[Cross-posted from Rad Geek People's Daily]
Here’s Juan Cole, Informed Comment 2011-08-12: Paul, Santorum and the Sixth War (on Iran):1
A significant stream within [Right-wing] libertarianism theorizes war as the ultimate in this racket, whereby some companies use government to throw enormous sums to themselves by waging wars abroad and invoking patriotic themes. This analysis is remarkably similar to that of Left anarchists such as Noam Chomsky.
The difference is that for anarcho-syndicalists like Chomsky, the good guys of history are the workers and ordinary folk, whereas for Libertarians, it is entrepreneurs. Both theories depend on a naive reading of social interest. Right anarchists seem not to be able to perceive that without government, corporations would reduce us all to living in company towns on bad wages and would constantly be purveying to us bad banking, tainted food, dangerous drugs, etc. I mean, they behave that way when they can get away with it even when there is supposed government oversight, usually by capturing the government oversight agency that should be regulating them and then defanging it (e.g. BP and the Minerals Management Service). On the environment, private companies would never ever curb emissions without government intervention because of the problem of the commons. (Tellingly, Ron Paul calls global climate change a “hoax.”)
And, what makes the Libertarians think that if there were no governments or only weak governments, the corporations would not just wage the wars themselves? The East India Companies of Britain and the Netherlands behaved that way. India was not conquered by the British government, but by the East India Company. Likewise what is now Indonesia was a project of the Dutch East India Company. Libertarians have difficulty imagining warmongering corporations who pursue war all on their own without any government involvement.
And below, in comments on the post:
The theory that big corporations exist only because of government, and that monopoly capitalism is a result of government, is wrong. In fact, it is so obviously wrong and ahistorical (the biggest corporations and the strongest monopolies have occurred in the most laissez-faire societies) that it bewilders me how intelligent people ever came to believe it.
Well, you know, when left-libertarians get into arguments with progressives about this sort of thing, and we point out that, historically speaking, American-style capitalism did not really arise in anything resembling a free market — that there never has been anything resembling a free market — and when we point to the actual history of regulatory capture, legal monopoly, state subsidy, government dependence, etc. that historically lies behind commercial empires like the East India Companies (government-chartered and government-protected monopolies), British Petroleum (until recently a wholly owned subsidiary of the United Kingdom), Standard Oil and its descendents, Ma Bell and its descendents, General Electric, J.P Morgan-Chase, Bank of America, General Motors, etc. etc. etc. — and which created and sustained the family fortuens of the Rockefellers, Carnegies, Vanderbilts, Morgans, Goulds, ibn-Sauds, et al. — the response to this discussion of the historical sources of actually-existing capitalism is always met by a purely hypothetical alternative history, in which, it is alleged, such titanic concentrations of wealth, even though they actually arose in a system of privilege that had nothing to do with free markets, would still have arisen and maintained themselves just as well under purely hypothetical conditions of laissez-faire, even without all the concentrating, insulating, and subsidizing efforts that the manorial and corporate states have so energetically made on their behalf. If this claim is argued for at all, it is not argued for historically, since, of course, there are no historical examples of it ever having happened. It is instead argued for apriori, based on well, why wouldn’t they
sorts of appeals to the nastiness of businessmen2, and the occasional reference to ahistorical hypotheticals or game-theoretic models, like Garret Hardin’s Tragedy of the Commons
3 Then left-libertarians are accused of being naive.
But if we respond to this hypothetical speculation by adding on, alongside the history we have already discussed, some more general, apriori economic reasons to believe that stable monopolies and cartels cannot maintain themselves without government privilege, that freed markets would tend to dissipate concentrated fortunes, and that they would systematically contain and undermine, rather than entrenching, monopolies and cartels, then we are accused of utopian theorizing, and told that our view of markets is ahistorical.
Apparently we can’t win. Maybe that’s the point; but I think a rhetorical victory that actually engaged with the historical arguments being offered, or with the apriori arguments being offered, rather than simply waving them off as either nonexistent or obviously beneath the notice of intelligent people, might be a more satisfying achievement.
- Cole’s post is, structurally speaking, a post about how Juan Cole agrees with Ron Paul, and disagrees with Rick Santorum’s belligerent idiocy, on Iran. But Juan Cole cannot simply write a post about how he agrees with Ron Paul, just like that. So instead he spends about a third of the post talking about how he thinks that Right-wing libertarianism is a lot of rubbish with a dangerously naive view of corporate power. Which is not in an of itself a problem — right-wing libertarianism is a lot of rubbish with a dangerously naive view of corporate power. And I certainly have nothing against criticizing Chairman Ron’s version of it. But if your criticism of Ron Paul is based on the assertion that he is a
Right anarchist
— and that what makes him an anarchist is that he[wants] the least government possible
then you are about to say something that has probably nothing really to do with, and certainly is not an accurate representation of either Ron Paul or Anarchism. And if you think that Ron Paul is an example of aRight anarchist,
and Noam Chomsky is the best example you can think up for aLeft anarchist,
then I must gently suggest that you are talking outside of your area of expertise. - As if a freed market meant nothing more than that businessmen will act however they please — as if there were no other social forces that could possibly be activated within a freed market.
- There is actually quite a lot of good economic literature demonstrating how and why real-world common-pool resources don’t simply get obliterated, as Hardin predicts they must be, in the absence of individualized ownership or top-down legal regulation. See for example the work of the Ostroms.
The best proof is proof by example. The Anarchistic Libertarian model needs a location where it actually would exist. Thus, these theoretical abstractions and extrapolations would not need to be dredged up. So, having ONE place in the world that is actually free should be the goal rather than changing entire structures. The advantages of such a place would be evident and then spread by example as more people desired the outcome that they observed. Efficient usage of resources on this tiny strand of potential success might lead to surprising outcomes.
No, actually, it wasn’t wholly owned. As wikipedia notes of the Anglo-Persian Oil Company (its predecessor):-
Some thirty years ago I myself once knew a young lady in London who told me that, when she ran short of money, she simply cut back a little until her BP dividends remedied matters. That would have been impossible had BP been “a wholly owned subsidiary of the United Kingdom”.
You have at least the following typos: “descendents” (at least twice); “fortuens”.
And if you think that Ron Paul is an example of a "Right anarchist," and Noam Chomsky is the best example you can think up for a "Left anarchist," then I must gently suggest that you are talking outside of your area of expertise.
I cried at that line, I was laughing so hard. It may have something to do with allergies, but I'm going to stick with the theory that it was the laughter.
Garrett Hardin was a biologist, not an economist. The Tragedy of the Commons is about resources for life, not for "business" or "productivity." Resources for basic existence — the stuff we need BEFORE we can talk about needing an "economy" or the like.
Shooting down a straw-man isn't brave, Kevin.
Being ignorant of Garrett Hardin's take on things, or intentionally distorting it, to make an absurd point… that's not sincere, or intellectually conscientious, or otherwise remotely touching on honesty.
If the best you can do is take pot-shots in which you distort biological observations in order to make an "economics" point, Kevin, I must gently suggest that you are talking outside your area of expertise.
But that's par for the course whenever anyone talks "economics" — which is a bogus science, and a laughable waste of human brainpower.
Now here come the Econ Fanboys to give me the bum's rush….
I've come across this argument (appeal to "Tragedy of the Commons") a thousand times if I've come across it once. It is a very common objection to any call to reduce or eliminate government's power.
Now, Hardin's position may very well be total bullshit (as I'm inclined to believe) but that is beside the point. The people who take that position accept it as gospel, and they wholeheartedly believe it as though it is some empirically established natural law like gravity.
So, in calling that out, Carson is not tearing down some straw man, he's objecting to a very real argument that real people really believe.
My recent post Obama Was on TV Tonight
Maybe so, but I suspect it really depends on what you are trying to prove. In any case, the ability to prove by example requires an interlocutor who's willing to take your examples seriously. David Graeber has a nice passage about how far this kind of argument actually gets you in practice — because the demand for examples is driven by an expectation that the Anarchist can't possibly fulfill (an anarchy which in every respect looks exactly like a modern nation-state, right down to the territorial monopoly), and a willingness to shift the standards ad hoc in order to rule anything she mention out of court.
