Right-libertarians generally hold a simplistic interpretation o’ reality—’specially economic reality—largely based on Western traditions, safely unhindered in a world where the debate is whether capitalism is awesome or “too much freedom.”

Thus, it’s no huge surprise when I read Randall Halcombe’s “Joseph Stiglitz on Crony Capitalism” @ the official church o’ Mises, the Mises Economics Blog¹, which reads like a middle-schooler’s attempt to discuss the political economy:

Although Joseph Stiglitz has a reputation as one of the most prominent defenders of big government…

I always thought Karl Marx had that reputation, but never mind. I’m sure Stiglitz scoffs @ the pure “anarchy” present in “Marxist-Leninist” states like North Korea.

It does appear to me that throughout the political spectrum, from left to right, there is a substantial consensus that government is the cause of many of the problems people perceive.

It’s shocking that problems in a political system might be caused by the organization that manages said political system. If Halcombe had taken only a minute to think ’bout it, he might’ve realized that opposition to too much capitalism—& especially it in general—in a capitalist country presupposes criticism o’ the government that maintains said capitalist system. I don’t know what logic exists in the belief that the US would be better off if ’twere socialist—or whatever alternative one wants—but that the government need not change to be, you know, socialist. It’d be quite a creative solution: change the political system without changing it @ all!

To be fair, I have to remember that right-libertarians are used to debating liberals; so this “solution” has likely been encountered in debates many times before.

The disagreement is over how to solve those problems.

(Slaps forehead.) So that’s the rub. I was so sure that with the left & right agreeing on the government needing to change in some way—a terribly specific diagnosis—they’d surely agree on how. We were so close to bringing that bipartisan Utopia dwelling in the Third Way’s fever dreams to fruition!

He goes on to explain how Stiglitz criticizes income inequality, caused by the “negative impact o’ government”—which isn’t equivalent to “too much impact.” He further connects Stiglitz to right economists through their criticism o’ cronyism, carefully ignoring the vital role the market plays in causing cronyism (I’ll delve in this later in this article).

I am encouraged to see that people throughout the political spectrum, from Stiglitz to Stockman to Schweizer, recognize government power as the source o’ many o’ our contemporary problems.

As we all know, Stiglitz is right there with Bakunin & Kropotkin on the far left.

& just ’cause you found some other guys in your li’l club who call themselves right-wing doesn’t mean they represent a significant role in the general movement. I can just imagine Mitch McConnel with his arm in mid-stretch to grab his cash from MoldyFumes, inc.², only to stop with his pupils dilated & his hands grasping his hair, screaming, “No! I can’t! What would the famous Stockman & Schweizer think?”

Those on the left see more government, and better government, as the remedy to poor government policies, which seems counter-intuitive.

Sigh. This is the equivalent o’ a 3rd-grader’s attempt to describe leftism & fails. There’s no such thing as “mo’ government,” ’less one means “mo’ people in government,” which is, indeed, what those further on the left want: direct democracy. If the government exists, it exists, whether it uses police force to maintain 1 resource distribution or ’nother, or whether it chooses to ignore resource distribution entirely (note: never heard o’ a market defender backing this last choice). Only supporting government when it defends one’s riches, but not when it actually expects compensation for that, isn’t “libertarian”; it’s just narcissistic.

Why would we think a bigger government would work better than the government mess we already have?

1. Nobody calls for “bigger” government, ’cause that’s not a real thing. That’s an abstract label people on the right made-up.

The only way that argument makes sense is if we’re arguing ’tween splitting up the US or not. That’s not the discussion @ all, so Halcombe’s clearly mixing his words up.

2. The current government mess has nothing to do with the government being “too big.” If one’s belief is that the problem with the US’s economy is the rich being too powerful, then obviously the problem is that the government prefers the rich—that is what Stiglitz was actually saying. I don’t know why Halcombe had to complicate it with this abstract nonsense.

Stiglitz has already explained how all the incentives lean toward making government more responsive to the elite, at the expense of the masses.

& this is caused by either income inequality—which can only be fixed by income redistribution—or a lack o’ sufficient laws gainst excess lobbying. The solution to both requires “mo’ government” in the right-libertarian argot; hence Stiglitz’s diagnosis.

