Comments (18)

• Jeremy Snyder

  Those last comments really make you question the idiocy of regulators.

  Published: August 21, 2006 7:49 AM

• M E Hoffer

  Why do we think of "Regulators" as "Stupid"?

  Is it really possible they are?

  To me, they are quite Genius!

  Sincerely, it takes genius to so abuse people and have them asking for More, no?

  We'll never escape the uncalculable costs of their multi-various nefarious doings when we keep ascribing, to them, adjectives like "stupid", "incompetent", "myopic", etc..

  Their, the "Regulators", designs are as well-planned as those that led to the pre-fab Parrilla.

  Until we give them credit for their Genius, and the damnable Plans, we'll never be rid of them.

  Published: August 21, 2006 10:03 AM

• Nat

  M E,

  I agree 100%. It is similar to people camplaining that "public schools are a failure." These people hold the incorrect premise is that public schools were designed to create literate individuals with critical thinking skills.

  Of course we know that public schools were designed to create the exact opposite. The public schools are a raving success.

  Published: August 21, 2006 10:33 AM

• bstender

  some guy buys a mail order barbeque built by slaves and he actually paid less than he would have paid a craftsman in his own town. pass the A-1!

  ain't cheap oil wonderful!

  
  

  Published: August 21, 2006 10:36 AM

• tarran

  bstender,

  That is a very serious allegation, since slavery has been outlawed in Argentina for a very long time.

  I expect that the people who built the device were in fact willing employees, who contracted with the owner of the factory because they preferred to exchange their labor for the salary he or she offered.

  Or, are you one of those selfish, greedy types that think just because you live near me, I should do business with you, instead of your harder working competitors elsewhere?

  Published: August 21, 2006 10:57 AM

• Paul Marks

  Actually many regulators do want to produce a better world ("no burned chidren" and so forth), and many people involved with the government school system do what children to be well educated.

  It is the idea of statism (whether expressed in terms of "public services" or in terms of regulations) not the morals of government employees that is at fault.

  Statism (the threat of force to either spend taxpayers money or to impose regualtions) does not work.

  If something is really in peopele's interests it will be done voluntarily - if one has to threaten force to make people live they way one wants them to (as opposed to threaten force against people to prevent them attacking) then things are going to go wrong.

  However, remember that politicians and administrators do not operate in a vacuum. Every accident, every problem is met by the media (and by much of academia) and by MOST VOTERS by demands for more regulations (and/or more government spending).

  Only when most voters are opposed to statism (not in a general way - but specifically opposed to statism as a "solution" for some terrible thing they see on the news) will politicians give it up.

  Real public education is the key.

  Only when most people (not just the small percentage of people who read this and other blogs) have access to antistatist ideas will there be any progress.

  A real anticollectivist television news and current affairs service would be a start.

  Fox does not really serve this purpose - it is too light weight, and it is not really anticollectivist, it is just pro Bush Administration.

  Serious news and current affairs coverage does not have to be a low ratings affair.

  I believe that people are hungry for solid information (rather than just talking heads and pictures - television and other media can present information in many interesting ways), and serious examiniation (rather than a few seconds of buzz words from one person than a counter from someone else).

  And, of course, this nonsense about "fair and balanced" must be done away with (the whole school of journalism nonsense).

  The media should return to what 19th century newspapers were before the rise of the "scientific" and "unbiased" Progressive movement - there should be different points of view openly argued for in different media outlets.

  Let people decide what they want to watch or read - rather than the bland establishment stuff they get now.

  Published: August 21, 2006 11:58 AM

• bstender

  I expect that the people who built the device were in fact willing employees, who contracted with the owner of the factory because they preferred to exchange their labor for the salary he or she offered.
  

  i am using a perjorative metaphor in 'slavery', being that situation where one's choice is to work for what they will pay you, or starve.

  this is a well-established feature of modern Imperialism that Argentina is one especially shining example of. the 'slavery' condition can also describe an entire region, where crushing debt drives everyone into a desperate state of subsistance, perhaps 'serf' is a more apt description?

  dont get me wrong, i am a believer in free trade and minimal government regulation...but brutal exploitation happens, and this little soiree, as a metaphor, is cheap enough for this lot to enjoy because of the incredible savings that are created elsewhere.

  this essay celebrates neither an amazing human achievement nor a sustainable economic model. it's a yawner, and naive.

  Published: August 21, 2006 12:10 PM

• Curt Howland

  Paul, it's interesting the anti-liberty reaction over on Digg. Since Mises.org put the digg link on the articles, many have been submitted.
  

