Ray Haynes read a dozen books in graduate school about how to plan for economic growth. These brilliant writers imagine city utopias run by experts who know better than merchants, consumers, and owners. Then he sat on a City Planning Commission. Now he says: Anyone who thinks that planning for “growth” is anything other than a exercise in futility is still experiencing the mind-altering visions that their college chemicals visited upon him or her so many years ago. In reality, government cannot plan. FULL ARTICLE
Source link: http://blog.mises.org/4097/planning-is-socialism/
Planning is Socialism
Previous post: The NCAA’s new definition of “looting”
Next post: Production or Expropriation?
{ 84 comments }
← Previous Comments
Sione Vatu,
From my perspective the term Capitalist has little or nothing to do with individual sovereignty; rather it has to do with State enforced monopoly control like this:
http://www.modernhistoryproject.org/mhp/ArticleDisplay.php?Article=BolshevikRev
and this:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0839807937/qid=1126911093/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/103-8732894-1497436?v=glance&s=books
The above examples support Marx’s claims. Communism would have found less currency without the Hegelian foe of Capitalism to fear and without the finances from Capitalists.
Words either have a commonly understood meaning agreed upon by every honest trader of information or they have hidden or ambiguous meanings and, at that point, words become instruments of deception. Free trade is hampered by deception.
Try as one might to convey meaning with a twisted word having many possible meanings the effort is confounded and the possibility of precise communication is significantly diminished. How much time must be spent in discriminating between the desired or true meaning and the false meaning? Is a popularity poll required?
I have no intention of being a Capitalist of the sort defined in detail above. Those Capitalists are criminals to be guarded against and feared. The group calling themselves Capitalists are about as diverse as the group known as politicians. Some are good at it and some are not so good. Is another poll required to separate the good Capitalists from the not so good?
You and I have our own diverse definitions of Capitalism. We certainly don’t agree on the definition. In fact our definitions are diametrically opposed. Defend as we might our personal definitions of capitalism the fact remains that a whole lot of other people define both opposites. Socialism falls into the same category of dialectic meanings.
You ask:
(can there be any such thing as an honest socialist?).
How about this one:
http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/andrews/SPAmain.html
Andrews considered himself a socialist much like you consider yourself a Capitalist. Andrews honestly communicated a belief that socialism (The Science of Society) promoted individual sovereignty much like you believe that Capitalism promotes individual sovereignty. Since Andrew’s day the word Socialism has taken on an opposite meaning.
Has Capitalism ever promoted individual sovereignty or did it require an honest person or persons to promote individual sovereignty? Honest people, it seems to me, aught to strive to find precise words to use when trying to communicate.
You can call yourself whatever you wish but the word you use may not convey the intended meaning. I think it is safer to just call myself by my given name.
Joe
Sione Vatu,
Your preference for the word “capitalist” seems to be similar to Ayn Rand’s: It sticks it back to the “socialists.” It flaunts your opposition in their faces, like the homosexuals who like to be called “queer.” This seems to be emotionally satisfying for some, but I fail to see how it achieves good otherwise.
I’m just not much interested much in the dyed-in-the-wool “socialists.” They’re usually pretty hopeless cases. At best, they’re about the last prospects for conversion to the philosophy of freedom.
I’m more interested in those who’re on the fence, or undecided, or who show signs of meaningful evolution in their thought. I think libertarians would do well to communicate with them simply, patiently, and more or less nonadversarially, to help them start to rethink things more accurately on their own path to understanding.
In that sense, I think “capitalism” is an inappropriate term, not because of what one may suppose it represents, but because of what it literally means. It means the economy is organized to benefit the owners of capital, presumably at the expense of the masses, rather than that the economy is organized to guarantee the right to exercise the tangible freedom to acquire and exchange property. (Corollary to this is that, in the absence of concrete property rights, freedom is hollow, devoid of any practical foundation.)
Call it propertarianism, individualism, libertarianism, classical liberalism, or whatever else seems to fit. But please don’t call it by a term at once inaccurate and misleading, conceived by its most vicious intellectual adversary.
R.P.
I would suggest the reason you offer the term “classical liberalism” rather than simply “liberalism” is because this word which once meant something close to libertarianism, now means something close to socialism. Therefore, there is no reason to suspect that any term we adopt that gains widespread acceptance will not be similarly redefined by statists to suit their own shady purposes. I would further contend that those who view capitalism as certainly meaning profits for the privileged few at the expense and exploitation of the masses will take the same view of any other term which advocates free and unregulated markets, which is essentially what they balk at. For those straddling the fence, it will not be the term, but the education that will be the issue.
Also, from an Austrian tradition that ranges back to at least the writings of von Böhm-Bawerk, the term “Capitalist” has been used to refer to that significant player owning the capital in that system that is presently widely known as Capitalism. Are we proposing to stricken references to the term “capitalist” from our discussion as well? I don’t think it is possible. I really doubt it is desirable.
