Irish Liberty Forum

Refuting The Irrifutable: A Note On mr1001nights

with 5 comments

I’ve been a long time follower of mr1001nights’ youtube channel, however I never considered discussing his videos at length before. However, his latest piece “Can I wash your car for $10” warrents a decent response, as it claims to refute several capitalist defences of the market system. For me, mr1001nights’ videos often present more questions than answers and this piece is no exception.

Here, even if I fall short of a complete refutation, I will at least attempt to ask those questions.

Obviously a capitalist at the top of a corporate hierarchy – a corporate empire – with thousands of wage slaves does not compare with John paying Peter to wash his car.

As mr1001nights recognises, individual examples do serve a larger purpose. Robinson Crusoe narratives are particularly useful in stripping down economic ideas into their bare essentials. However it is important to ask: in what sense do corporate hierarchies not compare with John paying Peter to wash his car? Both John and the “wage slave” are being paid a sum of money to perform a particular function on someone elses property using only their labour. Are these both exploitative acts? Is one exploitative and the other non-exploitative? Is one more coercive than the other?

As I have said many times, the objection has to do with subordination to a boss under threat of starvation, poverty and social stigma, which arises out of a class situation.

The above quotation is the crux of most of mr1001nights’ videos. However it is fundamentally flawed as a criticism of market economics. But before I get to this, a short note on coercion.

I contend that the manner in which non-capitalists use the words “force” and “coercion” are fundamentally flawed. As such it is important to challenge them. Force simply pertains to violence against person or property. Nothing more, nothing less. Although many other definitions of “coercion” have been put forward (see F.A. Hayek’s dubious definition), it is the only one that does not devolve into absurdities. Try this on for size: “Women who are single are faced with the fear of being alone, as well as social stigma. Therefore, although entered into “voluntarily” by participants, marriage is actually a coercive institution.”

Secondly, even if we were to acknowledge that “the threat of starvation, poverty and social stigma” do indeed constitute “coercion”, this criticism still fails as a challenge of market economies. Starvation and poverty are not a threat specific to capitalist economies. Humans still have to produce to consume. And despite mr1001nights’ insistence on separating “subjugation of man by man” and “subjugation of man to nature”, he constantly insists that economic scarcity is a strike against market economies. Similarly, in a non-capitalist society – presumably one where consumer goods are available to all who want them – the threat of social stigma still remains as well. In fact, it may well be one of the driving factors in ensuring compliance with social goals.

In short, “starvation, poverty and social stigma” do not disappear in a the non-capitalist society, and mr1001nights, through slight of hand, makes it seem that they are created through class conflict to boot.

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to FurlAdd to Newsvine


Written by 20000miles

June 17, 2009 at 3:16 pm

Posted in economics

5 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. “starvation, poverty” could certainly disappear, and “social stigma” sharply reduced. Your stubborn confusion between the subjugation of man by man and the subjugation of man to nature was used to defend chattel slavery as well i.e. by saying: “why eliminate chattel slavery? chattel slaves have to work anyway to survive and cannot get rid of of the threat of starvation, poverty and social stigma”


    June 18, 2009 at 5:05 am

    • No, mr1001night, “starvation and poverty and social stigma” are not features of any one eocnomic system, let alone “threats” made by one class to another. You are the one who is stubbornly trying to make it appear that this is the case.


      June 18, 2009 at 7:08 pm

  2. Firstly, the notion that destroying property constitutes violence is as nonsensical as the notion that a corporation is a person.

    Secondly, lack of coercion is insufficient for freedom. You haven’t been coerced if you fall into a pit, but you’re hardly free. Freedom implies not only the absence of coercion, but the presence of options. Choice is illusory under capitalism: 1) choosing between bosses is no more meaningful than choosing between whips for your own back; 2) choosing between being a boss (the likelihood of which is illusory in itself) or working for one is no more meaningful than choosing whether to steal or be stolen from; 3) choosing between compliance to capitalism or resistance to it is no more meaningful than choosing between being one of the cool kids or having your head stuck in the toilet.

    Thirdly, Crusoe economics can be used to support any economic system; there’s no logical necessity that we end up with capitalism if we start with a man on an island. I’ve seen the Crusoe rhetorical tool used to counter the sort of laissez-faire markets you advocate.


    June 30, 2009 at 4:15 pm

  3. Starvation certainly would disappear if capitalism was replaced by a superior economic system. That is obvious. We already produce enough easily enough food to feed everyone on the planet. By changing our agricultural system to a more decentralized, sustainable model, we could greatly increase yields. We have the ability to provide more than enough food to feed everyone. We have the technology, land and labour to meet the demand. People are starving not because of some physical shortage of wealth, they are starving because the economic system is too inefficient to distribute the wealth properly.

    There is no reason for anybody to live in poverty. We have enough land, labour, technology and resources to provide a decent standard of living for all. The problem, again, is the economic system.


    August 2, 2009 at 7:17 am

  4. […] encountered the “free to starve” argument before, so I think I’ll leave the final knockdown blow to […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: