Dr. Block in this video states "libel should be legal because it's a victimless crime".
It is in this statement that lies an inherent dissonance in Dr. Block's argument as to why he should be allowed to sue the NYT's. (and I think he should, but for different reasons than Block)
Very simply, if Block felt in no way a "victim" of the NYT's, what motivation would there be for his suit and why would he undertake it?
It's quite clear that every rational person here, including Block, knows there's been some damage/victimization...so it seems to fly in the face of his statement.
Even though I'm in a small minority of those that think reputation is property, because of its value(although social norms dictate it as such as well va "goodwill" as Dr. Block mentions), regardless of the fact that reputation is held distinctly by others as well as said individual- it is undeniable that there has been damage/victimization by the NYT's to most here- otherwise a suit would be unnecessary.
but Nick, its not some thing you possess, its how other people see you. when Jerry Wolfgang was here we all thought he was a dick and said so. could he sue for slander?
Libel results in "damage" yes, victims no. The two things are different. If I open a business that draws customers away from a competing business, or entice a girl away from her current boyfriend, my actions result in "damage" to that business and boyfriend in the sense that they are worse off. But as my actions are non-violent and fully respectful of property rights, I have committed no aggression and created no victims.
Moreover in a free society far more dependent on reputation, uncouth behavior like libel wouldn't be consequence free.
Block doesn't need a reason to go after the NYT if it is part of the state-supporting apparatus. Doing so is a mitzvah under any pretext. He could do so arbitrarily with full justification. The legal libel suit simply offers the additional motivation of extra personal satisfaction, potential financial and reputational benefit, and promotion of libertarian ideas.
"but Nick, its not some thing you possess, its how other people see you. when Jerry Wolfgang was here we all thought he was a dick and said so. could he sue for slander?"
The question in my mind, is if he did what would be the "damages"?
Telling someone they are a dick is going to be hard, nay, impossible to collect damages on.
Even if they say, "Well, it scarred me-I had to go to therapy, I want you to pay." it would be laughed out of a courtroom.
"Moreover in a free society far more dependent on reputation, uncouth behavior like libel wouldn't be consequence free."
Yes, I think you and I agree there.
"Block doesn't need a reason to go after the NYT"
Well on that one we disagree. You should always have a reason, that should ultimately lead back to a NAP violation. By Block's own argument(which I also disagree with, but really, I admire the man greatly and look to him in most other areas on libertarian thought) he claims that someone that incites violence(like the NYT's) is not guilty of a crime/NAP violation.
So in that context even, how can he violate the NAP if he perceives it as above just because the NYT's supports the regime?
"Libel results in "damage" yes, victims no."
I'm going to disagree partially, but not fully(which is good because we 50% agree!) with this too. For example, even if someone comes out with a better product than one I'm selling and I lose sales, I am still a victim...just not of a criminal act.
What the NYT's did IMO was criminal because it's "fraud"...and if Dr. Block can make a case for damages by quantifying/proving it in court he should be able to collect for that fraud.
I respect your view. I get the sense if we sat down and hashed out our definitions we might be in even more agreement.
“You should always have a reason, that should ultimately lead back to a NAP violation.”
Agreed, and well said. The argument here is that the state commits mass scale NAP violations every day. Any entity becomes a conspirator if it knowingly sells essential tools of aggression to an aggressor, in this case bartering intellectual rationalizations in exchange for state-granted journalistic leg-ups.
No joke, this week’s Paul Krugman article is titled, “Hating Good Government,” outright castigating anyone who does not love the government. I am not making this up. Such propaganda is an integral component of how the state successfully bamboozles the public at large into supporting its continued theft of their own (and our) property.
The intimate, exclusive, value-exchange relationships the cronyist NYT cultivates with the state is what makes its unbroken stream of pro-state positions not innocent errors of private opinion, not free speech of abstract ideas, but quid-pro-quo paid programming for the state delivering public support for specific acts of state aggression like QE and bombing Syria. Much as Goebbels may have never individually aggressed upon anyone and may even have genuinely believed some his own propaganda, he nevertheless shared guilt as a conspirator for his paid collaboration with the Nazi government enabling its aggressions.
‘What the NYT's did IMO was criminal because it's "fraud".’
I have yet to read Rothbard but my formative view is fraud can only occur in the context of a contract. Only when misrepresenting the terms of property exchange is there a problem.
I think if not an integral part of a contract or a scheme of aggression, lying in and of itself does not constitute a violation of anyone’s property rights. Thus libel is just speech.
"Much as Goebbels may have never individually aggressed upon anyone and may even have genuinely believed some his own propaganda, he nevertheless shared guilt as a conspirator for his paid collaboration with the Nazi government enabling its aggressions."
No question we agree on that sentiment, but Rothbard/Block's notion that "advocating for violence isn't a crime" has never sat well with me and even further in this context seems to contradict Block's reasoning for suing the NYT's.
"I have yet to read Rothbard but my formative view is fraud can only occur in the context of a contract. Only when misrepresenting the terms of property exchange is there a problem."
I'm specifically referring to it in a "civil wrong" sense, via wiki:
"In common law jurisdictions, as a civil wrong, fraud is referred to as a tort." and it further highlights "the requisite elements of fraud as a tort generally are the intentional misrepresentation or concealment of an important fact upon which the victim is meant to rely, and in fact does rely, to the harm of the victim."
I think it's safe to say the NYT's smear was #1 intentional and that #2 that Dr. Block relies on both the general public and his co-workers & his bosses to know the FACT that he is not pro involuntary slavery.
The question then becomes what the damages and/or what is the restitution. At the very minimum, it seems prudent that a retraction be enforced upon the NYT's at the least. (and proportional)
If his attorney is good enough and can show loss of speaking fees, etc., then actual monetary damages come into play and there's always the common law notion of punitive damages for intentional criminal actions.
I appreciate your well reasoned and thoughtful reply.
I too appreciate your well-reasoned and considered perspective.
‘Rothbard/Block's notion that "advocating for violence isn't a crime" has never sat well with me’
Yes, I too feel that free speech’s abutment with property rights needs further exploration. There are too many murky areas. However, we should remember discussion of any system of governance, pacifism excepted, constitutes advocacy of violence to one end or another.
‘I'm specifically referring to it in a "civil wrong" sense,’
Libertarian law maintains no distinction between criminal and civil wrongs. Either there is a victim suffering property loss at the hands of another via force or fraud or there is not.
I assert it is irrelevant whether the NYT smear was intentional or whether Block relies on his reputation. Moreover, the NYT’s liberal statist bias is no secret, and Block could have chosen to decline the interview out concern for how he might be portrayed.
But instead Block freely volunteered to express himself at length to an NYT reporter, raising provocative topics on the record for publication, subject to no conditions whatsoever. Yikes! Unprotected sex with the Old Gray Lady of ill-repute!
If only Block had insisted as a precondition that in exchange for the interview the NYT sign an agreement to certain standards and practices surrounding use of the material he was providing. Then yes, most definitely we could claim fraud. But there was no agreement of any kind. So there can be no fraud.
Real property violation is the sole basis for criminality. No other basis is. This has been extensively explored and justified in libertarian literature. “Harm” doesn’t even get out of the gate as a credible basis, as the subjective theory of value alone makes plain.
Nor can there be any positive obligation on media outlets to conduct costly research to back up any negative things they may say or insinuate. Besides, there is no need. Within a competitive free market for accurate news, publishing inaccurate stories will drive any newspaper out of business.
"Libertarian law maintains no distinction between criminal and civil wrongs. Either there is a victim suffering property loss at the hands of another via force or fraud or there is not."
I don't think we disagree here, what we disagree on is what the definition of property "is".
"But there was no agreement of any kind. So there can be no fraud."
Well, that's where we disagree. I believe there was an agreement. Let me try to make my case with you:
If I call a carpet cleaning company, have them come over and give me a quote to clean my carpets and then verbally engage them on the basis I would have clean carpets, and further when they cleaned them, they weren't "clean"...they would have engaged in fraud if they claimed they did clean them, right?(which is slightly different from non-performance)
Or, if I buy a car from someone and they say it has 100,000 miles on it but I find out later they have rewound the odometer and it has 250,000 miles on it too, that is fraud.
I don't even have to have a "written" contract, it's verbal and sometimes even subjective or implicit in the case of carpet cleaning.
Assuming you agree with the above, specifically in the implicit(not explicit) case of what is "clean" above, let's examine the NYT's in that context:
Under Fairness: "The goal of The New York Times is to cover the news as impartially as possible — “without fear or favor,”
Have they done that in Dr. Block's case?
The answer is undoubtedly "no".
Under "Integrity":
"We observe the Newsroom Integrity Statement, promulgated in 1999, which deals with such rudimentary professional practices as the importance of checking facts, the exactness of quotations, the integrity of photographs and our distaste for anonymous sourcing."
Has the NYT's checked facts in the case of Dr. Block?
Undoubtedly "no".
Under "Truth":
"Whatever the medium, we tell our audiences the complete, unvarnished truth as best we can learn it. We correct our errors explicitly as soon as we become aware of them."
Dr. Block has informed them of their errors, have they corrected them?
Again, no.
So here we have CLEAR STANDARDS under which the NYT's themselves have laid out, presumably so that both their readers and interview subjects understand what to expect when buying their product or being interviewed.
It, in my mind, is a very clear contract, which the NYT's has quite clearly "obligated" themselves to. They've put in writing EXACTLY what to expect and anyone dealing with them has a written record of what to implicitly rely on.
The NYT was deviously careful with its wording in the article, only by omission insinuating that Block was a racist. Here are the relevant sections:
'Walter Block, an economics professor at Loyola University in New Orleans who described slavery as “not so bad,” is also highly critical of the Civil Rights Act.' (True)
'One economist, while faulting slavery because it was involuntary, suggested in an interview that the daily life of the enslaved was “not so bad — you pick cotton and sing songs.”' (True.)
These are both descriptive, technically accurate statements. It is only by dint of the omission of Block’s libertarian track record and omission of his extensive other interview comments on slavery that in the mind of the average reader arises the impression that he is pro-slavery.
The NYT might argue to a libertarian court that it did indeed tell only the truth. Its public promise to be complete in telling the truth does not obligate it to forestall inaccurate presumptions in the minds of readers by publishing larger sections of auxiliary interviews than it otherwise would. Completeness is in the eye of the beholder and all parties know there are only so many column-inches available. Plus, this article was, after all, about Rand Paul, not Walter Block.
This behavior, of course, is journalistically reprehensible and abusive of the truth to the point of obscenity. Breathtaking, really. But we are not discussing morality. We are only discussing propertarian contract law as would be adjudicated in libertarian court. In that context, did the NYT commit fraud against Walter Block by violating terms of implicit contract created by declaring on its website it would tell the “complete” truth? I’ll just say you have moved me from “No,” to “Possibly, but good luck clearly establishing it.”
I'm confused. I thought Walter Block dropped his interest in suing the NYT. (http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2014/02/walter-block-has-decided-not-to-sue-nyt.html)
Has he changed his mind and is now interested in suing again?
This may open a novel possibility. The NYT could use as its defense the plaintiff Block's philosophical argument that libel should not be a crime at all and ask for either summary dismissal or for jury nullification.
That outcome could serve as a launchpad for putting libertarian discussions on the front pages. In that case the ironic hypocrisy generated would be well worth it. Who better than Block pull it off.
What is the criteria for identifying a member of the ruling class? Because using this line of logic, a libertarian can justify attacking Walmart since Walmart accepts government subsidies
I used to think “ruling class” was a paranoid conception until I realized it does not refer to any type of illuminati-style club with a secret handshake. The concept is just recognition that some people in certain positions face outsized incentives to use, support, and grow the state because doing so delivers to them significant net personal benefit. Trace back the laws to who stands to gain the most from their existence and you'll find your ruling class.
Think elitist individuals, with significant wealth, power, or privilege made possible only by the existence and favor of state, who are able to use their positions to defend, nurture, fund, and expand the state in return. Wall Street bankers, heads of government agencies, senior management of military suppliers, heads of universities sustained by state grants and cronyist job offers, heads of media outlets receiving privileged “unnamed-source” information from and exclusive interview access to state officials.
Hoppe discusses the ruling class’s use of the state for obtaining wealth without having to produce it in this excellent paper: http://mises.org/library/marxist-and-austrian-class-analysis-1
To a certain extent all large corporations are suspect as they all enjoy outsized benefit from exemption from liability and economies of scale covering state-imposed overhead costs (tax reporting, workplace safety, licensing, labor laws).
But on the whole I’d say Walmart is not a major net beneficiary of significant state advantage. It certainly pays more in taxes than it gains from any government subsidies it accepts. Walmart doesn’t rely on government to run its business and makes money primarily from its expertise in procurement and distribution. Nowadays retailing is a fairly unregulated and competitive industry. Walmart executives would probably be pleased if the state were to disappear and would probably thrive in a free market. On this basis, Walmart does not qualify as ruling class.
Professor Block has always been tedious to me, now he seems to have become unhinged. As long as Lew Rockwell likes him, though, he'll continue to be a spokesman for "libertarianism", whatever that is these days, no matter how incoherent he becomes.
Not sure how Walter Block could say that a reporter is evil. What are the presuppositions that he uses to make that judgment?
ReplyDeleteDr. Block in this video states "libel should be legal because it's a victimless crime".
ReplyDeleteIt is in this statement that lies an inherent dissonance in Dr. Block's argument as to why he should be allowed to sue the NYT's. (and I think he should, but for different reasons than Block)
Very simply, if Block felt in no way a "victim" of the NYT's, what motivation would there be for his suit and why would he undertake it?
It's quite clear that every rational person here, including Block, knows there's been some damage/victimization...so it seems to fly in the face of his statement.
Even though I'm in a small minority of those that think reputation is property, because of its value(although social norms dictate it as such as well va "goodwill" as Dr. Block mentions), regardless of the fact that reputation is held distinctly by others as well as said individual- it is undeniable that there has been damage/victimization by the NYT's to most here- otherwise a suit would be unnecessary.
but Nick, its not some thing you possess, its how other people see you. when Jerry Wolfgang was here we all thought he was a dick and said so. could he sue for slander?
DeleteLibel results in "damage" yes, victims no. The two things are different. If I open a business that draws customers away from a competing business, or entice a girl away from her current boyfriend, my actions result in "damage" to that business and boyfriend in the sense that they are worse off. But as my actions are non-violent and fully respectful of property rights, I have committed no aggression and created no victims.
DeleteMoreover in a free society far more dependent on reputation, uncouth behavior like libel wouldn't be consequence free.
Block doesn't need a reason to go after the NYT if it is part of the state-supporting apparatus. Doing so is a mitzvah under any pretext. He could do so arbitrarily with full justification. The legal libel suit simply offers the additional motivation of extra personal satisfaction, potential financial and reputational benefit, and promotion of libertarian ideas.
"but Nick, its not some thing you possess, its how other people see you. when Jerry Wolfgang was here we all thought he was a dick and said so. could he sue for slander?"
DeleteThe question in my mind, is if he did what would be the "damages"?
Telling someone they are a dick is going to be hard, nay, impossible to collect damages on.
Even if they say, "Well, it scarred me-I had to go to therapy, I want you to pay." it would be laughed out of a courtroom.
"Moreover in a free society far more dependent on reputation, uncouth behavior like libel wouldn't be consequence free."
Yes, I think you and I agree there.
"Block doesn't need a reason to go after the NYT"
Well on that one we disagree. You should always have a reason, that should ultimately lead back to a NAP violation. By Block's own argument(which I also disagree with, but really, I admire the man greatly and look to him in most other areas on libertarian thought) he claims that someone that incites violence(like the NYT's) is not guilty of a crime/NAP violation.
So in that context even, how can he violate the NAP if he perceives it as above just because the NYT's supports the regime?
"Libel results in "damage" yes, victims no."
I'm going to disagree partially, but not fully(which is good because we 50% agree!) with this too. For example, even if someone comes out with a better product than one I'm selling and I lose sales, I am still a victim...just not of a criminal act.
What the NYT's did IMO was criminal because it's "fraud"...and if Dr. Block can make a case for damages by quantifying/proving it in court he should be able to collect for that fraud.
I respect your view. I get the sense if we sat down and hashed out our definitions we might be in even more agreement.
Delete“You should always have a reason, that should ultimately lead back to a NAP violation.”
Agreed, and well said. The argument here is that the state commits mass scale NAP violations every day. Any entity becomes a conspirator if it knowingly sells essential tools of aggression to an aggressor, in this case bartering intellectual rationalizations in exchange for state-granted journalistic leg-ups.
No joke, this week’s Paul Krugman article is titled, “Hating Good Government,” outright castigating anyone who does not love the government. I am not making this up. Such propaganda is an integral component of how the state successfully bamboozles the public at large into supporting its continued theft of their own (and our) property.
The intimate, exclusive, value-exchange relationships the cronyist NYT cultivates with the state is what makes its unbroken stream of pro-state positions not innocent errors of private opinion, not free speech of abstract ideas, but quid-pro-quo paid programming for the state delivering public support for specific acts of state aggression like QE and bombing Syria. Much as Goebbels may have never individually aggressed upon anyone and may even have genuinely believed some his own propaganda, he nevertheless shared guilt as a conspirator for his paid collaboration with the Nazi government enabling its aggressions.
‘What the NYT's did IMO was criminal because it's "fraud".’
I have yet to read Rothbard but my formative view is fraud can only occur in the context of a contract. Only when misrepresenting the terms of property exchange is there a problem.
I think if not an integral part of a contract or a scheme of aggression, lying in and of itself does not constitute a violation of anyone’s property rights. Thus libel is just speech.
"Much as Goebbels may have never individually aggressed upon anyone and may even have genuinely believed some his own propaganda, he nevertheless shared guilt as a conspirator for his paid collaboration with the Nazi government enabling its aggressions."
DeleteNo question we agree on that sentiment, but Rothbard/Block's notion that "advocating for violence isn't a crime" has never sat well with me and even further in this context seems to contradict Block's reasoning for suing the NYT's.
"I have yet to read Rothbard but my formative view is fraud can only occur in the context of a contract. Only when misrepresenting the terms of property exchange is there a problem."
I'm specifically referring to it in a "civil wrong" sense, via wiki:
"In common law jurisdictions, as a civil wrong, fraud is referred to as a tort." and it further highlights "the requisite elements of fraud as a tort generally are the intentional misrepresentation or concealment of an important fact upon which the victim is meant to rely, and in fact does rely, to the harm of the victim."
I think it's safe to say the NYT's smear was #1 intentional and that #2 that Dr. Block relies on both the general public and his co-workers & his bosses to know the FACT that he is not pro involuntary slavery.
The question then becomes what the damages and/or what is the restitution. At the very minimum, it seems prudent that a retraction be enforced upon the NYT's at the least. (and proportional)
If his attorney is good enough and can show loss of speaking fees, etc., then actual monetary damages come into play and there's always the common law notion of punitive damages for intentional criminal actions.
I appreciate your well reasoned and thoughtful reply.
I too appreciate your well-reasoned and considered perspective.
Delete‘Rothbard/Block's notion that "advocating for violence isn't a crime" has never sat well with me’
Yes, I too feel that free speech’s abutment with property rights needs further exploration. There are too many murky areas. However, we should remember discussion of any system of governance, pacifism excepted, constitutes advocacy of violence to one end or another.
‘I'm specifically referring to it in a "civil wrong" sense,’
Libertarian law maintains no distinction between criminal and civil wrongs. Either there is a victim suffering property loss at the hands of another via force or fraud or there is not.
I assert it is irrelevant whether the NYT smear was intentional or whether Block relies on his reputation. Moreover, the NYT’s liberal statist bias is no secret, and Block could have chosen to decline the interview out concern for how he might be portrayed.
But instead Block freely volunteered to express himself at length to an NYT reporter, raising provocative topics on the record for publication, subject to no conditions whatsoever. Yikes! Unprotected sex with the Old Gray Lady of ill-repute!
If only Block had insisted as a precondition that in exchange for the interview the NYT sign an agreement to certain standards and practices surrounding use of the material he was providing. Then yes, most definitely we could claim fraud. But there was no agreement of any kind. So there can be no fraud.
Real property violation is the sole basis for criminality. No other basis is. This has been extensively explored and justified in libertarian literature. “Harm” doesn’t even get out of the gate as a credible basis, as the subjective theory of value alone makes plain.
Nor can there be any positive obligation on media outlets to conduct costly research to back up any negative things they may say or insinuate. Besides, there is no need. Within a competitive free market for accurate news, publishing inaccurate stories will drive any newspaper out of business.
"Libertarian law maintains no distinction between criminal and civil wrongs. Either there is a victim suffering property loss at the hands of another via force or fraud or there is not."
DeleteI don't think we disagree here, what we disagree on is what the definition of property "is".
"But there was no agreement of any kind. So there can be no fraud."
Well, that's where we disagree. I believe there was an agreement. Let me try to make my case with you:
If I call a carpet cleaning company, have them come over and give me a quote to clean my carpets and then verbally engage them on the basis I would have clean carpets, and further when they cleaned them, they weren't "clean"...they would have engaged in fraud if they claimed they did clean them, right?(which is slightly different from non-performance)
Or, if I buy a car from someone and they say it has 100,000 miles on it but I find out later they have rewound the odometer and it has 250,000 miles on it too, that is fraud.
I don't even have to have a "written" contract, it's verbal and sometimes even subjective or implicit in the case of carpet cleaning.
Assuming you agree with the above, specifically in the implicit(not explicit) case of what is "clean" above, let's examine the NYT's in that context:
Here are the NYT's "Standards & Ethics":
http://www.nytco.com/who-we-are/culture/standards-and-ethics/
Under Fairness: "The goal of The New York Times is to cover the news as impartially as possible — “without fear or favor,”
Have they done that in Dr. Block's case?
The answer is undoubtedly "no".
Under "Integrity":
"We observe the Newsroom Integrity Statement, promulgated in 1999, which deals with such rudimentary professional practices as the importance of checking facts, the exactness of quotations, the integrity of photographs and our distaste for anonymous sourcing."
Has the NYT's checked facts in the case of Dr. Block?
Undoubtedly "no".
Under "Truth":
"Whatever the medium, we tell our audiences the complete, unvarnished truth as best we can learn it. We correct our errors explicitly as soon as we become aware of them."
Dr. Block has informed them of their errors, have they corrected them?
Again, no.
So here we have CLEAR STANDARDS under which the NYT's themselves have laid out, presumably so that both their readers and interview subjects understand what to expect when buying their product or being interviewed.
It, in my mind, is a very clear contract, which the NYT's has quite clearly "obligated" themselves to. They've put in writing EXACTLY what to expect and anyone dealing with them has a written record of what to implicitly rely on.
What do you think?
[continuing]
DeleteThe NYT was deviously careful with its wording in the article, only by omission insinuating that Block was a racist. Here are the relevant sections:
'Walter Block, an economics professor at Loyola University in New Orleans who described slavery as “not so bad,” is also highly critical of the Civil Rights Act.' (True)
'One economist, while faulting slavery because it was involuntary, suggested in an interview that the daily life of the enslaved was “not so bad — you pick cotton and sing songs.”' (True.)
These are both descriptive, technically accurate statements. It is only by dint of the omission of Block’s libertarian track record and omission of his extensive other interview comments on slavery that in the mind of the average reader arises the impression that he is pro-slavery.
The NYT might argue to a libertarian court that it did indeed tell only the truth. Its public promise to be complete in telling the truth does not obligate it to forestall inaccurate presumptions in the minds of readers by publishing larger sections of auxiliary interviews than it otherwise would. Completeness is in the eye of the beholder and all parties know there are only so many column-inches available. Plus, this article was, after all, about Rand Paul, not Walter Block.
This behavior, of course, is journalistically reprehensible and abusive of the truth to the point of obscenity. Breathtaking, really. But we are not discussing morality. We are only discussing propertarian contract law as would be adjudicated in libertarian court. In that context, did the NYT commit fraud against Walter Block by violating terms of implicit contract created by declaring on its website it would tell the “complete” truth? I’ll just say you have moved me from “No,” to “Possibly, but good luck clearly establishing it.”
" I’ll just say you have moved me from “No,” to “Possibly, but good luck clearly establishing it.”
DeleteThat's a reasonable position, let's hope he's got a good attorney.
I'm confused. I thought Walter Block dropped his interest in suing the NYT. (http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2014/02/walter-block-has-decided-not-to-sue-nyt.html)
ReplyDeleteHas he changed his mind and is now interested in suing again?
This may open a novel possibility. The NYT could use as its defense the plaintiff Block's philosophical argument that libel should not be a crime at all and ask for either summary dismissal or for jury nullification.
ReplyDeleteThat outcome could serve as a launchpad for putting libertarian discussions on the front pages. In that case the ironic hypocrisy generated would be well worth it. Who better than Block pull it off.
What is the criteria for identifying a member of the ruling class? Because using this line of logic, a libertarian can justify attacking Walmart since Walmart accepts government subsidies
ReplyDeleteI used to think “ruling class” was a paranoid conception until I realized it does not refer to any type of illuminati-style club with a secret handshake. The concept is just recognition that some people in certain positions face outsized incentives to use, support, and grow the state because doing so delivers to them significant net personal benefit. Trace back the laws to who stands to gain the most from their existence and you'll find your ruling class.
ReplyDeleteThink elitist individuals, with significant wealth, power, or privilege made possible only by the existence and favor of state, who are able to use their positions to defend, nurture, fund, and expand the state in return. Wall Street bankers, heads of government agencies, senior management of military suppliers, heads of universities sustained by state grants and cronyist job offers, heads of media outlets receiving privileged “unnamed-source” information from and exclusive interview access to state officials.
Hoppe discusses the ruling class’s use of the state for obtaining wealth without having to produce it in this excellent paper: http://mises.org/library/marxist-and-austrian-class-analysis-1
To a certain extent all large corporations are suspect as they all enjoy outsized benefit from exemption from liability and economies of scale covering state-imposed overhead costs (tax reporting, workplace safety, licensing, labor laws).
But on the whole I’d say Walmart is not a major net beneficiary of significant state advantage. It certainly pays more in taxes than it gains from any government subsidies it accepts. Walmart doesn’t rely on government to run its business and makes money primarily from its expertise in procurement and distribution. Nowadays retailing is a fairly unregulated and competitive industry. Walmart executives would probably be pleased if the state were to disappear and would probably thrive in a free market. On this basis, Walmart does not qualify as ruling class.
Professor Block has always been tedious to me, now he seems to have become unhinged. As long as Lew Rockwell likes him, though, he'll continue to be a spokesman for "libertarianism", whatever that is these days, no matter how incoherent he becomes.
ReplyDelete