I don’t think Halcombe understands the implications o’ this point—though, to be fair, Stiglitz may not, either, considering his claim that “[i]t doesn’t have to be this way.” Think: the incentives make government corrupt. That’s the opposite o’ what Halcombe is arguing: rather than just the government corrupting the market, this shows that the market corrupts the government.

If anything, this shows that pure laisssez-faire is self-defeating: the economic inequality it’ll create will also create unequal influence over government, giving the rich superior control over the majority—as already happens now. If some o’ them benefit from cronyism—& some do, which is why they push for it—then they will have the superior means to make that goal become legal reality. Thus, laissez-faire naturally creates the very cronyism that s’posedly violates it.

That’s the paradoxical nature o’ power: power itself is all that can prevent other power. That’s what a “power vacuum” is: when there’s no power structure, there’s nothing to stop some other group from taking power. Thus, a lack o’ government intervention, rather than making society freer, only allows them to be defacto replaced by rich citizens who are not so shy ’bout using their economic advantages to enforce their own power. If anything, the imaginary “less government” solution is what’s counter-intuitive.

That also ’splains why the problem with cronyism is far deeper than just there not being ’nough “wise” economists like Stiglitz who somehow figured out that US politics & economics is corrupt—not unlike a 50-year-old finally learning that Santa Claus isn’t real. The very same cronyism gives those that benefit from it superior power over government, thus making it difficult to change it in any way that goes gainst what they want—which is said cronyism. It’s cyclical, with the market corrupting the government corrupting the market corrupting the government, & so on. This is why said cronyism is not new, but goes far back into US history—& will surely continue to thrive, regardless o’ the paper-spined promises o’ such benign capitalists as Stiglitz.

But if we agree that government has caused many of the problems we all see–all of us from the political left to right–then we are part-way toward finding a solution that we all agree would fix those problems. My thought is: eliminate what we all agree is the cause.

You know, I’ve just realized that there actually is something that laissez-faire libertarians who want a capitalist society without government & moderate liberals who want a capitalist society without cronyism & poverty can both agree they oppose: brutal reality.

It’s better to die laughing.
That’s why I’m always laughing.

Heheheh.

You remember those websites that look as if they were made in the late 90s—when the height o’ sexiness was beveled table borders—spouting ’bout the conspiracies “nobody” in the “liberal” media will tell you—but I will! Well, it’s good to see that Careerealism’s taking good inspiration.

O, & unsurprisingly, this article is just here so the author can peddle videos.

By the way, do we live in some Kafkaesque nightmare or is that just the fantasies o’ Careerealism’s writers? Why are these employers so obsessed with every li’l detail o’ how you act—’stead o’, you know, the quality o’ your work or knowledge—just so they can latch onto 1 like a Job Nazi, “No job for you!” & then they refuse to tell anyone their shibboleth—probably for fear that the spies will sneak through their screening process. Ha! They’re not looking for employees: they’re looking for recruits into their conspiracy group!

We can all thank Careerealism for their hard-hitting report on cracking the Employer Cabal. True fucking Deep Throats, they are!

See, look @ this bitter dose o’ reality:

Reality check: Those who are failing to make a good first impression get put in the “no” pile and are never contacted again [emphasis mine].

1 fuck up & you’re blacklisted from the guild for life. Apparently nowadays having a “smelly physical appearance”¹—whatever that is—is the modern equivalent o’ being caught as a card-carrying communist.

This is like a marketer-fundamentalist version o’ those overly Christian children’s books from the Victorian era:

You may not like what you read, but the good news is with a little attention and practice, all of them can be improved upon. So, ask yourself, “Am I guilty of the following?”

All true! I am a filthy beast & need the Jesus o’ marketing to cleanse me o’ my clammy handshakes.

By the way, her lists look less like something that actually required thought, & mo’ like an exercise in creating Ad Libs. If there was an 11th tip, it’d surely be, “Your hand gestures are too slow/too fast/too medium/too sexy/too handy.”

& then she says it all comes down to attitude. Presumably, the videos she made are just her showing you various poses you can try out, such as crossing your arms & tilting your upper body with your chin held up like you hip kids with your backward caps & Super Nintendos.

