Bitcoin Forum

Libertarian Anticapitalism

For most of the 20th century, American libertarians were mostly seen as — and mostly saw themselves as — defenders of capitalism. Was that an accurate view of 20th century libertarians were about? If accurate, is that a good thing about libertarianism, or a defect that should be amended and avoided?

Well, it depends. Specifically, it depends on what you mean by “capitalism.” Now, I’ve had something to say about this before, and my friend Gary Chartier has broached the subject here at Bleeding Heart Libertarians, but I think the ground might be worth covering again in some more detail. (Partly because it may help as an introduction to where I come from on questions of freed markets, economic privilege, social justice, et cetera; and partly because some of the comments on Gary’s earlier post lead me to believe that a closer approach to the definitional question might help clear up communication.) First, though, let’s take a bit of a detour — to New York City.


About a year ago, the Wall Street Journal‘s Metropolis blog ran an item by Aaron Rutkoff on zoning and advertising in Times Square, called “Good Taste in Times Square? It’s Illegal.” As it turns out, the bright lights and “colorful corporate orgy” of Times Square advertising — as paradigmatic a symbol of American capitalism as you could hope for — is the result, not of unfettered free-market commercialism, but of a detailed set of mandates handed down in New York City’s special zoning ordinance for the “Special Midtown District:”

For those with the stomach to navigate the bureaucratic language, the zoning regulations make for interesting reading. What appears totally haphazard to the untrained tourist’s eye is actually planned down to the last square foot, with copious rules about how much of any surface must be covered in signage.

Own a building on Broadway but detest the flashing lights? Too bad. As the code states:

There shall be a minimum of one #illuminated sign# with a #surface area# of not less than 1,000 square feet for each 50 linear feet, or part thereof, of #street# frontage.

There are instructions for precisely which direction Times Square’s signage must face and extraordinarily detailed diagrams for how the brightness of mandatory illuminated displays shall be measured.

Does your building feature a blinking sign? The rules require that the unlit phase not exceed three seconds. When can the bright lights be switched off? No earlier than 1:00 a.m.

–Adam Rutkoff, “Good Taste in Times Square? It’s Illegal,”
Wall Street Journal Metropolis blog, 12 August 2010

The WSJ decided to sum up their findings by saying:

In a way, the zoning code governing the signs is wonderfully ironic. The bright lights of Times Square, one of the most visible and iconic testaments to the city’s hyper-capitalist verve, are maintained not by Adam Smith’s invisible hand but by little-known government regulations.

–Adam Rutkoff, “Good Taste in Times Square? It’s Illegal,”
Wall Street Journal Metropolis blog, 12 August 2010

Well. Whether or not something comes off as “ironic” depends upon your expectations; and on this point, I guess it may not be surprising that my expectations are not the same as those at the Wall Street Journal. In fact, I would say that a story like that of the Times Square zoning code is not only not especially “ironic;” it’s really paradigmatic — a illustratively typical example of how large-scale, in-your-face commerce typically works in these United States, and how it interacts with the corporate economy throughout the world. That’s why I have often referred to myself (following the example of Kevin Carson) a “free market anticapitalist” — because I believe in a really broad and radical version of property rights and market freedom in economic ownership and exchange, but (unlike, say, the Wall Street Journal) I think that the features conventionally associated with American capitalism — large-scale, top-down firms, the predominance of wage labor, corporate domination of economic and social life, the commercialization of social space etc. — are as often as not the products of state intervention, not of market dynamics. And, further, that a genuinely and consistently freed market would tend to undermine the prevalence and significance of these features in everyday life.

But “free market anticapitalism” is a term that raises eyebrows. Mainly because it doesn’t seem to make any sense. The reason I use it is because of the eyebrows it raises — not because I enjoy confusion or confrontation for its own sake, but because I think that existing ideas about the relationships between markets and capitalism are already confused, and that a superficial overlap in language tends to obscure the confusions that already exist. In particular, the term “capitalism” is used by almost all sides in economic debates as if it were obviously the ideal governing libertarian policy proposals, and is debated over both by nominal pro-”capitalists” and by nominal anti-”capitalists” as if it were perfectly obvious to everyone what it means.

.........

If you are anti-capitalist, what are you actually for?  I mean this as a friendly question - not a critique of the WSJ tears over Times Square regulation.

Right from the first paragraph the writer attempts to pigeonhole Libertarian Ideals and wrap them up in Capitalism.  How about he just talks about Capitalism and leave the Libertarian stuff to people who know what it means.

Individual liberty, especially freedom of expression and action.

"For most of the 20th century, American libertarians were mostly seen as — and mostly saw themselves as — defenders of capitalism. Was that an accurate view of 20th century libertarians were about? If accurate, is that a good thing about libertarianism, or a defect that should be amended and avoided?"

Im a free market anti-capitalist.

...snip...

Im a free market anti-capitalist.

So you're against private ownership of capital?

So if you are opposed to capitalism, do you have some other economic model in mind that you are for?

I think ownership or exclusive use rights is something that emerges in a society because its the most efficient economic structure.

anarcho-capitalist say that once a property has been homesteaded it belongs to that person forever unless he decides to trade it

Capitalism implies government control over the market. I oppose that and support a free market.

If I take unoccupied land, clear it, plow it and plant a crop. Then I have a better claim to that land because everyone else is a latecomer compared to me. If you want to claim that, as a latecomer you have a better claim compared to me then another person even later than you can make the same argument. To have ownership at all you have to recognize the prior-later distinction.

That's nonsense. If a property owner removes his or her interest from it, isn't trying to sell it, do anything with it, etc, it can eventually be considered abandoned and can be homesteaded again.

Words obtain meaning based on their usage. Few people use that word that way. They usually just mean, private ownership of capital. If you want to mean something else, then use a different word or say exactly what you mean. You're just making thing ambiguous by arguing against a definition that few people currently use.

I call government control of private property, fascism.

As I figured you're just redefining words so you can raise controversy when we agree on the ideas but differ on language choice. Those are the most pointless and uninteresting debates imaginable. Let's just agree that private property should be controlled by its rightful owner and leave it at that. Call yourself anti-capitalistic if you want but you're just causing confusion.

"How many legs does a dog have if you call a tail a leg? Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it one."

Well, I agree (thats the point I was trying to make), but anarcho-capitalists (at least the "offical" doctrine) dont agree with this.

What is commonly understood is that the system we have now is capitalism.

No, if you remove your interest from it, you are implicitly declaring your intention to abandon it. (Note: I'm not saying the property is simply disused) I've never read anyone argue that once owned, property can never be abandoned. You simply just inquire if anyone is still using some property and if nobody comes forward in a reasonable amount of time, it can be considered abandoned. If someone says, yes, here's my title, I still want it. Then even if it's not in use, you can't have it.

That's not because they think capitalism equals government control of the market but rather because they don't believe that the government does control the market. Ask that question in the streets and see what response you get.

You say you are for a "free market" and against "capitalism."  I use quotation marks as your have your own definitions of  "free market" and "capitalism."

Why don't you define what you mean by "free market" and by "capitalism" so we know what you are on about?

No you haven't defined them.  Your posts are meaningless without defining what you mean by "free market" and "capitalism" and let us see what you actually support.

Also, capitalism implies more than private property of capital. Contrary to what some people think, the word "capitalists" was used before Marx. Previous to Marx, clasical liberals (libertarians) and individualist anarchists used the word capitalists in a demeaning way to describe the people who was using the system of government control over the market to unjustly adquire wealth. Capitalism implies government control over the market. I oppose that and support a free market.

I dont think the most common use of the word capitalism is private control of property. What is commonly understood is that the system we have now is capitalism. I dont think there is much discussion about it. If you go to the street and start asking what word would they use to define the present system, capitalism would win and by a big distance.

I oppose the present system, a system of government control over the market, therefore and according to your own words, I oppose capitalism.

Depends of what you mean by private ownership. I dont support the idea of strong property rights as anarcho-capitalist do. I have a less absolute and more utilitarian view. I think ownership or exclusive use rights is something that emerges in a society because its the most efficient economic structure. F.e. anarcho-capitalist say that once a property has been homesteaded it belongs to that person forever unless he decides to trade it. To me it seems unreasonable and since property is a social structure, once a property has been unused for a long period of time it can be considered unowned and homesteaded again.

Well, in my view its not enough that someone comes after 15 years and says: "hey! Im still interested" and then goes away again. In my opinion in that case that property would be unowned. But I can tell you that I have discussed this with anarcho-capitalists and they consider that "no use" is not cause enough to declare a property unowned.

So getting rid of all those pesky food safety regulations and like?

So getting rid of all those pesky food safety regulations and like?

And reducing taxes so people can self-organize saftey consumer associations, yes. But honestly, there are other more pressing matters than those.

And reducing taxes so people can self-organize saftey consumer associations, yes. But honestly, there are other more pressing matters than those.

In the real world, that means you are happy to see people die of food poisoning. 

Can't see the benefit myself.  Even with lower taxes, being poisoned is never fun.

Are you trying to keep the debate honest?  ::)

I guess that what happened last month here in the EU with the people poisoned by food did not happened since we have the government taking care of safety. Or should I say that since you support those agencies you are guilty of what happened?

You can try to play all the rethoric tricks you want. You have said nothing.

Just point out where anyone claimed that the current system is flawless and I'll give you the benefit of a doubt that your post isn't a raging strawman.

Well, in my view its not enough that someone comes after 15 years and says: "hey! Im still interested" and then goes away again.

If I own a house, it's my house. If I want it to sit there unused then that's my choice. Maybe I just like the idea of having a house that I could always live in, in an emergency. The point is, I might want to use it someday and that's all that matters. Let's say that I already own a house that I live in and I buy another house for $50,000. I have it there for 15 years doing nothing with it. Then, you come along and move in to it claiming it's unowned. The next day, the house I was living in burns to the ground and I'm homeless. Do you think that's fair?

If I own a house, it's my house. If I want it to sit there unused then that's my choice. Maybe I just like the idea of having a house that I could always live in, in an emergency. The point is, I might want to use it someday and that's all that matters. Let's say that I already own a house that I live in and I buy another house for $50,000. I have it there for 15 years doing nothing with it. Then, you come along and move in to it claiming it's unowned. The next day, the house I was living in burns to the ground and I'm homeless. Do you think that's fair?

If I own a house, it's my house.

If I want it to sit there unused then that's my choice.

Maybe I just like the idea of having a house that I could always live in, in an emergency. The point is, I might want to use it someday and that's all that matters. Let's say that I already own a house that I live in and I buy another house for $50,000. I have it there for 15 years doing nothing with it. Then, you come along and move in to it claiming it's unowned. The next day, the house I was living in burns to the ground and I'm homeless. Do you think that's fair?

Wait, now the justification for the State is e.coli? Not warlords or marauding bandits but food posioning? Sheesh, debate sure has gone downhill since I last checked the politics forums.

e.coli is a useful illustration of why food regulation is needed

Passing a law requiring food to be safe is like passing a law requiring people to wear parachutes when skydiving. Most people are going to do that anyways. The ones that don't, they have the right not to.

Way to completely miss the point. The point is, few people are going to jump out of a plane without a parachute. Few people are going to eat food that hasn't been inspected. The ones that do, have that right. End of story.

To say someone has the right to be poisoned is a bit strange.  In the real world, people have no way of knowing what food is safe and what is not.  That's why food regulation is needed.  

Our ultimate vision is of a society in which the economy is organized around free market exchange between producers, and production is carried out mainly by self-employed artisans and farmers, small producers' cooperatives, worker-controlled large enterprises, and consumers' cooperatives.  To the extent that wage labor still exists (which is likely, if we do not coercively suppress it), the removal of statist privileges will result in the worker's natural wage, as Benjamin Tucker put it, being his full product.

*yawn*

really, of all the things to get up in arms about, food safety is a really boring one everyone. It is easily accomplished without state action and one could argue that Big Ag (which has always been a good example of state/corporate incest) and costly regulations have made food MORE unsafe because big ass factory farms and giant slaughterhouses are much much more likely to result in unsafe food than smaller operations.

hugo: most mutualists do not identify as socialists but as "free market anti-capitalists" and individualist anarchists. Kevin Carson, for example, does not identify as a socialist.

to quote mutualist.org


But yes, it's a spectrum of course with an-cap on one side and libertarian communism on the other and various degrees of markets and property rights, mutualism, syndalicalism, egoism etc etc in between

*yawn*

really, of all the things to get up in arms about, food safety is a really boring one everyone. It is easily accomplished without state action ...snip...

Food safety is easily accomplished without state action - how? explanation needed

Actually it can't be accomplished without state action.  Food safety requires the ability to force firms to close down and only a state can legally force you to do stuff.

20 people eat poisened food from company A(by mistake).
20 people gets sick
30000 people are seeing this 20 getting sick, from food poisened.
30000 people decides(indevidualy) not to buy from company A.
company A is screwed.
other companies B-Z are realizing, its stupid to poisen their food.

no need for governement action. no need to force any one to anything.

no need for governement action. no need to force any one to anything.

Shell would be very unhappy if there was no government to bail them out from their accidents as opposed to having to pay up when they pollute people's property. They would be bankrupt in the latter scenario.

Government enables horrible disasters. In this case, it happens that things are minor and it would be better to avoid confrontation altogether.

Shell would be very unhappy if there was no government to bail them out from their accidents as opposed to having to pay up when they pollute people's property. They would be bankrupt in the latter scenario.

Government enables horrible disasters. In this case, it happens that things are minor and it would be better to avoid confrontation altogether.

Surely the libertarian position is that Shell owns the sea it is drilling under?  No-one else owns it and its worthless without Shell drilling there.  In a libertarian paradise,  its Shell's property and its no-one else's business what they do there.  So Shell can pollute all it wants.

OMG you are just too stupid. narrow minded, and plain dumb! troll go away!

if they are polluting the ocean with oil. the oil are oing to sail away! into other people property.
if they keep the oil spills on their property, its fine with me. but when they are polluting my property, im(and many others) going to sue them

OMG you are just too stupid. narrow minded, and plain dumb! troll go away!

if they are polluting the ocean with oil. the oil are oing to sail away! into other people property.
if they keep the oil spills on their property, its fine with me. but when they are polluting my property, im(and many others) going to sue them

Stop feeding the trolls. Weve tell them about property rights in environmental issues, they know not all libertarians are anarchists, weve tell them there would be courts in anarchy. They keep ignoring it, because they are trolls.

This was an interesting thread with adult conversation and they are derailing it. As long as you keep feeding them they will keep derailing it with stupid answers.

Stop feeding the trolls. Weve tell them about property rights in environmental issues, they know not all libertarians are anarchists, weve tell them there would be courts in anarchy. They keep ignoring it, because they are trolls.

This was an interesting thread with adult conversation and they are derailing it. As long as you keep feeding them they will keep derailing it with stupid answers.

Its an interesting thread but you idea of being for free markets but against capitalism is daft.  Its not trolling to point out that the idea is daft.  If a society has any chance of working, you need to control pollution and to ensure safe food.  Your basic concept fails to do either and while everyone is free to believe anything they choose, everyone is also free to point out that a daft idea is, well, daft.

As for overfishing affecting your property, it should be your responsibility to contain your own fish or otherwise consider them a part of the commons. If your "property" can be so easily affected then it should not be considered your property in the first place.

...snip...

Pollution and food safety isn't even ensured now with overreaching regulation. I guess the only answer is more state mandates.

Your concept fails to count for history and the fact that pure control doesn't work. The desire for a clean environment and safe food comes from the very people that need them. Not from authority.

Last time I looked there is very little pollution and food poisoning due to retail food is very rare.  So the existing system works fine.  Hugolp wants to replace this with some wishy-washy communal inspection system which will have zero enforcement power.  That cannot work.

I agree with you that the  desire for a clean environment and safe food comes from the very people that need them.  Where we differ is that you believe that if Shell develops a marine resource offshore, Shell owns that area and it free to pollute it.

you have still not justifyed why they need to have enforcement power.
they need no enforcement power. think of it as some sort of rating agency, but for food instead of finacial assets.

corrupt rating agencies would not work. if the rating agencies are wrong they lose trust.

Yea like S&P.  They nearly destroyed the world with their horrifically wrong CDO ratings and now no one listens to them anymore... oh wait...


Being idealistic is great, but being realistic is better.

i don't listen to them. :) im realistic.
people that is wroking with money, are stupid, and often big risk takers. they should be in a casino instead.

The fact that you don't listen to them is irrelevant.  The rest of the world still does and they're still alive and thriving.  That means your theory that people will shun these poor raters en masse and make them go out of business is obviously bunk.  You're going to have to come up with another method to deal with poor or corrupt ratings agencies.

If I recall correctly, food was very unsafe in the early industrial revolution, prior to regulation. Why didn't food rating agencies spring up then? Not enough internet? A conspiracy to stop them? Not enough time for the market to adjust? Since the government does an imperfect job of protecting the food supply, do any such rating agencies exist already?

The theory makes perfect sense to me, so now I wonder why it has not already happened.

Food rating agencies didn't emerge because there is no market for them.  Food safety law is not some kind of power grab; its a response to a complex problem that had to be addressed by the state after people realised they were being poisoned and demanded protection.

no i don't have to come up with anything. i don't trust them, and i did not lose anything. its not my problem.
if STUPID people are listning to corrupt rating agencies, its totaly free for them to do that.

your claim is WRONG.

no. people are stupid and naive

no. people are stupid and naive

Organisms have adapted very well to oil contamination. In fact, it has helped several species. One could even consider the oil natural just as human's other effects have been considered a permanent part of the environment. To worry about these minute effects is pedantry in the scheme of things. Three species will always die a day and strains of fish will always deplete. We're not special nor omnipotent. We affect things just as much as any other species and we can only prevent our affects so much without otherwise inhibiting our ability to sustain happily.

Nonetheless, the market has always spared species it deemed desirable -- such as the lobster -- that would be extinct otherwise. It used to be peasant food until it was overfished, haha. Now it's bred and highly valuable due to this scarcity. It all balances out in the end.

As for overfishing affecting your property, it should be your responsibility to contain your own fish or otherwise consider them a part of the commons. If your "property" can be so easily affected then it should not be considered your property in the first place.

Don't be daft. I know you're not an idiot, so don't play one on the internet.

I might be misunderstanding this. Are you saying that Immanuel Go doesn't actually believe what he writes, that's just playing a role for fun?

He's usually rather well reasoned but this latest post was just plain dumb, and he's been smarter than that before. Dead wrong and naive naturally but smarter.

My question was whether he wrote something, which he thinks is wrong, purposefully.

I hope you're trolling me because this has to be the dumbest thing I've read in a while. But I'll bite anyway.
Oil spill hurts the ecosystem, there's no doubt about that. NONE. Some species might temporarily benefit from the contamination, but the net effect is ALWAYS negative for the environment. All scientists not on oil-money agrees with this. And while I agree that oil is to be considered natural, but so is arsenic, yet both are bad in too high concentrations.

No, we are not special nor omnipotent, but to say that we affect the environment just as much as any other species is just plain dumb. We have a huge impact on our surroundings which we manipulate like no other species.

Nonetheless, the market has always spared species it deemed desirable -- such as the lobster -- that would be extinct otherwise. It used to be peasant food until it was overfished, haha. Now it's bred and highly valuable due to this scarcity. It all balances out in the end.

The market has absolutely no idea which species are valuable. It only know which ones are profitable.

Nonetheless, the market has always spared species it deemed desirable -- such as the lobster -- that would be extinct otherwise. It used to be peasant food until it was overfished, haha. Now it's bred and highly valuable due to this scarcity. It all balances out in the end.

it depends on what you mean by “capitalism.”

capitalism = better = future

I repeat, I'm for free market but against capital-money.

You have a different definition of capitalism than I do.