From: Brian Holtz [brian@holtz.org]
Sent: Saturday, October 26, 2002 11:18 PM
To: Franklin Schmidt
Cc: LPSM-Discuss@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [LPSM-Discuss] Re: Equality, Emotional Distress, Government
as Super-Corporation, etc.


Franklin Schmidt [mailto:fschmidt@digdb.com] wrote:

> I didn't know the difference between capitalized and 
> uncapitalized versions.

Just to clarify, capital-L Libertarian refers to the Libertarian Party, 
whose platform I consider crypto-anarchist.

> the big-L kind whose goal is an
> abstract theory of justice.  I would consider 
> these people fanatics as I
> would anyone whose goal is an abstract 
> theory that can't adapt to practical needs.

Well, everyone argues that their position is the one that best serves 
practical needs. And everyone is "fanatic" in the sense of being committed 
to the principles of their position. But I might agree to designate people 
"fanatic" based on the mismatch between their completely untried proposals 
and the unprecedented prosperity of the status quo.

> The second kind is your kind which 
> wants to maximize market
> efficiency which can be defined as 
> mean income.

No, I care more about median income than mean income. (Actually, I care 
most about median hourly productivity, since income can be increased by 
working longer hours.)

> In a society with large 
> corporations, unions increase median income.

No, in the long run, monopolistic unions produce inefficiencies that keep 
even the median income lower than what it otherwise might be.

> my kind, who wants to maximize the public 
> good which can be approximated by median income.

No, you're deceiving yourself if you think that you have a monopoly on 
wanting the most long-run prosperity for the most people.  We all want that, 
and just disagree about how to achieve it.  The relevant categories here are:

- anarcho-capitalists
- minarchists
- old-fashioned marxian anarchists

The mistake of anarcho-capitalists is that they care more about having 
non-coercively clean hands than in the dirty work of minimizing coercion. 
The mistake of marxians is two-fold: the labor theory of value, and the 
idea that (non-monopolistic) free association is oppressive and yields 
sub-optimal outcomes.

> I just strongly disagree with the left 
> about how to achieve these goals since 
> I think the government cannot be trusted to 
> act on the people's behalf.
> Are there any other libertarians out
> there of my kind?

You sound like an old-fashioned marxian anarchist. You would probably 
like Bertrand Russell's _Proposed Roads to Freedom_, since you share 
many of his (incorrect :-) beliefs.

> should I be considered a libertarian at all?

I'd say yes, provided that despite your marxian analysis your only 
difference with minarchist Cato-Institute-style libertarianism is your 
proposal to reform limited shareholder liability.  Otherwise, no.

brian@holtz.org
http://humanknowledge.net