The fact that investment in capital for profit is in no way of itself necessarily connected with oppression of the masses or in any way inherently unethical or fraudulent is just something we will have to take the effort to explain to whoever is willing to listen. The fact that in the more free economies, the majority of the masses are in fact capitalists to the extent that they save, make their savings available as investment in factors of production, and collect interest for their trouble, will be no small point to cover in that discussion.
Paul Edwards writes (and I agree) “there is no reason to suspect that any term we adopt that gains widespread acceptance will not be similarly redefined by statists to suit their own shady purposes.” What then is the apt response?
I submit that we first have clarity as to our own definition (such as advocating the freedom of individual choice). Then when someone employs a different definition, we do not deal with the substance of the issue, but establish which definition we are going to employ. Here, if there is agreement that we shall be employing our definition, there is no difficulty. Nor is there difficulty if we agree to deal with our adversaries definition, for example a system based on exploitation of the working class. One merely responds that we advocate no such system, nor does it pertain to reality.
In other words, the key to the false definition of terms is to demonstrate the falseness of that definition, rather than permit it to be insinuated into the discussion. In the end, one can invariably show that what the adversary is advocating is the initiation of force against an innocent party.
Allen Weingarten,
To demonstrate the falseness of “that” definition I propose to write now. Can I start with the falseness of the definition of the term “Statist”?
Note: The term “Satist” is not recognized, by default, as a word; by the spelling check program I am using.
It may, at this time, serve the purpose intended to return to history and call up a similar effort conducted by a person similarly employed in the process of demonstrating the falseness of the definitions of terms.
My choice of references, I think and hope that you will similarly agree, is uniquely appropriate.
My choice of references comes from a person, who, was arguably the lynch pin, the key stone, and a significant individual propagating a nascent ideology taking form and gaining definition in colonial America.
Thomas Paine wrote the following widely accepted, embraced, and inspiring words of wisdom:
“SOME writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins. Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness POSITIVELY by uniting our affections, the latter NEGATIVELY by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first is a patron, the last a punisher.
Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one: for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries BY A GOVERNMENT, which we might expect in a country WITHOUT GOVERNMENT, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer. Government, like dress, is the badge of lost innocence; the palaces of kings are built upon the ruins of the bowers of paradise. For were the impulses of conscience clear, uniform and irresistibly obeyed, man would need no other lawgiver; but that not being the case, he finds it necessary to surrender up a part of his property to furnish means for the protection of the rest; and this he is induced to do by the same prudence which in every other case advises him, out of two evils to choose the least. Wherefore, security being the true design and end of government, it unanswerably follows that whatever form thereof appears most likely to ensure it to us, with the least expense and greatest benefit, is preferable to all others.”
Note: The above words pre-date the Declaration of Independence.
What happened to the clear, accurate, meaningful, and distinct definitions of “society” and “government” from 1776 to the present time? What falsehood caused writers to continue to confound society with government? What reasoning inspired the creation of a new term: “The State”?
What constitutes a “Statist”?
If it is true, as Paine wrote, that “Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil,” then what possible recourse can one have against it? If it is necessary, then it is necessary, which is all statists need to defend its existence.
Moreover, if evil is necessary, then it is accordingly justified. And if one evil can be justified, so can any other evil, rendering evil indistinguishable from good and thus justfiying all state action — precisely as it is today, whether it be welfare socialism or military interventionism.
Simply put, not until the state is shown, unequivocally, to be both evil and unnecessary can its existence be attacked on philosophical grounds.
David White,
If it is not true, as Paine wrote, that “Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil,” then what possible recourse can one have in defense against encroachment? If defense against encroachment is not necessary then encroachment becomes profitable.
Moreover, if government were not necessary, then it is accordingly justified to encroach; bend over and smile. And if one encroachment is justified because defense against encroachment is not justified, then every kind of encroachment is justified because no defense against encroachment is justified, just as it is today, whether encroachment be called capitalism, communism, socialism, anarchism, democracy, federalism, republicanism, liberalism, statism, militarism, or individualism.
Simply put, not until the people who encroach are shown, unequivocally, to be both evil and allowed to be evil will the State ever be more popular than government.
“The State” is vapor, a phantom, a misdirection of defensive capability, a poor investment at best, and an intolerable mistake at worst. The State threatens no one. People who encroach threaten liberty. The State is an invisible smoke screen; like the emperor’s cloths.
Expending some effort in identifying and defending against threats to Liberty is a necessary evil if life is worth defending, if defense is possible, and so long as the means are not made to justify the ends (aggressive violence, involuntary taxation, enslavement, conscription, encroachment, coercion, and deception are popular means used to justify popular ends).
The first force threatening liberty, in my opinion, is self-delusion or one cog in the machinery of a popular falsehood like “The State”. Each person able to see through the smoke screen is one more person armed for defense against falsehood or one more person getting in line for a piece of the pie.
