At the story’s end, Scrooge awakens and begins throwing money out the window. In the mind of Dickens, Scrooge has now justified his existence by abandoning the rational decision making that has made his firm successful. FULL ARTICLE by Butler Shaffer
Source link: http://blog.mises.org/11280/the-case-for-ebeneezer/
The Case for Ebeneezer
Previous post: Avoiding Austro-Flamewars
Next post: Fortune Sellers
{ 39 comments }
The antidote is Blackadder’s Christmas Carol (part one). A hilarious Tiny Tim parody starts at 6:15.
I recently wrote this after watching ‘The Muppet Christmas carol’:
“It crossed my mind how, in Ebenezer’s zeal to spread his good fortune, he will eventually run out of loanable funds, thus depriving many townsfolk of what was once their only avenue to buy time. Also, because Ebenezer freely squanders his wealth, the people may eventually grow dependent on his gifts, and later on demand them, until Ebenezer’s estate is depleted.
“But no, it would never go that far, even in real life. This is because Ebenezer gave voluntarily, and, despite his newfound generosity, he still has a sense of marginal utility, by which the pleasure in giving to one’s neighbor is balanced by the pleasure of holding on to his steadily shrinking cash account. A point will be reached in which the necessity of holding on to his funds outweighs the giving of a shilling more.
“Such powers of valuation may result in error, in which Scrooge’s standard of living is drastically worsened beyond what he had calculated, which may even necessitate the showing of kindness by one of his former benefactors. But all in all, a society gets by just right because the giving and taking is done on a voluntary basis.
“We now see where a political system espousing equality makes a mess of things. Sure, it sounds great for people to have just as much as what their neighbor has, but is it desirable for this to be implemented via an instrument of coercion? The fact is that, with people left to their devices, some would be content with a certain amount of wealth if the level of their psychic income remains intact. Others find their psychic income precisely from an increased amount of the medium of exchange. All of this is according to people’s subjective valuations, with neither one’s valuation being ‘better’ in an absolute, universal sense.
“Those less fortunate with little opportunity unless assisted by others are best helped by the likes of the reformed Scrooge, wherein giving is sincere, but never to the detriment of society as a whole. After all, as charitable as a person may be, they are always dealing with finite resources when helping out poor folk. The act of giving is itself more wisely done, not to mention more sincere.
“With a government in charge of redistribution, leaving aside for the moment the vested interests and corruption that go with a coercive institution, the act of giving is done with no system of valuation. The haphazard allocation of resources provides for rash consumption, impractical business ventures and a net loss for society as a whole, a loss not necessarily quantifiable in money or in any form. The opportunity cost of failing to spend within one’s means is great, and means less for all in the long term.
“Reality requires that some have more than others in terms of property. Voluntary association, in its unevenness, is by far the greatest system by which people can interact and exchange their goods and services in the most efficient as well as the most ‘equitable’ way.”
The “charges” you claim are brought against Scrooge by the author are disingenuously stated as
‘he became very rich and insisted upon keeping all of his money for himself’. This is horsemanure, of course. The charges are spiritual in nature, and have to do with the character of Scrooge grossly overvaluing riches and grossly undervaluing the virtues of generosity and common decency. The spirit of this man became shrivelled and undeveloped in all other areas by his obsession with piling up wealth. It is fantastically unbelievable to me to imagine that good economic sense bears any relationship to an unhealthy fixation on only the material forms of wealth, at the expense of love and fellow-feeling.
When, at the end, Scrooge gives away his money, this is a symbol for his spirit freeing itself of the vice of greed, not some sort of prescription for how every man should act in the economic sense. This is, after all, literature, which seeks to educate the soul, not a treatise of political economy.
Also, there is no rational defense to be offered to the phenomenon of owners of capital living in overwhelming luxury, while those who work in their businesses live lives of miserable poverty. At best, you could defend their private property right to act in this fashion. People can have the right to do a lot of things which do not stand up to any moral examination. Dickens’ tale is a moral examination of one TYPE of human being, who exercises his private property rights in a distorted and morally stunting way.
@ Tina:
What does it matter that Scrooge is a hoarder of his material wealth if he provides a service that is obviously in need (since he’s profitting)? If he fails to discover generosity, society loses very little, since he’s still providing a good service. What’s arguably more damaging is Scrooge blowing all this money away for charity, creating a bunch of dependents, and the businesses losing a valuable service.
