Planning is Socialism
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
Comments (84)
Ron Brown
"I read dozens of books, by some very brilliant writers, bemoaning the fact that our society doesn't plan growth...."
How can anyone promoting socialism be considered brilliant? If they were so brilliant, they would reflect on their own human nature and realize that we are all programmed with certain a priori knowledge that requires us to resist and, if possible, circumvent communal ideas and directives.
Published: September 14, 2005 8:08 AM
Aaron Singleton
It is fully possible to be brilliant and to not come to the same conclusions as other brilliant men. There is no denying that there are plenty of very smart people who are not advocates of free markets or Austrian economics. Brilliant refers to capacity. It refers to ability. It does not refer to what one knows. That is simply knowledge or facts. A brilliant person can know very little if he never exercises his mental faculties or is never exposed to any profound ideas. The idea of a priori knowledge is not about things being self-evident in the sense that people intuitively know them offhand. Rather it refers to logic truths which are discovered with difficulty through rigorous mental exertion over time, but which once found cannot be refuted logically (like math.) No one would say that all brilliant people intuitively know calculus. They must study and learn it like everyone else. So, yeah, I'm sure there are brilliant people out there who advocate socialism. But that doesn't mean they are right.
Published: September 14, 2005 9:16 AM
Ron Brown
Aaron said:
"The idea of a priori knowledge is not about things being self-evident in the sense that people intuitively know them offhand."
I disagree. Even if they can't or don't verbalize the concept, most childred, let alone adults, are already intuitively aware of their undeniable desire to have more of a desirable good rather than less, to pay the least possible to obtain the greatest amount, to resent being given the same reward as someone doing less work than them, etc. If this were not true, then even people that promote socialism for others wouldn't continue to resist it in their personal lives.
Published: September 14, 2005 10:37 AM
John Byrne
Welcome to your world! How do you like it so far? Progressive man is out;chaotic man is in. We are being impoverished by individualism, as a creed. Our representative government is for sale. Our so-called Prez, is a CEO. Government's CEO puts a horse judge in charge of FEMA. He didn't even have a checklist, much less a plan. The labor movement of America is being out-sourced to foreign countries and in the form of "S Corporations" out sourced here in the USA. No retirement, no medical care expenses for workers,just for the big corporate characters. Lowering taxes is a great plan. I like it because I am now 72 years. Now I can screw my grandchildren and great grandchildren. That is "great" fun. Who needs "have-nots?
Like Jack Benny, when the robber stuck a gun in his side and said:" Your money or your life!" Jack hesitated, put his hand to his chin, looked at the audience, and said:"I'm thinking, I'm thinking!"
Published: September 14, 2005 11:07 AM
Curt Howland
Mr. Byrne, I'm trying to figure out your posting. Each of the abuses you decry is one of government invention: "corporations" are limited liability entities legally created by government; the "Prez" is a government employee as is the director of FEMA; Unions are quasi governmental agencies exempt from prosecution for racketeering and "monopoly" practices.
Yet you also decry that we are "impoverished by individualism".
The effects you complain about are caused by anti-individualist forces, not individualist ones. So I believe your error lies at the root of your assumptions. Please read more of the materials on the Mises.org web site, I think you will come to understand how "chaotic man" is a creation of coercion.
Published: September 14, 2005 12:39 PM
billwald
Plans made by husband and wife are a sort of micro socialism that sometimes works. Plans made by the U.S. government are a macro socialism that seldom works. Someone please estimate the size and type of the largest social organization that has a chance of working.
Published: September 14, 2005 12:49 PM
Paul Edwards
I've heard it expressed before that the family is a socialistic entity. I think this fallacy is rooted in the fallacy that selflessness and benevolence are characteristic of socialism rather than individualism. The opposite is the case. Where there are free individuals acting on their own will, not influenced by the state, such as in the family unit, you will find selflessness and benevolence. In the world of socialism, there is only coercion and violence, greed and corruption all masquerading as something else. The study of how our state interacts with the people of Iraq and N.O. provides ample confirmation of this.
Published: September 14, 2005 1:06 PM
Curt Howland
Billwald, I'll chime in: Any size, so long as it is voluntary.
My reasoning is thus: by being voluntary, greater participation means more individuals have judged that they believe in the "plan". Just like "it's easier to ride the horse in the direction it's going".
A "plan" that does not retain individuals approval fails or is changed. By being voluntary, the repercussions of failure are also reduced since there is no coercion available to try to prop-up the plan past anyone believing in it.
Published: September 14, 2005 1:07 PM
Aaron Singleton
Ron Brown,
I would agree that people act with their self-interest in mind. They display time preference and they follow the axiom of action, meaning that they act purporsefully to substitute more suitable conditions for less suitable. This does not however, mean that they understand that this is what they are doing, or that a child can explain the axiom of action to a friend. I was not referring to general human behavior. I was saying that something that is true a priori is not necessarily "self-evident" in the sense that everyone knows it from birth. Just because someone is "brilliant" does not mean that they will intuitively be an Austrian or that they will espouse libertarian views because they are "self-evident." This was never the claim of Mises or any of the Austrian methodologists. The fact that Austrian Economics is derived a priori from logical deductions does not by any means imply that everyone is deep down an Austrian. To discover these axioms requires intense mental exertion and the application of rigorous logical processes. Only then can they be presented as irrefutable axioms upon which one can build a consistent science of praxeology. To believe that no one who advocates socialism is intelligent is patently absurd. Neither Austrians or libertarians have a monopoly on intelligence.
Published: September 14, 2005 1:27 PM
Aaron Singleton
John Byrne,
First of all, I believe you are making the classic mistake of confusing corporatism or "crony capitalism" with the free market, lasseiz faire variety. Also, your children (and mine too) were "screwed" a long time ago by those who chose central planning and the welfare state over individual responsibility, private charity and free enterprise. The only question is when will we realize this and stop the current collectivist charade.
Published: September 14, 2005 1:36 PM
David White
billwald,
I'll chime in with Curt Howland, passing this fascinating article along -- http://www.reason.com/0508/cr.rn.illegal.shtml -- about a billion "urban squatters" living in relative peace beyond the reach or beneath the interest of the state.
Published: September 14, 2005 1:45 PM
R.P. McCosker
John Byrne:
In a more general way, you're making the mistake of confusing the malign effects of big government, and the special influence of rich and powerful on government inherent in "mixed economies," with the very free markets that those things work to push aside.
I must've observed this a million times: A writer or speaker will start off attacking individualism or markets or whatnot, and then try to make his case by describing the corruption of government programs. The solution is always the same: Bigger government, somehow to be untainted by people who work inside deals with the government.
