#Economics Libertarian

[capitalism-and-analytics]

[infamousbrad]

What's going to happen when Missouri eliminates half of its tax revenue?

We get poorer.

It's just that simple. Any kind of an even minimally functioning economy depends on taxpayer funded services for things that the private sector can't or won't fund. Once those services are curtailed or go away altogether, so does the private sector economy that depends on them.

Once the roads go to shit, any job that depends on roads goes away.

Once the justice system goes to shit, any job that depends on safety goes away.

Once the schools go to shit, any job that needs even minimally educated workers goes away.

Once public health goes to shit, any job that depends on people being healthy enough to work goes away.

Once all semblance of affordable housing goes away, once affordable transportation goes away, any job that needs low-wage workers goes away.

This isn't even vaguely theory or ideology, this is historical fact. No county, no state, no country, has ever gotten wealthy by providing fewer government services, nobody has ever tax-cut their way to prosperity. I went to a John-Birch-Society-funded private high school, I know that the anarcho-capitalist right thinks that anything that deserves to be done can and will be done better by the private sector, but it's been tried over and over again since the term "laissez fair" was coined and they don't have a single success to point to.

But apparently we're going to try it again, and slide down into chaos and poverty again, and why? Because "my ideology says it does work." Because "nobody else has ever tried hard enough for long enough." (Yeah, there's a reason for that.) Because "we have alternative facts." Because "this time will be different."

Because there is no historical force more implacable than a bad idea whose time has come around again. Because we have record-high income inequality and nobody has ever designed a form of government that can keep money from being converted into power. Because for every problem there is a solution that is easy, obvious, and wrong.

[gett-merkedd]

If capital grows rapidly, wages may rise, but the profit of capital rises disproportionately faster. The material position of the worker has improved, but at the cost of his social position. The social chasm that separates him from the capitalist has widened. Finally to say that “ the most favourable condition of wage-labour is the fastest possible growth of productive capital ” is the same as to say: the quicker the working class multiplies and augments the power inimical to it-the wealth of another which lords it over that class-the more favourable will be the conditions under which it will be permitted to toil anew at the multiplication of bourgeois wealth, at the enlargement of the power of capital, content thus to forge for itself the golden chains by which the bourgeoisie drags it in its train.

— Karl Marx

[republicanidiots]

How the Republicans Will Kill Us Part 1

Initially, the Republicans will cut funding nobody will notice for years. For example, they won't renew grants for medical research. These grants are applied for and usually run a few years before needing to be renewed. So these research opportunities will die and nobody will notice. That's what Reagan did with AIDS funding. For five years he cut medical research -- not just for AIDS but for everything -- to the absolute bone. Investigation stopped. Scientists walked away from their labs. And the Republicans ran around saying they were able to cut "$100M from the federal budget and nothing happened." It was proof of how penny-conscious they were and how the Dems had been lying all long. Five fucking years.

[gaytorade-fucker-69]

gaytorade-fucker-69 are you actually a communist? If so, why?

If you wanna get technical, I suppose the best label would be libertarian socialist (term used by Noam Chomsky) or libertarian Marxist (term used by Yanis Varoufakis) rather than communist, since communist is such a broad term. (Of course this could change as I read more theory and come to understand concepts better, but so far I’ve been pretty consistently in with the libertarians)

As for the “why are you a communist”, it’s essentially because I recognise that the economic system we live under (capitalism) is not only inherently exploitative and authoritarian, but also responsible for the systemic prevalence of essentially every social ill that our society contains (racism, queerphobia, misogyny, pollution, loneliness, war, colonialism, etc. etc.) as well as being cause and continuing driving factor of the current greatest threats to the survival of humanity as a species, climate change and nuclear weapons.

This realisation that capitalism is not only the cause of essentially every systemic evil that plagues humanity, but also that if it is allowed to run its course, that it will destroy humanity itself, led me to the conclusion that the replacement of capitalism with a better economic system is the only proper end goal of any force for change in society that seeks to make humanity freer or to save humanity from the consequences of our own economic system.

And this, naturally, let me to socialism, an economic system where resources and the means of production are owned and managed in common, either by the community at large or by the workers who actually help produce with the means of production.

[queercodedangel]

The transition into capitalism didn't happen freely or peacefully. It required a state-enforced "proletarization" of people, which means people had to be forced into a situation where they need to sell their labor-power to survive because they can no longer sustain themselves.