If life is not worth defending, then, who cares, let the chips fall as they may. In other words: If you can’t beat’em – join’em.
Joe
Am I missing something? If I go to Merriam-Webster http://www.m-w.com and type in statism I get
If I type in socialism , I get
If I type in capitalism , I get
Going to http://www.onelook.com/ , I get a more comprehensive choice. In particular http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism gives a very detailed account of socialism – it even includes the Austrian view, as expressed by Hayek in “The Road to Serfdom”, that the NAZI’s were socialist. (My own experience would tend to agree with the assertion that most central governments espouse eclectic NAZIism, particularly in the areas of propaganda and control.)
In my opinion, none of these dictionary definitions represent a gross distortion of what is meant in theory by these terms. We may disagree with what happens in practice. Also, misuse over time changes the historical meaning. For instance, the definition given for liberalism corresponds more to libertarian. However, if you want to make yourself clear, why not include your own simple definition. For example, by liberal I mean a politician who believes in high taxes, bad schools and single payer health care. By conservative I mean a politician who is anti-abortion, homophobic and who believes in limited government, profligate spending and gunboat diplomacy.:-)
Walt D.
Society: Civil human interaction
Government: Welcome, voluntary, mutual, transparent, and equitably negotiated cooperative association defending society against destructive, deceitful, and violent inhuman interaction.
The State: Destructive, deceitful, violent inhuman interaction.
Capitalism:
1. Welcome, voluntary, mutual, transparent, and equitably negotiated cooperative association competing toward efficient objective capital production and control.
2. Destructive, deceitful, violent inhuman interaction competing toward capital production and control
Socailism:
1. Welcome, voluntary, mutual, transparent, and equitably negotiated cooperative association competing toward efficient subjective capital production and control
2. Destructive, deceitful, violent inhuman interaction competing toward subjective capital production and control.
Objective Capital: Measurable value.
Productive labor (labor resulting in measurable value: one cord of firewood, 10 pounds of beef, etc)
Cooperative labor resulting in increased production of measurable value (efficient division of labor)
Language resulting in increased production of measurable value (accurate communication – instruction – commodity money)
Education – research resulting in increased objective value (Aspirin, computer chips, fiber optics, physics)
Physical Exercise
Subjective Capital: Subjective value:
Religion
Art
Sport
Charity
Education – the processing of information resulting in increased subjective capital (Psychology, Literature, Game theory, etc.)
I am missing a whole lot of things.
Joe,
What you are saying makes no sense. Again, if the state is necessary, then it is necessary, and its encroachments are not encroachments at all but actions that can be justified on the grounds of necessity. On the other hand, if the state is inherenty evil (and it is), then if evil is to have any meaning, the state must be unnecessary. Only then can it be attacked on moral grounds.
As for your assertion that is “vapor, a phantom…[that] threatens no one,” this will only be true when enough people refuse to be threatened by it. As we are nowhere near this point, your would-be “smoke screen” will continue to choke its victims to death.
Since the terminology is confusing, I was very impressed by the term “willing exchange” as I learned from a book by Leonard Read called “Deeper Than You Think”. Would that not be the essence of what we would call Capitalism, properly understood?
David,
What I say makes sense to me. Your pretension of owning the absolute content of my words makes sense; I think it is called hubris.
People act. The State cannot choke anyone ever. The pretension of owning the absolute knowledge of a concept like “The State” is inaccurate and libel to confuse a person into fearing nothingness while actual people harm indiscriminately.
If you prefer pretension then you do so at liberty; at a cost paid by others less well defended; those whose productive energy is taxed by us as we enforce our false and destructive association. I think you are digging a hole. I am digging too. I pretend to fill the hole back up. We have no cause for conflict between us unless we happen to be in the same hole.
If we are in the same hole then an inaccurate assessment of who is digging and who is filling back up will eventually be a luxury we can’t afford. The people who actually pay for our luxury will soon enough learn the futility of investing or defending the folly. At that point we will have to learn to cooperate and be mutually productive or we will have to learn to eat dirt.
We will have to learn how to use energy wisely.
Frank Sperger,
“Willing exchange” is a necessary part of a confidence scheme like legal value.
http://www.the-portal.org/mutual_banking.htm
Is legal value necessary in capitalism properly understood?
Joe,
“The State cannot choke anyone ever”?
I don’t know what planet you live on, but here on Earth, the state daily chokes several billion people, many of them to death.
“The pretension of owning the absolute knowledge of a concept like ‘The State’ is inaccurate and libel to confuse a person into fearing nothingness while actual people harm indiscriminately.”
I have made no pretension of any such “absolute ownership” and have merely challenged Paine’s minimal description of it as “a necessary evil.” As for the remainder of your sentence, I invite anyone else on this blog to explain it to me.
Urbanista,
urban property development creates huge problems of externalities
Which is what courts are for. Demonstrate harm, get compensation. The rest of what you are espousing is merely punishing people when they have done no wrong.
