How and How Not to Desocialize
In a deep sense, wrote Murray Rothbard, getting rid of the socialist state requires that state to perform one final, swift, glorious act of self-immolation, after which it vanishes from the scene. In 1992, everyone in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union seemed anxious to desocialize, to institute free markets and privatization. But how? Confusion abounded among free-market proponents themselves. Matters were scarcely helped by the fact that Western economists, to whom the former Eastern bloc was looking for wisdom, had themselves done virtually nothing to study, let alone solve, this problem during the sixty years since Stalin had established socialism in the Soviet Union and the half-century since the Soviets imposed it on Eastern Europe. Rothbard, who had been focused for decades on how to desocialize Western economies, was able to provide a step-by-step list of dos and don'ts. FULL ARTICLE
Comments (31)
averros
Of course, we all know how the desocialization of former USSR ended - with the return of KGB to power.
That answers Rothbard's question on what is the proper thing to do with nomenklatura. Treat them as thieves and murderers are deserved to be treated, period. Any nods to "civil peace" is only a pretext for the restoration of the kleptocracy.
Published: March 9, 2007 8:22 PM
Mark Brabson
Unfortunately, the Communists in Russia didn't suffer the fate of the Communists in Romania, specifically getting machined gunned into goo when their regime collapsed. The KGB should have been rounded up and executed. They weren't and Russia is now paying the price.
Published: March 9, 2007 8:34 PM
Sasha Radeta
Averros,
This wouldn't have happened if they listened to Rothbard:
"It would be far better to enshrine the venerable homesteading principle at the base of the new desocialized property system. Or, to revive the old Marxist slogan: "all land to the peasants, all factories to the workers!" This would establish the basic Lockean principle that ownership of owned property is to be acquired by "mixing one's labor with the soil" or with other unowned resources."
Instead of giving the ownership shares to common folk that established proper homesteading, they had socialized method of privatization, using auction-farces in which only former communist executives and heads of mafia could participate (they were the only ones with such money and power in Russia). Now former (KGB) is destroying latter (mafia).
Published: March 9, 2007 8:36 PM
averros
Now former (KGB) is destroying latter (mafia).
Russian mafia is mostly ex-KGB goons with their old-time associates from criminal underworld, anyway (the criminals were always considered "socially close" - an official term(!) - as opposed to political opposition, and KGB clandestinely employed quite a lot of criminals as informers and enforcers).
There was no chance for the Soviet sheepie, really. Watch them meekly ceding more and more freedoms to the Putin's gang. So I don't think any of the Rothbard's prescriptions had any chance of even being considered. The whole 1991 revolution was about mid-level apparatchicks revolting against their masters - and then promptly "privatising" everything in sight while the sheepie helplessly watched in confusion.
Published: March 9, 2007 8:46 PM
Black Bloke
I remembered reading this last year. Still brilliant, and still ignored.
Published: March 10, 2007 1:17 AM
Sasha Radeta
Averos,
Of course that underworld was always involved with KGB, just like in any other "Warsaw Pact" country, but Putin is cleaning-up that dirty, non-Russian (anti-Russian) "aristocracy" that emerged in 1990s (and partly escaped to London :). Russia wants to be serious country now.
Plus, I cheer for Putin's gang, especially if they prevent Bush’s criminal gang from its plans in Balkans and Central Asia :) We'll see.
Anyway, privatization's done and Rothbard's advices will have to wait the next century, I guess :)
Published: March 10, 2007 3:09 AM
David C
I'm thinking, when the US fiat money system dies - the best way to make the transition would be:
1) Stop printing money and/or loaning it out immediately
2) The Federal Reserve, Treasury, and Government would pardon all debt payments owed to them, but in private sector obligations would remain valid.
3) Auction off all gold in equal increments daily over the space of a year or two. Accept cash or US govt bonds at face value for payment. After the final auction, any remaining fiat currency or bonds would be considered null and void. Auction off government land too.
4) The average price of gold up to the current auction or at the end of the auction period would be used to set the legal dollar value of gold for outstanding or current contracts.