There's a naivete to this kind of talk that almost touching when made by someone sincere, as I trust you are. (However, much of the time this talk comes from Democrat Party hacks and power-seeking socialist intellectuals who're just wielding a rhetorical sword against the phony free enterprise rhetoric of their rivals on the right.) The fact is, the bigger government is, the more better-funded and -organized cliques inside and outside government manipulate the system to their particular benefit. (That, of course, is why communist systems have even more economic stratification than more mixed economies, with the ruling, managerial, and communications elites discretely living very high on the hog, while the masses slowly starve.)
I'm puzzled that you consider cutting your taxes as "screw[ing]" your grandchildren and great-grandchildren. Don't you think you could better serve your progeny -- or future generations generally, if you were being metaphorical -- by finding your own, non-governmental ways of spending that money rather than it going to taxes? (Rather than that money going to line ever more well-connected corporate pockets, for example?) Why do you simultaneously loathe our government yet place so much trust in its prospect for doing good? (I hope it's not a case of being a partisan Democrat who imagines these objectionable features of big government go away when a Democrat is president.)
Published: September 14, 2005 2:45 PM
Joe Kelley
Planning is what individuals do when they endeavor to control future events. Some are better at it than others; it is called competition.
Socialism is a term having an origin and a subsequent effort or ‘planning’ to control the popular definition of the term in an effort to control future events.
“It was at this time that a variety of doctrines bearing the names socialism and communism gained general currency. Their originators included thinkers like Charles Fourier, William Morris, Robert Owen, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, and Henri de Saint-Simon, bit it is difficult to determine why some thought of themselves as communists and others as socialists� (The State of Socialism: A Note on Terminology, Andrew Roberts, Department of Political Science Northwester University Evanston, IL. http://pubweb.northwestern.edu/~aro918/socialism.pdf)
The origin of the term socialism was, perhaps, started by Fourier.
Stephen Pearl Andrews sums it up a little later:
“Again, Socialism assumes every shade and variety of opinion respecting the modes of realizing its own aspirations, and, indeed, upon every other point, except one, which when investigated, will be found to be the paramount rights of the Individual over social institutions, and the consequent demand that all existing social institutions shall be so modified that the Individual shall be in no manner subjected to them.� (SPA, 1851)
Engels rejects socialism:
Communist Manifesto
Preface to 1888 English Edition:
“Thus, in 1847, socialism was a middle-class movement, communism a working-class movement. Socialism was, on the Continent at least, "respectable"; communism was the very opposite. And as our notion, from the very beginning, was that "the emancipation of the workers must be the act of the working class itself," there could be no doubt as to which of the two names we must take. Moreover, we have, ever since, been far from repudiating it.� (Frederich Engels) http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/marx/classics/manifesto.html
Capitalists support communism or socialism (the name doesn’t really matter):
“The writer is inclined to the interpretation that the socialist appeals of each man were covers for more prosaic objectives. Each man was intent upon the commercial; that is, each sought to use the political process in Russia for personal financial ends. Whether the Russian people wanted the Bolsheviks was of no concern. Whether the Bolshevik regime would act against the United States -- as it consistently did later -- was of no concern. The single overwhelming objective was to gain political and economic influence with the new regime, whatever its ideology.� (Anthony C. Sutton) http://www.modernhistoryproject.org/mhp/ArticleDisplay.php?Article=Bolshevik05
The Hegelian dialectic goes something like this (planning):
Socialism is originally defined as:
“the paramount rights of the Individual over social institutions�
Communists reject socialism in favor of communism.
Capitalists support communism and ignore socialism
A synthesis occurs and communism becomes popularly defined as a synonym for communism (supported by capitalists)
Hegelian dialectic:
“The early 19th century German philosopher, Georg W.F. Hegel is best known for his system of inquiry into the nature of reality. This system is called the dialectic. Now, reading Hegel will confirm some of your worst nightmares about delving into philosophical writing. His work likely made his own contemporaries' eyes glaze over.
Simply put, the dialectical method involves the notion that the form of historical movement (process or progress), is the result of conflicting opposites. This area of Hegel's thought has been broken down in terms of the categories of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis. Hegel's philosophy of history embraces the concept that a conflict of opposites is a struggle between actual and potential worlds.
A thesis can be seen as a single idea. The idea contains a form of incompleteness that gives rise to the antithesis, a conflicting idea. A third point of view, a synthesis, arises from this conflict. It overcomes the conflict by reconciling the truths contained in the thesis and antithesis at a higher level. The synthesis is a new thesis. It generates a new antithesis, and the process continues until truth is arrived at.� (Jim Meskauskas) http://www.clickz.com/experts/archives/media/plan_buy/article.php/917191
Thesis: Socialism (individual liberty)
Antithesis: Communism
Synthesis: Capitalism versus Socialism
Individual liberty conveniently goes on the shelf
Currently the more competitive “Planning� efforts are working a new Antithesis called what; terrorism?
Meanwhile the rest of the world seems to be working back toward individual liberty like here:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/reed/reed77.html
There Are No Commies in China
by Fred Reed
Is a new term needed?
How about social capitalists? Passé?
Published: September 14, 2005 2:48 PM
Alfred
How Right you are! An in our Town the Politically connected, use the planning commission to pay for their water sewer and road works, justified by the plan, while everyone else has to pay their own cost, if they can even get a permit to develope, because the planning commission is also the creater of monopolies for the selected developers.
Published: September 14, 2005 3:29 PM
Paul Edwards
R.P.:
You've hit the nail soundly on the head. Well put.
Published: September 14, 2005 4:15 PM
David White
R. P.,
Ditto Paul Edwards, as it lays bare the fuzzy thinking that John Byrne's post unfortunately typifies.
Published: September 14, 2005 4:24 PM
Sione Vatu
Joe.
That's all very nice. But that dialectic stuff is nonsense. Puffery. Verbiage.
Let's keep things clear.
Capitalism is the political system based on individual rights, including the right to private property. This system is characterised by voluntary association, including trade, between individuals. In Capitalism individuals are soverign.
Socialism is a political or social system that negates individual rights to a greater or lesser degree, claiming that a group, such as "society" or the "nation" or the "race" etc., has greater legitimacy. In socialism the individual is ordered to sacrifice private interests for the requirements of a group. This is often justified as being in the greater interests of all or for the greater good or some such incantation. Despite much fine rhetoric what this really means is the individual (especially the productive) is enslaved (by the political class; usually non-productive). Socialism is characterised by coercion and initiations of force. Systematic frauds are common. This is "necessary" to keep individuals under control. A class of political bosses and their functionaries, enforcers and administrators are soverign.