This was done through the privatization of land and resources.

[nicklloydnow]

“If freedom and the growth of the market are each important for the development of each individual and, therefore, to the flowering of diversity and individual differences, then so is there a causal connection between freedom and economic growth. For it is precisely freedom, the absence or limitation of interpersonal restrictions or interference, that sets the stage for economic growth and hence of the market economy and the developed division of labor. The Industrial Revolution and the corollary and consequent economic growth of the West were a product of its relative freedom for enterprise, for invention and innovation, for mobility and the advancement of labor. Compared to societies in other times and places, eighteenth and nineteenth century Western Europe and the United States were marked by a far greater social and economic freedom—a freedom to move, invest, work, and produce—secure from much harassment and interference by government. Compared to the role of government elsewhere, its role in these centuries in the West was remarkably minimal.

By allowing full scope for investment, mobility, the division of labor, creativity, and entrepreneurship, the free economy thereby creates the conditions for rapid economic development. It is freedom and the free market, as Adam Smith well pointed out, that develop the "wealth of nations." Thus, freedom leads to economic development, and both of these conditions in turn multiply individual development and the unfolding of the powers of the individual man. In two crucial ways, then, freedom is the root; only the free man can be fully individuated and, therefore, can be fully human.” - Murray Rothbard, ‘Freedom, Inequality, Primitivism, and the Division of Labor’ (1971)

[blackwolfmanx4]

They Don't Want What You Want

They're going to keep falling for it for the next 4 years.

[omegaphilosophia]

Types of Conservatism

Conservatism, like liberalism, encompasses a broad range of ideologies and perspectives. These types vary significantly across regions and historical contexts but generally emphasize tradition, social order, and skepticism toward rapid change. Here are some primary types of conservatism:

1. Traditional Conservatism

Core Beliefs: Traditional conservatism values established customs, institutions, and social hierarchies. It stresses the importance of cultural continuity, the wisdom of past generations, and a gradual approach to social change.

Historical Figures: Edmund Burke, Michael Oakeshott.

Key Elements: Respect for tradition, social stability, authority, and moral order.

2. Social Conservatism

Core Beliefs: Social conservatism emphasizes the preservation of traditional family structures, religious values, and moral standards. It often involves resistance to cultural changes seen as undermining societal cohesion or moral integrity.

Key Elements: Pro-family policies, emphasis on moral education, opposition to liberal social policies, and preservation of traditional gender roles.

3. Fiscal Conservatism

Core Beliefs: Fiscal conservatism prioritizes limited government spending, low taxes, and free-market capitalism. Fiscal conservatives advocate for reducing the national debt, minimizing public welfare programs, and maintaining a balanced budget.

Key Elements: Limited government intervention in the economy, support for a free-market system, privatization, and reduction in government spending.

4. Libertarian Conservatism

Core Beliefs: Libertarian conservatism combines a conservative approach to social issues with a strong emphasis on individual freedom and minimal government interference in personal and economic affairs.

Historical Figures: Barry Goldwater, Ron Paul.

Key Elements: Individual freedom, limited government, economic libertarianism, and personal responsibility.

5. Neoconservatism

Core Beliefs: Neoconservatism originally emerged from liberal roots, focusing on an assertive foreign policy to promote democracy and defend national interests. It combines conservative domestic values with an interventionist foreign policy.

Historical Figures: Irving Kristol, Paul Wolfowitz.

Key Elements: Promotion of democracy abroad, support for military strength, a strong national defense, and foreign policy interventionism.

6. Paleoconservatism

Core Beliefs: Paleoconservatism emphasizes nativism, cultural preservation, and limited international involvement. It is skeptical of globalization and often advocates for a return to traditional values, strong borders, and limited immigration.

Historical Figures: Patrick Buchanan, Russell Kirk.

Key Elements: Nationalism, cultural preservation, isolationism, and opposition to globalism.

7. Religious Conservatism

Core Beliefs: Religious conservatism focuses on integrating religious principles, often rooted in Christianity, into public policy and society. This type of conservatism seeks to uphold religiously based moral standards in areas such as marriage, education, and bioethics.

Key Elements: Influence of religious values on politics, pro-life policies, advocacy for prayer in schools, and opposition to secularism.

