theory. I highly recommend reading it, for anyone who’s read Klein’s book and finds themselves agreeing with her.
Despite what I think now is a bunk theory, Klein’s argument that drastic shocks to economic systems causes great harm is still an extremely valid point. The merit of this argument has been recently corroborated by the British medical journal, The Lancet. In a newly published report, researchers for the Lancet found that the mass privatization in Eastern Europe, following the dissolution of the Soviet Union, caused an increase in the death rate. The authors of the study reported that the “rapid and widespread privatization of state industries in the former Soviet Union and Eastern bloc countries during the early 1990s increase the death rate 13 percent.” Mass privatization was defined as “a program that transferred the ownership of at least 25 percent of large state-owned enterprises to the private sector in two years by selling them with citizen vouchers and giveaways to firm insiders.”
In other words, the mass privatization of many Eastern European economies caused such a shock to the system that it created a significant degree of harm. Specifically, it caused an increase in the number of people dying. The authors claimed that the “pace of transition” caused the harm. The immediate and rapid transition to capitalism, or the shock therapy, resulted in a two-fold hit on the population. The rapid privatization resulted in a huge spike in unemployment. Many of the employers provided extensive health and social care. Losing a job meant not only losing a source of income, but also losing all benefits. People not only lost their livelihood, but their means of surviving the effects of mass privatization.
The authors focused a lot of criticism on Jeffrey Sachs. Mr. Sachs was an ardent supporter of the “shock therapy” approach to economic transition. He was a lead economic adviser to many of the Eastern bloc countries. Sachs was also heavily criticized in Klein’s book. Although she did make mention that following the economic disaster in many of the Eastern European countries, Sachs did express a sentiment of contriteness for the way things turned out.
The point is that it is not possible to completely transform huge systems, like economies, in one quick swoop. It is something that takes years, perhaps decades, to complete. Many wonder how countries like Russia, the Ukraine, and many of the former Soviet Republics have reverted back towards authoritarianism after their “liberation” from communist control. Well, perhaps one explanation is that they were pushed too far too fast and naturally went back to what they knew. I think one could make a sound argument that the rapid transformation of many Eastern European from communism to capitalism was counterproductive.
Joseph Stiglitz, the Nobel-winning economist, is one of the leading opponents of the shock therapy. He commented on the report by the Lancet. Here is an excerpt from his response. I think it sums up best why shock therapy is an unwise economic policy.
In retrospect I think “shock therapy” was a disastrous economic policy. It was ideology trumping good economic analysis. The comparison between the successes in China and the failures of Russia tell a clear story of how bad “shock therapy” was.
The defenders [of shock therapy] say things like, “We were worried that if we didn’t engage in rapid change, there could be reversals.” The critics of that view said: “If you proceed in this reckless way it will result in alienation, failure and reversals.”
It was a matter of judgment, of course. We hadn’t gone through these experiments. But there were other historical experiments on which we could base judgments. None were identical. More reversals occurred in the shock therapy countries, whereas the countries that proceeded in a more careful way have typically moved to reinforce a more democratic direction.
I’m really glad you wrote this post. It is a post that needed to be written by somebody. You display a lot of sophistication in it. I’m finding a lot more people that see the need for capitalism and government regulation at the same time and that is a very good thing. Previously, people tended to see the need for one or the other.
The current economic crisis has shown that it is extremely important to have constant growth in production because when rich men do not feel like their money will make profits, they horde up and everything from jobs, to non-profits, to welfare agencies dry up. At the same time, we are seeing what awful things happen when certain financial regulations are lacking and people are able to make profits in ways that will create artificial bubbles and send the economy down the tank in the long run.
The key to the interplay of capitalism and regulation is to make both of them work for you, rather than fearing one or the other. I call this the moderate stance.
define privatization.
The implications are extremely significant, even beyond the realm of economics. The main point is that massive structural changes done very quickly are typically counterproductive. That goes for economies, political institutions, and other state paradigms.
As I identified in my post: Mass privatization was defined as “a program that transferred the ownership of at least 25 percent of large state-owned enterprises to the private sector in two years by selling them with citizen vouchers and giveaways to firm insiders.”
then i would advise that you not use the term free markets since they are not free. use the term capitalism, or state capitalism, crony capitalism, fascism, corporatocracy, whatever…but not free market
Sure, whatever. I didn’t misrepresent your weird idea of totally free markets. I agreed with the Lancet’s and Stiglitz’s condemnation of mass privatization and shock therapy. All in the name of free market capitalism.
