Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [LeftLibertarian2] Re: Anarchy Comics

Expand Messages
  • Dan
    It s not that secret, though it s perhaps better to use a different term or clearly, when speaking to a wider audience, define how the term is being used. (I d
    Message 1 of 27 , Feb 2, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      It's not that secret, though it's perhaps better to use a different term or clearly, when speaking to a wider audience, define how the term is being used.

      (I'd even use the term in several ways myself: to mean a broad free market capitalism, which is what libertarians close to Rothbard or influenced by Mises mean, or to mean an economic system based on private ownership of capital that might yet have all sorts of regulations and interferences. But many define it as state capitalism and many of them seem to think that no other form is possible or that any other form will eventually degrade into state capitalism. The former is an obvious error*, whereas the latter is an argument about empirical outcomes.)

      Regards,

      Dan

      * Though not one punishable by me. :)

      From: Joshua Katz <jalankatz@...>
      To: LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Saturday, February 2, 2013 11:04 AM
      Subject: Re: [LeftLibertarian2] Re: Anarchy Comics

       
      Yes, that makes sense - let's criticize an outspoken defender of our ideas for not using our secret language.

      On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 6:57 PM, abcritter <abcritter@...> wrote:
       


      --- In LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com, Joshua Katz wrote:
      >
      > Navigated from there to the John Mackey piece. Interesting to see so many
      > Reasonites outraged at the suggestion that a modifier on capitalism makes
      > sense - as if the world didn't consider bailouts and the like to be
      > 'capitalism.'

      Not surprising at all. Most of the folks who read Reason speak Misean, not Marxian. In Misean, "capitalism" means an economy with no interference from State and with sticky property permissible.



    • Joshua Katz
      Well, two things. First, I don t see how capitalism, as a synonym for free markets, makes sense. Some libertarians think that corporations would exist in a
      Message 2 of 27 , Feb 2, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        Well, two things.  First, I don't see how capitalism, as a synonym for free markets, makes sense.  Some libertarians think that corporations would exist in a free market, but they certainly wouldn't think that corporatism means free markets.  How can any 'ism' that singles out a particular group - capital holders in this case - mean free markets?  Can laborism be used to mean free markets, without linguistic silliness?

        Second, we're not talking about speaking to a wider audience, or to anyone.  We're talking, here, about criticizing a public figure who is advocating exactly what libertarians want, for using the standard meaning of a term and what it means to most people.

        If we're allowing personal meanings, by the way, my personal meaning of capitalism excludes free markets, and means policies and regulations that favor capital.

        On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 11:52 AM, Dan <dan_ust@...> wrote:
         

        It's not that secret, though it's perhaps better to use a different term or clearly, when speaking to a wider audience, define how the term is being used.

        (I'd even use the term in several ways myself: to mean a broad free market capitalism, which is what libertarians close to Rothbard or influenced by Mises mean, or to mean an economic system based on private ownership of capital that might yet have all sorts of regulations and interferences. But many define it as state capitalism and many of them seem to think that no other form is possible or that any other form will eventually degrade into state capitalism. The former is an obvious error*, whereas the latter is an argument about empirical outcomes.)

        Regards,

        Dan

        * Though not one punishable by me. :)

        From: Joshua Katz <jalankatz@...>
        To: LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Saturday, February 2, 2013 11:04 AM
        Subject: Re: [LeftLibertarian2] Re: Anarchy Comics

         
        Yes, that makes sense - let's criticize an outspoken defender of our ideas for not using our secret language.

        On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 6:57 PM, abcritter <abcritter@...> wrote:
         


        --- In LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com, Joshua Katz wrote:
        >
        > Navigated from there to the John Mackey piece. Interesting to see so many
        > Reasonites outraged at the suggestion that a modifier on capitalism makes
        > sense - as if the world didn't consider bailouts and the like to be
        > 'capitalism.'

        Not surprising at all. Most of the folks who read Reason speak Misean, not Marxian. In Misean, "capitalism" means an economy with no interference from State and with sticky property permissible.




      • Dan
        I don t think most people know what capitalism means, especially when it seems amongst the general public to have a variety of meanings. It seems more like
        Message 3 of 27 , Feb 2, 2013
        • 0 Attachment
          I don't think most people know what capitalism means, especially when it seems amongst the general public to have a variety of meanings. It seems more like people don't have a clear idea on it. I'm not saying one shouldn't just avoid the terminological problem, but then one is going to run up against this time and again. For instance, analyzing "liberal" in similar fashion should lead us to think of the liberal being a liberty-ist or a freedom-ist, but most people seem to use the term to mean a hodge podge of things that almost always including curtailing many forms of liberty.

          Your "personal meaning" reminds me of a friend in college who became a libertarian but called himself a capitalist. This was about a decade or so ago. When he would tell others in our circle he was a capitalist, they didn't think he meant he was an advocate of capitalism but rather that he owned a lot of capital and ran a business or did investing of some sort. :) And, to be sure, that's one meaning of the term. (Which leads to my knee-jerk response that in almost any real world economy, this is a role or actor that's not exclusive: one can be a worker-capitalist-landlord-consumer. In fact, it's safe to say if owning capital defines one as a capitalist, then a good chunk of workers own much of the capital in most modern economies.)

          Regards,

          Dan

          From: Joshua Katz <jalankatz@...>
          To: LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com
          Sent: Saturday, February 2, 2013 11:57 AM
          Subject: Re: [LeftLibertarian2] Re: Anarchy Comics

           
          Well, two things.  First, I don't see how capitalism, as a synonym for free markets, makes sense.  Some libertarians think that corporations would exist in a free market, but they certainly wouldn't think that corporatism means free markets.  How can any 'ism' that singles out a particular group - capital holders in this case - mean free markets?  Can laborism be used to mean free markets, without linguistic silliness?

          Second, we're not talking about speaking to a wider audience, or to anyone.  We're talking, here, about criticizing a public figure who is advocating exactly what libertarians want, for using the standard meaning of a term and what it means to most people.

          If we're allowing personal meanings, by the way, my personal meaning of capitalism excludes free markets, and means policies and regulations that favor capital.

          On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 11:52 AM, Dan <dan_ust@...> wrote:
           
          It's not that secret, though it's perhaps better to use a different term or clearly, when speaking to a wider audience, define how the term is being used.

          (I'd even use the term in several ways myself: to mean a broad free market capitalism, which is what libertarians close to Rothbard or influenced by Mises mean, or to mean an economic system based on private ownership of capital that might yet have all sorts of regulations and interferences. But many define it as state capitalism and many of them seem to think that no other form is possible or that any other form will eventually degrade into state capitalism. The former is an obvious error*, whereas the latter is an argument about empirical outcomes.)

          Regards,

          Dan

          * Though not one punishable by me. :)

          From: Joshua Katz <jalankatz@...>
          To: LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com
          Sent: Saturday, February 2, 2013 11:04 AM
          Subject: Re: [LeftLibertarian2] Re: Anarchy Comics

           
          Yes, that makes sense - let's criticize an outspoken defender of our ideas for not using our secret language.

          On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 6:57 PM, abcritter <abcritter@...> wrote:
           


          --- In LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com, Joshua Katz wrote:
          >
          > Navigated from there to the John Mackey piece. Interesting to see so many
          > Reasonites outraged at the suggestion that a modifier on capitalism makes
          > sense - as if the world didn't consider bailouts and the like to be
          > 'capitalism.'

          Not surprising at all. Most of the folks who read Reason speak Misean, not Marxian. In Misean, "capitalism" means an economy with no interference from State and with sticky property permissible.



        • Gary Chartier
          +1 ... Gary Chartier Professor of Law and Business Ethics Associate Dean Tom and Vi Zapara School of Business La Sierra University Riverside, CA 92515-8247
          Message 4 of 27 , Feb 2, 2013
          • 0 Attachment

            +1

            -------------------------------------------------------------
            Gary Chartier
            Professor of Law and Business Ethics
            Associate Dean
            Tom and Vi Zapara School of Business
            La Sierra University
            Riverside, CA 92515-8247

            On Feb 2, 2013 8:57 AM, "Joshua Katz" <jalankatz@...> wrote:
             

            Well, two things.  First, I don't see how capitalism, as a synonym for free markets, makes sense.  Some libertarians think that corporations would exist in a free market, but they certainly wouldn't think that corporatism means free markets.  How can any 'ism' that singles out a particular group - capital holders in this case - mean free markets?  Can laborism be used to mean free markets, without linguistic silliness?


            Second, we're not talking about speaking to a wider audience, or to anyone.  We're talking, here, about criticizing a public figure who is advocating exactly what libertarians want, for using the standard meaning of a term and what it means to most people.

            If we're allowing personal meanings, by the way, my personal meaning of capitalism excludes free markets, and means policies and regulations that favor capital.

            On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 11:52 AM, Dan <dan_ust@...> wrote:
             

            It's not that secret, though it's perhaps better to use a different term or clearly, when speaking to a wider audience, define how the term is being used.

            (I'd even use the term in several ways myself: to mean a broad free market capitalism, which is what libertarians close to Rothbard or influenced by Mises mean, or to mean an economic system based on private ownership of capital that might yet have all sorts of regulations and interferences. But many define it as state capitalism and many of them seem to think that no other form is possible or that any other form will eventually degrade into state capitalism. The former is an obvious error*, whereas the latter is an argument about empirical outcomes.)

            Regards,

            Dan

            * Though not one punishable by me. :)

            From: Joshua Katz <jalankatz@...>
            To: LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com
            Sent: Saturday, February 2, 2013 11:04 AM
            Subject: Re: [LeftLibertarian2] Re: Anarchy Comics

             
            Yes, that makes sense - let's criticize an outspoken defender of our ideas for not using our secret language.

            On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 6:57 PM, abcritter <abcritter@...> wrote:
             


            --- In LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com, Joshua Katz wrote:
            >
            > Navigated from there to the John Mackey piece. Interesting to see so many
            > Reasonites outraged at the suggestion that a modifier on capitalism makes
            > sense - as if the world didn't consider bailouts and the like to be
            > 'capitalism.'

            Not surprising at all. Most of the folks who read Reason speak Misean, not Marxian. In Misean, "capitalism" means an economy with no interference from State and with sticky property permissible.




          • Dan
            --1 ________________________________ From: Gary Chartier To: LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, February 2, 2013 12:23
            Message 5 of 27 , Feb 2, 2013
            • 0 Attachment
              --1


              From: Gary Chartier <gary.chartier@...>
              To: LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com
              Sent: Saturday, February 2, 2013 12:23 PM
              Subject: Re: [LeftLibertarian2] Re: Anarchy Comics

               
              +1
              -------------------------------------------------------------
              Gary Chartier
              Professor of Law and Business Ethics
              Associate Dean
              Tom and Vi Zapara School of Business
              La Sierra University
              Riverside, CA 92515-8247
              On Feb 2, 2013 8:57 AM, "Joshua Katz" <jalankatz@...> wrote:
               
              Well, two things.  First, I don't see how capitalism, as a synonym for free markets, makes sense.  Some libertarians think that corporations would exist in a free market, but they certainly wouldn't think that corporatism means free markets.  How can any 'ism' that singles out a particular group - capital holders in this case - mean free markets?  Can laborism be used to mean free markets, without linguistic silliness?

              Second, we're not talking about speaking to a wider audience, or to anyone.  We're talking, here, about criticizing a public figure who is advocating exactly what libertarians want, for using the standard meaning of a term and what it means to most people.

              If we're allowing personal meanings, by the way, my personal meaning of capitalism excludes free markets, and means policies and regulations that favor capital.

              On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 11:52 AM, Dan <dan_ust@...> wrote:
               
              It's not that secret, though it's perhaps better to use a different term or clearly, when speaking to a wider audience, define how the term is being used.

              (I'd even use the term in several ways myself: to mean a broad free market capitalism, which is what libertarians close to Rothbard or influenced by Mises mean, or to mean an economic system based on private ownership of capital that might yet have all sorts of regulations and interferences. But many define it as state capitalism and many of them seem to think that no other form is possible or that any other form will eventually degrade into state capitalism. The former is an obvious error*, whereas the latter is an argument about empirical outcomes.)

              Regards,

              Dan

              * Though not one punishable by me. :)

              From: Joshua Katz <jalankatz@...>
              To: LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com
              Sent: Saturday, February 2, 2013 11:04 AM
              Subject: Re: [LeftLibertarian2] Re: Anarchy Comics

               
              Yes, that makes sense - let's criticize an outspoken defender of our ideas for not using our secret language.

              On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 6:57 PM, abcritter <abcritter@...> wrote:
               


              --- In LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com, Joshua Katz wrote:
              >
              > Navigated from there to the John Mackey piece. Interesting to see so many
              > Reasonites outraged at the suggestion that a modifier on capitalism makes
              > sense - as if the world didn't consider bailouts and the like to be
              > 'capitalism.'

              Not surprising at all. Most of the folks who read Reason speak Misean, not Marxian. In Misean, "capitalism" means an economy with no interference from State and with sticky property permissible.






            • J Olson
              Good. I m afraid Josh might get a bit greedy with all those credits he s been getting from Gary. They could bring out his latent capitalist tendencies. ;)
              Message 6 of 27 , Feb 2, 2013
              • 0 Attachment
                Good.  I'm afraid Josh might get a bit greedy with all those credits he's been getting from Gary.  They could bring out his latent capitalist tendencies. ;)

                Jeff

                On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 11:30 AM, Dan <dan_ust@...> wrote:
                 

                --1


                From: Gary Chartier <gary.chartier@...>
                To: LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com
                Sent: Saturday, February 2, 2013 12:23 PM

                Subject: Re: [LeftLibertarian2] Re: Anarchy Comics

                 
                +1
                -------------------------------------------------------------
                Gary Chartier
                Professor of Law and Business Ethics
                Associate Dean
                Tom and Vi Zapara School of Business
                La Sierra University
                Riverside, CA 92515-8247
                On Feb 2, 2013 8:57 AM, "Joshua Katz" <jalankatz@...> wrote:
                 
                Well, two things.  First, I don't see how capitalism, as a synonym for free markets, makes sense.  Some libertarians think that corporations would exist in a free market, but they certainly wouldn't think that corporatism means free markets.  How can any 'ism' that singles out a particular group - capital holders in this case - mean free markets?  Can laborism be used to mean free markets, without linguistic silliness?

