"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." ~ H.L. Mencken
Which Side Are You On?
"On Thursday, January 9 a dangerous toxin, 4-methylcyclohexane methanol, leaked from a busted tank and into the Elk River in West Virginia. It is believed that nearly 7,500 gallons of the toxin made its way from the 40,000-gallon tank into the river. It’s unclear how much actually entered the public water supply."
- Login to post comments
User Login
Search This Site
Recent comments
Root Strikers
Non-Voting
Civil Disobedience
Reprint Rights
Comments
This is a strange article to appear on a Libertarian site. Here's an extract from near its close:
"One must question how so much wealth has been extracted from the Appalachian coalfields while the communities there remain so poor. One must question why the largest consumers of fossil fuels are great militarized nation-states. One must question why such an ecological crisis is occurring. One must question the pervasive influence of the corporate monopoly on the people’s democracy..."
Why must "one" do any of those things?
Each component of the coal mining industry (land, macinery, labor...) will in a free society carry its own competitive costs; if the supply of labor exceeds the demand, its price will be low. Perhaps that has happened, in the last century in Appalachia. Nobody was prevented, I hope, from leaving the area in search of better wages.
Consumption of fossil fuel is a function, again, of its price and demand; coal is still a highly competitive fuel and demand for it would be high whether the power it generates is used for military or peaceful purposes.
What "ecological crisis"? I hear there is one in Socialist areas like China and Los Angeles, but hadn't noticed one elsewhere in these United States.
I'm not familiar with the alleged "corporate monopoly" in the coal business but if there is one, or even a cartel, it has been and will be sustained only by government intervention. That is well established and has been for half a century at least; most notably by Professor Armentano. The fix, in that case, is obvious.
As for the "people's democracy", I thought we were here to advance a stateless society, not "the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried" (so, Churchill).
That, at least, is the "side" I am on.
Jim,
I truly do not understand your comment: you seem to agree with the article, which is a complaint and explanation of the damaging intervention of government in the region. I have no idea why that would be strange.
As far as: " What "ecological crisis"? I hear there is one in Socialist areas like China and Los Angeles, but hadn't noticed one elsewhere in these United States."
Have you ever been to Appalachia? Have you read any news in the last week or so? 300,000 people w/o drinking water for a week because of a chemical spill qualifies as a "disaster " to me....
"I'm not familiar with the alleged "corporate monopoly" in the coal business but if there is one, or even a cartel, it has been and will be sustained only by government intervention. That is well established and has been for half a century at least; most notably by Professor Armentano. The fix, in that case, is obvious."
That would be the thesis of the article in question: did you read it? The article cites "Great Society" programs as a well as a long history of corporatism; as the author writes, "...Appalachia is on the front lines of the war with the politically connected."
I'm truly confused as to why you have an issue here. I also am perplexed as to what, exactly, you are defending and why.
Sorry you didn't understand, Mike; I must not have been sufficiently clear.
Visiting a place always broadens the mind, I agree. But if we formed opinions only about places we've visited, not many would write much. There are other ways to gain understanding. Anyway, the abiding poverty of the WV area is quite well known, and is not questioned.
The C4SS article identifies primary causes as "class struggle... environmental degradation... corporatism... labor struggle..." and various disasters like sliding ash. Only later does it mention the FedGov's War on Poverty, and then to complain that its resources went to large-scale investment projects (surprise!) instead of "offering a new way forward [which?]" It even complains that "The mechanization of these industries, however, has reduced the labor force." Golly me, who'd a thunk it.
It winds up with a moan against the "corporate state", which I'd agree is nearly accurate, but even there the implication is that the "corporate" part is the villain, rather than the "state." This is a subtle error, and may best be clarified by canine anatomy. Is the corporate tail wagging the political dog, or is it the other way around? Consider what would happen if the tail were severed. The poor animal would have lost its ability to show pleasure and excitement, but it would still be a dog. Just as a tree, with branches trimmed, would still be a tree.
This is all classic socialist drivel. What it's doing on a libertarian site is, as I said, quite a mystery.
This, Jim, is an excellent response to Mike's sincere concerns over your first response. Because, like you, when I read the article I sensed a foul, strong socialistic odor. But, unlike you, I lacked communication skills in putting clarifying substance to that odor.
Which is the genius of socialist subtly: the appearance of attacking evil when, in fact, the author denigrates freedom and the marketplace. He lauds movements in the form of "labor unrest" -- that cohabitation between leaders of organized labor and psychopaths we know of as government -- ignoring the fact this incestuousness is what has given rise to the ongoing poverty in Appalachia, not freedom and liberty of exchange.
Even the title and theme song have putrid reverberations. Your "canine analogy" is apt.
Sam
Thank you, Sam. Woof!
Jim,
I have re-read the article several times, and have yet to see where the author advocated any sort of government intervention, or any sort of force or coercion at all...so I still have no idea what you are complaining about as far as the article being un-libertarian-so long as we define libertarianism as adherence to non-aggression. In fact, you are still largely agreeing with it's main thesis-rhetoric aside.
C4SS bills itself as a "Left Market Anarchist Think Tank and Media Center"...I am not shocked that you were exposed to some leftist sounding rhetoric...it being a leftist site and all. I often post articles from that site because it offers a different perspective, and many times-such as in this case-one that I think gets missed in the right-lib echo-chamber.
As far as who wags who's tail, as I understand it not only do our delightful poli-snakes not read the laws they pass, but in many cases they are in fact written by lobbyists. So there is that. There is also the vast sums of money that wind up in the pockets of said snakes. A "free market" does not exist in the US-I'm really not sure why so many free-market advocates are so eager to defend parts of a system that is fundamentally corrupt.
Not only that, but the modern "corporation" as operating today is an utter government abomination, since they all operate with the subtle but immensely powerful grant of "limited liability." Had I been writing the article, limited liability and the reckless behavior it permits, and frankly promotes, would have been my focus. Without limited liability it is difficult to imagine anyone allowing the conditions for such a huge leak to occur. With it, who cares? Certainly not the executives who oversaw maintenance, etc..they are not going to be on the hook personally for damages.
As far as the "Labor struggle" goes, I'd encourage you to take a little time and investigate the early days of the labor movement-especially in Appalachia. Government certainly had no hand in the birth of unions-it fought it tooth and nail and far too often with bullets. Not only that, but some of that "struggle" actually had libertarian merit-it was in response to force and coercion.
Thanks for the conversation-it's been awhile, and is always interesting.
Mike
That's an interesting point you make, Mike, about limits on liability. Would the chemical company have been more careful about leakages, had its owners been personally liable? And more generally, will there be limited-liability companies in the coming free society?
I understand Freedom Industries has declared bankruptcy, presumably because the anticipated claims far exceed the company's assets. Would they have, if the owners' houses and cars and savings had been available to claimants? - I don't know. Maybe. Being "more careful" usually translates to extra expense, and there's only one place that can ever come from: profits. If profits are spent on extra safeguards (which may never be called on to function) they cannot be spent on wages, benefits, business expansion or any of the hundreds of other ways a business can usefully spend money. Conceivably, if it's on a very tight budget, such an extra expense might mean shutting up shop, lacking a viable business model; in that case, everyone employed or served by the company would lose. Business decisions are seldom simple; unlike governments, companies cannot print money but have rather to earn it.
In the coming free society, I predict there will be some market participants who operate without limit on their liability, and some with such a limit. The status chosen will be clearly shown on every contract, for every customer will want to know. No doubt one simple way to clarify it will be to add letters to the name: Jim's Gym, LLC or Mike's Manufacturing, ULC.
Other things being equal, ULCs can be expected to charge higher prices - for the owner(s) will want to buy insurance against the remote possibility of some disaster occurring, and the premium will form a part of their costs. Pay your money, take your choice.
Mike:
As far as the "Labor struggle" goes, I'd encourage you to take a little time and investigate the early days of the labor movement-especially in Appalachia. Government certainly had no hand in the birth of unions-it fought it tooth and nail and far too often with bullets. Not only that, but some of that "struggle" actually had libertarian merit-it was in response to force and coercion.
I'd very much agree to this. I'm without doubt the oldest previous union member on this site -- was the youngest member of the Order of Railroad Telegraphers at the age of just barely 16 (to the angst of many an old brass-pounder). The ORT operated telegraph schools along the Southern Pacific for the purpose of bringing new telegraphers up to speed -- to make them better qualified for the "fast telegraph" jobs. The telegraph still ruled railroad and Western Union communication in 1950 -- teletype rapidly catching up.
This was a time when leaders of unions worked with their members to make them better assets to management than the non-union competitor -- to whet him or her into a truly better investment. But alas, the temptation to lobby psychopathic aggressors in the form of senators and legislators was too great to ignore. Labor unions quickly became influence peddlers instead of educators. Organized Labor was one gigantic bedfellow among congressmen and other mobsters.
As Jimmy Hoffa apparently learned, you sleep with big dogs you get big fleas.
Sam
I used the term "non-union competitor" in error. Even in 1950 compulsory unionization was in force on the railroad. You could not, by law, be a railroad worker without becoming a union member. Which ended the labor unions' training of workers such as telegraphers to make them more valuable to management, and thus worthy of a higher wage.
Monopoly unionization, as with monopoly government -- monopoly anything for that matter -- produces inefficiency, ineptness, and unjustness.
Sam
If I might interject my own more general observations here, I have noticed a distinct and growing tendency within C4SS, in their otherwise admirable efforts to woo the Left towards Market Anarchism, to actually advocate their target audience's positions.
It reminds me of the "Libertarian" Party's inevitable downward slide -- although by being a political party in the first place, the LP was doomed from the start.
C4SS might well learn from that example, however, and avoid a similar decline. Principle not populism.
Hope you're wrong, Alex, but that's perceptive and certainly possible.
Four decades ago Murray Rothbard was delighted to work with the "Left", but quite soon became disillusioned; he much admired their late-60s anti-war, anti-state activism but then noticed they changed, dropping most of that in favor of feminism and other causes he thought irrelevant and probably counter-productive (they point towards greater state power, not less.) He wasn't much enamored of the drug scene either, though I think he was mistaken on that. Heck, over the weekend even Unser Führer hisself allowed as how marijuana may not be worth the fuss of prohibition.