According to Twitter Miss Gore has writer’s block.

On the anarchism front I think I’m one of the vested interests along with probably the majority of humanity. I don’t think an anarchic society could get it together to produce an Alfa Romeo, for example. Alfa Romeos are cool.

“It’s reasonable to conclude that slave economies don’t generate wealth.”

Tell that to the Pharaohs.

“This common argument seems to me to be fallacious. Sure, there has never been an entirely free market, but there have been more free or less free markets, and one can reasonably compare the two in terms of degree. You could equally argue that every society has some limits on civil liberties, and therefore civil liberties cannot be judged on merit, which would be equally fallacious.”

You have misunderstood my point. I was arguing that is was illogical to assume that if someone was arguing against one, they were arguing for the other. (there are varying degrees as you point out).

“History and economic analysis shows quite clearly that more free markets do better than less free markets.”

‘Better’ for whom?

“Or, there’s the “Wright Brothers Argument”.”

So what? You choose one example of free-market funded innovation to make your case. As a matter of interest – who do you think funded the development of the internet?

“The fact that mammoth government subsidies fund some innovation today, doesn’t mean that in the absence of that funding, the innovations would not have occurred. Often, the state subisidy simply destroys the private sector that would have done it far more cheaply.”

This is nonsense – if private interests thought they could make more by funding their own innovation they would do so. The government subsidies exist because, quite simply, the ‘free market’ couldn’t function without them.

“Libertarianism is by definition not socialist, and socialism is by definition not libertarian.”

This is the last thing I am going to say on this matter because you clearly don’t get it (and I’m happy to concede this is due to the poverty of my explanations):

Yes, if we take your definition of Libertarian then ‘Libertarian Socialist’ is ‘oxymoronic’. However, if we stick to the original definition of Libertarian, it is not. The same applies to ‘Socialism’ – you say:

“If we take socialism in a general way- as being any philosophy of state interventionism on economic, social or moral grounds.”

But this is Marxism. It is possible to be Socialist and anti-State – i.e., Bakunin, Kropotkin, Goldman, Chomsky, etc. even if (for whatever reason) you don’t want to recognise this.

Other than that, I can only offer Chomsky’s explanation: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ugq86q9KyPE

“Since left-anarchists would require a law against private property, and an apparatus of some kind to maintain it, and would thus transfer ownership of property to a state apparatus (even if disguised as “peoples’ councils” or whatever) their own ideology is oxymoronic.”

Only if we accept the premise of your straw man argument. Firstly, there is no singular ‘left-anarchist’ ideology – they tend to be quite an individualistic bunch. Secondly, most of the ‘left-anarchist’ treatise that I have read accept the ‘naturalness’ of private property, and reject the arbitrariness of ‘laws’ – the opposite of your point. But if you can link me to some of these ‘left-anarchists’ works that I am apparently overlooking I would appreciate it.

“Anarchism isn’t really worth considering.”

“Anarchism” (in its various forms) is something that people a great deal smarter than both of us have been debating over for the last two hundred or so years; do you not think it’s quite arrogant to casually dismiss it in this way?

“The Left form devolves to a peoples’ dictatorship”

As a guy who seems quick to point out the ‘oxymoronic’, I’m surprised ‘peoples’ dictatorship’ got past you!

@Newmania

“I recognize the Will Hutton view in this which concludes that because the state stuck its nose into basic industries they required the state for their inception and development. I have never seen anything convincing to suggest this.”

What do you require?

@ Andrew Chamberlain

“I do think that our material standard of living would be greatly reduced by moving towards anarchy, which is why it’s never going to happen.”

That’s why the vested interests would never promote it, but it doesn’t follow that it won’t happen. If we were talking 300 years ago you may have been equally convinced that slavery would never be abolished.

T.

PS, Anyone know what’s happened to Charlotte? I feel like we’ve hijacked her blog!

On left-anarchism, I think the claim tends to be that without the state we would naturally live in communal groups and share what we have as primitive tribes do. No need to pass a law against private property since laws are required to create private property. I don’t think this is implausible.

However, I do think that our material standard of living would be greatly reduced by moving towards anarchy, which is why it’s never going to happen.

Very good Soljenitsin called it hot ice .

Where did the state subsides come from then ? The state produces nothing . I recognize the Will Hutton view in this which concludes that because the state stuck its nose into basic industries they required the state for their inception and development. I have never seen anything convincing to suggest this .Every day I see the profit motive forcing innovation while the state stops it.
You speak of ’socialism’ as if it is a synonym for Marxism – it isn’t; “Libertarian Socialist’ is a defined political position,

.No it is not it is a sinister Orwellian neologism. Socialism can argue that it promotes freedom but free-ing people from want or inequality which is perceived want. Currently this is often called child poverty to make it sound like a parental duty . In fact it is relative material want experienced by people. The Conservative argument has always been that redistribution is a market distorter and growth is sacrificed for the sake of equality as well as traditional Liberties . In other words it does not work and it is too authoritarian anyway. The type of freedoms socialism claim to provide however are not Libertarian which means freedom from direct authority, they are “rights “ which provide freedom from social circumstances (allegedly ).

Just to be fair, right anarchism falls into precisely the same bucket- without a state to recognise and maintain private property rights, the right anarchist society cannot function. So it needs a state too and is thus equally impossible.

Anarchism isn’t really worth considering. The Left form devolves to a peoples’ dictatorship, the Right form to combat between armed gangs– the ultimate victor(s) of which would declare themselves Kings. Which is how most nations got started in the first place.

Debatable. “Fore some individuals” isn’t the same as a general wealth creation- in the extreme example a wealthy tyrant king ruling over impoverished serfs is not a wealthy society, nor generating wealth. In a slave economy, the vast majority have no wealth at all. So even the slaver needs free individuals to sell his produce to. Ancient slave economies (e.g. Rome) don’t seem to have produced much economic growth, while later slavery (e.g. America) was selling products to free individuals elsewhere on the market (outside the “slave zone”). It’s reasonable to conclude that slave economies don’t generate wealth.

Comparing a ficitional ‘free-market’ to a ‘planned economy’ (ala USSR) just fixes a false dichotomy – the economies of the West are not planned, but nor are they ‘free markets’ – they really heavily on various state subsidies, and have historically always utilized some form of protectionism to aid their markets and industries.

This common argument seems to me to be fallacious. Sure, there has never been an entirely free market, but there have been more free or less free markets, and one can reasonably compare the two in terms of degree. You could equally argue that every society has some limits on civil liberties, and therefore civil liberties cannot be judged on merit, which would be equally fallacious.

History and economic analysis shows quite clearly that more free markets do better than less free markets. We may look at morally unpopular products such as pornography or prostitution or even illicit drugs, which the state neither subsidises nor protects, and actively seeks to prohibit in many cases, and note that they thrive.

Or, there’s the “Wright Brothers Argument”. While the Wright Brothers were working, with their own money (“free market”), the US gov. subsidised the Smithsonian to the tune of $50,000 to create an aeroplane. The Smithsonian failed, but the private sector Wright Brothers succeeded. However, if we imagine a counterfactual universe in which the Smithsonian had won the “race” to invent the aereoplane, then people today would credit government funding as having been necessary for this important invention, and nobody would believe that two guys with a bicycle shop could invent an aeroplane.

The fact that mammoth government subsidies fund some innovation today, doesn’t mean that in the absence of that funding, the innovations would not have occurred. Often, the state subisidy simply destroys the private sector that would have done it far more cheaply.

You speak of ’socialism’ as if it is a synonym for Marxism – it isn’t; “Libertarian Socialist’ is a defined political position, even if , from your perspective, it may be seen as a contradiction in terms.

It is. There is another new socialist buzzword “libertarian paternalism” which is equally oxymoronic. If we take socialism in a general way- as being any philosophy of state interventionism on economic, social or moral grounds- then it is indeed entirely contrary to libertarianism. One may as well talk of cold heat, or wealthy poverty. Libertarianism is by definition not socialist, and socialism is by definition not libertarian.

“I am not convinced that wealth can be created without free markets or at least “Capitalism ” in some form , which is not a thing so much as default phenomena.”

Depends on how one defines ‘wealth’ – a slavery-based economy can generate great amounts of wealth for some individuals using neither free-markets nor capitalism.

“Markets are rarely free but if you are comparing them with the state they are enormously powerful at finding solutions. Planned economies did not win the beauty contest of the 20th century did they?”

Comparing a ficitional ‘free-market’ to a ‘planned economy’ (ala USSR) just fixes a false dichotomy – the economies of the West are not planned, but nor are they ‘free markets’ – they really heavily on various state subsidies, and have historically always utilized some form of protectionism to aid their markets and industries.

“I am happy that collectivist argue that true freedom is the freedom not suffer poverty and the state must ensure this and all sorts of inclusions are shared equally. This has nothing to do with being a Libertarian though , its just a re packaging of socialism.”

Yes and no.

You speak of ‘socialism’ as if it is a synonym for Marxism – it isn’t; “Libertarian Socialist’ is a defined political position, even if , from your perspective, it may be seen as a contradiction in terms.

T.