Thus, the very symbolism you describe is the same crap socialists have used to destroy countless lives. This is literature, but the message is still dangerous.
And lastly, you say it’s unfair that some people live in luxury but others in poverty. How about noting that those in poverty should do more to reverse their condition, rather than denouncing wealth for being wealthy? Your morality is misguided and frankly very dangerous.
Tina
“Also, there is no rational defense to be offered to the phenomenon of owners of capital living in overwhelming luxury, while those who work in their businesses live lives of miserable poverty. At best, you could defend their private property right to act in this fashion.”
Haven’t you just contradicted yourself? “There is no rational defense” followed by a rational defense “their private property right to act in this fashion”?
I’ve read this defense of Scrooge every Christmas for the past few years, and I must say it has become one of my favorite Christmas stories in its own right. Thanks, Prof. Shaffer, for a true classic.
As Tina Brewer’s comment shows, many people still don’t understand how misguided charity can be downright destructive to one’s neighbors and oneself, and how even the greed of an old, callous miser benefits his whole community regardless of his intent.
Trying to improve on Shaffer’s arguments would be gilding the lily. I can only recommend a more thorough reading of his parable (although htran offers a poignant summary).
This article is why libertarians(using the word loosely) despite having an agenda that is largely palatable to a majority of Americans, poll about 2% every election.
At no point in the story was Scrooge ever forced to hand over his wealth. He simply came to a realization that while he has a right to his property, the hoarding of money is a spritually vapid existence. And this clap trap about misguided charity. There is nothing misguided about charity for the truly unfortunate. Tiny Tim is not sick because of excessive smoking or drinking. His father is not a welfare cheat, quite the opposite. He is a hard working man who wont even badmouth his a-hole boss.
What is reprehensble about the welfare state is that it is not charity, freely given by fortunate and hard working successful people. Rather it is a cynical theft and transfer of wealth director by central planners at the point of a gun.
Our country would do a far better job of tackling poverty if people would allowed to keep more of their earnings and we relied primarly on the kindess of one another and private charity.
I await your praise for the Grinch’s efforts to interupt the artificial credit expansion in Whoville
KUDOS for the long-awaited Ebeneezer tribute.
I admired him for many decades, and cannot understand why he was so reviled? Just because he had the sense to save money and want to run his business? Hah.
Deceived by the ne-er-do-well ghosts (ghosts?, surely believable nowadays) conjured up by Dickenson.
Reviled, also, because he chose not to believe in the antithesis to Winter Solstice? Oh, boo hoo, to all the xmas believers who want to waste their time and energies on rubbish.
Well, off to the Winter Solstice am I; hope the crops will be better this year.
cosmo
To Bill:
I believe your claim that Scrooge was never forced into turning over his wealth is false. It IS true that he was never physically forced into turning it over BUT he was threatened implicitly with death and eternal damnation if he didn’t. He avoided both, at least temporarily, by sharing his wealth. That is not an insignificant part of the story because it makes possible a mugging analogy.
An mugger armed with a pistol need not discharge a bullet into his victim to force him to turn over his money. The threat of doing so is sufficient. Furthermore, if physical force was applied and the trigger was pulled, the result would be a more grievous offense than mere robbery. I hope you would agree that saying that the victim “voluntarily” gave up his wallet isn’t much of a defense.
There is, in my opinion, a larger point to be made about the Christmas Carol, however. The moral of the story is: Be unselfish or else. It reminds me of a mother telling her son who refuses to share his toys with his pal “Don’t be selfish, son. You should share your toys with your friends. Otherwise, no one will like you.” What is she really saying? Is she really telling him not to be selfish? In fact, she is doing exactly the opposite. What she is really telling him is “friends are more valuable than toys, so choose wisely.” The desire to socialize is pure selfishness. Clearly, choosing friends over toys is not in any way unselfish.
The problem with her advice is in the foolish fixation on selfishness. It is easy to see that selfishness is an absolutely critical component of human and all other all life. Try being absolutely unselfish and you will die immediately. At best, advising unselfishness causes a lot of confusion and unnecessary guilt. At worst, it results in impoverishing us by buttressing bad ideas like state-sponsored low income housing, for example. Rather, we should be telling each other to be MORE selfish, not less.
Seen from this perspective it is easy to understand why a libertarian like myself would be so turned off by Dicken’s The Christmas Carol.
A person can have a right to his property (rational) without it being morally sound that he chooses to offer wretchedness-inducing wages in exchange for the labor provided by his workers. Offering decent wages and working conditions is not in any sense charity. It is just common decency. ( I personally think charity is dangerous and should be minimal as well, mainly because it is degrading to the recipient to be a dependent.)
However, in this case, rather than there being a call to charity, there is clearly a call to adjust the scales of exchange in a more reasonable fashion; an exchange of value is taking place. The worker provides work, the employer provides wages, and sets terms of contract (days off, etc) It is neither socialistic or dangerous to imply that those in society who find themselves, through personal merit or fate, in positions of economic power, have a moral (again moral, moral moral, not legal) obligation to be guided not by vices such as greed and avarice, but by virtues such as fairness and generosity. I cannot understand the thinking of those who cannot distinguish between what a person should be forced to do by the violence of the state and what a person should do voluntarily because it is good and uplifting to do so.
Perhaps I could be helped to understand this by a purely economic view of wages. How would it be economically incorrect if employers such as Scrooge would offer pee-breaks, a couple of vacation days, and a wage which provides the worker a level of existence above wretchedness?
Is it that if Scrooge offered these things, he would promptly go out of business, and then everyone would be poorer? I have a rudimentary understanding of the argument that workers can only be paid the wage which increases the value to the employer above the cost of the wage. (pardon the clumsy statement of this principle) However, this seems to be an area where a lot of gray exists. Profits attract investors and keep businesses renewed and sound, etc. but varying levels of profit will accomplish this end to varying degrees, correct? There is no absolute number of profitability below which it is economically absurd to fall?
Tina
I agree whole heartedly with your morals, people should look at others around them with compassion. It is a curious fact that doing so improves the lives of both of them. There is however a need to look critically at what many call stinginess. The first question is why does Cratchett continue working for Scrooge in the first place? He is not under any physical compulsion to stay, so it must be because in his judgement Scrooge offers him the most generous option available. Why are we criticising Scrooge, who sadly appears to be the most generous person of means around and ignoring the people who won’t even offer Cratchett as much as Scrooge does?
On a more technical note, Scrooge is a miser, one who hoards wealth, in other words a saver. Economics teaches us that every single advancement in human welfare is dependent on savings. Present consumption must be constrained to create the conditions for even greater consumption in the future. We may be shocked at the harsh subsistence level that Cratchett and family have from the wages Scrooge offers, but we don’t get to see the whole picture in this story. The Cratchetts have a miserable life, but the money that Scrooge gives away to allow increased present consumption will not be available for future capital expansion or to maintain existing capital, this could very well result in Cratchetts grandkids starving to death instead of subsisting. Which is kinder?
I agree that Scrooge is a miserable human being, I think that his awakening to the joys of human compassion is a moving story, but Scrooge is a politically motivated stereotype. Economics teaches us that saving, even in the extreme case of Scrooge, will benefit society. How is it moral for us to say that the people who will eventually benefit from Scrooges saving and the expansion of production it makes possible are not deserving, while the Cratchetts are?
@ T. Ralph Kays
I appreciate your attempt to understand what I am getting at. I also wholeheartedly agree that future prosperity is based upon savings. However, this savings increases wealth because if forms the basis of investment, right? This is not what Scrooge does. He does not invest and allow capital to build. He explicitly hoards coins so that he can sit around an look at how shiny they are, and he does so at the expense of human relationships, etc.
I also agree that of course given the miserable conditions of the economy at the time, the job Cratchett takes is probably the best offer around. However, I also think there is a basic standard of decency in any relationship of mutual benefit. Capital needs labor and labor needs capital. In this world, the owners of capital have power, because there are fewer of them, and it is, after all, a material world! This makes me feel that those so placed should be motivated, by basic fellow feeling, to use that power to elevate the general condition. Not through charity, but through humanely established, voluntarily established, basic standards.
“…those in society who find themselves, through personal merit or fate, in positions of economic power, have a moral obligation to be guided not by vices such as greed and avarice, but by virtues such as fairness and generosity.”
Greed, schmeed.
Basic standards. Oh, my, here we go again.
Whose basis? Whose standard?
Who says Scrooge was overly greedy? I’m curious what the metric is, the yardstick.
Scrooge certainly demonstrated no avarice in the food he ate, his porridge, prior to the visitations.
Is it greedy to have two DVD players in my house? Or two televisions? Am I greedy because I’ll be having an expensive roast sirloin on Xmas day, but people living a few miles from me are eating hamburger?
