Table
of Contents
1. Introduction
2. The Blending of the Public and Private Sectors
3. Responsibly Reducing Businesses' Burdens
4. “Property is Impossible” (-P.J. Proudhon)
5. Boycotts and Discrimination
Content
1.
Introduction
I
am glad to see progressive Democrats increasingly consider radical
and even libertarian ideas, as well as systems like socialism and
democratic socialism, in the last several years.
While
I may not always agree with them, I welcome the representation of
these views, because that representation widens the range of
acceptable debate, which is necessary to create a safe environment
for free speech to flourish, and for people to become aware of many
different ways of living.
I
am glad to see that more Democrats are getting fed up with House
Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Her refusal to consider impeaching George W.
Bush, and then Donald Trump, have made her someone I could never
support. Her refusal to impeach Bush in 2006 is probably what made me
stop supporting the Democratic Party. I had supported for Kerry in
2004, but also admired Nader more at the time, but I wasn't eligible
to vote, so that's beside the point.
I
appreciate that more and more progressive and left-leaning media
sources are calling attention to the neoliberal establishment of the
Democratic Party's support of crony capitalism. I especially admire
Jimmy Dore, a Chicago-born, L.A.-based comedian turned political
commentator and podcaster, who has been putting out progressive
content with a lot of potential crossover appeal to libertarians.
Dore has admitted on his show to admiring Senator Rand Paul's foreign
policy, but not so much his domestic policy.
I
wrote the following article as an email to Mr. Dore about what
progressives and libertarians have in common, but also about what
they both get wrong about private property. Namely, how private
property is protected, what happens when property owners invite the
state to help protect their property, and whether most “private
property” in America today is truly as private as people think it
is.
Another
goal of this piece was to explain how to criticize right-libertarians
(that is, staunchly pro- private property libertarians; or
propertarians), but also what to criticize them about, and
what arguments they are right about. I intend this advice as a way to
potentially moderate right-libertarians, and encourage them to
consider aligning, even if only temporarily, with radical
progressives and socialists, in order to create a united front
against the fascists in charge.
This
piece also contains advice about how radical progressives can
successfully caution other progressives about the risks associated
with having the federal government – or any government –
have too much power; to be too large in size and scope, that it
interferes with the economy, and with people's personal lives
(especially in regard to property, enterprise, and income).
The
above has been a summary of my introduction to that email.
What
follows – in Sections #2 through #5 of this article – is the main
body of the email, which concerns itself with libertarian and
progressive views on property, as well as my own views, which are
guided by the principles of radical libertarianism, market-anarchism,
and mutualist-anarchism.
I
have expanded on some points, where necessary to further clarify my
points,
2. The Blending of the Public and Private Sectors
I think Libertarians are correct to point out (although they don't do it nearly often enough) that the billionaires and large corporations that are lobbying for favorable legislation, got all of their privileges and protections from the government in the first place. Amazon and Facebook, for example, both have CIA contracts. It might even be fair to argue, also, that high taxes drive the desire for high profits (to offset the cost of taxes).
However,
that
doesn't mean the government is the source of all
things evil about the business world. After all, our government was
bought-out by private business interests a whole century ago; the
same interests that promote wars, and whose propaganda is taught in
"public" schools. We don't have a
government that's subservient to the people; they're subservient to
"private" banks.
But
remember, a bank – or any company, for that matter – isn't really
"private" unless it receives zero taxpayer
subsidies, zero government assistance of any kind. No patents,
no trade subsidies, no tariffs or professional licensing regulation
that hurts competitors, no discounts on public utilities, no police
protection of physical property, no bank account insurance, no L.L.C.
status to confer legal and financial protections, zero.
Glass-Steagall is OK, but why bring back Glass-Steagall, when we
could simply stop insuring deposits at taxpayer expense
altogether?
For
that matter, if "public" schools are supposed to be truly
public, then they should obviously stop teaching propaganda that was
written by for-profit private companies.
"Public
sector vs. private sector" is all we talk about these days. Few
people ever mention non-profits (and the "non-profit third
sector", or "voluntary sector"), or cooperatives, or
club goods, or "the commons" as economic sectors, or forms
of ownership, unto themselves. That's why I think all the focus is on
the "public" government (which masquerades as, and steals
from, the commons) or the "private" corporations (which
receive public assistance, but pretend to care about privacy,
personal ownership, and individual rights).
3.