So, I was searching for a WordPress-widget-making tutorial that wasn’t just the author throwing code in your face & telling you to paste it without saying what any o’ it does when I saw this splendid page @ “Pro Theme Design”:

Now, you’re probably thinking, “Wow, this code’s garbage; it cuts off in the middle o’ functions just like that. That’ll almost certainly cause errors.

But that’s not where the stupidity arrives. Here is:

There’s no design mo’ professional than making it impossible to tell 1 element from ’nother. Note that the textbox is so tall, you have to scroll far down to see that & know that a textbox exists @ all.

By the way, you could probably ascertain by these screen shots that this tutorial, too, simply throws code @ you without explaining what it does.

The Real Reason We Assume All o’ Our Readers Are Unemployed.

I’d make a joke that goes “Confucius say…” but they literally quote Confucius.

The response from most would be, “OK. I’m not… ‘feeding the beast’… whatever that shit is. Now what?”

The obvious answer is to not take advice from sites that think “Careerealism” is a clever name.

Where would I be without Six Revisions to give me the snoop on all of the truly important web design trends. For instance, while CSS-Tricks wasted their time telling you how to optimize table space using CSS-translate to rotate long row headers—as if that’s important, phhh, nerds—Six Revisions told us ’bout all of the portfolio websites that put huge images of cluttered workstations as their backgrounds.

Gube thinks this is good, and I agree: ’fore I hire web designers, I always ensure they have sloppy home organization.

But my favorite example is the one near the top:

Nothing inspires confidence like text that’s near-impossible to read. Looks like GroveMade—or however they style their insipid brand name—needs to start hitting those color theory books ’gain.

Addendum:

What’s also professional is a website that takes eons to load & are unintuitive to use. That’s 1 thing ’bout web design: they always find new ways to inconvenience users.

I couldn’t help noticing the general dreadfulness o’ business-oriented blogs, & decided to take the time to critique a particularly trite 1 with a particularly vacuous title, “How to Activate Your Network As a Recent Grad” by a website called “Careerealism,” whose name’s so hideous, it makes me want to weep every time I read it.

Networking is awkward – period. I used to stand around tabletops with resumes and home-printed business cards in my shiny new “work bag,” eager to find just one person to connect with that would lead me to my first job.

I can’t understand how harassing random patrons could possibly cause awkward situations.

I had to convince myself not to walk out of almost every event I attended. I knew there was this thing called networking and I needed to do it if I wanted to secure a job.

This is the tritest article opening ever: “I used to be dumb like you, but then I learned that _____ involves mo’ than just ______.”

Like you, I thought I earned my right to have a career.

I can’t stand writers who assume the reader is as stupid as they are.

As a result of my hard work, I deserved a job […] I graduated magna cum laude, completed an internship, and was involved in leadership activities. I did college “right,” but I was still unemployed after graduation. I faced the harsh reality head on that my degree did not entitle me to a job. So, there I was, “networking.” Or so I thought.

How does doing exceptionally @ school not entitle one to a job, but “networking” does? What proof?

Social media has completely refined “networking” and it’s easier than you think. It’s something you are doing already and you’re probably missing awesome opportunities right in front of you!

Can’t go an inane blog post without contradiction. So I’m already doing it, but missing out, too? It’s either 1 or the other.

This isn’t even nitpicking on diction: the general sentiment is paradoxical. The idea is that I’m doing the right thing already, but I’m also not doing the right thing @ the same time. Should I change what I’m doing in this regard or not? I can’t both change & stay the same in the same subject.

So, it’s not that you don’t know how to network. In fact, you are a pro at networking.

If I’m a pro @ networking (purportedly), than why am I doing so badly @ networking (purportedly)?

Every time you accept a friend, follower, or connection, the “net worth” in your network increases dramatically!

Could these obnoxious yuppies stop using serious business terms for their silly play things like adult children?

There is a theory called the Six Degrees of Separation, developed by Frigyes Karinthy.

Check “Quote info everyone already knows as if ’twere obscure” off the list o’ clichés.

Think about it, right now you are six introductions away from your first job. [Emphasis mine.]

Nitpick: when I was in high school, an English teacher advised me not to use “think about it¹.” This article would benefit from such advise, too.

Hey, wait a minute: Jackson’s cliché almost made me miss the fact that she straight comma-spliced. How d’you expect the hip kids to get a job when you’re teaching them that that’s OK?

