What to Remember on Memorial Day
When news outlets and social media share photos of tearful mothers, fathers, wives, and children mourning their lost loved ones, my heart breaks at the senseless death and unnecessary sorrow. The state claimed a life, and then marked its claim by adorning the casket in its symbolism. And too few people earnestly ask why.
You’re told to remember “sacrifices” today. That certain people “died for your freedom.”
They didn’t.
You’re told to “honor your country” today. That its government is an extension of the people’s will by way of the consent of the governed.
It isn’t.
What you should remember today are the millions of lives and countless liberties lost at the whim and behest of the state.
You owe the state and its minions the same a victim owes his attacker: animosity and contempt. Freedom is free. Anyone who says otherwise is only preaching subservience and acquiescence. As I said on Veterans’ Day: “we should not be wiled by trite propaganda into supporting militarism under the guise of requisite defense of freedom.”
You should no more be grateful to the metastatic state than you should be grateful to metastatic cancer. Anything good the state ever does can always be done without the state’s monopoly on force (and, without its inherently lumbering and corrupt bureaucracy, in a more just and efficient manner). There is no such thing as a necessary evil as evil can never be a prerequisite for good.
Ultimately, the state is unnecessary, and its democratic pretenses purporting its validity are illegitimate.
Those blinded by uncritical “patriotism” will no doubt find these truths “disrespectful,” but to echo previous remarks from last Memorial Day: “The most respectful way to honor fallen troops is to not continue sending more troops to die in unprovoked and unnecessary wars.”
We can not properly memorialize the very real human beings who have died very real deaths - the very real losses of countless families - by celebrating needless war, promoting wanton destruction, and glorifying the very state that made those tragic losses possible. People who truly follow a desire to protect others, and are even willing to surrender their own lives for the well-being of not just their loved ones but complete strangers, certainly possess qualities that should be admired. But let’s not allow the genuinely honorable idealism that permeates many of those when they enlist - to protect their fellow man, to honor the principles of individual liberty codified in the constitution, to stamp out evil in the world - to cloud the sad reality of what those soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines eventually become: tools for the political and economic whims of politicians, bureaucrats, despots, overlords, oppressors, and their cronies. The worst thing one can do for a fallen soldier is to dehumanize and transmogrify him into a symbol for the exaltation of the state.
The state is not you. Unless you’re a politician, plutocrat, or connected crony, it doesn’t serve you except whatever minimum is required to buy your quiet compliance. As I’ve said previously, “The state and its symbols are not synonymous with society. Nor are they representative of you or any other individual in particular. When your identity is intermixed with your government and your patriotism becomes sacerdotal reverence, you become a mindless minion of the state to be manipulated into agreeing to whatever loss of liberty best suits your god government.
“Be a good neighbor to your fellow man, not a doting subject to the state.”
On Memorial Day, you’re supposed to “remember the men and women who died while serving in the United States Armed Forces.” By all means, remember them - and reflect on how most of them had their lives unnecessarily and prematurely extinguished for and by the state. Grieve for their families who not only lost loved ones in a likely pointless endeavor but were fed lies as to the true reason for their loss. Ponder what little value those in power, contrary to their empty platitudes, place on the lives of even the most noble member of the military. Consider how many more youths, riled by the pomp and pageantry of such memorializations, will naively follow the same ruinous paths as those who are remembered today.
Mark this day as one to contemplate the state’s tragic acts on its own people, and how it masks its atrocities with the rhetorical drapes of “honor,” “sacrifice,” “bravery,” “heroism,” and - when ugly truths arise - “just following orders.” Let this day be one of shame for those in power who send our neighbors, friends, and family members to die for their own selfish causes, and let it be a day of shame for the fooled and compliant masses who support, obey, agitate, glorify, conspire with, and cover for the state.
And if you feel inclined to hoist a flag today, make it a black one.
