the kind of economic arrangements that exist in our world today which are dominated by cronies of those with state power that’s not the kind of economic arrangement than anybody who believes in freedom auto favor hi I’m Zach Weissmuller with Reason TV we’re here with Gary Chartier associate dean at La Sierra University School of Business and editor of the book markets not capitalism which he co-edited with Charles W Johnson it’s available on Amazon Gary thanks for joining us pleasure to be here Zak the thing that probably a lot of libertarians wonder about when they see the title markets not capitalism what’s wrong with capitalism if by capitalism you just mean absolutely free markets we have no problem at all with that but there are lots of other meanings which are just as common if not more common things like business government partnership social dominance by the owners of capital the my personal favorite whatever the economic system we have now is I think that’s that’s when people often seem to use a lot and we’re pretty uncomfortable with the economic system we have now because it’s riddled by state secured privilege and we’d like to get rid of that privilege there’s words in common usage now people say corporatism or crony capitalism but you actually say we need to go further than that and disavow all capitalism yeah I think it has a lot to do with the flavor that that word has in the minds of some people the history the word has and in particular I’m going to keep saying this association with whatever it is we have now the kind of economic arrangements that exist in our world today which are dominated by folks who are cronies of those with state power that’s not the kind of economic arrangement than anybody who believes in freedom ought a favor the first essay in your book talks about the notion of freed markets why is that the first essay in your book and it could just explain the concept sure William Gillis writes a great essay talking about why freed is important why is freed important because the markets we have now aren’t free they’re distorted by state secured privilege in all kinds of different ways and to say that we favor freed markets or if you will liberated markets is to emphasize that there’s a task ahead of us if we want freedom there’s something to be achieved it’s not a matter of celebrating what we have now it’s a matter of making something dramatically different and exciting happening talk a little bit about that what is the difference in what a free market would look like from what we have now well let’s take an obvious example health care okay we have a healthcare system which is regularly defended by conservative pundits as largely free and distorted a bit by government intervention but the fact is it’s fundamentally distorted by government intervention consider for instance the range of licensing requirements on health care professionals that limit who can provide health care services the constraints on what products can be sold Hospital accreditation requirements kinds of limits the drug patents create and so forth so across the board the healthcare market is miss shaped by government intervention and what I worry about is the people who talk as if what we had was basically a freed market assume it seems to me that let’s say in the context of health care all we’d have to do is I don’t know get rid of Medicare and get rid of Obamacare and then suddenly we’d have a free market in health care and that’s just ridiculous in your intro you write markets laboring under government and capitalism are pervaded by persistent poverty ecological destruction radical inequalities of wealth and concentrated power in the hands of corporations bosses and landlords do you really think every hierarchy or power structure would be obliterated in a totally free market I don’t think every hierarchy would be obliterated what I would say is most people don’t particularly like functioning in hierarchical settings I think a lot of us tolerate them because they’re useful in one way or another but most people don’t like them the more competitive a market it seems to me the more free market the more options people have the more options people have I think the more they’re going to tend to pursue alternatives that give them more freedom more elbow room in the workplace and the other institutional settings in which they work does that mean you get absolutely flat organizations probably not but I think it means people have more options and more opportunities to choose opportunities for greater participation a lot of this seems to be a sort of outreach to the left how do you convince them that stronger stronger regulation stronger government is not the answer if we talk about outreach I mean this isn’t a kind of sham that is we really believe the things we’re saying here and we’re very happy to identify with the broad history of the political left this isn’t the Kay it isn’t some kind of subterfuge that we’re engaged in how would we go about talking about that to people I guess the most important thing to emphasize is the actual history of the growth of regulation businesses love cartels they don’t like competition big business can manipulate the political process to yield the regulations it wants under the guise of protecting the consumer and we think that’s consistently what happens how do we move forward from here lots of us have different strategies and I don’t think the book represents one coherent argument about just the right attack to take I have a lot of respect for people who are involved in Agra strategies to just try to try to tunnel under the existing order and get out from under it by operating below its radar I certainly respect the people who want to try seasteading and other options of that kind to simply you know put competitive alternatives out there that put pressure therefore on the status quo to change but one strategy that you seem to not be as friendly to as a strategy such as some sort of privatization efforts what’s wrong with trying to make the government run more like a market I’m all for radical privatization and the book includes you know a couple of great pieces by Murray Rothbard and Carl Hess that talk about ways in which existing government functions and government collusive enterprises could be taken over by the public and by the people who work at them and I have no problem with that at all but I think trying to make the government run more efficiently doesn’t get at the root problem that the government’s funding is monopolistic it’s putting resources into things that you or I might not have any great interest in seeing funded at all knowing for instance that prisons are run more efficiently doesn’t change the fact that the prisons are there primarily to house the victims of the drug war which I don’t want to see happening in the first place everyone under 18 is forced to go to in education institution is it better to have some sort of choice in the form of you know milton friedman’s voucher program it’s undoubtedly better to have more options though I think that the critics of vouchers who say you really run the risk of just getting the state involved in and managing even more closely the recipients of the the vouchers I think they have a real point and I’d really prefer the approach of my friend Sheldon Richman who wants to argue strongly for abolishing the state school system if there are one essay in this book that you could recommend for someone who might be from the pro-capitalist right or pro-capitalist libertarian what would you recommend where do you recommend they start Charles Johnson is the source of the best stuff in the book I think and I say that with apologies to all my other friends who were involved Charles is just such a brilliant synth assistant analyst I’d say Charles’s essay markets freed from capitalism might be the single best introduction to the position that someone new to the conversation might find in the book great gary sardini thank you very much for joining us today play your beer four recent TV and zack wise moment you