Cronyism (incorrectly referred to as crony-capitalism) is a feature of socialism, present in mixed economies, where certain "business" interests form relationships with rulers or authorities. They use these relationships to extract special favour or priveledge. They have "pull." The favours obtained are extracted from other individuals, often coerced, and are a negation of individual rights.
Communism, National Socialism, Social Welfare, Progressivism and so forth are each a variant of socialism. They all share the feature of negation of individual rights and freedom. They all require coercion and initiations of force etc. They all claim this is for a greater good than some lone individual's private interests could be. They all revolve around a ruling political class and its favourites possessing coercive power and living off the productive efforts of others. Justifications range from blood and soil, nationhood, race purity, good of all, good of the worker/proletariat/class, democracy, religion, social cohesiveness, family values, breeding, abstinance, temperance, native language and on to through to welfare, the young, the old, the future, return to the past and so on and on and on. It is merely a matter of what flavour of the month socialism we are considering.
Planning, as discussed in the Sept 14 Mises.org article of the day, is a part of socialism. As such it is wrong and it will fail. The trouble is that the costs of failure are not borne by the planners themselves. It is a pity they are not held accountable for the disasters they so readily manufacture.
BTW we do not require a new term for Capitalism. It is what it is and I'm proud to be a complete Capitalist
Published: September 14, 2005 6:39 PM
garylammert
Using gold as a monetary basis is a methodology or plan to control excesses. In lieu of a gold standard, adequate interest rates and 'planned' regulatory lending practices to control speculation and asset inflation and excessive forward consumption will be needed in the next 70 year consumer saturation cycle. Kindly visit The Economic Fractalist.
East Meets West - World Equities At the Top by Two Different - but Perfect -
Weekly Third Fractal Growth Paths
(Written 13 September 2005)
The weekly count for the third of three sequential major
growth fractals dating from 2003 for the Nikkei and Hong Kong indices
is 10/25/20. For the western US-Euro equities the weekly fractal
sequence of this final third fractal is 11/26-27/22. The two different
eastern and western equity indices weekly sequences conform to an
idealized x/2.5x/2x pattern and have reached their respective apogees
in very same week. While the Nikkei and some of the Euro-indices have
shown very characteristic exhaustion gaps within the past 3 trading
days matching the multi-yearly blow-off patterns of the high flying
NYSE and AMEX equities, the collective US Wilshire has not been able
to best its August 3, 2005 apex.
The underperformance of the premiere summation American Index, the
Wilshire 5000(TMWX), reflects the disproportionally negative
integrative burden on the US macroeconomy of its valuation fractal
determining elements - total quantitative personal, governmental, and
corporate debt, the latter of which has become much more expensive to
service under some behemoth's new junk bond status; unpayable private
pension funds soon to assumed by American taxpayers- of formerly
great, soon to be bankrupt, US corporations; expensive war cost which
have historically withered every prior major overextended world power,
record lack of US collective personal savings used as a base for
fractional lending, exhausted consumer discretionary spending running
up against near record energy costs; outsourced high paying jobs and
current wages not maintaining pace with inflation and debt servicing;
siren enticing and predatory unregulated lending practices leading to
asset consumption by a new group of extremely marginal buyers; rising
short term interest rates; the cresting of valuations of the US ATM -
equivalent asset, i.e., housing overvaluation; and recent massive
forward consumption of corporate profitless US automobiles akin to a
python eating its semiannual one time big pig bolus meal.
Relative to other leading world countries' above listed internal
economic parameters, the US and its protégée, the Wilshire, couldn't
exhaustion gap its way above its collective 3 August 2005 high. This
provides high probability information about the relative summation
strength of the US economy and its expected future asset valuation
activity in comparison to other world economic competitors.
From the Economic Fractalist archive on 28 July 2005:
Reverse Growth Fractal Top Patterns - Another Confirmational Indicator of
the Finale for the 147 year Second Great Fractal
'At major lower order valuations, top quantum units in individual equities
and commodities, many times complete classical inverse growth fractals. The
time units of the inverse top fractals can be in minutes, hours, or days
and usually are in a quantum sequence of either x/2.5x/2x or
x/2.5x/x,1.5x,1.6x,2.5x, the former being much more prevalent.'
A weekly reverse growth fractal of 15/37/30 weeks or x/2.5x/2x was identified
as a possibility on 28 July 2005. At the same time the possibility of a
x/2.5x/2.5x sequence was identified. This week, which ideally
completes a 15/37/37 week or ideal x/2.5x/2.5x inverse growth fractal
sequence, is in exact synchrony with the termination of a
11/26-27/ 22 of 22 averaged fractal weekly growth pattern.
Tuesday September 13 was day 26 of a 28 day ideal second fractal decay
pattern. Wednesday and Thursday, 14 and 15 September 2005 should
ideally be down days for the Wilshire ending the second decay fractal
of 28 days of a three sequence : 11/(28 of 28)/ 28 ideal daily decay fractal
pattern. An ideal next high for the third and final decay fractal would be on
day 104 of a 52/130/96(day 96 =Tuesday13 September) of a 104 day
sequence. The ideal final high of this nearly identical 1929 decay fractal
pattern would be on day 7 of a 11/28/(7 of 28 )day sequence. If the fractal
pattern identification is correct the last 28 days representing the third decay
fractal will be the major primary crash sequence equivalent to the final third
fractal of 27 days seen in the fall and Fall of 1929.
There are still lower probability possible decay fractal pathways
using a base with a range of 11-14 days. The extreme length would be
represented by a 14/35/22-35(1.6-2.5x the base)
decay fractal sequence with a maximum of a 14/35/35 day sequence. All
of bases include the 3 August 2005 Wilshire top. The second highest
probability daily base to the current high probability 11 day base
would be 13 days for a 13/33/21-33 daily decay sequence.
If the AMEX and NYSE characteristic exhaustion gap highs on
Friday 9 September remain unexceeded, a very ideal daily sequence
of 52/123/100 which when averaging, integrating, and reconfiguring the first
two fractal sequences of 52 and 123 days becomes 50 and 125 completing
an ideal 50/125/100 daily with a perfect x/2.5x/2x averaged configuration.
Gary Lammert http://www.economicfractalist.com/
Published: September 14, 2005 6:57 PM
Paul Edwards
Holy mackerel! This thread is hot! That was another excellent post today, this time by Sione. Thank-you.
Published: September 14, 2005 7:00 PM
Paul Edwards
1. If the AMEX and NYSE characteristic exhaustion gap highs on Friday 9 September remain unexceeded,
[That's a pretty big “if� though, wouldn't you say?]
2. a very ideal daily sequence of 52/123/100 which when averaging, integrating, and reconfiguring the first two fractal sequences of 52 and 123 days becomes 50 and 125 completing an ideal 50/125/100 daily with a perfect x/2.5x/2x averaged configuration.
[But if you average, integrate and reconfigure the third fractal sequence of 100 days, it becomes a slightly less than ideal 50/125/107 daily with a correspondingly less than perfect x/2.5x/yx averaged configuration.
[Because of this i still worry about the negative integrative burden on the US macroeconomy of its valuation fractal determining elements. But then i could be just blowing smoke.]
Published: September 14, 2005 7:17 PM
Urbanista
Planning from the city's point of view is just a business like any other. Any business worth its salt makes plans and then executes the plans that will be the most profitable. A Toyota Camry doesn't come out of the ether. Someone designed it, designed the parts, built the assembly plant. Mises said it very well in Human Action, the irony of socialist planning is that it cannot plan because it doesn't have access to market prices. Cities (which are corporations with full property rights) have access to these prices and can make plans for the city's expansion and improvement.
The problem is that American cities don't carry out their plans. They simply make regulations and expect other people ("homebuilders") to execute the plan exactly as they wanted it to. Building a home or a shopping mall is not building a city. The parts have to connect with one another to form a city. Only city planning can accomplish that, and the reason it fails is that it is not run as a for-profit enterprise, not because "planning doesn't work".
Published: September 14, 2005 7:20 PM
David White
Sione Vatu writes: "BTW we do not require a new term for Capitalism. It is what it is and I'm proud to be a complete Capitalist."
Yet Marx wrote Das Kapital specifically to refute the viability thereof, obviously succeeding beyond his wildest dreams (notwithstanding the nightmare during the course thereof). Plus, any economic system beyond subsistence requires capital, its perversion in the form of the corporate state having been all the left has needed to equate it with the market. Hence, like the wretched term "anarcho-capitalism," it continues to alienate rather than attract.
Published: September 14, 2005 7:32 PM
R.P. McCosker
Sione Vatu:
I dislike the word capitalist, which I understand was (presumably very tendentiously) coined by Karl Marx. The innuendo I take from it is that free markets exist solely to benefit an elite monied class. Conversely, "socialism" (which predates Marx, but derives from earlier socialist theorists) implicitly represents the interests of society as a whole. I don't see why the proponents of liberty should abide by terminology that distorts the issues and sets statists on a kind of moral high ground.
A propertarian free market system is organized around individual rights. Capital is voluntarily exchangeable, and in historical fact flows ever far and wide among individuals residing therein. I tend to prefer the term "propertarianism" to decribe a system based on individual ownership of property, with all the myriad transactions that tend to arise voluntarily thereby.
Gary Lammert:
Quoting -- at very great length at that -- from your blog without appearing to connect that with the topic under discussion comes perilously close to spamming. I'd like to know what your thoughts are on this thread. But if I just wanted to read your blog, I'd go to its website instead.
Published: September 14, 2005 7:39 PM
Ronald A. Harrison
Sir,
As I write this it is Wednesday evening. If you are in an even medium sized city and look in the phone book you can find a number to call to locate a meeting of Alcoholics Anonymous. If you call you can probably find an open metting scheduled for this weekend -- an open meeting is one that is open to the public. You don't have to be an alcoholic to attend an open meeting.
If you attend an open meeting you won't have to listen long before someone says that it was their best thinking that turned them into an alcoholic.
I remembered that when you said our congestion and other urban ills were the result of government planning. So true, so true.
Ron
Published: September 14, 2005 8:17 PM
Ronald A. Harrison
Sir,
As I write this it is Wednesday evening. If you are in an even medium sized city and look in the phone book you can find a number to call to locate a meeting of Alcoholics Anonymous. If you call you can probably find an open metting scheduled for this weekend -- an open meeting is one that is open to the public. You don't have to be an alcoholic to attend an open meeting.
If you attend an open meeting you won't have to listen long before someone says that it was their best thinking that turned them into an alcoholic.
I remembered that when you said our congestion and other urban ills were the result of government planning. So true, so true.
Ron
Published: September 14, 2005 8:17 PM
Joe Kelley
Sione,
If we can let things be clear then we would have to somehow agree upon the definitions of the words we intend to use for expressing clarity.
My definitions for the words I used came from the source.
You then refute my definitions, out of hand, and proceed to claim apparent authority over the meaning of my words!
You have no intention of letting us be clear, certainly not based upon your actions. You demand to be heard.
Like this:
“In Capitalism individuals are soverign.�
If we were letting ourselves be clear then we would wish to show an example of this Capitalism stuff where individuals are sovereign.
Where is this stuff? If you can find some of it and point it out then let’s be clear about it.
Published: September 14, 2005 10:43 PM
Ron McKenzie
You might be interested in the parable of the Good Samaritan and the Socialist.
Published: September 15, 2005 1:48 AM
Allen Weingarten
Aaron Singleton writes that "something that is true a priori is not necessarily "self-evident" in the sense that everyone knows it from birth."
Yet neither the a priori nor the self-evident is known from birth. Rather both require acculturation, to at least reach the point of understanding language.
I grant that this is a side point, and does not refute the rest of what he says, such as people not intuitively being Austrian.
Published: September 15, 2005 7:09 AM
David Chaplin
On almost every count, I subscribe to the Austrian school of economic
thought. However,I must disagree with it on one point, a small matter of
terminology that carries a large quantum of ideological baggage. The word
'capitalism', which appears as a self-description in many of the threads here, has no place in Austrian thinking. An uncomplimentary word
first coined by Karl Marx, 'Capitalism' implies the entrenchment and
advancement of the interests of the providers of capital, at the expense of
other factors of production (read 'labour').
Of course, Marx threw the baby out with the bathwater, because he
erroneously laid the blame for worker exploitation at the door of the free
market. But the exploitation and misery he saw around him was not
generated by the market per se (Indeed, to the extent that at least
partially-free markets were allowed to function during the 19th and 20th
centuries, they were responsible for more wealth-generation and distribution
than the entire global portfolio of failed 20th century social
experiments). No, the exploitation that informed his misplaced ideology
arose exclusively out of the use of the State's power to advance the
sectarian interests of the owners of capital, to the detriment of labour.
And this is exactly the same intervention problem we so often see in the
modern socialist or left-leaning state, merely with the hopeful
beneficiaries of the state's influence reversed. In this partisan sense,
'capitalism' is no less egregious than 'labourism', and is hence an anathema
to the neutral, liberty-based principles of the Austrian outlook.
The loose use of the term 'capitalist' as a self-description by adherents
to free market principles is in no small part responsible for the continued
misperception of markets as being inherently exploitative in left-wing,
labourist circles.