                Second, we're not talking about speaking to a wider audience, or to anyone.  We're talking, here, about criticizing a public figure who is advocating exactly what libertarians want, for using the standard meaning of a term and what it means to most people.

                If we're allowing personal meanings, by the way, my personal meaning of capitalism excludes free markets, and means policies and regulations that favor capital.

                On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 11:52 AM, Dan <dan_ust@...> wrote:
                 
                It's not that secret, though it's perhaps better to use a different term or clearly, when speaking to a wider audience, define how the term is being used.

                (I'd even use the term in several ways myself: to mean a broad free market capitalism, which is what libertarians close to Rothbard or influenced by Mises mean, or to mean an economic system based on private ownership of capital that might yet have all sorts of regulations and interferences. But many define it as state capitalism and many of them seem to think that no other form is possible or that any other form will eventually degrade into state capitalism. The former is an obvious error*, whereas the latter is an argument about empirical outcomes.)

                Regards,

                Dan

                * Though not one punishable by me. :)

                From: Joshua Katz <jalankatz@...>
                To: LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com
                Sent: Saturday, February 2, 2013 11:04 AM
                Subject: Re: [LeftLibertarian2] Re: Anarchy Comics

                 
                Yes, that makes sense - let's criticize an outspoken defender of our ideas for not using our secret language.

                On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 6:57 PM, abcritter <abcritter@...> wrote:
                 


                --- In LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com, Joshua Katz wrote:
                >
                > Navigated from there to the John Mackey piece. Interesting to see so many
                > Reasonites outraged at the suggestion that a modifier on capitalism makes
                > sense - as if the world didn't consider bailouts and the like to be
                > 'capitalism.'

                Not surprising at all. Most of the folks who read Reason speak Misean, not Marxian. In Misean, "capitalism" means an economy with no interference from State and with sticky property permissible.







              • Bruce Majors
                Perhaps this is generational. In the 70s and 80s it did not have a state capitalism connotation.
                Message 7 of 27 , Feb 2, 2013
                • 0 Attachment
                  Perhaps this is generational.  In the 70s and 80s it did not have a state capitalism connotation.

                  On Saturday, February 2, 2013, Dan wrote:
                   

                  --1


                  From: Gary Chartier <gary.chartier@...>
                  To: LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com
                  Sent: Saturday, February 2, 2013 12:23 PM
                  Subject: Re: [LeftLibertarian2] Re: Anarchy Comics

                   
                  +1
                  -------------------------------------------------------------
                  Gary Chartier
                  Professor of Law and Business Ethics
                  Associate Dean
                  Tom and Vi Zapara School of Business
                  La Sierra University
                  Riverside, CA 92515-8247
                  On Feb 2, 2013 8:57 AM, "Joshua Katz" <jalankatz@...> wrote:
                   
                  Well, two things.  First, I don't see how capitalism, as a synonym for free markets, makes sense.  Some libertarians think that corporations would exist in a free market, but they certainly wouldn't think that corporatism means free markets.  How can any 'ism' that singles out a particular group - capital holders in this case - mean free markets?  Can laborism be used to mean free markets, without linguistic silliness?

                  Second, we're not talking about speaking to a wider audience, or to anyone.  We're talking, here, about criticizing a public figure who is advocating exactly what libertarians want, for using the standard meaning of a term and what it means to most people.

                  If we're allowing personal meanings, by the way, my personal meaning of capitalism excludes free markets, and means policies and regulations that favor capital.

                  On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 11:52 AM, Dan <dan_ust@...> wrote:
                   
                  It's not that secret, though it's perhaps better to use a different term or clearly, when speaking to a wider audience, define how the term is being used.

                  (I'd even use the term in several ways myself: to mean a broad free market capitalism, which is what libertarians close to Rothbard or influenced by Mises mean, or to mean an economic system based on private ownership of capital that might yet have all sorts of regulations and interferences. But many define it as state capitalism and many of them seem to think that no other form is possible or that any other form will eventually degrade into state capitalism. The former is an obvious error*, whereas the latter is an argument about empirical outcomes.)

                  Regards,

                  Dan

                  * Though not one punishable by me. :)

                  From: Joshua Katz <jalankatz@...>
                  To: LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com
                  Sent: Saturday, February 2, 2013 11:04 AM
                  Subject: Re: [LeftLibertarian2] Re: Anarchy Comics

                   
                  Yes, that makes sense - let's criticize an outspoken defender of our ideas for not using our secret language.

                  On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 6:57 PM, abcritter <abcritter@...> wrote:
                   


                  --- In LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com, Joshua Katz wrote:
                  >
                  > Navigated from there to the John Mackey piece. Interesting to see so many
                  > Reasonites outraged at the suggestion that a modifier on capitalism makes
                  > sense - as if the world didn't consider bailouts and the like to be
                  > 'capitalism.'

                  Not surprising at all. Most of the folks who read Reason speak Misean, not Marxian. In Misean, "capitalism" means an economy with no interference from State and with sticky property permissible.


                • Dan
                  If we act now, we can reduce those credits, destroying such an outcome -- and allowing Joshua to keep up his image as an anticapitalist. Dan
                  Message 8 of 27 , Feb 2, 2013
                  • 0 Attachment
                    If we act now, we can reduce those credits, destroying such an outcome -- and allowing Joshua to keep up his image as an anticapitalist.

                    Dan


                    From: J Olson <jlolson53@...>
                    To: LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com
                    Sent: Saturday, February 2, 2013 12:33 PM
                    Subject: Re: [LeftLibertarian2] Re: Anarchy Comics

                     
                    Good.  I'm afraid Josh might get a bit greedy with all those credits he's been getting from Gary.  They could bring out his latent capitalist tendencies. ;)

                    Jeff

                    On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 11:30 AM, Dan <dan_ust@...> wrote:
                     
                    --1


                    From: Gary Chartier <gary.chartier@...>
                    To: LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com
                    Sent: Saturday, February 2, 2013 12:23 PM

                    Subject: Re: [LeftLibertarian2] Re: Anarchy Comics

                     
                    +1
                    -------------------------------------------------------------
                    Gary Chartier
                    Professor of Law and Business Ethics
                    Associate Dean
                    Tom and Vi Zapara School of Business
                    La Sierra University
                    Riverside, CA 92515-8247
                    On Feb 2, 2013 8:57 AM, "Joshua Katz" <jalankatz@...> wrote:
                     
                    Well, two things.  First, I don't see how capitalism, as a synonym for free markets, makes sense.  Some libertarians think that corporations would exist in a free market, but they certainly wouldn't think that corporatism means free markets.  How can any 'ism' that singles out a particular group - capital holders in this case - mean free markets?  Can laborism be used to mean free markets, without linguistic silliness?

                    Second, we're not talking about speaking to a wider audience, or to anyone.  We're talking, here, about criticizing a public figure who is advocating exactly what libertarians want, for using the standard meaning of a term and what it means to most people.

                    If we're allowing personal meanings, by the way, my personal meaning of capitalism excludes free markets, and means policies and regulations that favor capital.

                  • jeff_riggenbach
                    The former is an obvious error, [t]hough not one punishable by me. You mean you re just going to blithely walk away from this and leave it up to the rest of
                    Message 9 of 27 , Feb 2, 2013
                    • 0 Attachment
                      "The former is an obvious error, [t]hough not one punishable by me."

                      You mean you're just going to blithely walk away from this and leave it up to the rest of us to administer the countless canings and beatings which are so clearly called for here?

                      JR

                      --- In LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com, Dan wrote:
                      >
                      > It's not that secret, though it's perhaps better to use a different term or clearly, when speaking to a wider audience, define how the term is being used.
                      >
                      > (I'd even use the term in several ways myself: to mean a broad free market capitalism, which is what libertarians close to Rothbard or influenced by Mises mean, or to mean an economic system based on private ownership of capital that might yet have all sorts of regulations and interferences. But many define it as state capitalism and many of them seem to think that no other form is possible or that any other form will eventually degrade into state capitalism. The former is an obvious error*, whereas the latter is an argument about empirical outcomes.)
                      >
                      > Regards,
                      >
                      > Dan
                      >
                      > * Though not one punishable by me. :)
                      >
                      >
                      > From: Joshua Katz
                      > To: LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com
                      > Sent: Saturday, February 2, 2013 11:04 AM
                      > Subject: Re: [LeftLibertarian2] Re: Anarchy Comics
                      >
                      >
                      >  
                      > Yes, that makes sense - let's criticize an outspoken defender of our ideas for not using our secret language.
                      >
                      >
                      > On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 6:57 PM, abcritter wrote:
                      >
                      >
                      > > 
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >--- In LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com, Joshua Katz wrote:
                      > >>
                      > >> Navigated from there to the John Mackey piece. Interesting to see so many
                      > >> Reasonites outraged at the suggestion that a modifier on capitalism makes
                      > >> sense - as if the world didn't consider bailouts and the like to be
                      > >> 'capitalism.'
                      > >
                      > >
                      > Not surprising at all. Most of the folks who read Reason speak Misean, not Marxian. In Misean, "capitalism" means an economy with no interference from State and with sticky property permissible.
                      > >
                      > >
                      >
                    • jeff_riggenbach
                      I think it did. I think what most people meant by capitalism in the 70s and 80s was the economic system that exists in the United States. JR
                      Message 10 of 27 , Feb 2, 2013
                      • 0 Attachment
                        I think it did. I think what most people meant by "capitalism" in the '70s and '80s was "the economic system that exists in the United States."

                        JR

                        --- In LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com, Bruce Majors wrote:
                        >
                        > Perhaps this is generational. In the 70s and 80s it did not have a state
                        > capitalism connotation.
                        >
                        > On Saturday, February 2, 2013, Dan wrote:
                        >
                        > > **
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > --1
                        > >
                        > > ------------------------------
                        > > *From:* Gary Chartier
                        > 'gary.chartier@...');>>
                        > > *To:* LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com
                        > 'LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com');>
                        > > *Sent:* Saturday, February 2, 2013 12:23 PM
                        > > *Subject:* Re: [LeftLibertarian2] Re: Anarchy Comics
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > +1
                        > > -------------------------------------------------------------
                        > > Gary Chartier
                        > > Professor of Law and Business Ethics
                        > > Associate Dean
                        > > Tom and Vi Zapara School of Business
                        > > La Sierra University
                        > > Riverside, CA 92515-8247
                        > > On Feb 2, 2013 8:57 AM, "Joshua Katz" wrote:
                        > >
                        > > **
                        > >
                        > > Well, two things. First, I don't see how capitalism, as a synonym for
                        > > free markets, makes sense. Some libertarians think that corporations would
                        > > exist in a free market, but they certainly wouldn't think that corporatism
                        > > means free markets. How can any 'ism' that singles out a particular group
                        > > - capital holders in this case - mean free markets? Can laborism be used
                        > > to mean free markets, without linguistic silliness?
                        > >
                        > > Second, we're not talking about speaking to a wider audience, or to
                        > > anyone. We're talking, here, about criticizing a public figure who is
                        > > advocating exactly what libertarians want, for using the standard meaning
                        > > of a term and what it means to most people.
                        > >
                        > > If we're allowing personal meanings, by the way, my personal meaning of
                        > > capitalism excludes free markets, and means policies and regulations that
                        > > favor capital.
                        > >
                        > > On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 11:52 AM, Dan wrote:
                        > >
                        > > **
                        > >
                        > > It's not that secret, though it's perhaps better to use a different term
                        > > or clearly, when speaking to a wider audience, define how the term is being
                        > > used.
                        > >
                        > > (I'd even use the term in several ways myself: to mean a broad free market
                        > > capitalism, which is what libertarians close to Rothbard or influenced by
                        > > Mises mean, or to mean an economic system based on private ownership of
                        > > capital that might yet have all sorts of regulations and interferences. But
                        > > many define it as state capitalism and many of them seem to think that no
                        > > other form is possible or that any other form will eventually degrade into
                        > > state capitalism. The former is an obvious error*, whereas the latter is an
                        > > argument about empirical outcomes.)
                        > >
                        > > Regards,
                        > >
                        > > Dan
                        > >
                        > > * Though not one punishable by me. :)
                        > >
                        > > *From:* Joshua Katz
                        > > *To:* LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com
                        > > *Sent:* Saturday, February 2, 2013 11:04 AM
                        > > *Subject:* Re: [LeftLibertarian2] Re: Anarchy Comics
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > Yes, that makes sense - let's criticize an outspoken defender of our ideas
                        > > for not using our secret language.
                        > >
                        > > On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 6:57 PM, abcritter wrote:
                        > >
                        > > **
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > --- In LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com, Joshua Katz wrote:
                        > > >
                        > > > Navigated from there to the John Mackey piece. Interesting to see so many
                        > > > Reasonites outraged at the suggestion that a modifier on capitalism makes
                        > > > sense - as if the world didn't consider bailouts and the like to be
                        > > > 'capitalism.'
                        > >
                        > > Not surprising at all. Most of the folks who read Reason speak Misean, not
                        > > Marxian. In Misean, "capitalism" means an economy with no interference from
                        > > State and with sticky property permissible.
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        >
                      • Scott Bieser
                        It s been that way pretty much all along. Even Ayn Rand found it necessary to qualify the system she advocated as laissez-faire capitalism, as opposed to
                        Message 11 of 27 , Feb 3, 2013
                        • 0 Attachment
                          It's been that way pretty much all along. Even Ayn Rand found it
                          necessary to qualify the system she advocated as "laissez-faire
                          capitalism," as opposed to what most people thought of as simply
                          "capitalism."

                          I suspect that the semantic problem we're having has a lot to do with
                          the pragmatic alliance coming out of the New Deal between
                          proto-libertarians and conservatives, who had no problem statist
                          capitalism. Followers of Rand, Mises and Friedman rallied around the
                          "capitalist" banner, because conservatives responded well to that,
                          without understanding the damage they were doing to their own cause.