Mr. Kelley, I did not remove responsibility from the central planners by assigning fault to all central planners. That is a non-sequiter.
If you wish, then saying that the problem is “central planning” works also, just like saying “murder is wrong” takes care of all murderers, without the dilution of blaming “all murderers” that you suggest would occur if I were to use that term.
The rest of your diatribe remains both unintelligible and ignored.
Joe,
I should make myself more clear on the term “willing exchange”. By this I meant willing as opposed to unwilling(forced)exchange.Unhampered economic exchanges by individual actors.
Frank,
A confidence scheme works like this:
A person or persons manipulates the exchange of information in a manner inspiring confidence in the victim. The victim willingly exchanges. No force is applied beyond the force of intellect. The victim can be a tax payer believing in the legitimacy of legal value.
Curt,
A non-sequitur goes like this: If you wish, then saying that the problem is “central planning” works also, just like saying “murder is wrong” takes care of all murderers, without the dilution of blaming “all murderers” that you suggest would occur if I were to use that term.
Your interpretation of my words is unsupported by evidence. In fact since you admit having trouble comprehending my words, then, the suggestion that you can command selective clarity concerning the interpretation of my words is unlikely. Your straw man is a confused idiot; of course.
Mothers aborting babies with coat hangers are murderers. Stalin may have been innocent of murdering 20 million people.
Generalizing or collectivizing action is a linguistic convenience. Responsibility is individual.
Ignore what you wish. Why do you insist upon repeating yourself?
David,
The planet I live on is populated by human beings who have the capacity to choose. I looked around for “The State” and couldn’t find it. Since the state daily chokes several billion people, many of them to death on the planet you live on then please take a picture of the state and maybe we can make up a wanted poster.
When you send me the picture of the State, so I can see it, then I will be proven wrong about your pretensions.
Thomas Paine made no mention of “The State”. The State is your straw man, easily defeated, as expected.
Is legal value necessary in capitalism properly understood?
Is the above question understandable, too many words, too complicated, unintelligible?
Guys,
Please forgive my pretension. I tried to apply the Capitalist ideology toward this discussion (or lack of discussion) and came up what a few relevant questions (my questions are relevant to my understanding).
A. You own stock in mises.org
B. You work for Lew Rockwell
C. You own U.S. Treasury notes
D. You like to argue
E. You like playing the devils advocate
F. You actually believe in The State
G. None of the above
“Don’t use the ‘C’ word.”
Being honest about what you are is important. The honesty starts with a strict personal honesty to your own self about your own self. For example, if you are a black man, then be honest about it. You are black. You can’t pretend to be something else even if some people are offended by what THEY say they consider you to be, or what they consider you to REPRESENT. You can’t live your life according to other people’s opinions, according to what they think or even what you think they MIGHT think.
I am a Capitalist. And Mr McCoster is correct that the term has certain connotations for SOME. The socialists have seen to it that the term Capitalist is twisted to mean evil person and that a Capitalist is a doer of evil deeds (socialists are pathological liars anyway so that shouldn’t come as any surprise). But then as all right thinking people know, blacks are marked down by God for punishment… Do you believe in that? There are those who do. The question is should I concern myself with them?
Once I understood that activities I engage on each and every day are Capitalism, and that I am a Capitalist, I realised that some people would say evil things about me. But they do that anyhow. I do not control what they think and do not want to control their thinking (imagine the responsibility). So there is little to say except other people have to deal with me as I am. That means they get to judge me according to how I behave, what I do, what actions I take, how I present myself and so on. It also means that some of them judge me according to their own socialist ideas or whatever is going on within THEM.
So how do I deal with a person who is of unformed or immature opinion? I tell them up-front and honest who I am and what I am (although they will have already determined a lot of that by seeing me already). There is no confrontation, just the provision of information in response to enquiry or discussion. Keeping things clear and simple is the best policy. People can always ask more questions if they are interested. If they ask, answer simply and honestly.
Sometimes a person may express surprise and shock when their sympathies are challenged by an honest answer. On occasion I’ve experienced this when I say I am a Capitalist. Of course then the person has to equate the lies of the socialists with the reality of encountering someone who is clearly not evil, yet states he is Capitalist.
Sione is a Capitalist, yet he has no slaves, exploits no poor people, does not eat babies, is not involved in organised crime, receives no special privileges from a political boss, impoverishes nobody, is not wantonly destroying the environment, or…………..whatever socialist nonsense they may have heard. At this point they can enquire further and listen and think or not as the case may be. What they conclude in their minds is their decision to make. My task is the provision of honest answers to honest questioning.
“Do not feed the baby meat in cinnamon.” It’s a good saying. The meat is still meat and you won’t fool anyone with the sugar dusting. Not even a baby will trust you if you try. So avoid prevarication and using weasel words. If you do you are being less than honest and are on the back foot already. The weakness of your position is immediately apparent. Where is consistency and integrity then?
