In some sense this is true -i.e. there might be inequality say and then a rich person asks for the state to artificially protect their wealth from change or expand the inequality.In that sense,Marxism has a point.
But I think large inequalities of wealth are only possible when statism creates barriers to entry - holding down some and grants artificial privileges to the wealthy/corporations/bosses/landlords - raising up others.
While I think some inequality of wealth will always exist the massive degree it exists now I believe is due to statism and the history of statist involvement.
I think the solution to what you say is to abolish the state and work to make sure it never arises again and also to work to voluntarily equalize wealth as much as is possible.
Well not all Left-Rothbardians are agorists but this seems a reasonably favour assessment but instead of “progressive”(whatever that means) I think the phrase is culturally liberal in contrast to culturally conservative.
Now, now, left libs are never cracked up. Well, only by the very concept of being cracked up and even then it’s a silent, sophisticated type of cracking up.
Anyone can value whatever the want. Saying “I wish the there was not so large a gap between the wealthy and the poor” is a reasonable thing to say. Calling that equality is lunacy though. The reality is that we all desire unequality for an innumerable amount of traits (physical, emotional,geographical, temporal) and want only less inequality for a very traits (freedoms, incomes, etc.).
The issue is, one group is saying “we value equality and you don’t,” when the reality is they value inequality just as much as a non-egalitarian. If I remained opposed to near equality in “left” issues, but instead valued equality of skin color or sexual preference, could I become an egalitarian then? Of course not, because “equality” is reserved for very special traits that fit well with leftism.
Please explain to me the nuances of the term “equals.” I think my difficulty in understanding egalitarianism is due to my belief that equal means something very very specific and is without gray area.
On overhead: I’m into health food, so I like to use a health food example when I teach this concept in modern US classes. I show documentation about the state of competition in the milk markets pre-pasteurization laws - i.e that people avoided the commercial dairies of the day because their milk was lousy (the distillery dairies produced very subpar, very low cream milk), and the competition about cream content between small farmers and larger holdings - farmers used to go door to door, placing a sample of their milk next to the milk the customer had received from their usual supplier, and marking how much lower their cream line was - then talk about the economic impact on large and small companies of requiring pasteurization (the large ones were milking in less sanitary conditions and generally already pasteurized, the small ones with a couple cows couldn’t afford such a machine and went out of business.) The point is clear: raising overhead equally on everyone leads to consolidation beyond what the market would have led to.
Clearly, this wasn’t addressed to me, but I’d like a shot at it. There is no gray area, equal means equal. (Even there, though, if I prefer equality over inequality, it is likely that I also prefer less inequality to more, and this is a compromise with reality, not a contradiction.) The nuance, though, is with the area to which it is applied. 2 and 4 are congruent mod 2, but not mod 3. Two congruent triangles are sometimes said to be equal, but in a different sense are not, since they are not in the same place. We talk about equality in terms of some question being considered. One easy example of this is used in all libertarian circles, not just left-libertarian: equality of opportunity is distinguished from equality of outcome. We can say you and I should have equal amounts of money, or should have equal physical endowments, or should have equal opportunities, or should be literally the same person - all of these are different claims.
equal incomes,equal wealth ,equal rights,equality of the sexes,equality under the law,equality of ‘races’ ,equal treatment, equal consideration in morality etc.
Now if you want to be strict about it in some kinds of equality say equal wealth what we favour is not equality in the strict sense of uniformity- which is not possible and not desirable but equalization which is trying to make it as same as is possible.
While we’re on this subject there’s a number of things An-caps need to understand.
When politicians talk of equality they pretty much always are using it as rhetorical cover for taxes ,regulation and the like.They co-opt the language but never actually believe it just as they do with liberty and peace.So when you attack them for that you aren’t actually attacking egalitarians but false egalitarianism.So when you over extend yourselves and go on a rant about how equality is immoral or stupid or whatever(which is not thin libertarianism by the way=contradicting yourself here) your attack positions statism is not really about and making yourselves look reactionary or rightwing in the process.Your conflating means i.e. statism with ends of equality.
The state is an inherently inegalitarian monster. The state likes to pretend it favours equality while implying inequality is natural or moral.
Rothbard was being reactionary when he opposed equality.He never completely shed his old right conservativism -culturally and otherwise.
When you engage in anti-equality rants often your engaging in status quo /corporatist/statist apologetics.
" The reality is that we all desire unequality for an innumerable amount of traits (physical, emotional,geographical, temporal) and want only less inequality for a very traits (freedoms, incomes, etc.)."
Which is what I’ve said all along by saying there’s different kinds and no seriously favours equality in every single way imaginable.
" If I remained opposed to near equality in “left” issues, but instead valued equality of skin color or sexual preference, could I become an egalitarian then?"
Yes of course that what those positions imply, but left-libertarian support for equality is deeper than that.
I’m assuming that we’re not talking about a world-wide socialist commonwealth. As Mises says, a small socialist commonwealth can get prices from the outside world. At the same time, why are you assuming that a fully conservative society would not be subject to the calculation problem? They would lack informative prices, too.
I disagree about left vs. right. It is just as consistent to be a conservative, or a liberal, as a libertarian. I tend to think that left and right describe what you’d like the world to look like, and libertarian/authoritarian describe the means you find acceptable. Nonetheless, the terms left and right originated in the French dispute between inherited hierarchy vs. individualism, with the left identified as the individualistic side. Both ideals still have adherents.
Exactly. And all libertarians should favour equal opportunities properly understood as allowing everyone possible access to activities voluntarily by the absence of barriers to entry coming from statism.
What does “fully conservative” even mean? I know about the French origin; it’s the first paragraph of my article. The opposite of legal hierarchy is equality before the law, not individualism. The opposite of individualism is collectivism, not hierarchy. And any way, “left” doesn’t mean “individualism” to 99% of the people. And that’s really for the better, since it’s an infinitely less descriptive term.
Like I argue in the article, this whole approach only presents false choices.
By inherited hierarchy, I meant to refer to the idea that your path in life is determined by tradition. By individualism, I mean to refer to the idea that you have access to choices about that path.
If there is no difference between left and right, how then is it possible that there are real debates between left-libertarians and right-libertarians? You want to boil every distinction down to capitalism or socialism, yet in the left-lib right-lib debate find real differences between people who both support free markets. (I’m assuming by capitalism you mean free market exchange.)
As for understood meanings: Imagine 100 people forming a society, living pretty much an-cap. Then one day, a conservative government is formed, and takes all the land, gives it to two people, and makes the rest renters. The left, we’d hope, would oppose this move. However, seeing that they’re losing, they might propose some stopgap measures to mitigate the damage - rent controls, redistribution, and so on. Suppose we get a compromise - the land is taken, but rent is controlled. A while later, a stronger conservative coalition begins to speak about “property rights” and in general appropriate libertarian ideas - why is the government telling these 2 people how much rent they can charge? It’s their property, damnit, and the government is the problem, not the solution. Why, if we let them charge what they want, they’ll be more productive, and increased wealth will trickle down! An alien, visiting this scene, might well conclude that conservatism is all about free markets and rugged individualism (as opposed to establishing a hierarchy by creating rigid classes) and that the left is all about redistributive statism (as opposed to individualism.)
There are real debates between individual people about real specific questions regarding economics and political philosophy. Some of these individuals create meaningless umbrella terms to lump various, and often contradictory, positions together. Some do it because they like the vague associations entailed with certain catchwords. Others do it because they have similar aesthetic tastes. For the most part, it’s team-sports nonsense; artificial tribalism. Argue the positions, and drop the catchwords.
Rent controls and the like wouldn’t do a lick of good (are you sure you accept the teachings of Rothbard in MES?); it would only use a destructive event as an excuse to create and perpetuate a destructive situation. Assuming you can’t restore the expropriated land, and assuming post-expropriation, the “right” itself doesn’t implement further anti-capitalist measures, the best way for the “left” to improve the lot of the renters as fast as possible is to let the free market be re-established.
There are real debates between individual people about real specific questions regarding economics and political philosophy. Some of these individuals create meaningless umbrella terms to lump various, and often contradictory, positions together. Some do it because they like the vague associations entailed with certain catchwords. Others do it because they have similar aesthetic tastes. For the most part, it’s team-sports nonsense; artificial tribalism. Argue the positions, and drop the catchwords.
I’m familiar with “no labels” thinking. I just disagree with it. Yes, people are individuals, but it is the case that individuals can agree with others, and even form groups based on that agreement, to work together, share ideas, and so on.
Rent controls and the like wouldn’t do a lick of good (are you sure you accept the teachings of Rothbard in MES?); it would only use a destructive event as an excuse to create and perpetuate a destructive situation. Assuming you can’t restore the expropriated land, and assuming post-expropriation, the “right” itself doesn’t implement further anti-capitalist measures, the best way for the “left” to improve the lot of the renters as fast as possible is to let the free market be re-established.
Yes, I am sure. Are you sure you understood the thought experiment? The people whose land was taken are going to end up staying in the same spot. The main difference the event makes in their lives is that now they have to pay ‘rent’ for that spot, while justly it’s theirs. Kevin Carson illustrates the same idea by imagining setting up a toll booth on land that isn’t yours. So, the main impact here is that a part of their production now has to go to supporting the 2 “owners” - so to maintain the same standard of living, they have to pay more. The larger the rent, the larger this impact is. So tell me how restricting what the 2 “owners” can do with their unjustly acquired land won’t do a lick of good. What is the proposal in your final sentence - that we shrug at the fact that all known land is owned by 2 people, and say “private property from now on” so that these 2 and their heirs forever more consume the production of the rest of society?
Rothbard knew quite well that he wasn’t living in a free market, and the solution was to fix that, not pretend a free market existed.
This is offtopic, and I don’t mean to sound condescending, but why do you guys (Scott F and JAlan) have double and tripple posts. Why not just edit one if noone has posted after you? It just makes the threads huge.
You see I understand some of your points Scott F, but most ancaps/voluntaryists/rothbardians (what have you) are really no different from you. The label is not neccesary. Besides unless your a mutualist or ansyndicalist, your not really left libertarians. All leftists like fixed economies of some sort. You don’t. I’m sure left anarchists and libertarians like chomsky would group as the same, just as we do.