5) The money the government has taken from people would be treated as theft, and the fiat system would be treated as fraud. Any government employee, federal reserve employee, treasury employee, who has indirectly accompliced this crime would be pardoned from criminal prosecution if they sign a contract agreeing to quit their job immediately and never work for government again. Bankers or financiers would be pardoned from prosecution if they agree to never work in the financial industry again or forfeit all their property holdings.
This way, people would have time to prepare. The market would set the rate for the gold price. Private creditors and contracts would not be harmed (as badly). At the same time, much of the debt distortions caused by the fiat money machine would be relieved. The backlash of revenge would be tamed, and unruly government employees and programs would be contained. There would be motive to remove all but the most dedicated and needed government employees and bankers.
Published: March 10, 2007 10:35 AM
Sione
Interesting that Sasha misses the core principles yet again.
Note: A criminal gang is a criminal gang. One does not applaud or encourage it. To do so is immoral. One consistently opposes such evils. That is what Rothbard does in his essay...
Sione
Published: March 10, 2007 6:18 PM
Sasha Radeta
I'm not missing any core principles. It's just that Sione is too eager to reply even when he has nothing to say.
I never said that I find either criminal gang moral. But two criminal gangs are not the same. Putin's gang does not start wars and genocides all around the world, invading countries, and trying to rule the world like mentally-challenged Dr. Evil.
Equating Putin's gang with American neocons would be completely idiotic.
Regards.
Published: March 10, 2007 6:42 PM
Stranger
Again, Rothbard is off the mark here. An employee has no homesteading claim to an enterprise he is employed in. He knows how to do his job, but he does not necessarily have any competence at leading the entire enterprise. It is also wrong to believe that these employees somehow deserve to own the business. It is well known that employees of state enterprises pretend to work in exchange for pretending to be paid. They are accomplice to the waste and corruption. This has nothing to do with an entrepreneur building a valuable capital good out of raw land, which is what homesteading is. Economic calculation means placing scarce capital goods in the hands of the most productive entrepreneurs. Rothbard's syndicalist plan is completely oblivious to that.
Because there is no or limited entrepreneurship in highly socialized countries, there will be very few experienced entrepreneurs to lead these industries. That means that the best source of entrepreneurs will come from a) the local black market and b) foreign markets. Finding these people can only be done with auctions.
Rothbard argues that the government has no right to the money. Firstly, if there is a massive operation of desocializing taking place, we can safely assume that the government has been replaced. What is taking place is bankruptcy sale of all the previous government's assets. That government, as well as assets, had liabilities. Retirement pensions, for example. The money raised from auctions can only be legitimately used to buy back these liabilities.
Obviously what happened in Russia was a corrupt mess, but that doesn't mean it was the principle that was wrong. It's just that governments always tend to be a corrupt mess, new and old.
Published: March 10, 2007 7:20 PM
Sasha Radeta
Stranger,
Rothbard is not "off-mark" - not even here. You are just showing your incredible ignorance. Allow me to use couple of examples:
YOU SAY:
An employee has no homesteading claim to an enterprise he is employed in. He knows how to do his job, but he does not necessarily have any competence at leading the entire enterprise.
Hold on one second! who said anything about one worker leading the entire company!?!?!?!
Rothbard only said that ownership shares (stocks) of former state companies should belong to those who actually mix their labor and transform those factories - using homesteading principle of common law.
Anyway - what does the ownership of company stock has to do with management skills. Many western stockholders don't have that knowledge, but they know they need people like that for their own good.
Not everyone in former Soviet Union "pretended to work" and these people are not permanently disabled (unlike the products of American public education). When they get a chance and liberty (like in America), Russian workers are extremely hard-working and productive. Due to their superior education they can be in many ways superior to their western colleagues.
As far as entrepreneurship goes, the way Russian immigrants contributed to their new homelands after 1917 and during Soviet era speaks about their strong entrepreneurial spirit. Workers are not the problem of post-socialism - it bureaucracy and professional political class that is the problem. Anyway, it seems that some people cannot stand to see Russian recent resurrection and they like to hallucinate and hyperbolize about the character of its people.
