Karen and Tom raise the same objections I have to the inconstancy of Harper’s intellectual content. I have had a subscription to this wonderful magazine for a number of years, and intend to continue with it because of its excellent treatment of a number of issues. It – particularly Lewis Lapham – has been quite good on the Iraq war, the fascist nature of the American state, the corporate-state symbiosis, and the willingness to confront, head-on, a number of sacred shibboleths held dear by the defenders of “politically correct” thinking. But, when it comes to matters involving economics, their articles tend to ignore the clear distinctions – upon which libertarian thinking insists – between the “business system” and the “free market.” When some business firms turn to the state to obtain advantages over their competitors or customers that they cannot realize through voluntary, marketplace transactions, there is a tendency for Harper’s writers to condemn such behavior as expressive of “free market” thinking. If, as has been reported, Wal-Mart calls upon the state to use eminent domain to secure land for its buildings, this is not “free market” activity. If, on the other hand, Wal-Mart’s employment policies make it unattractive for labor unions to get into their stores, this is a “free market” approach to doing business. Likewise, Wal-Mart’s tough bargaining with suppliers as a way of reducing costs that enable their stores to sell merchandise at lower prices than their competitors is the essence of “free market” premises. If the people at Harper’s understood that advocates of the neo-mercantilist “partnership” between business and the state find “free market” thinking contrary to their interests, the magazine could enjoy a consistency of direction it now lacks.

The Best of Butler Shaffer