What Libertarians Should Know When Debating Statists

(Austrian) Economics, Anti-Statism, Libertarian Theory, The Basics
By / / 3 Comments / 2 minutes of reading
Share

Anthony Gregory makes a quick list of “talking points” that libertarians should know rather well when engaging in argumentation with statists. Here it is:

The law of comparative advantage
Broken window
Socialism vs. universability
The state cannot be perfectly egalitarian — someone calls the shots
If EVEN the US government does X, is there any hope for a good govt?
The ratchet effect
History shows markets can handle health care and insurance
History shows markets can handle law
Govt. education = indoctrination by the power elite
Guns protect us from criminals, and the state
Free speech is the cornerstone of civilization
Without property rights, no other rights are possible
Libertarian property rights are, in the good sense, more “democratic” than socialist rights
The free market empowers the weak against the strong, who always grab political influence
If you don’t own your body, no liberties are possible
History shows corporations side with the regulatory state
History damns every war that has happened
Due process rights are important, because the state can never be trusted — it is that evil
You can’t have freedom without letting others have it
Political democracy is no better than any other form of govt., basically (hat tip, HHH!)
Relative freedom at home can mean more imperialism — look out! (hat tip, HHH!)
Illegal aliens are people just as much as we are
Tax victims have a right to reclaim stolen goods, it doesn’t make the stealing legitimate
Privatization is messy because socialization is the original sin
States can’t calculate without prices
Central planning fails due to information problems
Public choice theory
The butler effect (how drug wars make things worse)
Outlawing guns and drugs means only outlaws have them, and drives them underground
Blowback
Just war theory
The state as a monopoly on violence
Libertarian class analysis
Thou shalt not steal
Taxation is theft
War is murder
War is the health of the state
All states are born unjustly
All states commit aggression
Either you’re for aggression, or not

What Libertarians Should Know When Debating Statists Read Post »

Objectivists Hsieh and Perkins on IP and Pirating Music

IP Law, Libertarian Theory
By / / 6 minutes of reading
Share

I’ve previously discussed and criticized Objectivist views on IP, including those of Diana Hsieh, Greg Perkins, and Adam Mossoff.1

In a recent Noodlecast, Hsieh and Perkins have about a 10 minute segment discussing music piracy and IP:

Question 4: The Morality of Pirating Music (34:37)

Is pirating music immoral? Why or why not? In one way I think it must be immoral because it involves gaining the unearned, but there have been (granted I know little of the music industry) many claims that illegal file sharing has actually been good for the music industry in a number of ways. There have also been arguments that it is not technically theft because it involves copying information instead of physically taking it from the owner i.e. the original owner (and creator) has not lost the music even after you have copied it, but this argument seems shoddy by its concrete bound concept of theft and ownership. Simply put, to me, it feels immoral, but I have trouble conceptualizing exactly why.

Links: Adam Mossoff’s Webcast on Intellectual Property, Don’t Steal This Article by Greg Perkins

My Answer, In Brief: As Adam Mossoff persuasively argues, all property is fundamentally intellectual property. So, contrary to the spurious arguments found in the question, the reason to respect intellectual property is the same as the reason to respect tangible property, namely that the mind is the source of all value.

Perkins’s and Hsieh’s attempts to answer the piracy question help to highlight several flaws in Objectivist thinking. First, they admit the importance of the economic concept of scarcity as it applies to rationing scarce resources; but then they flippantly dismiss emphasis on this for the field of rights as focusing on some incidental feature or “concrete bound.” Scarcity is incidental? But without scarcity we would not have the possibility of conflict. Hsieh says “good ideas are scarce,” thus conflating “not abundant” with “scarcity,” which ignores the precise economic concept of scarcity as being rivalrousness–this kind of confused use of terms leads to equivocation: Hsieh and Perkins both use “scarcity” in the “rivalrousness” sense when they are talking about material objects and “microeconomics,” but in the “not abundant” sense when saying “good ideas are scarce.” …

Objectivists Hsieh and Perkins on IP and Pirating MusicRead More »

  1. See Objectivist Greg Perkins on Intellectual Property; Objectivists: “All Property is Intellectual Property”. ↩

Objectivists Hsieh and Perkins on IP and Pirating Music Read Post »

The Tyrant Rehabilitation Party

The Right, Totalitarianism, Vulgar Politics
By / / 1 Comment / 3 minutes of reading
Share

Aside from his legacy as one of the giants of the Austrian school and modern anarcho-capitalism, Murray Rothbard was for a time a political activist, one of the founding members of the Libertarian Party, which got its start in the basement of David Nolan’s home some 40 years ago.  Rothbard’s radicalism kept the LP honest for a time, but eventually it began to behave like most other third parties, softening its principles to make its platform more appealing.  Eventually Rothbard, following a split with “low tax liberals” such as Ed Crane (founder of the Cato Institute) and David Koch (a Cato benefactor), left the LP, and took with him most of its radical heart.

No doubt Rothbard would be doing barrel rolls in his grave to see what’s become of the LP lately.  The most recent candidates for the party’s Presidential nomination, Bob Barr and Wayne Allyn Root, both former Republicans, have been hard at work promoting not so much personal liberty but the kinder, gentler sides of former and current members of the U. S.’s stable of tinpot dictators.