When it comes to state-run privatization, not only that politicians have no right to sell factories like their own family estate, but it can also lead to serious corruption and dangerous concentration of power in hands of few. That's exactly what happened in R.F. during 1990s.
Stranger certainly knows that pension "trust" funds were used in Soviet Union for construction of many convention centers and businesses - but retired folk did not get their shares of ownership of that capital. It is true that government has its many liabilities, but it needs to return them from taxation of newly privatized economy. Otherwise, we will see government making reckless contracts, causing planned debts to certain circles of power - and then justifying the transfer of wealth to that "elite" by fictional debt repayments.
Published: March 10, 2007 9:47 PM
Sione Vatu
Sasha
Twisting and wriggling again you be. Now you attempt to equivocate over morality and approval. Remember that you were the one who wrote: "Plus, I cheer for Putin's gang, especially if they prevent Bush’s criminal gang from its plans in Balkans and Central Asia".
You are cheering for a criminal enterprise of the type explicitly opposed by Rothbard in his piece above. Sure you may oppose Bush but the operative here is that you support Putin's gang and you support it ESPECIALLY if it opposes Bush. That's not an exclusionary qualification. It's an additive one. You are wrong to do this.
The point is that one does not cheer on or support ANY such gangs at all. Hence I wrote: " A criminal gang is a criminal gang. One does not applaud or encourage it. To do so is immoral. One consistently opposes such evils." Your support for such gangs is immoral. This is the case whether you are actively supporting them, treating them favourably, promoting them, defending their actions etc. You should consistently oppose them.
Rothbard is most clear in his opposition to outfits such as Putin's. Re-read his essay and see. You've completely missed his premise and core ideas.
Sione
PS BTW I am surprised you'd equivocate and begin dissembling over a fundamental matter such as this. It's odd, as you usually represent yourself as a follower of Rothbard.
Surely you've seen for yourself the deprivations and destruction that criminal gangs such as Putin's have wrought over most of Eastern Europe and even Russia itself? Even a brief visit would make it most clear.
Published: March 11, 2007 1:13 PM
Eric
The proposal by Rothbard won't work because it goes against human nature. Rothbard was an anarchist (in the sense of a zero sized government), and it's difficult to find any examples where any such society long remained in such a state. Eventually all government-less societies succumb to those who seek power over others.
If chimps have an alpha male dictatorial warlike society yet bonobos have a female directed peaceful society, how can such otherwise similar creatures be so different. Answer: it's in the genes. Economists need to examine the evolutionary forces involved just as medical research is beginning to look at disease processes with an eye to their evolutionary origins. Without understanding the why of government, one will never succeed in reshaping it.
As it is with the 2 types of chimps, so it is for humans, which share many of their genes with both. However, human society is almost always more the alpha male warlike society. Before humans will ever live in a free market peaceful world, economists have to contend with our human nature.
Nothing in our evolutionary past will have prepared us for a society not dominated by governments (just a bunch of alpha males competing with each other - and Hillary is probably just a butch female). It would be as difficult to get humans to be peaceful and live in freedom as it would be to get cats to bark and live together in packs like dogs.
In other words, freedom is unstable for humans. Eventually any experiment in freedom will collapse - we are watching it happen in America as we debate how to free Russia. It is not enough to say that humans act. They do, but they act in a particular way as can be seen by comparison to our nearest relatives - the other primates. Evolution does not care if people are happy or economically efficient, only survival counts. And governments continue to survive.
Published: March 11, 2007 1:52 PM
adi
Vilfredo Pareto was greatest writer on politics and early Neo-Classical economics. He had a great social cycle theory of elites.
Elites arise endogenously from given society and they replace each other in eternal cycle. There cannot be such thing as an anarchy because some group of people who have superior capabilities for scheming and needed connections will impose their will on others.
You can clearly see in Russia how different groups of elites have replaced each other in post Perestroika world.
Most important thing for ordinary people is to be distrustful about words; different ideas and movements are advertised by slogans and words and no-one knows what are their contents.
Most famous example about this is eulogy by Pericles for Athenian soldiers died in Peloponnesian war against Spartans. Pericles did speak about Athenian democracry which was truly imperialistic. Same style of speaking is employed by Generalissimus Bush and his happy friends.
Published: March 11, 2007 2:28 PM
Sasha Radeta
Sione,
You don't have to keep convincing us of your low cognitive abilities. I never said Putin's gang is morally justified - I said that I will cheer for it - if it opposes Bush's criminal and potentially genocidal plans for Balkans and Central Asia.
Your obsession and hallucinations regarding my statements are rather disturbing.
Published: March 11, 2007 3:29 PM
Sasha Radeta
Eric,
Regardless of your humble opinion on sustainability of completely privatized protection services - your comments are completely unrelated to Rothbard's proposal in this particular article.
All Rothbard proposed here is that instead of executive branch of government - it is the robbed people that need to become owners (stockholders) of state-run companies... And then these people should sell their stocks in open-markets, instead of politicians finding "suitable" purchasers, usually somewhere between the underworlds of Moscow and Brighton Beach, NY.
Now - how's that "unrealistic" and "against human nature?" Alpha mal
-----
Adi,
Wow, Pareto - the universal truth! If only he wrote something relevant…
Imagine that "government" was funded without aggression (instead, it would get its funding like any business: from consumers' demand for its services)... and imagine that government was limited to the role protection of people's property rights (in all their applications), plus that it had competition in that market, which would ensure better services... That's anarcho-capitalism.
The question arises: why wouldn't privatized government services in a market competition - be more capable than a monopoly - in dealing with alpha males from Eric's example or why wouldn't they incorporate elites into their own service - just like elites peacefully compete in any legalized market (and they clash during any prohibition)? I don't know... whey wouldn't they!?
Published: March 11, 2007 3:51 PM
Eric
Sasha,
In order for his proposals to work, it depends on action by the existing government. His final suggestion,
"In a deep sense, getting rid of the socialist state requires that state to perform one final, swift, glorious act of self-immolation, after which it vanishes from the scene. This is an act which can be applauded by any lover of freedom, act of government though it may be."
is expecting cats to start barking. It sounds nice, but in the real world of human nature it's neva gonna happen!
Published: March 11, 2007 4:55 PM
JCR
Looks like Rothbard wrote about the Soviet Union; would he have written the same with the United States in mind? In particular, I am wondering about auctioning off the assets; bad idea for a communist country but is it a good idea for a semi-communist land like the US?
Published: March 11, 2007 7:46 PM
Peter
The proposal by Rothbard won't work because it goes against human nature. Rothbard was an anarchist (in the sense of a zero sized government), and it's difficult to find any examples where any such society long remained in such a state.
The usual examples - Ireland and Iceland - lasted longer than any example of government.
Published: March 11, 2007 8:10 PM
Sasha Radeta
Eric,
watch the context and what topic Rothbard is talking about.
In many Eastern European countries the state did vanish from the economic scene and privatized many functions that are socialized in the USA. But it did not do that before it lined politicians' pockets with money from privatization. Rothbard just stated that from moral and legal perspective - the economy could not be privatized like that.
----
JCR,
The title of Rothbard work is: "How and How Not to Desocialize." He did not propose specific recipes for Russia that he would not like to see in his own backyard. Actually, Rothbard advocated anarcho-capitalism based on such common law privatization for the United States.
You are criticizing the author you obviously haven't read.
Published: March 11, 2007 8:56 PM
Sione Vatu
Sasha
Funny to see you lecturing other people about context (as if you understand context!). That's pretty ironic coming from our resident copyright communist!
You wrote: "I never said Putin's gang is morally justified - I said that I will cheer for it". Quite right, that you did. And I pulled you up by explaining that your cheering for a criminal organisation was itself immoral. You should not do this. Libertarians do not support such behaviour.
