Today, I want to look at an issue on which I think libertarian ideas, as they’re often put forward today, are a bit simplistic and weak. I refer to “intellectual property.” But I’ll begin with some scenarios involving real (or not so real) property.
….at about £100,000 per pound.
Even though the cheese slice was the Franchisee’s private property, you’d have thought they could let one go now and again. If today’s British A-level statistics papers are anything to go by, people called “Sameena” pack cheese slices in boxes of mean contents = 500, standard deviation = 3, and P( x < 496) = 0.001, P( x > 504) = 0.01 ….
I presume that Dutch McDonald’s outlets are also independently-operated franchises just like they are here? I do not know. Perhaps someone will enlighten me, If so, I can’t believe that the odd whole burger does not go “missing” fairly frequently.
They will. I bet you 3p.
The only thing Libertarians ought to be concerned about here is the property rights of the people – and there will be a number, inevitably – whose homes and land will be taken and who will have to be displaced. This is the only issue of importance.
All that the Greenazis are concerned about is that Britain, a land which they hate and want dead, for showing the up to be the hideous and obscene people-murderers which they are and have always been, should not be able to profit from what the next century’s people will all want to do.
I expect Tony Hollick will oppose me in the comments, on some jurisprudential pretext or other….if you do not, Tony, I take it all back!
The problem of London is that it’s in the probably least-bad place it could be. Imagine if it was in Birmingham, or Liverpool. Geography, mountains and landforms would be against it. Then imagine a slightly less police-statist Britain emerging from the recession.
The next problem is where do you put the seven or eight or ten airports that, Al Gore’s demise willing, it will need. If not that many, then which ones do you expand?
The only issue we should worry about is property rights. And that does NOT include “film” “stars” and “pop” “singers” who abuse the notion of personal property on purpse, because the MSM will let them get away with it, and they can afford expensive (lefty) lawyers. (Why are most lawyers socialists? Discuss.)
Earlier, we wrote here about the State Plan to steal nationalise open for all to enjoy, a 10-metere-wide strip of coastline all round the British Isles. (Bet they won’t include Ireland.)
I have thought about hbow to deal with this, so as to satisfy the nazis RSPCA and the Gramsco-Marxian anti-farming-brigade the Greens.
In return for their property being stolen opened for the outdoor enjoyment of all, people who have been defrauded have willingly handed over their property rights will be allowed to breed or sponsor the introduction of wild bears, wild wolves, pumas and fierce predatory dogs, or other large vertebrate predators that they might care to specify, which will be allowed at all times to live freely in the “zone”.
I presume it will be fenced?
Otherwise, how will the “ramblers” know where their ill-gotten gains end, and real human beings’ property begins?
Isn’t it nice NOT to have to talk about the BNP membership list any more! Lancaster Unity is miking it for all it’s worth. I guess they have “nothing useful to say about anything”, as Duncan Money said about me, in his comment on this posting. (Of ours.) We’ll send you some traffic, Duncan, old chap, there you are, we’ll paternalistically toss you a penny as we pass.
Pirates are a problem, caused by Global Climate Change. If you go there, then you will see why. The “precautionary principle” of course shows why we really all ought to reduce our “carbon footprint”, and only burn chicken shit, in order to eliminate piracy.
As Auberon Waugh would say: “I am not suggesting that we should all shoot all pirates on sight, but it may help to reducde the problem”.
…after I spotted it a couple of days ago, at least someone has had the sense to post about it.
A Human Being’s body is surely His own. If not, then it is someone else’s by inference: property rights in it can’t be defined in a rightless void. Then, when they can, that means His rights in it exist. That means the human concerned can assign or dispose of it as HE wishes and NOT as someone else does…..
No: I am NOT EVER going to do the “he/she” Marxist nonsense on here any more, I have DECIDED, so people had better get used to that from now on. Human beings are to be described as Men, Man does things and stuff, a child owns HIS body etc etc etc. Of course we venerate women: we would not exist otherwise, so smoke that, for a change, you lefty Feminazi inclusive outreach multiculti Nazi oafs.)
If we could not state the proper disposal of our bodies, then our bodies must therefore belong to someone else. That of course cannot be. Unless the socialists come out in the open and say so. I wonder if they will?
I wonder what he’d have thought about it? Would he prefer a face-transplant, often carried out one-way-only by the Sendero Luminoso, without anaesthetics – as the wicked capitalist runnig-dog companies of the Boss Class would not send any – or just a simple skull-transplant….