Thus, Austrian thinkers owe it to themselves and their cause to drop the
term and replace it with something that better reflects the fundamental
goal of mutually-beneficial, voluntary exchange in a distortion-free
institutional setting. That lovely French phrase for 'leave it alone' has
accumulated its own ideological baggage, so perhaps a new term should be
coined that similarly carries no hint of precedence among the factors of
production - I think 'marketism' has a nice ring to it.......
Published: September 15, 2005 8:43 AM
David White
David Chaplin,
I couldn't agree more, having decried not only the term capitalism but the even more egregious term anarcho-capitalism. Libertarianism does itself a great disservice by stubbornly clinging both. And while I have elsewhere proposed the term marketism, in retrospect I think we need to go farther by acknolwedging the fact that the market is a subset (albeit by far the largest one) of the voluntary cooperation that lies at the heart of the social enterprise. For what needs to be distinguished between is not capitalism versus socialism but cooperation versus coercion, the latter being the province of the state regardless of the precise form it takes.
So how about cooperatism or, say, cooperacy, the better to designate a rule of law based on cooperation?
Published: September 15, 2005 9:11 AM
Joe Kelley
If the goal is to prosper then means to achieve this goal is cooperation. Why confuse the issue with ambiguous terms like socialism, capitalism, communism, despotism, anarchism and all the various compounded confounding terms?
Answering the why question becomes obvious when Hegelism and propaganda are factored into the investigation.
Returning to the goal, to prosper, it serves the interest of falsehood, a hampering of cooperation, to destroy language.
Cooperation is dependent upon the free, honest, transparent, accurate, exchange of information.
Falsehood is a tax on the transfer of information. The parallel between information and pecuniary transfer is not coincidental.
If people can be taxed they must first be made to accept the concept of taxation.
Turning back time to find the origins of our current falsehood can instruct us, the free or aspiring to be free traders, in defeating falsehood, avoiding the tax, and help us plan for a more prosperous future. Each new step around falsehood and taxation must be accurately determined, well thought out, equitably negotiated, and mutually accepted. To do otherwise leaves the future in the control of those who do understand the power of knowledge and wisdom.
Aggressive violence hampers cooperation and falsehood disarms progress. Present production is decreased and future investment is misdirected.
Preserving an accurate language is as important, if not more important, than preserving an accurate money and the interrelated significance is more than coincidental.
Published: September 15, 2005 11:41 AM
Harold Crews
Perhaps one of the underlying fallacies behind socialism is the assumption that there is no planning without government or central planning. Now of course this is very false. The freemarket is the greatest planner other than God. Even if the order is not perceptable, it is there.
I can not help but think that there is a irrevocable connection between the division of labour and the division of planning.
Published: September 15, 2005 11:51 AM
Curt Howland
Mr. Kelley, how astounding that you presume to lecture others on the use and abuse of language. And to do so with so many words!
Words like socialism and capitalism have meaning. They enhance communication by their meanings, even if you don't share that enhancement.
Coercion also has a meaning. Were to you simply eschew coercion, there would be far less confusion in your mind and your writing.
Published: September 15, 2005 12:37 PM
Annata
Interesting blog. I wanted add my two cents; forgive me if they have been covered in other blog topics/threads...
"The idea of a priori knowledge is not about things being self-evident in the sense that people intuitively know them offhand."
“I disagree. Even if they can't or don't verbalize the concept, most childred, let alone adults, are already intuitively aware of their undeniable desire to have more of a desirable good rather than less, to pay the least possible to obtain the greatest amount, to resent being given the same reward as someone doing less work than them, etc. If this were not true, then even people that promote socialism for others wouldn't continue to resist it in their personal lives.�
An “a priori� truth usually just means that something can be deduced logically, without the need for contingent data from the external world. An a priori truth is not necessarily intuitive, but it is self-evident in the sense that once you understand it, you realize that it is just the way it should be because it could not be any other way. Euclidian geometry is the classic example of a priori knowledge: The Pythagorean theorem is not intuitive, but once you understand it, you realize that it cannot be any other way. The opposite of an “a priori� truth is an empirical truth: Something is true, but it could easily be otherwise (contingent), and you need to observe the external world to determine whether it is true or not. Scientific facts are good examples of empirical truths.
Now, the particular example of intuition in children is arguably neither. Intuitive instincts are just that: instincts, not truths. The particular examples you chose happen to be instincts that you think reflect truth, but you can just as easily come up with an equivalent number of instincts that are patently false.
Furthermore, I would argue that resentment for “being given the same reward as someone doing less work than them� is actually a very socialist instinct: The idea that you should be *rewarded* for your work by some superior or collective entity, instead of the individualist idea that you exchange the product of your labor for the product of someone else’s labor in a free marketplace of consenting individuals.
Lastly, I question the statement that socialist ideas (like city planning) necessarily sacrifice the good of the individual in favor of the good of the group. That is certainly one common definition of socialism. But personally, I moved to a city with very strong city planning because I believed it to be in my own best interests. Realistically, even if you founded a society of autonomous individuals, you would find that some of them will find it advantageous to form strong groups to compete with especially dominant individuals. That is just human nature, and to propose an economic system that ignores the collectivist aspects of human nature will fail just as badly as one that ignores our individualist aspects.
Published: September 15, 2005 12:43 PM
Curt Howland
Urbanista, city planning is nothing like "regular business", because it is based upon coercion.
That Toyota Camry is a result of planning, yes, but there is no coercion that I must buy it. That is regular business, that is competition. If I don't like the Camry, Toyota doesn't get my money. If enough people don't like it, Toyota will throw that plan away and do something else.
The problem with "central planning" isn't the "planning" part.
Published: September 15, 2005 1:02 PM
Yancey Ward
Annata,
A very good comment. I would only point out that most of those amongst us do not deny the collectivist aspects of human nature or even denigrate such traits (indeed, how could we since we recognize the usefulness of cooperation), but abhor the coercive means used by contemporary socialists.
Published: September 15, 2005 1:05 PM
Michael A. Clem
Frankly, I think we should spend less time trying to define words and more time trying to communicate the essential concepts. Which words to use depend upon the audience one is addressing. This thread's been all over the place, but the essential ideas are there, concerning the problems of coercive, centralized planning versus voluntary, decentralized planning. Call yourself a capitalist, anarcho-capitalist, cooperatist, market anarchist, Austrian, or just plain, old libertarian, I think we know which ideas most of us favor.
Now head down to your local city council or commission and tell 'em what's wrong with *their* planning.
Published: September 15, 2005 2:39 PM
Joe Kelley
The topic title:
Planning is Socialism
The piece starts:
“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.�
The piece ends:
“Maybe we should try something different, like freedom and free enterprise, the principles that made this country great.�
The source of the planning problem appears to be reported as the:
“City Planning Commission�
In fact there must be a specific planner, an individual, who is not planning at all or not planning efficiently. Planning isn’t the problem and neither is socialism.
If the next step any individual takes is a wrong step then the person deciding to take that step is responsible for that wrong step. That step was planned, forced, or spastic. Who is held accountable for the misstep? Socialism or rather all those stupid, lecturing, socialists are to blame so “we� should hold them accountable: no? Since Planning is Socialism then “we� should blame and hold accountable all those who plan; right?
If a misstep is forced then, it seems to me, that the individual remains responsible. The individual may continue to be spastic, ignorant, and a bad planner. The individual may even learn; the forced misstep may become an investment in experience leading to knowledge and driving a more prosperous, productive, future step avoiding a repeat of the same error.
“We� are never responsible. “We� are often held accountable; because “We� include a whole lot of individual bad planners who fail to see the need to negotiate a common agreeable language arming us with the means to help defend each other against any cause that contributes toward collective punishment. The first treatable cause of the problem is not “Planning� not “Socialism� not the “City Planning Commission� not “The State� and not “Them�. The first cause of the problem, any problem, is falsehood.
When one individual is ignorant then one individual may, by chance, make a lucky spastic first step. When one individual embraces a false perspective then the chances of making a deliberately planned and hopefully productive first step is less likely than a spastic step. The false step is planned to be false. Like blaming socialism for anything; falsehood.
When individuals help each other collectively, fashionably, and popularly by embracing a common falsehood, then, the problem grows exponentially leading to a critical mass, a mob rule situation, where many individuals are inspired in a common goal of supporting and constructing falsehood. Then; each individual is pressured into going with the flow, voting for the City Planning Commissioner, voting for the Commissioner’s lack of leadership. Each individual is less likely to help himself never mind help anyone else, because, every step becomes a false step. Each individual blames everyone else and the race to the bottom begins. Many people think; “If you can’t Beat’em - Join’em� otherwise known as “Might makes Right�; falsehood.
The first right step, in my opinion, is to defeat falsehood. The first battle begins in the mirror. If falsehood can’t be found in the mirror then the next battle is finding help. Individuals can’t find help without a common language.
All the above lecturing and abuse of language assumes that the person reading is a friend of liberty. All others can stuff it.
Published: September 15, 2005 4:17 PM
Daniel
With regards to the contention over the definition of 'capitalism', I think it would be best to keep it simple and have it as
"the seperation and independence of economic activity from the government (or governemnt coercion)"
Published: September 15, 2005 6:16 PM
billwald
http://www.reason.com/0508/cr.rn.illegal.shtml
Thanks for the interesting URL.
The problem isn't socialism but any govt trying to plan more than 2 years in advance. Washington State has a two year budget and there is most always a supplimental budget in the second year because the origional plan was wrong.
Unless a Lbertarian govt was much better at planning than the Libertarian Party . . . .
Published: September 15, 2005 6:53 PM
Urbanista
Curt Howland, the power of coercion the city has are derived from laws defined at the level of the state, and apply only within the city's domain i.e. property. Regardless coercion is not necessary for the purpose of city planning, which is to say for the purpose of constructing and improving the city such that residents can be retained in the face of competition from better cities. Sometimes eminent domain is invoked to reorganise subdivided property within the city's general sphere of property, but that is an implicit clause in urban property and its use is limited by the severe drawbacks it creates for the city's competitiveness.
City planning is just a business. You build good neighborhoods of good houses and workplaces and if you are succesful people will buy them. If you are not you will suffer losses. Without this kind of planning you get what the author of the article seems to believe is desirable, a third-world slum city with no clear property rights. The problem with planning is that it is not run as a for-profit enterprise, it is run as a political process and as such suffers the drawbacks of both socialism and democracy.
Published: September 15, 2005 7:06 PM
Curt Howland
Urbanista, "city" planning is based upon coercion. The entirety of its existence is based upon the theory that telling private owners what to do with their own property is somehow more objectively "efficient" than allowing those private owners to do what they wish with their property. Decisions are made based upon political considerations rather than economic ones, because that way the planning board members get to keep their jobs.
It is not a business. A business cannot extort your property at will, the city planning board can. And does. You use words that make me believe that you understand that this is an abusive and inefficient method, yet you advocate as an answer even more of the same bad method.
Let's turn it around. Let's say that some group gets together and comes up with a plan for better, more efficient and therefore profitable use for the land/buildings than it is being used for by the present private owners. The planning group informs the property owners that they have a better idea, and offers to buy (rather than expropriate through eminent domain) the land/buildings in order to enact this more efficient private use.
Gee, what have I just invented!?! PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT! As far as I can tell, there are many private developers doing this right now. Usually, they are decried by the political developers as "destroying wetlands" and "encroaching on open space".
So much for your contention that "the problem with planning is that it is not run as a for-profit enterprise". I think you need to go examine your preconceptions about "profit motive" for a while.
Published: September 15, 2005 9:39 PM
Curt Howland
Mr. Kelley,
In fact there must be a specific planner, an individual, who is not planning at all or not planning efficiently. Planning isn’t the problem and neither is socialism.
You are incorrect. The problem is not a particular central planner, it is all central planners. They cannot take into consideration everything that the myriad of individuals they presume to plan for do. They cannot, because they are not Gods.
Your error has been answered so many times by every Austrian scholar that it is merely a greasy spot on the road.
The problem certainly is "socialism", the enforcement of other peoples ideas of correct and incorrect upon the erstwhile owner of the property in question.
To presume to know what is best for someone else is to exercise the sin of pride to its utmost. You are welcome to try to hide that behind endless meaningless diatribes, it doesn't change the fact that socialism is founded upon coercion.
Published: September 15, 2005 9:50 PM
Paul Edwards
My thoughts too: "...we should spend less time trying to define words and more time trying to communicate the essential concepts." Besides, the left will eventually commandeer or steal any cool and acceptable terms we might come up with like they did with "liberal" won't they? I'm ok with "capitalism" because it means one less term i have to learn and also because it reflects the fact that it is investment in capital that makes labour more efficient thereby raising everybody's productivity and standard of living. I didn't even know it was Marx who came up with the term until i got on mises.org. Who is this Marx character anyways? Isn't he the guy who declared the earth is flat? (that's just humour).
Published: September 16, 2005 1:49 AM
Urbanista
Very few private developers actually create full cities. There a few in the New Urbanist school of development who do that, but the rest of developers only build one building type. Either residential tracts, commercial office space, commercial retail space, or industrial parks. All of them are necessary of course but none of them work on their own. They must be linked to the other types through streets and transportation, and that falls clearly within the domain of city planning.
The key you're missing here is that urban property development creates huge problems of externalities. You cannot simply replace one building type with another at will because whatever you do will have an immediate, either positive or negative, impact on all surrounding properties, most importantly on the city's main property: the streets. If a private developer replaces a low-rise building with a towering skyscraper that blocks out the windows of neighboring buildings then the neighbors have been expropriated without compensation for the value of their property which is lost. This makes city development positive only if done through a restrictive ordinance process aiming to minimize indirect expropriations by third-parties, or through a proactive permanent redevelopment process done for profit by the city, aka city planning, or both. The city in this case has every incentive to maximize the value of all properties since its objective is to maximize tax revenue, which is dependent on property values. Increasing the value of one property to reduce that of every surrounding property makes no sense if you're in the city-building business, but it makes lots of sense if you're Donald Trump.
Published: September 16, 2005 2:38 AM
Joe Kelley
Curt Howland,
If I say something and you misjudge my words then your attempt to place the blame of misjudgment on me is your compounded error. The fact that my words are difficult to understand may or may not be a contributing factor to your error in comprehension. An honest, polite, free trade of ideas, suggest to me that a better plan than blaming someone else for personal confusion would be to simply ask for clarification. Communication is not an automatic collective consciousness; a given. Communication requires negotiation.
“The problem is not a particular central planner, it is all central planners�
If “All� are blamed rather than an “individual�, then, the responsibility of action is left unaccountable. You wrote words. I use your words to express a contention. If my interpretation of your words is incorrect then, by all means, defend your words.
Quoting my words and demanding ‘You are incorrect’ is childish. Then moving on to propagate your own viewpoint is your method of communicating with your ‘collective’ ideology, in my opinion, you have no intention of communicating with me.
If you do not understand the concept then why blame me for your lack of ability to comprehend? What you communicate to me is a general unfriendliness to Liberty. You attack me personally, individually, while my hand is out offering honest communication. Your error in judgment, from my view, is driven by your collective mentality, your lack of ownership for your own actions, your hiding behind ‘every Austrian scholar’, your ignorance, and most importantly, your lack of motivation to consider the possibility that you may not always be right.
The collective ideology of avoiding accountability is a falsehood founded upon a half truth. Ideas are individually accepted or rejected. It is not necessary that an idea be factual, workable, efficient, or moral for an idea to become popular; however once an idea does become popular then an idea becomes objective and is no longer subjective.
Example:
“We (Austrian scholar’s, The master race, White people, Black power, Capitalists, Socialists, Communists, Friends of order, Friends of liberty, etc.) are better than them (me, you, Jews, Black people, everyone else, individuals, etc.).
“We� are not better, worse, responsible, irresponsible, fat, skinny, fast, or any other physical property. “We� is a linguistically convenient term suggesting an affiliation of some kind common to individuals. “We� remains subjective until individuals constituting “we� begin to act based upon the ideology common to “us�. The subjective “We� form becomes objective fact. Someone, some individual, has to actually act or there is nothing constituting “We�. All the dead people do not constitute “We�. They are dead. We still live.
One person may sign a piece of paper stating that Jews are from now on to be exterminated. If that person doesn’t personally burn all the Jews, then, he isn’t personally responsible for burning all the Jews.
The half truth of collective ideology is popularity. Popularity exists. Popularity is an objective reality. The half false part is the notion that popularity is irresistible. When an individual is blamed and held accountable for the actions of another person, then, that punishment is not just. It is not justified just because it is popular.
If a Jew issued an order to kill Christ then must all Jews burn? Collective ideology is not subjective anymore. The subjectivity has been replaced in the concrete form of actual violence with an actually staggering body count.
If collective punishment is not recognized (individually) as a false notion (resist popularity), then, the body count will continue to rise.
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?
As to the number of words used to say “I am right and you are wrong� compared to the number of words used to “offer a competing viewpoint for consideration� I can only hope my efforts manage to do that later rather than the former. My words originate from a collective mentality in active willful remission. I think I know my major problem. I think I am trying to account for it.
Open, honest, free trade of ideas is a capital investment of time seeking mutual help in defeating falsehood. What we do with clarity once it is earned is an individual responsibility.
An astute individual may realize a need to take and advantageous position in collective hierarchy. Once positioned the individual may manipulate an ability to make a less astute group of individuals run around naked in a circle chasing their tails. Like this thread and like the situation illustrated in the move Schindler’s list. The collectively authorized ‘expert’ could pick out from the group of subjects a particularly easy target, an honest but gullible citizen, and the administrator could, then, administrate a just collective punishment upon the one individual selected. The crime is embracing falsehood. The victims are all those who embrace falsehood. Some pay more than others.
Published: September 16, 2005 7:05 AM
Allen Weingarten
Annata writes "Euclidian geometry is the classic example of a priori knowledge: The Pythagorean theorem is not intuitive, but once you understand it, you realize that it cannot be any other way. The opposite of an “a priori� truth is an empirical truth: Something is true, but it could easily be otherwise (contingent), and you need to observe the external world to determine whether it is true or not. Scientific facts are good examples of empirical truths."
Apparently Annata does not know that there are non-Euclidean geometries, which have been proven to be equally valid. For a time, many thought that those were theoretical constructs that did not relate to reality. However, scientists have shown that our universe is non-Euclidean, where the Euclidean model is an estimate that is usually better in practice than the non-Euclidean model.
Perhaps a better way to gain insight into the a priori is to note that to deny it is a contradiction. For example, to deny intention requires intention, and to deny that something is true, is to claim that one's denial is true. This does not require empirical justification, but is logically prior to it.
I grant that this is a side point that has little bearing on the discussion.
Published: September 16, 2005 7:46 AM
Robert Masters
Mr. Kelley,
You are one speaker speaking to many individuals. If you intend to be heard you need to take responisbility for any possible misunderstandings and correct them.
You seem to take umbrage with criticism of your writings. I for one find it nearly impossible to follow your train of thought. My advice to you is to be concise; the long winded diatribes are not helpful.
Published: September 16, 2005 10:43 AM
Joe Kelley
Robert Masters,
If you find my words nearly impossible to follow then what exactly can you follow and what exactly is confusing. My ability to write is subject to my own skill and my own perspective. I find my words to be easy to follow and therefore I have no reason to change them. My perception flows from my mind to the text with ease. I reread and edit obvious improvements (obvious to me) taking, for example, about two hours of time to write the last post. My effort to improve managed to make my words read back to me with greater clarity. At some point the work is finished as far as I am able to discern.
When criticism of the work is specific, then, criticism is welcome. Feedback is the motivation for my writing. When the criticism is ambiguous and general with expressions like “long winded diatribes� then I can look up those words to try and figure out what the critic is trying to say and I can work at gaining the desired feedback.
di-a-trive
1. a prolonged discourse
2. : a bitter and abusive speech or writing
3. : ironical or satirical criticism
If you mean to communicate an opinion that my writing is a prolonged discourse then I have to look harder to find substance in your welcome criticism. I already try hard to minimize. Perhaps I just like reading my own words too much. I do know these possibilities already. See how many words I waste communicating the obvious.
If you mean to communicate an opinion that I am bitter and abusive, then, expect a defense against the attack on my personal motives. My response will be in kind albeit defensive.
If you mean to communicate an opinion that my writing is ironical or satirical then, again, expect feedback in kind; more words veering off topic.
I remain at a loss for substance in your criticism. The feedback I seek concerns the ideas that motivate people into action. Socialism, for example, is a word that communicates less substance than diatribe. The exact meaning is ambiguous. Language is either precise or it is less than worthless. Communicating precise meaning, through language, when language is imprecise, requires negotiation, substance, effort, and reason.
What is the reason for your post? I take it as being constructive; unless your use of an ambiguous word is meant one way and not the other way.
Should I spend two hours rewriting the above based upon an ambiguous criticism? Who is guilty of wasting words? Whose opinion is it that words are a waste? My opinion is that all the worlds capital is a result of cooperation brought about by cooperative communication using a common language. Your words have value; more or less; can we find the value?
Published: September 16, 2005 12:20 PM
Sione Vatu
The term Capitalist was indeed used by Marx to reject individualism, private property, private interests and trade etc. He rejected Capitalism. The principles I pursue are what he rejects. I am, therefore, a Capitalist.
I know there are people who are scared of the term and I do not apologise for that. There are some who think we shouldn't scare the horses. Let's not be too up-front about what we support is the suggestion. Let’s call that which must not be said by another name. People might be offended otherwise.
I do not agree. Here is why.
Most Vatu are dark skinned. People have been known to cast aspersions and sneer names like, "Black Bastard", "Wog", "Sooty", "Coconut", "Nigger", "Boonga", "Sambo," “Darkie� and the like. What they do in day-to-day activity is sometimes worse and very hurtful. It is intended to be. They do not like those of dark skin (yet they spend hour after hour in the sun trying to get a "tan"). Over time some Vatu tried to be as inoffensive as possible (yes sir, no sir, three bags full sir). Some tried to be "less ethnic." Some even tried to be "light skinned" with all sorts of treatments and beauty products and fashion clothes and so on. The approach they took was to avoid offending their persecutors, even though it meant trying to be what they were not. In each case this path led to frustration, defeat and sometimes worse things. In the end, any of the Vatu that tried this route soon found they were even more discriminated against and hated than previously. Subjugating yourself to appease those who hate you and what you stand for never works.
What Marx wanted to destroy was a system of non-coercive, voluntary co-operation based on private property and free trade. He used the term Capitalism. Since I follow the course of non-coercive, voluntary co-operation based on private property and free trade, I am a Capitalist. I make NO APOLOGY, especially not to a socialist or those with socialist sympathies. It is the right thing and I am proud of it, just as I am proud of Vatu, even the Vatu who made mistakes or were defeated or destroyed. If this scares socialists it’s too bad FOR THEM. They are the ones doing the wrongs and they should be facing up to themselves in an honest fashion (can there be any such thing as an honest socialist?).
There is a confrontation occurring every day of life. The decision is between producing value, and trading it voluntarily, or attempting to expropriation it from other people. There is no compromise, no middle position, but there is a choice: Which way do you want to go? In my case, it is the opposite of Marx and the socialists!
Take control of the debate. Be honest about what you are, what you are doing and state it. Be a Capitalist!
Published: September 16, 2005 4:50 PM
Joe Kelley
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
Published: September 16, 2005 6:49 PM
R.P. McCosker
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.
Published: September 17, 2005 2:59 AM
Paul Edwards
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.
Published: September 17, 2005 5:45 AM
Allen Weingarten
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.
Published: September 17, 2005 6:54 AM
Joe Kelley
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�?
Published: September 17, 2005 8:20 AM
David White
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.
Published: September 17, 2005 9:11 AM
Joe Kelley
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.
Published: September 17, 2005 6:50 PM
Walt D.
Joe
Am I missing something? If I go to Merriam-Webster 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.:-)
Published: September 17, 2005 11:39 PM
Joe Kelley
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.
Published: September 18, 2005 2:54 AM
David White
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.
Published: September 18, 2005 8:42 AM
Frank Sperger
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?
Published: September 18, 2005 10:54 AM
Joe Kelley
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.
Published: September 18, 2005 11:33 AM
Joe Kelley
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?
Published: September 18, 2005 12:01 PM
David White
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.
Published: September 18, 2005 1:36 PM
Curt Howland
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.
Published: September 18, 2005 4:05 PM
Frank Sperger
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.
Published: September 18, 2005 5:06 PM
Joe Kelley
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?
Published: September 18, 2005 6:17 PM
Joe Kelley
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
Published: September 18, 2005 6:38 PM
Sione Vatu
“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
Published: September 19, 2005 5:01 PM
Joe Kelley
Is legal value necessary in capitalism (properly understood)?
"Being honest about what you are is important."
Published: September 19, 2005 5:30 PM
Sione Vatu
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
Published: September 20, 2005 12:09 AM
David White
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?
Published: September 20, 2005 7:03 AM
Joe Kelley
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.
Published: September 20, 2005 10:44 AM
Joe Kelley
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
Published: September 20, 2005 1:05 PM
Curt Howland
Mr. Kelley,
Why do you insist upon repeating yourself?
In the hope you might read it.
Published: September 21, 2005 2:23 PM
Joe Kelley
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.
Published: September 21, 2005 4:18 PM
Sione Vatu
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
Published: September 22, 2005 6:17 PM
Joe Kelley
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.
Published: September 22, 2005 10:44 PM
Sione Vatu
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
Published: September 24, 2005 9:20 AM
Sione Vatu
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
Published: September 24, 2005 9:29 AM
Joe Kelley
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�.
Published: September 24, 2005 11:52 AM
Sione Vatu
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
Published: September 25, 2005 4:36 PM
Joe Kelley
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.
Published: September 25, 2005 6:17 PM
Sione Vatu
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
Published: September 28, 2005 3:32 AM