Sure, but part of the problem is that the "entire structures" are systematically aligned towards using overwhelming violence and political power to ensure that there is no one place in the world that is actually free. If the goal is to find somewhere without a state, and the entire habitable Earth (as well as most of the inhabitable Earth) is covered in states, their armies, their air forces, and their navies, then you need to get some state to fail before you have your place to build an example. And you should keep in mind what the United States does to "failed states."
My recent post M@MM for July 2011 and August 2011: Vices, Crimes, Corporate Power, Privatization, and mo’ Problems.
You're right; that was my mistake. I should have described it as an operating subsidiary or a controlled entity; "wholly-owned" was a careless misstatement. But I do think that the point about BP stands after the correction.
My recent post M@MM for July 2011 and August 2011: Vices, Crimes, Corporate Power, Privatization, and mo’ Problems.
Kevin didn't write this article. I did.
I don't think I described Hardin as an "economist."
What I said is that the "Tragedy of the Commons" is an example of "ahistorical hypotheticals or game-theoretic models," not an example of a historical argument. Which it is: Hardin hardly ever attempts to connect the problem he outlines with actual historical commons or episodes on them. This should not be surprising: Hardin wasn't an historian, either.
There's nothing wrong, of course, with Hardin's specialty (ecology), or with non-historical arguments; but when Anarchists are accused of being "ahistorical," in a conversation where they have been citing the actual historical record of accumulated fortunes, and their interlocutors have been arguing about the imagined outcomes in some purely hypothetical free markets, using game-theoretic models derived from the non-historical work of an ecologist — well, that sounds a bit like special pleading.
My recent post M@MM for July 2011 and August 2011: Vices, Crimes, Corporate Power, Privatization, and mo’ Problems.
Karl wrote:-
That’s not true (about it merely being “about resources for life”), and it wouldn’t be relevant even if it were true. The thing is, that mechanism is of far more general applicability, and in fact it was spotted by someone else (William Forster Lloyd, who was working in the area of economics) far earlier than by Hardin, and Hardin was merely drawing on those earlier observations for use in his own sphere. But that doesn’t mean that, because Hardin used it that way, it suddenly doesn’t apply in other areas. So it’s not “ignorant of Garrett Hardin’s take on things, or intentionally distorting it”, it’s not “mak[ing] an absurd point”, it’s just using the same general principle in a different particular application (one closer to the original, as it happens), and if Karl thinks that was ‘distort[ing] biological observations in order to make an “economics” point’, then – to turn his own words back on him – I must gently suggest that he is talking outside his area of expertise.
Oh, and this isn’t “Econ Fanboys … giv[ing him] the bum’s rush”, either. It’s an attempt to instruct and enlighten him, so he can stay and learn or contribute constructively.
"that there never has been anything resembling a free market"
Free markets exist everytime someone transacts with someone else without outside interference. This happens all of the time.
Iain, it does not happen all the time. For instance, anyone who tries it gets side tracked by having to comply with government regulations, has to pay taxes on the activity, possibly use depreciating fiat money, etc. – or, if they try to bypass all or much of that the way marijuana sellers do, they have to take steps to do so which have their own costs and distortions.
The truth of the matter is, free(d) markets would exist every time someone transacted with someone else without outside interference. This never happens under current arrangements.
Well, OK. If that's how you want to use the word "free market," that's fine. Just as long as everyone else knows that that is how you are using it.
But it wasn't how I was using the term, nor how Juan Cole was using the term — in those contexts the term is being used to something that involves some considerable background conditions to be met — e.g. not only that the two people making that particular transaction at the margin have agreed to do so, but also that competitive entry and exit from the market must be possible without coercive interference; that they are exchanging things that genuinely and rightly belong to them rather than things which really belong to someone else (or in general that the exchange violates no identifiable third party's person or property); that other interrelated markets for the inputs and the outputs for the goods that were exchanged are themselves relatively free in the same sense; etc. And it is all of these features that the monopolized sectors of the so-called "free markets" of the 19th and 20th and 21st centuries have so notably lacked — due to government monopoly, government subsidy, legally-fabricated property claims, etc.