I tire of this relativistic nonsense.
There’s no moral rationale for my two DVD players, nor two televisions. But I enjoy the convenience.
There is no need to go out tonight and enjoy a Xmas party buffet, which I shall, while some folks in Nepal are wondering if they will eat at all.
Before you call a soul greedy, ask yourself if it’s moral for you to notch up that thermostat to 21C, to partake in the chocolate mousse, to buy a bracelet for the party.
You don’t need to do any of the above. Is your local Mr. Cratchett entitled to call you greedy, because you can access this website, and he can’t afford a PC?
Folks that toss around this pejorative find strength in numbers — most of their pals live about the same lifestyle; they are the good guys, they are not greedy.
If I drive a Lexus, I’m not greedy; but the guy who drives a Bentley is.
If I drive Toyota, I’m not greedy, but the guy driving a Lexus is.
If I’m busting my ass and busing my way to work, to keep basic food on my plate, I’m not greedy. But the guy driving the Toyota is.
Maybe it’s enough for me to say, “Well, some folks are hungry tonight, so I’ll drop a few dollars into the Salvation Army collection bucket on my way to buy that 40-inch wide-screen; I’m sure as hell not greedy and my three-bucks must surely provide them that basic standard.”
Does that help me sleep better, makes me a more moral person?
A comment on Cratchett’s mindset. When Mrs. Cratchett scolded Bob for his dinner-table toast to Scrooge, she was correct, but for the wrong reason. She was furious about the wage Scrooge paid her husband. But it was a wage that Bob accepted. As those above had stated, if Bob didn’t like it, he should go elsewhere.
The reason the scolding was in order was that Cratchett was a pathetic victim — of his own doing. He embraced a slave mentality. He was attributing the food on the table to Scrooge rather than to himself. Scrooge didn’t put the food on the table. Cratchett did.
Even current vernacular epitomizes this thinking. How often do we hear, “I work for GM; I work for Super Cuts” rather than, “I work with GM. I work at Super Cuts.”
Cratchett needs to think of himself working with Scrooge, not for. You don’t work for anybody but yourself. Scrooge was dependent upon Cratchett for his operation.
If old Bob had a pair between his legs (though he must have with all those kids), he should have politely stood firm with the old miser. In fact, when Scrooge bitched about Cratchett taking the holiday off, Bob should have replied, “Go find somebody else. If it’s so easy to get good clarks, then go do it.” The sour-pussed Ebenezer would have grumbled and fumed, and would have cowardly backed off to his desk and coinage.
Hurrah for Mrs. Cratchett for kicking her husband’s ass. And maybe not hard enough.
By the way, perfect selection for the Scrooge photo. Of all the versions (and when will they stop insufferably producing more?), Alastair Sim ought to have been the last word on Ebenezer. Always a treat to watch. Production values in this 1951 film still hold up today. Acting, ambience, writing, just brilliantly executed.
Why is everything either black or white, here? Why is someone either rich or a loser? This is silly. Nowhere do you find me advocating envy or saying that people who are rich don’t deserve to be rich. I have no problem with there being rich people, and do not think there is an absolute standard of wealth, as you accuse. I do, however, think there is a thing called decency. If I employ someone, I am in a reciprocal relationship with that person, where I am taking something and they are taking something. It seems obvious to me that since the number of hours in the day is finite, and basic human physiological needs are also defineable, then the minimum decent wage is one which, in the prevailing price conditions, makes a minimum standard of human existence possible; these are indeed low standards, and are met by a very low threshold. People NEED to eat a minimum number of calories a day to sustain body mass. They NEED to go to the bathroom on a regular basis, to avoid disease. They NEED to sleep (this need varies within a narrow range). It is possible to have an existence of constant work, inadequate nutrition, inadequate sleep and disease. It is just wretched. I also agree that Scrooge does not cause these conditions to prevail in the lives of the Cratchits. What I have stated is subtly different; it is that Scrooge, having the power to improve these conditions, refuses to do so spontaneously because of his excessively developed love of material gain. While he certainly has no legal obligation to make others’ lives better, he may become freer in spirit if he does so.
As to the author’s denunciation of the Cratchits as absolute losers because of their lack of economic success, I don’t even know how to respond to this. ?
