Context for the Bailout - Confessions of a Monopolist

[BaRbArIaN]

Thing is, you'd have to get all the individuals to collectivize to set up the system you envision, then some elitists would claim moral authority to dispense all of this "economic justice" to those that exclude.  Therein lies the rub, and why Georgism will always be the in the realm of loons, hatters and knights that say "nee!".    You cannot seriously think that humans will change the system of land as property they have had for thousands of years just because a few intellectual philosophers think it is more "just" to claim it is all in the commons and everyone must be able to collect the commons welfare check if individuals want to use their own land.     Might as well assert that because its better to be nice to people that everyone will voluntarily change to a non-aggression principle and world peace can be declared.    Don Quixote was quite grounded in comparison.

[BillKauffman]

Thing is, you'd have to get all the individuals to collectivize to set up the system you envision, then some elitists would claim moral authority to dispense all of this "economic justice" to those that exclude.  Therein lies the rub, and why Georgism will always be the in the realm of loons, hatters and knights that say "nee!".    You cannot seriously think that humans will change the system of land as property they have had for thousands of years just because a few intellectual philosophers think it is more "just" to claim it is all in the commons and everyone must be able to collect the commons welfare check if individuals want to use their own land.     Might as well assert that because its better to be nice to people that everyone will voluntarily change to a non-aggression principle and world peace can be declared.    Don Quixote was quite grounded in comparison.

NH really only has local property taxes. First step, shift taxes off of buildings and solely onto locational value.

Viola!

There was even a Georgist legislator in NH (Dick Noyes - N. Salem) who proposed this once.

[Porcupine_in_MA]

Again, the force used is defensive in nature - to uphold individual rights of self-ownership of those being excluded. The original force is the exclusion which forces those being excluded to be economically harmed.

So me homesteading a piece of land is force on others just by simply being there and declaring it is mine? Sorry, how is that force on someone else? It sounds like you're coming from the assumption that if there is land out there that is not privately owned it is automatically owned in common so my homesteading a piece of the land is stealing it.

[John Edward Mercier]

Wiki:'Generally speaking, collectivism in the field of economics holds that some things should be owned by the group and used for the benefit of all rather than being owned by individuals. Central to this view is the concept of the commons, as opposed to private property. Some collectivists apply this principle only to the means of production, while others argue that all valued commodities, like environmental goods, should be regarded as public goods and placed under public ownership.

Collectivism in economics may or may not involve a state as a manager and steward of collective property'

This is very confused. Private property and common property are based on individual rights.

Collective property is based on joint rights.

I didn't write it...

[Caleb]

Again, the force used is defensive in nature - to uphold individual rights of self-ownership of those being excluded. The original force is the exclusion which forces those being excluded to be economically harmed.

So me homesteading a piece of land is force on others just by simply being there and declaring it is mine? Sorry, how is that force on someone else? It sounds like you're coming from the assumption that if there is land out there that is not privately owned it is automatically owned in common so my homesteading a piece of the land is stealing it.

I think what he is saying is that your homesteading a piece of land is force on others if, and only if, by doing so you bring economic harm to others.

Change the subject away from land and look at water.  Let's say you live in a place where the water tables are so low that digging a well is not possible, and you (and everyone else in the community) rely on surface water from a river that runs through your property.  Could you dam the river?  If you did dam the river, would other people down line from you be justified in destroying your dam?

Is breathing a right? Supposedly, you own all the air above your property to a certain level. And since all land is owned by someone, couldn't we conceivably set up a system where people could be charged for breathing?  And if you don't own any land ... and if you are out of money ... well, you just die. Is breathing a right?  If you say "yes, breathing is a right, people cannot be charged for breathing just because you own the land" then you are essentially saying that a person has a right to have access to the means of survival. If that is the case, it is hypocritical to deny that people have the right to use land, because exclusion from land will also result in their death.

[Caleb]

No harm no foul up until Locke's proviso. Since the location itself is not created via human labor it is via privilege that it becomes private property conveyed via title and backed by force for exclusive use.

???  I don't get it, Grennon. You mocked me for saying that under communism we could still own private residences as a sort of "gentleman's agreement" but then you say this, which seems to just be rephrasing what I said (calling it "privilege" instead of "gentleman's agreement" but the idea is the same.)

[John Edward Mercier]

Again, the force used is defensive in nature - to uphold individual rights of self-ownership of those being excluded. The original force is the exclusion which forces those being excluded to be economically harmed.

So me homesteading a piece of land is force on others just by simply being there and declaring it is mine? Sorry, how is that force on someone else? It sounds like you're coming from the assumption that if there is land out there that is not privately owned it is automatically owned in common so my homesteading a piece of the land is stealing it.

I think what he is saying is that your homesteading a piece of land is force on others if, and only if, by doing so you bring economic harm to others.

Change the subject away from land and look at water.  Let's say you live in a place where the water tables are so low that digging a well is not possible, and you (and everyone else in the community) rely on surface water from a river that runs through your property.  Could you dam the river?  If you did dam the river, would other people down line from you be justified in destroying your dam?

Is breathing a right? Supposedly, you own all the air above your property to a certain level. And since all land is owned by someone, couldn't we conceivably set up a system where people could be charged for breathing?  And if you don't own any land ... and if you are out of money ... well, you just die. Is breathing a right?  If you say "yes, breathing is a right, people cannot be charged for breathing just because you own the land" then you are essentially saying that a person has a right to have access to the means of survival. If that is the case, it is hypocritical to deny that people have the right to use land, because exclusion from land will also result in their death.

Airspace and air... are not the same.

The water well is a better example... it would be immoral of an individual to pump so much water as to lower the water table and thus restrict access to common property.

[Caleb]

Airspace and air... are not the same.

Only because the law doesn't say so. But why not? I mean, if you own the airspace, that presumably ought to include the air which composes it, just like you own the dirt that composes the land that you build on.

[John Edward Mercier]

The air is fluid... so without some means to contain it.
When you breathe in, you exclude that volume of air from my usage. But when you exhale you give up that exclusion. Sort of like abandoning property.

[Pat McCotter]

I breathe in the air, use the oxygen in it and replace it with carbon dioxide. That doesn't sound like I'm leaving "as good as."

[jaqeboy]

Here's another current usage of "capitalism" and note that he always writes "state capitalism." Not many are going to agree with Chomsky on all points - that's a given, but it's his usage I'm noting:

Anti-Democratic Nature of US Capitalism is Being Exposed, by Noam Chomsky, The Irish Times, 10 October 2008.

Note also the John Dewey quote: "Politics is the shadow cast on society by big business." - could be interpreted as "the capitalists", since most big businesses of Dewey's era were owned by "the capitalists."

Then Chomsky's remark: "The United States effectively has a one-party system, the business party, with two factions, Republicans and Democrats." ... and when Chomsky refers to the "business party", I'm assuming he's referring to "big business", being the "capitalists" in the "state capitalism" he refers to by usage.

[jaqeboy]

Jack's claiming that the words "capitalist" and "capitalism" originally meant the same as "corporatist" and "corporatism" remember? I'd still like to see evidence to this effect. Even if it did originally mean that I don't think it is as confusing to everyone as he is making it out to be.
Folk who are against "capitalism" most of the times are against a real free market (I know because I've asked them) so it works out the same.

Sorry for the delay in the research and response department - that effort had to be put on hold for some other business to get done.

Here's an example of one of Konkin's (Samuel Edward Konkin III, RIP: February 23, 2004) attempts to clarify the issue to libertarians:

Paradoxically, as with various populist movements in the United States, I suspect the success of the Social Crediters in Canada actually reflects the ingrained anti-statism of the populace. They rightly perceive corporate capitalism as a system of power; and they likewise see that the banking system is a big part of the power of organized capital. But they fail to fully perceive the role of state capitalist intervention in this power, and are distracted by statist remedies. It's much as is the case with Georgists: they rightly perceive the political appropriation of land (a la Oppenheimer and Nock) as central to exploitation – they just go off track in the proposed remedy. [emphasis mine]

Sorry, Bill K, just quoting, eh?

This is from Jeff Riggenbach's obituary for Konkin on the ISIL site. I know this doesn't go back far enough historically, but I'll be digging it up from the archives for ya.

[jaqeboy]

Here's another Konkin clarification in an interview with him:

In theory, those calling themselves anarcho-capitalists (I believe Jarrett Wollstein, in his defection from Objectivism, coined the term back in early 1968) do not differ drastically from agorists; both claim to want anarchy (statelessness, and we pretty much agree on the definition of the State as a monopoly of legitimized coercion, borrowed from Rand and reinforced by Rothbard).  But the moment we apply the ideology to the real world (as the Marxoids say, "Actually Existing Capitalism") we diverge on several points immediately.

First and foremost, agorists stress the Entrepreneur, see non-statist Capitalists (in the sense of holders of capital, not necessary ideologically aware) as relatively neutral drone-like non-innovators, and pro-statist Capitalists as the main Evil in the political realm. Hence our favorable outlook toward "conspiracy theory" fans, even when we think they're misled or confused. ...

The "Anarcho-capitalists" tend to conflate the Innovator (Entrepreneur) and Capitalist, much as the Marxoids and cruder collectivists do.  (It's interesting that the gradual victory of Austrian Economics, particularly in Europe, has led to some New Leftists at least to take our claim seriously that the Capitalist and Entrepreneur are very different classes requiring different analyses, and attempt to grapple with the problem [from their point of view] that creates for them.)

Agorists are strict Rothbardians, and, I would argue in this case, even more Rothbardian than Rothbard, who still had some of the older confusion in his thinking.  But he was Misesian, and Mises made the original distinction between Innovators/Arbitrageurs and Capital-holders (i.e., mortgage-holders, coupon-clippers, financiers, worthless heirs, landlords, etc.).  With the Market largely moving to the 'net, it is becoming ever-more pure entrepreneurial, leaving the brick 'n' mortar "capitalist" behind.

So, what many in the movement revere is entrepreneurship (creating profitable enterprises), not capitalism (maintaining position in industry through political influence bought with their, ahem, capital).

As a PS, Sam coined the term "agorist" when he felt the term "libertarian" had been completely polluted by its use in the name of a corrupted political party. The word, of course, still has meaning, but a false impression has been given to many people that libertarians are for capitalism (and war imperialism, and any number of other conservative notions that are in some corrupted versions of libertarianism).

another PS: There's some good early history on the word libertarian and on the early history of the modern libertarian movement in this interview.

[jaqeboy]

Except with capitalism it was the other way around: The word originally referred to a non-free system—not mercantilism, but the feudalistic factory system created in the 1800s. Then the capitalists themselves conflated the term with the free market in order to hide their true nature and gain support among free marketeers.

Another term for "true" capitalism might be industrial feudalism or industrial manorialism.

References I can read up on you and Jack's original meaning of capitalism?

Here's some Karl Hess from the June 15, 1969 issue of The Libertarian Forum:

This is a far cry from sharing common ground with those who want to create a society in which super capitalists are free to amass vast holdings and who say that that is ultimately the most important purpose of freedom. This is proto-heroic nonsense. [I assume Karl is referring to Rand]

Libertarianism is a people's movement and a liberation movement. It seeks the sort of open, non-coercive society in which the people, the living, free, distinct people may voluntarily associate, dis-associate, and, as they see fit, participate in the decisions affecting their lives. This means a truly free market in everything from ideas to idiosyncrasies. It means people free collectively to organize the resources of their immediate community or individualistically to organize them; it means the freedom to have a community-based and supported judiciary where wanted, none where not, or private arbitration services where that is seen as most desirable. The same with police. The same with schools, hospitals, factories, farms, laboratories, parks, and pensions. Liberty means the right to shape your own institutions. It opposes the right of those institutions to shape you simply because of accreted power or gerontological status.

and, not specifically to the definition of capitalism, but in reference to libertarian class theory and strategy regarding justice for corporate capitalist enterprises...

The same principle applies to nominally "private" property which really comes from the State as a result of zealous lobbying on behalf of the recipient. Columbia University, for example, which receives nearly two-thirds of its income from government, is only a "private" college in the most ironic sense. It deserves a similar fate of virtuous homesteading confiscation.

But if Columbia University, what of General Dynamics? What of the myriad of corporations which are integral parts of the military-industrial complex, which not only get over half or sometimes virtually all their revenue from the government but also participate in mass murder? What are their credentials to "private" property? Surely less than zero. As eager lobbyists for these contracts and subsidies, as co-founders of the garrison state, they deserve confiscation and reversion of their property to the genuine private sector as rapidly as possible. To say that their "private" property must be respected is to say that the property stolen by the horsethief and the murdered [sic] must be "respected".

But how then do we go about destatizing the entire mass of government property, as well as the "private property" of General Dynamics? All this needs detailed thought and inquiry on the part of libertarians. One method would be to turn over ownership to the homesteading workers in the particular plants; another to turn over pro-rata ownership to the individual taxpayers. But we must face the fact that it might prove the most practical route to first nationalize the property as a prelude to redistribution. Thus, how could the ownership of General Dynamics be transferred to the deserving taxpayers without first being nationalized enroute? And, further more, even if the government should decide to nationalize General Dynamics—without compensation, of course—per se and not as a prelude to redistribution to the taxpayers, this is not immoral or something to be combatted. For it would only mean that one gang of thieves—the government—would be confiscating property from another previously cooperating gang, the corporation that has lived off the government. I do not often agree with John Kenneth Galbraith, but his recent suggestion to nationalize businesses which get more than 75% of their revenue from government, or from the military, has considerable merit. Certainly it does not mean aggression against private property, and, furthermore, we could expect a considerable diminution of zeal from the military-industrial complex if much of the profits were taken out of war and plunder. And besides, it would make the American military machine less efficient, being governmental, and that is surely all to the good. But why stop at 75%? Fifty per cent seems to be a reasonable cutoff point on whether an organization is largely public or largely private.

And there is another consideration. Dow Chemical, for example, has been heavily criticized for making napalm for the U.S. military machine. The percentage of its sales coming from napalm is undoubtedly small, so that on a percentage basis the company may not seem very guilty; but napalm is and can only be an instrument of mass murder, and therefore Dow Chemical is heavily up to its neck in being an accessory and hence a co-partner in the mass murder in Vietnam. No percentage of sales, however small, can absolve its guilt.

Kinda hard to swallow that nationalization step, Karl.

[Caleb]

I breathe in the air, use the oxygen in it and replace it with carbon dioxide. That doesn't sound like I'm leaving "as good as."

  Then again, if you expelled the same air, there wouldn't be much point to taking it in in the first place.

I don't get all worked up about the locke's proviso. Grennon is in love with Locke's proviso. But for me, it's your simple need that defines what you will and must do.  You breathe because you must.