Tagged : # # # # # # # # # # # # # # #

100 thoughts on ““Markets Not Capitalism,” Says Professor Gary Chartier”

  1. @mtanousable The amazon description you used shows exactly my point. He is using the word capitalism to mean corporatism.

  2. @MrCivilLibertarian I see. So it isn't so much the institution of wage labor going away, but instead improving to be a better deal for the wage earner. (Of course, more likely the wages remain the same while prices drop.) To eliminate it, you would need unlimited loanable funds….

    The elimination of the system entirely would, in my estimation, only be possible in a socialistic system, where the free market doesn't exist and the results are far, far worse for both prosperity and liberty.

  3. @luke55664 – Okay, this is a complete digression from my point. My point was that maybe libertarians are teaming up with anarchists because things are getting really crazy.

  4. @juliaisafilmbuff123 Tell me a communistic society that subscribes to your definition communism. You have an elite group of people controlling society through government you have no rights, no unions, no control over your own land, no free markets. Guys Property is not held in common its owned by the government. Corporations love communism, lowest wages on the border of slavery and feudalism for example. Learn what communism has done to its people throughout history.

  5. @jsebastianfilms
    "Corporations love communism"
    No they dont. Corporations want just the right amount of statism and just the right amount of freedom.
    They want enough statism to be able to create barriers to entry and suppress competition, but enough freedom to make a profit without having to give their profit to the public. Communism would be a disaster for corporations, as would a total free market

  6. @InvincibleNumanist I agree with half your statement. Why does every corporation and bank want to do business and headquarter in China? Corporations operate much the same way a communist societydoes; a Bourgeoisie class(executives), a proletariat class(worker). No upward mobility. If there is any (middle management)they push down the proletariat class. Both models think alike.

  7. @glennd7962
    why dont you read the book?
    They strongly argue against communism in the book, using passages from people like the anarchist coltairine decleyre.
    Hes an individualist anarchist, not an AnCom.
    and yeah Locke was outdated.

  8. @glennd7962 Individualist anarchist =/= Communist Anarchists however both share the idea that hierarchy is generally not a good thing.

