Left to their own devices, structures of power (whether you call them capitalism or something else) are self-interested. This is true whether its political in nature or whether its economic in nature or social in nature or cultural in nature. Depending on the government, which is simply a formal manifestation of some but not all of the aspects of this arrangement, to deal with these issues and simultaneously to accord it a legitimised unchecked monopoly on force is extremely dangerous. Essentially, once you have decided the state is the only legitimate actor that can use force, what do you have to resist the state with?

Secondly, given that the government (formalised state aspects of power) and agents in civil society and the market (informal of differently formalised nonstate or quasi state aspects of power) are intertwined with each other and influence each other’s interests, I believe the view that you’ve posed takes an unrealistic view of the state, at least in the United States, as autonomous – both in the protections you are asking from it as well as the limitations you are trying to impose upon it. Essentially, you’ve given no way to deal with the conflict between state and nonstate forms of power that the ordinary person can turn to besides “the free market” which is illusory (more on that below).

Thirdly, the historical analysis of capitalism you’ve presented is flawed. Capitalism and industrialisation have been profoudnly linkeed with statism – even in the first industrialisation of Britain. It structurally demands it because as less well off countries attempt to ‘catch up’ their elites are forced to use the state to protect industry in their countries (to varying degrees of success) thereby fostering nationalism and competition. So your view is also leaving out (or rather implicitly accepting) the nation state framework, rather than ‘the state’ which is just a part of it.

Finally, the conception of force that you pose is off. It seems in your view that either there ‘is’ force or there ‘isn’t’. This is unrealistic to anyone who has experienced emotional abuse, has experienced the ramifications of being in debt, or has, as you have posited, experienced social discrimination. This gose back to the conception of power that is described above, and additionally, one might add to it the views of other advocates of individual rights like Chomsky or Foucault who haev understood that there are other mechanisms by which coercion, indoctrination, and other forms of securing ‘consent’ occur.

But on very simple terms, it is unclear to me how you are drawing the line between what is ‘acceptable’ use of power (force) in society and what is (unacceptable) except at the points where you underline your basic support for what is called but is not ‘free market’ capitalism (which would then take your analysis away from individualism towards a straight out defense of capitalism – which is fine, though it’s not exactly uplifting or historically accurate).

It illustrates, again, a lack of empiricism. Concepts like ‘violence’, ‘rights’, ‘hate’ and other issues need to be contextualised, understood precisely in specific contexts, and looked at in terms of their effects in the broader framework of social, economic, and political power. This lack of attention to large swathes of detail is probably due to an overreliance on philosophical imaginations of a particular time and place and structures of power that created them (e.g. Locke or Hobbes or Rousseau, who are interesting to conflate )

I deeply appreciate the civility and informative style of your args – a very welcome departure from some of the stuff that shows up here from time to time. Drop me a note (vinod@vinod.com) if you guys want me to toss your names in the hat for guest blogging….

libertarianism would certanly provide you with protection from civil society actors. liberalism starts w/ locke’s state of nature, where life is, as hobbes put it, “nasty brutish and short” due to “a war of all agaisnt all”, the fundamental raison d’etre for govt is to end this war, to protect the freedom of man, ie freedom from the initiation of force (and later fraud). man enters into a social contract, gives up his “right” to initiative force to the govt in return for a protection of his life, liberty , and property. So that takes care of your “mafia”, “casteist mob, privately hired guards of a company”, and “Protection from violence during labor organising” examples.

where rights come into play is to protect you from the government acting like the mob, or private actors using governement to initiate force. the “financial benefit for Northern corporations from slavery cotton” emerge from govt violating the principle of equal protection, a principle central to the libertarian system. ditto for “slavery”, “colonialism”, and “the use of the govt to protect mining interests.” this is how MLK argued that Jim crow and slavery actually represented a contradiction in the creed. liberalism is designed to protect you from this.

what liberalism doesn’t protect you from is JPMorgan not hiring jews. here’s an example of an extremely powerful private actor–and Morgans power in building America cannot be underestimated–nonviolently committing a great evil that has tremendous societal repercussions. for much of American history, even going into the 1990′s, a jew could not reach the pinnacle of wasp dominated American finance, not unlike quotas that existed in ivy league univerities.

but american anti-semitism was not nearly as intertwined with the state as her racism. given that, and the existence of tremendousl levels of economic freedom, the solution to wall st bigotry was found in the free market iteself. Morgan (as well as its wasp brethren like drexel, kidder, brown bros) was countered by goldman, lehman, sollie, bear…firms established in part because of the glass ceiling. they went on to dominate the street. in short, Jews were massively and systemically discriminated against in the U.S. but since the discrimination did not by in large involve government it did not result in massive economic disenfranchisement. here in the US they were not subjected to the government enabled violence of slavery, jim crow, or lynchings. since their communities were not as devastated, they were able to take advantage of the free markets, a great liberating force.

having said that, critics of libertarianism are right to point out the ahistoric nature of barry Goldwater’s principled opposition to the civil rights act. you can’t rob someone’s house then say ok you won’t do it again without giving their stuiff back, and thats essentially what america did to blacks. nonetheless, progressive’s faith in govt is often equally ahistoric. libertarianism’s warning that it is the giovt that must be checked most in order to prevent tyranny has borne itself out in history, even here in the US where the darkest parts of Americana history–slavery, jim crow, lynching, the KKK, all were intertwined with govt and the more progressive/statist political party.

really? there were no economic or social organisations participating in any of these events or others that might take a place in a more impartial list? no financial benefit for Northern corporations from slavery cotton? and what exactly was the positive right that contributed to slavery? the right to propernsty? the right to enslave people? I’m interested to hear your take on how the colonisation of South Asia had nothing to do with the profit motives of the joint stock company, the East India Company or how the escalation of the war of the indian state against its own people in the name of fighting Maoism is not at all linked to mining interests

I’m all for criticising state power. But I still failing to understand how, in the real world, people do not need protection from civil society actors and organisations. How am I better off if a group of people who are not in government, but have social, cultural, or economic power decide to attack me or worse yet provoke the government into attacking me because they DO have political power, but just not formal? Why is it better to be extorted by the mafia than taxed by the government (though likely both)? Why would I be happier as a dalit being beaten by a casteist mob rather than by the police (though likely both)? Why is it better to be shot by privately hired guards of a company than by national Guardspeople at Kent State or to be locked in a factory on fire with the emergency exits having been blocked than to be locked in my house during a fire and surrounded by a sieging army?

Or is it the government’s job to protect me from all these things on the lefthand side of the list? But doesn’t that then mean worker safety laws? Anti-extortion laws? Protection from violence during labor organising? A minimal recognition and accounting for casteism where it exists? And how would i possibly establish such claims in a language a liberal capitalist government could understand? perhaps in rights based language?

I would say yes to all this, but I think politics, like economics, social relations, and culture, is to a large enough extent reflective of power. As a result, is it not possible that both the holders of economic power and the holders of political power may not care very much about the welfare of the ordinary person, and that it is therefore up to that person and the social networks they can form to protect their ‘liberties’ ‘rights’ or whatever you want to call their best chance at meeting their varied needs in this world? That they have to confront a varied and tangled web of power on a daily basis and that they need trade Unions, NGos, their families, their friends, their loved ones and – yes – sometimes even a hand-holding-the-nose alliance with parts of the state.

Or doesn’t your kind of libertarian believe that individuals should actually ever use their liberties to work with other individuals using their liberties to secure a better outcome collectively?

constructed.

negative rights, what you see in the bill of rights, are all related to restricting government. the problem with a right to healthcare, as opposed to just a law that mandating government supply healthcare, is that a right is something going beyond democratic control. its not up to vote.

there’s reason regimes that have constricted positive rights have descended into Orwellian nightmares or at least police sates. its the anti-democratic nature of the concept mixed with the expansion of government. this descent isn’t necessitated by such concepts, but there is a correlation.

negative rights is hardly limited to restricting govt power. there is a giant difference between holocaust, ukranian famine, cultural revolution and the positive right to education or minimal health care.

the first sentence is a reasonable interpretation but the second one is off the deep end. You’re entitled to make the argument, just as jerry falwell is entitled to argue that religious freedom means the govt must give him a church, but neither argument has any basis in caselaw or even in justice Marshall’s writings. In reality, the 9th is one of the great arguments against excessive government, since its plain meaning appear to advocate a broad spectrum of negative rights. that why justices have been loath to use it since it could strike down many things that have become government functions, like much of the new deal. it in no way serves the purpose you think it does, except in your own head.

Marshall makes it clear that the law-constitutional or in the statute can be framed to accomplish anything

your overreacting by taking marshall’s comments to ridiculous extremes. the man was an advocate of the living constitution, which pushes for for a broad list of negative rights, except when it comes to the right to property. roe v wade would be an example. there is nothing in his ruling or writings that would indicate he interpreted the constitution as requiring expanding govt power over the individual. if you think otherwise, please supply the quote.

the man dedicated his entire life to securing negative rights for blacks, first under the 14th amendment (equal protection) and then as a justice under criminal procedures…both of which deal with restricting govt power over the individual. i’m sure he had no problem in restricting economic freedom, either via civil rights laws or redistribution laws, but i’ve never read anything from him even hinting that such acts should be required by the constitution and out of the hands of voters. not a single sentence in the very piece you link refers to positive rights, its all about securing negative rights for blacks or securing equal protection under the law, which is directlyu related to negative rights (ie, you can’t restict the negative right just to a certain group of people).

Maybe the government won’t build a printing press for me, but I can have NPR and PBS. Much the same

its not the same at all. there’s a critical difference between the government supplying you something and the government being required to supply you something because its your right. the latter is undemocratic and represents a conception of human rights that has, not just in theory but in reality, lead to brutal police states.

There can be no argument about the fact that slavery built this country

i agree. the history of racial discrimination in this country is intricately linked to government power, to the denial of basic rights to whole groups of people. indeed, the great crimes against huminty–slavery, Jim crow, holocaust, Ukrainian famine, cultural revolution—were mostly acts of government. thats why negative rights, ie restricting govt power, are so important.