The Great Error of Right Libertarianism

[Cael]

All libertarians are against the state, as such, be they left or right. Of course, for the last number of years right libertarianism has seemed like a good position to many people. They see quite clearly that the state is in the employ of the corporate and landed interest, and acts as the armed wing of that interest. I couldnt disagree with this in any way. The right libertarians put forward the idea that the only way for ordinary people to get ahead, is to take the weapon of the state away from the corporate interest and the big landowners, i.e. to reduce the size of the state, and give the ordinary people the ability to do their own thing. Again, this sounds like a very reasonable position to take. But, this is precisely where the theory breaks down. When the corporate and landed interest has already owned the state, and you reduce the state, all that happens is that the corporate and landed interest have carte blanche to run absolutely riot, and drive the people into the ground. This is what has happened over the last 20 years.

And nor, in reality, is the state reduced. The state has balooned in all western countries in the last 20 years. (Though I accept that most right libertarians would not go along with the psychotic behaviour of the neo-liberals - who really are an absolute plague on the world.) The state has been reduced in the matter of allowing ordinarly people to have democratic control over their environment - but it has vastly increased in the matter of creating reasons to pass the money of the ordinary people over to the oligarchy, and in the matter of burocratic control over the behaviour of ordinary people.

So, this is the root of the right libertarian error. Reducing the state, while the corporate monopolies and landowners still hold de facto power, is a pointless task from the point of view of liberty. You are just allowing the corporations to openly rule the world in their own interest, without any hope of democratic intervention. The problem is the oligarchy, not the state.

 

[Mossy Heneberry]

And the reason why we have these oligarchies in the first place is because of the State. They've used the power of the state to force and coerce the public to their advantage.

Epic Fail Cael. (hmm it even Rhymes!)

 

[cyberianpan]

Where precisely are these "corporate monopolies" that you rail against ?

Was it powerful 10 years ago ?

cYp

 

[Cael]

And the reason why we have these oligarchies in the first place is because of the State. They use the power of the state to force and coerce the public for their advanatge.

Epic Fail Cael. (hmm it even Rhymes!)

That is not historically correct. The state, in the first place, was a agreement between powerful and violent men that they would stop killing each other, and help protect each others land from the anger of the landless. In the post WW2 period, in response to Communism, the state was forced to make compromises with the landless wage labourers - but, at all times, the state in the west remained in the ownership of the oligarchies. All that has happened with the so called (but not real) reduction of the state, is that the compromises with the Working Class and Middle Classes have been abandoned, and they have been reduced, once more, to serfs. To attack the state is really not to attack the oligarchy - its to attack the pressure that can be put on the oligarchy through the state. the oligarchy will always keep enough of the state for their own protection and enrichment.

 

[Cael]

Where precisely are these "corporate monopolies" that you rail against ?

Was it powerful 10 years ago ?

cYp

What the monopolies are called at any time is of no importance.

 

[Tim Johnston]

It's really hard to know where to begin a critique. I'm not sure the author understands what (right) libertarianism is, but I'd certainly start by saying that oligarchies and the state go hand in hand.

 

[Cael]

It's really hard to know where to begin a critique. I'm not sure the author understands what (right) libertarianism is, but I'd certainly start by saying that oligarchies and the state go hand in hand.

Im pretty sure I do. But, do you think that, for example, getting rid of RTÉ (useless as it is) and TG4 and leaving ourselves at the mercy of TV3 and Sky would reduce the power of the oligarchy?

 

[commonman]

this thread is way over my pay grade

 

[Harmonica]

Left libertarianism seems a bit of an oxymoron. The core of libertarianism is smaller state but the core of the left is bigger state.

This debate is a bit like the myth we have capitalism in Ireland where the state directly or indirectly is involved in all aspects of the Irish economy. Construction is the obvious topical area where the state through various tax incentives for both builders & purchaser interfered with the market.

 

[Cael]

this thread is way over my pay grade

Its very simple, a chara. You leave a very powerful and wealthy elite with the power to make the world in their image, without any democratic intervention, and they will suck it dry and spit it out.

 

[cyberianpan]

What the monopolies are called at any time is of no importance.

Then your definition of "monopoly" is sufficiently amorphous as to mean pretty much anything

Google's whole industry, business model, product didn't exist in any significant form 10 years ago... so it cannot be claimed they are just a new name for something old.

 

[Mossy Heneberry]

That is not historically correct. The state, in the first place, was a agreement between powerful and violent men that they would stop killing each other, and help protect each others land from the anger of the landless.In the post WW2 period, in response to Communism, the state was forced to make compromises with the landless wage labourers - but, at all times, the state in the west remained in the ownership of the oligarchies.

And if you get rid of the state, you'll get rid of the oligarchies. It's the State's use of force that ensures we all comply, to the benefit of oligarchies.

All that has happened with the so called (but not real) reduction of the state, is that the compromises with the Working Class and Middle Classes have been abandoned, and they have been reduced, once more, to serfs. To attack the state is really not to attack the oligarchy - its to attack the pressure that can be put on the oligarchy through the state. the oligarchy will always keep enough of the state for their own protection and enrichment.

No. If we were to do it your way, new oligarchies would form to use the state to get rid of existing oligarchies so they could take their place.

You have absolutely no confidence in the ordinary man and women you would meet on the street. We are already serfs and that's is solely because of the state.

 

[Cael]

Left libertarianism seems a bit of an oxymoron. The core of libertarianism is smaller state but the core of the left is bigger state.

This debate is a bit like the myth we have capitalism in Ireland where the state directly or indirectly is involved in all aspects of the Irish economy. Construction is the obvious topical area where the state through various tax incentives for both builders & purchaser interfered with the market.

The fact that agricultural land in Ireland is ten times the price of agricultural land in France is also the result of state manipulation - but state manipulation at the behest of the landed oligarchy. Did this state intervention decrease any with the Chigago School economics of FF\PD? Of course not. All that reduced was the democratic ability of ordinary people to stop this criminality.

 

[commonman]

Its very simple, a chara. You leave a very powerful and wealthy elite with the power to make the world in their image, without any democratic intervention, and they will suck it dry and spit it out.

thank u

 

[Cael]

And if you get rid of the state, you'll get rid of the oligarchies.

Of course you dont. All you get is the oligarchy running its own private state, with its private health service, media, industries, services, etc etc. with no possibility of democratic intervention from the landless wage-labouring majority.

 

[Cael]

It's the State's use of force that ensures we all comply, to the benefit of oligarchies.

This is true, a chara, but this is the one aspect of the state that the oligarchy will never allow to be reduced. For example, in the US, spending on the military has greatly increased in the last 20 years. To get rid of this aspect of the state, you must first get rid of the oligarchy.

 

[Tim Johnston]

Im pretty sure I do. But, do you think that, for example, getting rid of RTÉ (useless as it is) and TG4 and leaving ourselves at the mercy of TV3 and Sky would reduce the power of the oligarchy?

Well you could privatise them. But I'm not sure TV3 counts as part of any oligarchy. Unless you think of an oligarch as anyone who owns any private company. I mean, you don't have to watch TV3, in which case they aren't making a cent out of you.

 

[Cael]

thank u

Tá fáilte romhat a chara.

 

[Cael]

Well you could privatise them. But I'm not sure TV3 counts as part of any oligarchy. Unless you think of an oligarch as anyone who owns any private company. I mean, you don't have to watch TV3, in which case they aren't making a cent out of you.

If you privatise RTÉ, then the oligarchy will buy it and make it completely their tool (of course, it already is mostly their tool.)

 

[Tim Johnston]

the Chigago School economics of FF\PD

Eh?
FF/PDs expanded the state at every turn. during the boom they created more quangos than you can shake a stick at, which are now sucking up 13bn a year.