8. Cultural Conservatism

Core Beliefs: Cultural conservatism emphasizes the preservation of a shared national or cultural identity. It supports policies and values that maintain cultural heritage and resist influences that could dilute or change traditional norms and practices.

Key Elements: Cultural nationalism, preservation of heritage and customs, and resistance to multiculturalism.

9. National Conservatism

Core Beliefs: National conservatism focuses on the importance of national sovereignty, patriotism, and a strong, centralized state to protect national interests. It often advocates for immigration control and protectionist economic policies.

Key Elements: National sovereignty, patriotism, economic protectionism, and restrictions on immigration.

10. One-Nation Conservatism

Core Beliefs: Originating in Britain, one-nation conservatism advocates for a balance between free markets and social welfare policies, aiming to unite different social classes under a shared national identity. It emphasizes social cohesion, support for public institutions, and moderate reforms to reduce inequality.

Historical Figures: Benjamin Disraeli.

Key Elements: Social welfare, unity across classes, economic moderation, and gradual reform to prevent class divisions.

11. Green Conservatism

Core Beliefs: Green conservatism emphasizes environmental conservation and stewardship within a conservative framework. It advocates for protecting natural resources through personal responsibility, market solutions, and sometimes government regulations that align with conservative values.

Key Elements: Environmental conservation, sustainable development, market-based ecological solutions, and conservation ethics.

12. Populist Conservatism

Core Beliefs: Populist conservatism appeals to ordinary citizens, often positioning itself against elite or establishment institutions. It is skeptical of big government, promotes nationalism, and typically advocates for policies that reflect the interests of "the common people."

Key Elements: Anti-elitism, populist rhetoric, economic protectionism, and skepticism toward establishment institutions.

Each form of conservatism addresses different aspects of society, from fiscal and economic policies to cultural preservation, environmental issues, and religious values. While united by a preference for tradition, stability, and a cautious approach to change, these conservative strands reflect a diverse array of beliefs on the role of government, culture, and social structure.

[dailyanarchistposts]

F.3.1 Why is this disregard for equality important?

Simply because a disregard for equality soon ends with liberty for the majority being negated in many important ways. Most “anarcho”-capitalists and right-Libertarians deny (or at best ignore) market power. Rothbard, for example, claims that economic power does not exist under capitalism; what people call “economic power” is “simply the right under freedom to refuse to make an exchange” and so the concept is meaningless. [The Ethics of Liberty, p. 222]

However, the fact is that there are substantial power centres in society (and so are the source of hierarchical power and authoritarian social relations) which are not the state. As Elisee Reclus put it, the “power of kings and emperors has limits, but that of wealth has none at all. The dollar is the master of masters.” Thus wealth is a source of power as “the essential thing” under capitalism “is to train oneself to pursue monetary gain, with the goal of commanding others by means of the omnipotence of money. One’s power increases in direct proportion to one’s economic resources.” [quoted by John P. Clark and Camille Martin (eds.), Anarchy, Geography, Modernity, p. 95 and pp. 96–7] Thus the central fallacy of “anarcho”-capitalism is the (unstated) assumption that the various actors within an economy have relatively equal power. This assumption has been noted by many readers of their works. For example, Peter Marshall notes that ”‘anarcho-capitalists’ like Murray Rothbard assume individuals would have equal bargaining power in a [capitalist] market-based society.” [Demanding the Impossible, p. 46] George Walford also makes this point in his comments on David Friedman’s The Machinery of Freedom:

“The private ownership envisaged by the anarcho-capitalists would be very different from that which we know. It is hardly going too far to say that while the one is nasty, the other would be nice. In anarcho-capitalism there would be no National Insurance, no Social Security, no National Health Service and not even anything corresponding to the Poor Laws; there would be no public safety-nets at all. It would be a rigorously competitive society: work, beg or die. But as one reads on, learning that each individual would have to buy, personally, all goods and services needed, not only food, clothing and shelter but also education, medicine, sanitation, justice, police, all forms of security and insurance, even permission to use the streets (for these also would be privately owned), as one reads about all this a curious feature emerges: everybody always has enough money to buy all these things. “There are no public casualty wards or hospitals or hospices, but neither is there anybody dying in the streets. There is no public educational system but no uneducated children, no public police service but nobody unable to buy the services of an efficient security firm, no public law but nobody unable to buy the use of a private legal system. Neither is there anybody able to buy much more than anybody else; no person or group possesses economic power over others. “No explanation is offered. The anarcho-capitalists simply take it for granted that in their favoured society, although it possesses no machinery for restraining competition (for this would need to exercise authority over the competitors and it is an anarcho-capitalist society) competition would not be carried to the point where anybody actually suffered from it. While proclaiming their system to be a competitive one, in which private interest rules unchecked, they show it operating as a co-operative one, in which no person or group profits at the cost of another.” [On the Capitalist Anarchists]