If a person is scared by the term Capitalist, consider how scared they’ll be when this is explained; that there is no social safety net, that their needs do not convey rights to expropriate wealth from others, that there are no collective rights, that what is mine is mine and no-one else has a claim to it, that as individuals they are completely responsible for their actions, that I am not responsible for them or the outcomes of their decisions, that privacy means exactly that, that first and foremost I run my affairs exclusively for my own benefit and not theirs, that no-one owes them a living and so on. If a person has been seduced by promises of safety and security by the socialists, they will be most worried. These facts will represent a serious problem for them and the term Capitalist will be a minor worry by comparison. None of this provides an excuse for avoiding uncomfortable issues or facts. Nor is it a reason to come up with a new term for Capitalism. After all, once you explain your preferred political system to them they will ask, “But isn’t that Capitalism?”
Anyway, what was described in the McCosker post is cronyism, not Capitalism. Cronyism is a characteristic of socialism. Simple enough to explain, even to a socialist.
Talofa!
Sione
Is legal value necessary in capitalism (properly understood)?
“Being honest about what you are is important.”
Joe
Explain your question and your purpose in asking it.
I’ll evaluate the response and decide whether you are an honest man seeking information or whether you are looking for an argument for your own self-gratification.
Sione
Sione,
Given Joe’s other responses, I wouldn’t waste my time if I were you. What do you say, after all, to someone who denies the existence of the state?
Sione,
“Is legal value necessary in capitalism (properly understood)?”
If no such thing as legal value existed, then, would capitalism work (as perceived by capitalists)?
Could a capitalist control capital without legal enforcement?
Does capitalism promote the creation of the state (confidence scheme)?
Can capitalism exist without a great majority of the people within the capitalist system adopting an ideology founded upon centralized authority?
What is legal value?
Example:
http://www.the-portal.org/mutual_banking.htm
“Legal value is the legal claim which one man has upon property in the hands of another.”
What you are asking me to do, here, is to have me rewrite my question so that you can evaluate my personal integrity.
Honestly, from my viewpoint, that request is well beyond pretension and well qualified as prejudice.
If you cannot understand my question as it was first written, if you cannot understand my question as I rewrote it voluntarily, if you cannot understand my usage of English, then, how presumptuous is it to assume that you can psychoanalyze my motivations based only upon what I write?
David White,
I’ll take your response as a definite “F” on my questionnaire. Thanks for answering it.
If fewer people believe in or have faith in the existence of an inhuman entity capable of action without responsibility then that imaginary entity vanishes and what is left are people instead of “The State”. Responsible entities that act based upon individual will actually exits; they are called people. “The State” is a group hallucination. When a person stops hallucinating, then, individual entities who promote the hallucination are seen for what they really are; based upon how they act.
Sione,
If you honestly wish to evaluate my perspective rather than judge my integrity then please consider reading this:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rozeff/rozeff26.html
My perspective agrees, almost entirely, with the above diatribe.
Example:
Compare this:
“Under this theory, the State’s frauds and deceptions are put across with the help of dedicated servants in the media and academia, as well as government and special interest spokesmen who provide an overwhelming flow of rhetoric based on false and self-serving ideas that include State-worship. Enough of the people are fooled enough of the time to provide support for the State.” (Michael S. Rozeff)
To this:
“If an individual can avoid accountability, then, he or she may make that choice. If that avoidance of accountability is somehow communicated and accepted by another individual then we have a subjective ideology up for grabs. If that subjective ideology becomes accepted by enough people, then, that ideology becomes popular and soon enough the bodies pile up. Who is responsible; The City Planning Commission?”
Compare these words:
“false and self-serving ideas that include State-worship.”
With these words:
“‘subjective ideology”
If my words are inadequate then perhaps Rozeff can lend a helping hand.
“This assumes that all the benefits and costs of living in the country are mostly linked to the existence of the State, which is of course false.” (Rozeff)
If “The State” is defined as: Individuals who conduct acts of criminal encroachment by furthering an ideology that legitimizes criminal encroachment, then, “The State” is further defines as: “State-worship” and is therefore a “subjective ideology”. “The State” is not a physical entity capable of responsibility and “The State” is not a physical entity capable of accountability.
“Responsibility must be Individual, or there is no responsibility at all.” (Josiah Warren , Equitable Commerce, 1852)
If there is no responsibility at all, then:
“…, support or tacit consent exists, but it is meaningless because the consent arises from a coalition of people that includes those who are deceived by the State, those who benefit from the State, those who are blinded by the State, those who depend on it, those who fear it, and those who do not know any better. Tacit consent is heavily influenced consent and means little.”
In other words:
“The State” is vapor, a phantom, a misdirection of defensive capability, a poor investment at best, and an intolerable mistake at worst. The State threatens no one. People who encroach threaten liberty. The State is an invisible smoke screen; like the emperor’s cloths
Mr. Kelley,
Why do you insist upon repeating yourself?
In the hope you might read it.
Curt Howland,
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard90.html
Do you believe in “The State”?
” even if you don’t quite believe in the synthesis…” Even if you don’t believe that you are taking an active part in the Hegelian dialectic; then why don’t you argue against my words rather than my integrity?
Why don’t you answer one simple question?
Does capitalism require an enforcement of legal value?
“And what of the state monopoly military-industrial complex that the system has spawned?”
Who is to blame – “The State”? Isn’t it more accurate to identify the people who monopolize rather than a phantom entity?
I have requested a picture of “The State”; where is it? What is the matter – does that entity not exist? Are you afraid to post a reference depicting “The State” because you and I both know that the picture will expose the folly? Will the picture merely show specific people committing specific acts?
Murray Rothbard’s writes:
“– opposition to what? To the State’s gigantic factory for brainwashing?”
Do you think that “The State” is an entity capable of responsibility? If so then we are diametrically opposed.
I think “The State” and “The City Planning Commission” are terms used to identify specific people who commit specific acts (and are therefore responsible for those acts).
In my opinion, a person who supports the notion that “The State” is anything other than specific people committing specific acts are:
“apologists for the State using libertarian rhetoric as their cloak.”
In my opinion, a person who supports the notion that “The State” is anything other than specific people committing specific acts are part of:
“the State’s gigantic factory for brainwashing?”
Without people supporting the notion that “The State” is something other than specific people committing specific acts; without those apologists, then, “The State” vanishes and all that is left are the people committing specific acts.
My repetition (in other words) is inspired by your repeated accusations that my words have no meaning. Gaining meaning from words, in reality, requires effort on the part of the reader as well as the writer.
Like this:
“Were to you simply eschew coercion, there would be far less confusion in your mind and your writing.” (Curt Howland)
“Were to you simply” confuses me. I am the confused one.
“The problem certainly is “socialism”, the enforcement of other peoples ideas of correct and incorrect upon the erstwhile owner of the property in question.” (Curt Howland)
Where is the apostrophe denoting the possessive? I am confused again.
My definition of “socialism” is my definition of socialism. Your definition of socialism is your definition of socialism. Who is enforcing whom? Who is confused?
My definition of ‘socialism” has been stated. My definition is synonymous with “The Science of Society” as explained in detail by Stephen Pearl Andrews. My definition of ‘socialism” is “a” definition of socialism close to the “origin” of the word. My definition of ‘socialism’ is less corrupted by specific people who commit specific acts like you who presume authority over the meaning of my words.
“The problem is not a particular central planner, it is all central planners.” (Curt Howland)
Above is uniquely illustrative of my confusion. I call the above statement: collective ideology. Individuals are responsible for individual acts. All central planners include all planners who are central. Line em’ all up?
“To presume to know what is best for someone else is to exercise the sin of pride to its utmost.” (Curt Howland)
“The rest of your diatribe remains both unintelligible and ignored.” (Curt Howland)
My diatribe remains what it is to whoever reads it. Your opinion is duly noted.
Joe
I read about the mutual banking idea at http://www.the-portal.org/mutual_banking.htm
Quoting: “Legal value is the legal claim which one man has upon property in the hands of another.”
What do you understand that to mean?
What is “actual value”?
Sione
Sione,
Actual value is both objective and subjective. Objective actual value, from my subjective perspective is based upon a biological or scientifically measurable and therefore objective perspective. Oxygen for example has actual value. Sunlight or rather the energy being transferred from the Sun to this planet has actual value. Actual objective value is the stuff that supports life.
Subjective actual value is a human perspective. Since all of us humans are individuals and since we are all subjected to the limitations of human perspective then all human subjective actual value is individual; always.
Perhaps some day human beings will discover a way to fuse two individual human brains into one common perception; until then all human subjective actual value is individual.
Actual value is the stuff that sustains life (objective) and actual value is the stuff that individuals deem to be valuable (subjective).
One person’s subjective judgment of actual value (like mine here) is an objective fact. I have my version of actual value.
Another person’s subjective judgment of actual value (like yours) is an objective fact. You have your version of actual value.
It is a subjective (yet to be known) to say that our opinions of actual value coincide. Once we arrive at a coincidental opinion of actual value, then, our common opinion will become an objective fact. If we do not agree upon a common opinion of actual value, then, even if we actually do have the same opinion, our perception of our common opinion will remain subjective.
If you can find enough people to share your opinion of subjective value, then, the coincidental and common definition of subjective value becomes an objective fact.
Example:
The State is responsible for human misery.
The above statement has no objective value whatsoever. It doesn’t qualify as objective actual value.
Example 2:
Gold
The above example has objective value. It can be used to sustain life.
Example 3:
Honesty
The above example has objective value. It can be used to arrive at a common definition of actual value.
Joe
A man has a house which he decides to sell. He would like to live in another place. Another man comes along and decides he’d like to buy that house very much. The two of them start negotiating. Should the two of them agree on a price, then that is the actual value of the house. The “objective actual value” is that price.
Is that your definition?
Sione
Whereas, should the owner of the house consider $500,000 his minimum sell price and the potential buyer consider $450,000 the maximum he is willing to pay, then there are two “subjective actual values.”
Is that correct?
In this situation there is no “objective actual value” as no “common opinion” was reached.
Is that correct also?
Sione
Sione,
“A man has a house which he decides to sell. He would like to live in another place. Another man comes along and decides he’d like to buy that house very much. The two of them start negotiating. Should the two of them agree on a price, then that is the actual value of the house. The “objective actual value” is that price.”
The above is your definition. If we are to find actual objective value, then, we would need to understand that those two people are not alone. If those two people were alone then my answer is “yes” that is my definition of “objective actual value”.
The reason why we cannot arrive at a common definition of “objective actual value” is further illustrated with this:
“Whereas, should the owner of the house consider $500,000 his minimum sell price and the potential buyer consider $450,000 the maximum he is willing to pay, then there are two “subjective actual values.”"
The real estate market in my world (my wife is a real estate agent) involves more than one individual negotiating a price with another individual. Therefore your example distorts the principles involved in direct proportion to the number of individuals involved in the transaction.
Rather than jump ahead, skipping important steps, can we return to basic principles with a less ‘hampered’ example of free market exchange?
Example A:
“A man has an ounce of gold which he decides to sell. He would like to own a cheeseburger instead. Another man comes along and decides he’d like to have the ounce of gold and since the other man has a cheeseburger the two of them agree to exchange. Therefore the “objective actual value” of the cheeseburger is one ounce of gold and the “objective actual value” of the one ounce of gold is the cheeseburger.
That is my definition.
Example B:
Whereas, should the owner of the cheeseburger consider 2 ounces of gold to be his minimum sell price and the potential buyer consider 1 ounce of gold to be the maximum he is willing to pay, then, there are two “subjective actual values”.
In this situation there is no “objective actual value” as no “common opinion” was reached for those two people and for that transaction.
I used gold specifically in my example to illustrate a particularly significant property found in gold. That particularly significant property is a more commonly arrived at “common opinion” and therefore a more commonly negotiated “objective actual value”.
Gold is so popular; it has so much of that particularly significant property, that, gold tends to inspire most everyone in almost the same exact manner. It could be said that gold facilitates the process of negotiation very well.
The person may not ever sell his hamburger for 2 ounces of gold (he may find someone in desperate need of a hamburger; someone who has 2 ounces of gold).
The person having one ounce of gold will likely find someone else willing to part with a hamburger at that price.
One ounce of gold is more likely to appraise at a higher “objective actual value” than the hamburger; during a free trade transaction.
I really think it is important to be clear about the real estate market example. Real estate agents deal with “legal value”. Therefore real estate is not a good example illustrating how one human being conducts a negotiated value exchange with another human being.
Human beings are individuals. Trade is always between human beings who are individuals. What motivates a person to adjust their personal judgment during an individual to individual transaction includes the consideration of other human beings but the fact remains that every transaction is individual; there is no group mind.
If you wish to move into the group mind or collective ideology question; and if you don’t understand my words then consider reading this:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rozeff/rozeff27.html
“Each person being one and single, the multitudes cannot be made into the one.” (Michael S. Rozeff)
Free Market transactions are conducted by individuals always. Violence hampers free market transactions. Confidence schemes, fraud, coercion, etc. also hamper free market transactions. I’d rather stick to unhampered examples when trying to figure out what is and is not “Actual Value”.
Joe.
I see. But Joe, the example of the house purchase is exactly how I purchased my first house over here when I left the Islands for the first time.
There was a guy I met who had a house he wanted quit of. I thought I’d need a house to live in and so we started discussing and negotiating. We even went to the pub a few times to argue it out. Eventually we agreed on a price, just we two. That was fair enough as I was the fellow who had to fess up the money and he was the one who had to give me the house. In the end I went around there and gave him a cheque and a week or so later he was out of there and a month after that (when all my stuff arrived on the ship) I moved in. I could have moved in right away but the place was empty, so I bludged off Des and some of his mates at their place for a while. The delay in taking up residence was a matter of convenience (also I got to put in some new carpet, build a spa pool for the girls and paint the whole show so it looked like brand new).
Surely the “objective actual value” is the price agreed by the two of us, me and Yiddy Solomon (Snr.).
Returning to your cheesburger example. Let’s accept the sale and purchase transaction occurs. Now according to what you wrote we have an established “objective actual value” of one ounce of gold for the cheeseburger.