  Yet there has been a reaction to bury them. While many made it to the "front page" early on, they are not making it any longer due to being marked "lame" or "off topic" by those who reject the message that liberty works.
  

  What is too bad is that the "bury" scores are not displayed. I would be quite interested in the scores, even without a list of the individuals who voted against it.
  

  If for no other reason than finding out why a Mises.org posting with 79 diggs never makes it to the front page, while silly youtube reposts get 35 and are on the front page.

  Published: August 21, 2006 12:13 PM

• tarran

  bstender

  Since human beings must transform natural resources to goods fit for consumption to survive, the entire human condition can be summarized by the phrase "work or starve".

  In effect, you see an economic activity that you disapprove of (comparatively low wages paid in less developed locales), and choose to mischaracterize it as being equivalent to one of the more serious crimes that one person can commit against another.

  Honestly, it strikes me as silly as Andrea Dworkin's claim that all heterosexual sex was "rape". It's an insult to the actual victims (in Dworkin's case people who are raped, and in your case those who are actually held in slavery). Such silly claims also tend to make the claimant look like they don't know what they are talking about and limits their ability to spread their message.

  Published: August 21, 2006 4:24 PM

• D. Pevear

  This is about the Parrilla Grill; a friend emailed me the article as I have a home-built outdoor oven and he thought I might be interested. Little did I know the article was a freeper allegory. It almost sounds biblical... "There once was a man with three ovens...." ; or maybe it's the Three Little Pigs. Anyway, the grill model shown in the online image, at the Miami store in the online link, including all the extras shown (side table, doors, gas, etc.) is going to be at least $4000, not the $1200 mentioned in the article. Delivery and installation would be extra. A permit would be required if a pipe or wire is cut as part of installation. Since the picture shows what looks like a sink in the side table, a permit likely should have been necessary. The $5000 homemade Parrilla sounds right, that's about what my oven cost with me doing all the labor. Now for the guy who hired contractors & pulled permits, paid $12,000 and it still won't work. Well, thats hardly the fault of regulations! In fact, Florida is a freeper state: I'm sure regulations are minimal, as in TX where I live. No, the fault lies with the owner, who chose the contractor and paid for something that was defective. Perhaps the underlying problem was that the contractor did not use union labor! Did you know that the word Parrilla also means "torture rack", after the iron grid/grill of the roaster. Oh, by the way, the President of Argentina is a Socialist.

  Published: August 21, 2006 7:14 PM

• Curt Howland

  Excuse me, "freeper"?

  Vas ist zein "freeper"?

  Published: August 21, 2006 7:54 PM

• D. Pevear

  1) FREEPER-
  U.S.: Term used for active users of conservative blog Free Republic[11]. Also used by liberal bloggers (and others on the U.S. political left) as a generic term to describe right wing political activists (whether associated with Free Republic or not). Much like the term yankee; whether or not freeper is a pejorative term depends on who is using it.

  From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_epithets#Freeper

  2) Freeper-
  A right winger who repeats or reprocesses with limited changes the current talking points or message, often making vociferous personal attacks on all lefties. The name comes from the self chosen nickname of the members of the right wing political site FreeRepublic.com (sic).

  From: http://www.dkosopedia.com/wiki/Kossary

  Published: August 21, 2006 8:41 PM

• Mr. huh?

  " am using a perjorative metaphor in 'slavery', being that situation where one's choice is to work for what they will pay you, or starve.

  this is a well-established feature of modern Imperialism that Argentina is one especially shining example of. the 'slavery' condition can also describe an entire region, where crushing debt drives everyone into a desperate state of subsistance, perhaps 'serf' is a more apt description?"

  What makes you think that the business owner wasn't at one point forced to work or starve. One of the biggest, most dangerous myths ever propagated by anticapitalists is the idea that entrepreneurs just magically appear to "exploit" the workers. It's important that many are educated to realize that almost all business owners start off as workers themselves. The only difference is that they have a vision, study to improve themselves, and take some risks.

  Published: August 22, 2006 12:03 AM

• Roy W. Wright

  I lived in Argentina for a time and nothing beats parrilla cooking. I definitely intend to own a parrilla when I have some yard to place it in, though it probably won't be of the quality described here (and certainly won't have a permit), because I'll likely build it myself. But three cheers for your friend having been able to buy a nice one.

  Published: August 22, 2006 1:02 AM

• TGGP

  D. Pevear, you should read the entry "Banned at the "Free" Republic" to get the view of folks here toward that site, and the view actual freepers have toward our ilk.

  Published: August 22, 2006 9:28 AM

• Henry J. Golding

  "What makes you think that the business owner wasn't at one point forced to work or starve. One of the biggest, most dangerous myths ever propagated by anticapitalists is the idea that entrepreneurs just magically appear to 'exploit' the workers. It's important that many are educated to realize that almost all business owners start off as workers themselves. The only difference is that they have a vision, study to improve themselves, and take some risks."

  No, bstender is right.

  Do we genuinely insult our intelligences by believing that the workers in Argentina, Bangladesh, China, etc., etc., working long hours for little pay in poor conditions have been placed in the situation where this is their only option purely by the organic actions of the free market?

  It is generally agreed that the prosperity experienced by the poor in Britain, the US, and so forth, that allows those poor to turn down such poor work, was the logical result of a (fairly) free market. And it follows then that a country where the poor live in utter destitution and are left no option but to work in sweatshops is sorely lacking a free market. In most cases (as in England at the time of the Industrial Revolution) the poor have been placed in that situation by coercive acts of violent governments. Rightly, we suggest a free market as the way out.

  There is a breakdown in logic, however, when we conclude that allowing capitalists to employ the poor in sweatshops for meagre wages is somehow a "free market solution". The poor will only work in such poor conditions, we have said, because they are left no option, and have been left no option due to violence visited upon them by the state. The situation is not dissimiliar to asserting that if a person is robbed of all his possessions and prohibited from owning land or capital, that he would be operating in a free market if he were to accept employment at $1/hour as the only means of survival. The employer would not be operating (innocent or not of the original aggression) as an agent of the free market.

  The idea that the capitalists operating in such poor countries are innocent and non-violent is ludicrous, especially when it is considered that in the transition from feudalism to capitalism (as in England in the Industrial Revolution) there is a large degree of continuity between the previous ruling class and the new capitalistic class. In this case, in a similar fashion to the "big-business" lobbies, they are not the passive beneficiaries of another's theft, but are the thieves themselves.

  One thing is for certain, and that is that the conditions forcing the poor in, for example, Argentina, to work for lower wages than ours, are not the result of the free market (clearly: the article references the damage suffered by the economy due to the actions of the state), and that capitalistic employment in those countries, existing only because of those prior conditions, is certainly not a result of the operations of the free market.

  Published: August 22, 2006 12:13 PM

• bstender

  the entire human condition can be summarized by the phrase "work or starve".

  so true, and we're all going to die anyway, so why the laws against murder?
  
  In effect, you see an economic activity that you disapprove of (comparatively low wages paid in less developed locales), and choose to mischaracterize it as being equivalent to one of the more serious crimes that one person can commit against another.

  i'm talking about human beings exploited so that the victors can live the good life. Plain and simple. Your $35 tent from Walmart is created by paying some faceless human being dirt. their labor was not given in a free or fair exchange. it was their only choice. dare ask them how happy they are with the deal? not the worst crime, but way up there.

  be honest, you are only happy with this situation because you happen to have been born in the right country. if you were on the business end, you would find it quite unacceptable i am certain.

  Mr. Huh? writes:
  What makes you think that the business owner wasn't at one point forced to work or starve.

  irrelevant. if so, it would not make it any less objectionable.

  ...almost all business owners start off as workers themselves. The only difference is that they have a vision, study to improve themselves, and take some risks.

  classic apology. "they are exploited because they lack the moxie to fight back" despite being fantasy, it fails to address the notion that taking advantage of someone bc they lack the means to fight makes it no less greedy and cruel. we banned child labor for that exact reason.

  all of these apologies! why is it so hard to accept the fact that to pay a fair wage means that you would pay more for your fancy Parilla? (and practically everything else) and we prefer to enjoy the luxury? (and disregard the accounting)

  and if morality doesn't move you, maybe the fact that our ponzi economy is unsustainable will. practically everyone reading this (or your kids) will end up paying the piper. oil (another cheap labor source) is going up from now on, cutting off access to the cheap labor from the colonies and boom..the economy is based on that, it has no indigenous foundation. your apologies will come back to bite your ass. it is mathematically guaranteed.

  Published: August 22, 2006 12:52 PM

• M E Hoffer

  Mr. Tim Swanson,

  Given your related post re: AAPL and their labor policies, would you comment on the following, from above: "I'm talking about human beings exploited so that the victors can live the good life. Plain and simple. Your $35 tent from Walmart is created by paying some faceless human being dirt. Their labor was not given in a free or fair exchange, it was their only choice. Dare ask them how happy they are with the deal? not the worst crime, but way up there.

  Be honest, you are only happy with this situation because you happen to have been born in the right country. If you were on the business end, you would find it quite unacceptable, I am certain."

  I would think you would have rather an easy time, turning the above comment, right 'round.

  Published: August 23, 2006 6:39 PM