Your strict ideological approach to anything that deals with free anything clouds your ability to accurately read through and analyze things.
This idea that one can keep denying my arguments because I have some specific ideology (oooo-boogey-man) is getting old.
“Your strict ideological approach to anything that deals with free anything clouds your ability to accurately read through and analyze things.”
Why not just refute what I am saying? Or rather, prove what you claim.
I am not refuting the “privatization” aspect. I am making the claim that it should not be associated with the “free market” as such. If you steal that word from people who support the free market then we will have to come up with a new word that represents our position. It is very confusing and truly inappropriate because it is technically incorrect.
“All in the name of free market capitalism.”
That doesn’t mean ‘it is’ free market capitalism. Privatization in the way that is commonly understood, and more importantly, practiced, is strictly regulated by the state. That is not disputed. Claiming it is free market capitalism is the problem.
Use the term neo-liberalism if you wish because it is definitely one idea that advocates what you are talking about. Keep in mind, at the very least, it is a “redefinition” of classical liberalism. That means they have distinctive characteristics, but are not the same. Or use the term disaster capitalism if that explains what you mean to convey.
An example of such contradictions I encounter with your implications can be seen in this wikipedia entry:
“Free trade is a system in which the trade of goods and services between or within countries flows unhindered by government-imposed restrictions. Such government interventions generally increase costs of goods and services to both consumers and producers. Interventions include taxes and tariffs, non-tariff barriers, such as regulatory legislation and quotas, and even inter-government managed trade agreements such as the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and Central America Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) (contrary to their formal titles.) The most extreme version of Free Trade opposes all such interventions. Trade liberalization entails reductions to these trade barriers in an effort for relatively unimpeded transactions.”
See how it contradicts itself?
The dispute would be to allow the term Free Trade to mean exactly what is says: Free trade is represented by such organizations as NAFTA and CAFTA. Just as privatization is understood as a regulated transfer from the state to the private sector.
In contrast: “unhindered by government-imposed restrictions” would be the free market. This would resolve the contradiction.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_market
“The necessary components for the functioning of an idealized free market include the complete absence of artificial price pressures from taxes, subsidies, tariffs, or government regulation (other than protection from coercion and theft), and no government-granted monopolies (usually classified as coercive monopoly by free market advocates) like the United States Post Office, Amtrak, arguably patents, etc.”
There are other terms that more accurately describe what you are talking about. One such example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_capitalism
“This term is also used by some advocates of laissez-faire capitalism to mean a private capitalist economy under state control, often meaning a privately-owned economy that is under economic planning. This term was often used to describe the controlled economies of the great powers in the First World War.[2] In more modern sense, state capitalism is a term that is used (sometimes interchangeably with state monopoly capitalism) to describe a system where the state is intervening in the markets to protect and advance interests of Big Business. This practice is in sharp contrast with the ideals of free market capitalism.”
Your post is fine overall, the problem that I have is that you misrepresent and tarnish not only what I see as a good idea, but language itself. The beginning of your post is misleading in every sense of the word. Keep in mind I am not arguing your view (whatever that is, we can only guess) of “totally free markets” or “privatization”. I seek to remove “privatization” from being associated the term free market as it is currently used.
Also, keep in mind you are only accounting for “at least 25 percent of large state-owned enterprises”. There’s a lot of economy to be accounted for still.
Hans Sennholz has some words on Russia as well
Russia’s March from Communism
http://www.mises.org/article.aspx?Id=1046
“However, much harm can be done in the name of free market capitalism.”
I agree.
But, for someone who seems to think that the Federal Reserve (privatised) is a free market institution, I don’t expect agreement on my concerns here.
Since you know so much about privatization, let me ask you this.
How come its capitalism that gets the short end of the stick?
If the state sells that which is presumably (though dubious) owned by the “public”, then shouldn’t those gov’t institutions be chastened to same degree for mismanagement?
Who is it that is trying to transform huge systems? And for what purposes? Who owns the property being sold? Who pays?
