[WIKILEAKS]Assange: 'Im influenced by American libertarianism, market libertarianism"

[Sentient Void]

Definitely a tad confused on markets/capitalism... but awesome, nonetheless. He's on a much better path than I can say about most people, right now.

http://reason.com/blog/2010/11/30/assange-im-influenced-by-ameri?utm_source=feedburner


Forbes has a big interview up with controversial Wikileaks impresario Julian Assange. This section in particular will be of interest to Reason readers:

Would you call yourself a free market proponent?

Absolutely. I have mixed attitudes towards capitalism, but I love markets. Having lived and worked in many countries, I can see the tremendous vibrancy in, say, the Malaysian telecom sector compared to U.S. sector. In the U.S. everything is vertically integrated and sewn up, so you don’t have a free market. In Malaysia, you have a broad spectrum of players, and you can see the benefits for all as a result.

How do your leaks fit into that?

To put it simply, in order for there to be a market, there has to be information. A perfect market requires perfect information.

There's the famous lemon example in the used car market. It's hard for buyers to tell lemons from good cars, and sellers can't get a good price, even when they have a good car.

By making it easier to see where the problems are inside of companies, we identify the lemons. That means there's a better market for good companies. For a market to be free, people have to know who they’re dealing with.

You've developed a reputation as anti-establishment and anti-institution.

Not at all. Creating a well-run establishment is a difficult thing to do, and I've been in countries where institutions are in a state of collapse, so I understand the difficulty of running a company. Institutions don't come from nowhere.

It's not correct to put me in any one philosophical or economic camp, because I've learned from many. But one is American libertarianism, market libertarianism. So as far as markets are concerned I'm a libertarian, but I have enough expertise in politics and history to understand that a free market ends up as monopoly unless you force them to be free.

WikiLeaks is designed to make capitalism more free and ethical.

Hat tip to Emmanuelle Richard. Reason on Assange here.

[idirtify]

Seemed pretty good until he said, “a free market ends up as monopoly unless you force them to be free”. Although I don’t think he’s using “force” in the literal sense, I don’t agree with the first part.

[virgil47]

Definitely a tad confused on markets/capitalism... but awesome, nonetheless. He's on a much better path than I can say about most people, right now.

http://reason.com/blog/2010/11/30/assange-im-influenced-by-ameri?utm_source=feedburner

Sounds like a Soros protege to me. Do whatever it takes to get your way and improve your bottom line.

[Sola_Fide]

Seemed pretty good until he said, “a free market ends up as monopoly unless you force them to be free”. Although I don’t think he’s using “force” in the literal sense, I don’t agree with the first part.

LOL

That was one of the most backward sentences I've read in a while:)

[Sentient Void]

Seemed pretty good until he said, “a free market ends up as monopoly unless you force them to be free”. Although I don’t think he’s using “force” in the literal sense, I don’t agree with the first part.

Agreed.

He also seems to be confused about the role of information/knowledge in markets.

It seems like he believes that because we all don't have 'perfect information', that it's a form of alleged 'market failure' that the State needs to correct for.

That being said, I'm glad he's not a socialist liberal. He just needs a few more nudges in the right direction ;D

[Sentient Void]

Sounds like a Soros protege to me. Do whatever it takes to get your way and improve your bottom line.

How so?

Soros is no libertarian.

Fucking Glenn Beck... honey, honey, honey... POISON.

[Fredom101]

Here's the thing, the word "capitalism" has been bastardized, so you can't really blame people like Assange for being confused about it. Most people believe capitalism is the same thing as corporatism, which we know is completely a government construct. It's no different that most people completely not understanding the word "anarchy" and think of it as the same thing as chaos, when it is actually talking about a completely different and peaceful order, not a chaotic one.

[SWATH]

Capitalism is just what happens when markets are left free

[Sentient Void]

Capitalism is just what happens when markets are left free

Even better...

Capitalism is what people do when you leave them alone.

[idirtify]

LOL

That was one of the most backward sentences I've read in a while:)

Whose sentence; his or mine?

[ChaosControl]

Capitalism is just what happens when markets are left free

I disagree. Free market doesn't necessarily mean capitalist. I think what happens depends on the people and place, you'll have different results from free markets.

[idirtify]

Agreed.

He also seems to be confused about the role of information/knowledge in markets.

It seems like he believes that because we all don't have 'perfect information', that it's a form of alleged 'market failure' that the State needs to correct for.

That being said, I'm glad he's not a socialist liberal. He just needs a few more nudges in the right direction ;D

Surely he doesn’t mean “force” as something "the State needs to correct for".

[phx420]

the way im understanding his position about the free market, is that it would ultimately benefit Rockefeller and JP Morgan and not the little guy, what would Ron Paul say about this?

