n/t

I haven't gotten through Long's essay yet ( just read his "Towards a Libertarian Class Theory", so I'm getting tired of his stuff, even though he makes many good points)

Anyway, I did dig into one of his citations: Barry, Norman, “The Theory of the Corporation,” Freeman 53 no. 3 (March 2003), pp. 22-26 (online: http://www.fee.org/pdf/the-freeman/feat5.pdf ), and I want to respond to one of his core arguments defending the corporation:

Barry argued that legal incorporation is not necessary in order to produce an organization that is essentially the same as a corporation (I'll call it a "pseudo-corporation")-- it can be accomplished by a series of contracts.

While this may be true, I have two objections;

1) By doing the legal legwork, the legislature is subsidizing these large organizations, to the detriment of alternative (presumably smaller) organizational paradigms. Barry seems to support this streamlining in the name of "efficiency"--in which case he is placing one value (efficient allocation of capital) above other values (such as worker control over their work-environments), and I see no reason that we should do that.

2) We haven't discussed whether these pseudo-corporate contracts should be leally enforcable. I suspect that I would not support the enforcement of these contracts, since they can produce socially problematic outcomes (such as over-concentration of an industry, and concentration of political influence). In the absence of state enforcement of these pseudo-corporate contracts, I suspect that the pseudo-corporate structure would be very unstable.

the overall concept of a state apparatus that simply sits on the sideline watching the free market roll along is impossibly utopian. People are going to try to manipulate the state to advance their own ends.

If libertarianism is impossibly utopian, then Yglesias is hopelessly cynical. The attitude behind his essay seems to be "people cheat, so just grab what you can for whatever group you identify with."

Anyway, he does admit that government can be better or worse for the general public, and tars libertarians with the "idealist" brush:

libertarianism, even at its very best, tends to suffer from an impoverished set of ideas about how corporate domination of the public policy space might be prevented. The political left has, by contrast, the tradition of community organizing, a set of public interest advocacy organizations, allies in the trade union movement, efforts to improve the quality and independence of the civil service, and various notions about changing the methods by which campaigns are financed in the United States.

Of course, this attack on "libertarianism" is only true of you limit yourself to the extreme, ideologue fringe of the libertarian movement. Yglesias is apparently unaware of the intellectual and activist bubble of practical people surrounding the ideology-based community. Admittedly, it isn't as nearly as big as the "progressive" movement, but it does have some ideas for how abuse of power can be limited:

Some options:

1. Election reform (particularly, increasing political competition)
2. Institutional reduction: People cannot try to manipulate an institution that does not exist. In the absence of an institution (such as a governmental department) that can act in society, those who would want abuse power must first build the institution. Likewise, pro-government ideologues seem to give little consideration to the extent to which the increasing size of government can lead to inevitable decreases in public accountability (at least by means of elections)
3. Public skepticism towards concentration of power (in government): this is the bread and butter of libertarianism, and Yglesias seems to undervalue the role that public opinion can play when it is applied to broad principles that are easy to evaluate. When the public is willing to expand governmental power on any pretense, it is quite easy for corporate propaganda machines to convince the public that a proposed government action has some plausible benefit (even if the public perception of the new power has almost no relation to reality). When the public is skeptical of expansions of power, we hope that they will only accede to expansions when the value of such expansions has been well argued, and the implementation has been planned out well.

I think there is a good synergy between these libertarian biases, and the progressive biases that Yglesias listed. It would be nice if the intellectual leaders of each movement were more willing to find these areas of synergy, rather than simply belittling their own caricature of the other group.

Man, like I said above about Yglesias's first essay, if he didn't care to give the endeavor an honest and thoughtful effort, he should have left the post to someone who would have. Sheesh: Another very sloppy and incoherent effort on the conversation essays.

First, he addresses Horwitz's statement about Wal-Mart in a very lazy manner that actually addresses nothing of Horwitz said.

I find Steve Horwitz’s claim that “Markets, including Wal-Mart, have done more for poor Americans than any government program, at least in the long run if not the short run” to be a bit puzzling. If this means that the absence of governance à la Joseph Stalin is a more important determinant of our well-being than is, say, the existence of unemployment insurance then, yes, of course this is true. But the question facing government programs is not whether they are more or less beneficial than the existence of a market economy, the question is whether the programs are more beneficial than would be the absence of programs.