I, writing from the National Liberal Club in London, where the Libertarian Alliance and Libertarian International are holding our 2008 conference.
This is going well.
This evening, at the dinner, I will announce the winner of the Chris R. Tame Memorial Prize. I can tell you all now that the winner is Keith Preston. His essay was, in my opinion, the best. Here it is:
Keith Preston is the founder and director of American Revolutionary Vanguard, a U.S.-based tendency committed to advancing the principles of anti-statism, personal liberty, cooperative individualist economics, and the sovereignty and self-determination of communities and nations. He is a graduate student in history, an independent business owner and entrepreneur, and advocate of a new radicalism that reaches beyond the archaic left/right model of the political spectrum. See the ARV website at http://www.attackthesystem.com
Free Enterprise: The Antidote to Corporate Plutocracy
A political libertarian, broadly defined, is someone who wishes to dramatically
reduce the role of the state in human social life so as to maximize individual freedom of
thought, action and association. The natural corollary to libertarian anti-statism is the
defense of the free market in economic affairs. Many libertarians and not a few
conservatives, at least in the Anglo nations, claim to be staunch proponents of free
enterprise. Yet this defense is often rather selective, and timid, to say the least.
Libertarians and free-market conservatives will voice opposition to state-owned enterprises, the social welfare and public health services, state-funded and operated educational institutions, or regulatory bureaus and agencies, such as those governing labor relations, relations between racial, ethnic, and gender groups, or those regulating
the use of the environment. Curiously absent among many libertarian, conservative, or free-market critiques of interventions by the state into society are the myriad of ways in which government acts to assist, protect, and, indeed, impose outright, an economic order maintained for the benefit of politically connected plutocratic elites. Of course, recognition of this fact has led some on the Left to make much sport of libertarians, whom they often refer to, less than affectionately, as “Republicans who take drugs”,
or “Tories who are soft on buggery”, and other such clichés.
Some advocates of free enterprise will respond to such charges by indignantly proclaiming their opposition to state efforts to “bail out” bankrupt corporations or subsidies to corporate entities for the ostensible purpose of research and development. Yet such defenses will often underestimate the degree to which the state serves to create market distortions for the sake of upholding a corporation-dominated economic order. Such distortions result from a plethora of interventions including not only bailouts and subsidies but also the fictitious legal infrastructure of corporate “personhood”, limited liability laws, government contracts, loans, guarantees, purchases of goods, price controls, regulatory privilege, grants of monopolies, protectionist tariffs and trade policies, bankruptcy laws, military intervention to gain access to international markets and protect foreign investments, regulating or prohibiting organized labor activity, eminent domain, discriminatory taxation, ignoring corporate crimes and countless other
forms of state-imposed favors and privileges.1
Perhaps the efficacious gift to the present corporate order by the state has been
what Kevin Carson calls “the subsidy of history,” a reference to the process by which the
indigenous inhabitants and possessors of property in land were originally expropriated
during the course of the construction of traditional feudal societies and the subsequent
transformation of feudalism into what is now called “capitalism”, or the corporatist-
plutocratic societies that we have today. Contrary to the myths to which some subscribe,
including many libertarians, the evolution of capitalism out of the old feudal order was
not one where liberty triumphed over privilege, but one where privilege asserted itself in
newer and more sophisticated forms. As Carson explains:
There were two ways Parliament could have abolished feudalism
and reformed property. It might have treated the customary possessive
rights of the peasantry as genuine title to property in the modern sense,
and then abolished their rents. But what it actually did, instead, was to
treat the artificial “property rights” of the landed aristocracy, in feudal
legal theory, as real property rights in the modern sense; the landed
classes were given full legal title, and the peasants were transformed
into tenants at will with no customary restriction on the rents that could be charged…
In European colonies where a large native peasantry already lived,
states sometimes granted quasi-feudal titles to landed elites to collect
rent from those already living on and cultivating the land; a good example
is latifundismo, which prevails in Latin America to the present day.
Another example is British East Africa. The most fertile 20 percent of
Kenya was stolen by the colonial authorities, and the native peasantry
evicted, so the land could be used for cash-crop farming by white settlers
(using the labor of the evicted peasantry, of course, to work their own
former land). As for those who remained on their own land, they were “encouraged” to enter the wage-labor market by a stiff poll tax that had
to be paid in cash. Multiply these examples by a hundred and you get a
bare hint of the sheer scale of robbery over the past 500 years.
…Factory owners were not innocent in all of this. Mises claimed that the
capital investments on which the factory system was built came largely
from hard-working and thrifty workmen who saved their own earnings
as investment capital. In fact, however, they were junior partners of the
landed elites, with much of their investment capital coming either from
the Whig landed oligarchy or from the overseas fruits of mercantilism,
slavery and colonialism.
In addition, factory employers depended on harsh authoritarian measures
by the government to keep labor under control and reduce its bargaining
power. In England the Laws of Settlement acted as a sort of internal passport system, preventing workers from traveling outside the parish of their birth
without government permission. Thus workers were prevented from “voting
with their feet” in search of better-paying jobs. You might think this would
have worked to the disadvantage of employers in under populated areas, like Manchester and other areas of the industrial north. But never fear: the state
came to the employers’ rescue. Because workers were forbidden to migrate
on their own in search of better pay, employers were freed from the necessity
of offering high enough wages to attract free agents; instead, they were able
to “hire” workers auctioned off by the parish Poor Law authorities on terms
set by collusion between the authorities and employers.2
The Central American nation of El Salvador provides an excellent case study in
how “actually existing capitalism” came about. The indigenous people of El Salvador,
known as the Pipil Indians, were conquered in the early sixteenth century by the Spanish
conquistadors. It was not until 1821 that El Salvador claimed its independence from
Spain and subsequently became an independent nation in 1839. The system of land
ownership in Salvadoran society was communal in nature as late as the end of the
eighteenth century with ownership rights relegated to individual towns and Pipil villages.
The primary agricultural products produced by the peasants were cattle, indigo, corn,
beans and coffee. The Pipil were essentially practicing a type of collective self-
As the international market for coffee expanded, some of the wealthier and more
powerful merchants and landowners began pressuring the Salvadoran government to
intervene into the economic structures of the nation in such a way as to make the
accumulation of personal wealth more rapid through the establishment of larger, private
plantations with a more greatly regimented labor force. Consequently, the government
began to destroy the traditional system of property rights held by the towns and villages
in order to establish individual plantations owned by those from the privileged classes
who already possessed the means of acquiring credit. This change was implemented in
several steps. In 1846, landowners with more than 5,000 coffee bushes were granted
immunity from paying export duties for seven years and from paying taxes for a ten year
period. Plantations owned by the Salvadoran government were also transferred to
politically connected private individuals. In 1881, the communal land rights the Pipil had
possessed for centuries were rescinded, making self-sufficiency for the Indians
impossible. The government subsequently refused to grant even subsistence plots to the
Pipil as the Salvadoran state was now fully under the control of the large plantation
owners. This escalating economic repression was met with resistance and five separate
peasant rebellions occurred during the late nineteenth century. By the middle part of the
twentieth century, El Salvador’s coffee plantations, called fincas, were producing ninety-
five percent of the country’s export product and were controlled by a tiny oligarchy of
The phrase “means of acquiring credit” from the previous paragraph is a
particularly significant one as the purpose of state control over banking and the issuance
of money serves to narrowly constrict the supply of available credit which in turn renders
entrepreneurship inaccessible to the majority of the population at large. Indeed, Murray
Rothbard argued that bankers as a class “are inherently inclined towards statism”4 as they
are typically involved with unsound practices, such as fractional reserve credit, that
subsequently lead to calls for assistance from the state, or derive much of their business
from direct involvement with the state, for instance, through the underwriting of
government bonds. Therefore, the banking class becomes the financial arm of the state
not only by specifically underwriting the activities of the state, such as war, plunder and
repression, but also by serving to create and maintain a plutocracy of businessmen,
manufacturers, politically-connected elites and others able to obtain access to the
narrowly constricted supply of credit within the context of the market distortions
generated by the state’s money monopoly.5
The process by which “capitalism” as it is actually practiced in the modern
countries developed-by means of a partnership between the forces of state and capital,
rather than through a genuine free market-has already been very briefly described. There
remains the question of how this relationship has subsequently been maintained over the
past two centuries. Gabriel Kolko’s landmark study of the historic relationship between
state and capital traced the development of this symbiosis from the “railroad government
complex” of mid-nineteenth century America through the supposed “reforms” of the so-
called Progressive Era to the cartelization of labor, industry and government by means of
Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal.6 At each stage of this development of American state-
capitalism, members of “the capitalist class”-bankers, industrialists, manufacturers,
businessmen-adamantly pushed for and were directly involved in the creation of a state-
managed economy whose effect would be to shield themselves from smaller, less
politically connected competitors, co-opt labor unions and generate a source of
monopolistic protection and cost-free revenue from the state. Similar if not identical
parallels can be found in the development of state-capitalism in the other modern
Indeed, parallels can also be drawn between the structures of contemporary state-
capitalism and historic feudalism. Since the High Middle Ages government has been
transformed from its earlier identification with a specific person or persons into a
corporate entity with a life and identity of its own beyond that of its individual members.8
Out of this process of transformation from personal government to corporate government,
the evolution of a system of state-capitalist privilege that has supplanted feudal privilege,
the ever greater interaction and co-dependency between the plutocratic elite and the
minions of the state, and the wider integration of organized labor, political interests
groups generated by mass democracy and unprecedented expansion of the public sector
has emerged a politico-economic order that might be referred to as the “new
manorialism”. These “new manors” are the multitude of bureaucratic entities that
maintain an institutional identity of their own, though their individual personnel may
change with time, and who exist first and foremost for the sake of their own self-
preservation, irrespective of the original purposes for which they were ostensibly
established. The “new manors” may include institutional entities that function as de jour
arms of the state, such as regulatory bureaus, police and other “law enforcement”
agencies, state-run social service departments or educational facilities, or they may
include de facto arms of the state, such as the banking and corporate entities whose
position of privilege, indeed, whose very existence, is dependent upon state intervention.9
Out of this domestic state-capitalist order there has emerged an overarching
international order rooted in the pre-eminence of the American state-capitalist class and
its junior partners from a number of the other developed nations. Hans Hermann Hoppe
describes this arrangement:
Moreover, from a global perspective, mankind has come closer than
ever before to the establishment of a world government. Even before
the destruction of the Soviet Empire, the United States had attained
hegemonical status over Western Europe…and the Pacific Rim countries…
as indicated by the presence of American troops and military bases…
by the role of the American dollar as the ultimate international reserve
currency and of the U.S. Federal Reserve System as the “lender” or
“liquidity provider” of last resort for the entire Western banking system,
and by institutions such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the
World Bank and the…World Trade Organization. In addition, under
American hegemony the political integration of Western Europe has steadily advanced. With the recent establishment of a European Central Bank and a European Currency (EURO), the European Community is near completion.
At the same time, with the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)
a significant step toward the political integration of the American continent
has been taken. In the absence of the Soviet Empire and its military threat,
the United States has emerged as the world’s sole and undisputed military superpower and its “top cop.”10
Such is what “big business” has wrought. Such an international imperial order is about as
far removed from the libertarian principles of small government and free enterprise as
anything could possibly be. Thus far in this discussion, the surface has only been
scratched concerning the deformation of the natural market process from what it might
otherwise have been because of state intervention and the corresponding system of
corporate plutocratic rule. No mention has been made of the monopoly privilege inherent
in patent laws and the legal concept of “intellectual property.” The role of transportation
subsidies in the centralization of wealth and the destruction of smaller competitors to “big
business” has not been discussed. Indeed, a credible case can be made that without direct or indirect subsidies to those transportation systems such as air, water or long distance land travel that are necessary for the cultivation and maintenance of markets over large geographical entities, the kind of domination of present day retail and commercial food markets exercised by such gargantuan entities as Wal-Mart, McDonald’s, Tesco and others would likely be impossible. 11 No challenge has been made to conventional
views regarding legitimacy of land titles as opposed to contending views, such as those
rooted in usufructuary or geoist principles.12 There has been no discussion, as there easily
could be, of the role of the state in the creation of the underclass of contemporary
societies and the related social pathologies, a situation whose roots go far deeper than the
mere “culture of dependency” bemoaned by conventional conservatives and some
libertarians.13 The role of the state in the dispossession of the indigenous agricultural
population in the period of early capitalist development in the West and in the
contemporary Third World has been mentioned, but such dispossessions continue to
occur even in modern societies.14
The implications of these insights for libertarian strategy are rather profound
indeed. If libertarianism is to be identified in the public mind and among lay people as an
apology for the corporation-dominated status quo, and if libertarians proceed as if
“conservative” apologists for big business were their natural friends, and insist that a libertarian world would be one ruled by the likes of Boeing, Halliburton, ‘Tesco, Microsoft, or Dupont, then libertarianism will never be anything more than an appendage to the ideological superstructure modern intellectual classes use to legitimize plutocratic rule.15 However, if libertarianism asserts itself as a new radicalism, the polar opposite of plutocrat-friendly “conservatism”, and more radical than anything offered by the increasing moribund and archaic Left, then libertarianism may well indeed inspire new generations of militants to take aim at the statist status quo. Libertarianism may become the guiding system of thought for radicals and reformers everywhere as liberalism was in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries and as socialism was for subsequent generations.16
As for the question of what an economy devoid of statist, corporatist and
plutocratic rule would actually look like, it can be expected that removal of state-imposed
barriers to obtainment of credit, entrepreneurship and economic self-sufficiency (as
opposed to dependency on state and corporate bureaucracies for employment, insurance
and social services) will be one where Colin Ward’s ideal of a “self-employed” society is
largely realized.17 No longer will the average man be dependent on Chase Manhattan, Home Depot, General Motors, ‘Tesco or Texaco for his livelihood or his sustenance. Instead, he will have finally acquired the means of existing economically as a self-sufficient dignified individual in a community of peers where privilege is the result of merit and equal liberty is the unchallengeable prerogative of all.
Early in the twentieth century there were a variety of movements championing the independent small producer and the cooperative management of large enterprises including anarcho-syndicalism from the extreme Left and distributism from the reactionary Catholic Right.18 These tendencies still exist on the outer fringes of political and economic thought. One need not agree with every bit of analysis or every proposal advanced by these schools of thinking to recognize their visionary libertarian aspects. Numerous economic arrangements currently exist that offer glimpses into what post-statist, post-plutocratic institutions of production might be.
One of these is the Mondragon Cooperative Corporation, a collection of worker-
owned and operated industries originating from the Basque region of Spain. Having been
in existence since 1941, the Mondragon cooperatives initially established a “peoples’
bank” of the kind originally suggested by the godfather of classical anarchism, Pierre
Joseph Proudhon,19 for the development of still more enterprises, which now total more
than 150 in number, including the private University of Mondragon. Its supermarket
division is the third largest retail outlet in Spain and the largest Spanish-owned food store
chain. Each individual cooperative has a workers’ council of its own, and the entire
cooperative federation is governed by a congress of workers from the different
Still another quite interesting example is the Brazilian company Semco SA. While
privately owned as a family business, Semco practices a form of radical industrial democracy. Under the leadership of Ricardo Semler, who inherited the company from his
father, Semco maintains a management structure where workers manage themselves and
set their own production goals and budgets with remuneration based on productivity,
efficiency and cost effectiveness. Workers receive twenty-five percent of the profits from
their division. Middle management has essentially been eliminated. Workers have the
right of veto over company expenditures. Job duties are frequently rotated and even the
CEO position is shared by six persons, including owner Semler, who serve six month
terms in the chief executive position. The company now has over 3,000 employees,
annual revenue of over $200 million and a growth rate of forty percent each year.21
An economy organized on the basis of worker-owned and operated industries,
peoples’ banks, mutuals, consumer cooperatives, anarcho-syndicalist labor unions,
individual and family enterprises, small farms and crafts workers associations engaged in
local production for local use, voluntary charitable institutions, land trusts, or voluntary
collectives, communes and kibbutzim may seem farfetched to some, but no more so and
probably less so than a modern industrial, high-tech economy where the merchant class is
the ruling class and the working class is a frequently affluent middle class would have
seemed to residents of the feudal societies of pre-modern times. If the expansion of the
market economy, specialization, the division of labor, industrialization and technological
advancements can bring about the achievements of modern societies in eradicating
disease, starvation, infant mortality and early death, one can only wonder what a genuine
free enterprise system might achieve, and would have already achieved were it not for the
scourge of statism and the corresponding plutocracy.
1 Kevin A. Carson, The Iron Fist Behind the Invisible Hand: Corporate-Capitalism As a State-Guaranteed System of Privilege (Red Lion Press, 2001-Revised January 2002).
