The chief failing of the mainstream "antiglobalization" movement is, IMO,
they fail to recognize the extent that the global corporate economy rests on
state intervention. Or at least, they fail to make the obvious deductions
from such an analysis. I've seen many, like Chomsky, who argue corre
The mercantilist phenomenon of "globalization" is quite different from free
trade. And genuine free trade is not the same thing as what people like
Thomas Friedman call "free trade." Free trade does not require the Bretton
Woods institutions, the Uruguay Round of GATT, and the U.S. government
Sorry. It means "in my opinion."
>From: john hull <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: RE: Silent Takeover--IMO??
>Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 20:54:47 -0700 (PDT)
>
>--- Kevin Carson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> w
Voter attitudes generally reflect a conventional wisdom that is shaped by
the corporate media and statist educational system. A whole series of
buzzwords comes to mind--ideological hegemony, the sociology of knowledge,
reproduction of human capital--but they all boil down to the fact that a
f
I think you're underestimating the massive effects of state capitalist
intervention not only individuallly, but the synergy between them.
Regarding transportation subsidies alone, Tibor Machan wrote a good article
for The Freeman (August 99, I think) against not only transportation
subsidies,
I considered the online book dealers a positive development from the
beginning. The mail-order and internet vendors are, in some ways, a
throwback to the days of the Sears Roebuck catalog, when the alternative to
local mom and pop retailers wasn't the "big box store," but rather a network
of
>From: Bryan Caplan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>First, the roads and airports are already here, so there would not be
>much of a decentralizing effect of cutting off subsidies and eminent
>domain now.
But because of the effect of subsidies in distorting the market price link
between quantity supplied
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please bear with me
>as the proofreader inside suggests you mean "eminent" (rather than
>"imminent") domain in referring to the alleged *right* of governments to
>take
>control of private property for public use.
Yep, you caught me. D'oh!!
___
Tom DeLay (who looks something like a grown-up version of Damien) tried to
change the process, by threatening to deny access to lobbyists who had given
any money to the Demos. I have no idea whether the stragtegy panned out
>From: Fred Foldvary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Excellent point. For example, the commons which existed under the manorial
system had at least as much claim to be "private" property as a joint-stock
corporation.
And any theory of private property should take into account that the Lockean
system (with absentee ownership, landlordism, etc.)
>From: "Alex Robson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Are you (and North?) saying that socialism (whose defining feature is the
>absence of private property rights) has been the natural state of
>affairs,
>and that private property rights are unnatural?
>
>If so, you might be interested to know that is
Interesting. Your remarks on tunnelling dovetail nicely with an excellent
article by Sean Corrigan at LewRockwell.com:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/corrigan/corrigan13.html
Corrigan refers to privatization, as part of IMF-imposed "structural
adjustments", as a carpet-bagger strategy for enabl
>From: "Alex Robson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > As for socialism, its defining characteristic is not necessarily the
>absence
> >of private property rights. Tucker simply defined socialism by two
> >criteria: the beliefs that 1) all value was created by labor; and 2)
>that
> >labor should get 10
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>I'm not sure that anyone knows what it means or rather, that there's any
>common agreement on what it means. It seems to have started out referring
>to
>a group of Sixties liberals in America who decided that Big Government
>wasn't
>an effective way of pursuing the g
>From: "Alex Robson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >>I haven't read the Pipes book. He's a neoconservative, isn't he?
>I don't know what the term "neoconservative" means, nor do I understand
>why
>that particular label is relevant to this discussion.
Neoconservatism, generally speaking, is a sort of
I know Georgists support land taxes (or community collection of rent, if you
prefer) to fund services. That is one of my central points of disagreement.
Ideally, taxes should be eliminated altogether. Every service should be
funded by those who use it, with user-fees assessed pro rata accordi
And free market anarchists like Tucker, who also identified themselves as
"libertarian socialists," saw the state as the central, defining
characteristic of capitalist exploitation (and all other forms of
exploitation). Exploitation, defined as the use of force to enable one
person to live of
>From: Fred Foldvary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>In which case you yourself are 80% Georgist, because if taxes there be not,
>then landowners will bear the major cost of infrastructure now paid for by
>the taxation of labor and capital. That will deflate their land value, now
>puffed up by the capital
>From: Grey Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
>User-fees are an excellent idea, but I don't think
>incompatible with a Lib-Georgist land value tax:
>Who supports the judiciary? Who supports the
>Dept. of War? er, Defense? -- property owners,
>who need/use local police and international police,
>as
>From: Fred Foldvary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > As for "defense," a decentralized, stateless society would present few
> > concentrated targets of value to foreign predators; it would have no
> > central government to surrender;
>
>Tell that to the American Indians.
