Another Very Nice Post

This one from Gavin Kennedy. For instance:

"Ideologues on both sides of today’s divide between 'collectivist', no markets, in large states (of course managed by a large-class of collectivists), versus 'laissez-faire' giant corporations competing (and colluding!) in global markets across the planet (of course managed by a large-class of managers for their owners). Both are congenitally totalitarian in their outlook and practises.

Yep. If anarcho-capitalists ever succeeded in their goal of eliminating states, the result would not be the sort of society envisioned by Rothbard, Friedman, or Murphy. The result would be rule by corporations. To substitute wishful thinking (the dreamworld of the anarchist utopia) for prudent foresight (seeing the reality of what would occur) is not just bad thinking, it is immoral.

7 comments:

  1. Don't Austrians say that giant corporations wouldn't be able to thrive without the help of government, such as limited liability laws?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, they do say that. And Marxist say that in the Communist utopia, people will only have to work an hour a day.

      I have never seen any actual *evidence* that what (some) Austrians say about this is true, but yes, they certainly do say that.

      Think about it this way, MathMan: if law and justice are provided entirely on markets, who is going to have the resources to buy the laws they want? We will get limited liability and intellectual-property up the wazoo, my friend.

      Delete
    2. Also, Milton Friendman wasn't an Anarcho-Capitalist. Really only Rothbard was, and even he wasn't a real anarchist. He did say that some kind of collective legislative body had to exist. He just didn't think that had to extend to courts/police/etc (the usual concessions minarchists make).

      Delete
    3. "Also, Milton Friendman wasn't an Anarcho-Capitalist."

      David Friedman, KPres?

      "Really only Rothbard was, and even he wasn't a real anarchist. He did say that some kind of collective legislative body had to exist."

      Yes, just where?

      KPres, I think you are generating lots of posts with no idea what you are talking about.

      Delete
  2. "Collectivism" is a word that I never really liked. It always felt vague and without much substance to it. I've seen people say that feudalism was not "individualist", so I take it that that means it was "collectivist". I would've just called it traditionalist.

    Another thing that sticks in my craw is the equation of liberty with the free market. As if that's the only place a human acts! Liberty is simply liberty from my perspective.

    ReplyDelete