My recent post M@MM for July 2011 and August 2011: Vices, Crimes, Corporate Power, Privatization, and mo’ Problems.
Garrett Hardin was a biologist, so you’re just lying now, “P.M. Lawrence.”
Your lying likely obscures ignorance in the subject area.
He was talking about biological resources — resources for living.
He was not talking about economics, sociology, or business.
You “entrepreneurial” market-anarchists are absurdly solipsistic. You think only your view of the world matters, and everyone else either agrees with you or doesn’t… and those you deem as not agreeing, you distort their views (ignore their own perspectives).
I find your supposed rebuttal absurd, “P.M. Lawrence.” Garrett Hardin was talking about ecosystems in the literal way: ecology, not economics. Despite the etymological similarities, ecology is not the same as economics — not as used by “economists” anyway. “Economists” typically call ecological concerns “externalities” and ignore them… just as you are doing.
That you have to distort him to make your point shows your ignorance and selfish solipsism as the nonsense it truly is.
Years ago, I came across a book called "My Story", by a distant cousin known as Paddy "the Cope" Gallagher. Paddy grew up as a very poor boy in a tiny town, much like the "company towns" we have been warned about; a few very powerful landowners, originally installed by the violent force of the Brits, tightly controlled access to the market. Paddy's innovation was to start up a co-op – a competing store which would sell goods at lower prices. It's a long story, but among other things, he bought and sold handmade sweaters from the local girls; he offered them higher prices than they had gotten before; he bought a ship and built a dock and got better prices in Britain for their handiwork. That town no longer was controlled by the big landowners; people had more choices, better wages and a higher standard of living, thanks the heroic efforts of a man who started with nothing more than his wits and will.
He did all of this in spite of violent opposition from "gombeen men" (thugs) sent by the landlords to shut down his co-op. The police did what they usually do in company towns: nothing useful.
I relate this story to relate that people do have choices, even in "company towns", even against the opposition of the government.
Readers, I have just noticed Karl’s vituperation and abuse, which I shall rebut point by point:-
- Garrett Hardin was indeed a biologist (and more – let’s not be narrow). However, he was not the person who came up with the mechanism of “The Tragedy of the Commons” and figured out its applicability (nor did he deny that he had predecessors). As I pointed out, that was William Forster Lloyd – and he was working more broadly. Garrett Hardin just popularised it again in his own narrower context, a generation or so ago.
- It is absolutely true that Garrett Hardin was talking about biological resources – resources for living – and was not talking about economics, sociology, or business (although, of course, economics does cover “resources for living”). It is also absolutely irrelevant, since the mechanism remains of broader application, and in fact it was originally explored just precisely because of its implications in the economic area. This is just what I already pointed out.
The thought has occurred to me that, when Karl writes of “The Tragedy of the Commons”, he does not actually mean “The Tragedy of the Commons” at all but Garrett Hardin’s book of the same name, ignoring the mechanism itself. So now who is being solipsistic and ignoring anything that falls out of his area? And what justification does he have for calling me a liar, simply for not agreeing to be bound by his narrowness?
Terry Freeman, “gombeen man” is not a synonym for “thug” (most were petty moneylenders), and the landlord class in Ireland was not uniformly opposed to co-ops; in fact some of the earliest successes there along those lines were established by the Anglo-Irish, e.g. Horace Plunkett. Note, however, that these were co-ops adding downstream value on behalf of upstream producers, which my observations and my own research suggest are usually more successful than consumer oriented co-ops.
Let's not forget that Mises also described external effects and 'tragedy of the commons'-type problems:
http://mises.org/daily/1373 http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/archive…
TT
My recent post Here's some EXCELLENT passionate intensity on Crony Capitalism! Russ Roberts: "I Want My Country Back"