My thinking is no.
In no way am I a student of political ideaologies or economics, but both interest me. And over the last couple of days I've been pondering a thread
here on ATS.
"Who are the Real Anarchists"?
Wherein an article was referenced: mises.org...
The thread rapidly got into Libertarianism and then "Free Market" worship.
The article on the other hand presented Capitalist Anarchy and Anti-Capitalist Anarachy in it's pseudo article selling classes - they may be very
good for all I know - but not a solid source, IMO.
The other day I read about the shady origins of US style - pro-capiltist libertariansim.
But in returning to the "Aanarchist" piece at mises.org, I would like to share the following quote:
In the libertarian tradition, however, the anarchist society is merely the society in which individuals are not governed by a state built on
monopolized violence and coercion, but instead govern themselves through organizations into which they have entered voluntarily. Among such
institutions can certainly be found churches, schools, families, professional associations, markets, and tribes.
Entered into voluntarily - Family - not so much; Church - not so much; proffesional associations - not so much; markets - not so much and tribes.
By the above referenced definition - government is a free association, unions are a free association and both more freely associated with then family
After much thought - the only real examples of truly - self decided (not indocronated) association is Alcholics Anonymous and often the court sends
people there (but they leave after their time is up).
Then we get to the "Market Worship". And I say worship very deliberately because "Free Marketeers" do hold the Market first in their lives, the
answer to all their prayers. The very idea of an "invisable hand" guiding the "market" assumes a benevolent Godhead according to Adam Smith.
But do or can free markets exist. Adam Smith himself tells us that only self-interest can guide us.
And such self-interest can only lead to immoral behavior in the attempt to skew the market in one's own favor (so much for a godly invisible
There is no level playing field, never has been.
Which brings me to today's entry in the musing mind:
From Alternet :www.commondreams.org...
by Robert Reich
"The Myth of the "Free Market" and How to Make the Economy Work for Us"
According to this logic, government shouldn’t intrude through minimum wages, high taxes on top earners, public spending to get people back to work,
regulations on business, or anything else, because the “free market” knows best.
In reality, the “free market” is a bunch of rules about (1) what can be owned and traded (the genome? slaves? nuclear materials? babies? votes?);
(2) on what terms (equal access to the internet? the right to organize unions? corporate monopolies? the length of patent protections? ); (3) under
what conditions (poisonous drugs? unsafe foods? deceptive Ponzi schemes? uninsured derivatives? dangerous workplaces?) (4) what’s private and
what’s public (police? roads? clean air and clean water? healthcare? good schools? parks and playgrounds?); (5) how to pay for what (taxes, user
fees, individual pricing?). And so on.
Which brings us to the central political question: Who should decide on the rules, and their major purpose? If our democracy was working as it should,
presumably our elected representatives, agency heads, and courts would be making the rules roughly according to what most of us want the rules to be.
The economy would be working for us.
Instead, the rules are being made mainly by those with the power and resources to buy the politicians, regulatory heads, and even the courts (and the
lawyers who appear before them). As income and wealth have concentrated at the top, so has political clout. And the most important clout is
determining the rules of the game.
Free Market Libertarianism!
And the total futility of even bring anything up.