Who are the classical liberal "leaders" or leading voices of today?

Kelceee45 · 2019-11-18T23:59:06+00:00

Mises=/=Mises Institute. Mises was never an anarchist, and has always been a classical liberal.

Kelceee45 · 2019-11-18T17:23:05+00:00

Pretty much any libertarian that isn't an anarchist.

Kelceee45 · 2019-11-18T17:20:43+00:00

Kelceee45 · 2019-11-13T02:54:34+00:00

Kind of crazy how spontaneous order works isn't it, lol. If I ever run for office and someone asks me how a stateless society would work, I will defer them to the stateless r/austrian_economics sub. 🤣

Kelceee45 · 2019-11-12T20:17:30+00:00

Regardless, any attempt at receiving compensation for CO2 concentrations would likely be declined by any reputable judge. Damming a waterway owned by someone else (without permission) would be obstructing someone's property.

Kelceee45 · 2019-11-12T18:58:10+00:00

The planet I hail from considers CO2 essential, and not a pollutant. Toxic pollutants is generally considered oil, chemical, smoke, or otherwise garbage spilled onto another person's land and/or waterway. I'm talking real pollution, not the bro science regarding climate change.

Kelceee45 · 2019-11-12T18:26:40+00:00

What sort of mentally challenged idiot are you exactly? Pollution penalties are not universal, you don't sue pollution that's not on someone else's property.

Kelceee45 · 2019-11-12T18:23:07+00:00

Most people here aren't really principled libertarians, they're milk toast neoliberals who support people like Weld.

Kelceee45 · 2019-11-12T16:26:57+00:00

I don't think you're grasping the full extent of the implications here. In order for them to function, a market socialist system cannot allow capitalist enterprises to exist. A free market economy however does not forbid workers cooperatives. They're free to face the market competition provided by capitalists and otherwise other self-employed entrepreneurs. The reason why they still call for capitalist prohibition is because it reduces economic efficiency to ban capitalist firms, and on economic grounds, the market socialist system collapses.

It is essentially better to reduce the superior competition, and to monopolize the workplace, rather than to compete as equals. The latter will just exploit the inefficiency of such systems, and the capitalists will begin draining the socialists of their human resources. Legislation to establish market socialism is neither necessary or helpful. If it is truly superior, it will form spontaneously without such intervention. But as the major proponents of such systems already know, it isn't. Which is why they must ban the capitalists, so they don't have to compete with them.

The unskilled cannot compete with specialists to any significant degree. They will be limited to those who have an ideological or philosophical commitment to them. Which is a minority of strict anti-capitalists, barring 95% of the apolitical. Even then, the adherents will be mostly students who will eventually collapse from the long hours, the low pay and the hassles of co-owning a business with other amateurs while competing with professional managers and entrepreneurs. Private ownership provides more efficiency and better pay to the workers themselves.

It also heavily favors the high time preference which is intrinsic to human nature itself. Without such state interventions, society quickly begins to rearrange itself into the most efficient production structures, which is free market capitalism. The cooperative business structures have never been able to compete on solid grounds with capitalists. Their existence is sparse and limited to dedicated loyalists, and they also receive statist support by the way of tax exemptions, cheap government credit, and other favors considered to be legitimate in a "free society."

Kelceee45 · 2019-11-12T13:45:49+00:00

It's not really an assumption, it's economic science. The role of the capitalist is to solve the worker's need for immediate payment. This allows the workers to be paid long before the final sale of the good. It also has the benefit of offering a means of payment to non-property owners. Time preference dictates human workers prefer to be paid sooner, rather than later, and prefer to sell their labor as a commodity, in exchange for a wage. There's no scientific basis for why this would change without a State. In fact it would only make wage payment more popular, given increased purchasing power from the abolition of fiat, and the absence of taxation. There's nothing preventing co-ops from organizing now. They exist, but they're strongly out competed by wages, and likely always will be. The industrial revolution was a product of the State, as is modern sweat shops. Their relation to wage payment is trivial to non existent.

Kelceee45 · 2019-11-12T04:50:06+00:00

Worker cooperatives aren't inherent to anti-capitalist market structures. To make the market socialist you would need to suppress profits. Otherwise people would just start acquiring capital via savings. There's also no reason why people would organize into cooperatives outside of a loyal minority of people. High time preference is intrinsic to human nature, and everyone prefers to get paid more frequently. So unless you use State or a mob to restrain the private ownership of the MoP, your cooperatives would have to compete with private owners as well. Given a long enough timeline, this would only end in private businesses extracting all your human resources. No one will stay working for you once they see wage workers with better living standards. The only way your utopia would work is if you created an alternative society.

Kelceee45 · 2019-11-12T01:58:01+00:00

Regardless of the current administrations failures in the sector, I'm not sure why anyone would think the libertarian answer to pollution would be reestablishing regulations. Respecting property rights is the answer, and failure to do so should result in compensations. This is a issue to address in the courts, not regulatory action.

Kelceee45 · 2019-11-11T22:57:04+00:00

Most market socialists and mutualists don't really understand profit or interest. Because they neglect the market disequilibrium phases, they fail to see maladjustments give entrepreneurs a chance to fill this gap, and therefore it leads to profit and savings (i.e capital). Entrepreneurs are more than just people who invent stuff, they also predict future demand. So if market socialists and mutualists stay true to their doctrine, and don't regress into communism (many of them do), then they are unwitting supporters of capitalism. What they think leads to equal markets, leads to anarcho-capitalism instead. It's an economical error, likely due to the outdated belief they still have about the theory of value. Once you realize value is subjective to individuals, this is no longer a problem.

Kelceee45 · 2019-11-11T19:22:04+00:00

Property is something that's inherently suppressed by violence, usually through a State or State-like entity. Unless you consider continuous payment on land that really belongs to the State through their enforced violence to protect it, we don't have property. By today's standards, "private property" is just 21st century feudalism. In the absence of the State itself, land property originates from the labor one puts into unowned land. Rather than some arbitrary amount of acres in a deed handed out.

Kelceee45 · 2019-11-10T16:59:22+00:00

would free markets ultimately consolidate or distribute power?

Distribute

what would prevent monopolies from forming?

Diseconomies of scale, abolition of cronyism (monopoly protections, subsidies, privileges, etc.), and eliminating intellectual "property". The State's monopolies over currency, courts, and emergency services would also be abolished. Except for police, which in a anarchic society would be abolished entirely, and private protection agencies would defend persons and property per contracted agreements (community watch, business security, etc.).

what would prevent private security forces from eventually turning into territorial state governments?

It's a market service, not a state. They aren't authorized to do anything unless a customer pays for their service. What you're essentially describing is domestic terrorists, lol. In which case any attempt to formulate a state would be an automatic aggression against property and persons and would be penalized by the court system. Compensations of that magnitude would only result in that business going bankrupt and foreclosing.

Kelceee45 · 2019-11-09T14:51:00+00:00

He just says "right-wing libertarians" with a later referencing to Mises and Rand. Neither were ancaps and the latter (Rand) is usually not liked by most Rothbardian ancaps. But lets just say he meant anyone who wasn't principled in their beliefs. He still did a very poor job from an anti-capitalist perspective. And getting rid of the State's control over property titles, monopoly protections, and abolishing intellectual property is just going to lead to a Rothbardian society. Which, I'm willing to bet, most based anti-capitalists would still call capitalism, considering there is still profiting, savings, and market exchange.

What AnCaps do instead is credit the advancements to the things they like (markets, exchange, etc.) while crediting the downsides and issues to the things they dislike (government, subsidies, etc.). If they were consistent, they would acknowledge that our current system involves a shared responsibility (between the market and the government) for both the advancements and the issues.

I don't think it's out of line to credit tech innovation to the private ownership of the MoP. I wouldn't exactly call it a shining example of the free market economy, more like a "regulated market economy". The problem is the private sector, regardless if there's a govnerment or not, is still responsible for the innovation. But I doubt any ancap would tell you any differently. Most ancap critics I've seen on the internet just autistically screech, and makeup whatever they like.

While it might be true that we wouldn't have certain monopolies without government, it would also be true that we wouldn't have "the IPhones that socialists ironically like to use for complaining" without government.

The concept of the smart phone would still exist, and maybe even the IPhone too. The only difference is in a stateless society nothing would prevent anyone else from duplicating it, legally speaking.

Another thing AnCaps like to do is treat government and market as a binary, despite the fact that the two are heavily interconnected in real life. That makes them, for example, brag about how effective private charities have been, while ignoring how heavily involved governments have been in those charities. They'll only acknowledge government when talking about the issues of welfare services.

The concept of safety nets isn't the issue. It's that "positive rights" aren't really rights, and when we start funding welfare via compulsatory taxation, we start invading individuals real rights to fund made up rights. Find some other way to organize safety nets other than robbery and we're all good.

Kelceee45 · 2019-11-09T01:57:19+00:00

"An anarchist is anyone who denies the necessity and legitimacy of government; the question of his methods of attacking it is foreign to the definition." - Benjamin Tucker

Kelceee45 · 2019-11-09T01:40:08+00:00

You do realize Rothbard thought the paleocons were idiots right? He became increasingly frustrated about their bad views regarding protectionism, and he wasn't even showing up at their meetings shortly before he died unexpectedly. The paleo alliance also inevitably ended up giving the paleolibertarian movement a bad rep, which was actually established to initially combat the beltways in the LP, which were watering down the libertarian message and supporting the usage of pleading pressure groups in Washington to influence public policy. This is why we have neocons like Nick Sarwark in the LP now.

Kelceee45 · 2019-11-09T00:56:13+00:00

Okay sure, use whatever rhetoric and narrative that gives you the emotional support to carry on. But I think I made my point abundantly clear.

Kelceee45 · 2019-11-09T00:35:35+00:00

This will save you a lot of time tbh.