Since no country has an absolutely free market, do you say that no country has free markets, only state capitalism?
a free market is based on cooperation, so free market activities occur all the time.
it represents free exchange, voluntarism. both parties expect to benefit.
it is a “positive-sum” game in other words
Like the drug trade.
we haven’t defined capitalism, which is obviously a difficult thing to do. it has a lot of baggage.
capitalism propaganda? (old black n white)
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8319517938530632222
the short answer, i would say, is no. all countries? do not practice state capitalism. but that’s based on my definition of country (a given geographical region defined by?…) which would probably include both the private sector and the gov’t. this isn’t to say that state capitalism, which may be practiced by a state, doesn’t distort the whole economy. but only that it does not necessarily control the whole economy. in fact, that seems quite impossible. just look at the drug trade.
So what exactly would have to be done in order to move the country towards your definition of capitalism, and why would it be a good thing?
steven? i think you are the only one who has actually endorsed capitalism in this thread?
miniman?
Here’s my problem with you floggers of capitalism and libertarianism (and yeah, I’m going to lump you together). If you read the essay in ‘Freakonomics’ about why most drug dealers live with their mothers, it’s a good illustration of how what we refer to as free market capitalism only works if most of the players make a barely-living wage. People who flog capitalism in your face have no intention of being one of those players; their interest lies in being the guy or one of the guys who runs those players and they have to get you worked up into a righteous defense of the system so they have those workers invested in what is for them an exploitative economic format. That’s why the following terms are in our culture bad words: communism, socialism, labor unions, collective bargaining, and liberalism. We have been inculcated with the wisdom of the free market, never mind that (1) we don’t actually have one; and (2) how’s that workin for ya lately anyway?
Same thing with libertarianism. The guys who trumpet it never have the intention of being the people who have to depend on the largesse of private others or government others to get what they need. They just don’t want to pay for the services to be available to those people, i.e. ‘the retention of private property.’ This is why the following terms are in our culture bad words: welfare, public assistance, big gummint (and it’s usually pronouned that way). So libertarianism, when you boil it right down, is greed and the lack of concern about others. Dare I say, it’s un-Christian.
neffs, run out of chips?
the main thrust of this post has more to do with regulation. so on that note…..
when one reads the above post, this quote: “Markets need some constraints and regulations”, implies that external regulations are required.
Keep in mind that when advocating market regulations by governments, one is advocating for control of people and prohibition or constraints on trade.
Since trade can only be between people, then it is people that are being controlled.
And also, we cannot ignore this next important aspect: free markets are not without regulation.
“I’m no economic libertarian.”
The way this post reads gives the impression, or rather a fallacy, that is often repeated by opposition views. Libertarians are not libertines. As such, free markets CANNOT produce without limits. It is economically impossible due to scarcity, not to mention the fact that it will only produce what people value.
I did, I need some chips!
I’ll sell you some chips for a $100.
Right. Have another eight beers then and I’ll steer the newbie your way.
newbie?
It takes more than eight, by the way.
And yeah, I do endorse capitalism and free markets. But I don’t endorse them in their fullest sense; that just seems a bit ridiculous. Relatively free and competitive markets are better than centrally controlled markets. But of course there will be some central control (see: Federal Reserve and the EPA and FTC — supported and controlled for by executive powers and the courts).
So, Jesse, you’re against USPS and any notion of universal health care, right? Since, according to your logic, they control people.
Oh yeah, and the public school system.
Also, would you clarify your position on why it’s wrong for the government to ‘control people’ through regulations, laws or taxes, but it’s okay for the church of Christ to ‘control people’ through the misrepresentation of the will of God?
Libertarianism is a deontological theory of law. It stipulates an equality of authority, by means of natural rights, inherent to each person. The validity of this body of theory, can be determined through a careful inspection of it’s constituent parts.
Libertarianism states that each person fundamentally has only one right. This right consists of not being aggressed against. All other rights are simply applications of, rather than supplements to, this basic right. Some call this the Positive Thesis. Most people intuitively accept this premise, but do not think to apply it consistently. They often do not see the necessary ramifications, (regardless as to whether they accept the premise).
The first of these ramifications, is the necessary conceptual truth (granted the first) that there are no other rights. (ie, legitimately enforceable moral claims). “What the libertarian is claiming is that the possibility of accepting the Positive Thesis while rejecting the Negative Thesis is precluded by the logical structure of the concepts involved.” (Long, 2005)
In sum, relations should be voluntary. Libertarianism deems any argument to the contrary as wholly untenable. And ironic, given the fact that argumentation, by it’s very nature is non-coercive.
A free market would necessarily be the result of all people respecting other people’s rights.