Re: On Minimum Wage, "show me the equity" →
After receiving a few messages today regarding the minimum wage, I thought it worthwhile to offer a brief summary of the argument. (For a bit more detail, please see my post Repeal the Minimum Wage.)
The premise can be understood in one sentence: you set a price floor for anything, you create a surplus of supply.
When it’s a price floor on hirable labor (aka a minimum wage) - you get a surplus of hirable labor (aka unemployment).
laliberty
please tell me what happens when the ‘market clears’.
It is when a good (or service) reaches its equilibrium price, courtesy of consensual and mutually beneficial exchange. The market is a discovery process, and prices are merely the natural result of the multitudes of independent exchanges expressing individual preferences. A market, then, is said to “clear” when the demand and supply find relative stability, and satisfaction of consumer desires is thus maximized. Prices set outside this process, such as a minimum wage determined by a central planning state, are necessarily arbitrary, since there is no standard against which they can be said to be correct or incorrect.
what happens to those who would have been willing to work at a higher wage?
You mean the entire human race? Can’t imagine too many individuals who aren’t “willing to work at a higher wage.”
are they not unemployed?
Only if they are, in fact, unemployed.
or are they just not officially unemployed, having been so discouraged at the lack of jobs that cover basic expenses that they don’t even bother looking?
For these unfortunate individuals at the margin, it is the minimum wage that makes them “officially” unemployed; so some earnings are better than no earnings (a preference that is made clear once the individual performs the action of accepting a given job). Plus, once the hurdles of interventionism are removed, competition will ensure that prices reflect the new “savings” of lowered wages, making the necessities the now gainfully employed individual would like cheaper.
and what about notions of fairness?
What’s fair about a third party using aggression to interfere in the voluntary, peaceful, and mutually beneficial exchange of others? And, to be sure, every free market exchange is mutually beneficial. Every participant values what he receives more than what he gives up, otherwise the exchange would not take place as there is no state gun to anyone’s head threatening him to act against his will.
is it not fair that a business entering into a contract with someone for that person to spend a day working for that business, to offer in exchange a wage that covers all that day’s expenses? from travel to board to sustenance to leisure?
What’s fair is for every party in an exchange to only give up what they are willing to, and nothing more.
or do we live in a society where we all see with how little we can get away with paying, or how much we can get away with when entering into any contract, any relation with other people?
Have you ever walked into a store and offered more than the asking price for any item? Have you ever opened a menu and thought, “This is an unfair price! I must pay them double!” Or do you, more often than not, understand that wealth saved at one location can be placed toward another desire elsewhere? Negotiations and haggling aren’t taking advantage because all parties are free to simply walk away if the offers are no longer beneficial. No one’s stopping you from paying more, of course. You are free to be as generous as you please. But the market-clearing price is about fairness not charity. Both parties in a given exchange are always trying to give up less than they receive in order to maximize their material or psychic profit. Meanwhile, the existence of competitors ensures that no one is unfairly overcharged or under-compensated. This is true for all exchanges, even labor. The fact that most people employed today - that is, approximately 95% of all hourly-paid workers in the U.S. - actually earn more than the minimum wage proves that employers must and do compete for labor.
if that is the society we live in, laliberty, why do you wish to reinforce it by abolishing the minimum wage? is that society not just a little worse to live in? a little less safe as people trust each other a little less? a little unhappier as some worry about having a little less?
Let’s consider the previous post on your blog. It says simply, “why do we not stand up to the bully?” and you tagged it “non-violence.”
Now how do you comport that sentiment with your above lament? How can you be against bullies and violence when you clearly advocate for a bully, the state, to use its monopoly on force to threaten violence on individuals if they don’t concede authority over their private decisions.
You speak of society, but what is society? Is it not merely individuals and their consensual interconnected relationships? Well, that’s all the free market is: individuals interacting. If we insert violence into these relationships, even for some purported greater good, we’re already off to a bad start. How can you suggest that your way, with this third party leviathan that inserts itself into the personal decisions of others (usually at the behest of “special interests”), is one that fosters more trust and happiness?
To the contrary, allowing no interference in the peaceful and voluntary interactions of people ensures every exchange is mutually beneficial, and as such we would all be wealthier and more free (which no doubt would lead to greater happiness and, when all individuals enter every exchange with the same power to walk away, greater trust).
I understand your concern. You and some others like you who support the minimum wage are disturbed by the conditions of the poor. (Though there are many - among them racists, xenophobes, and labor unions - who support a minimum wage for strictly selfish purposes). But a minimum wage does not solve these problems. It only makes those very same poor carry a disproportionately heavier burden.
I can, of course, point to no shortage of Austrian and neoclassical literature expressing my problems with minimum wage. But even some Keynesians once understood this…
Paul Samuelson expressed this succinctly:
- “What good does it do a black youth to know that an employer must pay him $2.00 an hour if the fact that he must be paid that amount is what keeps him from getting a job?”
Also, James Tobin:
- “I am against minimum wage legislation and have said so. It diminishes job opportunities, ceteris paribus, and it is an inefficient and haphazard tool for income maintenances or redistribution.”
- “People who lack the capacity to earn a decent living need to be helped, but they will not be helped by minimum wage laws, trade union wage pressures, or other devices which seek to compel employers to pay them more than their work is worth. The more likely outcome of such regulation is that the intended beneficiaries are not employed at all.”
This should be uncontroversial: if you truly care about the plight of the poor, you must not support a minimum wage.
Minimum Wage, a Synopsis
After receiving a few messages today regarding the minimum wage, I thought it worthwhile to offer a brief summary of the argument. (For a bit more detail, please see my post Repeal the Minimum Wage.)
The premise can be understood in one sentence: you set a price floor for anything, you create a surplus of supply.
When it’s a price floor on hirable labor (aka a minimum wage) - you get a surplus of hirable labor (aka unemployment).
It’s fairly basic economics: as the artificially dictated price increases above the market clearing price, the overall quantity demanded by consumers decreases (and thus supply remains unsold).
Lower-skilled workers in particular become un-hireable when their productivity in a given job is less than the wage an employer must pay. If a person can only contribute $5 an hour in productivity, any wage above $5 (plus overhead, insurance, taxes, and whatever profit that makes the employee worth hiring in the first place) would make the hire a net negative, or loss, to the employer. And no business can be competitive, much less sustainable, by carrying losses.
This glut of hirable labor as a result of a price floor in wages, in turn and counter to intentions, grants more power to the employers who now have more candidates for every job opening. Instead of these mostly entry-level candidates being able to negotiate their foot in the door, the employer may be able to use extraneous criteria that may have previously been unnecessary or immaterial (extended referrals, higher education completed, greater experience, church attendance, shared interests, ethnicity, etc.) to decide who to hire.
Employers often also increase prices of their products to compensate for their greater expenses, and thus pass off the costs to consumers (and we’re all consumers).
In the long run, the effects are further compounded as employers invest in ways to stay competitive by using machinery to automate tasks previously performed by workers. And once that investment has been made and the new efficiency has been created, it is unlikely to be reversed. Another long-term effect is that employers lose flexibility in offering non-wage benefits. To be able to afford the new wages: compromises may be made with regards to working conditions, vacation days may be decreased, or a workplace that was once more casual may make stricter and less comfortable demands in order to increase the productivity of the workers commensurate to their increase in pay.
So not only does a minimum wage price some workers out of the market altogether, it also incentivizes employers to find ways to use existing labor less and in a less favorable manner. This is what Bastiat called “that which is not seen.”
It is utter common sense: making something more expensive tends to force people to use less of it (by eliminating it altogether, finding ways to do more with less, or simply turning to alternatives, including black market options). Statists seem to understand this principle with regards to things like sin taxes, gasoline taxes, or penalties for overwatering a lawn - but unfortunately they fail to make the connection when it is the price of labor that is increased.
Forget the issues…
…it was my lack of a small, cheap potholder that was holding me back.
And yes, that is a democrat pushing his republican approval. After redistricting, there are now two democrat incumbents (Howard Berman and Brad Sherman) going after the same new seat, and after 2010’s Proposition 14 that creates an open primary in which only the top two vote-getters move on to the general election (which, at the time I rightly called a “disastrous measure [that] would destroy third parties, muddle policy positions, and encourage banal, middle-of-the-road statist candidates.”), Berman is now staking the claim as the right-leaner of the two (he often promotes his support of police and defense) who are likely to move on to the general election.
I’ve had nothing but un-flattering things to say about the unspectacularly partly-line statists Berman and Sherman, who have both, at one time or another, been the rat claiming direct authority over “district” in which I’ve lived.
And you would think I’d be off Berman’s mailing list after the snark-tastic letter I sent him last year, among other correspondence, would label me as a waste of campaign funds. But I guess that would presume he’d be organized, efficient, and interested in saving money - which are three things a politician is not.
“Tron: Uprising” Could Be Epic
Just watched the first episode (which previewed a few days ago but officially premieres June 7) with my oldest daughter. Beck, the young insurgent who will be the main protagonist of the show, has this exchange with Tron:
TRON: “You understand this makes you an enemy of the State?”
BECK: “The State is the enemy.”
Finally some straight talk in a kids’ TV show.
Sen. Rand Paul Introduces Amendment to Rein in FDA Abuse - 05/23/12
“Paul’s amendment to the Prescription Drug User Fee Act has two parts: Part I would allow the makers of health products to advertise their benefits. “There’s no earthly reason why somebody who markets prune juice can’t advertise it helps with constipation,” Paul said. Part II of the amendment would prohibit FDA employees (as well as all other Health and Human Services employees) from carrying weapons and making arrests without warrants.”
“I think we have too many armed federal agencies, and that we need to put an end to this. Criminal law seems to be increasing, increasingly is using a tool of our government bureaucracy to punish and control honest businessmen for simply attempting to make a living.
Historically the criminal law was intended to punish only the most horrible offenses that everyone agreed were inherently wrong or evil, offenses like rape, murder, theft, arson – but now we’ve basically federalized thousands of activities and called them crimes.”
Update: The amendment failed 78-15
Not surprised.
Any common sense legislation that restores liberty to individuals and/or strips some power from the state is likely to receive bi-partisan opposition.
The Scarcity of Time
A lot of people seem to think that if we could solve the problem of scarcity, all of a sudden economic issues would be solved. In other words, if we had infinite resources everyone would have access to as much as they wanted and everyone would be happy. But this isn’t true.
I think I can explain the point by describing my brother making breakfast in the morning. Monday through Friday I’ll wake up and go out into the kitchen and see my brother making breakfast. He always makes a basic egg and cheddar cheese omelet and after he’s finished he goes to work. However, his breakfast routine changes on Saturday and Sunday. In addition to his egg and cheddar cheese omelet, he also adds sliced vegetables and meat as well.
So exactly what’s changing his action between the weekdays and the weekend? Technically speaking, his resources are plentiful. He has access to the same ingredients Monday through Friday as he does on Saturday and Sunday but his meals are still different. The factor that’s determining his action is time. Even though he has an abundance of resources (ingredients) all seven days of the week, time is determining the amount of labor he allocates towards preparing his breakfast. On the weekdays he wants something simple and filling before work and on the weekends he wants something a little nicer with more ingredients since he doesn’t have to leave the house earlier to make it to work on time.
Sure the world would be a better place if resources were infinite but there’s still the issue of time and some people don’t seem to understand this. Maybe this helped clear things up.
Indeed. But to clarify, it’s not simply that his desires or demands shift on the weekends - he’d no doubt like those veggies and meat in his omelette on the weekdays - it’s that his preferences adjust based on the opportunity cost of adding those extra ingredients to his omelette. On the weekdays, because (again) his time is scarce, he’d either have to give up a few minutes of sleep or be a few minutes late to work. By choosing a more basic omelette on weekdays, his action reveals his preferences: he’d rather skip the extra ingredients and sleep in/get to work on time.
I’ve mentioned time as the scarcest resource before (most recently in my Money and Speech post) but Rothbard kicks off chapter 1 of Man, Economy, and State explaining how the scarcity of time leads to the development of preferences which leads to action. Time, after all, is the one resource that must be used as a means to attain all ends.
This is fundamental stuff:
All human life must take place in time. Human reason cannot even conceive of an existence or of action that does not take place through time. At a time when a human being decides to act in order to attain an end, his goal, or end, can be finally and completely attained only at some point in the future. If the desired ends could all be attained instantaneously in the present, then man’s ends would all be attained and there would be no reason for him to act; and we have seen that action is necessary to the nature of man. Therefore, an actor chooses means from his environment, in accordance with his ideas, to arrive at an expected end, completely attainable only at some point in the future. For any given action, we can distinguish among three periods of time involved: the period before the action, the time absorbed by the action, and the period after the action has been completed. All action aims at rendering conditions at some time in the future more satisfactory for the actor than they would have been without the intervention of the action.
A man’s time is always scarce. He is not immortal; his time on earth is limited. Each day of his life has only 24 hours in which he can attain his ends. Furthermore, all actions must take place through time. Therefore time is a means that man must use to arrive at his ends. It is a means that is omnipresent in all human action.
Action takes place by choosing which ends shall be satisfied by the employment of means. Time is scarce for man only because whichever ends he chooses to satisfy, there are others that must remain unsatisfied. When we must use a means so that some ends remain unsatisfied, the necessity for a choice among ends arises.
Obama’s biggest re-election hurdles
- The Democrats. Obama ran a largely insurgent campaign in 2008. This meant that the people who cling to the coat tails of whomever they think will win all flocked to Clinton. The end result was that Clinton got an unmanageable operation full of egos with impressive resumes. Now all those egos are going to try to get Obama reelected. They’re a liability.
- Appalachia. Obama is not doing well in West Virginia and Kentucky primaries—even where he’s largely unopposed. That’s not too much of a problem. He wasn’t expecting to win there anyway. Unfortunately, the demographics that really don’t like Obama spill into parts of Ohio and Virginia where Obama does want to win. Some of the opposition has to do with race. Some of it has to do with messaging problems. Much of it has to do with a (reasonable) sense that Obama is not-too-keen on coal-mining.
- Wall Street. A lot of the investment bankers liked Obama in 2008. He was fresh. Technocratic. The kind of guy they could support. They were smart. He was smart. It was a good match. Except .. for some reason Obama isn’t going to let them loot the country like Romney would. This has made some people with a lot of money uncomfortable.
I like how Squashed rights off the entire midwest as racists who don’t understand Obama’s “message.” Did it ever occur to you that we don’t support his actual policies?
Here’s a brief list of why I wont be supporting Obama (and also why a lot of other college aged voters I’ve had contact with wont be voting for him).
- Gitmo is still open.
- We are still at war in the Middle East (even more so than when Obama was inaugurated).
- Drone strikes are increasing.
- NDAA
- Patriot Act reauthorization.
- Escalation of War on Drugs.
- Increased subsidies for “green” energy while obstructing coal, natural gas, oil exploration (hey at least one thing you said was right).
- Escalation of the deportations of illegal immigrants.
- The realization that he is just another politician who does not have the interests of the people in mind.
Note that none of these things have to do with a failure to message or the color of his skin. It’s because he fucking sucks as a human being and not to mention as a president.
I’d also like to point out that Romney and Obama agree on everything I’ve listed here except for maybe on energy.
Typical Obama Apologetics, putting “the blame of Obama’s failures squarely upon the shoulders of the unthinking masses, too stupid or self-centered or racist or confused to properly support the true savior.”
And to insinuate that Obama is no friend to Wall Street - who was bank-rolled by Wall Street, has repeatedly gifted Wall Street with bailouts, and whose administration is filled with Wall-Streeters - takes some serious chutzpah.
A partisan with any sort of intellectual integrity (I guess such a thing is an oxymoron) would start a list of Obama’s re-election hurdles with Obama himself, for reasons that include what Nate listed above. The peace president who loves war, the transparency candidate who’s denied more FOIA requests than anyone, the whistle-blower supporter who’s locked away Bradley Manning, the champion of minority causes who’s deported more immigrants in three years than Bush in eight, the constitutional scholar who who signed the NDAA, Patriot Act, ACTA, and the death warrants of Americans “tried” without due process… Obama is the biggest hurdle to his own re-election. Luckily for him and his supporters, they’re right that the masses tend to be un-thinking - which is why I consider his re-election likely. But fret not, Obamaites: if Romney does win, nearly nothing will change. The support for leviathan’s expansion will continue on schedule.
Would-Be Lords of the Manor →
Irked that Facebook co-founder Eduardo Saverin has renounced his U.S. citizenship, [Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) and Sen. Robert Casey (D-PA)] propose, with [their] “Ex-Patriot Act,” to punitively tax and to permanently bar from ever again entering America men and women who, to reduce their tax liabilities, renounce their citizenship in the U.S.
The very fact that sitting U.S. senators issue such a proposal – the sick reality that representatives of an allegedly free people act as if individuals are serfs bound to a master – the noxious yet proudly paraded assumption by American government officials that a peaceful man’s or woman’s freedom of movement can properly be restricted by a government jealous that it misses the opportunity to seize a huge chunk of that man’s or woman’s earnings – does nothing other than to confirm the wisdom and justice of Mr. Saverin’s decision.
LRC’s David Kramer draws non-hyperbolic parallels with Nazi Germany, noting that the Third Reich also forbade ex-pats from returning and that the U.S. tax is actually “much worse than the Nazi’s.” And all this is in addition to the fact that unlike most countries, the U.S. taxes its citizens on worldwide income even if said citizen is not residing in the U.S., and that there is already an Expatriation Tax on the books.
I’ve mentioned before: Chuck Schumer represents the worst of the statist impulses that can be found in the criminal snake pit that is D.C. He’s never had an experience that didn’t somehow lead him to conclude that more government was needed somewhere. He’s built a career on catering to myriad special interests, so long as those interests fall in line with his ultimate interest: more power - and more revenue - to the state.
More on “Markets not Capitalism”
I saw Chartier speak in LA last summer. I like him. I like a lot of what he says. I thought Chartier’s “Conscience of an Anarchist” was pretty good. But that was an earlier Chartier and this book is not just Chartier; it’s a collection of essays by many of the bigger names in mutualism, agorism, and “left-libertarianism.” Think of it as C4SS in print. (You can always tell when the adjective free becomes the adverb freed.)
And while “Markets not Capitalism” is couched in the language of, as Dustin suggests, “anarchy without hyphens,” it looks to achieve this by playing with [fairly] agreeable rhetoric so as to push “left-libertarianism” generally and mutualism specifically.
So the press to unify anti-statists by dropping hyphens only works, then, if said anti-statists adopt mutualist ideas of rejecting wage labor in toto, rejecting all hierarchy (even voluntary hierarchy), rejecting subjective theory of value (favoring Labor Theory of Value), and rejecting Lockean/Austrian understandings of property rights - among other things. Which is fine. Every book pushes its own point of view. Just don’t think that this book is about universal principles or that it’s about understanding the differences between anti-statists and cultivating the common ground.
The authors are smart people, to be sure. And there are certainly a number of insights to be gained in understanding their arguments (which are often extremely thoughtful). Just don’t be confused about what it is.
See here (and here) for more of my thoughts on mutualism.
(Incidentally, I thought Rollback was excellent.)
I think it’s more than a bit of a stretch to say that a book including essays from Murray Rothbard, Karl Hess, Roy Childs, Roderick Long, Brad Spangler, Sheldon Richman, and Mary Ruwart —- six Rothbardians* plus Rothbard himself —- promotes “specifically mutualism.”
There is nothing in the freed market anti-capitalism position that indicates specifically mutualism (as you acknowledge in the previous ask box question that you link to.) In fact (as I indicate there), it seems that the majority of those at the C4SS (and I’d agree that the book is roughly “C4SS in print”) are themselves left-Rothbardian agorists. Rather, left-Rothbardians, mutualists, and left-agorists are all included within that broad tent. And the general superstructure of that kind of an anarchism would allow for smaller social anarchist communities within such a stateless society (hence the anarchism without hyphens).
Also, I have to disagree with your claim that: “So the press to unify anti-statists by dropping hyphens only works, then, if said anti-statists adopt mutualist ideas of rejecting wage labor in toto, rejecting all hierarchy (even voluntary hierarchy), rejecting subjective theory of value (favoring Labor Theory of Value), and rejecting Lockean/Austrian understandings of property rights - among other things.”
As stated earlier, there are several decidedly non-mutualist authors in the book. Not only that, rejection of wage labor isn’t a specifically mutualist idea (after all, both SEK3 and David Friedman reject wage labor as well), and it seems like you’ve over-simplified the actual account given of wage labor by most contemporary freed market anti-capitalists (including that given by contemporary mutualists). It’s certainly not clear (to say the least) that the book represents a rejection of “all hierarchy” (in the way that you seem to mean it), but rather a rejection of all unjust and oppressive forms of hierarchy. Long, Spangler, and Richman are all Austrians (and thus favor a subjective theory of value). Similarly, they favor the contemporary neo-Lockean account of land property rights (in fact, Long’s piece on public property is specifically framed from that perspective). The sole Rothbard piece, also, works specifically under the framework of neo-Lockean property rights.
Point being, you’re correct to note a strong presence of mutualism (especially with the nineteenth-century pieces) in the book, but to imply that the book itself is exclusively mutualist is inaccurate.*Hess is a little complicated, but at the time the writing from him was written, he was solidly left-Rothbardian.
Throw a few banana slices in a bowl of cereal and it’d still be a bowl of cereal.
Long, Spangler, Richman and the others you list are all (save for Rothbard himself) considered “left-libertarian,” yes? When I emphasize mutualism it is precisely in the way it deviates with traditional libertarian thought (in those ways that I list) that makes it what is “specifically” pushed, even if most are agorists. The reason I note mutualists in this way and not agorists is that while all agorists promote the same strategy (e.g. non-cooperation with the state, including not voting and actively seeking grey and black market options), there is a philosophical split between those who may be considered austrian agorists on one side and mutualist agorists on the other. The mutualist side is what is featured in this book because although, as you mention, there are authors who fall on the austrian side, their selected essays are not about those opinions. While Richamn, as one example, may adhere to subjective property rights, he also believes wage labor would become non-existent in a “freed” market. And in this book, if I remember correctly, he never wrote on any topic in a way that would be counter to mutualist thought.
You’re right. This is not specifically a book about mutualism. And I decidedly did not “imply that the book itself is exclusively mutualist.” The crucial point is that when this book reaches an area of disagreement, it falls (I think exclusively, though I don’t remember every single essay) on the side of mutualism.
(Source: disobey)
A book every “anarcho-capitalist” and “anarcho-syndicalist” should read. Perhaps it would clear up some of their misconceptions about themselves and one another, and help work toward a better understanding of anarchism without hyphens.This book is a collection of left-wing pro-market, anticapitalist anarchist writing, edited by Gary Chartier & Charles W. Johnson. Individualist anarchists believe in mutual exchange, not economic privilege. They believe in freed markets, not capitalism. They defend a distinctive response to the challenges of ending global capitalism and achieving social justice: eliminate the political privileges that prop up capitalists. Massive concentrations of wealth, rigid economic hierarchies, and unsustainable modes of production are not the results of the market form, but of markets deformed and rigged by a network of state-secured controls and privileges to the business class. Markets Not Capitalism explores the gap between radically freed markets and the capitalist-controlled markets that prevail today. It explains how liberating market exchange from state capitalist privilege can abolish structural poverty, help working people take control over the conditions of their labor, and redistribute wealth and social power. Featuring discussions of socialism, capitalism, markets, ownership, labor struggle, grassroots privatization, intellectual property, health care, racism, sexism, and environmental issues, this unique collection brings together classic essays by leading figures in the anarchist tradition, including Proudhon and Voltairine de Cleyre, and such contemporary innovators as Kevin Carson and Roderick Long. It introduces an eye-opening approach to radical social thought, rooted equally in libertarian socialism and market anarchism.
This is probably going to be the next book I read once I finish Thomas Woods’ Rollback.
I saw Chartier speak in LA last summer. I like him. I like a lot of what he says. I thought Chartier’s “Conscience of an Anarchist” was pretty good. But that was an earlier Chartier and this book is not just Chartier; it’s a collection of essays by many of the bigger names in mutualism, agorism, and “left-libertarianism.” Think of it as C4SS in print. (You can always tell when the adjective free becomes the adverb freed.)
And while “Markets not Capitalism” is couched in the language of, as Dustin suggests, “anarchy without hyphens,” it looks to achieve this by playing with fairly agreeable rhetoric so as to push “left-libertarianism” generally and mutualism specifically.
So the press to unify anti-statists by dropping hyphens only works, then, if said anti-statists adopt mutualist ideas of rejecting wage labor in toto, rejecting all hierarchy (even voluntary hierarchy), rejecting subjective theory of value (favoring Labor Theory of Value), and rejecting Lockean/Austrian understandings of property rights - among other things. Which is fine. Every book pushes its own point of view. Just don’t think that this book is about universal principles or that it’s about understanding the differences between anti-statists and cultivating the common ground.
The authors are smart people, to be sure. And there are certainly a number of insights to be gained in understanding their arguments (which are often extremely thoughtful). Just don’t be confused about what it is.
See here (and here) for more of my thoughts on mutualism.
(Incidentally, I thought Rollback was excellent.)
California Governor Calls for 4 Day Work Week for Government Workers →
California Governor Jerry Brown has proposed a four-day work week to reduce pay for state employees and other cuts, mostly in welfare and medical care for the poor.
Trimming the standard week would be the equivalent of a 5 percent pay cut, according to the Governor, saving $400 million a year for the desperate government of California.
Health care for the poor would also be cut back. It would take the biggest reduction, about $1.2 billion, with $1.1 billion sliced from welfare and care for the disabled.
The cuts though significant will not come close to closing the budget gap. The proposed cuts will amount $8.7 billion in total, but the estimated budget deficit is $15.7 billion for the coming fiscal year.
Actually, he’s only asking to cut two hours from the work week: 38 hours in four days instead of 40 hours in five.
But, of course, the most cost-effective, moral, and prosperous solution is to make it a zero-hour work week for all government workers. If something can’t be funded through voluntarily means, then it should not be funded at all.
Charity and Motives
I don’t care why people do charitable things. If others benefit from the action, their motives are irrelevant.
Indeed. From a post I wrote back in December:
But what counts more: a good deed voluntarily acted upon but with hidden, ulterior motives, or a good deed begrudgingly done through threat of force and violence? Or, worse still, a good deed one forces another to pay for or otherwise carry out?
If someone is consistently kind to others through his words and actions, does it really matter if he secretly detests those he is kind to? Would that person, to the outside world, not actually be kind? Conversely, if someone were rude and violent to his friends and family, would it matter very much if deep-down he sincerely loved them?