Responsibly Reducing Businesses' Burdens
If
Libertarians want a company to be truly "private" – that
is, to have a lower taxation and regulatory burden as a result of
that privacy, and that lower degree of association with the
government – then the company should simply give up all of
those cronyist privileges. Private owners and for-profit firms must
realize that a sizeable segment of the public will simply refuse to
do business with minimally-regulated firms, because they believe them
to be irresponsible.
But
then again, the government also needs to give companies the
chance to survive without those privileges. Like by leaving
them to pave their own roads leading to their properties (instead of
getting the taxpayers to pay for the roads, and then getting some of
those taxpayers build them as well). And by allowing businesses to
develop their own alternative energy sources, or collect solar power
on-site, so that they don't have to depend on the public energy grid
– nor on discounts therefore, nor on discounts for internet service
– in order to balance their budgets.
Therefore,
fortunately, there is a way to allow private owners and
for-profit firms to take risks, without it risking harm to the
public, or to non-consenting people, and without destroying the free
market: Don't let the state protect property, don't let the state
protect rights to profit nor to trade, and don't let the state make
taxpayers responsible for insuring the deposits of any firms
whatsoever!
If a business wants to pay lower taxes, then there are already ways to do that: stop using a for-profit model that yields the kind of gains that the government would want to tax in the first place. Businesses should be given a choice between 1) giving up their profits, 2) re-investing them into their company (such that there are no profits, after all is said and done), and/or 3) operating as a non-profit or not-for-profit, or a cooperative, or a mutual firm.
If
we can eliminate all forms of privilege for businesses – and take
steps to recoup our legally stolen losses from the Wall Street
bailouts (and all the other bailouts over the years) and give them
back to the people – then we can let individuals develop
non-profit, de-politicized alternatives to politicized public
institutions, through voluntary association and voluntary exchange,
rather than through government direction.
And
that will bring development, and growth of businesses, in a way that
helps employees and consumers, rather than simply doing whatever a
corrupt government agrees with a set of corrupt businessmen they
should do, while taxpayers foot the bill.
As a Libertarian, and as an admirer of the Constitution and the ideals of a free market and voluntary exchange, I think that if government simply didn't have the power to bail companies out (and to offer them other forms of government assistance) in the first place, then we would not have nearly as many people sucking up to the cults of money and big business.
Most
importantly (at least as far as the topic of property is concerned),
we would not have as many people sucking up to the existing set of
enforced property claims, which embodies a massive disparity in
ownership of physical wealth.
In
a stateless market system, or if the government's authority to
intervene in matters of economy and property were much more strictly
limited, we would have a market that is truly based on meritocracy.
We are told that our current system does reward merit, but the number
of people incarcerated for victimless crimes, and the number of
people arrested for intellectual property theft, show that government
often has nonsensical rules about what forms of economic activity are
legal and respectable.
4.
“Property is Impossible” (-P.J. Proudhon)
Right-libertarians often need to be reminded that when "private" businesses expect police assistance, or favorable legislation (as in Jim Crow Laws) to help them "protect their property" – i.e., enforce their right to discriminate against whomever they please – they are really relying on a form of public assistance, and that fact renders the company not “private” at all. Which renders moot any claim that the companies are independent, or self-sustaining, or should be allowed to do whatever they want on "their own" property.
Also,
taking public assistance renders companies subject to the law. Most
importantly, federal laws regarding keeping interstate commerce
"regulated" or "regular"; that is, free from
obstructions and interferences, like states protecting and favoring
their own domestic products and labor over those of other states.
Maybe
if Libertarians understood that very little property is actually
private, then it would become clear to them that property ownership
is enforced, determined, limited, and conditioned by the approval of
society. Unanimous societal approval is the only thing,
besides the state, which will ever be effective when it comes to
acknowledging and respecting a person's property claim.
In
a free society, even one or two people challenging the value
or validity of someone's property claim, would have to be heard. Just
as in a free market, each market actor has some say in influencing
prices, only unanimity, or near unanimity, would guarantee the
protection of property claims, without necessitating a domineering
state to, well... frankly, get rid of those one or two
dissenters, and scare everyone into forgetting about their
disappearance.
No
homestead, and no piece of property bought from the government and
registered by one of its agencies, can ever be said to be truly
private, unless the government (if it exists) agrees to be neutral
on property, and agrees to place the burden of protecting the claim
on the claimant himself (who might try to outsource this
responsibility to others, through employing security guards,
mercenaries, etc.). And that outsourcing of responsibility is
a negative externality, which free market supporters ought to be
against.
If
right-libertarians can be made to understand these things, then there
is a chance that they will stop demanding that struggling poor
individuals lose their government assistance as a precondition of
businesses losing theirs. I agree with Rand Paul that we should not
cut one dime from the social safety net until we get rid of corporate
welfare, and I think that if the Libertarian Party cannot get on
board with that, then it is positioning itself to the right of the
Republican Party, which I think sends a message to voters that we are
unsympathetic and unelectable.
Republicans
are already trying to limit what S.N.A.P. (Food Stamps)
recipients can buy – from subsidized food companies, mind you
– so why elect Libertarians when they might do the very same
thing? Do you want the government to coerce you into a state of
dependence by stealing your money and giving it to its friends, and
then deciding what you can and can't buy with the Food Stamps card
they bought for you with your own stolen money? That doesn't sound
like freedom to me.
If
Libertarians cannot recognize that most recipients of government
assistance were pressured into accepting assistance – through
having to conform to the law, and the monetary and hourly wage labor
systems established through that law – then they might as well
admit that they have fallen for the idea that the state can legalize
its own coercion, and that coercion by businesses (including
lobbying) is harmless. One simply cannot believe that and call
oneself a libertarian.
5.
Boycotts and Discrimination
If a business takes assistance (like L.L.C. status, S.B.A. loans, F.D.I.C. insurance, trademarks, etc.), and stays open to customers from other states, then it should rightfully be subject to federal laws against discrimination in interstate commerce and public accommodations.
If
this idea became formally codified in law – instead of just
sloppily inferred from the outcome of the Heart of Atlanta Motel v.
U.S. decision – then it would become clear to Libertarians and
Republicans that if a company accepts public assistance and is
involved in interstate commerce, then it is undeniably in the
business of "public accommodations", and therefore should
not be allowed to discriminate against the public.
Radical
progressives will probably not like what I am about to suggest,
because it gives so much wiggle room to the pro-property idea. But
perhaps it's time to give property owners an ultimatum.
If
they want to discriminate, or reserve the full right to kick anybody
off of their property that they want for any reason (and without
giving a reason), then they should have to give up all of the
benefits that they're getting from the government.
No
business should be free to discriminate against – or boycott
(depending on how you look at it) – a customer, who is unable to
discriminate against, and boycott, that business.
Granted,
no particular recipient of government assistance is specifically
coerced into depending on any one particular subsidized firm, but the
only firms that exist are subsidized or protected in one way or
another, so welfare recipients are coerced into dependence upon one
subsidized business or another.
Moreover,
businesses that sell to welfare recipients have the option to give up
subsidies and monopoly privileges, and cease reaping profit, as a way
to avoid submitting to so much regulation and taxation. So businesses
cannot rightfully argue that they are in any way obligated to serve
people who are on government assistance. And certainly not any more
than the people on assistance are being obligated to serve some set
of those subsidized firms (from among which they have a limited
ability to choose, because of coercive state intervention in business
and in property protection).
Additionally,
individuals are simply not
eligible
for anywhere
near as
many government contracts, favors, protections, subsidies, loans,
titles, tax credits, and monopoly privileges as businesses are. The
idea that a person considering requesting government assistance, has
as much ability to oppress a business as a business does to oppress
him, is ludicrous.
Libertarians
can say all they want that both
the social safety net and
corporate
welfare need to be eliminated, and they're correct. But now is not
the time to pretend that, if we were faced with a choice between
abolishing the military-industrial complex or abolishing the Food
Stamps program, we should simply flip a coin.
Libertarians
who are ambivalent in this manner look insane
to the average voter, and to the average progressive. And they don't look too intelligent to myself
as a Libertarian Party member.
Introduction Written on January 26th, 2019
Original Email Written on January 24th, 2019
Originally Published on January 26th, 2019
Originally Published Under the Title
"What Neither Radical Progressives Nor Right-Libertarians
Understand About Legal Recognition of Property Rights"
Title Changed on February 7th, 2019
Originally Published Under the Title
"What Neither Radical Progressives Nor Right-Libertarians
Understand About Legal Recognition of Property Rights"
Title Changed on February 7th, 2019
Meme created in January 2018
and added on September 7th, 2021
and added on September 7th, 2021
