But mugwump’s extreme hatred for “state subsidy” for “lefty academics”, and (yet) utter indifference to the pork-barrel deals for Diebold and its ilk, already speaks volumes on the priorities of our libertarians.

Doesn’t really matter, does it? Since the original claim was that “The uniquely favourable bargaining position currently enjoyed by capital won’t last forever”, and people with the big capital are usually not the same as those who have the knowledge.

And as we all know, much knowledge—including knowledge on how to automate stuff and put more people out of work—is discovered in academia, and that’s exactly the place our beloved libertarians like to launch jihads against.

Big capital can’t always win, and besides there’s no reason why it should always win.

What I’m saying is that labor, in the traditional sense of people acting as, essentially, verbally programed pick and place robots, is becoming obsolete. And we’re not talking all that long a term.

Also, the degree of “automation” required to make all forms of “labour”—including knowledge discovery—obsolete will be so far out into the future as to be totally irrelevant for present-day policy making.

But mugwump’s extreme hatred for “state subsidy” for “lefty academics”, and (yet) utter indifference to the pork-barrel deals for Diebold and its ilk, already speaks volumes on the priorities of our libertarians.

It’s all pixie dust if you don’t understand it.

Why, if it isn’t the magic pixie dust of Value Production™ again. Except now it takes the form of the almighty holy dust of Automation™.

But even now, it’s clear that the encroachment of automation only creates a new form of “labour”, which business wonks like to call the “knowledge-based economy”. And libertarianism doesn’t tell us how to automate the discovery of new, novel knowledge.

In short, you can talk about Value Production™ and Automation™ till the cows come home, but at the end of the day, it’s just a tortured fact-free justification for giving more money to rich people who aren’t negros or tenured professors.

Dream on. The uniquely favorable bargaining position currently enjoyed by capital is only going to get MORE favorable. Eventually, (And by eventually, I mean well before the end of this century.) it’s going to become overwhelming.

Look, labor only has some bargaining strength relative to capital because labor is a required input into the productive process. But there’s this thing called “automation”, whereby capital replaces labor’s contribution to production. And automation is getting better every year.

And so, the percentage of production which is due to the contributions of labor declines every year, and brings down with it the bargaining position of labor.

There is no reason in principle why capital can’t, eventually, displace essentially 100% of labor’s contribution to the production process, at which point labor has no bargaining strength at all.

You’d best start thinking about what to do when that happens, because it IS going to happen. And when it does, you can sing “Solidarity” until your throat is raw, and it won’t do you a bit of good…

Despite the fact that your pork barrel company CEOs earn way more than most filthy lefty academics can dream of earning, and with much less competition? You’ve got your priorities straight, man.

“What is it with the snide asides against the entrepreneurial class? ‘Shopkeepers’, ‘petit bourgeoise’, etc.”

As Glorious Godfrey points out, you’re skirting the issue. You get all worked up over a bunch of nameless academics who manage to get tenure, yet you try to pretend that Halliburton and Blackwater and Diebold don’t exist even as they pocket your tax money.

“’Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful committed citizens can change the world;indeed it’s the only thing that ever has.’”

I thought you just want to be left alone. Now you want to actually change the world? I guess robertdfeinman got it right then.

Oh yes, the world seen from the shopkeeper’s perspective.

You’re talking to the wrong libertarian with the racial line: I only moved to the US relatively recently, but have had libertarian tendencies since well before I started paying tax.

Really, do you think that a further rollback of the state is feasible?

OT, since the “g-spot” thread closed before I could comment on cosmas last post, I’ll hijack my reply in here:

It seems that what’s bugging you is my use of the word “expect”.

uncovering the genetic reasons why the Boston police force used to be so heavily Irish

mugwump:

Just because a portion of the private sector exists on a diet principally of pork, doesn’t mean the whole private sector or even a majority of the private sector does. Look at the tax take. Do the math. Or maybe start a business and see first-hand; believe me it’s a lot easier operating in the private economy that it is chasing public funds.

Oh yes, the world seen from the shopkeeper’s perspective. God bless them, they are important. But you see, you’re skirting the issue.

The issue is that, given that:

a) big business does exist and that its entanglements with the state are complex and manifold;
b) democracy does exist and it is associated—even after three decades of relentless bias in the media coverage of economic issues—with a high, even growing, level of demand for public services;

it is just silly to expect the activities of the state not to represent a very sizeable share of the GDP of any modern economy. Therefore, instead of kvetching and fantasising about drowning the state in bathtubs, you boys should start to worry about little things like proper governance.

Really, do you think that a further rollback of the state is feasible? After the takeover by the Chicago school of the economic mainstream, Ronny and Maggie, the unexpected windfalls of the fall of the communist block, the economic reforms in China after Mao, the abandonment of s0ci4lism by India? Are you seriously saying that you can put the genie back into the bottle and return to nineteenth century conditions?

But, yet again, you kindly come forward to show that when libertarians blather about liberty and a limited state they are only interested in not paying taxes that end up as handouts for negroes. Mieville’s hits it on the head: “(a)bove all, (libertarians) recast their most banal avarice—the disinclination to pay tax—as a principled blow for political freedom.”

Just because a portion of the private sector exists on a diet principally of pork, doesn’t mean the whole private sector or even a majority of the private sector does. Look at the tax take. Do the math. Or maybe start a business and see first-hand; believe me it’s a lot easier operating in the private economy that it is chasing public funds.

Oh yes, the world seen from the shopkeeper’s perspective. God bless them, they are important. But you see, you’re skirting the issue.

The issue is that, given that:

a) big business does exist and that its entanglements with the state are complex and manifold;
b) democracy does exist and it is associated—even after three decades of relentless bias in the media coverage of economic issues—with a high, even growing, level of demand for public services;

it is just silly to expect the activities of the state not to represent a very sizeable share of the GDP of any modern economy. Therefore, instead of kvetching and fantasising about drowning the state in bathtubs, you boys should start to worry about little things like proper governance.

Really, do you think that a further rollback of the state is feasible? After the takeover by the Chicago school of the economic mainstream, Ronny and Maggie, the unexpected windfalls of the fall of the communist block, the economic reforms in China after Mao, the abandonment of socialism by India? Are you seriously saying that you can put the genie back into the bottle and return to nineteenth century conditions?

But, yet again, you kindly come forward to show that when libertarians blather about liberty and a limited state they are only interested in not paying taxes that end up as handouts for negroes. Mieville’s hits it on the head: “(a)bove all, (libertarians) recast their most banal avarice—the disinclination to pay tax—as a principled blow for political freedom.”

nu:

Really, do you seriously think that the idea of legalising marijuana is a unique libertarian contribution?
that’s not what he said. He said, Libertarians should concentrate on objectives of theirs that are achievable by building alliances with other who share commitments to those objectives for different reasons.

Well, I guess my reading was not too charitable. However, the “realism” that Michael was trying to display was presented as a sort of return to the pragmatic roots of libertarianism. Roots which, as the lengthy piece cribbed from Carnegie shows, have never existed in the first place. Hence the cheap derision. I’m a cheap kinda guy. Oh, and his proposals—as you would expect from the ideology that has been put to such deft and cynical use to craft the prevailing rhetoric of our age— manage to ignore some of the most pressing problems of this young century, like the growing dissatisfaction with globalisation. Not too impressive for such a(n allegedly) non-conformist and unflinchingly rational movement.

BTW, it’s “malcontents” and not “discontents” in my little tirade above. Lemme get a kitchen knife…AARGH! ! There. How do you want the little pinky, Henry? Airmail or Express delivery?

And Holland, high taxes or not, has an old laissez-faire tradition, at least when it comes to personnal freedoms. things like suggest that that segment of the population decided to support a welfare state as long as it eastablished more freedom in other areas ?

Sorry, that’s just grasping at straws. Yes, the Dutch have a strong laissez-faire vein (although do believe me when I say that a lot of their good image is the result of clever self-promotion; het is niet alles goud wat er blinkt ). But, you see, you cannot seriously tell me with a straight face that some libertarians could conceive that some varieties of welfare state could “establish more freedom” in some areas. The welfare state is the big bad, the molly-coddling decadence, the fatuous promise of free lunches, the politics of envy.

So no, the Dutch are not libertarians. Whatever their flaws, they live in the real world.

Wax:

Thank God we hurried together to the ‘let’s argue about the definition of libertarianism’ dick-waving breakout session instead of wasting time talking about that tall bald English sci-fi geek’s essay. You fellas have a good deal more to say and no earrings for the most part – carry on!

Dick-waving is the whole point of the interwebs, mate. Besides, this appears to be a tradition of sorts on this site: a geeky intro to a hot-button topic, followed by a chaotic argument.