Is value subjective or objective?
This is a FALSE DICHOTOMY.
the WHY of my frustration with libertarianism (as defined by anarcho-capitalism) and it’s psuedologic.
in which I describe how I have perceived the rigidity of the Style of reasoning offered by Libertarians to be ultimately deceptive and lazy.
Libertarian Class Analysis
Marx’s class analysis, with its recurring problem of the cross-class na-
ture of statists and anti-statists, lies in shreds. Clearly, oppression exists,
but another class model is needed to explain how it works.
The Libertarian Class Model advanced by Murray N. Rothbard is based
on the relation of the individual to the State, which springs from Franz
Oppenheimer’s paradigm of the evolution of the State. The sweep of
history, Oppenheimer wrote, was a long account of the parasitic class
continually transforming itself with new religions and ideologies to
justify its existence and repeatedly hoodwink the productive class into
serving it. As SEK3 explained:
“Today the State uses democracy (victim participation in his own
plunder), liberalism (leash the State to make it more palatable),
conservatism (unleash the State against ‘enemies’ — commies or
capitalists, perverts or straights, heretics or orthodox believers,
difference 1 or difference 2), and other nostrums, snake-oil or anti-
concepts to beguile its victims into accepting continued plunder
(taxation), murder (war and execution), and slavery (conscription
and taxation again).”
Socialism, including Marxist variants, is just another dogma used to
justify the State’s existence, and it is one of the most appealing.
Almost all libertarians accept that the State divides society into two
classes: those who gain by the existence of the State and those who lose.
Most libertarians also agree that society would be better off if the State
were eliminated or at least shrunk significantly. But despite efforts of the
late Rothbard and others to raise libertarian class consciousness, most
American libertarians seem to find discussion of class theory offensive,
“impolite,” and “not respectable.” They appear to believe that only right-
wing kooks and commies talk about ruling classes and class structures.
Nevertheless, efforts to expand Libertarian Class Theory into a
comprehensive model have continued.
The Agorist Critique of Marxist Class Theory
Marx’s Class Theory failed to see that those workers classically
considered proletariat would become growingly obsolescent. In North
America, unionized skilled workers are in decline , being absorbed by
new entrepreneurship (franchising, independent contracting and consult-
ing), the service industry, scientific research and development, increased
managerial function without human labor underneath for exploitation,
and bureaucracy. Wrote SEK3:
“The entrepreneurial problem is unsolvable for Marxism, because
Marx failed to recognize the economic category. The best Marxists
can do is lump them with new, perhaps mutated, capitalist forms.
But if they are to fit the old class system, they are petit bourgeois ,
the very group that is to either collapse into proletarians or rise into
the monopoly capitalist category. Small business should not
increase in the ‘advanced, decadent stages of capitalism.’ ”
Marxism also does not deal with the persistent Counter-Economy (i.e., a
peaceful black market or underground economy). There is a spectrum of
the Counter-Economy “tainting” workers, entrepreneurs, and even
capitalists. Said Konkin:
“Scientists, managers, even civil servants do not merely accept
bribes and favors but actively seek second, unreported employment
in the ‘black market.’ And the more ‘socialist’ the State, the bigger
the nalevo , ‘black work’ or ‘underground’ component of the econo-
my. … [T]his turns Marx ‘on his head’ … : ‘advanced capitalism’ is
generating runaway free-enterprise (the Old-Fashioned kind) in
reaction; the more decadent (statist) the capitalism, the more
virulent the reaction and the larger the Counter-Economy.
“But even worse is the class of Counter-Economists. That is, by
Marxist class structure, the black marketeers cannot be a class:
workers, capitalists and entrepreneurs in active collusion against a
common enemy, the State. True, many do not perceive themselves
as in a common class and some even try to deny their ‘black’
activities even to themselves, thanks to religious and social guilt
induction. And yet, when the agents of the State appear to enforce
the ‘laws’ of the Power Elite, the Counter-Economists from tax-
dodging businessman to drug-dealing hippie to illegal alien to
feminist midwife are willing to signal each other with the
universal: ‘Watch it, the fuzz/pigs/ flics / federales / etc. !’ …
“Even in extreme cases, the commonality of the Counter-
Economist has generated an economic determinism as strong as
any Marx considered to weld ‘class unity.’ But this is still not the
“This class unity is not that of a workers’ class (though workers are
heavily involved) nor of a capitalist class (though capitalists are
involved) nor even of a ruling class — this class is based on the
commonality of risk , arising from a common source (the State).
And risk is not proletarian (or particularly capitalist); it is purely
“Again, to make it clear, if the ‘entrepreneuriat’ are tossed into the
capitalist class, then the Marxist must face the contradiction of
‘capitalists’ at war with the capitalist-controlled State.
“At this point, Marx’s class analysis is in shreds. Clearly,
oppression exists, but another model is needed to explain how it
Several industries owe their profit margins, market shares, and—in some cases—very existence to the war on drugs.
Just about every cannabis opponent uses the ‘what about the children?’ argument when they are at speaking engagements or are providing quotes in the media about cannabis. Cannabis supporters also use arguments that involve a children angle. But instead of describing a doomsday scenario like…
tinue until a climactic event which will resolve the conflict. Both
sides perceive select groups which will lead the victims against
their oppressors. The Marxists call these groups of high class
consciousness ‘vanguards’ and then extract even more aware
elements designated ‘elites of the vanguard.’ Agorists perceive a
spectrum of consciousness amongst the victims as well, and also
perceive the most aware elements as the first recruits for the
revolutionary cadre. With the exception of ‘intellectuals,’ the
Marxists and agorists sharply disagree on who these most
progressive elements are.