no third solution

Blogging about liberty, anarchy, economics and politics

August Carnival of Market Anarchy

August 28th, 2008

John Petrie presents A glimpse of anarchic rights, laws, and socioeconomic organization in online communities posted at Blagnet.net

Never forget that [economic freedom] is the greatest weapon free citizens have against companies and organizations that no one has against the government: you can always at least attempt to take your business elsewhere; in democratic states, we are all always subjugated to the will of the majority and their elected criminals; secession and self-governance are not options.

MCLA, at Strange Blue Planet writes about Political Solutions to Security, condemning governments who have failed to keep their subjects safe from harm, and highlighting the important differences between security provided in a free market, and that imposed by a monopoloid government:

What does a police force on high alert look like? It looks the same all over the world. The police put up barricades on roads. Vehicles were made to go through hoops while a self-important looking police officer occasionally peered into cars. I am not sure how they expected to prevent future attacks this way, but it did lead to traffic jams at the road-blocks.

A brief history of Jury Nullification via End the War on Freedom

Put down your history books, and throw out everything you learned in Civics class or American History class in High School. In 8:15 am, the Rad Geek argues that,

As far as I am aware, the atomic bombing of the Hiroshima city center, in which forces acting on behalf of the United States government deliberately targeted a civilian center and killed over half of all the people living in the city at the time, remains the deadliest act of terrorism in the history of the world.

Kip, Esquire is definitely not an anarchist, but his insights are usually well-worth reading. Recently he wrote about the Fine Line Between Capitalist and Rent-Seeker. This might provoke some people to accuse him of “vulgar” libertarianism, but words have meanings, and from the entire corpus of Kip’s writings, I’m not afraid that he equivocates “capitalism” and “corporatism”. This post describes the very real difference between a true, market-entrepreneur, and corporatist rent-seeking.

On a similar topic of semantic concern, Randall McElroy iii notes that military contractors aren’t “private” in any meaningful sense of the word. As in Kip’s post, above, obfuscation of language serves the ruling party.

Continuing the semantic discussion, Brainpolice discusses The Headroom Between Mutualism and Anarch-capitalism

I think that there is a lot of stupid semantics over private property and that those who claim to oppose private property most often actually support some limited or particular form of it but they call it by some other name such as “personal property” or “possessions”.

…I don’t take a doctrinaire approach to either of these ideologies. I value them both enough to synthesize attributes of both of them into my worldview.

After a rather slow summer (at least as far as I’m concerned), Aahz is back with a Labor Day post, titled Labor Unions and Freedom Don’t Mix.

Is it fair that someone else is willing to do your job (just as effectively) for a lower cost. Maybe, or maybe not. But it’s right that they be allowed to do so.

He indicates that some people want to revoke his Anarchist credentials for such an utterance, although I’m inclined to agree with him.  Does that make me a fake anarchist? This is an interesting topic, because the market is so far from free that it’s really hard to imagine what might otherwise be. Labor Unions, as we know them, are largely the product of politics and pull, and were (at least in theory) implemented as a countervailing force to Big Business. In a nutshell, I think that “right to work” laws are just as much an abomination of free-market principles as are government enforced labor cartels.

FSK has a great piece about the Non-aggression principle

Agorism is the only strategy for resisting the State that doesn’t violate the non-aggression principle. Superficially, voting appears to be nonviolent. However, when you vote, you’re saying “I have the right to steal from my fellow humans; I am delegating this right to the State, who will steal from other people and give some of the proceeds to me.”

Few submissions, but relatively little blog spam:

You are an idiot.
You are an idiot, too.

Comments

5 Comments

RSS
  • Aahz says on: August 29, 2008 at 12:20 am

     

    Thanks for fitting me in! It’s a great birthday present to be included with so many great thinkers.

  • Mike says on: August 29, 2008 at 5:29 am

     

    Hrmph, somehow I missed the final fun ship “all aboard” this month, even though I could swear I submitted in time. No matter. Great set of things to read here in any case. Thanks for making it happen.

  • Rad Geek says on: August 29, 2008 at 1:15 pm

     

    You say: “Labor Unions, as we know them, are largely the product of politics and pull, and were (at least in theory) implemented as a countervailing force to Big Business.”

    Labor unions as we know them are largely the product of politics and pull, but labor unions per se predate the existence of government patronage to unions. In fact, about half the history of the American labor movement (from the founding of the Knights of Labor in 1869 to the passage of the Wagner Act in 1935) was carried out not only without any form of state recognition and privilege, but in fact in the face of massive police, militia and military violence against organizers, strikers, and people who just happened to be in the wrong crowd at the wrong time. During this period, many of the powerful labor unions were much more, not less radical — the Wobblies were resolutely anti-war, pro-immigration, often anarchist, etc. Reason being that the Wagner system was deliberately constructed in order to subsidize bureaucratic conservative unionism as against its radical competitors, and the effects of the World War II command economy, combined with the Taft-Hartley act, was to make heavy-handed government regulation of permissible union goals and union methods the price for the government patronage. (Anti-union libertarians who, rightly, complain about the privileges that government grants to union bosses almost never discuss how closely regulated unions thus “privileged” are.) The purpose was to capture and domesticate a labor movement that the New Dealers viewed as an increasingly dangerous revolutionary force, to convert their bosses into junior partners and their rank-and-file into loyal foot-soldiers in the tripartite planning system of the new corporatist state.

    Aahz’s uncritical identification of official, government-recognized unions with “labor unions” just as such, and his erasure of six and a half decades of state-free radical labor organizing, is just vulgar libertarianism running in reverse: the conflation of actually-existing, state-regulated unionism — unions “as we know them” — with unionism per se, followed by an uncritical attack on unions as somehow incompatible with, or unsustainable on, the free market, without stopping to consider whether, just as there might be viable business models for putting capital to use other than corporate capitalism as we know it, there might also be viable organizing models for unionizing workers other than conservative, pro-state unionism as we know it.

  • Stefan Molyneux, MA says on: August 30, 2008 at 3:55 pm

     

    If anyone is interested in free books on market anarchy, you can pick them up at http://www.freedomainradio.com/free

no third solution

Blogging about liberty, anarchy, economics and politics