This assumption of (relative) equality comes to the fore in Murray Rothbard’s “Homesteading” concept of property (discussed in section F.4.1). “Homesteading” paints a picture of individuals and families going into the wilderness to make a home for themselves, fighting against the elements and so forth. It does not invoke the idea of transnational corporations employing tens of thousands of people or a population without land, resources and selling their labour to others. Rothbard as noted argued that economic power does not exist (at least under capitalism, as we saw in section F.1 he does make — highly illogical — exceptions). Similarly, David Friedman’s example of a pro-death penalty and anti-death penalty “defence” firm coming to an agreement (see section F.6.3) implicitly assumes that the firms have equal bargaining powers and resources — if not, then the bargaining process would be very one-sided and the smaller company would think twice before taking on the larger one in battle (the likely outcome if they cannot come to an agreement on this issue) and so compromise.

However, the right-“libertarian” denial of market power is unsurprising. The “necessity, not the redundancy, of the assumption about natural equality is required “if the inherent problems of contract theory are not to become too obvious.” If some individuals are assumed to have significantly more power are more capable than others, and if they are always self-interested, then a contract that creates equal partners is impossible — the pact will establish an association of masters and servants. Needless to say, the strong will present the contract as being to the advantage of both: the strong no longer have to labour (and become rich, i.e. even stronger) and the weak receive an income and so do not starve. [Carole Pateman, The Sexual Contract, p. 61] So if freedom is considered as a function of ownership then it is very clear that individuals lacking property (outside their own body, of course) lose effective control over their own person and labour (which was, least we forget, the basis of their equal natural rights). When ones bargaining power is weak (which is typically the case in the labour market) exchanges tend to magnify inequalities of wealth and power over time rather than working towards an equalisation.

In other words, “contract” need not replace power if the bargaining position and wealth of the would-be contractors are not equal (for, if the bargainers had equal power it is doubtful they would agree to sell control of their liberty/labour to another). This means that “power” and “market” are not antithetical terms. While, in an abstract sense, all market relations are voluntary in practice this is not the case within a capitalist market. A large company has a comparative advantage over smaller ones, communities and individual workers which will definitely shape the outcome of any contract. For example, a large company or rich person will have access to more funds and so stretch out litigations and strikes until their opponents resources are exhausted. Or, if a company is polluting the environment, the local community may put up with the damage caused out of fear that the industry (which it depends upon) would relocate to another area. If members of the community did sue, then the company would be merely exercising its property rights when it threatened to move to another location. In such circumstances, the community would “freely” consent to its conditions or face massive economic and social disruption. And, similarly, “the landlords’ agents who threatened to discharge agricultural workers and tenants who failed to vote the reactionary ticket” in the 1936 Spanish election were just exercising their legitimate property rights when they threatened working people and their families with economic uncertainty and distress. [Murray Bookchin, The Spanish Anarchists, p. 260]

If we take the labour market, it is clear that the “buyers” and “sellers” of labour power are rarely on an equal footing (if they were, then capitalism would soon go into crisis — see section C.7). As we stressed in section C.9, under capitalism competition in labour markets is typically skewed in favour of employers. Thus the ability to refuse an exchange weighs most heavily on one class than another and so ensures that “free exchange” works to ensure the domination (and so exploitation) of one by the other. Inequality in the market ensures that the decisions of the majority of people within it are shaped in accordance with that needs of the powerful, not the needs of all. It was for this reason, for example, that the Individual Anarchist J.K. Ingalls opposed Henry George’s proposal of nationalising the land. Ingalls was well aware that the rich could outbid the poor for leases on land and so the dispossession of the working class would continue.

The market, therefore, does not end power or unfreedom — they are still there, but in different forms. And for an exchange to be truly voluntary, both parties must have equal power to accept, reject, or influence its terms. Unfortunately, these conditions are rarely meet on the labour market or within the capitalist market in general. Thus Rothbard’s argument that economic power does not exist fails to acknowledge that the rich can out-bid the poor for resources and that a corporation generally has greater ability to refuse a contract (with an individual, union or community) than vice versa (and that the impact of such a refusal is such that it will encourage the others involved to compromise far sooner). In such circumstances, formally free individuals will have to “consent” to be unfree in order to survive. Looking at the tread-mill of modern capitalism, at what we end up tolerating for the sake of earning enough money to survive it comes as no surprise that anarchists have asked whether the market is serving us or are we serving it (and, of course, those who have positions of power within it).

So inequality cannot be easily dismissed. As Max Stirner pointed out, free competition “is not ‘free,’ because I lack the things for competition.” Due to this basic inequality of wealth (of “things”) we find that ”[u]nder the regime of the commonality the labourers always fall into the hands of the possessors … of the capitalists, therefore. The labourer cannot realise on his labour to the extent of the value that it has for the customer … The capitalist has the greatest profit from it.” [The Ego and Its Own, p. 262 and p. 115] It is interesting to note that even Stirner recognised that capitalism results in exploitation and that its roots lie in inequalities in property and so power. And we may add that value the labourer does not “realise” goes into the hands of the capitalists, who invest it in more “things” and which consolidates and increases their advantage in “free” competition. To quote Stephan L. Newman:

“Another disquieting aspect of the libertarians’ refusal to acknowledge power in the market is their failure to confront the tension between freedom and autonomy… Wage labour under capitalism is, of course, formally free labour. No one is forced to work at gun point. Economic circumstance, however, often has the effect of force; it compels the relatively poor to accept work under conditions dictated by owners and managers. The individual worker retains freedom [i.e. negative liberty] but loses autonomy [positive liberty].” [Liberalism at Wit’s End, pp. 122–123]

If we consider “equality before the law” it is obvious that this also has limitations in an (materially) unequal society. Brian Morris notes that for Ayn Rand, ”[u]nder capitalism … politics (state) and economics (capitalism) are separated … This, of course, is pure ideology, for Rand’s justification of the state is that it ‘protects’ private property, that is, it supports and upholds the economic power of capitalists by coercive means.” [Ecology & Anarchism, p. 189] The same can be said of “anarcho”-capitalism and its “protection agencies” and “general libertarian law code.” If within a society a few own all the resources and the majority are dispossessed, then any law code which protects private property automatically empowers the owning class. Workers will always be initiating force if they rebel against their bosses or act against the code and so equality before the law” reflects and reinforces inequality of power and wealth. This means that a system of property rights protects the liberties of some people in a way which gives them an unacceptable degree of power over others. And this critique cannot be met merely by reaffirming the rights in question, we have to assess the relative importance of the various kinds of liberty and other values we hold dear.

Therefore right-“libertarian” disregard for equality is important because it allows “anarcho”-capitalism to ignore many important restrictions of freedom in society. In addition, it allows them to brush over the negative effects of their system by painting an unreal picture of a capitalist society without vast extremes of wealth and power (indeed, they often construe capitalist society in terms of an ideal — namely artisan production — that is pre-capitalist and whose social basis has been eroded by capitalist development). Inequality shapes the decisions we have available and what ones we make:

“An ‘incentive’ is always available in conditions of substantial social inequality that ensure that the ‘weak’ enter into a contract. When social inequality prevails, questions arise about what counts as voluntary entry into a contract. This is why socialists and feminists have focused on the conditions of entry into the employment contract and the marriage contract. Men and women … are now juridically free and equal citizens, but, in unequal social conditions, the possibility cannot be ruled out that some or many contracts create relationships that bear uncomfortable resemblances to a slave contract.” [Carole Pateman, Op. Cit., p. 62]

This ideological confusion of right-libertarianism can also be seen from their opposition to taxation. On the one hand, they argue that taxation is wrong because it takes money from those who “earn” it and gives it to the poor. On the other hand, “free market” capitalism is assumed to be a more equal society! If taxation takes from the rich and gives to the poor, how will “anarcho”-capitalism be more egalitarian? That equalisation mechanism would be gone (of course, it could be claimed that all great riches are purely the result of state intervention skewing the “free market” but that places all their “rags to riches” stories in a strange position). Thus we have a problem: either we have relative equality or we do not. Either we have riches, and so market power, or we do not. And its clear from the likes of Rothbard, “anarcho”-capitalism will not be without its millionaires (there is, according to him, apparently nothing un-libertarian about “hierarchy, wage-work, granting of funds by libertarian millionaires, and a libertarian party” [quoted by Black, Op. Cit., p. 142]). And so we are left with market power and so extensive unfreedom.

Thus, for a ideology that denounces egalitarianism as a “revolt against nature” it is pretty funny that they paint a picture of “anarcho”-capitalism as a society of (relative) equals. In other words, their propaganda is based on something that has never existed, and never will: an egalitarian capitalist society. Without the implicit assumption of equality which underlies their rhetoric then the obvious limitations of their vision of “liberty” become too obvious. Any real laissez-faire capitalism would be unequal and “those who have wealth and power would only increase their privileges, while the weak and poor would go to the wall … Right-wing libertarians merely want freedom for themselves to protect their privileges and to exploit others.” [Peter Marshall, Op. Cit., p. 653]

[capitalism-and-analytics]

[hakaiika]

Project HECoPS #1

I am posting this a lil late, but better late than never! I give to you, Project HECoPS! My neurodivergent attempt at creating a cybernetic planning system for the game "Half-Earth Socialism"

If you wanna read about that, please check out my substack!

[dead-generations]

Reinventing nominative determinism for the idea of space colonisation being Colonialism is so funny. If we called it space exploration and migration would that make it woke and immigrantpilled?

[queercodedangel]

"Do not allow yourselves to be deluded by the abstract word freedom. Whose freedom? It is not the freedom of one individual in relation to another, but the freedom of capital to crush the worker."

- Karl Marx, On the Question of Free Trade

[nicklloydnow]

“The Axioms of Agorism

A free society is the goal of many people, not all of them agorists or even libertarians. Agorists can see nothing but a free market in a free society; after all, who or what will prevent it?

The First Axiom of Agorism: the closest approach to a free society is an uncorrupted agora (open marketplace).

An axiom is a principle or premise of a way of thinking. It is arrived at by insight, induction, and observation of nature. Theorems are arrived at deductively from axioms. A "zeroeth" axiom of agorism might be "there are no contradictions in reality and theory must be consistent with reality." Commonly known axioms in philosophy are "existence exists" and "A is A." Well-known mathematical axioms are "things equal to another thing are equal to each other" and "a statement leading to a contradiction with a theorem or axiom is false."

The first six chapters of this "primer" preceded the actual presentation of agorism to give you, the reader, enough understanding of economics, Counter-Economics, and libertarianism to see from where the insights that produced agorism were derived. They were not chosen arbitrarily but rather as a result of years of bitter experience and, in some cases, furious battles and acts of resistance. The "hard core" agorists had to have something worth dying for, and, far more impor-tant, worth living for.

The Second Axiom of Agorism: the agora self-corrects for small perturbations of corruption.

This axiom leads us to a far more detailed picture of what our nearly free society would look like. It means simply that free-market entities will defend the free market. People have to choose to do it, of course, but the incentive (offering of subjective-value satisfaction) will be present to motivate them to do so and will be sufficient to motivate enough people to do so. Occasional criminals will be discovered, sought, found, apprehended, tried, sentenced, compelled to deliver restitution, and (if possible) deterred from further actions.

The Third Axiom of Agorism: the moral system of any agora is compatible with pure libertarianism.

This axiom means that life and property are safe from all those who act morally in this society. We will describe this in the next section. But let us complete the axioms first.

The Fourth Axiom of Agorism: agora in part is agora in whole; to a workable approximation, the corruption of an agora raises protection costs and risks.

This axiom's use will become blindingly clear when we deal with the path.

Agorism has more theory, but it is derived from these axioms. For the professional logicians tripping across the theory for the first time, I need to add a fifth axiom for completion: agorism qua theory is an open system. This simply means that we may discover and add on other axioms, then check to see how consistent they are with what we already have.” - Samuel Edward Konkin III, ‘An Agorist Primer’ (2008) [p. 76 - 78]