Firstly, Horwitz isn't saying anything remotely related to governance a la Stalin, so Matt can safely say that this strawman is true...just as he intended. Well done. On the second part, that isn't what Horwitz is saying either. Horwitz is simply measuring what Wal-Mart, at least in the long run, has accomplished for the poor compared to government spending and programs and laws to help the poor...and on this, Horwitz says Wal-Mart has done more. Yglesias never goes there. Dodged.

Moving on...

Matt's second paragraph is the only one in which we see some sensible phrases...but even there, he kills them with senselessness.

Horwitz had cited minimum wage laws and occupational licensing as two programs that either hurt the poor or are non-beneficial to them. Matt is "not sold" on minimum wage (which means he simply doesn't care what the truth is so he won't go there) and then on occupational licensing, he agrees in many cases like for dental hygienists (something I've spoken about in the past).

But here, instead of simply showing agreement on the harm of such practices in many cases, his inner partisan robot comes out and he starts shadow boxing against his own strawman by acting as if Horwitz is claiming this is "The Left's Fault" and then Matt goes off on a tangent. Horwitz said no such thing. He simply pointed to this type of restraint on markets as being harmful to the poor and says the Left should be more vocal in taking up this cause with libertarians...IOW, being true champions of the free market in the name of the disadvantaged. All this is said in the context of an essay where Horwitz shows how markets achieve the results the Left WANTS while showing how government market interference HURTS the poor...ergo being AGAINST what the Left WANTS. But Matt seems preoccupied with his superficial partisan and ideological defense to notice this.

Matt:

things like rules that prevent dental hygienists from practicing without being supervised by a dentist aren’t being perpetrated by “the left,” they’re being perpetrated by dentists. It’s a classic example of concentrated benefits and diffuse costs. And the question, to my mind, is what is to be done about it. If it were the case that electing politicians who are given to waxing effusive about the virtues of free markets (i.e., Republicans) was likely to mitigate such abuses, I would look more kindly on such politicians. But in practice, it doesn’t seem to make much of a difference.

So what's your point, Matt? I thought we were talking about how REAL free market policies PROMOTE results the Left WANTS and how the Left can use the mantle of free markets and less government interference (as opposed to corporatist markets) to forward the cause of the common man and true fairness and less corruption and rent-seeking. Isn't that what Horwitz is getting at? Isn't that what Long is getting at in his initial essay? Isn't that what the whole darn topic is about this month?? What say you? (crickets)...that's what I thought. Lazy.

And then there’s a different set of regulatory issues, notably those dealing with the environment, where the benefits of regulation are diffuse and the costs are concentrated on the polluting firms. Here I side against the free marketers,

How so? What would the "free market" position be...if there is one unified position? (crickets) Notice the laziness? He sides against the so called "free marketeers" in perfect shadow-boxing fashion without actually stating the position he opposes. Tsk. Don't think nobody noticed, Matt. Isn't a major point forwarded by Horwitz and Long that government meddling and power have enabled the socialization of costs and empowered large corporations against fledgling competitors in so many, many ways? Weren't they saying how this is the very corporatism they oppose?

Don't look at your form against the wall, Matt. The conversation is over (hand signaling). You're missing it.

Continuing directly:

but this is where market rhetoric seems to have a lot of efficacy. Which isn’t to point to a flaw in market rhetoric per se, but merely to the reality that any set of rhetorical strategies is more likely to succeed when it has a lot of money and political influence behind it.

What in the world is this supposed to mean?? Seriously. Rhetoric? Rhetorical strategies? What follows from that is a non-sequitir...but even if it wasn't, it simply makes no sense and is appallingly dim and lazy: He then reverts back to power and influence as a road block...the very power and influence to craft one's own beneficial regulation that Long and Horwtiz are speaking against. Sigh. Lazy. Lazy.

Matt continues:

But if you want to convince people on the left that an alliance is worthwhile, you need to make the case not merely that market principles could in theory help the poor by dismantling some barriers to economic opportunity, but find some concrete projects on which to collaborate.

Is he serious?? What does think Horwtiz and Long have been saying all this time? I've seen quite a bit to collaborate on...or did Matt miss while it while he was shadow-boxing for "his team"?

Otherwise, market and anti-regulatory rhetoric will continue to be associated with what it accomplishes in practice—serve the ends of politically powerful entities when it’s convenient to them.

Sigh. Nevermind, Matt. Nevermind. Sorry Cato bothered you for something you obviously had no interest in taking seriously.