It’s never been easy to know what to make of self-styled free-marketers who see global capitalism as a real-life instantiation of their values. Given the deep and decisive role of state violence in the creation of global capitalism, they’re either unaware of the basic facts, and so unqualified for their positions, or engaged in a project of active dishonesty. We must assume it’s the former. At Liberty Fund’s Econlib site, Pierre Desrochers laments “the increased popularity of the local food movement,” which, he argues, translates in practice to “
"Too many free-market types want to pretend that economics alone—that is, absent insights from sociology, politics, or history—gives us all the explanation we need."
This is precisely the problem that I see so often in right libertarian economic thought (and from economists more generally). They study the economy and markets in a vacuum, divorced of their social, political, cultural, and historical context. Markets, however, cannot be extricated from these contexts. They are embedded in them, and consequently, those exogenous forces have effects on markets that should be studied. I think studying and analyzing markets and the economy without these important variables has lead many right libertarians to unfortunately, and perhaps unwittingly, support the very institutions, laws, and policies they claim to be against.
Some libertarians support sweatshops, but are also against statism. Statism makes these sweatshops possible. The state represses the unions, the people cant leave the sweatshop country etc. Neoliberalisme, is liberalism plus a very strong state, to support the capitalists. A stateless capitalism never existed. A market anarchism, would probably be a sort of mutualism, or a small scale capitalism.
Ancaps also be like. Im an anarchist. But when punks squat one of my houses, than the state have to beat the punks out of my house.
Im against taxes, but the state should protect my property. This protection is paid with taxes. Taxes i dont pay, because im agaisnt taxes.
Its a movement full of confusion. A sign of the times, i gues.
"Too many free-market types want to pretend that economics alone—that is, absent insights from sociology, politics, or history—gives us all the explanation we need."
This is precisely the problem that I see so often in right libertarian economic thought (and from economists more generally). They study the economy and markets in a vacuum, divorced of their social, political, cultural, and historical context. Markets, however, cannot be extricated from these contexts. They are embedded in them, and consequently, those exogenous forces have effects on markets that should be studied. I think studying and analyzing markets and the economy without these important variables has lead many right libertarians to unfortunately, and perhaps unwittingly, support the very institutions, laws, and policies they claim to be against.
Some libertarians support sweatshops, but are also against statism. Statism makes these sweatshops possible. The state represses the unions, the people cant leave the sweatshop country etc. Neoliberalisme, is liberalism plus a very strong state, to support the capitalists. A stateless capitalism never existed. A market anarchism, would probably be a sort of mutualism, or a small scale capitalism.
Ancaps also be like. Im an anarchist. But when punks squat one of my houses, than the state have to beat the punks out of my house.
Im against taxes, but the state should protect my property. This protection is paid with taxes. Taxes i dont pay, because im agaisnt taxes.
Its a movement full of confusion. A sign of the times, i gues.
You know
i even knew ancaps that talked good about western colonialism and slavery.
So stupid. I mean, slavery is not very NAP.
Slavery and colonialism is the opposite of the NAP
So they be like: squating is wrong, i violates the NAP. But colonialism is good, because it made the world wealthy.
Its a confused little movement, full of narcissists.