Tina
I agree, I personally would be ashamed to treat anyone the way Scrooge treats Cratchett. I also personally think Scrooge is foolish for not using some of his wealth to improve his life with the benefits of being kind to others. That he chooses differently though is his choice, are we to sit around and make pronouncements of good and evil on others based on our own judgement of whether they have given enough? The context in which this story takes place is very important, Cratchetts life is very much better than the lives of most people of that time. Poor people who farmed or otherwise worked for themselves in that time would have thought Cratchetts life and job luxurious.
It doesn’t matter that Scrooge doesn’t invest his coin, that he saves is what matters, eventually the savings will be spent to enable future consumption in some way, very likely after Scrooge dies. It is important to recognise that whatever benefit the Cratchetts could recieve now it will be at the expense of that future consumption. Why is it ok for you to decide who recieves that benefit? If Scrooges thrift produces benefits that save the lives of Cratchetts as yet unborn grandchildren is he still a villain? Who among us knows the future well enough to dictate what the correct level of savings is?
Tina wrote:
**********
However, this savings increases wealth because if forms the basis of investment, right? This is not what Scrooge does. He does not invest and allow capital to build. He explicitly hoards coins so that he can sit around an look at how shiny they are, and he does so at the expense of human relationships, etc.
**********
Every single coin he hoards is one less coin in circulation. If the number of coins in circulation is decreased, then the effect must be an increase the buying power of every other coin in circulation.
Hence Scrooge’s “hoarding” increases the buying power, and therefore wealth, of every other individual in society.
As you can see, “hoarding” his “shiny coins” actually helps the poor.
This perversion of free market theory is untenable.
Those who eschew charity on the grounds that a monetarily profitable business is better for society adopt the same socialist mindset that they claim to object to. The same goes for those who promote charity.
Free market theory tells us it doesn’t matter what Scrooge does. What’s good for society is irrelevant. What is ethically correct is that individuals choose their own path, and can only be definitely in the wrong if they harm another person. While we all have our own ideas of what comprises virtue, our subjective perception of right and wrong has no significance beyond our own lives. These subjective values in and of themselves are the seeds of the state, as they seduce us into demanding, then forcing, others to conform to our will.
Yet again, we find that free market proponents are eager to denounce an individual’s choice when it conflicts with their idea of what society should be like, or to promote it as the ideal when it conforms.
Ribald, I think it just comes down to the two approaches: principled, or practical. The principled argument for a free market is that all transactions are voluntary. The practical one is that it is the best we know of in terms of efficiency, improvement, etc.
When someone attacks the free market, the defense depends on which of the approaches is used. If principled, you simply ask what’s wrong with allowing people private property, and the full power to choose whom to trade it with. If it’s on the practical value of the free market, your response depends on what is being attacked. So here, someone attacks a hoarder, and we show that a hoarder in fact has a positive effect. If we went by principles, we’d have no problem with him in the first place, since that which he hoards he obtains via voluntary transactions with others.
Love this defense which I agree with.
Scrooge hurts only himself with his attitude (as pointed out by Fred). Cratchit stayed with him by choice.
I had always wondered one point: if Scrooge had failed to learn to handle money early in life would he have been able to help Tiny Tim when the time came? Might he not have failed at business at some point which could have meant an earlier death for him and/or Tiny Tim?
Oh please, J. Lakner, when Scrooge is hoarding gold coins then he is making the rest more valuable. If the poor had gold coins (which would be extremely unlikely) they would theoretically have more buying power but would be more expensive to obtain. In other words, if someone didn’t have gold coins they have to exchange more to get the gold coin so deflation wouldn’t benefit them.
Gil
If the money supply decreases all money becomes more valuable, the ‘denominations’ don’t matter.
I don’t think that this is an effect worth mentioning though, it will be miniscule. That Scrooge abstained from consuming in the present so that it would be possible to consume in the future is significant. That is what has saved human life countless times in the past and when some part of the savings is used for capital improvement it not only saves lives it improves the quality of everyones life.
I find it curious that nobody talks about the selfless nature of Scrooges actions. He lives a miserable existence himself, alone, friendless, really not the level of luxury that he might have, all so that he can save for the future, apparantly for the benefit of others, because he shows no inclination to spend his hoarded savings on himself. All human advancement involves people doing without some present benefits in order that people will have more in the future. That is precisely why none of us live like Bob Cratchit, and Scrooge is the hero that saved us.
“I don’t think that this is an effect worth mentioning though, it will be miniscule.”
It depends how much he is hoarding. It also depends how ‘open’ or ‘closed’ his community is with trading with other communities.