That sure sounds a heck of a lot better than applying to hundred more jobs!

That’s ’cause the implications you’ve imagined are fantasy.

How To Activate Your Network As A Recent Grad

Why is the title o’ this article repeated as a section heading?

You’ve already made thousands of introductions with friends on Facebook, followers on Twitter, and connections on LinkedIn. Now it’s time to identify which six key introductions will help you land your first job.

If I’ve—’gain, purportedly—already introduced myself to these people, how could I properly “leverage” them like the inanimate tools that this sociopathic writer wants me to treat them as? Introduce myself ’gain?

“Hey, I know I’ve already introduced myself, but that wasn’t an optimal introduction, so allow me to try ’gain so I can better leverage you in order to get me jobs.

“…

“Huh, that’s funny: she’s still not answering my tweet. Wonder why that is.”

Go through your social media accounts and identify individuals who have a connection to your desired industry.

“Creepily leech off them.”

Use your free LinkedIn account […]

Thank you for specifying that the LinkedIn account you earlier assumed I have already is free.

[…] to connect with alumni who work in your desired industry.

So they can tell you to piss off. “Hey, we were in the same building every weekday for a few years; that’s practically like being conjoined twins!”

Log-in to LinkedIn, […]

This step is easy to forget.

[…] click on “Network,” then click “Find Alumni.”

Jackson has other great tips, too, such as how to eat: Open mouth, put food in mouth, move teeth up & down, & then swallow.

Type your industry or position in the search field and start connecting with alumni.

Presumably ’cause someone in that industry is itching for extra competition. I know when Pepsi started, they asked Coca-Cola for help & the latter were delighted to help.

Personalize every invitation to connect.

“CONFIGURE YOUR INTERACTION WITH THE FLESH TOOLS SO THAT YOU OPTIMIZE ITS INTIMACY LEVELS.”

You will have to do this from a computer, not a smartphone.

Um, why? The 1 time when further info would be useful, & nope.

Post on Facebook asking your friends to help you find contacts at companies where you wish to work.

“Since you’re too fucking lazy to.”

Often times, a friend’s parent, relative, or other contact is employed in your field.

&, ’gain, are itching to make their own job security decrease by increasing the competition.

I love how the “experts” in business don’t know even the basics o’ business. ’Gain, could you imagine Coca-Cola doing this? Then it’s probably not good business.

Nitpick: “Often times” is redundant. “Often”—or even just “oft”—suffices.

Don’t be embarrassed.

I think the overarching theme o’ this article is, “’Bove all, have absolutely no shame; degrade yourself utterly for your privilege to work for someone else.”

Start following desired companies and professional organizations on Twitter. Many CEOs, recruiters, and/or employees follow these groups on Twitter.

As opposed to doing real work.

Re-tweet content and join their Twitter conversations.

“Be a plagiarist & an attention whore.”

Maximize the connection

I wish you’d maximize your diction. Stunk & White would be having a heart attack if they ever had to read this article.

Ask to meet for coffee or lunch and conduct an informational interview.

Someone needs to tell these writers that employers are never tricked by these “informational” interviews—probably ’cause they have internet connections, too.

A personal story: I once asked an executive for 1 & he immediately assumed I wanted a job—& was clearly annoyed @ me pestering him.

Ask for an opportunity to grow and develop your skills. Maybe it’s a job shadow day or offer to do some research on a project they are managing at work.

“Pester them to waste their time giving you projects that don’t benefit them @ all so they hate you & will never want to hire you.”

Ask your contact to review your resume and suggest areas of improvement based off of their expertise in the industry.

“In general, insult their intelligence or playact. Just so long as we dance round the irreconcilable conflict ’tween the person who wants to be hired & the boss who doesn’t want to hire her.”

Employers want to hire people who will add value to the company.

& yet all o’ your earlier advice goes gainst doing so.

[A]sk for opportunities to demonstrate your qualifications.

“Just get on your knees & beg them to give you a job, please!”

When a job opportunity comes along you will be top of mind.

…To be put in the slush pile.

Every contact may not have job to offer you, […]

“Sorry, I had business to attend to while writing this, so I let Yoda take over for a few minutes.”

[…] but can share valuable information to help you develop, to expand your network, and land a great job.

