Mediaboss Marketing

Jacob Brittons latest attempt at political debate begins, It was onlya matter of time Indeed, I suppose it was. I cant help but feel that thefirst paragraph of Brittons latest foray into the wide world of politicaleconomy is symptomatic of the bizarre way the right behaves on collegecampuses: They seem fixated on producing disagreement and then howlwith joy and roll around in the mud when they find it (Positive Rights, NotCapitalism, Require State Violence, The Oberlin Review, April 14). Brittonhilariously echoes the meme so much for the tolerant left by accusingme of failing to live up to the lefts benign reputation for the record, Ihave no interest in treating libertarianism benignly in the public sphere.

Britton attempts to make a coherent case for a minimal state by distinguishingbetween what he calls positive and negative rights, an argumentthat is more familiar to the Western philosophical canon as IsaiahBerlins distinction between positive and negative liberty. Positive libertyis affirmative the freedom to act as opposed to negative liberty, whichis freedom from coercive forces. Britton argues that I advocate for the former,while a just state protects only the latter. In his view, negative libertycan be secured without coercive activity on the part of the state becauseit is a natural right. This is absolutely historically and empirically false.Negative liberty even understood in its most limited dimension, for instance,as the freedom to practice any religion always requires a stateapparatus equipped with police and a military ready to defend that right(heard of Europes 30 Year War?). No liberty is simply pre-given, found innature; every right requires violence and coercion behind it to succeed institutionally,and so any distinction Britton hopes to secure between negativeand positive rights on the grounds of naturalness is arbitrary.

Funnily, its not quite totally arbitrary Britton does seem to haveone criterium, to distinguish between positive and negative rights. Everyfreedom Britton associates with positive rights are freedoms the workingclass needs to resist domination. Strange coincidence it is almost as iflibertarianisms talk of human rights is designed to be a defense of capitaland not humans.

Britton says capitalism is not inherently violent because the divisionof labor ensures everyone will have a job. Not only does Adam Smithsconcept of the division of labor have very little to do with the question offull employment, but Smith himself saw a need for state intervention tohelp capital function. Further, Karl Marx demonstrated that the unemployedare a benefit to capital; its only by having an unemployed workerto replace your currently employed worker that you can push your employeeswages down as far as possible. Unemployment is as old as capitalism.Rather than acting as though unemployment is a weird fluke, weshould live up to that reality and challenge the paradigm that reproducesit.

Finally, the big question: Why, oh why, dothose merciless lefties want to violently coercemulti-billionaires to give up their hard-earnedcash? Or, as Britton puts it: If Bill Gates hasa net worth of $80 billion and my net worth is$90,000, what moral atrocity has been committed?Let me explain. Gates made his fortune bygrowing his company Microsoft. That companymakes money by selling computer software,among other things. In order for people to buycomputer software, they have to own computers.In order for them to own computers, someonehas to make the computer. The person whomakes the computer is typically a worker livingin gross poverty in the global south. This workercontracts with a capitalist to trade their laborfor money. If this were a fair exchange, by theend of it, the worker would have money and theboss would have a commodity. In reality, by theend of the exchange, the worker has money andthe boss has a commodity and profit. The profitis the difference in value between the amountof money the boss can get away with paying theworker and the amount of money he can sell thecommodity for. So yes, Gates wealth depends onmoral atrocities, and the working class povertyis proof.

Libertarianism is a weird ideology. It stringstogether a bizarre understanding of politicaleconomy and moral philosophy and forms a pasticheof entrepreneurial individualism and abstractmusings about rights and the legitimatestate. In the end though, with its incoherence,internal inconsistencies and empirical failuresput aside, libertarianism should be measuredin terms of its effects. And its primary effect isto perpetuate a capitalist regime that is builtoff of exploitation. Capitalism is a machine forchanging hopes and dreams into toil and suffering.Libertarianism is ultimately just an abstractweapon, an ideological gear in a larger machineused by the few to dominate the many.

Follow this link:
Libertarian Ideology Protects Capital at Workers' Expense - The Oberlin Review