Some forms of libertarianism posit a near anarchic view of
society in which government is minimal and many of the functions and services
commonly associated with the state are privatised or in some cases eliminated.
This thinking fails to take into account the vacuums that are
created in society by a lack of explicit authority. As many have repeatedly
pointed out, corporations actually want laws to provide a framework for
contracts and some libertarians will allow for this to some degree. But they
fail to take into account that as companies turn into monopolies, an economic
oligarchy begins to develop – the corporations turn into a corporatocracy.
The state is usually blamed for this – what is viewed as a
'corruption' of the markets and corporations. But in reality it is not a
'corruption' but rather the next, logical and even necessary step or
progression of the free market capitalist system – as an oligarchic entity it
moves beyond the market and begins to curtail its very freedoms which have
become superfluous, inefficient and even threatening. Those atop the market
begin to function as a parallel state and eventually the state itself.
We could call it the oligarchic progression – from free
market to monopoly to economic oligarchy to political oligarchy. The truth is
that economics and politics are inseparable. This shouldn't surprise us. For
Christians this is why the New Testament presents an ethic in which we both
eschew the sword and the service of mammon. The two always go together.
Political thinkers who don't focus on economics are often
blindsided by developments. Economists who treat economics in a vacuum live in
an ivory tower fantasy divorced from reality. Their paper models collapse the moment
they are introduced into a real world matrix.
In the case of a social crisis, such as that of a starving population,
the libertarian model turns to the private sector as the right means of relief.
But of course the private sector is running a for-profit enterprise. It may or
may not be able to cut some costs, streamline the internal bureaucracy and get
the goods to the people faster but there's always a catch for at the end of the
day it's seeking to make a profit – which in the case of suffering is exploitative
and therefore in Christians terms is unethical. It exploits those at the
receiving end of the aid but also everyone involved in every stage along the
way.
Government provisions are not free they argue. Indeed, but
rapid and seemingly cheap goods also have their price and their human cost.
What's worse – revenues generated by skimming profits or profits generated by
squeezing and harming the weak and the voiceless? They can dispute this framing
all they want, but the testimony is there. The multi-generational testimony of
millions of voices in thousands of places bears this out.
Additionally, in such cases if a monopoly is established
prices will either rise or quality of goods will decrease. If there's
competition – under normal market circumstances the prices should go down as
companies narrow profit margins and instead focus on volume and beating the
competition. But in the case of a crisis, in the case of necessary goods – the
market will not compete for the lowest price but instead the supposedly amoral
market will actually inflate prices – preying on desperation and panic – what
the market coldly calls demand.
In the face of such extortion the people will eventually be
brought to the breaking point and demand government intervention (regulation
contra the free market) or a new government which receives its mandate in the
overthrow and removal of the previously corrupt and exploitative regime.
No matter which way you look at it a truly libertarian order
is always doomed – a provisional arrangement at best. For it will either morph
into a statist entity or it will be overthrown by those seeking a state that
will curtail the avarice and exploitative conduct of the oligarchic private
sector.
As already mentioned, corporations rely on the state for the protection
of their interests. They want laws on the books, police and armies to provide
security and courts to enforce the socio-political order.
And if these things are absent in a society or are viewed as
deficient then the corporate sector will simply create its own.
In the case of arbitration – a process which many
corporations force upon their employees and contractors – we have what is
essentially a parallel or privatised judiciary. In this case it's not due to an
absence of an existing judiciary but rather the companies wield sufficient
power to circumvent the state judiciary which can at times put their profits at
risk and thus they have found it more to their advantage to establish their
own.
If corporations are unable to receive the protections they
need they will also employ their own security services, investigators and
intelligence operatives. When they
operate in the Third World, these functions tend to grow in magnitude and power
and these companies will in some cases begin to function as states in and of
themselves or as parallel states operating alongside the host government.
If the host country or their home country are unwilling or
unable to provide a sufficient level of security these companies will turn to
mercenaries – effectively their own private armies.
When Corporations attain a certain size and status what we
find are parallel government entities and institutions being set up – to
counter weak or unresponsive government (the Libertarian ideal) and they are
also an expression of corporations that are becoming political entities in
their own right – with their own judiciaries, intelligence agencies, armies,
police and the like.
We find that in the end rule as a conception of power is more
or less equal to rule as a conception of profit. As much as people would separate
these two the truth is they cannot be separated.
There are other aspects of oligarchic progression to
consider.
Libertarians make much of their rejection of what they call zero sum economics – the notion that
possibilities of growth are limited. They constantly argue for wealth creation
and decry those who would limit markets in the name of equality.
It has always struck me as an odd argument for Libertarians
to make as many still hold to the gold standard – which in principle limits
markets, lending ability (or credit) and the increased value of goods driven by
demand. The roller coaster of inflation and the sometimes equally destructive
process of deflation ensues (leading to economic contraction and banking
collapse), but in terms of certain sectors of the market something 'funny'
happens – the rules are dispensed with in certain circumstances. Stocks and
securities can increase in value as does the value of real estate but are the
inflated prices represented in the circulation of gold-backed currency? And do
they protest this creation of what can only be called (especially in light of a
gold standard) a form of fictitious capital?
If the totality of these increases were truly represented there
would be a serious problem as there is a limited amount of gold to back the
currency leading either to deflation or (more likely) it would necessarily and
radically change the nature and value of the currency itself and require a
loosening or modification of regulations.
And this has happened and in fact happened so often that
eventually the fiction was dispensed with. Replaced by another fiction (that of
fiat currency) the grand crisis is mostly avoided because of the game of
musical chairs – as long as just some of the people are 'cashing in' on the
inflated value of their securities or real estate – the economy as a whole is
fine but if everyone cashes in at once (so to speak) the market collapses.
For those whose timing is right they are allowed to make
money from thin air – as the money that's been generated is not in a proper or
tangible sense backed by gold. It's fictitious capital but this alchemy is
accepted in über-capitalist quarters when it's produced by the market – but if
the state does it and attempts to do it in a thoughtful, principled or
consensus driven way – then it's out of bounds.
Whoever holds the reins of this process wields a tremendous
amount of power. Interestingly if the state doesn't do it, then Wall Street
steps in – the oligarchs don't leave it to chance. They take steps to protect
their own interests and instead of elected government officials we end up with
an oligarch or robber baron fulfilling the same role – but now in the form of
concentrated power.
What's better to have a federal reserve or a couple of
powerful private individuals running the show? Is it better and more democratic
to have an institution that's at least ostensibly and in principle answerable
to the White House and the Congress or to have James Pierpont Morgan deciding
whether or not he's going to bail out the economy and then also deciding on
what terms? This of course happened on more than one occasion.
Gold is certainly not an endless or renewable resource. And
in other cases and locales resources are certainly 'zero sum' – there's only so
much water, coal, timber or coastline that is available.
And in those situations the oligarchs effectively shut down
the market. They restrict and regulate access and under the guise of efficiency
many can exercise near absolute control and yet still claim market principles
and market rule.
Once 'free' markets in such circumstances are now controlled
and regulated with no challenge allowed.
It's not a system for the good of the people or the many but
is one geared toward the few.
The whole system is premised on the lie that men will be
decent and fair and follow the rules and yet the system in its downplay of The
Fall actually enshrines depravity and puts it on full display. There are many
roads to tyranny – some worse than others. It depends on context but in the end
the Libertarian Free Market order is not a moral system and is certainly not a
Christian one.
Are collectivist economics to be preferred? What about economic
orders that are genuinely more democratic – focused more on general access than
the libertine assertions of the most aggressive, bawdy and self obsessed?
Or in another capacity do overtly socialist systems provide the
answer? Not necessarily. None of these systems are Christian either. Libertarianism
is a system that one would expect to find among the lost – a selfish
dog-eat-dog system that reflects the values of the world and the law of the
jungle. The strongest, cleverest and the most ruthless and cunning will survive
and flourish. It's a wicked and ungodly mode of thought but to be expected. My
only true dispute is with those who embrace this paradigm (or one of its
variants) and then try to Christianise it or syncretise it with Scripture –
resulting in something that is monstrous and dangerous in that it baptises sin
and is able to deceive the simple.
The system is not scientific and does not reflect Divine law.
If it does reflect a 'natural' law then the question of nature itself must be
examined in light of Scripture and its teaching regarding the fall of man. If
one argues the present order is 'nature' or 'natural' and therefore under the
aegis of the Edenic 'good' – the Fall must be either downplayed or denied. In
any event such Pelagianism is the practical result. Additionally, Smith's
Invisible Hand is not a Biblical concept – and one made even worse by those who
would re-task the concept by equating it with Providence. The result is the
ratification of sin. Divine imperatives are countermanded by market principles
supposedly discovered by 'scientific' means.
The consequences of this thinking are theologically and ethically
destructive to say the least.
Caesars will build their Rome's and guard their coin and then
fight wars over said coin. That's how it is. Don't confuse any of these systems
with Zion and its ethics and the Holy Kingdom's general posture with regard to
this perishing world.