  9. 2:34-3:30 Good point, our health care system is assumed by many leftists (& apparently some Republicans) to be free market and that's just not true. On the state-level, there are 2100+ mandates on the books, health insurance corps must off coverage for X if they want to do business in State Y. Many of these mandates are not utilized by a large segment of the population, but it still increases their premiums. Community rating provisions are particularly bad.

  10. Radically strip and reduce Government power and influence and there are no means to manipulate the economy. Only through Government favortism does Cronism and Corpratism exist. Governemt is the median axis in which the greedy banking cartels (which is the natural state of human economy,IE self interest) use to manipulate economies. As Reagan said, Government is not the solution to the problem, but Government is the problem. Most if not all of these problems can be linked to FDR and Keynes.

  11. @Christ724 Except Communists argue for hierarchy to distribute the products in a commune, they just don't call it a hierarchy. Individualist Anarchism is Socialist not communist it's totally f'ing different :-]

  12. @dubified89 Not all support majoritarianism just like not all individualists support atomism. Ever heard of egoist communism?

  13. Wait a second . . .
    . . . you mean using a juvenile system of popularity contests to assemble a small group of people who have a militarily enforced monopoly of power over all segments of the social and economic lives of millions & millions of people, and who are easily manipulated by powerful special interest groups to use that monopoly control of the population to benefit some at the expense of others . . . that this type of system might be prone to negative outcomes???
    What a surprise!!

  14. @InvincibleNumanist I have begun reading the book. The first chapter makes the same mistake that people like michael moore make. It (so far) has demonstrated a profound misunderstanding of what capitalism is. Moore looks at "rent seeking" and calls it capitalism. Capitalism does not allow for such government favor as regulation to protect market share, or incorporation to limit the liability of a firm. They also seem to want a free market in everything but labor.

  15. @copycat042
    "Capitalism does not allow for such government favor as regulation to protect market share, or incorporation to limit the liability of a firm."
    Perhaps not in the eyes of the mises institute. But thats not what most of the world believes, including many conservatives who too speak out in favour of "capitalism".
    hence "markets, not capitalism".

    Besides semantics, what else is there you disagree with?

  16. @InvincibleNumanist not too far in, yet, the "use as ownership" principle seems problematic, immoral and unethical. This is only from other left libertarian sources so may not be in the book. For instance: if I make a plough and pay you a gold coin to plough and plant my garden, who owns the plough and the garden? If I sell the produce, who owns the plough, and the garden? Why, in each case? I really want to understand.

  17. the left-libertarians certainly have noble intentions, but ultimately fail to offer any substantial criticism to the fundamentals of capitalism. their analysis is flawed. chartier seems to labour under one of the basic axioms of libertarian thought: if the gov't went away competition would be so fierce monopolies would be impossible. wrong. capitalism also consists of a very specific institutional structure that createsc class division. his methods wouldn't alter this in any significant way.

  18. @dubified89 I can say more or less the same about individualism and even make outrageous claims about how, "Well what it really boils down to is the right to exploit one another…really it's might makes right in the end just because I can't imagine it being anything else." Of course that's silly, and it's as silly as saying that communism is just majoritarianism.

  19. All that needs to happen is for people to be educated about "what Capitalism actually is". Ayn Rand's definition is perhaps the best one out there, because her definition has the proper philosophical foundation to it.

    Quote: "Capitalism is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned"

  20. sounds interesting but I can't wrap my head around free markets not being capitalism. sounds like he's just against corporatism.

  21. I'm not sure I would be happy with conceding the definition of Capitalism, conceding semantics, to the Left. I do like the shift to different, non-status-quo-implying language, though.

  22. @InvincibleNumanist I have been thinking about this. Maybe it should be called "Markets: Not Rent-seeking". This would accurately describe the behavior of both the crony capitalists and the social welfare crowd.

