« back to all changes in this revision
Viewing changes to replies.html
- browse files at revision 5
- compare with another revision
- download diff
- download tarball
- view history from revision 5
- Committer: Bazaar Package Importer
- Author(s): Mauro Lizaur
- Date: 2010-08-15 20:50:06 UTC
- mfrom: (1.2.3 upstream)
- Revision ID: james.westby@ubuntu.com-20100815205006-g6n34el0anfxdjcv
Tags: 13.4-1
* New upstream release. (Closes: #441622)
* New maintainer upload (In an agreement with Ed Boraas).
* Switch to DebSrc3.0 (quilt) format.
* Marking dead links with a line-through with CSS plus
a possible mirror at archive.org (Closes: #292386)
* New maintainer upload (In an agreement with Ed Boraas).
* Switch to DebSrc3.0 (quilt) format.
* Marking dead links with a line-through with CSS plus
a possible mirror at archive.org (Closes: #292386)
- files added:
- .pc
- .pc/clean-links-html.patches
- .pc/clean-links-html.patches/html
- .pc/clean-links-txt.patches
- .pc/clean-links-txt.patches/txt
- debian/patches
- debian/source
- html
- txt
- files removed:
- 10years.html
- files modified:
- debian/README.Debian
added
removed
replies.html
1
<html>
2
<head>
3
<title>Replies to the FAQ
4
</title>
5
</head>
6
<p>
7
<h1>A response to a Response to "Left-Anarchist" Criticisms of Anarcho-Capitalism</h1>
8
<p>
9
This is a reply to the anti-anti-"anarcho"-capitalist FAQ which used to
10
be found at http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/7895 by Chris Wilson
11
(it no longer is and, in fact, Mr. Wilson now considers himself an
12
anarchist and "anarcho"-capitalism an oxymoron!).
13
It aims to <i>"correct the misrepresentations of anarcho-capitalism (and
14
'right-wing' libertarianism in general) made by the anarcho-socialists
15
[sic!] who run the Anarchist FAQ webpage, and to counter the
16
criticisms the authors make which happen to be legitimate"</i> which
17
are claimed to be in old section F of our FAQ.
18
<p>
19
The author claims that <i>"[m]uch of the anarcho-socialist FAQ is severely
20
distortive of the position that the authors wish to refute, and the authors
21
provide little textual evidence in support of their preconceived notions
22
of anarcho-capitalism."</i> This has been the first such attempt since the
23
FAQ went on-line in early 1996. If we did produce <i>"mostly strawmen
24
arguments which do not truly address the actual positions that
25
anarcho-capitalists hold"</i> then no "anarcho"-capitalist before
26
Wilson thought it worthwhile to let us know.
27
<p>
28
The author claims that his <i>"FAQ aims to correct these errors, and to set
29
the record straight for once."</i> That is his right. However, when he first
30
approached us with his criticism we said that we were in the process of
31
revising that section and that we would like to hear his comments in order
32
to correct any mistakes or strawmen we may have accidentally placed in
33
our FAQ (after all, this section contains some of the oldest work on the
34
FAQ and it came from our experiences of discussing with "anarcho"-capitalists
35
on-line so mistakes could easily creep in). Instead of providing us
36
with feedback, he decided to place his critique on-line (which again is
37
his right). Here we reply is his criticism's of the old section F.
38
<p>
39
The new <a href="secFcon.html">section F</a> should also be consulted, which
40
was being revised as Wilson created his critique of the old section F.
41
<p>
42
<h1>Section F.1 (Are "Anarcho"-Capitalists Really Anarchists?)</h1>
43
<p>
44
This section of the FAQ has been extensively revised and so much of the
45
comments made are to text now found in other sections. The new section
46
<a href="secF1.html">F.1</a> is far more explicit on why "anarcho"-capitalism is not part of the
47
anarchist tradition. However, it is worthwhile to discuss the old version.
48
<p>
49
Mr Wilson starts off by noting us <i>"that this FAQ does not begin by giving a
50
general explanation of what anarcho-capitalism is. The authors instead
51
decided to launch right into their rebuttal, without first informing the
52
reader of their opposition's position."</i> Yes, very true. We assumed that
53
the reader would be familiar enough with the concept so that such a
54
general explanation would not be required. In section <a href="secBcon.html">B</a>, for example,
55
we discuss general capitalist attitudes towards, say, property, wage
56
labour and so as "anarcho"-capitalism bases itself on these concepts
57
it would be unnecessary to repeat them again.
58
<p>
59
He then quotes our FAQ:
60
<p><blockquote>
61
So-called "anarcho"-capitalists only oppose the centralised state,
62
not the hierarchical-authoritarian capitalist workplace. Thus
63
it is absurd for them to call themselves anarchists, because the
64
capitalist workplace is where the majority of people have their
65
most frequent, direct, personal, and unpleasant experiences of
66
authoritarianism.
67
</blockquote><p>
68
And comments:
69
<p><blockquote>
70
<i>"More accurately, anarcho-capitalists oppose the governing of a person's
71
behaviour by other persons without that first person's prior consent.
72
A-C'ers do not support the centralised state because it holds a geographical
73
monopoly upon the use of force, which infringes upon the individual
74
sovereignty of those living within that area. Regardless of whether the
75
state is a representative democracy or a dictatorship, it necessarily
76
violates the conditions that make consent a possibility. Specifically,
77
the state thrives on a policy of coercion, which consists of initiating
78
interference with the actions and will of individuals and benefiting at
79
their expense."</i>
80
</blockquote><p>
81
So, in other words, "consent" is required and that makes authoritarianism
82
okay. Thus capitalist hierarchy is fine because workers agree to it but
83
state hierarchy is bad because citizens do not "consent". But as we
84
argue in the new section F.2.3 (<a href="secF2.html#secf23">Can "anarcho"-capitalist theory justify
85
the state?</a>) in a liberal or democratic state citizens are free to move
86
to another state. They can withdraw their "consent" just as a worker
87
can withdraw their "consent" and look for another job. If consent is
88
the key aspect of whether something is evil or not then the modern
89
state is not an evil as it is based upon consent. No one forces you
90
to stay in a given state. Thus "consent" is not enough in itself to
91
justify hierarchy.
92
<p>
93
In addition, we should not that the boss also interferes with the actions
94
and will of individuals and benefits at their expense. Indeed, Murray
95
Rothbard actually states that <b>if</b> the state legitimately owned the
96
land it claims then it would be perfectly justified in "interfering"
97
with those lived on its property in exactly the same way that any
98
other property does! (see section <a href="secF2.html#secf23">F.2.3</a>). His opposition to the state
99
is simply that the property it claims was <b>unjustly</b> acquired, not
100
that it restricts individual freedom.
101
<p>
102
Thus, for "anarcho"-capitalists, the difference between restrictions
103
on freedom created by property and those created by statism is that
104
the former are caused by a "just" history (and so are fine) while the
105
later are caused by an "unjust" history (and so are bad). However,
106
given that the property regime we live in is deeply affected by past
107
state actions (see section <a href="secF8.html">F.8</a>), this
108
criteria is phoney as capitalism
109
shares a history of violence with the state. If state hierarchy is
110
wrong, so is capitalist hierarchy -- if "history" is actually to
111
account for anything rather than just as rhetoric to justify capitalist
112
oppression.
113
<p>
114
Wilson goes on to state that "anarcho"-capitalists <i>"do not wish to
115
abolish the 'hierarchical-authoritarian capitalist workplace', because
116
of the fact that doing so would place a restriction upon the number of
117
alternatives people can choose to improve their situations without
118
violating the liberty of others."</i>
119
<p>
120
Sounds lovely and freedom enhancing does it not? Until you think about
121
it more deeply. Then you realise that such glorification of choice is
122
just a "dismal politics", where most of the choices are bad. After all,
123
in "actually existing" capitalism the percentage of non-wage slaves
124
in the workforce is around 10% (and this figure includes bosses and
125
not just self-employed workers). The percentage of self-employed has
126
steadily decreased from the dawn of capitalism which means that capitalism
127
itself restricts the number of alternatives people have to choose from!
128
<p>
129
And let us see what the <i>"hierarchical-authoritarian capitalist workplace"</i>
130
involves. It is based upon the worker selling their liberty to gain entry
131
to it. Why do they do that? Because the circumstances they face means
132
that they have little choice but to do so. And these circumstances are
133
created by the rights framework within society; in other words <b>capitalist</b>
134
property rights. Wilson assumes that abolishing capitalist property rights
135
will involve "violating the liberty of others" but it is clear that
136
that maintaining these rights results in people "voluntarily" selling
137
their liberty due to the circumstances created by these property rights.
138
In other words, the enforcement of property rights involves the
139
violation of liberty of those subject to the rules and regulations
140
of the property owner. For example, the boss can ban numerous free
141
actions, agreements and exchanges on his property -- the joining of a
142
union, free speech, freedom to wear what you like and so on.
143
<p>
144
Wilson goes on to argue that <i>"a person enters into a bilateral exchange with
145
another person out of an expectation that the benefits of the exchange will
146
exceed its costs. . . . He [the capitalist] underwent the expense involved
147
in purchasing and/or producing these capital goods, and if he does not
148
consent to give them up to the workers, any forceful appropriation of
149
them on behalf of the workers would be a violation of his autonomy."</i>
150
<p>
151
So, just to be clear, if the worker has the option of selling her labour
152
and starving to death then the worker "freely" sells her liberty. Any
153
attempt to change the rights framework of society is a "violation" of
154
the capitalist's "autonomy". The same could be said of the state. After all,
155
the state has went to the expense of acquiring and protecting the land
156
it claims. But, of course, this initial claim was invalid and so the
157
state is to be opposed. But the capitalist class has profited from the
158
state's use of force many a time and the economic circumstances it
159
has helped create. After all, it was state enforcement of the "land
160
monopoly" that created a pool of landless workers who had no choice
161
but to enter into wage slavery. The capitalists enriched themselves
162
at the expense of desperate people with no other options, with state
163
aid to repress strikes and unions.
164
<p>
165
If the state's claims of ownership are phoney, then so are the
166
claims of capitalists.
167
<p>
168
Wilson then laments that:
169
<p><blockquote>
170
<i>"A worker who does not possess the same amount of wealth as an entrepreneur
171
will often consent to what anarcho-socialists would call an 'unequal
172
exchange' because of the fact that he forecasts that an improvement in his
173
situation will result from it. To prevent this type of exchange from
174
occurring would be to constrain the number of options available that one can
175
choose to improve one's lot."</i>
176
</blockquote><p>
177
As noted above, it is capitalism that constrains the number of options
178
available to "improve one's lot". But Wilson seems to be assuming that
179
anarchists desire to somehow "ban" wage labour. But we made no such claim.
180
We argued that we need to change the rights framework of society and
181
take back that which has been stolen from us. After all, capitalists
182
have used the state to enrich themselves at our expense for hundreds
183
of years (indeed, as we argue in section <a href="secF8.html">F.8</a>
184
the state played a key role in the development of capitalism in the
185
first place).
186
<p>
187
As Nozick argues in <b>Anarchy, State, and Utopia</b>, only "justly" acquired
188
property can be legitimately transferred. But under capitalism, property
189
was not justly acquired (indeed, even Nozick's conceptual theory of
190
land acquisition does not justify land ownership -- see
191
<a href="secB3.html#secb34">section B.3.4</a>).
192
Thus we are not violating the liberty of capitalists if we take their
193
property and modify the rights framework because it was not their
194
property to begin with!
195
<p>
196
Wilson goes on to argue that <i>"[d]espite the unpleasant rules that
197
a worker may
198
have to follow when on the job, the worker does it for the purpose of
199
securing something greater in the end."</i>
200
<p>
201
The same logic has been used to justify the state. Despite the unpleasant
202
rules that a citizen may have to follow, they do it for the purpose of
203
securing something greater in the end -- security, liberty, whatever.
204
That is hardly a convincing argument and seems more to do with justifying
205
and rationalising unfreedom than anything else.
206
<p>
207
So what is the <i>"something greater"</i>? Usually to have enough money to buy
208
food, shelter and so on. Most workers are a pay packet away from poverty.
209
As the "something greater" is to be able to live, that suggests that
210
workers do not "consent" freely to become a wage slave. They have little
211
choice.
212
<p>
213
Wilson goes on:
214
<p><blockquote>
215
<i>"This is why anarcho-capitalists do not wish to abolish consensual hierarchy
216
or a mutual acceptance of rules (which is what the anarcho-socialists call
217
'authoritarian' in this case). If people consent to such relationships,
218
it's for the purpose of acquiring a higher degree of freedom that will
219
exceed the degree of sacrifice that the transaction involves. They value
220
the projected outcomes of the exchanges they make more than they value the
221
result of not making the exchange at all."</i>
222
</blockquote><p>
223
And what is the result of not making the exchange? Poverty, starvation.
224
Wow, some "choice". But anarchists do not wish to abolish consensual
225
hierarchy. We wish to give people a real choice. This real choice is
226
impossible under capitalism and so the vast majority sell their liberty.
227
That Wilson ignores the circumstances that force people to wage labour
228
says a lot.
229
<p>
230
Now, anarchists have no problem with the <i>"mutual acceptance of rules"</i>. This
231
does not need to be <i>"authoritarian"</i> (no matter what Wilson claims we think).
232
For example, in a co-operative the members create their own rules by
233
mutual agreement and debate. That is not authoritarian. What <b>is</b>
234
authoritarian is when one person says "I make the rules round here and
235
you can love it or leave it". That is what the state does and it is
236
what the capitalist does. It is authoritarian because the rules are
237
imposed on the rest -- who then have the choice of following these
238
rules or leaving. Thus the capitalist workplace is a dictatorship and
239
so authoritarian.
240
<p>
241
Moving on, Wilson disagrees with anarchist claims that capitalism is
242
based upon exploitation and oppression. He states that <i>"[w]hat this FAQ
243
does not mention (in this particular section) is that exploitation doctrine
244
is based upon an economic theory of value, which is, shall we say, less
245
than universally accepted by political theorists and economists today.
246
This is the labour theory of value (LTV). . . "</i>
247
<p>
248
Yes, it is true that most economists and political theorists do not
249
accept the Labour Theory of Value. Most do not understand it and present
250
strawmen arguments against it. But small but significant groupings of
251
economists and political theorists do accept it (for example, individualist
252
anarchists, Marxists, many social anarchists, many post-keynesianists). But
253
the question arises, <b>why</b> is the LTV rejected? Simply because it argues
254
that capitalism is based upon exploitation and that non-labour income is
255
usury. Unsurprisingly, when it comes to supporting economic theories,
256
the wealthy will pick those which justify their incomes and riches, not
257
those which argue that they are illegitimate. Thus the LTV along with
258
Henry George's ideas would not be selected within the "free marketplace
259
of ideas" -- indeed the followers of George argue that neo-classical
260
economics was deliberately funded by the wealthy to marginalise their
261
ideas.
262
<p>
263
So, to state that the LTV is a <i>"less than universally accepted"</i> is like
264
arguing that because democratic theory was "less than universally accepted"
265
in Nazi Germany there must be something wrong with it. Wilson falls into
266
the common fallacy that economic ideas are value free and do not reflect
267
class interests.
268
<p>
269
He goes on to state "anarcho"-capitalists do not <i>"accept that theory"</i>
270
(which comes as no surprise as they do not like to think about what
271
goes on at the point of production that much) and even if we <b>do</b>
272
accept the LTV that it is <i>"still not obvious that the
273
'profits = exploitation' conclusion follows from it. In his book
274
Hidden Order, David Friedman makes an interesting point that 'the
275
laws of physics tell us that the sum total of energy can neither
276
be increased, nor reduced. What we call 'production' is the rearrangement
277
of matter and energy from less useful to more useful (to us) forms.' [David
278
Friedman, Hidden Order, p 128] Production managers, just like manual
279
labourers, do precisely this. They produce by rearranging matter through
280
time and space, but rather than rearranging constituent parts to produce a
281
good, they rearrange the goods themselves into the hands of customers (which
282
manual labourers do not do)."</i>
283
<p>
284
Funnily enough, the FAQ does not deny the importance of management and
285
administration skills. No anarchist has ever maintained that workplaces
286
do not need to be managed. Nor did we argue that "manual labour" was the
287
only form of labour that added value. Quite the reverse in fact. What we
288
<b>did</b> argue was that in a dictatorship those at the top will consider
289
that <b>their</b> contribution added most value to a product and reward
290
themselves appropriately. We argued that the higher up the management
291
structure you go, the less value the labour adds to output. Indeed,
292
the basic function of management is to organise labour in such a
293
way as to maximise profits. That is why the hierarchical workplace
294
exists. In the words of one economist:
295
<p><blockquote>
296
<i>"Managers of a capitalist enterprise are not content simply to respond
297
to the dictates of the market by equating the wage to the value of
298
the marginal product of labour. Once the worker has entered the
299
production process, the forces of the market have, for a time at least,
300
been superseded. The effort-pay relation will depend not only on
301
market relations of exchange but also. . . on the hierarchical relations
302
of production - on the relative power of managers and workers within
303
the enterprise."</i> [William Lazonick, <b>Business Organisation and the
304
Myth of the Market Economy</b>, pp. 184-5]
305
</blockquote><p>
306
Thus profits are maximised by maximising the labour workers do while
307
minimising the amount paid to them. That is what the management structure
308
exists for. That Wilson denies this suggests that he views the firm
309
as some kind of "black-box" within which human social relationships
310
and action are irrelevant. But this is not the case -- what does on
311
in production is the key to profitability. As the early socialist
312
Thomas Hodgskin put it:
313
<p><blockquote>
314
<i>"Fixed capital does not derive its utility from previous,
315
but present labour; and does not bring its owner a profit because
316
it has been stored up, but because it is a means of obtaining a
317
command over labour."</i>
318
</blockquote><p>
319
And nothing has changed. As Proudhon long ago argued, only labour
320
is productive. Without labour capital would rust away. Thus the
321
LTV is far more applicable that Wilson would like us to believe.
322
<p>
323
Now, Wilson claims that "manual labourers" do not "rearrange the goods
324
themselves into the hands of customers" but in a co-operative the
325
workforce does just that. They elect managers and take part in the
326
management structure. Wilson fails to notice that workers do not do
327
that in capitalist firms because the management structure is top-down
328
and is designed to disempower workers. So if workers do not do these
329
tasks it is because management has the monopoly of (official) power
330
and decides that <b>it</b> adds most value and deserves a higher reward.
331
So, in other words, capitalist property rights create dictatorship
332
and those in the dictatorship enrich themselves. Not a surprising
333
outcome.
334
<p>
335
Wilson then argues that "anarcho"-capitalists <i>"reject the labour theory of
336
value in favour of marginal utility theory, which holds that prices are
337
determined by the subjective preferences and plans of individuals."</i>
338
<p>
339
Of course, the LTV also argues that prices are determined by the subjective
340
preferences of individuals. In order to have exchange value, a commodity
341
must have a use value to a customer. And, of course, exchange value does
342
not equal price but is instead an abstraction of the fact that when a
343
commodity is produced a specific set of costs have been spent on it.
344
These costs are objective facts and determine whether a commodity makes
345
a profit or not. In the long term, commodities would exchange at a
346
price equivalent to the abstract exchange value but in the short term
347
they vary according to supply and demand. As we argue in <a href="secCcon.html">section C</a>,
348
the marginal utility theory ignores the fact that a commodity has an
349
objective cost associated with it which is its exchange value. When
350
it boils down to it, the profit which a product generates is what
351
capitalists "subjectively value" and these profits are dependent on
352
the productivity of labour (i.e. the more workers make in a given
353
period for the same wage, the higher potential profits will be).
354
<p>
355
Wilson goes on to state that <i>"[i]t's obvious that the author has little
356
respect for the reasoned arguments published by free-market economists
357
and political theorists in the last century. It's pretty insulting when
358
somebody responds to a reasoned argument by scoffing at it and referring
359
to it as 'apologetics' or 'rationalisation', rather than giving it serious
360
consideration."</i> But, strangely enough, we discussed why we think the
361
LTV is a better way of analysing capitalism that than those provided
362
by "free-market economists and political theorists" and in our humble
363
opinion, it is apologetics and rationalisations. Sorry if Mr Wilson
364
does not agree, but then again he would not. For example, most of
365
"anarcho"-capitalism seems to involve apologetics and rationalisations
366
for the restrictions of individual liberty associated with capitalism.
367
See, for example, section <a href="secF2.html#secf21">F.2.1</a> in
368
which Murray Rothbard rationalises
369
away capitalist oppression even when it clearly has similarities
370
with statist oppression. Similarly, many Stalinists and supporters of
371
Nazism provided many "reasoned arguments" to indicate why the fact
372
of dictatorship was essential. Just because currently capitalist
373
ideology is widely accepted does not make it any less apologetics
374
than these "reasoned arguments." Again, Wilson assumes that economic
375
theory is value free rather than being the <a href="http://204.181.81.182/zmag/articles/hermanjuly97.html">
376
"economics of the rich"</a>
377
to use Edward Herman's cutting phrase.
378
<p>
379
Wilson then states that <i>"[t]his paragraph is both a form of argument
380
from intimidation and argument ad hominem, and hence we shall let it pass
381
without further comment."</i> Well, having discussed in <a href="secCcon.html">section C</a> why we
382
think that capitalism is exploitative we did not think we really had
383
to repeat ourselves. And as far as arguments from intimidation and
384
arguments ad hominem go, Wilson indulges himself in this later with
385
his "parasite", "dictator" and other comments.
386
<p>
387
He then quotes the FAQ:
388
<p><blockquote>
389
"Anarcho"-capitalists, however, believe that capitalist companies
390
will necessarily remain hierarchical even if the public state has
391
been dissolved. This is because only hierarchical workplaces are
392
"efficient" enough to survive in a 'free' market. This belief
393
reveals the priority of their values: "efficiency" (the bottom
394
line) is considered more important than eliminating the
395
domination, coercion, and exploitation of workers. In addition,
396
such hierarchies will need "defending" from those oppressed by
397
them; and hence, due to its support of private property (and thus
398
authority), "anarcho"-capitalism
399
ends up retaining a state in its "anarchy," namely a private state
400
whose existence its proponents attempt to deny simply by refusing
401
to call it a state, like an ostrich hiding its head in the sand
402
(see section F.6 for more on this and why "anarcho"-capitalism is
403
better described as "private state" capitalism).
404
<p></blockquote>
405
And argues that <i>"[t]his is rhetoric, not argument. Apparently, the authors
406
would rather rave on about their own beliefs, rather than give a fair
407
representation of anarcho-capitalism. Notice that no assertion in the
408
above quote is defended--not the assertion that capitalist production
409
involves 'domination, coercion, or exploitation', nor the assertion that
410
ownership of private property is 'authoritarian'. Nor do we receive a
411
definition for any of these slippery concepts. Nor do they bother to
412
give a fair explanation as to why anarcho-capitalists disagree with them
413
on these issues."</i>
414
<p>
415
Now, lets see about these claims. Now, the reason why anarchists think
416
that capitalist production involves <i>"domination, coercion, and exploitation"</i>
417
of workers was discussed at great length in sections <a href="secBcon.html">B</a> and <a href="secCcon.html">C</a> of the FAQ.
418
Indeed, it is mentioned in passing in <a href="secAcon.html">section A</a> on why anarchists are
419
socialists and why anarchists support direct democracy. Apparently we
420
should have repeated all our arguments again in order to meet Wilson's
421
inability to look at the rest of the FAQ. Of course, perhaps, we should
422
have placed links to the appropriate sections but given that we doubted
423
that anyone would jump straight into section F.1 we did not. Now as far
424
as a "fair explanation" as to why "anarcho"-capitalists disagree with
425
real anarchists on these issues we indicate why capitalistic property
426
is wrong (and we argued in section <a href="secB3.html">B.3</a> and <a href="secB1.html">B.1</a> why private property
427
is "authoritarian" -- something, we should note, that "anarcho"-capitalists
428
do not actually disagree with. They just argue that "consent" ensures
429
that the authoritarian relationships it creates are not a restriction
430
of liberty). Now, the aim of <a href="secFcon.html">section F</a> of the FAQ was to explain why
431
"anarcho"-capitalism was not a form of anarchism. And this is what
432
we did. Hence Wilson's comments are misplaces, to say the least.