Jean-Claude Duvalier returns to Haiti
Espinoza/AP

First, there’s Barr, now a lawyer based in Atlanta, representing Jean-Claude “Baby Doc” Duvalier, the former “president for life” of Haiti who now stands accused of ransacking his country’s treasury.  Barr attempted to defend his client by favorably comparing his reign to an earthquake:

Speaking to CNN’s Fredricka Whitfield, Barr did his best to defend his client’s tainted legacy, noting that, while Duvalier “is very well aware of the personal risk that he faced coming back to Haiti,” that “paled in comparison to the needs of his people.” Barr was tight-lipped about the details of Duvalier’s return and what he wanted to accomplish, other than to say that he wanted to “see funds made available to help the relief effort which, by any reasonable estimate here, has not progressed well.”

Then Whitfield hit Barr with a tough question on his integrity: after all the American government had done to clean up Duvalier’s mess, as a former Congressman, did he see any conflict of interest? Barr seemed to take offense, arguing that the American government had not helped much and, that, in fact, “the country is in worse shape now than it was at the time Mr. Duvalier was president.”

Hosni Mubarak and George W. Bush
AP/file

Well, at least Barr isn’t representing the LP in his capacity as Baby Doc’s defender.  I wish the same could be said of Root’s mash note for Egypt’s embattled president Hosni Mubarak, which was not only written by a sitting LP committee chair but was published on the party Web site:

I just got off the phone with a longtime friend- a successful Egyptian business leader. He believes that several hundred thousand people in the streets do not represent the 80 million citizens of Egypt. They represent anarchists, communists, and Islamic extremists- all with an agenda and axe to grind. He says if you polled the people of Egypt today, the majority would support Mubarak. He says that the backbone of Egypt- the business owners, small business community, and middle class still support Mubarak and the military. They are horrified by the mobs in the street and are shocked at Obama’s tepid response to the riots and the one-sided portrayal of the situation by the U.S. media.

Because, you know, video footage of protesters being beaten and shot by Mubarak’s hired thugs can’t possibly mean that…Mubarak has sent hired thugs out to beat and shoot protesters.  And besides, they’re anarchists, the filthy little upstarts.  Totally asking for it!

It is shameful that the party of Nolan and Rothbard has become the party of apologists for dictators, but I can take comfort in knowing that as the Libertarian Party’s radical core has dwindled to nothing, so too has its relevancy to libertarianism in general.

The Tyrant Rehabilitation Party Read Post »

The Power To Classify Is The Power To Destroy

Classificationism
By / / 3 minutes of reading
Share

The state has a fetish for categorizing and classifying things, as if the label you “officially” stick on things changes reality. Yet that classification has legislative teeth. Lately I have become more aware of this destructive power. Not because it comes from the state–I am already used to that, but because often times government agencies, part of the executive branch, are the ones operating under rather wide legislative powers granted by Congress. None of this is new, of course. It just seems that it is becoming more prominent as the number of bureaucracies and bureaucrats continues to increase.

Instead of private law or contracts or generally accepted, time-honored societal agreements, the state corrupts reason and destroys language, replacing common sense with legislative fiat, all while making us more depending on the state to determine what reality is and how we deal with others.

Examples abound. The state controls the definitions of marriage (and of divorce, of course). The state defines who is an employee, who is an employer, and whether you have had “income.” Is Julian Assange a journalist? If he “is,” then according to the state he is treated in a specific way.

Classificationism goes hand in hand with licensing and other forms of control and regulation. If you want to open a kitchen or restaurant, better have the proper licensing. Usually the state will require licenses if you have a certain number of customers or some other category. Then, legally, you “are not” a “restaurant” if you do not meet the guidelines required for the license. But if you do, then magically you and your property are subject to the state’s magical incantation (also known as legislation). The FCC has recently been trying to reclassify ISPs so that they fall under the agency’s telecommunications category, extending the FCC’s power to control the internet.

A rather egregious and recent example of, in this case, re-classificationism, has to do with Obama’s administration trying to “crack down” on companies that treat workers as independent contractors instead of employees (so that unions do not have access to those workers). The IRS and other agencies can determine if someone is a “contractor” or an “employee.”

Even when it comes to the basic rights that the government is “supposed” to protect, classificationism exists. Is email like regular mail?. Is there an expectation of privacy? It all depends on how the bureaucrats massage language in the political arena.

Should e-cigarrettes be regulated like real cigarettes? What “is” a “firearm” or a “machinegun”? Or an “assault weapon”? Where“is” Emmanuel’s “residence”? What is a “controlled substance”? (A toy soldier “is” a “firearm” in British airports, by the way).

One could point out that the agencies in charge will have to have rules and regulations of their own, as the details of implementing and executing Congressional mandates lies with them. That is certainly correct. However, it is striking to see just how much agencies can control by merely moving from category to category entire industries, peoples, occupation, objects and actions. The power to classify is the power to destroy.

The Power To Classify Is The Power To Destroy Read Post »

Scroll to Top