                          On 2/2/2013 9:55 PM, jeff_riggenbach wrote:
                          > I think it did. I think what most people meant by "capitalism" in the '70s and '80s was "the economic system that exists in the United States."
                          >
                          > JR
                          >
                          > --- In LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com, Bruce Majors wrote:
                          >> Perhaps this is generational. In the 70s and 80s it did not have a state
                          >> capitalism connotation.
                          >>
                          >> On Saturday, February 2, 2013, Dan wrote:
                          >>
                          >>> **
                          >>>
                          >>>
                          >>> --1
                          >>>
                          >>> ------------------------------
                          >>> *From:* Gary Chartier
                          > > 'gary.chartier@...');>>
                          >>> *To:* LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com
                          > > 'LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com');>
                          >>> *Sent:* Saturday, February 2, 2013 12:23 PM
                          >>> *Subject:* Re: [LeftLibertarian2] Re: Anarchy Comics
                          >>>
                          >>>
                          >>> +1
                          >>> -------------------------------------------------------------
                          >>> Gary Chartier
                          >>> Professor of Law and Business Ethics
                          >>> Associate Dean
                          >>> Tom and Vi Zapara School of Business
                          >>> La Sierra University
                          >>> Riverside, CA 92515-8247
                          >>> On Feb 2, 2013 8:57 AM, "Joshua Katz" wrote:
                          >>>
                          >>> **
                          >>>
                          >>> Well, two things. First, I don't see how capitalism, as a synonym for
                          >>> free markets, makes sense. Some libertarians think that corporations would
                          >>> exist in a free market, but they certainly wouldn't think that corporatism
                          >>> means free markets. How can any 'ism' that singles out a particular group
                          >>> - capital holders in this case - mean free markets? Can laborism be used
                          >>> to mean free markets, without linguistic silliness?
                          >>>
                          >>> Second, we're not talking about speaking to a wider audience, or to
                          >>> anyone. We're talking, here, about criticizing a public figure who is
                          >>> advocating exactly what libertarians want, for using the standard meaning
                          >>> of a term and what it means to most people.
                          >>>
                          >>> If we're allowing personal meanings, by the way, my personal meaning of
                          >>> capitalism excludes free markets, and means policies and regulations that
                          >>> favor capital.
                          >>>
                          >>> On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 11:52 AM, Dan wrote:
                          >>>
                          >>> **
                          >>>
                          >>> It's not that secret, though it's perhaps better to use a different term
                          >>> or clearly, when speaking to a wider audience, define how the term is being
                          >>> used.
                          >>>
                          >>> (I'd even use the term in several ways myself: to mean a broad free market
                          >>> capitalism, which is what libertarians close to Rothbard or influenced by
                          >>> Mises mean, or to mean an economic system based on private ownership of
                          >>> capital that might yet have all sorts of regulations and interferences. But
                          >>> many define it as state capitalism and many of them seem to think that no
                          >>> other form is possible or that any other form will eventually degrade into
                          >>> state capitalism. The former is an obvious error*, whereas the latter is an
                          >>> argument about empirical outcomes.)
                          >>>
                          >>> Regards,
                          >>>
                          >>> Dan
                          >>>
                          >>> * Though not one punishable by me. :)
                          >>>
                          >>> *From:* Joshua Katz
                          >>> *To:* LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com
                          >>> *Sent:* Saturday, February 2, 2013 11:04 AM
                          >>> *Subject:* Re: [LeftLibertarian2] Re: Anarchy Comics
                          >>>
                          >>>
                          >>> Yes, that makes sense - let's criticize an outspoken defender of our ideas
                          >>> for not using our secret language.
                          >>>
                          >>> On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 6:57 PM, abcritter wrote:
                          >>>
                          >>> **
                          >>>
                          >>>
                          >>>
                          >>> --- In LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com, Joshua Katz wrote:
                          >>>> Navigated from there to the John Mackey piece. Interesting to see so many
                          >>>> Reasonites outraged at the suggestion that a modifier on capitalism makes
                          >>>> sense - as if the world didn't consider bailouts and the like to be
                          >>>> 'capitalism.'
                          >>> Not surprising at all. Most of the folks who read Reason speak Misean, not
                          >>> Marxian. In Misean, "capitalism" means an economy with no interference from
                          >>> State and with sticky property permissible.
                          >>>
                          >>>
                          >>>
                          >>>
                          >
                          >
                          > --
                          > -- Scott Bieser
                          > Illustrator, Cartoonist, Designer
                          > View my web-comic QUANTUM VIBE at
                          > http://www.quantumvibe.com
                        • Dan
                          That d be my guess too. And that probably goes back to even earlier generations. From: jeff_riggenbach To:
                          Message 12 of 27 , Feb 3, 2013
                          • 0 Attachment
                            That'd be my guess too. And that probably goes back to even earlier generations.


                            From: jeff_riggenbach <haljam@...>
                            To: LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com
                            Sent: Saturday, February 2, 2013 11:55 PM
                            Subject: [LeftLibertarian2] Re: Anarchy Comics

                             
                            I think it did. I think what most people meant by "capitalism" in the '70s and '80s was "the economic system that exists in the United States."

                            JR

                            --- In LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com, Bruce Majors wrote:
                            >
                            > Perhaps this is generational. In the 70s and 80s it did not have a state
                            > capitalism connotation.

                          • Dan
                            Well, this is partly hindsight bias. We see what failed... Had they only known that! Any term might be abused or misused or misunderstood. I think a big part
                            Message 13 of 27 , Feb 3, 2013
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Well, this is partly hindsight bias. We see what failed... Had they only known that! Any term might be abused or misused or misunderstood. I think a big part of the problem here is that the nuances are going to be missed, especially when talking to ever larger groups of people. Some of this is just noise one would expect from transmission, but a good deal of it is, IMO, that most people just aren't that discerning and aren't going to make the effort. Thus even self-identified libertarians confuse "the economic system that exists in the United States" with free markets. Yeah, some of them might admit the economic system is not totally free market, but then go on to argue as if any alteration in it is moving away from a free market, when often it's just trading one form of statist interventionism for another -- as in trading the previous mix of interventions in the medical insurance market for Obamacare.

                              There's always going to be this problem, I think. Don't you? And that doesn't mean we should ignore it or just give up, but just that we should try to be aware that there might be limits.

                              From: Scott Bieser <scott@...>
                              To: LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com
                              Sent: Sunday, February 3, 2013 8:51 AM
                              Subject: Re: [LeftLibertarian2] Re: Anarchy Comics

                               
                              It's been that way pretty much all along. Even Ayn Rand found it
                              necessary to qualify the system she advocated as "laissez-faire
                              capitalism," as opposed to what most people thought of as simply
                              "capitalism."

                              I suspect that the semantic problem we're having has a lot to do with
                              the pragmatic alliance coming out of the New Deal between
                              proto-libertarians and conservatives, who had no problem statist
                              capitalism. Followers of Rand, Mises and Friedman rallied around the
                              "capitalist" banner, because conservatives responded well to that,
                              without understanding the damage they were doing to their own cause.

                              On 2/2/2013 9:55 PM, jeff_riggenbach wrote:
                              > I think it did. I think what most people meant by "capitalism" in the '70s and '80s was "the economic system that exists in the United States."
                              >
                              > JR
                              >
                              > --- In LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com, Bruce Majors wrote:
                              >> Perhaps this is generational. In the 70s and 80s it did not have a state
                              >> capitalism connotation.

                            • Gary Chartier
                              I suspect it s still what a lot of people mean. ... Gary Chartier Professor of Law and Business Ethics Associate Dean Tom and Vi Zapara School of Business La
                              Message 14 of 27 , Feb 3, 2013
                              • 0 Attachment

                                I suspect it's still what a lot of people mean.

                                -------------------------------------------------------------
                                Gary Chartier
                                Professor of Law and Business Ethics
                                Associate Dean
                                Tom and Vi Zapara School of Business
                                La Sierra University
                                Riverside, CA 92515-8247

                                On Feb 3, 2013 6:43 AM, "Dan" <dan_ust@...> wrote:
                                 

                                That'd be my guess too. And that probably goes back to even earlier generations.


                                From: jeff_riggenbach <haljam@...>
                                To: LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com
                                Sent: Saturday, February 2, 2013 11:55 PM
                                Subject: [LeftLibertarian2] Re: Anarchy Comics

                                 
                                I think it did. I think what most people meant by "capitalism" in the '70s and '80s was "the economic system that exists in the United States."

                                JR

                                --- In LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com, Bruce Majors wrote:
                                >
                                > Perhaps this is generational. In the 70s and 80s it did not have a state
                                > capitalism connotation.

                              • Dan Ust
                                Of course.
                                Message 15 of 27 , Feb 3, 2013
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Of course.

                                  On Feb 3, 2013, at 11:59 AM, Gary Chartier <gary.chartier@...> wrote:
                                   

                                  I suspect it's still what a lot of people mean.

                                  -------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Gary Chartier
                                  Professor of Law and Business Ethics
                                  Associate Dean
                                  Tom and Vi Zapara School of Business
                                  La Sierra University
                                  Riverside, CA 92515-8247

                                  On Feb 3, 2013 6:43 AM, "Dan" <dan_ust@...> wrote:
                                   

                                  That'd be my guess too. And that probably goes back to even earlier generations.


                                  From: jeff_riggenbach <haljam@...>
                                  To: LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com
                                  Sent: Saturday, February 2, 2013 11:55 PM
                                  Subject: [LeftLibertarian2] Re: Anarchy Comics

                                   
                                  I think it did. I think what most people meant by "capitalism" in the '70s and '80s was "the economic system that exists in the United States."

                                  JR

                                  --- In LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com, Bruce Majors wrote:
                                  >
                                  > Perhaps this is generational. In the 70s and 80s it did not have a state
                                  > capitalism connotation.

                                • Juan Garofalo
                                  ... Or perhaps they were dishonest hypocrites who babbled about free-markets while being partners of the conservatives/mercantists. Oh, and by the way,
                                  Message 16 of 27 , Feb 3, 2013
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    >
                                    >I suspect that the semantic problem we're having has a lot to do with
                                    >the pragmatic alliance coming out of the New Deal between
                                    >proto-libertarians and conservatives, who had no problem statist
                                    >capitalism. Followers of Rand, Mises and Friedman rallied around the
                                    >"capitalist" banner, because conservatives responded well to that,
                                    >without understanding the damage they were doing to their own cause.



                                    Or perhaps they were dishonest hypocrites who babbled about free-markets while being partners of the conservatives/mercantists.


                                    Oh, and by the way, "capitalism" basically means free-markets. Check out any dictionary.

                                    The people who confuse mercantilism with capitalism/free markets are the typical cheap marxists and similar lefties.








                                    >On 2/2/2013 9:55 PM, jeff_riggenbach wrote:
                                    >> I think it did. I think what most people meant by "capitalism" in the '70s and '80s was "the economic system that exists in the United States."
                                    >>
                                    >> JR
                                    >>
                                    >> --- In LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com, Bruce Majors wrote:
                                    >>> Perhaps this is generational. In the 70s and 80s it did not have a state
                                    >>> capitalism connotation.
                                    >>>
                                    >>> On Saturday, February 2, 2013, Dan wrote:
                                    >>>
                                    >>>> **
                                    >>>>
                                    >>>>
                                    >>>> --1
                                    >>>>
                                    >>>> ------------------------------
                                    >>>> *From:* Gary Chartier
                                    >> > 'gary.chartier@...');>>
                                    >>>> *To:* LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com
                                    >> > 'LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com');>
                                    >>>> *Sent:* Saturday, February 2, 2013 12:23 PM
                                    >>>> *Subject:* Re: [LeftLibertarian2] Re: Anarchy Comics
                                    >>>>
                                    >>>>
                                    >>>> +1
                                    >>>> -------------------------------------------------------------
                                    >>>> Gary Chartier
                                    >>>> Professor of Law and Business Ethics
                                    >>>> Associate Dean
                                    >>>> Tom and Vi Zapara School of Business
                                    >>>> La Sierra University
                                    >>>> Riverside, CA 92515-8247
                                    >>>> On Feb 2, 2013 8:57 AM, "Joshua Katz" wrote:
                                    >>>>
                                    >>>> **
                                    >>>>
                                    >>>> Well, two things. First, I don't see how capitalism, as a synonym for
                                    >>>> free markets, makes sense. Some libertarians think that corporations would
                                    >>>> exist in a free market, but they certainly wouldn't think that corporatism
                                    >>>> means free markets. How can any 'ism' that singles out a particular group
                                    >>>> - capital holders in this case - mean free markets? Can laborism be used
                                    >>>> to mean free markets, without linguistic silliness?
                                    >>>>
                                    >>>> Second, we're not talking about speaking to a wider audience, or to
                                    >>>> anyone. We're talking, here, about criticizing a public figure who is
                                    >>>> advocating exactly what libertarians want, for using the standard meaning
                                    >>>> of a term and what it means to most people.
                                    >>>>
                                    >>>> If we're allowing personal meanings, by the way, my personal meaning of
                                    >>>> capitalism excludes free markets, and means policies and regulations that
                                    >>>> favor capital.
                                    >>>>
                                    >>>> On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 11:52 AM, Dan wrote:
                                    >>>>
                                    >>>> **
                                    >>>>
                                    >>>> It's not that secret, though it's perhaps better to use a different term
                                    >>>> or clearly, when speaking to a wider audience, define how the term is being
                                    >>>> used.
                                    >>>>
                                    >>>> (I'd even use the term in several ways myself: to mean a broad free market
                                    >>>> capitalism, which is what libertarians close to Rothbard or influenced by
                                    >>>> Mises mean, or to mean an economic system based on private ownership of
                                    >>>> capital that might yet have all sorts of regulations and interferences. But
                                    >>>> many define it as state capitalism and many of them seem to think that no
                                    >>>> other form is possible or that any other form will eventually degrade into
                                    >>>> state capitalism. The former is an obvious error*, whereas the latter is an
                                    >>>> argument about empirical outcomes.)
                                    >>>>
                                    >>>> Regards,
                                    >>>>
                                    >>>> Dan
                                    >>>>
                                    >>>> * Though not one punishable by me. :)
                                    >>>>
                                    >>>> *From:* Joshua Katz
                                    >>>> *To:* LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com
                                    >>>> *Sent:* Saturday, February 2, 2013 11:04 AM
                                    >>>> *Subject:* Re: [LeftLibertarian2] Re: Anarchy Comics
                                    >>>>
                                    >>>>
                                    >>>> Yes, that makes sense - let's criticize an outspoken defender of our ideas
                                    >>>> for not using our secret language.
                                    >>>>
                                    >>>> On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 6:57 PM, abcritter wrote:
                                    >>>>
                                    >>>> **
                                    >>>>
                                    >>>>
                                    >>>>
                                    >>>> --- In LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com, Joshua Katz wrote:
                                    >>>>> Navigated from there to the John Mackey piece. Interesting to see so many
                                    >>>>> Reasonites outraged at the suggestion that a modifier on capitalism makes
                                    >>>>> sense - as if the world didn't consider bailouts and the like to be
                                    >>>>> 'capitalism.'
                                    >>>> Not surprising at all. Most of the folks who read Reason speak Misean, not
                                    >>>> Marxian. In Misean, "capitalism" means an economy with no interference from
                                    >>>> State and with sticky property permissible.
                                    >>>>
                                    >>>>
                                    >>>>
                                    >>>>
                                    >>
                                    >>
                                    >> --
                                    >> -- Scott Bieser
                                    >> Illustrator, Cartoonist, Designer
                                    >> View my web-comic QUANTUM VIBE at
                                    >> http://www.quantumvibe.com
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >------------------------------------
                                    >
                                    >Yahoo! Groups Links
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                  • Joshua Katz
                                    Yes, that s why it s particularly grating to hear otherwise intelligent economists tell us that, for instance, there is no systematic discrimination in
                                    Message 17 of 27 , Feb 3, 2013
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      Yes, that's why it's particularly grating to hear otherwise intelligent economists tell us that, for instance, there is no systematic discrimination in employment because, in a free market, ...

                                      On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 10:26 AM, Dan <dan_ust@...> wrote:
                                       

                                      Well, this is partly hindsight bias. We see what failed... Had they only known that! Any term might be abused or misused or misunderstood. I think a big part of the problem here is that the nuances are going to be missed, especially when talking to ever larger groups of people. Some of this is just noise one would expect from transmission, but a good deal of it is, IMO, that most people just aren't that discerning and aren't going to make the effort. Thus even self-identified libertarians confuse "the economic system that exists in the United States" with free markets. Yeah, some of them might admit the economic system is not totally free market, but then go on to argue as if any alteration in it is moving away from a free market, when often it's just trading one form of statist interventionism for another -- as in trading the previous mix of interventions in the medical insurance market for Obamacare.

                                      There's always going to be this problem, I think. Don't you? And that doesn't mean we should ignore it or just give up, but just that we should try to be aware that there might be limits.

                                      From: Scott Bieser <scott@...>
                                      To: LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com
                                      Sent: Sunday, February 3, 2013 8:51 AM
                                      Subject: Re: [LeftLibertarian2] Re: Anarchy Comics

                                       
                                      It's been that way pretty much all along. Even Ayn Rand found it
                                      necessary to qualify the system she advocated as "laissez-faire
                                      capitalism," as opposed to what most people thought of as simply
                                      "capitalism."

                                      I suspect that the semantic problem we're having has a lot to do with
                                      the pragmatic alliance coming out of the New Deal between
                                      proto-libertarians and conservatives, who had no problem statist
                                      capitalism. Followers of Rand, Mises and Friedman rallied around the
                                      "capitalist" banner, because conservatives responded well to that,
                                      without understanding the damage they were doing to their own cause.

                                      On 2/2/2013 9:55 PM, jeff_riggenbach wrote:
                                      > I think it did. I think what most people meant by "capitalism" in the '70s and '80s was "the economic system that exists in the United States."
                                      >
                                      > JR
                                      >
                                      > --- In LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com, Bruce Majors wrote:
                                      >> Perhaps this is generational. In the 70s and 80s it did not have a state
                                      >> capitalism connotation.


                                    • Juan Garofalo
                                      ... That s not an economist. That s a conservative. Conservatives use the word correctly (capitalism = free-markets) from a theoretical point of view BUT
                                      Message 18 of 27 , Feb 3, 2013
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        At 01:22 PM 2/3/2013 -0500, you wrote:


                                        >Yes, that's why it's particularly grating to hear otherwise intelligent economists tell us that, for instance, there is no systematic discrimination in employment because, in a free market, ...


                                        That's not an economist. That's a conservative.

                                        Conservatives use the word correctly (capitalism = free-markets) from a 'theoretical' point of view BUT they blatantly misapply it to the "real world". Of course they want to pass their fascist system as a 'free market' because hey! they defend 'american freedom'.

                                        And the 'vulgar' left (that is virtually all the left) do a similar thing. They KNOW the current system is NOT a free market, but they lie about it and call it 'capitalism' so that they can blam the failures of *mercantilism* on capitalism/free markets.









                                        >On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 10:26 AM, Dan <<mailto:dan_ust@...>dan_ust@...> wrote:
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >Well, this is partly hindsight bias. We see what failed... Had they only known that! Any term might be abused or misused or misunderstood. I think a big part of the problem here is that the nuances are going to be missed, especially when talking to ever larger groups of people. Some of this is just noise one would expect from transmission, but a good deal of it is, IMO, that most people just aren't that discerning and aren't going to make the effort. Thus even self-identified libertarians confuse "the economic system that exists in the United States" with free markets. Yeah, some of them might admit the economic system is not totally free market, but then go on to argue as if any alteration in it is moving away from a free market, when often it's just trading one form of statist interventionism for another -- as in trading the previous mix of interventions in the medical insurance market for Obamacare.
                                        >
                                        >There's always going to be this problem, I think. Don't you? And that doesn't mean we should ignore it or just give up, but just that we should try to be aware that there might be limits.
                                        >
                                        >From: Scott Bieser <<mailto:scott@...>scott@...>
                                        >To: <mailto:LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com>LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com
                                        >Sent: Sunday, February 3, 2013 8:51 AM
                                        >Subject: Re: [LeftLibertarian2] Re: Anarchy Comics
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >It's been that way pretty much all along. Even Ayn Rand found it
                                        >necessary to qualify the system she advocated as "laissez-faire
                                        >capitalism," as opposed to what most people thought of as simply
                                        >"capitalism."
                                        >
                                        >I suspect that the semantic problem we're having has a lot to do with
                                        >the pragmatic alliance coming out of the New Deal between
                                        >proto-libertarians and conservatives, who had no problem statist
                                        >capitalism. Followers of Rand, Mises and Friedman rallied around the
                                        >"capitalist" banner, because conservatives responded well to that,
                                        >without understanding the damage they were doing to their own cause.
                                        >
                                        >On 2/2/2013 9:55 PM, jeff_riggenbach wrote:
                                        >> I think it did. I think what most people meant by "capitalism" in the '70s and '80s was "the economic system that exists in the United States."
                                        >>
                                        >> JR
                                        >>
                                        >> --- In <mailto:LeftLibertarian2%40yahoogroups.com>LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com, Bruce Majors wrote:
                                        >>> Perhaps this is generational. In the 70s and 80s it did not have a state
                                        >>> capitalism connotation.
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                        >
                                      • Joshua Katz
                                        Last I checked, economist was a job and conservative an ideology. Regarding the second part, that s simply not an accurate description of thoughtful leftists,
                                        Message 19 of 27 , Feb 3, 2013
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          Last I checked, economist was a job and conservative an ideology.  Regarding the second part, that's simply not an accurate description of thoughtful leftists, although it applies, I'm sure, to a large swath of the establishment left.  Certainly it doesn't apply, say, to Kevin Carson's use of the term.

                                          On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 1:29 PM, Juan Garofalo <juan.g71@...> wrote:
                                           

                                          At 01:22 PM 2/3/2013 -0500, you wrote:

                                          >Yes, that's why it's particularly grating to hear otherwise intelligent economists tell us that, for instance, there is no systematic discrimination in employment because, in a free market, ...

                                          That's not an economist. That's a conservative.

                                          Conservatives use the word correctly (capitalism = free-markets) from a 'theoretical' point of view BUT they blatantly misapply it to the "real world". Of course they want to pass their fascist system as a 'free market' because hey! they defend 'american freedom'.

                                          And the 'vulgar' left (that is virtually all the left) do a similar thing. They KNOW the current system is NOT a free market, but they lie about it and call it 'capitalism' so that they can blam the failures of *mercantilism* on capitalism/free markets.

                                          >On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 10:26 AM, Dan <dan_ust@...dan_ust@...> wrote:
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >Well, this is partly hindsight bias. We see what failed... Had they only known that! Any term might be abused or misused or misunderstood. I think a big part of the problem here is that the nuances are going to be missed, especially when talking to ever larger groups of people. Some of this is just noise one would expect from transmission, but a good deal of it is, IMO, that most people just aren't that discerning and aren't going to make the effort. Thus even self-identified libertarians confuse "the economic system that exists in the United States" with free markets. Yeah, some of them might admit the economic system is not totally free market, but then go on to argue as if any alteration in it is moving away from a free market, when often it's just trading one form of statist interventionism for another -- as in trading the previous mix of interventions in the medical insurance market for Obamacare.
                                          >
                                          >There's always going to be this problem, I think. Don't you? And that doesn't mean we should ignore it or just give up, but just that we should try to be aware that there might be limits.
                                          >
                                          >From: Scott Bieser <scott@...scott@...>
                                          >To: LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.comLeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com
                                          >Sent: Sunday, February 3, 2013 8:51 AM
                                          >Subject: Re: [LeftLibertarian2] Re: Anarchy Comics
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >It's been that way pretty much all along. Even Ayn Rand found it
                                          >necessary to qualify the system she advocated as "laissez-faire
                                          >capitalism," as opposed to what most people thought of as simply
                                          >"capitalism."
                                          >
                                          >I suspect that the semantic problem we're having has a lot to do with
                                          >the pragmatic alliance coming out of the New Deal between
                                          >proto-libertarians and conservatives, who had no problem statist
                                          >capitalism. Followers of Rand, Mises and Friedman rallied around the
                                          >"capitalist" banner, because conservatives responded well to that,
                                          >without understanding the damage they were doing to their own cause.
                                          >
                                          >On 2/2/2013 9:55 PM, jeff_riggenbach wrote:
                                          >> I think it did. I think what most people meant by "capitalism" in the '70s and '80s was "the economic system that exists in the United States."
                                          >>
                                          >> JR
                                          >>
                                          >> --- In LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com, Bruce Majors wrote:
                                          >>> Perhaps this is generational. In the 70s and 80s it did not have a state
                                          >>> capitalism connotation.
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >


                                        • Juan Garofalo
                                          ... Actually, economist as synonym for libertarian has been used in the past. For instance http://jim.com/Molinari.htm - Though admittedly it s not
                                          Message 20 of 27 , Feb 3, 2013
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            At 01:31 PM 2/3/2013 -0500, you wrote:


                                            >Last I checked, economist was a job and conservative an ideology.


                                            Actually, "economist" as synonym for "libertarian" has been used in the past. For instance http://jim.com/Molinari.htm - Though admittedly it's not standard usage =P


                                            > Regarding the second part, that's simply not an accurate description of thoughtful leftists, although it applies, I'm sure, to a large swath of the establishment left. Certainly it doesn't apply, say, to Kevin Carson's use of the term.

                                            Regardless, my point remains.





                                            >On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 1:29 PM, Juan Garofalo <<mailto:juan.g71@...>juan.g71@...> wrote:
                                            >
                                            >
                                            >At 01:22 PM 2/3/2013 -0500, you wrote:
                                            >
                                            >>Yes, that's why it's particularly grating to hear otherwise intelligent economists tell us that, for instance, there is no systematic discrimination in employment because, in a free market, ...
                                            >
                                            >That's not an economist. That's a conservative.
                                            >
                                            >Conservatives use the word correctly (capitalism = free-markets) from a 'theoretical' point of view BUT they blatantly misapply it to the "real world". Of course they want to pass their fascist system as a 'free market' because hey! they defend 'american freedom'.
                                            >
                                            >And the 'vulgar' left (that is virtually all the left) do a similar thing. They KNOW the current system is NOT a free market, but they lie about it and call it 'capitalism' so that they can blam the failures of *mercantilism* on capitalism/free markets.
                                            >
                                            >>On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 10:26 AM, Dan <<mailto:dan_ust%40yahoo.com>dan_ust@...<mailto:dan_ust%40yahoo.com>dan_ust@...> wrote:
                                            >>
                                            >>
                                            >>Well, this is partly hindsight bias. We see what failed... Had they only known that! Any term might be abused or misused or misunderstood. I think a big part of the problem here is that the nuances are going to be missed, especially when talking to ever larger groups of people. Some of this is just noise one would expect from transmission, but a good deal of it is, IMO, that most people just aren't that discerning and aren't going to make the effort. Thus even self-identified libertarians confuse "the economic system that exists in the United States" with free markets. Yeah, some of them might admit the economic system is not totally free market, but then go on to argue as if any alteration in it is moving away from a free market, when often it's just trading one form of statist interventionism for another -- as in trading the previous mix of interventions in the medical insurance market for Obamacare.
                                            >>
                                            >>There's always going to be this problem, I think. Don't you? And that doesn't mean we should ignore it or just give up, but just that we should try to be aware that there might be limits.
                                            >>
                                            >>From: Scott Bieser <<mailto:scott%40scottbieser.com>scott@...<mailto:scott%40scottbieser.com>scott@...>
                                            >>To: <mailto:LeftLibertarian2%40yahoogroups.com>LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com<mailto:LeftLibertarian2%40yahoogroups.com>LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com
                                            >>Sent: Sunday, February 3, 2013 8:51 AM
                                            >>Subject: Re: [LeftLibertarian2] Re: Anarchy Comics
                                            >>
                                            >>
                                            >>It's been that way pretty much all along. Even Ayn Rand found it
                                            >>necessary to qualify the system she advocated as "laissez-faire
                                            >>capitalism," as opposed to what most people thought of as simply
                                            >>"capitalism."
                                            >>
                                            >>I suspect that the semantic problem we're having has a lot to do with
                                            >>the pragmatic alliance coming out of the New Deal between
                                            >>proto-libertarians and conservatives, who had no problem statist
                                            >>capitalism. Followers of Rand, Mises and Friedman rallied around the
                                            >>"capitalist" banner, because conservatives responded well to that,
                                            >>without understanding the damage they were doing to their own cause.
                                            >>
                                            >>On 2/2/2013 9:55 PM, jeff_riggenbach wrote:
                                            >>> I think it did. I think what most people meant by "capitalism" in the '70s and '80s was "the economic system that exists in the United States."
                                            >>>
                                            >>> JR
                                            >>>
                                            >>> --- In <mailto:LeftLibertarian2%40yahoogroups.com>LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com, Bruce Majors wrote:
                                            >>>> Perhaps this is generational. In the 70s and 80s it did not have a state
                                            >>>> capitalism connotation.
                                            >>
                                            >>
                                            >>
                                            >>
                                            >>
                                            >
                                            >
                                            >
                                            >
                                            >
                                          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.