You also wrote that you would cheer for Putin's gang "if it opposes Bush's criminal and potentially genocidal plans for Balkans and Central Asia." Now that is unture. It's not what you said at all. You did not qualify your support for Putin's gang. You said "ESPECIALLY.". Further, you referred to "plans", not to actual genocide. So, now, in an attempt to escape what you yourself had written you are trying exageration. My what a BIG imagination you have (and a dishonest one at that).
Anyway, you are telling your low form of furfies all over again. Remember it was you who wrote that "I cheer for Putin's gang, especially if they prevent Bush’s criminal gang from its plans in Balkans and Central Asia". In other words you support them ESPECIALLY if thay act as you'd like. And given the evidence so far, that means things like murdering Chechans, bullying Georgians and Ukranians, posioning people, acts of terrorism against Moskovites, stealing property, confiscating property, killing, maiming, goon squads raiding private houses and places of business, torturing, incarcerating, giving weapons to other thugs and the like...
What I find baffling about you is how you'll go out on limb with some hopelesly collectivist idea and then deny you ever said it- spinning sophistries and self rationalisations and blowing smoke in an attempt to hide what you originally posited. All BS mate.
You need to sort yourself out big time. Rothbard would not be pleased with the likes of some Eastern slavonic collectivist such as yourself. Lift you game at once.
Do some solid study and try to learm will you...
Sione
Published: March 11, 2007 11:16 PM
Sasha Radeta
Sione,
It's funny to see how much you can blab about nothing - ESPECIALLY when it comes to statements that you are clearly misinterpreting. Your case is much worse than a verbal diarrhea: it is mental illness.
I will always cheer for gang of small thieves if it has a chance of confronting the gang of mass-murderers.
I never said that Putin's gang is morally correct - but to equate Putin's gang with Bush's would be completely idiotic! It's like comparing young Snoop Dog with Charlie Manson.
By the way, Chechens started chopping off Russian heads before any Russian intervention even took place. They used Russian retreat and "peace" with Yeltsin to commit even worse atrocities (they even distributed those videos all over Europe)
As far as Ukrainians and so-called "Georgians" go (it's a collection of different rival ethnic groups, but you are clearly ignorant of this), aren't the ones that promote NATO's (Bush's genocidal gang) direct interest right on the Russian borders. USA will get the taste of its own medicine if it does not stop threatening Russia.
Oh, by the way - Russia supports self-determination of Onsets and Abkhazian people - but it demands that the same principle applies equally for everyone: America cannot deny the right of secession in Georgia, Spain, UK, Bosnia, Croatia, and elsewhere - but demand such right for Serbian (Kosovo) Albanians. That's why I think Putin’s position is the factor of sanity in this crazy world.
And why do you even mention that poor terrorist Litvinenko? He died in criminal clash in the London underworld (in the company of Italian mafia), under British “protection.” He died in the same way he lived. Your other hallucinations are not even worthy of my verbal spitting.
Regards.
Published: March 12, 2007 12:29 AM
Sasha Radeta
"Rothbard would not be pleased with the likes of some Eastern slavonic collectivist such as yourself.
If I have suffered from Sione's condition, I would have taken this statement as the evidence of his racism. Rothbard never singled-out collectivists (Sione's people; he advocated anarcho-communism in copyright threads) based on their race, religion, ethnicity, or nationality. Luckily, unlike Sione, I don't have a compulsion to create insane theories about the meaning of someone else's words (contrary to their real statements).
Published: March 12, 2007 1:06 AM
Eric
Peter
I was once quite interested in Iceland from reading a book by David Friedman. Then I found one book to dig a little bit deeper (Byock - Medieval Iceland), and while it could be said they didn't have a state, I think it's a stretch to say they didn't have leaders with power over others. The chieftains seemed a bit like Vito in the godfather. These people had priviledged incomes by way of a few taxes, profits from official services, and some exlusive rights to set prices of imports. This book mentions that much of the land they owned had been taken by force from others.