  23. Ayn Rand's definition of capitalism is hugely superior to the conventional definition of capitalism. The conventional definition is "private ownership of the means of production". This is a very bad definition. It implies slavery is capitalism; slavery is private ownership of the means of production, the means of production in this case being slaves. Ayn Rand's definition emphasizes rights: "social system based on recognition of rights".

  24. @JerryThorpeStory But every social system recognizes rights, different, possibly unequal, rights, but rights none the less. If you're talking about equal individual rights then what you said is not called capitalism, but classical liberalism.

    So honestly I think the old definition is a great definition, in part because it recognizes without any form of moral judgment that slavery could exist in a capitalist society.

  25. You know that someone is open minded and willing to actually discuss things when he ends with "just know that you are all fools". How very grandiose of you.

  26. Don't be so quick to think that economics works like a science. You can't go around saying "oh yes this works and that doesn"t because you are dealing with PEOPLE. people are very fickle buddy. Open your mind too. Now I shall vilify and dismiss you as a good open minded person does. You fucking moron, you're an idiot!!! I have nothing to learn from you because I'm fucking king shit!!

  27. No, without free markets you cannot have a free society. Free markets are a necessary but not sufficient condition for freedom.

  28. why would an individualist jerk off to Kropotkin?
    I'll jerk off to Lysander Spooner if thats okay with you 🙂

  29. Some individualists are anarcho-communists and genuinely believe that anarcho-communism is the best way to go about realizing unmitigated individual liberty. I know, it's a fatuous, inane stance to take, but some people take it.

  30. capitalism and markets are kinda the same, all we have now is economic fascism. thanks keynes for making things way worse

    if the govt get involved economically in ANY way, capitalism s gone, its immediatly fascism at that point

    but i agree with the guys message, lets not get hung up on linguistics

  31. He never claimed to predict outcomes using anything. Emergent Properties are used by all schools of Economic thought, so I'm not sure what your hissy fit about Rothbard writing one book that makes note of them is all about.

    If you'd like to actually discuss this in a larger forum feel free to message me. Otherwise I will take my "web Intellectual" ass over to polish off my actual degrees hanging on the wall, because you know, that paper makes me more intelligent, right?

  32. of course they werent fascist in the way italy or germany was, however, they is the way to correctly describe what it is, now you are accurate that its possible to make a distinction between free market and capitalism then capitalism can continue into fascism sure
    but fascism is the merger of govt and corporations, so any price control barrier of entry and regulations are all things that are essentially fascist tools
    you cant call it anything u like but this is what it really is

  33. its kinda sad, but anarchism at least is in line with its own logic, as for political philosophy, well ur just arguing about where to point the gun. i dont want the gun of the state, what u wanna do voluntalily is up to you.

    and what a straw man u make there, of course its not the same, there are also different types of christians, from theocrats all the way down to but atheist, but an atheist really needs to say, nope i reject the claim of god

  34. Ye ok buddy "yada yada you're a dumbass." That is your whole argument. Also how can you call me ignorant when you dont even know what open minded means. And I'm gonna guess you haven't read much anarchist literature so don't make shit up.

  35. I prefer to go by the old standby that if I'm ever caught claiming to be concretely in one position I'm liable to be demonized at a later date when something along the way shows me a different position that makes more sense. In that way I can never be accused of being wrong, but I can be accused of being principled in being rational.

  36. but no obviously not. For a starters the individualist anarchists predate the AnCaps by over a century.

  37. r u talking about just the name or the actual philosophy? because ppl like auberon herbert and de molinari were pretty much ancaps who followed voluntaryist ethics and they pre date indies and an-comms.

  38. If your rights are derived from the state then they're not rights at all, they're concessions. Rights are inalienable, and therefore independent of the state. The state can't give rights, it can only take them away.

  39. please explain your opinion that anarchy isn't a political philosophy. Why do you think anarchy makes no effort to deliver liberty? Doesn't a non-hierarchical organization necessarily give each member utmost liberty? One would have as much freedom as whoever was on the top of the chain when the system was still hierarchical, no?

  40. "Anarchy…will never deliver liberty, as it makes no effort to do so.

    He explicitly mentioned agorism, google it if you do not know what it is. He also mentioned radical privatization of state-controlled industries. Through protest, non-compliance, education, and agorism the State will collapse.

    Their are numerous books, internet articles and YOUTUBE videos that deal with law in the absence of the State. If you want I can reference you to some, its not like we have not addressed the issue.

  41. The Declaration has no claim upon the truth. The only way to secure your rights is to take their security into your own hands or voluntarily trade with someone for their protection.

  42. "A free people claim their rights as derived from the laws of nature & not as the gift of their chief magistrate." – Thomas Jefferson

  43. I'm 100% sure about Emergent Properties. You ever hear of Hayek?

    Like I said, if you wish to take this somewhere where we can be fully elaborate do pick a place and I will follow.

    You shouldn't make claims about what Anarchists think, unless you can read our minds all of the sudden.

  44. Being alone on an island, God or no God you have those rights by nature.
    Just because you live among azzholes who use force to take those rights away does not make them no rights, you still have them.

  45. Libertarianism is a middle class fantasy. The kind of society this guy is giving a picture of has never and will never exist.

  46. So the false propaganda of bullshitters have claimed another victim. Capitalism and it's all variations are meaning today : mercantilism, fascism=modern welfare state, soviet socialism, free market capitalism (the least known meaning). When a word refers to a wide variety, even contradicting meanings, it doesn't mean anything anymore. It is now meaningless word. Writing a sentence relying on such a word becomes meaningless sentence and so on.You will see that the satanic forces will eventually destroy the meaning of 'free market system' also. They have at their disposal a massive apparatus of repeating the big Lie.

  47. Yes, have noticed that too. Capitalism original meaning is dead. :S
    But hey that is actually smart way to approach to all modern idiots.
    Most population is product of state schooling nowadays and they are functioning like idiots with some mild skills, so this is good approach to avoid miss-programmed words or contradict to.
    Oh and there are whole lists of words people do not understand any more.

  48. No one on the left takes this ideology seriously and there's more than enough reasons why American individualist market anarchism died out by the early 20th century. What historical struggle(s) can "free market anarchists" claim as their own? – none. With the exception of followers of Proudhon at the Paris Commune there is no time when market anarchists were ever at the forefront of a significant social movement nor have their ideas played much of a role in the shaping of radical politics throughout history. Now we see people with graduate school degrees in bourgeois economics (mis)appropriating old anarchist symbolism and writers like Emma Goldman and Voltairine de Cleyre as their own. I won't call it "cultural appropriation" but it certainly is outright cringey, to say the least. Even the fact that modern market anarchists feel the need to baptize anarcho-communist thinkers (Goldman, de Cleyre, etc.) or certain historical figures (Lao Tzu, medieval Muslim philosophers, Salamanca School, Bastiat/Molinari, Henry David Thoreau) as proto-"anarcho-capitalists" shows a huge weakness in their theory and practice.

    This was one of the worst trends in leftism in the past 30 years, right up there with EuroComm and communization theory.

  49. Okay sure. If you are going to redefine the term! But in my books capitalism = propertyism = respect for property rights. But you may have a point that the most common useage matter more for effecting change in the world. And even if my usage is the "correct" useage. It is probably me who needs to be careful to define what I mean or use a different term…

  50. The problem with capitalism is that it is inherently consolidative; and therefore a threat to healthy competition. This was the case even before many of the regulations which exist now were passed into law. Antitrust law, for example, wouldn't have been necessary in the first place if capitalism was capable of sustaining healthy competition on its own. Consolidation and artificial scarcity will always be a threat to free markets. Only through an abundance of capital ownership can free markets thrive.

  51. From a Georgist point of view this is nonsense. State secured privilege is indeed the core problem, but capitalism is not to blame for this; privilege is a feudal artefact that evaded abolition. Abolish this privilege by implementing the Single Tax and capitalism – ie markets – would function properly.