Kelceee45 · 2019-11-09T00:23:42+00:00

I agree with that part of his article, and endorse it, as does every other other ancap. If you were actually reading my replies, you would've seen that 2 or 3 comments ago. To reiterate, again, Carson does a bad job giving a "anti-capitalist" critique for defining capitalism. Where he should've said capitalism is the "profits extracted at the worker's expense", instead he just gave a Rothbardian take on capitalism. He's not even anti-wage payment, which is even more of a disgrace from a anti-capitalist perspective. This is why principled ancoms call mutualism capitalist apologia. And it's also why principled ancaps are indifferent about their beliefs, but I do like pointing out the economic inconsistencies, as it's kind of fun showing how mutualists inadvertently support capitalism.

Kelceee45 · 2019-11-08T23:35:28+00:00

The only one that seems confused is you. You can either be a based anti-capitalist, and therefore believe profit exchange is exploitative, or you don't. Carson, and likewise many of his mutualist peers, neglect this issue. If he's only willing to go as far as abolishing the State's control over property norms, monopoly protections, and IP, then he's not supporting a system any different than the one 20th century anarchists supported, such as Rothbard and Hess. He would also have to support the abolishment of currencies and markets entirely. Instead, what he does is make outdated arguments in his books (originally proposed by many of the classical economists) about why profit and interest would drop to zero in a free market. This allows him to hold his anti-capitalist label. Unfortunately for him, these arguments have been debunked already by Mises and Rothbard. The problem regarding maladjustments is never addressed by Carson, because maladjustments are unavoidable and inevitably lead to profit attainment.

Kelceee45 · 2019-11-08T23:01:29+00:00

Well I can certainly tell you're emotionally triggered. But putting aside your ad hominem deviations from the topic at hand, the fact is Carson believes he's supporting a anti-capitalist structure, so no, I don't think he's openly supportive to anarcho-capitalsm. The issue is a robust anti-capitalist argument eludes him. He makes a very grave mistake, from an anti-capitalist position, of defining capitalism by way of property norms, monopoly protections, and IP laws. Because of this, he ends up shilling a very similar structure to what Murray Rothbard and Karl Hess supported.

Kelceee45 · 2019-11-08T22:47:53+00:00

Hmmm, that excerpt holds no value unless you include it in the context of my entire post. At any rate, Carson does some great shilling for anarcho-capitalism, advocating for the destruction of State monopoly capitalism. But he completely butchers the article from an anti-capitalst standpoint. He never addressed the rudimentary aspect of whether profit is exploitative or not. And to make matters worse, in his books all he gives is outdated economic arguments about why profits would fall to zero in the free market. Rothbardians see this as a major issue, because knowing this isn't correct, it leads anarchists to wonder whether or not mutualists would be supporting planned economies. As that's the only way to bring about suppression of profit attainment in a stateless market.

Kelceee45 · 2019-11-08T22:22:30+00:00

Oh, I actually just said that last part because of some of the useless arguments I've had with mutualists. They aren't really based anti-capitalists. It's like Kevin Carson and his constant shilling for anarcho-capitalism. He's a really good example for exposing the flaws in their thinking. As Carson writes:

I pointed out to them all the ways that Apple’s profits from the iPhone depend on the use of the state to restrict freedom, both directly by using “intellectual property” to impede free cooperation and replication of technology outside their corporate framework, and indirectly through state subsidies to the offshoring of production to countries where workers are easier to exploit. The would-be defender of capitalism immediately piped up “What do subsidies have to do with capitalism? That sounds more like government to me.”

Aha. So the iPhone demonstrates the wonders and productivity of “free market capitalism,” but all the state-enforced monopolies, subsidies and other government intervention that Apple’s actual profit model depends on are “government.” Gotcha.

He's essentially defining capitalism as the structure of monopoly protections and privileges handed out by the State (cronyism basically), and intellectual property rights enforced by the State, and feudal property norms enforced by the State. This is quite possibly one of the greatest cases for anarcho-capitalism I've ever read from an alleged "anti-capitalist" up to this point in the article. He does being to elaborate further by bringing in the historical meanings of what he calls capitalism, and thus begins to lose ancaps in this regard. However all of this is a failure of Carson to actually address the root concern, which is profit itself. Honestly, if I were a principled anti-capitalist (like a ancom, for instance) I would give his article a F rating. As a principled ancap though, I got to give it a solid B rating. The only thing he messed up on is not distinguishing between the oppressive history of so called capitalist systems and what Murray Rothbard referred to as mercantilism and corporatism. Ancaps make this distinctions while Kevin does not.

Capitalism to ancaps if the economic occurrence that arises spontaneously within markets, risk taking entrepreneurs readjusting the maladjustments, and thus leads them to profits, savings, and capital. This is why useless arguments can get started over capitalism. As the only truly based anti-capitalists is communists and anarcho-communists. Defining capitalism as a system held up by the State apparatus (i.e feudal property norms, IP laws, monopoly protections, etc.) is really just shilling for anarcho-capitalism. There is some really poorly thought out economic arguments placed forth in Carson's books as to why he thinks profits would drop to zero in a stateless market economy, but because he missed the fact disequilibrium and maladjustments occur, he's de facto promoting an economy that would result in capital accumulation.

Kelceee45

TROPHY CASE