OK, adding the proviso that the
For an occupant, the incentive to build on one's own land would be the same
as always. Since there would be no restriction on the right of the actual
occupier of a piece of land to charge a price before quitting it, it would
be possible to recoup the value of improvements. The only differenc
>From: Bryan Caplan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > For an occupant, the incentive to build on one's own land would be the
>same
> > as always. Since there would be no restriction on the right of the
>actual
> > occupier of a piece of land to charge a price before quitting it
>Does "quitting" have to
tualist occupancy
tenure than to Geoist rent collection, viewing the former as having a
plausible claim to being a genuine form of private property.
Kevin Carson wrote:
>>I meant slum occupants would simply become de facto owners, and stop
>>paying
>>rent--was that your understandi
One possible answer might be that these "helpful" companies are less honest
than they claim to be. I called Progressive for a quote, and the lowest
quotes they gave me for strict liability auto coverage was in the $50/month
range, roughly in the same range they were offering. They didn't ment
>From: Anton Sherwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>Kevin Carson wrote:
> > Like speculations on seizing land left fallow or whose
> > owner goes away on a 2-week vacation, this requires putting
> > the most inconvenient spin possible on mutualist rules.
>
>I
So Gosplan economists independently discovered Mises' "rational calculation"
problem? That's almost as amazing as Comrade Stalin inventing the airplane!
>From: john hull <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: soviet economists
>Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002
Actually, they support state capitalism under the name of "progressivism" or
"putting people first" or some equally inane goo-goo slogan. Just about
every part of the Progressive/New Deal agenda reflected the interests of big
business in cartelizing and stabilizing the corporate economy; it wa
"Socialism" is a historical term whose use has evolved over time. I believe
it first appeared in an Owenite periodical, the London Cooperative Journal,
in 1829 or 1830.
The beginning of the classical socialist movement was the Ricardian
socialist movement. They were inspired by two arguments
I'd say just the opposite, that SS is an important component of state
capitalism; and like most regulations and "welfare" spending, it serves to
cartelize the economy.
By acting through the state to organize pension programs, the large
corporations effectively function as a state-enforced carte
But in areas where the supply of labor is relatively inelastic, such as
scientific-technical workers, the state steps in by socializing the cost of
education and training. For example, that program so beloved of
"progressives" who await the second coming of FDR: the G.I. Bill.
In a partially
From: Bryan Caplan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Kevin Carson wrote:
I'd say just the opposite, that SS is an important component of state
capitalism; and like most regulations and "welfare" spending, it serves to
cartelize the economy.
By acting through the state to organize
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Post-modern liberalism didn't spring full-blown into being like Athena from
the forehead of Zeus. It evolved rather over time from classical
liberalism
through several fairly-distinct phases.
You're right on this. But it might be more accurate to say that at any
given t
From: Bryan Caplan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Kevin Carson's remarks on Kolko reminded me that I recently reread Kolko
and had some comments to share.
Just for background: Kolko's *Triumph of Conservatism* was written largely
as a left-wing attack on mainstream liberalism. Kolko's message was that
m
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In a message dated 6/19/03 6:28:26 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>The main "good" it provides is a negative one, that of keeping
homelessness
>
>and starvation to a low enough level to prevent political instability.
>
This of course presumes that the welfare state reduces
From: Bryan Caplan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Kevin Carson wrote:
They are indeed two entirely different cases. The latter case, of welfare
state concessions, is productively examined in Piven and Cloward's
*Regulating the Poor*. To a certain extent, the welfare state is
something fo
The problem with the free state project is that so much of the architecture
of the corporate state is centered on the federal government. But there's a
lot of stuff that could be done within the control of a state government.
1) an unconditional retreat from the drug war. The federal drug war
36 matches
Mail list logo
