Skip to content

Fighting Free Market Fundamentalism

October 21, 2012

laveyThe Free Market Fundamentalism that Libertarianism is famous for is simply wrong. Free Markets are a means to an end, not a goal in themselves: to allow efficiency and equitable access to all in society. It’s quite clear that markets can easily go overboard and they need to be managed, just like all human enterprises and public spaces.

This is is not to say that Libertarians don’t make a decent point in their analysis of the perverse consequences of many Government regulations. They do. It’s undoubtedly fair to say that many Governmental interventions do more damage than they do good.

Producers and consumers should be able to interact with as little interference as possible.

Also, it’s undoubtedly true that Governmental tyranny has been an unmitigated disaster for mankind throughout the ages.

However, Austrianism completely ignores the monopolistic tendencies of capitalism and puts all the blame for monopolies on Governments being used by corporate elites to create cartels and monopolies. Why they don’t blame the owners of these monopolies remains an open question.

It is also amazingly simpleminded to assume that these monopolies would not exist without Government mandate, as Austrian Economists proclaim. I believe everybody thinking this over calmly will quickly realize that dominant market players will always disable small time competition and that they will quickly take over the maiden ‘free market’. If it’s not Government that should stop this, Austrians should explain who should.

There is also the issue that the markets serve society and not vice versa. So if, for instance, a nation suffers from lack of competitiveness in international trade there is absolutely no reason not to create tariffs to keep foreign competitors at bay. In fact: the nation has the solemn duty to protect itself from such a situation.

Free trade does NOT always benefit all involved, that’s complete nonsense. Often the free traders will point at the ‘long run’ but their arch enemy Keynes put that argument to rest by saying ‘in the long run we’re all dead’. And that’s the way it is.

When commissioning the Transcontinental Railroad, Abraham Lincoln said something to the effect of ‘If I buy the rails in Britain, we will have the rails and they will have the money. If I buy the rails for a little more in America, we will have the rails and the Union will also have the money’.

This is the simple truth and it is yet another amazing feat of propaganda that the Free Traders have managed to obscure this.

It’s the same thing with Transnationals plundering local economies.The small discount the individual gains at Wal-Mart is simply a knife in the back of his neighbor and the regional economy is devastated by buying there. The main problem is that Wal-Mart takes most of the money out of the local economy, with deflationary effects. Some time back a fascinating study was published quantifying the effects Wal-Mart has on the economy, both locally and nationally and the damage that that one Transnational has done has been incredible. Here’s my report on that study.

Choice

This is yet another great slogan of the Libertarians: choice. No, CHOICE, as it is often spelled by free market commenters I speak with. Even the Lord Himself is usually granted only one capital.

It’s annoying how people get enthralled with pleasant sounding words without ever really thinking through what such a word means and what kind of implications can be expected.

They will maintain that if two parties consent, there is ‘free will’ and that’s the end of it.

But let’s consider Rothbard’s ultimate example of ‘freedom’ and ‘choice’. He defended the ‘right’ of parents to sell their children in the ‘free market’.

Obviously he was mistaken as he apparently did not see the children as people. Nobody in his right mind is defending trading people, is he?

Would the child accept this ‘choice’? What would (s)he choose? Even if it consented, out of love and loyalty to its parents and because of a lack of awareness of the implications, would it be relevant?

Also, what kind of ‘freedom of choice’ would lead to such a decision? Are there many parents out there particularly interested in the ‘choice’ to sell their children?

Of course, selling one’s own children is a common practice. With desperate people. People in incredibly dire economic circumstances WILL sell their children.

Should they be allowed to? Of course not. Their situation should be mended.

Rothbard, with this heinous and morally utterly corrupt example just shows his real face here and this is ultimately where Libertarianism is headed.

It’s important to understand that this is not even just the sickening blathering of a man suffering from profound spiritual problems. This is the unavoidable end game of Capitalism. The right and the ability of the ultra rich to monopolize all ‘resources’, including ‘human resources’. It’s clear that when everybody has been made utterly destitute with their usurious banking con, the last and final bailout for the poor will be to sell their children into slavery. This is what
happened to the Africans, once they were bankrupted by selling them liquor.

They first sold their children, then their wives and ultimately they went out enslaving neighboring tribes.

Is there anybody out there doubting this is the usurer’s wet dream?

To be honest: there probably are many who cannot believe it. But it’s time to wake up and smell the coffee: this is the kind of depravity that we face. This is the kind of darkness that rules the hearts of our overlords. It is not for nothing that this is where their ideologies ultimately lead to.

So ‘choice’ is not so wonderful as it has been made out to be. Not all choices are equal and many choices simply utterly detestable. The so called ‘freedom’ to make certain ‘choices’ is not quite what many joining the burgeoning ranks of Libertarianism really had in mind.

Conclusion

‘Choice’, nor ‘Free Markets’ are a goal in itself. There is a moral imperative. The fact that Libertarianism does everything in its power to avoid this, is why it is ultimately Satanic by nature.

We are not looking for ‘heavy handed violent statist interference’ as the libertarians like to put it. Nor do we believe that all, or even many, of our problems are going to be fixed by Government. But clearly ‘free markets’ do not exist. Not for longer than one minute, anyway.

The perceived ‘rights’ of the ultra rich are not particularly important. What is important is a reasonable deal for all. This is absolutely possible. We live in an incredibly abundant environment.

Of course this leads to the question ‘what is a reasonable deal?’. And undoubtedly this question will keep us busy for a long time. But there is also such a thing as common sense and once we start seeing through the many extremist ruses the Money Power’s Mind Controllers distract us with, from ‘anarcho-capitalism’ to ‘communism’, things will prove to actually be not really so complicated.

Related:

The Problem with Transnationals and what to do about them

The Satanic Core of Libertarianism

Faux Economics

Analyzing Austrian economics memes: Who benefits from the anarcho-capitalist utopia?

Here’s a man that actually understands. Courtesy of Ted Daniels and Jamie Bergamasco:

Advertisements
One Comment leave one →
  1. December 12, 2013 3:06 pm

    I think that what the author misses in his criticism of capitalism in regards to monopolistic tendencies is that natural monopolies are only successful in the long-run when they are the most efficient method of production. Monopolies in a regulation-heavy market, such as the US, tend to lobby for privilege and protection through regulation, while monopolies in the free market have no such option. Without coercive regulation, firms are forced to produce more efficiently than their competitors, which drives down price even in natural monopolies such as utility cooperatives. When the state regulates firms, the natural tendency toward rent seeking becomes one way that monopolies fleece both consumers and society at large. Keynes argument that we are all dead in the long-run is invalid, because short-term gains do not promote long-term viability of a monopoly without protective regulation benefiting those firms that seek it from the state. Regulation enables and encourages monopolization of markets that would otherwise not exist, and regulation of those markets is not justified when weighing meager benefits of regulation versus the social costs.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: