Paradox: Monopoly verging on feudalism emerges from unregulated competition to bite libertarianism in the arse-end.
... Over the years, I'd like to think that I've developed a sense of the difference between real crap that you can step on and slip in and the Ideal Platonic kind of bullshit that exists, it seems, only in the heads of those who insist on worshipping such muddled abstractions. I continue to notice that libertarianism bears an uncanny resemblance to ideal Platonic crap of the worst and stinkyiest kind.
In Libertopia, equality will consist of both rich and poor being equally prohibited from pissing in the privately owned streets (without paying), sleeping under the privately owned bridges (without paying), and scraping food from the bins of its past and rightful owners! Let's be blunt here -- Anarcho-capitalism (for that is what this creed is) is against the State simply because they are capitalists first and foremost. They are not concerned with the social consequences of capitalism for the weak and powerless.They propose to use the 'market' to distribute 'rights'; but most people wouldn't like to see rights distributed as unevenly as incomes are.
Anarcho-capitalism -- capitalism in it's purest most pitiless form, capitalism without even a shadow of a conscience -- nothing but a fundamentalist, ideological and dogmatic justification for selfishness.The notion that a society could be regulated entirely by market forces is a utopian fantasy; by imagining what the world would be like if everyone's behavior was utterly consistent with some abstract moral ideal -- in this case, economic theories that assume all human action is based on calculating, systematic, (but scrupulously law-abiding), greed.
Libertarians aren't interested in liberty. Their concern is to defend private property by an obsessive, uncritical penetration of the concept of the market into every aspect of life and drive out all other institutions that might give us the choice (liberty! freedom!) to put limits on markets. The result is that liberty for libertarians only ever enters the argument at points where it can be conveniently re-defined in terms of private ownership. Democracy is a result of a political response to real inequalities in power; if the 'market' acts as a pale imitation of democracy then democracy itself makes no sense. This is why those really oppressed by capitalism show not the slightest interest in this half-baked fantasy of muddleheads.
Economic and political myths deserve the same scrutiny and subsequent bashing as does the Bible, Koran or any of the myriad other supersticious claptrap. I think that 'free-market' lawless market economic theory falls into the category of myth. Much as faith healing, the resurrection, Santa Claus and the tooth fairy does. The theorems, assumptions and ultimatums of this cranky wishlist for a utopia just does not stand up in the light of historical or contemporary analysis. The advocates of the unfettered market are nothing but ideologues who cut facts to fit their ideas, rather than ideas to fit the facts.
Comments (4)
The singular accomplishment of Libertarianism is to create and expound a philosophy that's just as loony and just as contrary to evidence and experience as Marxism, but completely different.
That being said, it also has in common with Marxism that there are within it concepts that can be useful for the construction of thought experiments, if nothing else. Consider, for instance, the doctrine of "unforced exchange."
Regards,
Ric Locke
Posted by Ric Locke | November 25, 2004 6:34 AM
Just came from Normblog. I thought the post excellent. I tend to see this sort of extreme ideological position as, well just too one sided and usually in response to some other ideology that has become too one sided. I tend to think of it in terms of a pair of opposites - the tension between the individual and the group would seem to be the main one involved here. I think the ideologs of both sides tend to want to eliminate the other position and often the more extreme they are the more wrong they are. I think the systems that take into consideration both sides of a basic pair of opposites such as the individual and the group are much more productive and usefull. I would argue, for instance, that since WW2, that un trammelled capitalism has been sufficiently regulated using the Keynsean model in the US and the Social Democtratic model in Europe so that capitalism has avoided the paradox of monopoly you refer to as well as managed to preempt disasterous boom bust cycles. The bitter and destructive ideological battle going on in the west is, to me, a tragic fraternal struggle over relatively small differences. Both Europe and the US have made a success of regulated capitalism and a goodly portion of the rest of the world - like India and China and quite a few other places - have followed suit. It is messy and far from perfect but it seems to outperform both total state ownership and let it rip capitalism. For me the task is to acknowledge both sides of a pair of opposites and struggle to bring them into a reasonable balance. Both/and is more often right than either/or said the Hindu Philosopher Nagananda.
Posted by Lgude | November 25, 2004 1:02 PM
An excellent post, but what worries me is that the philosophy of state intervention appears to have an almost unstoppable momentum. Just think back to the heroic efforts of 'Superwoman', and all she managed was a slight pause in the progression! So yes, the libertarians are as 'loony' as the Marxists, but someone has got to scream and yell and kick against the traces or we'll all end up like Orwell's sad old horse.
Posted by David Duff | November 25, 2004 6:53 PM
Yep, excellent post, they are a nasty type of scum.
Posted by Mat | November 29, 2004 10:32 AM