433
<p>
434
Wilson then does on to argue that capitalist production <i>"does involve
435
hierarchy, considering that the owners of the means of production must
436
direct the disposal of their resources so that they don't go to waste."</i>
437
So, as noted, he agrees that capitalist private property <b>is</b> authoritarian
438
(how could hierarchy be anything else?). Thus his laments that we just
439
<i>"assert"</i> this fact is somewhat strange. He then tries to get out of
440
this by noting that:
441
<p>
442
<i>"the same situation will accrue under worker ownership. All production
443
strategies and guidelines would be established by a system of majority
444
vote, and so it's doubtful that any single individual will have a much
445
greater influence in determining them than one would under a under
446
an hierarchical capitalist corporation."</i>
447
<p>
448
Really? But a key aspect of anarchist ideas of self-management is that
449
capitalist corporations must be broken up and replaced by a confederation
450
of self-managed workplaces. The workers in a given workplace would
451
have extensive control over what affects them directly and the possibility
452
of influencing the decisions of the wider issues that affect their
453
industry. So it is nonsense to say that individuals will not have a
454
greater influence than in a hierarchical capitalist firm. Unlike in
455
a capitalist firm they are not just order takers (and lets not forget
456
that this is what the worker is under capitalism). They can and do
457
have control over many important aspects of their work. This can
458
be seen when limited workers control is introduced into capitalist
459
firms, so Wilson's claims are just an attempt to justify factory
460
fascism.
461
<p>
462
Talking of which, he celebrates this when he argues that:
463
<p><blockquote>
464
<i>"The only difference that might possibly accrue as a result of worker
465
ownership would be a higher degree of gridlock involved in determining
466
company policy. With respect to a political institution, gridlock is
467
good; it prevents any single individual from having too much power and from
468
subsequently passing a great deal of tyrannical statute law. With respect
469
to a business, gridlock is bad, because it prevents business from adapting
470
to constantly changing market conditions."</i>
471
<p></blockquote>
472
Which is, of course, a fascist argument transferred from the political
473
to the economic regime (which, of course, is something fascists also
474
do). And, as Bob Black argued in <A HREF="http://www.unicorn.com//lib/libertarian.html">The Libertarian as Conservative</a>,
475
it is also an argument put forward by Marx, Engels and Lenin. What
476
strange bed-fellows right-libertarians have! Now, Wilson is attacking
477
economic democracy because it creates "grid lock" (although, as all
478
co-operatives indicate, it does nothing of the kind) which, he claims,
479
is good in politics because "it prevents any single individual from
480
having too much power". What "logic". Economic dictatorship <b>does</b> place
481
"too much power" in the hands of the boss, that is why anarchists have
482
always recognised that (to use Proudhon's words) that <i>"property is
483
despotism"</i>.
484
<p>
485
How strange. Identical social relationships switch from being bad to
486
good purely on whether it is a capitalist that has power or a state
487
official. Such is the power of "consent"!
488
<p>
489
Wilson then moves onto bigger and better claims:
490
<p><blockquote>
491
<i>"Some 'anarchists' claim that there will not be any competition between
492
worker-owned firms under their version of 'anarchy', because all individual
493
firms will be subordinated to the direction of a larger system of worker
494
management. Of course, what this 'larger system of worker management'
495
amounts to is an institution that falls neatly under the Weberian definition
496
of a state. That isn't to say, of course, that the 'anarchists' who
497
advocate this social arrangement aren't opposed to statism. On the
498
contrary, they're vehemently opposed to the state provided that they and
499
their comrades aren't in charge of it."</i>
500
</blockquote><p>
501
Yes, anarchists who favour workplace self-management <b>really</b> want to
502
be "in charge" of a new state! What wonderful logic! Using this logic
503
it would be simple to prove that Hitler was an anarchist (he argued
504
for dictatorship but obviously he favoured anarchy just as the anarchists
505
who argue for self-management desire dictatorship). Moreover, Wilson
506
totally misrepresents anarchist ideas of workplace confederation. The
507
"larger system of worker management" is based upon freely joining a
508
confederation and the individual workplaces within it have as much
509
autonomy as they agree they need. To claim that this is statist is
510
just plain silly -- it is clearly an agreement between groups to
511
work together.
512
<p>
513
Now, let us look at the capitalist workplace or corporation. Within
514
these the boss bans all competition within his/her property he/she
515
does not desire. So if the anarchist system of confederation meets
516
the Weberian definition of a state so does the capitalist firm!
517
Indeed, as we argue in section <a href="secF6.html#secf64">F.6.4</a>,
518
the property owner can "ban"
519
workers from, say, joining a union or subscribing to specific "defence"
520
firms. In other words, the "anarcho"-capitalist are vehemently
521
opposed to the state provided that the capitalists are not in charge
522
of it.
523
<p>
524
So Wilson highlights the central fallacy of "anarcho"-capitalism, namely
525
that private property some how does not meet the Weberian definition of
526
the state. But, in fact, it clearly does. Something, a may note that
527
Murray Rothbard (in his own way) recognised but did not consider
528
important enough to draw the obvious conclusions from. Which
529
presents us with the question: Is voluntary democracy more libertarian
530
than voluntary dictatorship? Anarchists think that self-management has
531
far more to do with liberty that hierarchy and so oppose capitalism.
532
"Anarcho"-capitalists seem to think that dictatorship has no effect
533
on liberty. Which is somewhat strange, to say the least.
534
<p>
535
Wilson then goes on to state that <i>"worker ownership and even communal
536
ownership of the means of production would be perfectly legitimate under
537
anarcho-capitalism, provided that nobody violates anybody else's consent."</i>
538
<p>
539
Which is ironic, as capitalism was created by violating the rights of
540
working people to worker ownership/control and communal ownership
541
(see section <a href="secF8.html">F.8</a>). How that the capitalists
542
have the upper hand,
543
they can embrace "free competition" knowing that their advantage on
544
the market will ensure that workers control will not spread (see
545
sections <a href="secJ5.html#secj510">J.5.10</a>, <a href="secJ5.html#secj511">J.5.11</a> and <a href="secJ5.html#secj512">J.5.12</a>). Kind of like the thief who
546
argues that you can take back what was stolen from you as long
547
as you do not violate his consent (which he is not going to give)!
548
<p>
549
So Wilson is simply acknowledging that under capitalism you have to
550
buy the freedom which should be your birth right from those who have
551
stolen it! How generous.
552
<p>
553
Wilson then goes to agree with the FAQ by stating that management <i>"does
554
set the terms of the use and disposal of company property (whoever the owners
555
happen to be)"</i> and so workers <b>are</b> subject to authoritarian social
556
relationships and so are not free. But, he argues, <i>"according to what
557
standard would the workers have a right to forcibly seize the means of
558
production out of dissatisfaction with the situation?"</i> There are many
559
answers to this (answers which Mr Wilson does not present which means,
560
to paraphrase his good self, "nor does he bother to give a fair explanation
561
as to why anarchists disagree with them on this issue").
562
<p>
563
If we take a Stirnerite point of view, we could argue that workers need
564
no "right" to take them over. They desire them and desire freedom. That
565
is good enough in itself. As the capitalists have no "right" to restrict
566
the liberty of workers, workers have no "right" to stop that restriction.
567
They do it anyway. Or we could take a Proudhonist viewpoint which argues
568
that the land cannot be appropriated and so capitalists have no right to
569
their capital as the initial appropriations were illegitimate and they
570
have enriched themselves by the labour of others who have been placed
571
in evil circumstances by capitalist property rights. Or we could argue
572
along Bakuninist lines that freedom is what we value most and so society
573
should be re-organised so that unnecessary domination is eliminated,
574
particularly the domination that flows from unpaid labour.
575
<p>
576
Of course Wilson assumes that capitalist "rights" to their property are
577
beyond question. Let us turn the question on its head. By what right
578
do capitalists have of oppressing workers and barring people from their
579
property? If we take Rothbard's "Homesteading" conceptual theory (see
580
section <a href="secF4.html#secf41">F.4.1</a>) then it boils down to
581
"finders keepers" and so humanity
582
will always be enchained by the first people to appropriate land. So
583
living people will see their liberty restricted because of past history.
584
<p>
585
Wilson <b>does</b> present one "right", namely:
586
<p><blockquote>
587
<i>"Because they use it while working on it? By this criterion, it's
588
acceptable for one to seize anything that one is capable of using, without
589
regard to those who already hold it in their possession. I would imagine
590
that any anarcho-socialist who prefers an arrangement in which there is
591
some form of peaceful social order would hold that certain predatory forms
592
of behaviour are not acceptable, but to grant use-rights to anybody who is
593
capable of using something is to encourage such forms of behaviour. If there
594
are to be rights of usage at all, people must forgo the power involved
595
in appropriating resources that are already in use by other people. If
596
people do not forgo that particular freedom, then nobody will be able to
597
secure access to the resources that they use, or to be able to exercise
598
their freedom in relation to it. The physical objects and resources that
599
one utilises for one's purposes would always be up for claim by the next
600
person who comes along (and may the strongest man win!)."</i>
601
<p></blockquote>
602
Well, where to start. Anarchists argue that use-rights will ensure that
603
workers self-management is secured. This is because whoever is currently
604
using a resource (as a factory) has the right to take part in the
605
management of that resource. Now, it kind of goes without saying that
606
use rights are based upon respecting other people's use of resources.
607
Thus it is not a case of Hobbesian "anarchy" in which people do not
608
respect others. Thus people will "forgo the power" of taking what other
609
people are using (except in emergencies, of course). Thus the "strongest"
610
would not be able to kick tenants out of the house they are living in.
611
So, use-rights simply means that when using something people manage its
612
use. Workers in a workplace manage its use and anyone who newly joins
613
the co-operative gets to take part in decision making. Use rights are
614
the way of restricting domination by promoting self-management.
615
<p>
616
Wilson argues that granting "use-rights" will encourage Hobbesian behaviour,
617
which suggests that he thinks that people cannot live together peacefully
618
without police forces and laws (well, then again, he <b>is</b> an
619
"anarcho"-capitalist). It seems strange to think that an anarchist
620
society would develop in which people would have so little respect
621
for others. Given that the whole point of the expropriation of the
622
capitalists was to maximise individual freedom and dignity, it is
623
doubtful that people would start to violate those values. But Wilson
624
is assuming that without police forces humanity would turn into
625
a Hobbesian war of all against all but this has never been the case
626
of communities based upon use rights (see Kropotkin's <b>Mutual Aid</b>
627
for extensive evidence).
628
<p>
629
Wilson, after misrepresenting anarchist ideas, now moves on to justifying
630
capitalist domination:
631
<p><blockquote>
632
<i>"Abiding by the rules and codes enforced on the job may be irritating at
633
times, but an exchange is a relationship that one enters into voluntarily."</i>
634
<p></blockquote>
635
But the same could be said of the state. No one forces you to remain in
636
any given state. There are plenty more to choose from. If you do not
637
want to move then you have voluntarily consented to the social contract.
638
So, abiding by the rules and codes enforced in the state may be irritating
639
at times, but an exchange is a relationship that one enters into
640
voluntarily. After all, as Rothbard himself argued, <b>if</b> the state had
641
acquired its property "justly" then the "anarcho"-capitalist would
642
have no problems with its laws, rules and codes (see section <a href="secF2.html#secf23">F.2.3</a>).
643
<p>
644
By stressing "consent" and ignoring the relationships generated by the
645
contract, "anarcho"-capitalism ends up justifying state-like structures.
646
If the current system of states was replaced by, say, 500 large companies,
647
would that make the rules and codes any different from state laws? Of
648
course not.
649
<p>
650
Wilson argues that <i>"if one does not think that the value offered by the
651
other party is sufficient to cover the cost of the transaction, then one
652
should not make the exchange in the first place."</i>
653
<p>
654
How true. The woman who agrees to sleep with her boss to keep her job,
655
the drowning man who agrees to pay a passing boatman $5 million to be
656
saved, the landless peasant who agrees to work in a sweatshop for
657
14 hours a day all "freely" make an exchange. After all, if they do
658
not what they face is even worse than the options of the "exchange".
659
Who can deny that they all think that the "value" offered by the
660
other party makes it worthwhile to enter into the exchange? And who
661
but an "anarcho"-capitalist will deny that these exchanges are
662
evil ones which violate the liberty and dignity of the party in
663
unfortunate circumstances?
664
<p>
665
To concentrate on "exchange" is simply to blind oneself to relations
666
of domination and oppression.
667
<p>
668
Wilson then goes on to wax-lyrical on the "mentality" of the strawman
669
he has created above:
670
<p><blockquote>
671
<i>"The opinion that one has the right to appropriate from others at whim
672
without their consent whenever one is dissatisfied with one's situation
673
is the doctrine of a thief or a dictator. He who accepts this doctrine
674
possesses the mentality of a parasite and a free-rider, not the mentality
675
of a person who is willing to respect the sovereignty of other people
676
(i.e., a person fit to live in a civilised society)."</i>
677
<p></blockquote>
678
Now, do anarchists say that we support appropriation from others "at
679
whim"? No, anarchists argue that we support appropriations that stop
680
unnecessary domination and oppression. Thus we argue for the appropriation
681
of the capitalist class because, firstly, their goods are stolen property
682
and, secondly, they create relations of domination and dictatorship
683
between people. It was only a matter of time before Wilson started
684
going on about "free-riders" and "parasites" and we are surprised it
685
has taken this long for him to do so. It is somewhat ironic, to say
686
the least, that supporters of capitalism argue that anarchists are
687
"parasites". Far from it. Anarchists desire to end the system where
688
capitalists are parasites upon the working class. Similarly, we desire
689
to end capitalist property because it does not respect the sovereignty
690
of other people (workers do not have the right of self-management within
691
capitalist workplaces and circumstances force them to sell their liberty
692
to others in order to survive).
693
<p>
694
Actually, it is Wilson who expresses the mentality of a dictator when
695
he attacks use-rights. You can just imagine a feudal lord or aristocrat
696
arguing that just because someone lives on their land, it does not
697
give them any right to determine the laws they are subject to. That
698
rests with the owner, namely the lord or state. Indeed, we have shades
699
of Locke in Wilson's argument. Locke argued that only the wealthy should
700
pass laws within civil society. The poor, while being subject to them,
701
do not have a say in them. They are included within, but not part of,
702
civil society. Wilson's diatribe against use rights exposes the elitist
703
roots of "anarcho"-capitalism and that this regime will universal
704
monarchy and dictatorship in the name of "liberty" (after all, it will
705
be the property owner who determines the laws and rules which those
706
who just happen to work or life there are subject to).
707
<p>
708
Now, as far as people able to "live in a civilised society" goes it is
709
pretty clear that a rights system that can result in famine, hierarchy
710
and extreme poverty is hardly "civilised". Indeed, until the rise of
711
capitalism the idea that people had a right to life was a common one.
712
All that changed and now we face the option "work or starve". How
713
<b>very</b> civilised. And, of course, how "civilised" is a system which
714
ensures that the majority has to sell their liberty to others? If
715
civilisation is the progress of individual liberty, then capitalism
716
is not a form of civilisation.
717
<p>
718
Wilson then quotes the FAQ:
719
<p><blockquote>
720
And, of course, inequalities of power and wealth do not restrict
721
themselves to workplaces nor is the damage of hierarchy upon
722
individuals and their liberty limited to working hours. Both have
723
a deep impact on the rest of society, expanding into all areas of
724
life and restricting liberty everywhere.
725
</blockquote><p>
726
and asks:
727
<p><blockquote>
728
<i>"Evidence? If people enter into relationships that they perceive as leading
729
to improvements over their initial situation, it's difficult to see how
730
liberty can be restricted as a result. One can make errors of judgement when
731
making these decisions, but one of the conditions of living in a free
732
society is that one possess the freedom to make mistakes (even disastrous
733
ones!) and to learn from them."</i>
734
<p></blockquote>
735
Evidence? Section <a href="secB1.html">B.1</a> has evidence on the wider
736
effects of capitalism.
737
That inequalities of wealth and power have a deep impact on the rest
738
of society is a truism (see section <a href="secF3.html">F.3</a> for some discussion). Now
739
Wilson claims that <i>"people enter into relationships that they perceive
740
as leading to improvements over their initial situation, it's difficult
741
to see how liberty can be restricted as a result"</i> which is wonderful!
742
<p>
743
Let as see, workers enter into relationships they perceive as leading
744
to improvements over their initial situation (their initial situation
745
is that they will starve to death unless they get money; unsurprisingly
746
they enter into the wage slave relationship). As a result of this
747
relationship, profits accumulate in the hands of the few. This increases
748
inequality within society and, after all, money is power. Thus "bilateral
749
exchanges" can result in restrictions of liberty for those involved
750
and externalities in terms of inequality which affect other people
751
(see sections <a href="secF2.html">F.2</a> and <a href="secF3.html">F.3</a>). Increasing inequality means that the few have
752
increased clout and so can hang out longer then the less well off.
753
This means that the less well off compromise faster and deeper than
754
they would otherwise do. These compromises increase inequalities
755
and so the process continues, with the few increasing their power
756
within society and the amount of land/resources they own.
757
<p>
758
Yes, indeed, people can make errors of judgement and the freedom to
759
make mistakes is essential, but neither of these facts means that
760
we should support capitalism. If making decisions is the thing we
761
value then supporting a system which actively restricts decision
762
making (for example, in work) is somewhat strange. Similarly,
763
to support a system which promotes inequalities which end up
764
restricting out options to (effectively) choosing which boss
765
will govern us hardly promotes choice. So, in a free society, we
766
must take responsibility for our decisions but capitalism so
767
restricts these decisions as to make a mockery of freedom.
768
That is why anarchists oppose it.
769
<p>
770
Wilson then says that it is <i>"interesting to note that the first person the
771
FAQ quotes in its section on anarcho-capitalism is an anarcho-socialist who
772
understands the position being critiqued about as well as the authors of
773
the FAQ."</i> Actually, Chomsky gets to the root of the problem with
774
"anarcho"-capitalism, it is just "anarchism for the rich" and would
775
soon result in extensive restrictions of liberty for the majority. It
776
is clear that Wilson does not understand this basic point and so ignores
777
it.
778
<p>
779
He then states:
780
<p><blockquote>
781
<i>"So much for providing textual evidence in support of the position being
782
critiqued. But then again, fair representation of the opposition is obviously
783
not one of the intentions behind the FAQ."</i>
784
<p></blockquote>
785
But, as Wilson himself as indicated, we have not needed to provide textual
786
support of the position being critiqued. He himself as acknowledged that
787
"anarcho"-capitalism has no problem with capitalist hierarchy and has
788
indeed went out of his way to justify factory fascism. Perhaps he will ask
789
us to provide textual evidence that "anarcho"-capitalism supports
790
capitalism? And the intention of the FAQ? To argue why "anarcho"-capitalism
791
is not anarchist, something Wilson has done so in his critique.
792
<p>
793
Wilson quotes the FAQ:
794
<p><blockquote>
795
It is clear, then, that "anarcho"-capitalists are not really
796
anti-authoritarians, because they would allow authoritarianism to
797
persist where it has the most direct impact on ordinary people: in
798
the workplace.
799
</blockquote><p>
800
and comments:
801
<p><blockquote>
802
<i>"It's not clear from the FAQ at all, considering that it doesn't once site a
803
work written by an anarcho-capitalist in this section, nor does it give a
804
considerate explication of anarcho-capitalist viewpoints."</i>
805
<p></blockquote>
806
Well, why cite a work on "anarcho"-capitalism which states that they
807
support capitalism? Perhaps we should also cite a work by Marxists
808
which states they support Marxism? As Wilson himself makes clear,
809
our argument that "anarcho"-capitalists are not anarchists
810
because they support capitalist hierarchy is correct. He agrees that
811
"anarcho"-capitalists <b>are capitalists</b>! Now, as far as a "considerate
812
explication" of "anarcho"-capitalist viewpoints go we have argued
813
that they are not anarchists because they support capitalist hierarchy.
814
As Wilson agrees, they do support them. We discussed why we fought that
815
capitalist claims that workers "consent" to wage labour were phoney
816
in section <a href="secB4.html">B.4</a> and so did not go into details here. Thus we <b>did</b>
817
present the case that capitalist hierarchy was fine because workers
818
"consent" to it (and that, after all, is Wilson's "defence" of capitalist
819
hierarchy).
820
<p>
821
In other words, Wilson "critique" is bogus as he fails to place
822
the section he is critiquing in context.
823
<p>
824
Wilson then states that:
825
<p><blockquote>
826
<i>"It's much more clear that it would be authoritarian to prevent 'capitalist
827
acts among consenting adults' (Nozick's term), because people enter in these
828
relations to improve their lot."</i>
829
<p></blockquote>
830
But, as noted above, anarchists have no desire to prevent wage labour in
831
an anarchist society. Thus Wilson totally misrepresents anarchist ideas.
832
Moreover it is <b>capitalism</b> that actively restricts the number of
833
relationships that people can enter into to improve their lot, <b>not</b>
834
anarchism. Similarly, Nozick's argument fails to acknowledge that
835
these "acts" generate authoritarian social relationships and creates
836
circumstances in which the majority have little choice but to "consent"
837
to capitalist acts (i.e. wage labour).
838
<p>
839
Moreover, within the capitalist workplace the capitalist can and does
840
prevent socialist acts among consenting adults (for example, the
841
forming of a union, self-managed work, and so forth). So it is much
842
more clear that capitalism is authoritarian simply because it creates
843
relations of domination between the property owning class and the
844
working class. Wilson fails to understand this because he makes an
845
idol of "consent", an idol which can and has been used to define
846
the state (after all, no one forces you to live in a given state).
847
<p>
848
Thus Wilson's defence of "freedom" indicates a definition of freedom
849
which is little more than the justification of relationships of
850
domination and authority (see section <a href="secF2.html">F.2</a> for more on this).
851
<p>
852
He quotes the FAQ again:
853
<p><blockquote>
854
But anarchism is, by definition, anti-authoritarian (see sections
855
A.1 and A.2.8). Thus "anarcho"-capitalists have illegitimately
856
appropriated the prefix "anarcho" to describe themselves. In
857
reality they are bogus anarchists.
858
</blockquote><p>
859
and states, <i>"[i]n reality, the authors of the anarcho-socialist FAQ are
860
offering no more than a bogus critique."</i> Which is funny, as Wilson
861
has agreed with our analysis. Yes, he acknowledges, capitalist workplaces
862
<b>are</b> hierarchical. Yes, "anarcho"-capitalists have no problem with
863
them because they are "voluntary". Of course, he fails to note the
864
objective conditions facing those who "consent" and makes no attempt
865
to discover whether "anarcho"-capitalism would reinforce these pressures
866
or not (just as he fails to note we addressed this issue of "consent"
867
in section <a href="secB4.html">B.4</a> of the FAQ).
868
<p>
869
So is this a "bogus critique"? No, far from it. While we have totally
870
revised this section of the FAQ in order to make the differences
871
between anarchism and "anarcho"-capitalism clearer, it cannot be
872
said that it is "bogus". After all, Wilson has agreed with our
873
analysis. He just thinks that "consent" makes unfreedom okay. But
874
for anarchists the circumstances which we face are essential for
875
determining whether something is truly consented to. As Wilson
876
takes capitalism and capitalist property rights as given and
877
unchangeable, his objections are question begging in the extreme.
878
<p>
879
Thus, far from being a "bogus critique" Wilson indicates well
880
why "anarcho"-capitalists are not anarchists. Indeed, their theory
881
is little more than an attempt to justify capitalist domination
882
and cloak it with the title "liberty". As Wilson himself shows.
883
<p>
884
<h2>A Critique of Section F.1.2 (How libertarian is right-Libertarian theory?)</h2>
885
<p>
886
Wilson starts off by insults:
887
<p><blockquote>
888
<i>"Unfortunately, the authors aren't in any position to assess whether or
889
not libertarianism is based upon critical thought, considering that they
890
themselves haven't exercised the critical thought necessary to understand
891
the position they're attempting to critique."</i>
892
<p></blockquote>
893
Strong words. The truth of this statement will be discussed below. He
894
notes that <i>"As for 'theory based upon assumptions', we will see during
895
the course of this FAQ that once we look at these assumptions, they'll
896
appear to be much more sound than the anarcho-socialists [sic!] have
897
let on."</i>
898
<p>
899
Which, of course, is acknowledging that right-libertarianism <b>is</b>
900
built upon assumptions! It is just that these assumptions are
901
considered "sound" by "anarcho"-capitalists.
902
<p>
903
He then states that:
904
<p><blockquote>
905
<i>"As far as 'change and the ability to evolve' go, 'right' [sic!]
906
libertarians do not have any problems with it in itself. There are
907
many forms of changes that most anarcho-capitalists avidly support (such
908
as technological development), but they do not advocate change for its
909
own sake, nor do they advocate just any form of change. Change is not
910
desirable if it somehow compromises the individual integrity and autonomy
911
of individuals; that cannot be stressed enough."</i>
912
<p></blockquote>
913
How true. "Anarcho"-capitalists do stress technological change. After all,
914
that is one of needs of capitalism. But the point is that right-libertarians
915
do not stress change within society's rights framework. They assume that
916
capitalist property rights are unchangeable, regardless of how they
917
compromise <i>"individual integrity and autonomy of individuals."</i> That
918
Wilson starts off by using an example of technology (which has often
919
been used to control workers and compromise their autonomy, by the way)
920
is an example of this. As we will see, the assumption that capitalist
921
property rights are unchangeable is one that is commonplace within
922
right libertarianism (and we wonder why Wilson puts right in quotes.
923
Does he not know that "libertarian" was first used by anarchists in
924
the 1880s and that right-libertarianism has stolen the name?).
925
<p>
926
He quotes the FAQ as follows:
927
<p><blockquote>
928
Right-Libertarianism is characterised by a strong tendency of
929
creating theories based upon a priori theorems. Robert Nozick in
930
Anarchy, State and Utopia makes no attempt to provide a
931
justification of the property rights his whole theory is based
932
upon. Indeed he states that "we shall not formulate [it] here."
933
[Anarchy, State and Utopia, p. 150] Moreover, it is not
934
formulated anywhere else by Nozick either. And if it is not
935
formulated, what is there to defend? His whole theory is based
936
upon assumptions.
937
</blockquote>
938
<p>
939
And argues that <i>"[i]t's true that Nozick builds his argument upon certain
940
starting 'assumptions' that go undefended within the course of the book.
941
What the authors do not say is that Nozick's main 'assumption' is that
942
'[i]ndividuals have rights, and [that] there are certain things no person
943
or group may do to them (without violating their rights).' [Anarchy, State,
944
and Utopia, p. ix] This 'assumption' isn't one that turns out to be all
945
that implausible."</i>
946
<p>
947
Quite. And the question now becomes, what rights do we assume that they
948
have? Do people have a right to be free? Not according to Nozick, as
949
his self-ownership thesis ensures that people will be subject to authoritarian
950
social relationships if they "consent" to them. Similarly, many people
951
think that individuals should have a right to life but that is not one
952
that Nozick accepts. From his perspective, if you are starving to death
953
then it would be a worse evil to tax a millionaire $1 than to tax
954
the millionarie and use that $1 to feed you (see <a href="secF4.html">
955
section F.4</a> for example, or the new <a href="secF1.html#secf12">
956
section F.1.2</a>).
957
<p>
958
Now, the assumption is "plausible" but that was not the assumption we
959
focused upon. Nozick assumes his property rights system, the whole
960
basis of his theory. Thus his theory of transfer is based upon his
961
theory of appropriation of property, a theory which he clearly states
962
he will not provide us with! Somewhat strange that the crux of his
963
whole theory is just not provided. After all, if his argument for
964
appropriating land is proven false then his whole entitlement theory
965
also falls (indeed, as we argue in section <a href="secB3.html#secb34">B.3.4</a>, such a defence
966
can be put together from Nozick's work and it does not provide such
967
support). So to just assume its truth is amazing. That Wilson fails
968
to even acknowledge the importance of this omission is not surprising,
969
after all it would mean that our argument was correct -- Nozick
970
assumed <b>the</b> key aspect of his theory and that his whole book is
971
built upon an unproven assumption. Little wonder he does off on a
972
tangent and does not address the point we make.
973
<p>
974
Wilson then continues with Nozick's "rights" assumption by stating that
975
<i>"[t]hough this is a moral intuition that Nozick doesn't defend in ASU, it
976
is a sufficiently broad-based intuition to be held securely by a rational
977
person. Is the intuition that people have rights one that the authors of
978
the FAQ would deny? If they don't accept the premise that there ought to be
979
certain obligatory side-constraints upon human behaviour for the purpose of
980
preserving the autonomy of people (i.e., rights), that would seem to suggest
981
that they have a rather weak commitment to the ideal of human freedom."</i>
982
<p>
983
Quite what to make of this is difficult to tell. After all, what (say)
984
Marx, Hitler, J.S. Mill, Bakunin, Stirner and so on would consider
985
as "intuitive" rights and what Nozick would consider as such is open
986
to much debate. A rational person would, perhaps, consider the consequences
987
of these rights and determine whether they actually <b>did</b> ensure a
988
strong commitment of the ideal of human freedom. If, for example,
989
Nozick's rights resulted in a society of large scale (voluntary) slavery
990
due to minority control of resources then that society would hardly
991
be based on a commitment to human freedom.
992
<p>
993
Thus a rational person rather than following a train of logic which
994
resulted in massive violations of human liberty would decide to change
995
the rights framework they supported. Such a process could be seen at
996
work in J.S. Mill who realised that under capitalism workers could
997
be in a situation little than slavery. Thus an abstract commitment
998
to liberty may result in circumstances that violated the liberty of
999
the many. Thus to claim that anarchists have a <i>"rather weak commitment
1000
to the ideal of human freedom"</i> is nonsense. It is rather the right
1001
libertarian whose definition of freedom is such so weak as to make
1002
a mockery of freedom in practice.
1003
<p>
1004
And notice that Wilson has still not addressed the issue of the
1005
assumption of capitalist property rights and instead decided to
1006
imply that anarchists are into violating the rights of others
1007
(these rights, of course, being undefined).
1008
<p>
1009
Wilson then goes on:
1010
<p><blockquote>
1011
<i>"Perhaps they reject Nozick's starting moral premise because it hasn't been
1012
rationally validated. The truth is: Neither has any basic moral premise.
1013
Hume's dictum that it is impossible to derive a normative statement from a
1014
set of descriptive statements (assuming that they're free of normative
1015
content) still holds, and I challenge the anarcho-socialists to demonstrate
1016
that their most basic normative premises can validated in a way that doesn't
1017
rely upon intuition."</i>
1018
<p></blockquote>
1019
Or perhaps not. Perhaps we reject Nozick's starting premise because it
1020
cannot deliver what it promises, namely a free society of free individuals.
1021
<p>
1022
Wilson continues:
1023
<p><blockquote>
1024
<i>"It should also be mentioned that although Nozick assumes premises as basic
1025
as the one that people have rights, he does not simply assume the form they
1026
must take or their form of application. On the contrary, he argues for his
1027
libertarian conception of rights via a critical analysis of other political
1028
conceptions of justice as well as his own, and he does so rigorously and
1029
brilliantly."</i>
1030
<p></blockquote>
1031
Actually, quote a lot of ink (and electrons) has been used to indicate
1032
that Nozick's "rigorous" and "brilliant" "critical analysis" is nothing
1033
of the kind. For example, his (in)famous "Wilt Chamberlain" argument
1034
that "liberty upsets patterns" is based on the very capitalist property
1035
rights he is defending. Thus his example is question begging in the
1036
extreme. Indeed, many authors have recognised that his analysis is
1037
little more than a justification of capitalist domination and that
1038
it fails to acknowledge that the consequences of his theory could
1039
result in a society in which the major have little or no option
1040
but to follow the orders of the few (for a decisive critique of
1041
Nozick which shows how weak his theory is see Will Kymlicka's
1042
<b>Contemporary Political Philosophy</b>).
1043
<p>
1044
Wilson again:
1045
<p><blockquote>
1046
<i>"Notice that the authors of the FAQ offer no criticisms of Nozick's actual
1047
arguments, but simply dismiss him as quickly as possible. They quote
1048
isolated sections of text for their own purposes of "refutation",
1049
and completely fail to engage the sections of ASU that really matter. Many
1050
political philosophers have expressed serious disagreement with Nozick over
1051
the past few decades, but unlike the authors of the anarcho-socialist FAQ,
1052
they have critically engaged Nozick's views because they recognised that if
1053
they were to advocate a non-libertarian political theory, Nozick's
1054
objections would have to be answered."</i>
1055
<p></blockquote>
1056
Funnily enough, we have quoted Nozick and his arguments many times and
1057
have attempted to answer his "objections" (for example, sections B.3.4,
1058
J.5.11, J.5.12, F.2 and I.4.12). As for "criticisms" of his "actual
1059
arguments" you can find them there. What this section of the FAQ was
1060
discussing was the starting basis of Nozick's arguments, namely in
1061
assumptions. And as Wilson acknowledges, Nozick does build his system
1062
on assumptions. Now, given that Nozick's whole argument is based on
1063
providing a justification for property rights then this section
1064
"really matters". If he provides no arguments for private property
1065
then the rest of his system is nonsense (after all, as the initial
1066
appropriation was unjust, then all the other transfers are unjust
1067
as well). So for Nozick is state he will not provide it is important.
1068
That Wilson does not recognise this is strange to say the least.
1069
<p>
1070
After presenting a list of other right-libertarian theorists (although
1071
see Will Kymlicka's <b>Contemporary Political Philosophy</b> for an
1072
excellently critique of many of these theories along with Nozick)
1073
he then states that <i>"we will eventually arrive at section F.7, which
1074
does an excellent job demolishing a fictitious strawman of the admittedly
1075
elusive concept of 'natural law'. This FAQ will demonstrate why the
1076
anarcho-socialist FAQ doesn't actually refute a moral theory that many
1077
libertarians buy into"</i> although section F.7 does not refute a strawman
1078
unless it is a strawman created by supporters of "Natural Law" themselves.
1079
<p>
1080
Wilson then disagrees with Murray Bookchin's arguments against "the law
1081
of identity" arguing that identity <i>"doesn't merely account for an entity's
1082
current state of being. The concept of 'identity' easily accounts for
1083
existential change by subsuming the attribute of potentiality. This
1084
criticism attacks Aristotle's first law of logic while ignoring his
1085
conception of the material cause."</i>
1086
<p>
1087
This is strange. If we assume "potentiality" then we are arguing that
1088
"A can <b>potentially</b> be A", not that "A is A". Water can "potentially"
1089
be both steam and ice, does that mean "water is steam" or "water
1090
is ice"? If you argue that "A is A" and then modify it to acknowledge
1091
that "A can perhaps be A sometime in the future" is somewhat strange.
1092
Either the law of identity states that "A is A" or it does not. Adding
1093
on "potentiality" just indicates how limited the law of identity
1094
actually is.
1095
<p>
1096
He then quotes the FAQ:
1097
<p><blockquote>
1098
In other words, right-Libertarian theory is based upon ignoring
1099
the fundamental aspect of life - namely change and evolution.
1100
</blockquote><p>
1101
And argues that the authors <i>"have in no way demonstrated this. They're
1102
simply pulling arguments out of a hat with out heed to whether or not
1103
they actually apply to the position they're trying to critique."</i>
1104
<p>
1105
Now, we argued that must of right-libertarian theory was built upon
1106
assumptions. Indeed, Wilson agrees with us. We argued that by using
1107
assumptions and deducing things from these assumptions means that
1108
you fail to take into account change (this can be clearly seen from
1109
Rothbard's claims on "Natural law" quoted in <a href="secF7.html">
1110
section F.7</a>). Thus,
1111
using "natural rights" as Nozick, Rand and Rothbard do is to use
1112
the law of identity and this, as Bookchin noted, fails to take
1113
into account change. Thus we are not "pulling arguments out of a
1114
hat" but trying to draw out the implications of the methodology
1115
used. Now, Wilson is free to consider that these points do
1116
not apply to the positions in question, but obviously we do not
1117
agree with him. If you start with certain assumptions about "Man"
1118
and then deduce conclusions from these assumptions then you
1119
fail to see now these assumptions can change in use. For example,
1120
the assumption of self-ownership is all fine and well but in
1121
practice it can become the means of denying liberty, not protecting
1122
it (see section <a href="secB4.html">B.4</a> and <a href="secF2.html">F.2</a>). Also, to assume "Man's nature"
1123
is unchanging (as Rothbard et al do) is itself to force capitalist
1124
assumptions onto the history of the human race.
1125
<p>
1126
Wilson then quotes the FAQ again:
1127
<p><blockquote>
1128
Unfortunately for right-Libertarians (and fortunately for the rest
1129
of humanity), human beings are not mechanical entities but instead
1130
are living, breathing, feeling, hoping, dreaming, changing living
1131
organisms.
1132
</blockquote><p>
1133
And states:
1134
<p><blockquote>
1135
<i>"Where precisely have 'right' libertarians denied any of this, and how is
1136
this supposed to be a rebuttal to 'right' libertarian theory?"</i>
1137
<p></blockquote>
1138
It is true that right-libertarians do pay lip service to human beings
1139
as living organisms but in much of their ideology they deny it. Thus
1140
Rothbard, for example, argues that "natural law" is unchanging, which
1141
is to state that human beings do not change. What inspires people changes.
1142
What people think is right and wrong changes. Thus a theory that
1143
uses the law of identity ("natural rights" and so forth) fails to take
1144
this into account and so there is a mechanical core to the theory. A
1145
core which can be seen from the mechanical attempts to justify capitalist
1146
property rights in ways that can create terrible consequences (see
1147
sections F.4, F.4.2, F.2.3 and F.2.7 for example). Indeed, Robert Anton
1148
Wilson in <b>Natural Law</b> makes a similar point, namely that right
1149
libertarianism is infected with "robot ideologists" and this undermines
1150
liberty with dogma.
1151
<p>
1152
So a theory which mechanically argues, for example, that "slave contracts"
1153
are an expression of liberty is simply nonsense. That is how it is supposed
1154
to be a rebuttal to right-libertarian theory -- that it places the theory
1155
above common-sense and justifies extreme unfreedom in the name of liberty.
1156
<p>
1157
Wilson goes on to argue that <i>"[a]s of so far, the authors have only given
1158
a single short and out-of-context example of Nozick's as evidence that
1159
'right' libertarians do not base their theory upon facts, and I have
1160
already shown how that example is utterly misleading. Right now, the
1161
authors are doing no more than shooting down imaginary positions and citing
1162
Bookchin quotes that give bad arguments against the law of identity."</i>
1163
<p>
1164
Now, was the Nozick example "out-of-context"? Wilson has not even addressed
1165
the example and instead concentrated on another assumption of Nozick's
1166
(namely that people have rights -- an intuitive argument which produces
1167
some very non-intuitive outcomes, we must note). As far as "bad arguments
1168
against the law of identity" goes we have indicated that this is not
1169
the case and that Rothbard and Rand base their arguments on said law.
1170
So, just to be clear, as "evidence" we presented Nozick, Rand and
1171
Rothbard as right-libertarian thinkers who base themselves on assumptions.
1172
Far more evidence than Wilson suggests we present.
1173
<p>
1174
Wilson then quotes the FAQ again:
1175
<p><blockquote>
1176
From a wider viewpoint, such a rejection of liberty by
1177
right-libertarians is unsurprising. They do, after all, support
1178
capitalism. Capitalism produces an inverted set of ethics, one in
1179
which capital (dead labour) is more important that people (living
1180
labour).
1181
</blockquote><p>
1182
And argues that:
1183
<p><blockquote>
1184
<i>"This makes very little sense. If a business owner both purchased capital
1185
and hired labours to help him produce, there is no economic reason why one
1186
would necessarily be more important than the other."</i>
1187
<p></blockquote>
1188
Actually there is as capital investments are far more valuable than
1189
individual workers. You can easily fire a worker, it is somewhat
1190
harder to dismantle a workplace with millions of dollars of capital
1191
within it. It can also be seen when capitalists hire workers to
1192
labour in unsafe and dangerous conditions as it gives them a competitive
1193
edge that would be eroded if they invested in safe working conditions.
1194
So, there are plenty of economic reasons why capital is more important
1195
than labour -- and history (and current practice) proves this argument
1196
again and again. That Wilson cannot see this says a lot about his ideology.
1197
<p>
1198
Moving on Wilson argues:
1199
<p><blockquote>
1200
<i>"The marginal utility of a capital good or a worker would depend upon its
1201
marginal product, i.e., the level of output that increases as a result of
1202
an additional input. Perhaps the authors find something vulgar about this
1203
because certain people are assigning 'utility' to other people. But this
1204
means nothing more than that people obtain a measure of subjective value
1205
from the presence or activities of a person."</i>
1206
<p></blockquote>
1207
Or to translate from marginalist speak, the capitalist employs a worker
1208
because he/she has a <b>use value</b> for the capitalist; namely that they
1209
produce more goods than they get paid for in wages (the exchange value
1210
of goods produces is higher than the exchange value of the worker).
1211
We have no problem with individual's subjectively valuing other
1212
individuals but we do have a problem with exploitation. And this is
1213
what the "marginal utility" theory was invented to deny. But it is
1214
clear that the capitalist will only "value" a worker who produces
1215
more than they get paid -- i.e. performs unpaid labour. If this
1216
condition is not meet, then they are fired.
1217
<p>
1218
Wilson argues that <i>"[t]his doesn't imply that people are necessarily being
1219
misused, and libertarians hold that they aren't, provided that the value one
1220
derives from the presence or activities of another doesn't entail that that
1221
person's actions are determined in a way that doesn't involve his/her consent."</i>
1222
<p>
1223
Which brings us straight back to "consent". So, if the state taxes you
1224
then this is wrong because you do not "consent" to it. However, as
1225
noted above, you are free to leave a state at any time and seek out a
1226
state closer to your desires -- just as the worker is free to seek
1227
out a new capitalist. Since the worker does not do this, "anarcho"
1228
capitalists assume that the worker "consents" to the rules and orders
1229
of her boss. That the same argument can be applied to the state is
1230
one that is hotly denied by "anarcho"-capitalists (see
1231
<a href="secF2.html#secf23">section F.2.3</a>).
1232
<p>
1233
Now it could be argued that ordering people about is "misusing" them,
1234
after all you are subjecting them to your will. Similarly, when the boss
1235
orders the worker into dangerous conditions that too could be classed
1236
as "misuse". But "consent" is the key and for anarchists capitalism is
1237
marked by inequalities that make "consent" purely formal (just as
1238
the "consent" associated with the liberal state is purely formal).
1239
We discuss this in sections <a href="secF2.html">F.2</a> and <a href="secF3.html">F.3</a> and so will not do so here.
1240
<p>
1241
Wilson continues and quotes the FAQ again:
1242
<p><blockquote>
1243
This can be seen when the Ford produced the Pinto. The Pinto had a
1244
flaw in it which meant that if it was hit in a certain way in a
1245
crash the fuel tank exploded. The Ford company decided it was more
1246
"economically viable" to produce that car and pay damages to those
1247
who were injured or the relatives of those who died than pay to
1248
change the invested capital. The needs of capital came before the
1249
needs of the living.
1250
</blockquote><p>
1251
He argues:
1252
<p><blockquote>
1253
<i>"This is an invalid application of the odd statement the authors made above,
1254
as well as being an odd and nonsensical statement in its own right. Capital
1255
doesn't have needs. Only the living have needs, and the cited case is one
1256
in which one group of people perceived it as being to their advantage to
1257
sell unsafe automobiles to people willing to buy them. This means that
1258
sellers unethically endangered the lives of others for the sake of profit.
1259
Under no social arrangement will such a phenomenon always be avoided, but
1260
the fact is that there will necessarily be much less of it under an
1261
arrangement in which people are legally required to bear the full liability
1262
for the costs of their actions. This is the type of arrangement that
1263
anarcho-capitalists advocate."</i>
1264
<p></blockquote>
1265
Which is an interesting argument. Under <i>"no social arrangement will such
1266
a phenomenon always be avoided"</i>? But it was the desire to make a profit
1267
and so survive on the market that prompted Ford's decision. Such "phenomenon"
1268
would have been avoided in a socialist society simply because competitive
1269
pressures would have been lacking and people would be placed before
1270
profits. And Ford was well aware that it would face "the costs of their
1271
actions" and did those actions anyway. Now as "anarcho"-capitalists
1272
support a market based law system it is not at all clear that a corporation
1273
would "bear full liability for the costs of their actions." After all, the
1274
law system will be marked by inequalities in the bargaining position
1275
and resources of the agents involved. It could be that Ford would be able
1276
to use its market power to undermine the legal system or skew it in its
1277
favour (see <a href="secF6.html#secf63">section F.6.3</a>) but the
1278
fact remains that Ford deliberately
1279
placed profits before human beings. The same occurs everyday in capitalism
1280
where workers are placed in unsafe working conditions.
1281
<p>
1282
So our point remains. Capitalism <b>does</b> create an environment where
1283
people are used as resources by others and the needs of profit are
1284
placed before people. Wilson sees that this is the case but refuses to
1285
look at why it happens. If he did so then, perhaps, he would realise
1286
that capitalist ideology places property before/above liberty (as
1287
can be seen from their definitions of "freedom" -- see section <a href="secF2.html">F.2</a>)
1288
and so the actions of Ford as an expression of a deeper psychosis.
1289
<p>
1290
He ends by arguing that:
1291
<p><blockquote>
1292
<i>"It's unclear why the authors need to speak incoherently about 'the needs of
1293
capital' to prove a point. Perhaps it's to single out capitalism as the
1294
primary cause of the type of disaster that they speak of. Contrary to the
1295
false impression that the authors give, such incidents are more likely to
1296
occur under a socialistic economy in which the funding of industries are
1297
guaranteed, and in which workers have nothing to lose from performing the
1298
job in a irresponsible manner. Recently, there have been numerous train
1299
crashes in Italy, and many deaths have occurred as a result. Many of the
1300
engineers were reportedly drunk while operating the trains. These trains
1301
were a part of a socialised railroad scheme. The authors are arbitrarily
1302
and unjustly singling out the free market as a producer of defective
1303
products and services."</i>
1304
</blockquote><p>
1305
Strange, we were not aware that Italy was a socialistic economy. Nor do
1306
we consider <b>nationalised</b> industries the same as "socialised" ones. But
1307
let us ignore these obvious points. Wilson presents the example of the
1308
drunk engineers as an example of how a "socialistic" economy would create
1309
more of the Ford Pinto type situations. Now, did the bosses of the
1310
nationalised railways deliberately decide to employ the drunk engineers?
1311
Did they do a cost-benefit analysis and decide that employing drunk
1312
engineers would be more profitable than sacking them? Of course not. What
1313
was a deliberate act on the part of Ford was not done with the nationalised
1314
Italian railways. <b>If</b> the managers of the railways <b>had</b> acted in the
1315
way that Ford did then Wilson would have had a point, but they did not.
1316
His example seems to be an arbitrary and unjust attempt to whitewash the
1317
actions prompted by free market pressures.
1318
<p>
1319
It seems strange that Wilson does not consider the implications of
1320
Ford's acts. After all, most normal people would be horrified by these
1321
acts (like the actions of any capitalist firm that harms people in order
1322
to make a bit more profit) and seek a reason for them (i.e. in the
1323
system that created the pressures Ford and other employers face).
1324
However, rather than look at the pressures that resulted in this act,
1325
he seems to take them as unavoidable and isolated from the economic
1326
system he supports. How strange, but unsurprising.
1327
<p>
1328
<h2>Critique of Section F.1.3 (Is right-Libertarian theory scientific in
1329
nature?)</h2>
1330
<p>
1331
Wilson starts by quoting the FAQ:
1332
<p><blockquote>
1333
Usually, no. The scientific approach is inductive, the
1334
right-Libertarian approach is deductive. The first draws
1335
generalisations from the data, the second applies preconceived
1336
generalisations to the data. A completely deductive approach is
1337
pre-scientific, however, which is why right-Libertarians cannot
1338
legitimately claim to use a scientific method. Deduction does
1339
occur in science, but the generalisations are primarily based on
1340
other data, not a priori assumptions.
1341
</blockquote><p>
1342
And states that:
1343
<p><blockquote>
1344
<i>"This is partially true. It's not true that libertarians reject the method
1345
of drawing generalisations upon the basis of data. What libertarians do
1346
reject is the position that one can approach aggregate and statistical data
1347
with any hope of possibly understanding it if they have not previously laid
1348
down a reliable theoretical grounding for it's interpretation. Economic
1349
data are highly complex, and it's fallacious to believe that one can infer a
1350
causal relationship between two or more macroeconomic phenomena on the basis
1351
of observances of correlations. Too many elements play a role in
1352
constituting the identity of concepts such as 'GNP', 'GDP', 'the money
1353
supply', 'consumption', etc., for one to be able to gain an understanding of
1354
them without the aid of 'preconceived generalisations'. This is why
1355
libertarians hold that it's necessary to apply a microeconomic theory
1356
founded upon generalisations made from simple facts to the study of
1357
macroeconomic data."</i>
1358
<p></blockquote>
1359
Actually, the Austrian school of economics (which has inspired much of
1360
right-libertarianism) argue at great length that you cannot use past
1361
any data to test theories. Murray Rothbard states approvingly that:
1362
<p><blockquote><i>
1363
"Mises indeed held not only that economic theory does not need to be
1364
'tested' by historical fact but also that it <b>cannot</b> be so tested."</i>
1365
["Praxeology: The Methodology of Austrian Economics" in <b>The Foundation
1366
of Modern Austrian Economics</b>, p. 32]
1367
</blockquote><p>
1368
And this applies to <b>all</b> data. Including simple data. They argue,
1369
in effect (and misleadingly), that the econometrician is a historian
1370
<b>not</b> a theorist. Moreover, many economists would argue that using
1371
complex data should be taken with care. Now, the claim that it is
1372
"necessary to apply a microeconomic theory founded upon generalisations
1373
made from simple facts to the study of macroeconomic data" is false,
1374
at least from the viewpoint of the Austrian school. They
1375
explicitly argue that economic
1376
theory <b>cannot</b> be tested and that economic theory is <b>not</b>
1377
built upon generalisations from simple facts but rather from logical deductions
1378
from assumptions (perhaps these are the "simple facts" that Wilson is
1379
referring to but in that case his "simple facts" is the axiom that
1380
"humans act" and not, say, simple facts/data gathered from the studying
1381
specific events as might be imagined).
1382
<p>
1383
Wilson continues by saying <i>"[i]t certainly isn't surprising that the authors
1384
derived their (mis)information concerning Austrian economic theory through
1385
a secondary source written by an author more in their favour. In light of
1386
source of the authors (mis)information, it should be remembered that their
1387
(mis)representation of Austrian economics is no more than an interpretation
1388
of an interpretation."</i>
1389
<p>
1390
But as we will see, nothing could be further from the truth. In the new
1391
section <a href="secF1.html#secf13">F.1.3</a> we provide more quotes from Austrian sources which state
1392
exactly the same thing as we argue here. The Rothbard quote above
1393
clearly indicates that our comments are correct. Let us not forget
1394
that Austrian economics is based upon deductions from the basic axiom
1395
"humans act".
1396
<p>
1397
He states that <i>"we arrive at a commonly made, and yet highly fallacious
1398
criticism of Austrian economics"</i> namely that (quoting von Mises) that
1399
Austrian economics is based upon rejecting any data that conflicts with
1400
their theory. This, Wilson argues <i>"constitutes a serious misunderstanding
1401
of the importance of Mises' method"</i> and states that <i>"[s]ince the authors
1402
do not even mention what Mises' theorems actually are, it's easy for the
1403
uneducated reader to dismiss Mises as a crackpot without first understanding
1404
him. The methodological individualism and methodological subjectivism of
1405
the Austrian school is predicated upon the simple and relatively
1406
uncontroversial premise that humans act."</i>
1407
<p>
1408
Is the assumptions of the methodology actually relevant to discussing the
1409
methodology itself? The assumptions may be "uncontroversial" but if the
1410
net result is that you dismiss data that contradicts your theory then
1411
the theory itself and its assumptions cannot be evaluated! As Rothbard
1412
makes clear, "since praxeology begins with a true axiom, A, all that can
1413
be deduced from this axiom must also be true. For if A implies be, and
1414
A is true, then B must also be true." [Op. Cit., pp. 19-20] Now A is
1415
the premise "humans act" but upon this axiom is built a whole series
1416
of other axiom's, all claimed to be true because the first one is true.
1417
Given that this premise of one that Proudhon, Marx, Keynes, Kalecki and
1418
a host of non-free market economists would have agreed too it seems a very
1419
big leap of faith to claim that all the other axioms are true. Now, if the
1420
facts of reality are to be dismissed if your theory is logically
1421
consistent (after all, that is what von Mises is arguing, let us not
1422
forget that) then it is impossible to evaluate your theory and the
1423
axioms you have generated. Hence our comments. The methodology von Mises
1424
supports means that your theories can <b>never</b> be revised since A was
1425
correct. This is the opposite of the scientific method, as we argued.
1426
<p>
1427
Wilson states that:
1428
<p><blockquote>
1429
<i>"What the praxeologist methodology intends to do is to explain more holistic
1430
economic phenomenon--such as prices, firms, production, etc--through the
1431
analysis of the discrete components that give rise to them, namely
1432
individual actors purposefully pursuing their own plans and goals on the
1433
basis of the information they have access to. It's a microeconomic approach
1434
that seeks to inquire into the nature of complex entities by analysing the
1435
behaviour of it's simple components. Econometric methods discard human
1436
behaviour as irrelevant, and deal solely with aggregate data while attempting
1437
to draw inferences of causation through observation of statistical
1438
correlation. Too many variables have an influence upon aggregate data for a
1439
methodological holist procedure to yield conclusive results explaining human
1440
behaviour, and this is why Austrians reject this approach."</i>
1441
<p></blockquote>
1442
But that may be what it intends, but that is not what it achieves. What
1443
it achieves is a mindset that prefers to reject facts in favour of theory.
1444
It also ignores the fact that the more holistic phenomenon has an important
1445
impact on discrete components and that by concentrating on these
1446
components important facts are ignored. As we argue in <a href="secF2.html">section F.2</a>,
1447
right-libertarians concentrate their analysis on the "discrete component"
1448
of contracts within capitalism. This effectively blinds them to the
1449
way the objective facts of a given society influence these contracts.
1450
For example, contracts made during periods of full employment have
1451
different impacts than those made during high unemployment. The human
1452
behaviour expressed in these contracts are influenced by aggregate
1453
facts which the Austrian analysis discards. Similarly, the aggregate
1454
outcome of these discrete acts may have a distinctly different impact
1455
than we would guess at if we looked at them in isolation and so
1456
aggregate analysis can provide us with insights the microeconomic
1457
approach fails to provide.
1458
<p>
1459
Also, when deductively generating axioms from the "simple data" of
1460
"humans act", it is easy to discard or ignore forms of human
1461
behaviour which do have an impact on the final outcome. Dealing
1462
solely with deductive generation can also fail to take into
1463
account human behaviour.
1464
<p>
1465
Wilson goes on to argue that:
1466
<p><blockquote>
1467
<i>"If theory is grounded in one's knowledge of simple facts (like human
1468
action) and deductions made from those facts, yes, it would be silly
1469
to accept the validity of aggregate data that conflicts with one's theory.
1470
Data is composed of many elements and components, and is far too complex for
1471
one understand with a greater degree of certainty than basic facts about
1472
human behaviour (e.g. preference, choice, incentives, etc.). If a piece of
1473
statistical data yields conclusions that appear to conflict prima faciae
1474
with a theoretical framework grounded upon simple observations, it is
1475
completely reasonable to either [a] look to see how the statistical data
1476
might be misinterpreted, or [b] reject the data. Knowledge of simple data
1477
is more reliable than Knowledge of complex data, and without knowledge of
1478
simple data it is impossible to interpret complex data. It is always
1479
possible that one's theoretical analysis may be invalid, but within the
1480
context of the social sciences, it's unwise to determine the validity of
1481
one's theory by comparing it to complex data that seems to conflict. One
1482
can demonstrate the invalidity of one's theory through logic and conceptual
1483
analysis, however."</i>
1484
</blockquote><p>
1485
But, as noted, Austrians think that <b>all</b> economic theories are untestable.
1486
Including those based upon "simple data" as opposed to "aggregate data"
1487
(and simple data is somewhat different than simple facts). However, by
1488
"simple data" Wilson is referring to the axioms derived from the first
1489
axiom "humans act". Thus he is arguing that <b>if</b> you base yourself on
1490
deductive logic from an initial axiom, then you will not be inclined
1491
to view experience as being very useful to evaluating. This approach is
1492
taken by most churches who can easily dismiss arguments against the
1493
existence of god as being irrelevant to the first axiom that "god exists".
1494
Wilson is essentially arguing that we perform a "leap of faith" and
1495
join the Austrian school in deductive logic and pre-scientific logic.
1496
<p>
1497
Now, the Austrian approach is such that they reject the idea that data
1498
can be used to evaluate their claims. They argue even if the facts
1499
contradict one of their theories that does not mean that their theories
1500
are false, far from it. It just means that in this case their theory
1501
was not applicable (see the new section <a href="secF1.html#secf13">F.1.3</a> for a quote on this)! Now
1502
Wilson seems to be trying to present this argument in the best possible
1503
light but it does not change the fact that von Mises and other Austrian's
1504
argue that their theories are true <b>no matter what</b>. They are essentially
1505
placing their economic ideas above analysis as all and any evidence can be
1506
ignored as not applicable in this case -- just, as we may note, religions
1507
do.
1508
<p>
1509
In contrast to Wilson, we think it is "silly" to have a theory which
1510
is grounded in denying and/or rejecting empirical evidence or
1511
using empirical evidence to inform your theory. It seems "unwise"
1512
to accept a theory which major argument seems to be that it cannot
1513
be tested. After all, logic can lead us to many areas and it is only
1514
by seeing whether our chain of thought approximates reality can
1515
we evaluate the validity of our ideas. If econometric methods
1516
discard human behaviour as irrelevant, then so can the Austrian system
1517
individual acts to yield conclusive results explaining human
1518
behaviour. Indeed, the deductive approach may ignore as irrelevant
1519
certain human motivations which have a decisive impact on an
1520
outcome (there could be a strong tendency to project "Austrian Man"
1521
onto the rest of society and history, for example).
1522
<p>
1523
Wilson quotes the FAQ again:
1524
<p><blockquote>
1525
Such an approach makes the search for truth a game without rules.
1526
The Austrian economists (and other right-libertarians) by using
1527
this method are free to theorise anything they want, without such
1528
irritating constrictions as facts, statistics, data, history or
1529
experimental confirmation. Their only guide is logic. But this is
1530
no different from what religions do when they assert the logical
1531
existence of God (or Buddha or Mohammed or Gaia). Theories
1532
ungrounded in facts and data are easily spun into any belief a
1533
person wants. Starting assumptions and trains of logic may contain
1534
inaccuracies so small as to be undetectable, yet will yield
1535
entirely different conclusions.
1536
</blockquote><p>
1537
And argues that:
1538
<p><blockquote>
1539
<i>"It is certainly the case that certain small and undetectable flaws in one's
1540
train of logic can result in horridly inaccurate conclusions, but precisely
1541
the same thing can be said concerning statistical and historical analysis.
1542
The problem is even more pervasive when dealing with statistical and
1543
historical analysis because of the phenomenon of incomplete information.
1544
Certain facts will always be unintentionally discarded from the equation,
1545
and certain factors responsible for the existence of complex facts and
1546
events will always go unaccounted for."</i>
1547
</blockquote><p>
1548
But we are not arguing that we base our theories <b>totally</b> on historical
1549
data. Such extreme empiricism is just as false as von Mises method.
1550
What we in fact argued that statistical and historical data should
1551
be used to back-up any theory we have and if this data disproves our
1552
theory then modify the theory, <b>not</b> reject the data. Von Mises'
1553
methodology is such that this approach is dismissed (due to the
1554
untestability argument) and that is its problem. Without a founding
1555
in fact, Austrians are free to theorise about whatever they like,
1556
without such irritating constrains as facts, statistics, data,
1557
history and so forth. Wilson's arguments have not refuted our analysis,
1558
rather he has provided apologetics for von Mises' methodology (a
1559
methodology he admits <i>"can result in horridly inaccurate conclusions"</i>).
1560
As Austrians can dismiss evidence as "inapplicable" they are in no
1561
position to re-evaluate their ideas in the light of reality and so
1562
their ideas are little more than dogmas.
1563
<p>
1564
Now, how logic chains deduced from axioms can also unintentionally
1565
discard certain facts and factors responsible for the existence of
1566
complex facts. And the question remains, how do you evaluate whether
1567
your logical chains are indeed correct? By evaluating them against
1568
reality (i.e. "complex facts"). A given chain of logic does not
1569
provide any idea on the relative strengths of certain derived
1570
factors (which empirical study can indicate). Nor can it indicate
1571
whether the chain is incomplete or missing essential factors. A
1572
given chain may be internally consistent but still miss out
1573
important factors or stress insignificant ones. So deductive
1574
logic has all the problems of statistical analysis and a few
1575
more as statistical analysis at least recognises that theories
1576
must be evaluated using experience rather than reason alone.
1577
<p>
1578
Wilson argues that:
1579
<p><blockquote>
1580
<i>"Most libertarians would find it reasonable to rethink the basic principles
1581
or derivations of one's theory if one found them to consistently fail to
1582
explain historical events or macroeconomic data, but those of the Austrian
1583
persuasion, and even to some extent those of the neoclassical persuasion,
1584
would say that the observance of historical and macroeconomic facts is
1585
never, in itself, sufficient to invalidate the conclusions of deductive and
1586
conceptual analysis."</i>
1587
</blockquote><p>
1588
But let us not forgot that many right-libertarians follow the ideas of
1589
Murray Rothbard and Ayn Rand, both firm supporters of Austrian economics.
1590
Politically, the dangers of this approach are easily seen. For example,
1591
Wilson himself has indicated how his "basic principles" produce
1592
relations of domination and oppression which are identical to those
1593
created by the state and he sees nothing wrong with this. Similarly,
1594
macroeconomic data indicates that capitalism has done best under
1595
Keynesianism rather than laissez-faire and the current economic
1596
performance in the USA is dependent upon the state maintaining a
1597
"natural" rate of unemployment.
1598
<p>
1599
Let us not forget that, as Wilson points out, von Mises' method if one
1600
used by more mainstream economics as well (as pointed out by Homa Katouzian
1601
who, it seems, is are fair more reliable guide than Wilson would like to
1602
admit). So, let us be clear, that the case for "free market" capitalism
1603
often involves theories which <i>"the observance of historical and macroeconomic
1604
facts is never, in itself, sufficient to invalidate."</i> That is some claim.
1605
No matter the evidence, capitalist theory cannot be disproved. That says
1606
a lot about capitalist economic ideology and its role in society.
1607
<p>
1608
Moving on, Wilson again quotes the FAQ:
1609
<p><blockquote>
1610
So, von Mises, Hayek and most right-libertarians reject the
1611
scientific method in favour of ideological correctness and so deny
1612
the key aspect of both life (change and evolution) and liberty
1613
(critical analysis and thought). A true libertarian would
1614
approach a contradiction between reality and theory by changing
1615
the theory, not by ignoring reality. Right-Libertarian theory is
1616
neither libertarian nor scientific.
1617
</blockquote><p>
1618
He then states that:
1619
<p><blockquote>
1620
<i>"Here, the authors demonstrate how ignorant they are of the position they're
1621
critiquing. If they had pained themselves to study the primary sources,
1622
they would have learned about how Mises and other Austrians were concerned
1623
with grounding their theory upon simple observable facts of reality so that
1624
they could enable themselves to understand the subjects of macroeconomics
1625
and history--two realms of complexity."</i>
1626
</blockquote><p>
1627
Let us not forget that these "simple observable facts" is "humans act"
1628
and the axioms deduced from this fact. That is it. This is the "two"
1629
realms of complexity -- that individual acts and the resultant of
1630
these acts. Now, von Mises argues that (in the quote we provided)
1631
that no experience can disprove these derived axioms. If we look
1632
at the primary sources (such as these we quote in the new section <a href="secF1.html#secf13">F.1.3</a>)
1633
we find that Austrians are clear about the use of data and how it
1634
relates to their theories (which are <b>all</b> deduced from the axiom
1635
"humans act" and nothing else). This axiom ("humans act") is the
1636
"grounding" of the Austrian theory which Wilson talks about. Everything
1637
else flows from this. And anything else above this axiom (or derived
1638
axioms) is another "realm of complexity" -- so the actual workings and
1639
results of the capitalist system is another realm (which is true,
1640
reality <b>is</b> another realm than that of logic deductions within
1641
the mind).
1642
<p>
1643
So, far from showing "ignorance" all we have done is to point out the
1644
implications and religious nature of these perspectives. Austrians
1645
"ground" themselves on the axiom "humans act" and argue that simple
1646
and/or complex observable facts cannot be used to evaluate the axioms
1647
they derive from this initial axiom. Hence our comments and analysis
1648
are painfully accurate. Austrian economics is more like a "free market"
1649
religion than a scientific analysis of capitalism.
1650
<p>
1651
So the primary sources argue that because Austrian economics is based
1652
upon the axiom "humans act" all its other axioms and arguments are
1653
correct <b>and</b> that these cannot be disproven by experience. Thus
1654
our comments on von Mises seem appropriate and the rationale for
1655
this rejection of experience seems inappropriate.
1656
<p>
1657
Wilson goes on to state that:
1658
<p><blockquote>
1659
<i>"The implication of the views being espoused by the authors above is that
1660
it's inappropriate to learn about the world via the application of a
1661
methodology. If the authors would alter their methodology (if they have
1662
one) every time they stumble across a series of facts that that appear,
1663
prima faciae, to conflict with it, then it would appear that the authors
1664
see no need for methodology at all, and would prefer to rush headlong
1665
into the complex realm of the social sciences, unequipped with any
1666
reliable means of interpretation. Now which approach is more closely
1667
connected to reality?"</i>
1668
</blockquote><p>
1669
But such an "implication" is so radically false as to be a misrepresentation
1670
of our argument. We argued that any analysis or theory we have should be
1671
grounded in facts and that if a set of facts contradict our theory then,
1672
assuming that the facts are correct of course, change the theory, <b>not
1673
deny reality.</b> Quite simple really and a methodology which most people
1674
would consider as sensible (assuming that you are not an Austrian
1675
economist of course). For example, Proudhon argued that competition
1676
tends to undermine competition. That is a theory which
1677
can be tested against facts. The facts indicate that, over time,
1678
capitalist markets evolve towards oligopoly and that this market
1679
power results in super-profits (see sections <a href="secC4.html">C.4</a>
1680
and <a href="secC5.html">C.5</a>). Now, if
1681
the facts indicate that a market does not become dominated by a
1682
few firms then we would be inclined to reject that theory. But,
1683
if we were Austrians, we could just argue that our theory is true
1684
but that it has not been applicable! Now, which approach is more
1685
closely connected to reality?
1686
<p>
1687
Then, as an aside, Wilson argues that:
1688
<p><blockquote>
1689
<i>"(To accuse Hayek, of all people, of denying change and evolution is simply
1690
astounding. When one considers all of his writings on his principle of
1691
'spontaneous order', and on the dispersed evolution of customs within a
1692
society, this charge becomes as absurd as one claiming that Noam Chomsky
1693
doesn't report upon international politics. The authors are ignoring the
1694
primary subject matter of most of Hayek's popular works.)"</i>
1695
</blockquote><p>
1696
Now, unlike Kropotkin who also studied evolution, von Hayek used the example
1697
of "evolved" or "spontaneous" order to justify "free market" capitalism
1698
rather than to analyse how society itself was evolving and changing.
1699
Because (according to von Hayek) the "market" is a "spontaneous order"
1700
you should not mess with it. But such an analysis is false as the
1701
"order" on the market is dependent on the state determining the
1702
rights framework in which this order to generated. Thus, rather than
1703
supporting change and evolution, von Hayek's work is about stopping
1704
change and evolution (i.e. the change and evolution of society into
1705
a different, non-capitalist, form). He supported the state and the
1706
capitalist rights it enforces and, moreover, desired to ensure that
1707
capitalist property rights were unchangeable by modifying democracy
1708
as to place effective power into the hands of a few people (for example,
1709
his schemes for using age as a determining, and restricting, factor
1710
in voting and being able to occupy a seat in Parliament).
1711
<p>
1712
Similarly, his "analysis" of the evolution of customs just assumes
1713
that those customs he dislikes (as socialistic or tribal) have been
1714
made irrelevant by evolution. However, that is the thing about evolution,
1715
you just do not know which of these social customs are required to
1716
progress the species. It could be that the social customs von Hayek
1717
approves off have been generated within society by state action and
1718
would not survive in a truly free society.
1719
<p>
1720
And, as the history of capitalism shows, it is very far from an
1721
"evolved" order -- state action played a key role in creating it.
1722
Thus Hayek's claims are somewhat strange, unless you realise his
1723
motivation for them -- namely to counter any attempt to change
1724
capitalism into something better.
1725
<p>
1726
Thus von Hayek, unlike Kropotkin, can be said to deny change and
1727
evolution simply because he assumes that we have reached the
1728
"end of history" (to coin a phrase). Just because von Hayek talks
1729
about evolution and change does not mean that he supports it.
1730
In fact, quite the reverse -- he uses the concepts to try and
1731
stop change and evolution.
1732
<p>
1733
Wilson concludes as follows:
1734
<p><blockquote><blockquote>
1735
The real question is why are such theories taken seriously and
1736
arouse such interest. Why are they not simply dismissed out of
1737
hand,
1738
</blockquote><p>
1739
<i>"Because more honest and responsible people bothered to first come to an
1740
understanding of them before passing judgement."</i>
1741
</blockquote><p>
1742
Really? But as we have indicated our comments on right-libertarianism
1743
are accurate. That Wilson does not like the way we have presented then,
1744
but that does not make them false. Indeed, his "critique" of our
1745
account has not found anything incorrect about them, which seems
1746
strange for "dishonest" and "irresponsible" people. His comments that
1747
we, for example, ignore Nozick's assumption that "individuals have
1748
rights" ignores the point we made that Nozick <b>assumes</b> the property
1749
rights that are the basis of his system. Instead Wilson discusses
1750
something else altogether. Similarly, Wilson's attempt to justify the
1751
axiomatic methodology of von Mises fails to appreciate that this
1752
methodology cannot be evaluated from looking at the starting axiom
1753
as it ensures that its logical chains cannot be tested. Moreover, he
1754
attempts to discredit the strawman of extreme empiricism rather
1755
than truly addressing the issue that von Mises methodology presents
1756
a dogmatic, pre-scientific attitude which has more of a religious
1757
feel than anything else. If anything, his comments actually show that
1758
we were correct in our analysis -- after all, he has indicated that
1759
"anarcho"-capitalists have no problem with capitalist hierarchy, the
1760
right-libertarians <b>do</b> based their ideas of assumptions and deductions
1761
from these without regard for consequences and that the Austrian school
1762
rejects the use of empirical evidence to test their theories.
1763
<p>
1764
How strange. Could it be that we have just informed people of a
1765
few home truths about right-libertarianism that its supporters
1766
prefer to keep quiet about?
1767
<p>
1768
</body>
1769
</html>
Loggerhead is a web-based interface for Breezy
Version: 2.0.1