Against Libertarian Sectarianism

There’s been some infighting lately, some of it cordial, some of it not-so-cordial, regarding proper libertarian goals and strategies, rhetorical and otherwise. The whole thing is necessary in one way and fucking ridiculous in the other. Internal criticism is necessary for any intellectual progress. It’s what refines our goals in the first place. But the way the internal debate is conducted makes all the difference in the world. Do we really need to be dealing with this stuff? I’m afraid we do.

Most of this debate has been sparked and is being flamed by the use of “capitalism” to describe what libertarians advocate. Some have been clinging to it, others want it jettisoned, and some want it jettisoned so that libertarians can call themselves “socialists.” I’ve addressed this specific issue twice before and have concluded that “capitalism” is a wholly stupid word than means a million different things to a million different people. I’ll only use “capitalism” in the company of people who understand what I’d mean by it, so, in general, people who understand Mises. The thing with Mises is that he didn’t mean “capitalism” to be “free markets;” he’s an economist, he was referring to a structure/organization of production. The statement “libertarians support capitalism” is a bogus platitude, but I’ll get to that shortly. The same applies to “socialism” as well: it means a million things to a million different people. Why anyone would want to flip the “libertarians are capitalist” into “libertarians are socialist” is beyond me. It’s for this reason, as “capitalism” and “socialism” can each be a thing that a libertarian could support, that I don’t identify as either, nor do I identify as “anti-” either. I see no point.

The Rationalist Position on Intellectual Property

It may be the circles I follow, but it seems like anti-IP tends to be the popular position within the left libertarian/market anarchist community of which I am a part. And while the differences between my position and the predominant one may be largely semantical, I do want to address them because how things are described and interpreted do matter. If the position is obfuscated by inappropriate terminology, which I believe to be the case in most anti-IP arguments, carrying out of the anti-IP program could have negative net consequences. But either way, accuracy in argument is always a helpful thing (for the rationalist cause anyway).

While my goal may be to establish a “rational” approach, determining a libertarian position would be a wise start. As the libertarian ethic entitles each person to the product of their labor, it provides each person with the maximum incentive to be innovative and productive without granting anyone a right to monopolist profits. This keeps things in check by, in general, creating an equilibrium between the producers’ and consumers’ benefit -- a positive sum game. It may be true that the rationalist may be in a position that makes the positive sum game less beneficial for him than a negative sum game, but we’ll just disregard that since most people aren’t in that position.

Wikileaks and Magic Arms

Wikileaks released a video apparently “of the U.S. military, from an Apache helicopter, slaughtering civilians in Iraq in 2007 -- including a Reuters photojournalist and his driver -- and then killing and wounding several Iraqis who, minutes later, showed up at the scene to carry away the dead and wounded (including two of their children).” I’m not going to watch the video since I have no desire to watch a human slaughter take place and I don’t need to be convinced of anything as I’m already opposed to the killing of people for no reason aka “war.”

However, and I say this is the most humble way, people should really avoid pointing fingers. While I have no doubt there are people in the military who are sick bastards who went to war to satisfy their urge to bathe in blood, it’s not fair nor is it reasonable to start assuming things you have no way of knowing. It’s mightily arrogant of anyone to condemn something with which they do not fully understand. I’ve never been in combat. I don’t know what it’s like. I can imagine it’s piss-your-pants scary for everyone involved. Even if the battle is as lopsided as it is in Iraq, it’s still got to be nerve-racking. As I didn’t watch the video, I’m in a less informed position than those who have, but just watching the video doesn’t give you the whole story. It doesn’t give you an understanding into what was going on in the heads of the killers (which is all the soldiers of aggressor nations are).

Mandated Insurance

The mandated health insurance thing has been the big buzz for a while. About fourteen or fifteen months ago, in my last year of college, and after a lecture for one of my more mind-numbing economics classes, I responded with a written rebuttal to the idea of mandated insurance. It was most specifically in regard to unemployment insurance, but the principles still apply to healthcare (though the context is somewhat different as the debate now tries to treat insurance sort of like a public good whereas the topic of this letter is about risk pooling and efficiency/individual utility maximization in the face of asymmetric information). Here's that letter. Warning: contains economic jargon.

Professor,

In class on Wednesday, you discussed government provision of certain types of insurance, most specifically, unemployment insurance. And in the interest of academics and the pursuit of knowledge, I feel I have a responsibility to explain why I believe your analysis to be wrong. If you find error in my analysis, I hope you will respond with a counterargument.