What happens if the cheeseburger purchaser borrowed his gold from someone else? Then that party has a claim on the gold (property) in the possession of the cheeseburger purchaser. When the gold is spent for the cheeseburger, the lending party has claim on the cheeseburger. So the “legal value” of the cheeseburger must be one ounce of gold.
Is that correct?
Sione
Sione,
Congratulations on the house purchase. Your example, in my opinion, does qualify as a negotiated agreement determining “objective actual value”. You and Yiddy Solomon (Snr.) arrived at a commonly agreed upon judgment of relative value. Your subjective claim of value competed with Yiddy Solomon’s claim of subjective value and ultimately the object of arriving at a mutual and objective or common value was found.
I contend that the example may yet have some strings attached unlike the cheeseburger example. Did either of you find reason to adjust subjective claims of value based upon tax considerations? Was the negotiation effected by a third party interest of any kind?
The more common real estate transaction includes both mortgage rate and tax liability considerations. Those third party considerations are preferably, in my mind, to be avoided when trying to figure out the principles involved.
If the cheeseburger purchaser borrowed his gold from someone else, then, that party (lender) has invested toward a possible future repayment. One individual (we can only be individuals) invests in the possible ability of another individual to return on the investment. What transpires during the investment transaction does not necessarily affect the hamburger purchase.
If you now sell your house at twice the purchase price; does Yiddy then have claim on your additional wealth?
Am I not seeing your point?
The lender can think he has a claim. The lender can enforce a claim. What cannot be done, in my opinion, is to force one individual’s subjective judgment upon another individual. The effort is, in my opinion, like trying to run away from your breath. The effort expended toward the goal increases the effort required to reach the goal.
So, no, the “legal value” of the cheeseburger is not one ounce of gold unless you define “Legal” as defined by criminals who enforce their own subjective value upon others.
A bad investment can be a profit so long as the lender understands that responsibility is individual or there is no responsibility at all and that the multitudes cannot be made into the one.
In other words an individual who invests in a person who would purchase a hamburger with one gold coin needs to learn a lesson about bad investments so as not to repeat the mistake. Experience has objective actual value. Some people call it intangible. I do not. Experience is only as good as the individual can manage to separate falsehood from fact.
Joe.
Yes. It was not a bad house. Not as good as now though.
What affected my subjective valuation of the house was how much I could afford (how much cash I had at the time) and what I thought the house was worth (I looked around the district at other places to get a bit of an idea). I do not know about what Yiddy based his calculations on and I wouldn’t ask him now as he might think I’m being a bit rude.
In NZ the transaction did not attract tax (no capital gains taxes or stamp duties and the like). There were some fees I ended up spending. They were for the delivery truck to move my things from the wharf to the house, $65.00 to the Land Transfer Office to register my name as the new owner. I purchased some insurance on the whole transaction and also to cover the house for fire, flood and that sort of thing. Yiddy purchased a Model Form Contract from the Auckland District Law Society (I think that was for $100.00) which we altered to suit our transaction (better than writing your own document and it has all the details you need to consider like dates, insurance, responsibility for all the different details; amazing what you can forget to consider). He would have paid considerable moving fees to the truckies as well (he had a piano and he had a collection of aircraft engines and steam engines).
As I did not borrow money I did not worry too much about the bank or finance company. However had I borrowed someone else’s money I would have needed to do these things:
1/. Establish how much they would lend me.
2/. Establish what I would offer as security against the loan.
3/. Establish how much I would be prepared to pay them for the use of their money.
Had I borrowed the money from a close friend I would have had to do the same things, with the possibility that the security consideration would not have been against an asset or property but that my word of honour would be at stake. A friend would have the option of trusting me on my promise to repay as they know me already. That option is closed for the bank or finance company. For one thing they do not know me well enough. I can understand their position as I wouldn’t lend money out without security unless it was for a project I had strong managerial control over.
If I sell the house Yiddy does not have a claim on any capital gain I may manage to make. Interestingly enough there is a type of transaction where I can buy a house for less than current market value with the proviso that when I sell it the original owner gets a share of the capital gain. It’s not a bad option but it does reduce how much you can borrow should you decide you need to release cash for some other purchase or venture. Of course you can always have the place valued at some point and pay off the share of gain if you like.
Returning to the cheeseburger example again. The trouble with this is that the magnitude of the transaction is trivial. Also a cheesburger is not good security for a loan as it has small value and little permanence (eat it or it goes off). Also cheesburgers are not as good to eat as eggburgers.
What I would like ask is whether you believe a loan should be able to be secured against an asset. My position is that it can be and in certain circumstances should be. The actual details of a loan transaction are a matter for the lender and borrower to negotiate. Should they agree to the transaction and part of the transaction is a security over the loan then that should be enforcable.
As I understand matters your objection is to third party involvement/interest in certain transactions. I’ll read your last post again to make sure I understand what you are getting at before commenting further.
Talofa!
Sione
← Previous Comments
Comments on this entry are closed.