  52. The problem with libertarianism is that it's rigid. In some cases, libertarian philosophy DOES NOT WORK. PERIOD. To not admit that is to be intellectually dishonest and ignorant. You can be predominantly libertarian and recognize that fact in the real world. It would be nice if a completely and wholly free market were possible, but SOME government has to be required to protect citizens from corporations taking over the economy and rigging the system. That's just a reality. And health care can't be left to the private sector if you don't want millions to die. I used to be a total libertarian until I became aware of these realities. The role of government should be to protect individuals from the overreach in power of big business. Corporations are not people and should have no rights under the law. You get your rights because you're a human being. Government needs to be involved in a modest way to ensure that that is the case in all circumstances.

  53. The Guy is INSANE he doesn't want licensed doctors!

    Libertarianism is a joke and a way of manipulating morons to sucker their vote to support the Koch Cabal.

  54. Is the interviewer a moron, the idiot said he wants to abolish the state school system, isn't that the END of meritocracy, when we can spend as little as we like on poor people, or rather the children of poor people!

    This is some sick shit.

  55. As a voluntaryist/ancap, I completely agree with this guy. It sounds like he's redefining capitalism to mean "what we have now" and "freed markets" as capitalism. That's an awesome approach, because "what we have now" is what leftists and the general public think of when they hear capitalism.

  56. How is inequality a goal of any serious economist? Is everyone equally productive? Then why should they have the same amount of money?

    Capitalism are property rights, and without rights, there is no market.

  57. Markets and capitalism are separate things. We should not have a market based economy, we should have a resource based economy.

  58. The free market is like a religion for these libertarians. Certain preconditions in capitalism will always lead to crony capitalism. What do you think all that sweet competition is for? All capitalists hate it.

  59. For some reason, people seem to have trouble with a transparent and democratic government using the knowledge and participation of the most acclaimed professionals in any given field to create the best possible outcomes in legislation and education. I know it's not what we have right now, and most likely, never had before in the past, but that's the real struggle. This guy seems to think we should make anyone a doctor, wither they're qualified or not. To expand the great old marketplace! What a twerp! Just the sheer ignorance of a world where all medical science is deregulated brings us back over a 100 years! It's quite idiotic. A bloody moron, really!

  60. Corpratism isn't an inevitable result of capitalism. Just like government corruption TOOOOOTALLY isn't an inevible result of communism. Both don't happen so long as every leader is perfect.

  61. This is a very good take, although I feel with the power and concentrated wealth some corporations have that just removing regulation would just allow them to swallow up the market right then and there. There needs to be a kind of spontaneous, radical lib-soc uprising that takes those bastards (corporations and government) all down at once first before there can be any real horizontal structuring.

  62. An economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state. Sounds exactly exactly what we want, wouldn't y'all agree?

  63. Oh wait that's the definition of capitalism, well I guess we shall all become capitalists now.

  64. Reading the thumbnail, I knew it was mutualism. A true stereotype of anarchist communists (majority of Antifa demonstrators are) is that we also approve of mutualism to a certain extent. If there was an agreeable middle ground for libertarian capitalists and libertarian socialists, it would be mutualism.

  65. National Corporatism.
    Best parts of individualist capitalism and collective socialism combined with nationalism.
    The state influences globalist corporations to make the economy serve the nation. Not the corporations influencing the state to have the nation serve the economy.

  66. C4SS is the only "libertarian" group I fucks with. MnC is a great primer on anti capitalist libertarianism: y'know, the libertarianism that, up until fifty years ago, was the dominant flavor of Stateless socialism, via horizontal organizations. I'm a socialist (with a master's in econ, nbd) but I also understand how markets function, and essentially I'm a free-marketer. You can be anti-capitalist/socialist and still be for free pricing and global trade.

    While there are a few points I disagree with, I think C4SS is an important left-libertarianism org and MnC is the perfect intro to it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *