http://www.rationalwalk.com/?p=9789

I have no problem calling those persons who profit from bailouts and corporate welfare “looters” and “crooks,” just as I have no problem calling your typical armed bandit a looter or a crook.

Regarding the term capitalist, you will get different answers from different libertarians. Rand, for example, seems to have used the word to mean proponents of capitalism, where capitalism refers to the free market, the system of free enterprise.

This is not the same sense in which Mises or Rothbard, from my reading of them thus far, seem to have used the terms. It seems they used the word capitalist in its original sense, viz., a private owner of the means of production. This meaning carries with it a completely neutral connotation, just as neutral as the word merchant. It seems, although I may be mistaken, that Mises saw capitalism as any system in which private ownership of capital goods takes place, and that Rothbard went back and forth between the Misesian and the Randian definitions. But, please bear in mind that I could be mistaken.

If we use the word capitalist to mean something entirely neutral, then we have no difficulty in saying that some capitalists (read: private owners of capital) are good people, and some are bad. We can also agree that some have acquired wealth through completely legitimate, voluntaryist means–what Oppenheimer would call the economic means; while others have acquired it through directly stealing, or through accepting the assistance of those who are “legally” permitted to steal–what Oppenheimer would call the political means.

One solution that Rothbard used was to describe the system he supported as free-market capitalism and another system, which he opposed, as state capitalism.

Recently, there has been a movement amongst left-Rothbardians to completely abandon the word capitalism, reverting its definition back to the pre-Marxian definitions, and instead using the terms free market and free enterprise exclusively in order to describe the system we support. This effort has been led by Brad Spangler and others. As these left-Rothbardians have pointed out, the term capitalism was coined by free-market anarchists, not to refer to the free market, but rather to refer to something that all libertarians ought to oppose, viz, state-driven monopolisation of capital. Thus, in this original definition, capitalism was to the private owners of capital what mercantilism was to merchants. Since a free society would have a free market devoid of statist intervention, neither capitalism (as originally defined) nor mercantilism would exist in a libertarian society, despite the fact that both the merchant and the capitalist would likely continue to exist.

With that said, “free-market anti-capitalism” seems to be a rallying cry for only two groups of people: (1) left-Rothbardians and (2) mutualists.

But, even those libertarians who tend to use conservative rhetoric, like Thomas J. DiLorenzo, can be found using terms such as crony capitalism to describe the political system through which businessmen exploit the public.

So, what terms should we use, and what definitions should we apply to them? Walter Block believes we should cling to the word capitalism because Rand found using the term a very successful tool for promoting libertarian political views. Sheldon Richman thinks we should abandon the term since it means too many things to too many different people, and since we don’t advocate what most people call “capitalism” anyway.

Personally, I don’t really care much what definition people use, so long as they (1) acknowledge to themselves and others that there are different definitions, (2) make sure they’re aware of what definition other people are using, so as to avoid talking past one another, and (3) clearly define their terms whenever they speak to those who might not know what definition they’re using.

Best regards,
Alex Peak

Dr. Walter Block is a free-market environmentalist, correct? I would describe myself, likewise, as a free-market environmentalist.

Do you wish to ascribe this view to all environmentalists, or just certain environmentalists?

Respectfully yours,
Alex Peak

I don’t run with that group of people anymore, which is just fine. I begrudge Charlie Munger another second of my time.

“the commercial bank directorates largely recouped their losses at the expense of the Reichsbank, while the Reichsbank losses were only scraps of paper.”

So you’re right, Munger likely hasn’t done much work in this area.

As Rothbard wrote, “Bank failures are a healthy weapon by which the market keeps credit inflation in check; an absence of failure might well mean that that check is doing poorly and that inflation of money and credit is all the more rampant.”

That easy to say, if you’re a kajillionaire who’s 86 years old, and probably has no dependents.

Bottom line, Munger is a hypocritical elitist fool and his stance is antithetical to free markets.

[Munger] suggested that burdening the economy with bank failures would have results similar to the economic collapse in Germany after World War I and led to the rise of Adolf Hitler.

Please correct me if I’m wrong, but weren’t bank bailouts one of the main causes, if not the primary cause, of the German hyperinflation which led to economic collapse and a few years later to the rise of fascism? If so then I think Munger should be called out on this, and these statements should not be allowed to stand.