Recognizing faux private interests that are actually part of the State
Let’s postulate two sorts of robbery scenarios.
In one, a lone robber points a gun at you and takes your cash. All libertarians would recognize this as a micro-example of any kind of government at work, resembling most closely State Socialism.
In the second, depicting State Capitalism, one robber (the literal apparatus of government) keeps you covered with a pistol while the second (representing State-allied corporations) just holds the bag that you have to drop your wristwatch, wallet and car keys in. To say that your interaction with the bagman was a “voluntary transaction” is an absurdity. Such nonsense should be condemned by all libertarians. Both gunman and bagman together are the true State.
Share This
[...] he State, liberty wanes. Note also that a proper definition of “the State” is not limited to solely the literal apparatus of government. Where there is an ongoing process of pie [...]
[...] Libertarian Class Theory and a proper understanding of the nature of property rights suggest other potential avenues. As I’ve noted before, the true state is the entire political class, the parasitic net beneficiaries of the coercive apparatus of government. One of the most often overlooked aspects of Rothbards thought is that Lockean property rights exist independently of their recognition by government and that, as a bandit gang, the state can not rightfully own anything. While corrupt government “privatization” schemes that benefit large corporations are thus seen as mere transfer of assets to a different arm of the political class, genuine privatization, or people’s privatization, would consist of extra-legal and decentralized asset seizure from all parts of the political class — cooperation in such seizure resulting not from direction by a Bolshevist vanguard party, but by an interlocking network of private arbitrators recognizing the legitimacy of the new “homesteaders” claims to the formerly unowned parcels of property. [...]
[...] I’ve been horribly remiss in failing to highlight sooner Matt Jenny’s excellent skeptical analysis of my bagman analogy. I’ll try to have the reply that it deserves up soon, but in the mean time just look over what Matt has had to say. [...]
[...] Brad Spangler, April 2005: Let’s postulate two sorts of robbery scenarios. In one, a lone robber points a gun at you and takes your cash. All libertarians would recognize this as a micro-example of any kind of government at work, resembling most closely State Socialism. [...]
[...] conjunction in a single state capitalist ruling class, was thought up by Brad Spangler, in “Recognizing Faux Private Interests that are Actually Part of the State“: Let’s postulate two sorts of robbery [...]
[...] Spangler used the analogy of gunman and bagman to illustrate the relationship between the state apparatus and the corporate ruling class. To apply [...]