No, not the one of Scarlett Johansson.
First up, a warning. I have long been beaten to the post on this one. Nothing I say will be original. Most of it won’t even be clever. No matter!
This picture has been doing the rounds on various news sites, including Lew Rockwell, Pileus blog, the Mises Inst blog, and probably a lot of others, many of which I would predict have a conservative bent.
In his first post (before the 55 comment long stink started), Prof. Long argues this picture is fallacious because:
A picture like this could of course be made for libertarians too – showing libertarians with tax-funded educations walking on tax-funded streets, contacting each other via government postal monopoly, paying for their lunches with federally issued currency, etc.
Various commenters have either defended the principle behind the picture, or defended Long’s accusation of unfair practice. The main argument from the former group went along lines such as that taken by Grover Cleveland at Pileus:
But my first reaction to your [It's not mine, I merely quoted Prof Long- Mr CL.] reply was that libertarians don’t really have much of an alternative to using the post office for petty first class mail and tax-funded streets and federally-issued currency since these are government monopolies (for the most part since there are private roads in some places) and so the state crowds out or makes illegal real alternatives. On the other hand, these protestors could pretty easily avoid using corporate products without impinging on basic needs even in a modern economy (unlike in the cases Rod points to such as driving to work or using money!)
When I did click on the link, I saw that someone named Cal had basically said something similar (though I’ll admit I didn’t have time to read that whole debate) so I figured I’d quote it here: “As Plauché correctly indicated, Rod, the two are not comparable given anti-state protestors necessarily did not voluntarily purchase any of the state goods or services. Conversely, absolutely everything in the WallSt photo (other than the city road sign) was voluntarily purchased by those individuals who had many immediate alternatives to those purchases, almost always including versions of the same item not made by big evil nasty corporationy corporations . . .”
Ok, well, I’m not really on board with this line of thought. As a Left Libertarian, I sometimes make the point that the largest sectors of certain businesses benefit disproportionately from government interventions. In the case of the camera, iPod and other technical gizmos highlighted in the picture, intellectual property is no doubt a big player here. And so on and so forth, yes? Well, although it would be quite a stretch for me to claim this makes Sony or Canon “An extension of the State” per se, (and there are those who would strawman people of my position in such a way), I do believe these quite numerous legally enforced “privileges” act to make certain sectors a de facto State enabled body. I don’t see how many would survive a transition to a “freed market”. What difference does this make? Well, it’s the “voluntary purchasing of corporate goods” argument that this effects. Economic interaction can only be free and voluntary if all parties start from a position of equal liberty and ability to enter whatever business they chose- one in which barriers to entry are not raised above their natural points. If that were a true description of the economy, I would concede that dealing with large, State benefited business is “voluntary”.
But it isn’t a true description of the economy- big players start from a position of privilege, one which much of the “99%” can never hope to achieve. This means any claim of voluntary economic action with large companies- many of whom have monopolies over various technologies, methods of distribution largely than would normally be born by the market, and much greater bargaining power- suffers accordingly. When only a small number of companies are able to produce goods such as high tech cameras, thanks to an artificial shrinking of consumer choices thanks to State policy, it’s futile to criticize a person for buying that camera. So, I think this argument fails. Try again when we are under a genuine situation of voluntary economic exchange.
Another point: the Occupy Wall Street movements all around the US are, like the Tea party, made up of campaigners on a collection of issues, yet somehow manage to come to a reasonably identifiable and agreed upon stance. Many of these campaigners are upset not just about the large influence on government policy that big business has (who then fall for this fallacy), but are also upset on the large influence such a small number of firms have upon the economy. Corporate goods are ubiquitous. As much as there are those who would tell us we have the option of buying goods from non “corporationy corporations”, the reality is more often than not, we don’t. Much as you can’t send a letter by anything other than a State owned post service, it’s hard to survive modern day life without the influence of artificially large and powerful corporate interests. There are those who would mourn one of these two facts, yet use the other to demonstrate the benevolence or efficiency of their preferred economic system- be it the wonders of State mail services, or the wonders of Silicon valley firms. If you only believe one, but not the other, sorry buddy, you probably need to get your thinking straight.
The ubiquity of corporate made goods being used even in a scenario where people wish to express ill will towards the corporate producers of those goods not only fails to properly criticise those people, it actually builds upon their reasoning behind the rage. I quote one of Rad Geek’s comments from Prof Long’s blog:
You know, it strikes me that if your aim is to use visual rhetoric to lodge a criticism of the people at Occupy Wall Street, then an image whose upshot is, roughly, “the activities of giant corporations inescapably pervade absolutely every aspect of your everyday life” … may not actually be as effective a criticism as you think it is.
Well, yeah. If you don’t accept that logic, don’t expect sympathy when you scream bloody murder about how much is sucks there’s only one Royal Mail. The Statements “You claim to have the State, yet use roads, water supplies and Royal Mail” and “You claim to hate corporations, yet own an iPod, mass produced clothes and own a car” are on equally bad footing. Both the State and corporate interests are omnipresent in modern society. That’s not a testament to the benefits of omnipotent government or omnipotent capitalism. It’s a central part of the critique of both.
Oh, and by the way, before anyone points it out… find me a pic of tea partiers with captions on every government influenced service, and the point still stands. Both the tea party and the Occupy Wall Street movements have it right. It’s only a false dichotomy of left against right that prevents any sort of synthesis or collaboration from happening.
See also: The Corporate Alarm Clock, by Kevin Carson at c4ss.
I do not think such a picture could be used for Libertarians.
Why? Because did all those protestors have money taken by force to pay for the goods they carry? Were they handed to them as a take-it-or-leave-it (and pay again) option?
No.
Tax funded education is endured by those who cannot afford to pay, and often that means they pay twice or thrice, one for themselves, once for the state and even for others.
Let’s not pretend that Western capitalism is in anyway less statist in its roots than, say, social democracy- that the influence of Statist policies is much less visible doesn’t change this.