Lately I've been running into some pieces that really explore the heart of what makes thoughtful people in This Thing Of Ours a bit different from rank and file "Libertarians". Now one of the interesting things is that when I posted this on my other blog (which I use to poke at various leftists and conservatives that I know), I immediately received a strongly worded, but un-thought out response from a socialist "anarchist" who was basically trying to smother these ideas in their crib. His emotional aggression was basically a signal not only that these ideas are getting at something fundamental, but also that they are a threat to the false binary as it exists
, which is a necessary lever to push us toward total statism of the "Big Mommy" variety. If that false binary of "socialism or fascism, take your pick" is deflated, if we show a way out, that threatens those who want to control or be controlled in a deep, emotional way. They don't want to consider these ideas and argue about them, they want to cover them with the same old rhetoric.
And I think what makes them threatened is the hidden understanding that this approach actually offers normal, Joe Public types something they can believe in without compromising their morals or
their freedom. Since deep down, the control freaks hate the middle class public and wish to degrade and/or destroy them, it would make sense that they would react strongly.
That said, here's the articles in question, it's nothing that hasn't been touched on before, but they put it together and expressed it very very well:Actually Existing Capitalism
This is a very good wrap up of the distinctions made or not made between "capitalism" and "the free market" and why the traditional political ideologies are all wet.Socialism vs. Regulation
This one in particular might be very controversial to some of you, but it makes sense of an intuition I've had for a while, but haven't had exactly the words to explain.
It also makes mincemeat of those who throw Europe in your face as a sort of prima facie argument for statism.Let the free market eat the rich!
The last couple of sections explore something that I think is also going to raise red flags among the traditional libertarians out there, but I think is an essential part of what makes Allan Thornton-esque raw anarchism more
viable than minarchism. The biggest subsidy the rich may have is the socialization of the costs of fighting private crime. And somewhat ironically, that re-distributes private crime to the poor and middle class.