Echoing some of my own recent comments, Stephan Kinsella takes out the trash over at Austro-Athenian Empire.
For some reason these disaffected “anti-corporate” types, who appear to largely be stuck in dismoded Marxian economics and social analysis, have no comprehension of the way real enterprise works. It’s as if a bunch of Che-teeshirt wearing grad students whose Republican daddies paid for their scholarships to Princeton and never worked a day in their lives were railing against “Wal-Mart.” They have some inexplicable, useless, and self-destructive (in the Darwinian sense; would that we had not short-circuited Darwinism with our modern capitalist largesse) animus against commerce and market life.
Hey, to each his own–but it’s not libertarian (IMHO), and it certainly doesn’t justify breaking the windows of merchants. They may feel “alienated” (though how pampered grad students and trust-fund babies can be alienated from labor you don’t actually perform with your own hands is a mystery), but to assume, Marx-like, that this is a natural condition of actors on the market is antiquated, to say the least.
So I would of course as a libertarian favor a rule whereby non-state actors having some color of title to property have a presumptive right to use it as owners until someone else can establish a better claim thereto. Pocahantas’s great—–grandniece can establish a better claim to the property than you? Fine. Hand it over. Such cases would be rare; and covered by title insurance. In the meantime: the world is for the living. Rand was not wrong about everything.
We as libertarians must–we must–support productive achievement, commerce, the market, freedom, free enterprise, the division of labor, economies of scale, individualism, and, above all, as Nozick said, capitalist acts between consenting adults–which these ignorant savages rail against.
Enough. Yes, we can appreciate the caution against vulgar libertarianism. But it is too much. Give me George Reisman’s “vulgar” libertarianism any day over the rock-throwing–and condoning–NON-libertarian misfits.
Bravo!
Anyone thirsty for even more trashing of these worthless degenerates should click the Anti-Left tag at the bottom of this post.
It is best to think of the Left as one gigantic drain on society.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
%20torture(1).jpg)
2 comments:
Heroic! :)
For some reason these disaffected “anti-corporate” types, who appear to largely be stuck in dismoded Marxian economics and social analysis, have no comprehension of the way real enterprise works. It’s as if a bunch of Che-teeshirt wearing grad students whose Republican daddies paid for their scholarships to Princeton and never worked a day in their lives were railing against “Wal-Mart.” They have some inexplicable, useless, and self-destructive (in the Darwinian sense; would that we had not short-circuited Darwinism with our modern capitalist largesse) animus against commerce and market life.
Anarchists should also oppose Wal-Mart the tax loopholes over its competitors, zoning priviledges that it uses and their lobbying of minimum wage raises.
Hey, to each his own–but it’s not libertarian (IMHO), and it certainly doesn’t justify breaking the windows of merchants. They may feel “alienated” (though how pampered grad students and trust-fund babies can be alienated from labor you don’t actually perform with your own hands is a mystery), but to assume, Marx-like, that this is a natural condition of actors on the market is antiquated, to say the least.
Most of the anarchists I know of used to oppose market provision of a few basic goods such as defense, law and roads. It's not just the irrational interventionalists that oppose the market.
So I would of course as a libertarian favor a rule whereby non-state actors having some color of title to property have a presumptive right to use it as owners until someone else can establish a better claim thereto. Pocahantas’s great—–grandniece can establish a better claim to the property than you? Fine. Hand it over. Such cases would be rare; and covered by title insurance. In the meantime: the world is for the living. Rand was not wrong about everything.
Anarchists used to be minarchists who favor destructive monopoly provision of services funded by theft. Rand was wrong about her statism, intellectual property laws and her cultish philosophy.
We as libertarians must–we must–support productive achievement, commerce, the market, freedom, free enterprise, the division of labor, economies of scale, individualism, and, above all, as Nozick said, capitalist acts between consenting adults–which these ignorant savages rail against.
Isn't supporting the market the definition of libertarianism?
Enough. Yes, we can appreciate the caution against vulgar libertarianism. But it is too much. Give me George Reisman’s “vulgar” libertarianism any day over the rock-throwing–and condoning–NON-libertarian misfits.
George Reisman is a statist. In his book Capitalism, he wrote that he said the 20-year patent law terms are just long enough and the copyright laws should be kept in place. In his denationalization strategy that he mentioned in the last chapter, he said that he would pay all the laid-off bureaucrats for a year so they can get an education, the continued funding state education for thirteen years (so the Kindergarteners in state school would pass twelth grade in state school), and he does not have a clear understanding of the Austrian Business Cycle Theory. On his blog, he wrote that because oil is a capital good, the oil price increases due to business demand. He mistankenly assumed that the price of all capital goods (even current assets) would increase during monetary expansion. This is untrue, because only the price of long-term assets would increase. Yes, I read his book, and it explicitly mentioned what I wrote.
Post a Comment