Now, maybe you might call these people private, but all this means is that the normal roles of government has been distributed somewhat. And besides, having a bunch of small "private" mafias that cooperate with one another to some degree may qualify as a definition of a stateless society, but I think the distinction is more academic than proof that human nature does not seek to have a ruling class - just as dogs crave a pack leader. For humans, I believe this is not cultural, but inborn, and that is my main point.
As to Ireland, I confess to complete ignorance, so I will not comment. However, even if I give you both as valid examples, 2 out of many hundreds? And Iceland only lasted 300 years and probaly only survived in its "free-state" primarily because of its isolation and less than desirable natural resources. Eventually, it succumbed to the power of rulers who used force rather than any sort of peaceful free market anarco-capitalism.
Published: March 12, 2007 2:17 AM
JCR
Sasha,
Just be polite. Is there a moderator around there?
Published: March 12, 2007 6:29 AM
Sasha Radeta
OK JCR,
My comment, regarding how you obviously criticize something you haven't read and unjustly accuse Rothbard of something absurd, was way out of line. Moderators should feel bad for you and help you out.
If you refer to my comments to Sione, after he misinterpreted my statements and called me a communist (ironically, her supports common "ownership" when comes to use of the original works of authorship) - I actually controlled myself.
----
Eric,
People who have private property rights often have privileged income, like those chieftains in Iceland. In any form of capitalism, people with special skills and wealth will have some kind of market power over other people (if you are a head of protection agency, likely you will not pay for protection to someone else). At the same time, less successful people will try to achieve such power for themselves by improving their own skills and serving fellow men.
But I'm puzzled with your statements. If you say that anarcho-capitalism is not stateless (which is absurd, because state monopoly would be replaced by individual private properties), why did say that Rothbard's anarcho-capitalism is "impossible" and "against human nature?" After you accepted and discussed the example of Iceland, can we assume you no longer hold such views against Rothbard and now focus on proving how Rothbard's anarchy is actually not an anarchy (you probably come from communist definition of that term... but you got the definition of state wrong... state is by definition a "monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory.")
Published: March 12, 2007 10:22 AM
Joe Stoutenburg
I'll fall somewhere less extreme than Eric but concede a point that I've seen no one else give him. Historically speaking, it does seem that humans have a tendency to seek power by forming monopolies over violence. However to chalk this up soley to genetics is too fatalistic, I think. Every human is master of their own actions, genes or not. While admitting that there could be some genetic factors that pre-condition certain humans to violent authority, I would like to avoid any semblance to allowing that to be an excuse. Let's also keep in mind that even without genetic pre-dispositions, we all have plenty of recent examples of the rewards of getting in on political booty. It's the old genes versus environment theme - probably both have a role to play.
A major key in solving the today's society problems begin with removing the costs of violence from those who impose violence.
Anyway, the question becomes how to roll back history. I suggest two ways:
1) Most anarcho-capitalists I think have this view of anarchy forming from the ground up. Government simply evaporates and free associations naturally take place.
2) I think this was subtle, but Rothbard actually was advocating that the central planner facilitate the process plan the process.
The problem with 1) is getting the inertia to make this work. Most people are either ignorant or apathetic. Those with the power are typically informed and motivated to retain their power. I don't believe that Anarcho-capitalism will just happen naturally unless it's over a VERY long time. I wouldn't mind being wrong, but I have to believe this because I believe the pre-disposition noted by Eric.
2) is embodied by Rothbard's closing remark:
"In a deep sense, getting rid of the socialist state requires that state to perform one final, swift, glorious act of self-immolation, after which it vanishes from the scene. This is an act which can be applauded by any lover of freedom, act of government though it may be."
In essence, a central planner must come on the scene who is converted to liberty and who is strong enough to make it happen. Make no mistake. For this to truly happen, violence would be seen. I can't imagine that the ruling classes would simply give in. Therefore, you truly need broad support from the general population for this revolution to occur. You then need to cultivate the ideas of liberty because there will probably always be someone ready to profit by placing themselves at the head of a new formed state.