If Scrooge owns half the money supply of a relatively ‘closed’ community, hoarding will effectively double the purchasing power of every other inhabitant of that community.
Gil wrote:
“In other words, if someone didn’t have gold coins they have to exchange more to get the gold coin so deflation wouldn’t benefit them.”
Gil your point is correct if applying it to a situation where Scrooge is ‘continuously’ hoarding money. My argument only applies to a change in Scrooge’s spending patterns to a state of hoarding.
If Scrooge suddenly decides to hoard a large number of gold coins, the effect will slowly work its way through the system as everyone tries to satisfy their own personal saving preferences.
The price of consumer goods will immediately decrease. This will decrease the price of the factors of production. Eventually the system will reach a new equilibrium. Given enough time, the decrease in the money supply will have no net effect on everyone else. However, it is during the transition period that everyone will benefit because the goods that were produced to satisfy Scrooge’s former spending instead need to be distributed to everyone else.
So that deals with a ‘one-time’ hoarding. But Gil’s point was directed towards continuous hoarding.
If Scrooge continually engages in hoarding, people will realise that their purchasing power is slowly increasing over time and take that into account when making their decisions. Producers will also realise this and adjust their production to take this into account . An equilibrium will be reached and the deflation will not directly affect everyone.
Despite Gil’s very good point, there actually is a beneficial indirect consequence of ‘continuous’ hoarding. People who ‘spend last’ will benefit at the expense of those who ‘spend first’. Therefore, this state of affairs leads to a society which discourages reckless spending and encourages saving. Society will have more savings than they otherwise would have had and, as a result, has lower interest rates. This will result in more credit to businesses which leads to more employment and productivity.
Hence, Scrooge’s (herioc?) act of hoarding, whether it is ‘one-time’ or ‘continuous’, has a beneficial effect on society.
The money-is-evil theme was secondary to the general nature of scrooge – that he was introverted, mean and indecent. After realizing he would be loved and remembered by none – regardless of the indirect good his ventures have caused – he decides to change his image by jumping around and smiling at everyone.
So really, it’s a story about the importance of good PR. hah
Ribald says:
Free market theory tells us it doesn’t matter what Scrooge does. What’s good for society is irrelevant. What is ethically correct is that individuals choose their own path, and can only be definitely in the wrong if they harm another person. While we all have our own ideas of what comprises virtue, our subjective perception of right and wrong has no significance beyond our own lives. These subjective values in and of themselves are the seeds of the state, as they seduce us into demanding, then forcing, others to conform to our will.
Free market theory doesn’t say anything even remotely resembling this. Free market theory cannot hope to comment at all about what is relevant or irrelevant morally. It only tells us about what is technically going to happen when incentive structures are perverted by coersion or when there is greater freedom to act within the bounds of non-aggressive self interest. Market theory is by definition incapable of going beyond these very narrow technical limits. That doesn’t mean that it is incorrect or useless; in fact it is generally quite correct, technically, and tremendously useful.
The problem is that its very limited nature tends to attract adherents who are themselves so morally restricted that they can concieve of no other virtue outside of not beating others up and stealing their stuff. Because of their personal limits, they naturally attempt to use the narrow bounds of the non-aggression principle as a justification for defending the likes of Ebeneezer Scrooge, a person whose presence in anyone’s life would comprise a type of hell. (and this is not because of the fact that he offers others a job, an act which also benefits him or he wouldn’t do it and has nothing to do with generosity of spirit or any other virtue, although it is great in and of itself)
I wanted to point out as well, the absurdity of the statement that “our subjective perception of right and wrong has no significance beyond our own lives” This borders on insanity. We are individuals, but we are also highly social creatures, who form networks and relationships as a psychological necessity. If I personally subjectively value cooperation, for example, I might be a person who offers someone a place in line before me, or lets someone merge into traffic ahead of me, or waits politely while someone finishes their long-winded discussion with someone whose attention I also want without interruption, etc etc. This subjectively held value has potentially tremendous impact on the lives of others, and although it is one minor example it is illustrative.