2 Kevin A. Carson, “The Subsidy of History”, The Freeman, Vol. 58, No. 5, June 2008.
3 Raymond Bonner, Weakness and Deceit: U.S. Policy and El Salvador. (New York: Times Books, 1984), pp. 19- 23.
4 Murray N. Rothbard, “Wall Street, Banks and American Foreign Policy”, World Market Perspective, 1984.
5 Rothbard, Ibid.; Kevin A. Carson, “Tucker’s Big Four: The Money Monopoly”, Studies in Mutualist Political Economy, Chapter Five: Section B. Archived at http:// mutualist.org/id73.html . Accessed September 10, 2008; Hans Hermann Hoppe, “Banking, Nation-States and International Politics: A Sociological Reconstruction of the Present Economic Order” The Economics and Ethics of Private Property (Boston/Dordrecht/London: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1993), pp. 61-92; Benjamin R. Tucker, “Part II: Money and Interest”, Instead Of A Book, By A Man Too Busy To Write One, 1897. Archived at http://fair-use.org/benjamin-tucker/instead-of-a-book/.
Accessed on September 10, 2008.
6 Gabriel Kolko, The Triumph of Conservatism, MacMillan, 1963.
7 Terry Arthur, “Free Enterprise: Left or Right? Neither!”, Libertarian Alliance, 1984.
8 Martin Van Creveld, The Rise and Decline of the State (Cambridge University Press, 1999).
9 James Burnham, The Managerial Revolution: What Is Happening in the World (Greenwood Press Reprint, 1972, originally published in 1940). This classic conservative work argues that modern societies are neither “capitalist” nor “socialist” in the way these terms were historically understood. Instead, a new kind of politico-economic order has emerged in modern times where political and economic rule is conducted by a “managerial class” of bureaucrats presiding over mass organizations-governments and their bureaus and agencies, corporations and financial institutions, armies, political parties, unions, universities, media, foundations and the like. Membership in the upper strata of these entities is often rotational in that many of the same individuals shift about from the various sectors of the managerial class, for instance, from elected positions in government to corporate boards of directors to key positions in the media or elite foundations to appointed positions in the bureaucracy.
10 Hans Hermann Hoppe, Democracy: The God That Failed. (New Brunswick and London: Transaction Publishers, 2001), pp. 108-109.
11 Kevin A. Carson, “Transportation Subsidies”, Studies in Mutualist Political Economy, Chapter Five, Section E. Archived at http://mutualist.org/id76.html Accessed on September 10, 2008.
12 Among anti-state radicals, a fairly wide divergence of opinion exists concerning the manner by which property rights in land should be defined. Most “mainstream” libertarians hold to some version of Lockean property rights while more radical libertarians (mutualists, syndicalists, anarcho-communists) along with some distributists argue that property rights should be defined according to the principles of occupancy and use. Still others adhere to the view of Henry George (geoism or geolibertarianism) that land ownership should be subject to a land value tax. For a discussion of this controversy among libertarians, see Kevin A. Carson, “Tucker’s Big Four: The Land Monopoly”, Studies in Mutualist Political Economy, Chapter Five: Section B. Archived at http://www.mutualist.org/id66.html. Accessed on September 10, 2008. Carson summarizes the matter elsewhere: “In Chapter Five of Mutualist Political Economy, I included an extended discussion of property rights theory that relied heavily on “Hogeye Bill” Orton’s commentary from sundry message boards. According to Orton, no particular theory of property rights can be logically deduced from the axiom of self-ownership. Rather, self-ownership can interact with a variety of property rights templates to produce alternative economic orders in a stateless society. So whether rightful ownership of a piece of land is determined by Lockean, a mutualist, Georgist, or syndicalist rule is a matter of local convention. Questions of coercion can only be settled once this prior question is addressed. And since there is no a priori principle from which any particular set of rules can be deduced, we can only judge between them on consequentialist grounds: what other important values do they tend to promote or hinder?
So it’s quite conceivable that non-severable, non-marketable shares in a collectively owned enterprise might depend, not on contract among the members, but on the property rights convention of the local community. Saying that such an arrangement is “coercion” is begging the question of whether the Lockean rules for initial acquisition and transfer of property is the only self-evidently true ones.” Carson, “Socialist Definitional Free-for-All, Part I”, Archived at http://mutualist.blogspot.com/2005/12/socialist-definitional-free-for-all.html. Accessed on September 10, 2008.
13 No doubt much conservative criticism of the welfare state for creating perverse incentives for anti-social behavior, such as familial dysfunction, criminality and a hindered work ethic, are correct and insightful. Yet, many of the social pathologies associated with the “underclass” populations of American and European cities is traceable to detrimental state interventions far beyond those of conventional social welfare systems. A number of works by libertarians and non-libertarians alike have documented the process by which organic social, economic and cultural life has been destroyed among these populations by a wide range of interventions, most of which are imposed for the sake of advancing plutocratic interests. See Kevin A. Carson, “Reparations: Cui Bono?” Archived at http://mutualist.org/id9.html. Accessed on September 10, 2008; Charles Johnson, “Scratching By: How Government Creates Poverty As We Know It”, The Freeman, Vol. 57, No. 10, December 2007; Keith Preston, “The Political Economy of the War on Drugs”, (American Revolutionary Vanguard, 2001), Archived at http://attackthesystem.com/the-politicial-economy-of-the-war-on-drugs/ Accessed on September 10, 2008; Thomas J. Sugrue, The Origins of the Urban Crisis: Race and Inequality in Postwar Detroit, (Princeton University Press, 1996, 2005); Walter E. Williams, The State Against Blacks, (McGraw-Hill, 1982).
14 For an illuminating discussion of the role of state intervention in the dispossession of the indigenous rural agricultural population of America’s heartland in the 1980s and 1990s, see James Bovard, Farm Fiasco, (ICS Press, 1989) and Joel Dyer, Harvest of Rage, (Westview Press, 1997).
15 The role of the intellectual class as both a constituent group for statism and as the creators of the ideological superstructure of statism is discussed in Hans Hermann Hoppe, “Natural Elites, Intellectuals and the State”, Mises Institute, July 21, 2006. Archived at http://mises.org/story/2214. Accessed on September 11, 2008. Of course, the concept of an ideological superstructure used to legitimize a particular system of class rule is most closely associated with Marxist analysis. For an examination of the differences as well as the points of agreement between Marxists and libertarians, see Hans Hermann Hoppe, “Marxist and Austrian Class Analysis”, The Economics and Ethics of Private Property (Boston/Dordrecht/London: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1993), pp. 93-110.
16 Murray Rothbard considered libertarians to be the far left end of the political spectrum, with “conservatives”, i.e., proponents of an authoritarian order based on hierarchy, status, and privilege (and justified with appeals to tradition) to be on the far right, with Marxists and other socialists constituting an incoherent middle-of-the-road position. See Murray N. Rothbard, Left and Right: The Prospects for Liberty, (Cato Institute, 1979). The left-wing anarchist Larry Gambone’s exhaustive examination of the thinking of the early socialists indicates that the original aim of socialism was not the state-run economies associated with socialism in contemporary political discourse, but an economy ordered on the basis of decentralized cooperative enterprises. Larry Gambone, “The Myth of Socialism as Statism”, (Porcupine Blog, May 6, 2006). Archived at http://porkupineblog.blogspot.com/2006/05/myth-of-socialism-as-statism.html. Accessed on September 11, 2008.
17 Colin Ward, “A Self-Employed Society”, Anarchy In Action, (London: Freedom Press, 1982), pp. 95-109.
18 Rudolf Rocker, Anarcho-Syndicalism, (Martin Secker and Warburg, Ltd., 1938); Hilaire Belloc, The Servile State, (The Liberty Fund, originally published in 1913); G. K. Chesterton, The Outline of Sanity, (HIS Press, 2002, originally published in 1927); Anthony Cooney, Distributism, (Third Way Movement Ltd., 1998).
19 Larry Gambone, Proudhon and Anarchism: Proudhon’s Libertarian Thought and the Anarchist Movement, (Red Lion Press, 1996).
20 William Whyte, Making Mondragon: The Growth and Dynamics of the Worker Cooperative Complex, (ILR Press, 1991).
21 Ricardo Semler, Maverick, (Arrow Press, 1993).
Arthur, Terry, “Free Enterprise: Left or Right? Neither!”, Libertarian Alliance, 1984.
Belloc, Hilaire. The Servile State. The Liberty Fund, originally published in 1913.
Bonner, Raymond. Weakness and Deceit: U.S. Policy and El Salvador. New York: Times
Bovard, James. Farm Fiasco. ICS Press, 1989.
Burnham, James. The Managerial Revolution: What Is Happening in the World.
Greenwood Press Reprint, 1972, originally published in 1940.
Carson, Kevin A. “Reparations: Cui Bono?”Archived at http://mutualist.org/id9.html
Carson, Kevin A.,“Socialist Definitional Free-for-All, Part I”, Archived at
http://mutualist.blogspot.com/2005/12/socialist-definitional-free-for-all.html Accessed on September 10, 2008.
Carson, Kevin A. The Iron Fist Behind the Invisible Hand: Corporate-Capitalism As a
State-Guaranteed System of Privilege. Red Lion Press, 2001-Revised January
Carson, Kevin A. “The Subsidy of History”, The Freeman, Vol. 58, No. 5, June 2008.
Carson, Kevin A., “Transportation Subsidies”, Studies in Mutualist Political Economy,
Chapter Five, Section E. Archived at http://mutualist.org/id76.html Accessed on
September 10, 2008.
Carson, Kevin A. “Tucker’s Big Four: The Land Monopoly”, Studies in Mutualist
Political Economy, Chapter Five: Section B. Archived at
http://www.mutualist.org/id66.html. Accessed on September 10, 2008.
Carson, Kevin A. “Tucker’s Big Four: The Money Monopoly”, Studies in Mutualist
Political Economy, Chapter Five: Section B. Archived at http://
mutualist.org/id73.html . Accessed September 10, 2008.
Chesterton, G. K. The Outline of Sanity. HIS Press, 2002, originally published in 1927.
Cooney, Anthony. Distributism. Third Way Movement Ltd., 1998.
Dyer, Joel. Harvest of Rage. Westview Press, 1997.
Gambone, Larry. Proudhon and Anarchism: Proudhon’s Libertarian Thought and the
Anarchist Movement. Red Lion Press, 1996.
Gambone, Larry, “The Myth of Socialism as Statism”, Porcupine Blog, May 6, 2006).
statism.html. Accessed on September 11, 2008.
Hoppe, Hans Hermann, “Banking, Nation-States and International Politics: A
Sociological Reconstruction of the Present Economic Order,” The Economics
and Ethics of Private Property. Boston/Dordrecht/London: Kluwer Academic
Hoppe, Hans Hermann. Democracy: The God That Failed. New Brunswick and London:
Transaction Publishers, 2001.
Hoppe, Hans Hermann, “Marxist and Austrian Class Analysis”, The Economics and
Ethics of Private Property. Boston/Dordrecht/London: Kluwer Academic
Hoppe, Hans Hermann, “Natural Elites, Intellectuals and the State”, Mises Institute, July
21, 2006. Archived at http://mises.org/story/2214. Accessed on September 11,
Johnson, Charles, “Scratching By: How Government Creates Poverty As We Know It”,
The Freeman, Vol. 57, No. 10, December 2007.
Kolko, Gabriel. The Triumph of Conservatism. MacMillan, 1963.
Preston, Keith, “The Political Economy of the War on Drugs”, (American Revolutionary
Vanguard, 2001), Archived at http://attackthesystem.com/the-politicial-economy-
of-the-war-on-drugs/ Accessed on September 10, 2008
Rocker, Rudolf. Anarcho-Syndicalism. Martin Secker and Warburg, Ltd., 1938.
Rothbard, Murray N. Left and Right: The Prospects for Liberty. Cato Institute, 1979.
Rothbard, Murray N., “Wall Street, Banks and American Foreign Policy”, World Market
Semler, Ricardo. Maverick. Arrow Press, 1993.
Sugrue, Thomas J. The Origins of the Urban Crisis: Race and Inequality in Postwar
Detroit. Princeton University Press, 1996, 2005.
Tucker, Benjamin R., “Part II: Money and Interest”, Instead Of A Book, By A Man Too
Busy To Write One, 1897. Archived at http://fair-use.org/benjamin-
tucker/instead-of-a-book/. Accessed on September 10, 2008.
Van Creveld, Martin. The Rise and Decline of the State. Cambridge University Press,
Ward, Colin, “A Self-Employed Society”, Anarchy In Action. London: Freedom Press,
Williams, Walter E. The State Against Blacks. McGraw-Hill, 1982.
Whyte, William. Making Mondragon: The Growth and Dynamics of the Worker
Cooperative Complex. (ILR Press, 1991).