This then, would be the ethical case for genuine free markets.
perhaps this would be of interest,
http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/12_2/12_2_5.pdf
So what do the libertarians call thetans?
So, please tell, what do you do when someone’s fundamental rights is infringed upon? Stopping it would be to violate it, no? Let’s be honest with ourselves here, people quite often disrespect other people’s rights. It may even be a natural phenomenon.
steven, well that’s just it. “what do you do?”
are you a pacifist?
Do you think believing in laws (both positive and negative), regulations, and restrictions voids one’s claim to pacificism?
Don’t you need positive laws to protect natural ones? Although there is certainly no inherent connection between the validity of laws and natural law, ethics, or morality. Laws are created by humans and are thus susceptible to all kinds of malicious or devious intent.
In fact, one could argue even natural laws is a human concept and not really “natural” or inherent. Males are naturally stronger than females and thus superior, right? Or is that an insidious natural logic?
steven, does anyone have rights?
Should and Do are two very different things. We can decide that people should have certain rights, for whatever reason (natural law, utilitarianism, etc). People’s privacy should be a protected right, along with property (physical and intellectual) — just to name a few. Who dictates these rights? The State/Society, it seems.
I could be wrong though. The notion of natural rights is very appealing, spiritually and intellectually, but I find it hard to buy. I’m trying though.
how do you know that people have rights?
ya know?
rather, how do you KNOW that YOU have any right to live, whatsoever?
“we hold these truths to be self-evident”
“All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience”
curious.
why do such organizations make such proclamations?
People probably have rights because certain institutions have said so. Why? Self-preservation, good precedent, social control.
I “know” because “they” say so. Cultural control, right? Bad? Not necessarily, in my opinion. Life affects consciousness — not the other way around.
But more to the point, I don’t know that I have the “right” to live. I’m told so. However, I think it’s natural for me to preserve myself. An argument for natural law? Perhaps. The problem is drawing the connection from natural “self-interest” to fundamental “right.”
I suppose it is laws that fill the void left by ambiguity.
I started to read a book on Natural Law and History by Leo Strauss, but I put it down to read a different book.
humans are just resources to be harvested by whoever retains political power. nice.
I “know” because “they” say so
http://www.orwelltoday.com/newspeak.shtml
i am glad you put that book down, we don’t need anymore neocons
“So, please tell, what do you do when someone’s fundamental rights is infringed upon? Stopping it would be to violate it, no?”
A right is a legitimately enforceable moral claim. Therefore anything that I have a legitimate right to, including myself, can be defended with force if necessary. By what right could you use force (aggression) to prevent me from enforcing a legitimate moral claim? Conceptually there is no right. (it would assume you have a right over my person)
There are two sides to each conflict. No two people can have an absolute, and legitimate, enforceable moral claim to the same thing, including persons. (that would be slavery, which violates the first tenet of any ethic; universality). If someone is engaging in a genuine criminal activity, this means, necessarily, that they are infringing on someone’s rights, (for there can be no legal wrong, where no rights are violated) which again means, that whichever person is being harmed can proportionally address such an incursion.
To answer your question directly, would require knowledge of what kind of rights infringement has taken place. But generally, one could legitimately defend, seek restitution through arbitration and mediation, or a similar court matter. And no one could legitimately (forcefully) prevent them from doing so.
“People probably have rights because certain institutions have said so. Why? Self-preservation, good precedent, social control.”
Depends of what “rights” your talking about, Natural rights (normative), or positive rights, ie., legal rights, and ‘de-facto rights’;
• Normative rights: the claims that ought to be respected and protected.
• Legal rights: the claims that a given legal institution officially announces it will respect and protect.
• De facto rights: the claims that actually receive respect and protection in a given society.
I am only concerned with natural rights. These cannot be created through legislation. By what right could they?
Government is instituted to protect rights, not to manufacture them. (such an intention is the only reasonable claim as well). This of course, presupposes rights already exist (which is a correct premise). To think you would have no right to clap your hands, for example, simply because funny men who call themselves politicians, a pharaoh, emperor, or the state disappeared one day should be recognized as foolish.
“I started to read a book on Natural Law and History by Leo Strauss, but I put it down to read a different book.”
Straussian natural law, as well as the vast majority of the classical conception of such is throughly statist. There are commonalities in essence but ‘libertarian’ natural law is a different animal. It doesn’t conflate society with the state.
” . .society is the absence of war, i.e. peace, in human relationships. Society is therefore a shared mode of existence without enmity, i.e. a condition of friendly interaction or friendship. Furthermore, the purpose of warlike action, the intention of an enemy, being the destruction or impairment of another’s faculties of independent existence or work, war and enmity are direct threats to a person’s freedom. It appears therefore, that society is the condition of peace, or amity, or freedom. The conceptual links among “peace”, “friendship”, and “freedom” should be obvious if we consider that we cannot have one of these things without any of the other two. In some languages, most conspicuously in Dutch and German, this link is suggested even by the form of the words: ‘vrede’, ‘vriendschap’, ‘vrijheid’, and ‘Frieden’, ‘Freundschaft’, and ‘Freiheit’. Etymologists trace the origin of all these words to the old Indian word ‘priya’ (one’s own) which I have discussed earlier as the root of ‘freedom’. There is also nothing mysterious about this logical connection between the concept of property and the concepts of peaceful, friendly and free relations. Friendly relations are peaceful relations, without iniuriae to person or property. Peace is a condition in which people can enjoy their property and independence, without being subjected to hostile treatment. And people are free to the extent that others treat them peacefully and friendly, respect them, their work and their property – in one word, their right (the physical domain of which they are the authors) – by dealing with them according to ius, i.e. by abstaining from iniuriae or warlike action. Thus, the security of each person and his or her property against predatory attack emerges here as the necessary condition or principle of society, its basic law or ius. We see, then, that the definition of law as “society itself”, which, as we have noted, lingers on even in some lawyers’ textbooks, should not be taken as a mere rhetorical flourish. It reflects an immemorial pattern of thought that has been transmitted in many Indo-European languages, and even today forms the core of liberal views on man and society.” van Dun, Frank. “The Lawful and the legal”
http://users.ugent.be/~frvandun/Texts/Articles/The%20Lawful%20and%20the%20Legal.html
Sounds beautiful if we lived in a classless, hate-less, unselfish society with every person a peaceful, rational thinker. But we don’t.
… and did I read correctly that you posited the notion that clapping your hands is a natural right? Let’s graduate to more significant matters, like life, liberty, and property. What are these? The meanings sort of evolve over time, no?
Abort mission Steven
Talking in German makes the baby Xenu cry, Mr./Ms. Stewart.
“Sounds beautiful if we lived in a classless, hate-less, unselfish society with every person a peaceful, rational thinker. But we don’t.”
Of course we don’t. I did not say it was necessary, nor do I think a case can be made that any such things would be necessary on any level for libertarian natural law to be valid.
• just as ‘class’ does not alter the validity of the proposition that all three angles of any triangle add up to 180º, nor does it have anything to do with validating, or refuting any propositions belonging to an objective science of ethics.
• no degree of hatred, or absence thereof, can nullify a persons rights. That’s like saying the color of your hair can disprove a mathematical equation.
• whether one is selfish, or an altruist – as i have already written – is of no matter to the fact that they are still human, and therefore have rights. To be selfish is what one is >towards< their own property. This means that you are presupposing that which you are denying. You are contradicting yourself, and this argumentatively untenable. Whether you recognize this, is a separate matter.
Aristotle showed, long ago, that the difference between giving, and generous giving, are the property rights that are necessitated by the latter.
• ‘peace’ is a strange word for any one who denies property rights (in fact, a non sensical one). Without knowing the legitimate owners of property, a concept like theft – and therefore criminality – become unintelligible and unaddressable. Hardly a condition for ‘peace’
Furthermore, it is not ‘peace’ nor is it war that determines why or who has rights. They only reflect how they are regarded by certain persons at that point in time.
• Lastly, intelligence is the means by which we can come to know various facts about ourselves and the world. It does not cause or determine them. Whether a square has four sides, is not for us to arbitrarily decide. There are, however, various means by which we can become certain that they do. Squares have necessary properties, given there nature. They, like our rights, exist independent of any subjective preference you may have.
On the issue of class, libertarianism offers the only satisfactory answer. No matter what system we currently live in, or caste system we live under, the fundamental facts of economic theory and ethics remain the same. Any conception of class is primarily derived from these.
As to why marx was wrong on class, and the austrians are right, read, Hoppe’s Marxist and Austrian Class Analysis;
/www.mises.org/journals/jls/9_2/9_2_5.pdf
"… and did I read correctly that you posited the notion that clapping your hands is a natural right? Let’s graduate to more significant matters, like life, liberty, and property. What are these? The meanings sort of evolve over time, no?"