Fine print: “Valuable information shared, expanded network, & great job landed not guaranteed.”

The knowledge obtained through this type of networking will transform your job search and build an amazing network of contacts in the field. Networking is a life-long skill that is the pinnacle of career success and will lead to every job in your future.

“Article’s ending! Quick! Stuff in as much techno-babble & clichés as possible!”

This is 1 o’ those works that one knows one read, but still feels that one has slept through it. Did it actually give any info other than to treat anyone who has the misfortune to know you as if she or he were a tool?

Six Revisions yet ’gain proves themselves to have their finger on the pulse of the industry with the misleadingly-titled article, “Businesses Don’t Want Websites Anymore,” which discusses 1 company that decided to stay off the internet completely ’cause… that’s what the other companies are doing, and we don’t want to be like those conformists! (This includes some incoherent business strategy with the diction of a ’60s college Marxist parody.)

In the middle of the article you can even see a photo of the CEO dressed as a cowboy strumming a guitar—a leader in the field!

I’m always bewildered by rich conservatives who criticize rich liberals as elites not due to their being rich—said conservatives are also rich, after all—but for their “intellectualism,” which is essentially their actually putting some effort or skill into deserving their economic success. This is why I’m less bummed that an elite like Noam Chomsky is rich than I am that elites like Thomas Friedman or David Brooks are; Chomsky a’least appears to put effort & skill into his work—including using these things called “citations”—to deserve economic rewards, whereas realizing that Friedman & Brooks apparently meet the threshold for writing @ the New York Times makes me wonder, who doesn’t meet the threshold? After all, I’m sure my mother could barf out some “Chicken Soup for the Vapid Upper-Middle-Class Soul,” too; & she’s working-class: she’s 1 o’ “the people”—as opposed to those Americans who merely look like 1 o’ “the people,” but are truly snatchers ready to force you to drink expensive lattes & make fun o’ your religious views. If they truly wanted to fight for “the people,” why don’t they fight for my mother writing for the New York Times¹.

Ross Douthat—’nother pasty-faced writer the New York Times scrounged just to fit their quota o’ what they think might be “conservatives”—showed this perfectly a few months ago in an article wherein he starts by literally bragging ’bout how he couldn’t understand how to read a simple book on economics. Most people would be ashamed o’ such a statement & rationally keep it to themselves. Douthat, however, shouts it on the rooftops that he is too stupid to read regular English, just like the (offensive) imaginary “working-class” stereotype he pretends to know. Keep in mind that Douthat is not paid the multi-thousands he probably makes to do physical labor like he imagines “the people” are; he’s paid for his “intellect.” By bragging ’bout how stupid he is, he’s literally bragging ’bout how he gets paid for sucking.

How can the New York Times whine ’bout people not wasting their money on their product & ’stead perusing free blogs when they refuse to have standards higher than blogs? Unless the New York Times is prepared to explain how a guy who literally brags ’bout how stupid he is is worth mo’ than the average blogger.

Anti-elite conservatism itself is odd, considering its economic philosophy. I hope I’m not being controversial by pointing out the obvious fact that capitalism is inherently elitist. I mean, that’s literally a value it upholds: some people are better than others, & thus they deserve mo’ money. What other measure would conservatives expect us to use for deciding who should make mo’ money? (That question’s rhetorical, ’course: the answer is obviously “that they do what we want them to do”—what I like to call the “Political Theory o’ Value.”)

It is an unquestionable fact that working class people make much less money than intellectualists in any capitalist system—or any economic system, truly—that has ever existed & ever will. I dare anyone to show me the imaginary world where the janitors or garbage people are the economic 1%. That leaves 2 options: either working-class people are inferior to intellectualists & deserve their inferior economic status or capitalism is an unjust system. Trying to have both is incoherent.

Also, what am I s’posed to think when the best taunt Douthat can make gainst socialists is that they’re such smarty-shirts? What am I s’posed to think when the actually competent elites are raving commies, while the people who most defend capitalism brag ’bout how illiterate they are?

I don’t know if it’s humans in general—I lean toward this option—or if Americans, being so rich & pampered, are particularly susceptible to narcissism; but Americans have this strange refusal to actually examine the logical consequences o’ their ethical systems & ’stead demand that this & that & that also all apply @ the same time, even if they contradict each other. Rich pundits must have their cake & eat it, too: they want to be privileged, but they also want to be praised for fighting gainst privilege. That’s the American Dream, isn’t it: the amazing anti-elite elite; the powerful leader that will empower the people. One would think that in order for “the people” to be empowered that they’d have the power themselves—through their own voices in their own articles or TV shows or their own wealth; but in American fantasyland, that’s apparently absolutely zany.

@ the risk o’ sounding uncouth, I have a simpler way to determine whether one is truly on the side o’ the working-class that’s based on actual concrete reality, & not poetic abstract pseudoscientific nonsense: is one working-class? If yes, then one is on the side o’ the working-class; if no, then @ best one can have empathy for them, but probably one won’t understand their experience ’nough to be able to make decisions for them.

If one truly wants to help the lower-classes, one should allow the lower-classes to take control over their own lives by giving them direct control over the political & economic system they are subjected to. This does not mean “getting rid o’ government completely” or “making it weak ’nough to drown,”—which oddly ’nough, always seems to keep the pieces that benefit the rich—nor does it mean finding the magical benign rich leader who will supposedly run the economy in lower-class people’s interests, despite not being lower-class, & thus not understanding their interests, not to mention having a self-interest gainst that still biases them toward the rich.

Here’s the question one should ask when one sees the rich guy on television or in newspapers argue ’bout who truly serves the working-class: why can’t the working-class themselves answer that? The answer’s obvious: any poor slob can’t just walk into the New York Times & put his article in, nor can she just walk into a television station, go onto set while they’re shooting, & give her 10 cents. The means o’ communication are privately-owned: they are controlled by the rich, & thus that is who they serve. “Anti-elite” conservatives are eggs calling the sour cream white. Liberals are elite for the same reason they are: ’cause anyone who is on television or in the newspapers by definition o’ their contrast gainst those who aren’t are inherently elitist. We don’t know any poor “liberals” or “conservatives” ’cause we don’t know any poor people @ all—& we certainly don’t get to hear their opinions in the media. They are “unpersons” (much mo’ than the historical figures we usually use that word to describe, such as Trotsky, who, incidentally, is less an “unperson” in history than, say, the poor women strikers who started the Russian Revolution in the 1st place).

Neither conservatives nor moderate liberals have any logic in criticizing elitism for the simple fact that they support inherently elitist political & economic systems. Not only is capitalism obviously elitist, but republicanism—both parliamentary & presidential systems—by creating separate classes o’ “government” & “citizen” (the former always being in the rich class) is also inherently elitist. To put it simply, the United States is inherently elitist & to change that would require nothing short o’ a 2nd American Revolution.

That would be awfully dirty however—& would not be guaranteed to end elitism, anyway, but possibly exacerbate it—so ’stead ditsy elites themselves waste everyone’s time squabbling over how other ditsy elites are such elites, & I begin to understand why the actual non-elites throw ’way their newspaper & watch Family Guy³.

Perhaps these elites should focus less on accusing each other o’ being elites & mo’ on trying to put effort into their work so that they can a’least have a good explanation for their elite status. ’Cause as a lower-class person who knows how to fucking read, when I see some rich asshole brag ’bout how stupid he is—just like you poor morons, amirite?—I’m mo’ inclined to be pissed than mollified. Mo’ importantly, I’m mo’ inclined to vote the actually-smart person into power ’stead. Conservatives might want to remember that this election when they see the majority o’ the lower-class vote gainst them.

One of the many pile drivers gainst reality laissez-faire libertarians deliver is their stated goal of separating politics and economics—commonly compared to separating politics and religion, but more accurately like trying to separate hunger from access to food.

A good place to start is to ask, what is political power? It’s obviously the power governments hold, but over what do they hold that power? Countries, right? And what are countries? Land and everything inside?

Ah, then we have found our answer: political power is resource power—economic power.

I can already hear the complaints: governments don’t just control resources; they also control people. False: they control people who use certain resources, just as capitalists do; in the government’s case, they control people who use their land just as capitalists control those who use their offices, factories, land, and other means of production. That’s what economic power is. What use is economic power if you can’t control how other people use it? Am I to understand that property rights simply protect capitalists’ rights to keep their factories and offices from awakening and attacking them like Smart House? And if so, great, then I can sleep in Microsoft headquarters and they certainly won’t call the cops to force me to leave, correct?

