fayfreethinkers.com

Here's a pretty good in a nutshell analysis of why libertarians should give up on electoral politics:

Jim Henley wrote:"At bottom the problem is this: limited-government types, conservative or otherwise, don’t much like politics. We think politics should retreat from broad areas of economic and social life rather than advance into new ones.

"We’re exactly the sort of people who are going to suck at political activity.

"And we haven’t got a lot of goodies to offer. The State-Capitalist GOP can offer businesses all sorts of subventions. All we can offer them is 'a chance to compete on a level playing field.' The Christian Right can offer busybodies a country in which the police enforce their morals on the unrighteous. All we can offer them is the right to try to hector the unrighteous into agreeing with them. The national-greatness right can offer the chance to kill foreigners and Do Good and feel part of a grand enterprise. All we can offer is boring old peace. The welfare state left can offer people oodles of other people’s money. We got squadoosh.

"Political success comes from energizing defined constituencies and we ain’t got any." - Handing Out the Goodies

DAR
Sounds like an excuse for just plain bad, unpopular, ideas. And this from a person (me) who has strong libertarian leanings on a lot of issues. In fact, I was called once as a supposed contender to be a candidate for the Libertarian Party in Arkansas. Being a Canadian I couldn't of course.

But for some reason they tend to attract far right extremists who consistently lead the party off into nut-bar land. And that's unfortunate. As PJ O'Rourke once put it (paraphrase): "I tried to be a libertarian, but then they go off and try to privatize sidewalks and all sorts of nutty stuff."

D.

Darrel wrote:Sounds like an excuse for just plain bad, unpopular, ideas.

Hmmm. Your usual impeccable logic. Since libertarian ideas don't offer loot to any constituency, these ideas must be bad. LOL!

No, because Libertarians can't admit they have bad ideas, they have to come up with excuses for why nobody agrees with them - and "we have no loot to hand out" is a great excuse - especially since Libertarians are basically offering to sell our natural resources protected by federal and state law to the highest bidder (i.e., the mega corporations), and that's a whole lot of loot.

I don't equate auctioning off airwaves or nationalized resources with handouts, since people have to pay for them (or better, homestead them.) I, too, would not like mega-corporations to get too much of currently nationalized property. Fortunately, less government means fewer special favors for the big established firms. E.g. The radio act of 1927 which effectively nationalized the airwaves resulted in a drastic reduction of the number and variety of radio stations, and put most in the hands of a few favored firms. (RCA, GE, and I forget the other.) Barbara, it's not the little guys who control the FCC, ICC, and other regulatory bodies. The members of these are almost always former bigwigs of mega-corporations. In short, less government mean less political favoritism and fewer govt-created monopolies and oligopolies.

A lot of people misunderstand the libertarian attitude toward mega-corporations. They think that, because we support freedom of trade - for everyone including corporations - that we support corporations. It is analogous to people thinking that, since the ACLU defends the free speech of Nazis, that the ACLU is pro-Nazi. In fact, many if not most libertarians (including me) believe that mega-corporations would, if not completely die out, at least be rather inconsequential in a free society. We see the State as maintaining, supporting, and favoring big established corporations, and history bears this out. The "progressive" notion that, contrary to all history, the State will magically stop favoring established special interests and instead favor the little unknown guy, is sheer utopianism.

Note that it is the little guys, the small businesses and startups who clamor for laissez faire. Big established firms tend to favor fascist corporatism and regulation. It elimiates potential competition. (This last seems counter-intuitive, until you realize that taxation and regulation impacts small businesses much more than huge corporations. E.g. what is a inconsequential tax change to BigCorp is often a major accounting expense to a Ma and Pa operation.)

It is utopian to believe that all governments will regulate in such a manner as to guarantee free trade - but only government has the power to do it at all. Capitalism concentrates capital. Up to a point, this is good, since it takes start-up capital to generate new businesses (and the little guys don't clamor for laissez faire, they clamor for decreased subsidies to the big guys - some of them go so far as to clamor for increased subsidies for little guys to "level the playing field" - but the only time anybody wants a "hands off" or "leave along" policy is when a particular law inconveniences them). After that point, however, capital is so concentrated that it controls the market, rather than the market controlling it. Regulations that keep capital from concentrating to the extent that it controls the market are good. Unfortunately, as power corrupts, specific governments stop doing their job and start fawning on that concentrated capital, to the detriment of everyone else - but it is specific governments, and not government in general, that is the problem. Emergencies, especially wars, are usually the start of that - emergencies require large, steady amounts of stuff in limited timeframes that only large corporations can fulfill. Once that process is in place, it is very difficult (sometimes impossible without revolution of some sort) to return to the multiple, small, sources that worked so well before the emergency/war.

Barbara wrote:It is utopian to believe that all governments will regulate in such a manner as to guarantee free trade - but only government has the power to do it at all.

True; False. No one can guarantee free trade, but claims of government solipotence are plain hogwash. History shows that governments are detrimental to free trade. What promotes free trade is a culture of peace and respect for property rights, and legal systems that support property rights, freedom of travel, and freedom of association. And as we've discussed, legal systems do best if they are not statist monopolies, but market institutions.

Barbara wrote:Capitalism concentrates capital. Up to a point, this is good, since it takes start-up capital to generate new businesses... After that point, however, capital is so concentrated that it controls the market, rather than the market controlling it.

Yet historically, all persistent monopolies and oligopolies are creations of State, whereas without State-bestowed privilege such concentrations occur rarely ("natural monopolies") and tend to be short-lived since, after technological advancement and/or substitution, competitors pop up. The history of railroads is instructive and typical. Railroads back east prior to the civil war were competitive. Mass government subsidies for the "space race" of the day, transcontinental railroads, created large inefficient entities which could and did engage in monopoly pricing. Railroading was no longer a predominantly competitive enterprise. The State piled coercion on top of its previous coercion by massive regulation and anti-trust laws. Instead of the subsidy-created entities withering away by being subject to new competitors like the trucking industry, the trucking industry was hobbled with the same coercive muck as the railroads! Anti-capitalists seem to hold the counter-factual myth that somehow government prevents monopoly or over-concentration of capital, when the opposite is clearly the case.

Barbara wrote:Unfortunately, as power corrupts, specific governments stop doing their job and start fawning on that concentrated capital, to the detriment of everyone else - but it is specific governments, and not government in general, that is the problem.

True; false. It is the nature of government to favor special connected interests. Ruling politicians tend to do that which benefits them, just like everyone else. Just as you can count on CEO's to do what's in their interest, you can count on politicians to do the same. I've noticed that anti-capitalists have a double standard. They do an excellent institutional analysis of the management of corporations, but suddenly foget all about institutional analysis and become naive dupes when it comes to the State rulers.

Barbara wrote:Emergencies, especially wars, are usually the start of that - emergencies require large, steady amounts of stuff in limited timeframes that only large corporations can fulfill. Once that process is in place, it is very difficult (sometimes impossible without revolution of some sort) to return to the multiple, small, sources that worked so well before the emergency/war.

I agree 100%. I might add two things: 1) that governments create crises to enhance their power and pelf, and 2) there's a "ratchet effect" - after the crisis governments virtually never reduce their power to pre-crisis levels. There's a great book about this which I recommend: Crisis and Leviathan by Robert Higgs. Billy Bob sez check it out.

Government does not create monopolies, but government can support or make them worse, if it is not doing its job (and power does corrupt). The eastern Railroad prior to the Civil War was very competitive, all right - and incredibly corrupt and inefficient - as was the national post-Civil War railroad - difference widths of track and competitive ownership of rolling stock had freight being transferred from one car to another at numerous points before reaching the final destination. Passengers were subsidizing the freight in some areas, passengers and freight were charged more for short runs than long ones. Bribes and kickbacks were the norm. Government standardized as much as possible, including rates - and time zones - which was greatly to the benefit of the customer, as well as the corporations (which already had regional monopolies by the time the government stepped in).

When money (capital) is concentrated enough to create monopolies, new technology is repressed - monopolies control the market forces, they are not controlled by them. (Note the number of battery improvemnets that have been suppress by the automotive industry over the last 50 years.) Trucking didn't take over moving freight because rail was inefficient - rail is still the most efficient way to move freight. Trucking took over short-haul wagon freight (the truck drivers union is called "Teamsters" for a reason), there has always been a need for transportation between/connecting rail lines. Increased emphasis on truck freight over rail freight came with the combined effects of the creation of the interstate highway system and the deliberate destruction of passenger rail by the automotive industry.

It is true that a culture of peace and respect for property rights/legal systems supporting property rights, etc is necessary for free trade - but those don't exist without government (as defined by practically everybody except Hogeye and the Rand folks he quotes).

Increased emphasis on truck freight over rail freight came with the combined effects of the creation of the interstate highway system and the deliberate destruction of passenger rail by the automotive industry.

DAR
I am working on getting a documentary that apparently makes this case. "Taken for a Ride." We'll show it at a Freethinker meeting.

D.