I used such as an example, because the absurdity of it’s denial is patently obvious to anyone who takes a moment to reflect on it. To assume you do not have the right to clap your own hands, necessarily means, that someone else has the right (ie., the legitimate moral claim) to prevent you from doing so.
This is no ethic. It is merely power and subjugation, a scenario of an exploiter and the exploited. You can of course blindly subscribe to violence. You have the right.
Violence however, is not argument. It is not comprised of propositions that can be validated or counter-argued. To be intelligible and prove something, you actually have to engage in logical analysis and philosophy. This means adopting the voluntary method advocated by libertarians. T
This, of course, is the great irony; that for anyone to even attempt to justify aggression – and be comprehended – one needs to assume means, that their ends deny.
After actually reading Mr./Ms. Stewart’s post, I have concluded that Skye Stewart is in fact a bot. Who does not have the right to clap their own hand-pods.
“This, of course, is the great irony; that for anyone to even attempt to justify aggression – and be comprehended – one needs to assume means, that their ends deny.”
if i understand this correctly, another way of stating this reasoning would be to say:
another ironic aspect is the myth that libertarianism is often expressed and interpreted as being individualized and without borders, whereas the truly underlying foundation of libertarian law actually shows the universiality that all individuals share. it is not saying that law is subjective. by showing the universiality of law – the actual ends, through the means of the non-aggression axiom – is to remove the arbitrary and subjective interpretations of laws which is what so often is the source of conflict. i.e., acting outside or beyond the law.
correction/addition
there are really two things needed: the non-aggression axiom and private property
i was focusing on the violence aspect (in the above comment), but as skye explained above, one cannot understand violence against anyone or anything without recognizing property first and foremost.
That’s baloney. Most violence perpetrated between people has nothing to do with property.
what kind of violence, property, or people are you talking about neffs?
I mean the sort where I pinch you hard on the nose because I’m tired of talking about libertarianism. I didn’t take your cookie and you didn’t take mine. Or chips.
The forty majillion word treatises above by you and Bot Stewart are trying to make ‘taking my property’ equivalent with ‘doing me harm.’ The same way that the right wing has been obssessed for the last thirty years with making a ‘corporation’ a ‘person’ in the eyes of the law so you can’t limit their rights, and make all kinds of arguments about the original intent of the framers of the Constitution. Wordy wordy wordypants about limiting progressive ideas so that them that have can keep.
well, you just brought up about ten different things and clumped them together. it’s pretty hard to distinguish what it is you want to focus on.
if you want to talk about something else, feel free.
“Most violence [1] perpetrated between people has nothing to do with property.[2]”
[1] conversation is of little benefit if the words that are being employed mean different things to the people engaged. norms must be agreed upon. Fundamentally, this is the very essence of communication.
In understanding ‘violence’ (in terms of political philosophy), it’s relation to property, and how it is adequately addressed by the philosophy of law we call libertarianism, it would be fruitful to conceptually isolate it. By doing this we can understand that violence, per se, is not criminal, nor is it to be outlawed outright.
Imagine if I were to violently destroy my own property. Should this be illegal? Of course not. Should I be imprisoned if in remodeling my own house I tear apart and knock down a wall? Surely not. What if I wrestle for sport, or box at the local gym? Are we to imprison such people? And what of ‘violent’ communication?
If violence itself were the issue, what of cases in nature when a predator hunts and kills it’s prey? Would a lawsuit be justifiable? Of course not, this would be ridiculous and nonsensical.
Violence itself is not the heart of the matter. Even when it does cause harm, as in boxing, or martial arts tournaments. These are lawfully permissible activities from a libertarian point of view, because the persons, and owners involved have consented to such.
However, if I were to violently destroy someone else’s property, tear down their house, or attack them on the street, WITHOUT their consent, then this violence would count as ‘aggression’, and therefore, lawfully can be met with proportional force.
[2]
However, it would also be a mistake to assume the near opposite. That is, that any ‘boundary crossing’ is ‘violent’ or initiatory aggression and therefore automatically unlawful.
For example;
a) radio waves (which cause no harm, or conventionally it is assumed as much)
b) or low-level radiation (which technically exists everywhere and therefore is always crossing boundaries, ie. persons and properties).
As Rothbard, has written, such cases,
“cannot be considered aggression because it does not interfere with the owner’s use or enjoyment of his person or property. Only if such a boundary crossing commits provable harm — according to principles of strict causality and beyond a reasonable doubt — can it be considered a tort and subject to liability and injunction” (Law, Property Rights, and Air Pollution, 1982)
But what about cases that are not consensual, do not violate property rights, but do nonetheless cause ‘harm’? Fundamentally, there are two kinds; natural and human.
a) Natural cases would include floods, earthquakes, forest fires, etc. (where human agency was not the causal factor)
b) Human cases, would include anything from another business in town attracting more customers away from your store, thus harming you financially, to a spouse leaving you because they were charmed by some stranger, harming you emotionally. (in which human agents were the causal factors).
No of these scenarios can count as ‘aggression’ as far as sound political philosophy is concerned. Therefore, rights have not been violated, and one is not not justified in seeking restitution by means of forcing other persons to pay for ‘damages’.
Even shouting across the room, ‘invades’ another person’s sphere, but is this to be outlawed? What about obscenities? No, because it does not meet the criteria of aggression. It is of course possible that,
“some speech acts can be classified as acts of aggression in the context in
which they occur because they constitute the speaker’s use of means calculated to inflict intentional harm. One clear example of this is threats of force. The threat to stab someone does not actually pierce the victim’s skin; it is a “mere” speech-act, but it is still regarded as aggression.” (Causation and Aggression, Kinsella & Tinsley. 2004)
‘Violence’ itself cannot justifiably be outlawed. Simple ‘boundary crossings’ or harm also cannot be outlawed. The law can only address issues of property rights violations.
Clearly Libertarianism is a comprehensive philosophy of law, and cannot justifiably be reduced to the notion of, “trying to make ‘taking my property’ equivalent with ‘doing me harm.’” Such a criticism is not only blatantly false, but in fact, ironically, brings to mind the insipid and misguided rhetoric of marxist ideology, in which support for ‘capitalism’, free markets, or ‘property rights’, amounts to nothing more than bourgeoisie class interests.
(It is impossible to coherently renounce “property rights”. One can only argue against certain theories and appllications of property rights. As long as human beings exist, means must be utilized to attain ends. This requires your physical body, and external entities, both of which are the properties under consideration.)
These issues must be dealt with. Ideas must be examined, and propositions analyzed.
Such ad hominem attacks as above should only illuminate the absence of any cogent criticism.
“The same way that the right wing has been obssessed for the last thirty years with making a ‘corporation’ a ‘person’ in the eyes of the law so you can’t limit their rights, and make all kinds of arguments about the original intent of the framers of the Constitution. Wordy wordy wordypants about limiting progressive ideas so that them that have can keep.”
Briefly, to blame some conception of the ‘right wing’ for the artificial personhood and the corporation’s entity status is simply false. Most people, left and right, support such a conception, or something similar. And even if they don’t, I would argue they don’t have any proper solution.
The artificial personhood of the State is never questioned. How do you explain such blindness or both the “right” and “left”?
I will not delve into the ‘original intent’ of the founders (as if there were really one) but virtually none of them supported any kind of system that resembles anything like we now have. Not even Madison, who advocated for the constitution over the articles more than most, and surely not even Hamilton, being the neo-monarchical centralist he was.(In time, he would have have given the logic of his arguments).
Some of the most satisfactory expositions written on the illegitimacy of corporate personhood, comes from Frank van Dun, natural law theorist and professor at the univ. of Ghent. The problem is one of positive law, and ignorance natural rights, and natural law.
“As an ownerless or self-owning construction, the corporation is something that cannot exist on a free market, if the idea of a free market is derived from real people and their rights and corresponding responsibilities. Thus, corporations evidently exist because of legal privileges, deviations from the law that applies to other forms of associations that do not attenuate or diminish personal responsibility and liability.” (PFCL, 2005)
see,
• Personal Freedom, Corporate Liberties,
http://users.ugent.be/~frvandun/Texts/Articles/Persons&Corporations.pdf
• The business corporation versus the free market?
http://users.ugent.be/~frvandun/Texts/Articles/Corporation%20versus%20Market.pdf
• A Note on Austro-libertarianism and The Corporation,
http://users.ugent.be/~frvandun/Texts/Articles/AustroLibertarianismAndTheCorporation.pdf
http://politicalcartel.com/2009/01/20/too-much-capitalism-too-fast/#comment-7245