This logic can lead to interesting conclusions. Let’s begin a thought experiment wherein we accept capitalist ideology. Under this ethical system, if an individual and his organization owns a certain collection of resources—in this case, let’s say land and the material within—he has the right to control it in any way he wants, right? There is no limit to how large or small this collection of resources is, right? And as we mentioned before, this includes controlling how anyone uses this property. After all, if they don’t like it, they can go somewhere else, right?

Now, let us say that this individual’s name is Joseph Stalin, this organization is a little corporation known as the Soviet Union, and this collection of resources is Russia. ‘Course, there are obvious differences between the Soviet Union and the US; but it’s important to understand the nature of these differences. Corporations do, indeed, have limits in terms of how they treat the people who use their property because of government regulation. It is the lack of regulation—capitalism taken to its fullest extent—that allowed the Soviet Union to be so totalitarian.

All we need to accept this comparison are to accept two relatively reasonable assumptions:

1. Call the Soviet Union a corporation.
2. Accept that the Soviet Union is the rightful owner of Russia.

Point one is tautological. Capitalism would be the saddest ideology ever if it based its comparative power purely on what word we call the people in power. Furthermore, if this is the case, then state socialists should simply call for the US to be officially called a “corporation.”

Point two would probably be more controversial. It should be, but not much more than any capitalist resource distribution. Surely Americans would not pretend that such historical inconveniences such as the theft of the entire country from indigenous people and slavery would not lead to unfair resource distribution—one that does not appear to have been fixed in any way. At the very least, there is no objective proof that the US—or any capitalist country—has a particularly meritorious resource distribution (See “What the Subjective Theory Truly Means for a Meritorious Resource Distribution”), and thus theirs are backed by the same force as socialist distributions: by ownership that the state tolerates and that which it does not (what is called “theft”).

What we get from the inanity of “laissez-faire” is an Orwellian lie: support for an economy free from government intervention based on government intervention—authoritarian libertarianism. Thus we read the wise words from influential Austrian economists, Ludwig von Mises in the aptly-titled “Deception of Government Intervention”:

In the market economy the individuals are free from government intervention as long as they do not offend against the duly promulgated laws of the land. [para 3].

Translation: the market is free when individuals are free from government intervention, ‘cept those I think are necessary. This is also known as every economic ideology in the world. I’m sure Keynes and Marx would agree.

Actually, speaking of Marx, this confession of capitalism’s need for government intervention to defend “laws of the land” becomes funnier—and through which Mises seems to bolster my very point himself—when he criticizes those vile “middle-roaders” who tolerate even just a little intervention:

Such a policy of government interference with the market phenomena was already recommended by Marx and Engels in the Communist Manifesto. [para 8].

…

In this way, the government is forced to add to its first intervention more and more decrees of interference until it has actually eliminated any influence of the market factors. [para 13].

As we can clearly see, capitalism is just one step on the long path toward communism.

This self-contradiction leaves “libertarianism” with a logical dilemma. So-called libertarians say we need less government intervention than social democrats, and yet say we need more intervention than anarchists in order to protect from nongovernmental control (such as theft, wherein the have-nots take control of property from the haves). However, even outright socialists also only call for government intervention they feel is necessary in order to prevent nongovernmental control from corporations and the rich.

If we accept “government intervention should be eliminated, except when it’s necessary” as “libertarian,” then Keynesians, social democrats, and even socialists can just as accurately call themselves “libertarians”—indeed, some call themselves “libertarian socialists” or “libertarian communists.”

If we only accept a complete elimination of economic regulation as libertarian, then libertarianism becomes incompatible with capitalism. Without the state to uphold property ownership through suppression of theft, the system of ownership completely collapses. Indeed, libertarianism becomes self-defeating: without economic regulation, there is nothing to stop others from setting themselves up as governments and regulating the economy, whether they call themselves “corporations” or “government.”

Thus we see the sad state of the dichotomy ‘tween “capitalism” and “socialism”—two economic systems contrasted by tautology and unfounded assumptions. Leave all illusions at the door: if “socialism” is any economic system run and bolstered by the government, then “economics” and “socialism” are synonyms, and “capitalism” is simply one of many types of socialism.