Svanberg takes a que from Binswanger, gets it wrong

[JamesShrugged]

Link to the full article

The Ayn Rand Institute continues it's divorce from reality with its latest blog entry “The fast-food industry is not a burden” by Carl Svanberg. Apparently taking a que from fellow ARI associate Harry Binswanger, this author drops the context of the mixed economy and attempts to defend the fast food industry on free market grounds.

[Jonathan]

It sounds like you've found a hobby horse to ride. What's your point? Is your point that no activity is defensible in a mixed economy? All people are immoral until they adopt and fully practice your political theory?

J

[JamesShrugged]

It sounds like you've found a hobby horse to ride. What's your point? Is your point that no activity is defensible in a mixed economy? All people are immoral until they adopt and fully practice your political theory?

J

Nope, the point is that alleged defenders of the free market should address the true recipients of state largess, instead of praising them as productive job creators, while attacking the "moochers" who collect welfare, because the state has artificially limited their options to the degree that working at mcdonalds looks viable.

[George H. Smith]

Who wrote that piece?

Readers of that article should keep in mind that, according to Kevin Carson (who is quoted) and other Proudhonian/Tuckerite anarchists, interest and rent are solely the result of illegitimate government intervention. Thus so long as interest and rent continue to exist, we will never have a truly free-market economy.

Also, note the reference to paying workers what they are worth and their reliance on wage labor. Those people actually believe in the labor theory of value -- an antediluvian doctrine that even many Marxists have abandoned.

Of course we live in a mixed economy, but that doesn't mean that basic free-market principles do not apply.

Ghs

[Bosco]

I think Kevin Carson has stated that interest and rent enjoy a disproportionate share of the returns of productive activity because of the distortions produced by the mixed economy, and that interest and rent, while not inherently objectionable, would be minimal in a true free market without the influence of the state to tip the balance.

[George H. Smith]

I think Kevin Carson has stated that interest and rent enjoy a disproportionate share of the returns of productive activity because of the distortions produced by the mixed economy, and that interest and rent, while not inherently objectionable, would be minimal in a true free market without the influence of the state to tip the balance.

That's not how I understand Kevin's position. Shortly after his book was published years ago, I had many exchanges with him on LL2, and he took the standard Tuckerite line. Benjamin Tucker embraced Proudhon's position on both issues. In regard to rent, Tucker upheld an "occupancy" theory, according to which someone who doesn't occupy (say) a house cannot legitimately maintain control over it, so rent is unjust; rent could not be collected without the exploitative force of government. As for interest, I don't recall all of Tucker's arguments, but one of them was that interest is made possible only by government control over money, so those who charge interest are exploiting the victims of government injustice. Tucker may have made some allowance for minimal "interest" because of transaction costs. I cannot recall the details offhand.

I could be mistaken about Kevin's position, but I don't think I am.

Ghs

[JamesShrugged]

Who wrote that piece?

Readers of that article should keep in mind that, according to Kevin Carson (who is quoted) and other Proudhonian/Tuckerite anarchists, interest and rent are solely the result of illegitimate government intervention. Thus so long as interest and rent continue to exist, we will never have a truly free-market economy.

Also, note the reference to paying workers what they are worth and their reliance on wage labor. Those people actually believe in the labor theory of value -- an antediluvian doctrine that even many Marxists have abandoned.

Of course we live in a mixed economy, but that doesn't mean that basic free-market principles do not apply.

Ghs

I wrote it. my blog is at anarchobjectivist.wordpress.com.

I dont think that Carsons statements rely on the LTV, a labor theory of property suffices to justify his remarks on rent and interest. Namely, building from Rothbards homesteading theory (which basically came from Locke), that illegitamite state granted property titles constitute a monopoly on land is what makes living off rents possible and of course that central banking where members of a cartel are given credit cheaply and sell it at a profit to those who dont have access to the money monopoly.

here is a good page on the question of what theory of value market anarchists subscribe to http://c4ss.org/market-anarchism-faq/which-theory-of-value-do-market-anarchists-subscribe-to

[Jonathan]

It sounds like you've found a hobby horse to ride. What's your point? Is your point that no activity is defensible in a mixed economy? All people are immoral until they adopt and fully practice your political theory?

J

Nope, the point is that alleged defenders of the free market should address the true recipients of state largess, instead of praising them as productive job creators, while attacking the "moochers" who collect welfare, because the state has artificially limited their options to the degree that working at mcdonalds looks viable.

So, would that mean that you are one of the "true recipients of state largess" because you're typing on a device which was made by alleged "productive job creators," and because you're using the internet and roads and other "state largess"? Why are you choosing to accept the state largess?

J

[George H. Smith]

Who wrote that piece?

Readers of that article should keep in mind that, according to Kevin Carson (who is quoted) and other Proudhonian/Tuckerite anarchists, interest and rent are solely the result of illegitimate government intervention. Thus so long as interest and rent continue to exist, we will never have a truly free-market economy.

Also, note the reference to paying workers what they are worth and their reliance on wage labor. Those people actually believe in the labor theory of value -- an antediluvian doctrine that even many Marxists have abandoned.

Of course we live in a mixed economy, but that doesn't mean that basic free-market principles do not apply.

Ghs

I wrote it. my blog is at anarchobjectivist.wordpress.com.

I dont think that Carsons statements rely on the LTV, a labor theory of property suffices to justify his remarks on rent and interest. Namely, building from Rothbards homesteading theory (which basically came from Locke), that illegitamite state granted property titles constitute a monopoly on land is what makes living off rents possible and of course that central banking where members of a cartel are given credit cheaply and sell it at a profit to those who dont have access to the money monopoly.

here is a good page on the question of what theory of value market anarchists subscribe to http://c4ss.org/market-anarchism-faq/which-theory-of-value-do-market-anarchists-subscribe-to

A labor theory of land acquisition, in contrast to a labor theory of value (LTV), is a moral theory, and, as such, it tells us nothing about economic phenomena like rent and interest. Kevin Carson is an avid defender of the LTV, if in a somewhat revised form.

Rent would exist even if the government didn't claim ownership of any land, and interest would exist even if the government had nothing to do with the money supply.

The link you supplied discusses only the neo-Tuckerite version of anarchism, not the version defended by Rothbard, who once referred to the Tuckerites as "money cranks."

I still don't understand the point of your article (linked earlier). Even in an interventionist economy it remains true that minimum wage laws will increase unemployment at the margin.

Ghs

[JamesShrugged]

Who wrote that piece?

Readers of that article should keep in mind that, according to Kevin Carson (who is quoted) and other Proudhonian/Tuckerite anarchists, interest and rent are solely the result of illegitimate government intervention. Thus so long as interest and rent continue to exist, we will never have a truly free-market economy.

Also, note the reference to paying workers what they are worth and their reliance on wage labor. Those people actually believe in the labor theory of value -- an antediluvian doctrine that even many Marxists have abandoned.

Of course we live in a mixed economy, but that doesn't mean that basic free-market principles do not apply.

Ghs

I wrote it. my blog is at anarchobjectivist.wordpress.com.

I dont think that Carsons statements rely on the LTV, a labor theory of property suffices to justify his remarks on rent and interest. Namely, building from Rothbards homesteading theory (which basically came from Locke), that illegitamite state granted property titles constitute a monopoly on land is what makes living off rents possible and of course that central banking where members of a cartel are given credit cheaply and sell it at a profit to those who dont have access to the money monopoly.

here is a good page on the question of what theory of value market anarchists subscribe to http://c4ss.org/market-anarchism-faq/which-theory-of-value-do-market-anarchists-subscribe-to

A labor theory of land acquisition, in contrast to a labor theory of value (LTV), is a moral theory, and, as such, it tells us nothing about economic phenomena like rent and interest. Kevin Carson is an avid defender of the LTV, if in a somewhat revised form.

Rent would exist even if the government didn't claim ownership of any land, and interest would exist even if the government had nothing to do with the money supply.

The link you supplied discusses only the neo-Tuckerite version of anarchism, not the version defended by Rothbard, who once referred to the Tuckerites as "money cranks."

I still don't understand the point of your article (linked earlier). Even in an interventionist economy it remains true that minimum wage laws will increase unemployment at the margin.

Ghs

re: rent and interest. Of course they would exist, but not at the rate they do today as they are artificially inflated by state intervention.

re "money cranks" Carson discusses this explicitly. http://c4ss.org/content/6888

"I still don't understand the point of your article (linked earlier). Even in an interventionist economy it remains true that minimum wage laws will increase unemployment at the margin. "

This is my point: "In true vulgar libertarian fashion, Svanberg then proposes the abolition of the welfare state, without a word about abolishing the state privilege that gives rise to such blatantly exploitative business models, as if the welfare recipients are leeches on society, but the businessmen taking advantage of workers with the assistance of the state are saints. As an advocate of freed markets, I, of course, would like to see the welfare state abolished, but not before the regulatory environment created by state intervention is dismantled, putting workers and employers on even footing."

It is very common for orthodox objectivists to engage in right-conflationism, thats what I wanted to point out.

[JamesShrugged]

It sounds like you've found a hobby horse to ride. What's your point? Is your point that no activity is defensible in a mixed economy? All people are immoral until they adopt and fully practice your political theory?

J

Nope, the point is that alleged defenders of the free market should address the true recipients of state largess, instead of praising them as productive job creators, while attacking the "moochers" who collect welfare, because the state has artificially limited their options to the degree that working at mcdonalds looks viable.

So, would that mean that you are one of the "true recipients of state largess" because you're typing on a device which was made by alleged "productive job creators," and because you're using the internet and roads and other "state largess"? Why are you choosing to accept the state largess?

J

Can you tell the difference between Hank Rearden and Orren Boyle, or between Dagny and James Taggart, as business people?

edited: had the quote boxes messed up

[Jonathan]

Can you tell the difference between Hank Rearden and Orren Boyle, or between Dagny and James Taggart, as business people?

Not without a great deal of knowledge about them and their views. Are you saying that you know the ideologies, motives and practices of all of the people who run the fast-food industry as well as you know the ideologies, motives and practices of the characters in Atlas Shrugged, and that they're all Orren Boyles and James Taggarts?

J

[moralist]

Of course we live in a mixed economy, but that doesn't mean that basic free-market principles do not apply.

Ghs

A lot of this goes right past me because I'm uneducated, but I do agree with your statement, George.

There is nothing to prevent anyone from enjoying the benefits of those principles by participating in sectors of the economy that are still Capitalist free markets. But that also implies means doing your best to avoid becoming fiscally contaminated through coming into contact with the toxic sectors that are not free. Such a large portion of the economy has become enslaved to debt and its manifestation as interest rates..

For example: The present love fest going on between the stock markets and the Federal Reserve keeping interest rates low so that it can buy it's own debt instruments with money it creates from nothing.. Viewed from the outside, it's a weird perverted chronic terminal insanity which begs this question:

How far can you stretch a rubber band before it snaps?

One day, everyone will know the answer...

Greg