Although obviously libertarianism and free market theory are not identical, this from the great Murray Rothbard is insightful;
“The fact is that libertarianism is not and does not pretend to be a complete moral, or aesthetic theory; it is only a political theory, that is, the important subset of moral theory that deals with the proper role of violence in social life. Political theory deals with what is proper or improper for government to do, and government is distinguished from every other group in society as being the institution of organized violence. Libertarianism holds that the only proper role of violence is to defend person and property against violence, that any use of violence that goes beyond such just defense is itself aggressive, unjust, and criminal. Libertarianism, therefore, is a theory which states that everyone should be free of violent invasion, should he free to do as he sees fit except invade the person or property of another. What a person does with his or her life is vital and important, but is simply irrelevant to libertarianism.
“It should not be surprising, therefore, that there are libertarians who are indeed hedonists and devotees of alternative life-styles, and that there are also libertarians who are firm adherents of ‘bourgeois’ conventional or religious morality. There are libertarian libertines and there are libertarians who cleave firmly to the disciplines of natural or religious law. There are other libertarians who have no moral theory at all apart from the imperative of non-violation of rights. That is because libertarianism per se has no general or personal moral theory. Libertarianism does not offer a way of life; it offers liberty, so that each person is free to adopt and act upon his own values and moral principles. Libertarians agree with Lord Acton that ‘liberty is the highest political end’ – not necessarily the highest end on everyone’s personal scale of values.”
Tina
Beautifully said.
Heheh. Loved it
.
“The problem is that its very limited nature tends to attract adherents who are themselves so morally restricted that they can concieve of no other virtue outside of not beating others up and stealing their stuff.”
A rather pejorative, finger-pointing, generalization. It’s the other guy who is “morally restricted,” limited, narrow, just not quite living a fulfilled existence….
Anyway, if there were one representative in Congress whose morality was limited to “not beating others up nor stealing their stuff,” it would be infinitely superior to the status quo.
Good defense of Scrooge by Mr. Shaffer, and a nice analytics and argumentation in defense of Free Market Capitalism. I liked the authors literary style, and shrewd analogies and extrapolations…
However, this interpretation of Scrooge’s character does not shed light on the overall deficiency of market forces – that is, what to do with the inept and less-talented? It sounds like as if the author is OK with Crotchet family being eliminated (starved to death) for being incompetent or otherwise unable to compete under given market conditions…
The larger problem with efficient markets is that they leave a good chunk of population out of workforce – for being unmarketable, due to lack of necessary talent or will… This inevitably creates a wave of popular dissent, resulting in coerced re-distribution of wealth…
In other word, in my opinion, pure Free Market Capitalism will inevitably lead to polarization of society, as the efficiency of markets increases, the competitiveness grows, leaving more and more out of the game… One other thing author does not realize, as many Free Market supporters do not, is that lack of talent or skill is pretty much an unchanging circumstance. For example, the author blames the Bob character for being a “human sponge”, and argues that he should have been more pro-active and learned news skills, but he forgets that if Bob were capable of increasing his marginal utility, he would have already done so, without further encouragement… The guy was inept. Period. The question is – what is to become of him? Should society as a whole allow the likes of Bob to starve to death or worse, yet, resort to non-productive mean, thus decreasing the utility of the others and combined wealth of the society? Or should there be mechanisms in place of keeping Bob marginally alive, thus removing him as a potential threat or nuisance to the capable?
Don’t forget that the tragedy of Human Condition is in the way talent is distributed among members of the society, while they share the same basic needs to survive…
Again, I do not see a clean solution here…
Free market capitalism would be utterly contrary to your evidence-absent charge. “Polarization of society” is an anti-liberty paradigm…. Here we go again with this society-thing, as though it’s some kind of living, breathing organism requiring the meddling hands of the state bureaucrat to shape and mold. The alleged marginalization of the individual is an anathema to libertarianism. If human beings tolerate the paradigm, that they are some sort of cog in a societal wheel, supporting something greater than themselves, they submit to the slave mentality.
“Lack of talent or skill is an unchanging circumstance.†This is an astonishing statement, without basis in reality, nor with any nod to historical evidence, the human condition, or a modicum of respect for those, for everyone, who betters himself, whether learning to play a concerto or learning to pick up a spoon.
Your entire picture of so-called markets is also a laboratory experiment viewpoint, constricted to a seeing a static, limited set of variables and resources on a petri dish. The market is ever-changing, widening, shifting, growing because human beings are ever-changing and, surprisingly(?), they are endlessly changing their circumstance among a universe of virtually unlimited resources.
“Should society let Bob starve to death?â€
Again, who in heaven’s name is this society guy that gets trounced out whenever somebody wants to warn me of the catastrophic consequences of freedom and liberty?
Who is he? You’ll have to ask him (or her) and Bob himself, if he will starve.
@pbergn
What about the doctrine of comparative advantage? Usually applied to international trade between countries, but as Mises and other have pointed out, it also applies at the individual level. There is room for everyone in a free market economy; each person has a comparative advantage in some productive activity.
pbergn, why would a free market necessarily permanently put some people out of work? Everyone has something they can do; the only question is whether it’s worth what’s being charged for it. If there really were a large number of people out of work, it would be due to them charging too much for their labor (or the state forcing them to do so).
I think to some extent we’ve all missed an important point and that is what was in Scrooges’ heart or more precisely, where was his head at.
My experience is the old fart is frankly selfish (despite what one might think about him “spreading the wealth”) His focus is clearly on himself. We see many examples of this today. Here is one; Lazy Boy moves their factory from Utah to Mexico. Why you ask? One word, like Scrooge… P R O F I T. Lazy boy and the other corporate raiders of America care little about our country, the people who live here or circumstances. They are extremely poor citizen statesmen and even poorer business men. They see only profit. Like Scrooge they are short sighted and callus. May they like their mentor receive what they have given. Nothing.
You sir said it best; Scrooge kept what he had for himself. His every thought was for his own needs not the needs or concerns of anyone else. You have sadly chosen a very difficult client to defend. His actions speak much louder than his words and his words damn him for what he failed to do. To sum up: Where much is given much is expected. Scrooge gave grief and pain what more can he or the corporate raiders of America expect? You reap what you sow.
Well, if you guys don’t believe me that talent, or lack of thereof, is pretty much a given, think of all the places you ever worked at, and think of all the useless co-workers, partners, bosses, assistants or friends you have had, and now imagine that all of these “inefficient†people were fired, put out of work, preempted by efficient free market forces… Also think how many of them ever changes during the years you knew them… What do you think would happen?! Are you getting the picture, yet? Do you really believe that you can put everyone through the school, and educate the unwilling or incapable?!
The tragedy of Human Condition, as I have mentioned in my previous post, is in its extreme diversity in terms of skill and physical abilities, while having the same physiological needs…
The unevenness of talent distribution, which is a near-constant phenomenon, as I observe it to be, creates an enormous differential on competitive advantages of members of the society, exponentially increasing with the technological advancement (i.e. the further is the paradigm shift from manual labor, the more obvious skill disparities among the members of the society become)…
This irreversible trend will eventually result in demise of the society, where Free Market forces, if left unrestrained, will act as centrifugal forces action on a body rotating with ever-increasing velocity…
pbergn:
No one doubts that the lack of talent is a given. It is the second half of your argument that is flawed.
Without unevenness of talent distribution there can be no economy. Think about it. Why would anyone bother entering into a transaction or even simply interacting with another person if they both possessed everything in common, i.e., if they were equal? Differences and opportunity are the same thing seen from different perspectives. Unevenness is something to be celebrated not denigrated!
Here is an article on the subject by Jeffrey Tucker: http://mises.org/daily/3015
@ pbergn
“Do you really believe that you can put everyone through the school, and educate the unwilling or incapable?!”
Look at your paradigm. You are truly stuck, unable to break free of the stasis unevolving mindset, the insistence that the world is static and human beings are slaves, awaiting the handout lest they die.
Firstly, it is not up to ME nor YOU to put EVERYONE through the school. Where’s Billy Beck when you need him? There’s was a guy who waxed beautifully on the failure of the compulsory education model, had no use for it, and made his life and success on his own.
“…think of all the useless co-workers, partners, bosses, assistants or friends you have had, and now imagine that all of these ‘inefficient’ people were fired, put out of work, preempted by efficient free market forces..”
What world are you living on? They are fired. And they are put out of work. Happens more often than my trip to the coffee shop. And what do they do? They go find work elsewhere.
“The unevenness of talent distribution, which is a near-constant phenomenon, as I observe it to be, creates an enormous differential on competitive advantages of members of the society…”
The unevenness of talent distribution keeps me from trying out for the Philadelphia Eagles, and keeps Donovan McNabb from taking my job.
Oh, but what about if you don’t play football or don’t write?
Then you find something else.
What else is there?
A virtually infinite number of possibilities, which grow all the time.
Hmm i don’t know if i really agree with your point here. I did a little research on the subject but bing hasn’t much information on the subject! So thanks for providing us with your insight.
Comments on this entry are closed.