[dannno]

the way im understanding his position about the free market, is that it would ultimately benefit Rockefeller and JP Morgan and not the little guy, what would Ron Paul say about this?

No, he's saying that if you have a capitalist market where the government is not actively protecting the free market environment, then you will get monopolies, which is true.

The government can allow 'capitalism', aka allow people to collect and own capital, while simultaneously creating regulations and such that favor the large capital owners. This would be a non-free market version of capitalism, aka corporatism.

So he is saying he is against corporatism, and for free markets assuming they are actually free and not controlled by large corporations. His theory is that large corporations will inevitably control government for their advantage, and so the people have to 'force' the government to enforce free markets.

[dannno]

Surely he doesn’t mean “force” as something "the State needs to correct for".

Sure he does.

If Corporation A is paying off low-level government officials or private thugs to not allow Corporations B to compete in the market using force, then the government is supposed to use force against Corporation A to get them to stop so that Corporation B can freely compete.

This is the nightmare that many central planners have.. however, in reality what we see much more often is Corporation A dominating the market by using the government to use force against Corporation B so the are taken out of the market.

[ChaosControl]

the way im understanding his position about the free market, is that it would ultimately benefit Rockefeller and JP Morgan and not the little guy, what would Ron Paul say about this?

Well that is what occurs with state capitalism or corporatism as we have now.
A genuine free market could result in many various things, but regardless of what it resulted in, it would benefit more the little guy than the big guy, which is why governments and corporations so vigorously oppose it.

[t0rnado]

This shouldn't be a big surprise for anyone here. Julian leaked one of Ron Paul's Congressional opponent's bankruptcy records this year.

[Sentient Void]

Surely he doesn’t mean “force” as something "the State needs to correct for".

Looking at it again and thinking about it - I notice how he actually doesn't call for the State to fix for the alleged 'market failure' of what is referred to as 'information asymmetry'. He believes lack of perfect information is a market failure, but he believes the market can correct for it through private enterprise (ie, WikiLeaks), to expose abuses, lies, etc.

That's a +1 if you ask me. He's actually not calling for state intervention (in this regard, at least), which is a very, very good thing - and a very libertarian response to the alleged problem of 'information asymmetry', to which most proponents of this idea (I.A.) want state intervention to try and correct.

[virgil47]

How so?

Soros is no libertarian.

Fucking Glenn Beck... honey, honey, honey... POISON.

Of course he is. He belives in the freedom to do as he chooses and rules of conduct be d*mned. He belives in might makes right and has no desire to be a benifactor to anyone other than himself.

[Vessol]

A very good interview,, I don't see where people are critisizing him. From what I can tell, he seems like very much a minarchist. The only "role" that government should play in the market is staying out of them all together.

I, like others, am extremely glad that Assange is not a socialist liberal.

[Sentient Void]

No, he's saying that if you have a capitalist market where the government is not actively protecting the free market environment, then you will get monopolies, which is true.

False. Natural monopolies are *extremely rare* in a free market, and when they do happen, don't last long due to entrepreneurial competition. The only times they do last is often because they offer a product/service that people want at a VERY good price, and even then it's hard to maintain a true monopoly.

The vast majority of monopolies that happened and especially were maintained are/were artificial monopolies propped up by the State through either regulation and/or mandates.

If you believe there has been a natural monopoly in a free market that was abusive to it's customer-base - I'd like to see you try and point even *one* out that lasted very long.

[Vessol]

Also, I'm surprised that no one has brought this up.

Assange saying that he is influenced by American Libertarianism may not help us much on the media front. Considering the MSM is labeling him as a terrorist and wanting to arrest and hang him for treason..if he says that his ideas are inspired by a certain group..they'll be sure to pick up on it.

[RM918]

So how long until someone comes in saying this is an obvious ploy as, since Assange is CIA, he's linking himself to libertarianism is order to damage us?

Not long, apparently.

[Sentient Void]

Of course he is. He belives in the freedom to do as he chooses and rules of conduct be d*mned. He belives in might makes right and has no desire to be a benifactor to anyone other than himself.

Ummm... that's not a libertarian.

Do you know what a libertarian is?

[Andrew-Austin]

Also, I'm surprised that no one has brought this up.

Assange saying that he is influenced by American Libertarianism may not help us much on the media front. Considering the MSM is labeling him as a terrorist and wanting to arrest and hang him for treason..if he says that his ideas are inspired by a certain group..they'll be sure to pick up on it.

I think that is a little too absurd for the MSM to try and call us terrorists by this loose association with Assange. If they did it wouldn't be effective.

They would call us terrorists for other reasons though.

[Vessol]

I think that is a little too absurd for the MSM to try and call us terrorists by this loose association with Assange. They would call us terrorists for other reasons though.

The media has gone on flimsier associations, I wouldn't put it past them.

[dannno]

False. Natural monopolies are *extremely rare* in a free market, and when they do happen, don't last long due to entrepreneurial competition.

LOl, you didn't read my post...

I never said monopolies would be prevalent in a free market, I said they could be prevalent in a capitalist system where there is government intervention, aka corporatism.

Corporatism = Capitalism + Govt. intervention

Free market = No government intervention

[pcosmar]

I think that is a little too absurd for the MSM to try and call us terrorists by this loose association with Assange. If they did it wouldn't be effective.

They would call us terrorists for other reasons though.

They already have.

I have come to embrace the title as a Badge of Honor.
:cool:

[Seraphim]

Even better...

Capitalism is what people do when you leave them alone.

And social Marxism has been en masse believing that people are inherently bad ....thus they view what you just said as a bad thing.

[tsai3904]

Capitalism is a free market with a judicial system that applies the rule of law to everyone equally.

[idirtify]

No, he's saying that if you have a capitalist market where the government is not actively protecting the free market environment, then you will get monopolies, which is true.

The government can allow 'capitalism', aka allow people to collect and own capital, while simultaneously creating regulations and such that favor the large capital owners. This would be a non-free market version of capitalism, aka corporatism.

So he is saying he is against corporatism, and for free markets assuming they are actually free and not controlled by large corporations. His theory is that large corporations will inevitably control government for their advantage, and so the people have to 'force' the government to enforce free markets.

How did you arrive at that translation?

[Sentient Void]

And social Marxism has been en masse believing that people are inherently bad ....thus they view what you just said as a bad thing.

You're absolutely right.

Social marxists have been sooo wrong... about sooo many things.

They don't seem to want to acknowledge the the *vast* majority (oh, like 99.9%+?) of their free interactions (social or economic) with other human beings has been productive and pleasant and *not* destructive, violent and aggressive.

[Sola_Fide]

Of course he is. He belives in the freedom to do as he chooses and rules of conduct be d*mned. He belives in might makes right and has no desire to be a benifactor to anyone other than himself.

Might makes right is not libertarian.

In the free market, there is no "might"...since might implies force. In the market, right is defined by voluntarism.

[dannno]

How did you arrive at that translation?

Because he made the statement about forcing the market to be free, and I've had to make similar arguments to leftists who think that if we arrived at a free market, that it would quickly go back to a corporatist system where the biggest market players would create an anti-competitive environment by whatever means they could. The government's job is to ensure free and competitive environments, and it is our job to keep the government in check.

[idirtify]

Because he made the statement about forcing the market to be free

Yeah, but his use of the word “force” as you translate it isn’t backed up by anything else from him. That’s why I said, “surely he doesn’t mean ‘force’ as something the State needs to correct for”. I think he means that the information he relays will serve as sufficient “force”.

[Todd]

And social Marxism has been en masse believing that people are inherently bad ....thus they view what you just said as a bad thing.


If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind?" - Frédéric Bastiat
Marxist's kind of defeat their purpose by saying all people are bad. So why should a small group of "bad people" have the monopoly on the use of force?

I'm of the opinion that most people tend to be up to no good the more control they have. That is why I believe in individualism...so someone else's tom foolery can't effect me.

[Thomas]

:O Woooohoooooo! spread!

[BenIsForRon]

I pretty much agree with Assange. Do all of you really believe monopolies are absolutely impossible without government help? Have you ever heard of a cartel?

[Imperial]

Agreed.

He also seems to be confused about the role of information/knowledge in markets.

It seems like he believes that because we all don't have 'perfect information', that it's a form of alleged 'market failure' that the State needs to correct for.

That being said, I'm glad he's not a socialist liberal. He just needs a few more nudges in the right direction ;D

He never said that the government is the only person to force them. Indeed, much of his interview describes how an organization like Wikileaks can play such a role. Kudos to him for that.

And if we do not have accurate information, it is hard to act rationally in a market. That is one reason why we have laws against fraud.

[Sentient Void]

He never said that the government is the only person to force them. Indeed, much of his interview describes how an organization like Wikileaks can play such a role. Kudos to him for that.

And if we do not have accurate information, it is hard to act rationally in a market. That is one reason why we have laws against fraud.

Yeah, I fixed my understanding of his position on this earlier in the thread.

[Epic]

but I have enough expertise in politics and history to understand that a free market ends up as monopoly unless you force them to be free.

Absolutely incorrect.

http://mises.org/daily/2694

[Sentient Void]

Absolutely incorrect.

http://mises.org/daily/2694

+1, +rep