US Politics: Meet the New Right, same as the Old Right

[The Marquis de Leech]

Civilization never would have developed if people were as naturally savage as you make them out to be. As Lord Mord and Nestor said, property and markets can exist in the absence of a centralized authority to define/regulate them. Social norms and customs are powerful things

How exactly could the state precede property? How would agriculture have developed in that scenario?

"This is mine because I've got a gun" is actually the state's way of doing things.

Social norms and customs are developed in the context of society. The state is the means by which society organises itself. As for property, are you referring to common property or private property? The former predates the latter.

[TrackerNeil]

"Someone who is a professor agrees with me" is not an argument. It's a logical fallacy - namely, an appeal to authority. You know this (I say, assuming you do, but not being entirely sure). The black market in illicit goods and services is a market despite the government, almost by definition, NOT performing the majority of the functions you've identified. As a matter of historical fact, we have examples of markets operating in situations where there was no acknowledged organization with a monopoly on the use of force to regulate contracts, etc. QED - government is not an necessary prerequisite to the creation of markets.

As to bartering - it's a market activity. The "market" is not the cash nexus.

I believe I did make an argument on my own, buttressed by reference to an authority. I thought that was a good way to behave in a debate, but next time I'll make sure to leave out any authority that agrees with me, because we all know that professors from Ivy League universities don't know what they're talking about.

If you're to claim that a simple trade = a market, then you're adopting a view from orbit, at which distance anything can look like anything. From that vantage, Social Security is like a Ponzi scheme because they both collect money from people, and a dog is like a cow because they both have four legs. I'm not sure how useful that perspective is, but whatever you like.

[Ramsay Gimp]

RG:

So it's basically a free-for-all then? Unions can strike for any reason and at any time? Employers can lock out for any reason and at any time? Where does this leave the law of contract?

In the first case, sure. Of course, the employer ought to have the legal right to terminate every one of them in response if he thinks it's prudent to do so. In the second case, again yes barring some contractual agreement (like the owner contractually agreeing to employ the workers through a certain date and then closing the doors before that date arrived).

Can you elaborate on the problems you see arising with contract law?

[The Undead Martyr]

Civilization never would have developed if people were as naturally savage as you make them out to be. As Lord Mord and Nestor said, property and markets can exist in the absence of a centralized authority to define/regulate them. Social norms and customs are powerful things

How exactly could the state precede property? How would agriculture have developed in that scenario?

"This is mine because I've got a gun" is actually the state's way of doing things.

This depends on what you mean by state. If you refer exclusively to the Wesphalian nation-state model, then barring the possible exception of China, and perhaps also Rome, property precedes the state by a good several centuries. However, if you include pre-modern states, such as the Holy Roman Empire, then they most assuredly develop alongside property- that is you cannot have one without shortly creating the other. The instant you mark off territory and claim individual ownership, be it as a feudal lord in vassalage to a king, a soldier under a Roman general, or a patrician in the Lowlands or Italy, you have a state created to enforce this claim against challengers within and without, be it through armies, markets, or court systems.

States were created to enforce the division of labor necessitated and facilitated by agriculture. They came into existence the moment our ancestors abandoned nomadic hunter-gatherer primitive communism/tribal relations and adopted sedentary agriculture. The states came into being to build levees, organize fields, collect surplus, adjudicate land claims, facilitate exchange, develop industrial/non-agricultural production, defend against rival states, keep the serfs in line, keep records of the harvests, "worship the gods" (writing/education/organizaton, religion, and ruler ship being vested in the same class is a hallmark of ancient/early states; religion has dwindled somewhat but the link between education and managerial/leadership remains as strong as ever).

[The Marquis de Leech]

You don't need a single organization with a monopoly on the "legitimate" use of force to define and regulate property rights. Besides, the vast majority of the black market takes place under circumstances where the State would actively REFUSE to enforce property and contractual claims. You can't take your neighborhood drug dealer to Court for shorting your dime bag.

If you don't have a state to define anything, then even black markets fall over, because there's no point in trading when you can simply smash and grab. You can't take your neighbourhood drug dealer to court for shorting your bag, but you can take him to court for coming around to your house and stealing all your possessions.

[TrackerNeil]

If you don't have a state to define anything, then even black markets fall over, because there's no point in trading when you can simply smash and grab. You can't take your neighbourhood drug dealer to court for shorting your bag, but you can take him to court for coming around to your house and stealing all your possessions.

Exactly. There's no black market without a standard market, and in fact the black market is black because it evades the normal rules of commerce.

[BloodRider]

"This is mine because I've got a gun" is actually the state's way of doing things.

I think your basic premise is flawed. You are going to have to prove this, and prove that there is another stable system that does not use force.

Also the Libertarian reliance on everyone doing whats right else they get shamed or shunned is great only if everyone plays by the rules. The problem here is that it only takes a very small portion of the actors in a market to destroy the market for everyone. And typically those sorts of players are not constrained by social convention. So there is no stability in your Bertian paradise. The more players constrained by social convention, the more the incentive for someone to break the social (but no longer legal) conventions and make mad cash.

[Galactus]

You don't need a single organization with a monopoly on the "legitimate" use of force to define and regulate property rights. Besides, the vast majority of the black market takes place under circumstances where the State would actively REFUSE to enforce property and contractual claims. You can't take your neighborhood drug dealer to Court for shorting your dime bag.

Actually you do, if you don't it's not property rights at all, but simple force. Now, various groups can agree to enforce their own contracts to the extent of their ability (force) to do so... But in what way is that different from a state, really? If it quacks like a duck, etc.

[Galactus]

"This is mine because I've got a gun" is actually the state's way of doing things.

No, that's the way o f all property, ultimately. (the "gun" may be more or less metaphorical, but it's still a gun) the state just steps in as a guarantor: "This is yours because I have a gun." Without a state you can try to use your own gun, or you can pool your guns together with other people (essentially forming a state in the process)

As the saynig goes: "Property is theft."

[Commodore]

one interesting aspect of Bitcoin is decentralized contract enforcement capability, where math/code becomes the guarantor rather than guns

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

Actually you do, if you don't it's not property rights at all, but simple force. Now, various groups can agree to enforce their own contracts to the extent of their ability (force) to do so... But in what way is that different from a state, really? If it quacks like a duck, etc.

The first sentence doesn't make sense. The first clause has nothing to do with the second clause. "Property rights" are moral positions governing the legitimacy's of one's rights to a piece of property. Force is violence or the threat or violence. There is no dichotomy between them because they express completely different, non-overlapping concepts. Force can be used in defense of property rights or forced can be used to violate property rights. As for the definition of the State, I think it's an interesting question. I myself am partial to a modified Weberian definition in which particular attention is paid to the areas in which an organization with a monopoly on the (perceived) legitimate use of force is understood to be able to exercise that monopoly, but I recognize the difficulty of defining the State with 100% precision, particularly in the world we live in where non-State actors are increasingly able to project violence over large geographic swaths without many of the other indicias of statehood.

But as to the the broader point, your reductionist definition disappears into absurdity. If all you need for a State is one individual willing to engage in force or the threat of force, then we are all states unto ourselves, and the concept disappears (surprisingly, not that far from the anarchist position!).

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

I believe I did make an argument on my own, buttressed by reference to an authority. I thought that was a good way to behave in a debate, but next time I'll make sure to leave out any authority that agrees with me, because we all know that professors from Ivy League universities don't know what they're talking about.

If you're to claim that a simple trade = a market, then you're adopting a view from orbit, at which distance anything can look like anything. From that vantage, Social Security is like a Ponzi scheme because they both collect money from people, and a dog is like a cow because they both have four legs. I'm not sure how useful that perspective is, but whatever you like.

I didn't say that a single trade = a market. I said that a single trade was an example of market activity, although the circumstances under which the barter occurred are themselves indicias of a market. The whole "view from orbit" bit is a non sequitur.

[TrackerNeil]

I didn't say that a single trade = a market. I said that a single trade was an example of market activity, although the circumstances under which the barter occurred are themselves indicias of a market.

I don't really understand the distinction you're making here. Whether or not a single trade is "market activity" doesn't make a single trade a market, which was my point. Markets are created by people through some form of government.

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

I don't really understand the distinction you're making here. Whether or not a single trade is "market activity" doesn't make a single trade a market, which was my point. Markets are created by people through some form of government.

1. I'm sorry you don't understand the distinction.

2. I understand that your claim is that government is necessary to create a market. I hope you understand that simply repeating it over and over again is not actually an argument.

[The Undead Martyr]

1. I'm sorry you don't understand the distinction.

2. I understand that your claim is that government is necessary to create a market. I hope you understand that simply repeating it over and over again is not actually an argument.

His claim as you put it has been elaborated upon by several posters, including myself, and our assertions have not been addressed. Simply repeating a denial over and over again is not actually an argument.

No, that's the way o f all property, ultimately. (the "gun" may be more or less metaphorical, but it's still a gun) the state just steps in as a guarantor: "This is yours because I have a gun." Without a state you can try to use your own gun, or you can pool your guns together with other people (essentially forming a state in the process)

As the saynig goes: "Property is theft."

:agree: Yep, property (especially in the sense of private, rather than communal, ownership) came about and is enforced by force. Force that was eventually placed exclusively into the hands of the state.

[TrackerNeil]

2. I understand that your claim is that government is necessary to create a market. I hope you understand that simply repeating it over and over again is not actually an argument.

Well, I tried to refer to a qualified expert who agrees with me, but you yelled "logical fallacy!", so at this point I am not certain what would convince you. So I'll leave this argument where it is and let others decide for themselves.

On other news, Jonathan Bernstein has consistently done excellent analysis on the Republican blunder regarding filibusters on judicial nominees. He's always worth a read.

[Galactus]

The first sentence doesn't make sense. The first clause has nothing to do with the second clause. "Property rights" are moral positions governing the legitimacy's of one's rights to a piece of property.

Ah, no. Property rights is the legal framework that guarantees your right to property. You don't have a right until it is legally enforcable.

Force is violence or the threat or violence. There is no dichotomy between them because they express completely different, non-overlapping concepts

There's no dichotomy, correct, because force is an intrinsic part of property (and property rights).

As for the definition of the State, I think it's an interesting question. I myself am partial to a modified Weberian definition in which particular attention is paid to the areas in which an organization with a monopoly on the (perceived) legitimate use of force is understood to be able to exercise that monopoly, but I recognize the difficulty of defining the State with 100% precision, particularly in the world we live in where non-State actors are increasingly able to project violence over large geographic swaths without many of the other indicias of statehood

Fair enough. May 2014 - 2:56 PM, said:

.

But as to the the broader point, your reductionist definition disappears into absurdity. If all you need for a State is one individual willing to engage in force or the threat of force, then we are all states unto ourselves, and the concept disappears (surprisingly, not that far from the anarchist position!).

That's one of my (philosophical, not utilitarian) beefs with anarchism actually: Anarchists draw a distinction between "the state" and other forms/usages of power (that are somehow more legitimate?) that I don't really see.

And again, we're all states unto ourselves to the point where we can assert our own position. IE: Until we meet someone with a bigger stick. (stick here not neccessarily meaning either a literal stick or a penis, but just some form of power that would make us change our mind)

[Seli]

The first sentence doesn't make sense. The first clause has nothing to do with the second clause. "Property rights" are moral positions governing the legitimacy's of one's rights to a piece of property. Force is violence or the threat or violence. There is no dichotomy between them because they express completely different, non-overlapping concepts. Force can be used in defense of property rights or forced can be used to violate property rights. ...

I'd say you are mixing up cause and effect, rights don't exist a priori they are constructs of our societies. The concept of property rights is best explained as a more elegant layer covering the intricate network of promised force and violence that defines what we can call our own.

[Suttree]

House Ways and Means begin marking up extenders today helping big corporations and they aren't even putting on a show of trying to offset the costs elsewhere.

The other day, the House Ways & Means Committee voted to cut taxes for certain businesses by $310 billion. Washington, being Washington, is now in the midst of a partisan debate over whether this is in fact a tax cut or, conversely, whether failing to cut those business levies would be a tax increase.

This really isn’t complicated. The Ways & Means bill is a tax cut. And if it is not offset by other tax hikes or spending increases, it would raise the federal deficit by $310 billion over the next 10 years.

At issue, of course, are some of the 50+ targeted tax subsidies that have been on the books for many years but expired last December. The operative word here is “expired.”

These provisions have come to be known around the Capitol as the “extenders.” This is because Congress has a long and ignominious history of passing these as temporary tax cuts, knowing full well that it will then repeatedly extend them for a year or two at a time.

Somehow, they seem to operate under a different set of rules than most laws. While Congress argues for months over whether or not to offset the costs of some bills (extending certain unemployment benefits, for example), pols seem happy to maintain the perpetual motion machine of the tax extenders without worrying about their cost.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/beltway/2014/05/01/the-tax-extenders-yes-virginia-they-really-are-tax-cuts/

Robert Reich weighing in:

Today the House Ways and Means Committee, under firm control of the "we're-determined-to-reduce-the-deficit" Republicans, begins marking up a series of corporate tax breaks – known as “extenders” because they have been extended regularly every year or two for over a decade. But this time the Committee plans to make many of them permanent, at the cost of an estimated $300 billion over the next ten years. And it doesn't plan to pay for them by closing other corporate loopholes or raising corporate tax rates. The giveaway – almost all of which will help the bottom lines of big corporations and pump up their share prices – will just add to the government deficit. Undoubtedly, those who vote for them will later call for deeper cuts in programs for the vulnerable in order to bring “spending” under control. Another example of redistribution upwards.

The hypocrisy here is absolutely staggering.

[The Undead Martyr]

Ah, no. Property rights is the legal framework that guarantees your right to property. You don't have a right until it is legally enforcable.

There's no dichotomy, correct, because force is an intrinsic part of property (and property rights).

Fair enough. May 2014 - 2:56 PM, said:

.

That's one of my (philosophical, not utilitarian) beefs with anarchism actually: Anarchists draw a distinction between "the state" and other forms/usages of power (that are somehow more legitimate?) that I don't really see.

And again, we're all states unto ourselves to the point where we can assert our own position. IE: Until we meet someone with a bigger stick. (stick here not neccessarily meaning either a literal stick or a penis, but just some form of power that would make us change our mind)

He most certainly is not an anarchist, nor a true libertarian, for this exact reason- he's a neo-liberal. Anarchists (which is synonymous with libertarianism, barring the Randians re purposing the term in the 50s) are opposed to all forms of hierarchy, and have a very strong anti-capitalist tradition. I am an anarchist and sympathetic to libertarianism in the sense of Noam Chomsky or the French Utopian Socialists, and I do not draw a distinction between the state and other forms of power- quite the opposite, I view the state as but a mere extension of the economic regime and advocate the abolition of both capitalism and the capitalist nation-state. If anything anarchism is too reductionist/determinist, almost to conspiracy-theorist levels.