MCViewPoint

Opinion from a Libertarian ViewPoint

Posts Tagged ‘Anarcho-Capitalists’

TGIF: Efficient Bureaucracy?

Posted by M. C. on January 10, 2025

The real bosses, in the capitalist system of market economy, are the consumers. They, by their buying and by their abstention from buying, decide who should own the capital and run the plants. They determine what should be produced and in what quantity and quality. Their attitudes result either in profit or in loss for the enterpriser. They make poor men rich and rich men poor. They are no easy bosses.

https://libertarianinstitute.org/articles/tgif-efficient-bureaucracy/

by Sheldon Richman

bureaucracy

With all the talk about government efficiency, it would be useful to remind ourselves why bureaucracies differ radically from for-profit businesses. Ludwig von Mises devoted a short but enlightening volume to this subject in 1944, Bureaucracy. Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy, who will co-chair the nongovernmental Department of Government Efficiency, should do some homework by reading that book.

Mises, as an advocate of limited government, did not argue that bureaucracy has no place in a free society. In contrast to anarcho-capitalists, he thought government and therefore some bureaucracy was necessary to protect what he valued most: peaceful social cooperation through the division of labor—that is, the market economy. Violence against persons and property was clearly antithetical to the continuing welfare-enhancing collaboration we call the market process. But Mises did not want bureaucracies trying to do what free, private, and competitive enterprises could do better. Moreover, if the government went beyond its mere peacekeeping duties, it would undermine the market process and make us all less well off despite any good intentions.

Mises began by reminding readers (or perhaps teaching them from scratch) what the free market is and what it accomplishes. It’s a great primer for those who lack the time to read his longer works. He wrote:

Capitalism or market economy is that system of social cooperation and division of labor that is based on private ownership of the means of production. The material factors of production are owned by individual citizens, the capitalists and the landowners. The plants and the farms are operated by the entrepreneurs and the farmers, that is, by individuals or associations of individuals who either themselves own the capital and the soil or have borrowed or rented them from the owners. Free enterprise is the characteristic feature of capitalism. The objective of every enterpriser—whether businessman or farmer—is to make profit.

The uninitiated might ask who runs things. He replied: “The capitalists, the enterprisers, and the farmers are instrumental in the conduct of economic affairs. They are at the helm and steer the ship.”

However, let’s not jump to conclusions about who really runs things, Mises advsed:

But [the capitalists, etc.] are not free to shape [the ship’s] course. They are not supreme, they are steersmen only, bound to obey unconditionally the captain’s orders. The captain is the consumer.

Neither the capitalists nor the entrepreneurs nor the farmers determine what has to be produced. The consumers do that. The producers do not produce for their own consumption but for the market. They are intent on selling their products. If the consumers do not buy the goods offered to them, the businessman cannot recover the outlays made. He loses his money. If he fails to adjust his procedure to the wishes of the consumers, he will very soon be removed from his eminent position at the helm. Other men who did better in satisfying the demand of the consumers replace him.

All the conventional controversy about bosses and workers overlooks the critical point:

See the rest here

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

Doug Casey on How Milei Could Make Argentina a Beacon of Freedom and Prosperity

Posted by M. C. on December 2, 2023

by Doug Casey

Doug Casey: Milei’s election is a big deal—potentially a very, very big deal. He’s the first declared anarcho-capitalist in history to head any country. And not by stealth. He, all the while, said that the State is the enemy and should be abolished. Anarcho-capitalists believe that society can run itself without a State, which is a formalized instrument of coercion.

Javier Milei and Argentina

International Man: Javier Milei made history by becoming the world’s first anarcho-capitalist president.

What is the historical significance of his victory? Are you optimistic?

Doug Casey: Milei’s election is a big deal—potentially a very, very big deal. He’s the first declared anarcho-capitalist in history to head any country. And not by stealth. He, all the while, said that the State is the enemy and should be abolished. Anarcho-capitalists believe that society can run itself without a State, which is a formalized instrument of coercion.

It’s unprecedented for somebody to be elected to run a State that he wants to abolish. And propose that if it continues to exist, it should only have the police, military, and the courts. And even those should be privatized.

Am I optimistic?

Looking at it from a long-term point of view, for the last hundred years, individual freedom has been diminishing, and State power has grown hugely all over the world. What’s worse is that the trend is accelerating. Many countries are on the ragged edge of turning into socialist or fascist dictatorships.

That includes the US. Since Reagan left office, all of our presidents have been disasters of various types, with the current regime being the worst yet. In Argentina, the Peronists have run the country completely into the ground over the last 75 years.

Of course, maybe Milei’s election is just an uptick in a continuing downtrend because you can’t change a country’s national philosophy overnight. But destroying a State apparatus infested by Peronists, socialists, fascists, and other horrible parasites is a good start. If he can pull the apparatus of the State out by its roots, not just trim it back, the result might last for quite a while.

I’m encouraged by the fact that young people and poor people are among his biggest supporters. They recognize that they’re the ones who the State damages the most. Could Argentina be the start of a worldwide trend towards free minds and free markets?

Since I prefer to believe humans are basically decent, I can’t help being optimistic—even if cautiously. He’s going to get lots of resistance from the Deep State, unions, the media, welfare queens, and other “usual suspects.”

International Man: Perhaps there is no issue more important in Argentina than money.

Milei has promised to “burn down the central bank” and replace the peso with the US dollar. He has made statements favorable to eliminating all legal tender laws and allowing whatever commodity the free market would choose as money—though he hasn’t articulated his exact plans.

What do you think Milei should do regarding the money issue? What are the risks of adopting the US dollar and not having any monetary alternatives?

Doug Casey: First of all, he totally understands the government shouldn’t be in the money business. I know that shocks most people to hear, but trusting the government with money is like trusting a teenager with a Corvette and a bottle of Jack Daniels.

See the rest here

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Which Aspect of Government Do Anarcho-Capitalists Favor? | The Libertarian Institute

Posted by M. C. on March 23, 2023

Every fiber of our being cries out against the central state in Washington DC.

Far too many crave it.

https://libertarianinstitute.org/articles/which-aspect-of-government-do-anarcho-capitalists-favor/

by Walter E. Block

uncle sam magazine cover

The short answer to that question, and an accurate one, is none of the above. That is the very definition of this philosophical perspective: the state is merely a gang of robbers and murderers, and the ideal is to banish it entirely.

States Mr. Libertarian on this matter: “…if you wish to know how libertarians regard the State and any of its acts, simply think of the State as a criminal band, and all of the libertarian attitudes will logically fall into place.”

However, there is indeed an entirely different and also a proper way to answer that question: whichever aspect of it is most compatible with the libertarian ideal of non-initiatory aggression and private property rights is favored by libertarians in any specific case.

For example, during the New Deal, Franklin Delano Roosevelt was for a time balked by the Supreme Court. The former tried to implement a socialist policy, and the latter was having none of it, continually finding his initiatives unconstitutional. FDR threatened court packing and the nine justices caved in.

What, pray tell, would be the radical libertarian position on this matter? Obviously, to favor the Supreme Court. That is, only in comparison to the president in this case. The support would thus be a relative one. Supporters of economic freedom would rank the initial behavior of the nine justices higher than that of Roosevelt.

Take another case. President Reagan threatened the mayor and City Council of New York City that if the latter strengthened its rent control laws, the federal government would withhold funds from the Big Apple. We stipulate, arguendo, that rent control is an unjustified uncompensated “taking” from landlords, and thus per se unjustified (it also ruins the housing stock of any jurisdiction which implements this policy). Where does the libertarian fall out on this one? In an instance of “strange bedfellows” the supporter of property rights sides with the federal government. Again, not absolutely, of course, only relative to the city authorities.

What about drug legalization? Oregon has decriminalized not only marijuana, but cocaine as well. The federales have not even made legal the former, except for medicinal purposes. On which side of this disparity does the freedom philosophy come down on? Obviously, the former. Hooray for the Beaver State! It is a rights violation to interfere with what adults place into their bodies, on a voluntary basis.

See the rest here

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »