Fine, boilerplate. I can't promise you a 100% batting average.
I think we can privatize some things too but I think we should be very conservative in our approach. Some of these things are public for a reason, and profit and efficiency are not the most important considerations always.
You know, I thought that too for a while, but I think Bastiat himself falls into his own trap. Playing that game is like looking at a picture within a picture within a picture. What is seen and what is not seen, and then another not seen behind that and so on.
My own take is that until we can find a way to successfully run our society without a state, then state workers should have a way to bargain against the state themselves. I find Kevin Carson’s arguments extremely persuasive, and think his version of left-wing libertarianism (or mutualism or whatever you want to call it) is a desirable end-goal. But I find that conservative or contemporary libertarian politics are as likely to lead us toward a heavily corporatized neoliberal state than anything.
A left movement focused on labor rights is more likely to eventually transform into something like Carson is talking about. And again, I think that’s a desirable end-goal, but in a world where capital is so heavily concentrated in the very few, and where political capital is also concentrated in the hands of a very few, I don’t find many of the arguments of the limited-government crowd very convincing.
Furthermore, I do find most privatization efforts ‘schemes’. No-bid contracts is one problem; another is that it’s often as not just the government paying a monopolized interest to do their work for them with less oversight.
I’ll bring up libraries again. If we want to ‘privatize’ libraries by making them public cooperatives, I’d be all for this. As it stands, though, a local public library is much closer to a local cooperative than a privatized, for-profit library run by a multi-national corporation.
But really thanks for complaining Sam. I hate to admit it, but not all of my posts are super interesting or iconoclastic. I'm not sure I have it in me to never be strident and always be interesting. The Walker thing pisses me off and so I'm writing about it that way. I fail to see the point in making it so personal.
First off I call it a scheme because that's exactly what it is. Second it's just another straw man to say I never wrote strident before. And actually polls show a majority of Americans side with the unions. So....
This and Carson's piece are both very good. But - while I think that the core argument is true - that there are laws in place which hamper organized labor, and that laws are typically written to benefit management over labor - I do not think that the only solution is to repeal all those laws and imagine all will be well. What's to stop corporations from simply outsourcing everything in this scenario?
Not to mention, there are a number of workplace laws in place that still do benefit workers (safety regulations for example). And last, even if all of this is true and the legal regime is the primary issue (ignoring historical private union-busting, Pinkertons, etc.) then it still is only commentary on whether a specific set of laws benefits labor or management and says very little about market anarchy in general, or about the usefulness of the state in many other capacities (i.e. healthcare, education, defense, etc.) Ya dig?
Now that capital has, in fact, decided on a neoliberal path of busting unions and capping real wages, for labor to continue to fight by the capitalist state’s rules is suicidal.
Kevin - a couple of questions:
What differentiates contemporary libertarianism from neoliberalism? You are a free-market anti-capitalist. How do you reconcile the two, or rather how do you get the free markets without the capitalism?
If contemporary libertarianism is essentially capitalist libertarianism, or a particular form of neoliberalism, what is the alternative? How does mutualism differentiate itself and would you say it is more than just left-wing libertarianism?
And finally, where I find I myself get hung up is the notion of the public sphere - public libraries, public schools, public spaces, these seem at times to be the last places that aren't corporatized. What libertarians often want is to privatize everything, subject it to competition. Removing the state too often seems to be laying the welcome mat for big corporations that aren't any better and sometimes are much worse.
What is the mutualist or left-wing libertarian alternative to this?
Here's my problem. On the one hand, it's quite true that there have been legal efforts to quash labor throughout the past century. This is a strong case for some sort of pro-labor libertarianism (left-wing libertarianism if you will) and I find that a very appealing position to take. Or mutualism.
But there were plenty of extralegal efforts to quash unions as well, from the Pinkertons to company towns and so forth. Furthermore, it seems just as likely that the act of removing legal restrictions would be captured by the ruling class as imposing them would be. In other words, while I philosophically agree with you whole-heartedly, and find Kevin's take on this all very compelling, in practice I wonder if it's any more likely to benefit the working class than the progressive politics that lead to Wagner.
But in the end, this is why I still think that libertarianism of a certain flavor and progressivism of a certain flavor can and should work together. Laws preventing free association, preventing unions and management from bargaining, and preventing sympathy strikes and so forth seem like the major obstacles in reviving labor in this country. But the majority of libertarians don't really care about organized labor. So while I understand the antipathy here and in Kevin's work toward progressive politics and the way perhaps well-intentioned ideas were captured by the ruling class, I can't help but think that it's the left that is still much more concerned with labor rights and these issues than any but a handful of heterodox libertarians, mutualists and anarchists.
And as always, how to get from point Z to point A when the super rich hold so much political clout. We may indeed need fewer laws, but we still need the government and some voice in the political class to push for those laws to be revoked, and to push for them to be revoked in such a way that they benefit workers not just corporations and the well-connected.
Alex Inapplicable has a good post about tax and wealth distribution here: http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/redistribution-from-the-feds-not-really/
I think the tax code needs to be far, far more progressive especially on the upper earners. I see no reason why they should not bear the brunt of taxes, they also reap the greatest benefits from society.
I’ve been writing about my political struggles and political evolution publicly for a long time. I was writing posts about progressive traditionalism and left-conservatism and all sorts of stuff like that years ago. If you think that this is either A) a sudden transformation with no roots in my earlier writing (I backed the healthcare bill!) or B) opportunistic (I write at the Washington Examiner and have an upcoming gig at Forbes - two conservative publications and the only sources of my writing income) then you really haven’t been paying attention. And that’s fine - there’s no reason you should pay attention - this is my own political evolution we’re talking about, not yours. But I would hesitate before calling into question the sincerity of just about anyone who decided that they were wrong about something and then changed their mind.
Brooks is just extremely wrong, Mike. Can you counter any of Fargus's points? Public unions negotiate with the public bureaucracy. They no more directly influence elections than any other special interest.
I'm outsourcing my response to Fargus. I'd just note there's really nothing different between public and private unions. One negotiates with private employers, one negotiates with public employers. Public sector unions do not bargain ‘against the taxpayer’ any more than private sector unions bargain against the consumer
This is where you and I will simply have to very seriously disagree. What do you mean by "well positioned to do so"? I'm not sure you understand how difficult that is for many people or just how many people are not in fact well-positioned to save, or well educated enough, or whose 401k's mysteriously vanish just before retirement.
Also, if you don't support this sort of redistribution out of altruism, you probably ought to simply to avert societal collapse. A generation of impoverished retirees will be more disastrous for libertarians than anything I can think of.
On “The Walker Roadmap”
Fine, boilerplate. I can't promise you a 100% batting average.
I think we can privatize some things too but I think we should be very conservative in our approach. Some of these things are public for a reason, and profit and efficiency are not the most important considerations always.
"
This is what is seen.
You know, I thought that too for a while, but I think Bastiat himself falls into his own trap. Playing that game is like looking at a picture within a picture within a picture. What is seen and what is not seen, and then another not seen behind that and so on.
Re: public support of public sector unions, this is the Gallup poll.
My own take is that until we can find a way to successfully run our society without a state, then state workers should have a way to bargain against the state themselves. I find Kevin Carson’s arguments extremely persuasive, and think his version of left-wing libertarianism (or mutualism or whatever you want to call it) is a desirable end-goal. But I find that conservative or contemporary libertarian politics are as likely to lead us toward a heavily corporatized neoliberal state than anything.
A left movement focused on labor rights is more likely to eventually transform into something like Carson is talking about. And again, I think that’s a desirable end-goal, but in a world where capital is so heavily concentrated in the very few, and where political capital is also concentrated in the hands of a very few, I don’t find many of the arguments of the limited-government crowd very convincing.
Furthermore, I do find most privatization efforts ‘schemes’. No-bid contracts is one problem; another is that it’s often as not just the government paying a monopolized interest to do their work for them with less oversight.
I’ll bring up libraries again. If we want to ‘privatize’ libraries by making them public cooperatives, I’d be all for this. As it stands, though, a local public library is much closer to a local cooperative than a privatized, for-profit library run by a multi-national corporation.
"
But really thanks for complaining Sam. I hate to admit it, but not all of my posts are super interesting or iconoclastic. I'm not sure I have it in me to never be strident and always be interesting. The Walker thing pisses me off and so I'm writing about it that way. I fail to see the point in making it so personal.
"
First off I call it a scheme because that's exactly what it is. Second it's just another straw man to say I never wrote strident before. And actually polls show a majority of Americans side with the unions. So....
"
I don't think he needs to be demonized. But he is wrong and that should be pointed out.
On “Labor Roundtable: Why Market Anarchy Favors Labor”
I'm not quite sure this one is here for knowledge...
On “Labor Roundtable: Kevin Carson”
Thanks.
"
Brandon we have a commenting policy. Please adhere to it and leave the ad hominem at the door.
On “Labor Roundtable: Why Market Anarchy Favors Labor”
One last comment for clarity (hopefully):
This and Carson's piece are both very good. But - while I think that the core argument is true - that there are laws in place which hamper organized labor, and that laws are typically written to benefit management over labor - I do not think that the only solution is to repeal all those laws and imagine all will be well. What's to stop corporations from simply outsourcing everything in this scenario?
Not to mention, there are a number of workplace laws in place that still do benefit workers (safety regulations for example). And last, even if all of this is true and the legal regime is the primary issue (ignoring historical private union-busting, Pinkertons, etc.) then it still is only commentary on whether a specific set of laws benefits labor or management and says very little about market anarchy in general, or about the usefulness of the state in many other capacities (i.e. healthcare, education, defense, etc.) Ya dig?
On “Labor Roundtable: Kevin Carson”
Kevin - a couple of questions:
What differentiates contemporary libertarianism from neoliberalism? You are a free-market anti-capitalist. How do you reconcile the two, or rather how do you get the free markets without the capitalism?
If contemporary libertarianism is essentially capitalist libertarianism, or a particular form of neoliberalism, what is the alternative? How does mutualism differentiate itself and would you say it is more than just left-wing libertarianism?
And finally, where I find I myself get hung up is the notion of the public sphere - public libraries, public schools, public spaces, these seem at times to be the last places that aren't corporatized. What libertarians often want is to privatize everything, subject it to competition. Removing the state too often seems to be laying the welcome mat for big corporations that aren't any better and sometimes are much worse.
What is the mutualist or left-wing libertarian alternative to this?
On “Labor Roundtable: Why Market Anarchy Favors Labor”
Very good post, Mark.
Here's my problem. On the one hand, it's quite true that there have been legal efforts to quash labor throughout the past century. This is a strong case for some sort of pro-labor libertarianism (left-wing libertarianism if you will) and I find that a very appealing position to take. Or mutualism.
But there were plenty of extralegal efforts to quash unions as well, from the Pinkertons to company towns and so forth. Furthermore, it seems just as likely that the act of removing legal restrictions would be captured by the ruling class as imposing them would be. In other words, while I philosophically agree with you whole-heartedly, and find Kevin's take on this all very compelling, in practice I wonder if it's any more likely to benefit the working class than the progressive politics that lead to Wagner.
But in the end, this is why I still think that libertarianism of a certain flavor and progressivism of a certain flavor can and should work together. Laws preventing free association, preventing unions and management from bargaining, and preventing sympathy strikes and so forth seem like the major obstacles in reviving labor in this country. But the majority of libertarians don't really care about organized labor. So while I understand the antipathy here and in Kevin's work toward progressive politics and the way perhaps well-intentioned ideas were captured by the ruling class, I can't help but think that it's the left that is still much more concerned with labor rights and these issues than any but a handful of heterodox libertarians, mutualists and anarchists.
And as always, how to get from point Z to point A when the super rich hold so much political clout. We may indeed need fewer laws, but we still need the government and some voice in the political class to push for those laws to be revoked, and to push for them to be revoked in such a way that they benefit workers not just corporations and the well-connected.
On “The Death and Life of the Great American Middle Class”
What makes you think they don't already?
"
Yeah, that is odd...
"
Taxes on entitlements aren't very progressive. The payroll tax, for instance.
"
I would also support a progressive corporate and capital gains tax code.
"
Sam/Dennis/etc.
Alex Inapplicable has a good post about tax and wealth distribution here: http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/redistribution-from-the-feds-not-really/
I think the tax code needs to be far, far more progressive especially on the upper earners. I see no reason why they should not bear the brunt of taxes, they also reap the greatest benefits from society.
"
It's because I hate America Scott.
"
Taxes alone are a poor metric by which to gauge the wealthy and the benefits and influence the rich have in this country.
"
Oh you know me, Mike, I just don't do nuance.
"
Fair enough. I hope to not disappoint.
"
Joe -
I’ve been writing about my political struggles and political evolution publicly for a long time. I was writing posts about progressive traditionalism and left-conservatism and all sorts of stuff like that years ago. If you think that this is either A) a sudden transformation with no roots in my earlier writing (I backed the healthcare bill!) or B) opportunistic (I write at the Washington Examiner and have an upcoming gig at Forbes - two conservative publications and the only sources of my writing income) then you really haven’t been paying attention. And that’s fine - there’s no reason you should pay attention - this is my own political evolution we’re talking about, not yours. But I would hesitate before calling into question the sincerity of just about anyone who decided that they were wrong about something and then changed their mind.
"
Brooks is just extremely wrong, Mike. Can you counter any of Fargus's points? Public unions negotiate with the public bureaucracy. They no more directly influence elections than any other special interest.
"
I'm outsourcing my response to Fargus. I'd just note there's really nothing different between public and private unions. One negotiates with private employers, one negotiates with public employers. Public sector unions do not bargain ‘against the taxpayer’ any more than private sector unions bargain against the consumer
"
This is where you and I will simply have to very seriously disagree. What do you mean by "well positioned to do so"? I'm not sure you understand how difficult that is for many people or just how many people are not in fact well-positioned to save, or well educated enough, or whose 401k's mysteriously vanish just before retirement.
Also, if you don't support this sort of redistribution out of altruism, you probably ought to simply to avert societal collapse. A generation of impoverished retirees will be more disastrous for libertarians than anything I can think of.
"
Well put, Fargus.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.