DISQUS

PLN · 3 years ago

Weblogs!
Heh, heh, heh.
But seriously, I think you're quite right about the knee-jerk pro-corporatist bias many libertarians have. I blame it on Rand, and the innate attraction of being oppositional ("Everyone hates corporations? Well, I LOVE them, so there!").

Jed Harris · 3 years ago

Good post.

I think cooperative relationships (such as e.g. open source software) actually involve less state coercion than market relationships. To see this, consider the state machinery needed to enforce proprietary copyright -- investigations, prosecutions, ultimately prison. OSS makes all this moot.

More generally, any kind of large scale market system requires lots of coercive protection -- think Brinks guards, counterfitting prevention, etc. etc. To me it doesn't matter a lot whether that is provided privately or by the state -- usually it is a mix.

Of course this sort of coercive structure is worthwhile for many purposes. But my point is that if we can get the same results without coercive protection and "stealable" property, we are better off.

Noel Le · 3 years ago

Hmmm. Off the top of my head, I recall a paper by Professor Robert Merges, where he talks about the ubiquity of today's digital culture (technology products, media, Internet services, etc). One of his points is that Americans feel so surrounded by this digital reality that we overhype its actual effect on things like liberty, freedom and Constitutional rights. We act like we can't get away from it. Professor Merges argues, and I agree, that its very simple to not use or look for alternatives to digital goods that we feel impinge on those things we value. Thus, what deprives us of freedom and liberty is ourselves when we choose not to pursue available options.

Jeremy · 3 years ago

If libertarians want any chance of convincing people of their ideas, they must stop shoving - or appearing to shove - McWorld down peoples' throats. The whole point of a market is that *all* forms of transaction (except forcible expropriation) are permitted and can compete with one another. Essentially, cooperative forms of organization compete with more profit-oriented models in a market, and people can decide for themselves how much the fuzzies are worth to them.

It's also a great way for us to attack corporate welfare by pointing out that big business sucking at the teat of the state crowds out less alienating ways to do business. We're missing a big opportunity with left-leaning types on this mark (especially so with your point about public schooling). The bottom line is that a lot of the corporate, consumerish soullessness comes from oversized bureaucracies made possible by state privilege that disadvantages small businesses or non-profit coop ventures. Communitarian types should be able to vote with their dollars, and they rightly perceive that their choices are being narrowed by powerful interests (working through the State, of course).

Libertarians should be articulating a vision of a plethora of organizational models for going about one's business, rather than righteous defense of capitalism as it exists.

eee_eff · 3 years ago

"If libertarians want any chance of convincing people of their ideas, they must stop shoving - or appearing to shove - McWorld down peoples' throats. The whole point of a market is that *all* forms of transaction (except forcible expropriation) are permitted and can compete with one another."

This is certainly true, however it is only part of the problems faced by libertarians. The real problem that libertarians face is very clearly articulated by Amartya Sen in Development as Freedom (chapter 3) where he rightly notes the obsession of libertarians with merely procedural freedoms, as opposed to substantive freedoms (such as freedom from involuntary starvation).
Also, Sens takes note of the information that is excluded by libertarianism when evaluating freedoms. Both of those insights should be responded to by those professing to be libertarians.

Jeremy · 3 years ago

Well, this is true, enigma_foundry, but I think the reason is that libertarians all too often promote a very concrete set of value judgements as synonymous with freedom, rather than simply promoting freedom. See my post on the subject. Ayn Rand freaks are typical of this strategy, thinking that we're in a cultural war rather than simply trying to open up society from top down management and interference. Randroids evangelize the capitalist market the way Soviets evangelized communism: as if there's no in between, no room for competing values. You're either with them or they'll bury you.

On a lot of the substantive freedoms you're referring to, our task is not necessarily to show we protect those freedoms, but to show how the state is a poor way to achieve them. Especially with regard to starvation, I don't think preventing it is necessarily the proper role of the state (it's the proper role of the community). I don't deny the burden is on us, though, to demonstrate these things.

Can you elaborate on or give examples of information ignored by libertarians when promoting freedoms they value? I'm interested in at least addressing the concerns of the Left (considering myself a leftist as well) even if we don't agree on the role of the State.

Jeremy · 3 years ago

Sorry, the post is here