Published: March 12, 2007 2:13 PM
Sasha radeta
Joe,
1)
I also agree that there is a tendency of certain parasites to live at the expense of the other people - and to use state and “noble“ ideals to justify their status. Austrian economists often debunk these statists and they are trying to convince decent people to take matters into their own hands, - to defend their unalienable rights.
2)
Rothbard never claimed that central planner should facilitate privatization. As we can see from the statement you quoted, he basically said that state must simply step-away… State is asked only to remove itself from unlawful control of people’s capital (or it will hopefully be removed by the people) - and then common law principles of property acquisition will facilitate privatization.
Published: March 12, 2007 2:30 PM
Sione Vatu
Sasha
Stop evading the point.
You wrote: "I will always cheer for gang of small thieves if it has a chance of confronting the gang of mass-murderers."
Putin's gang are small theives and Bush's gang are mass murderers? It that what you are asserting?
Anyway, cheering on theives IS immoral. And it is not what you should be doing.
Sione
BTW I spent a lot of time working in Eastern Europe, Georgia, Ukraine, Russia, the Baltic states. Of course you didn't know that prior to your uncivilised ad hominem nonsense did you?. Be careful, your ignorance shows through so clearly!
Published: March 17, 2007 12:41 PM
Sione Vatu
JCR
There is a little history to Sasha's bad manners and temper. He's been uncivil to several contributors. It's nothing new. It relates to his inability to defend his (many) assertions.
A while back we debated matters pertaining to intellectual property (IP). Sasha made several assertions which I questioned. I wanted to see what his system of IP rights and claims relied on. In the end he was unable to answer. His ideas were all floating abstrations and circular arguments. It came to a head when I asked him for a definition of a term he was using. He employed a definition that von Mises had demonstrated to be socialist (collectivist) in nature and hence was strongly opposed by von Mises (who specifically warned against relying upon it). When I pointed out to Sasha that he was using an anti-property rights definition to underpin his IP system there was more than a little trouble. There was a display of temper, ad hominem, evasion, alteration of context, misrepresentation of other people's arguments, dishonest claims about his position and what he had written (too bad that what he previously represented on his subject is still available to be read on the VMI blog- the record is clear enough to anyone who wants to read what he wrote, he can deny but he can't alter it now), equivocations, dissembling and the plain old telling of furfies. There was even a particularly revealing incident when he completely melted down after a VMI blog contributor told him that he would no longer correspond with him and was employing a software filter to eliminate "Sasha Radeta" posts from appearing on his computer. Talk about a hissy fit. I thought he was going to bust a gasket!
Take note that Sasha reckons that those who challenge him with questions that he can't answer have mental problems, don't understand, are idiots, etc. etc. etc. He resorts to name calling whenever his position is revealed as baseless or incorrect. Sometimes even asking about a simple point will result in a tirade of abuse. Don't let him put you off asking questions though!
Sasha's trouble stems from a treatment of concepts without consideration of his premise and context. He asserts ideas and expects them to be accepted uncritically. Often he fails to understand what it is he is promoting and what it presupposes or how it was derived. The nature of what Sasha promotes needs careful consideration to check if it is correct or not. Hence my comment earlier that one does not cheer for criminal gangs etc.
On this occasion I suspected that Sasha's world view is a goodies vs. baddies one and a very superficial treatment at that. In this last exchange between us Sasha probably has sympathies with the Putin regime simply because he is not an American. Hence he appears to happily excoriate the Bush administration as an embodiment of mass-murdering evil while the Putin gang are merely small thieves.
Well, evil is as evil does. One does not cheer it on or encourage it. To do so is immoral. That's my point for him. He will, of course, equivocate and dissemble again. Don't worry about him. That's just his nature. I hope he'll grow out of it in time.
On another note, I recall being in Hungary when the collapse of the iron curtain occurred. East Germans were everywhere. It was a heady and remarkable time. Extraordinary. There was such hope for the future. It is indeed tragic what occurred later on and that Rothbard's prescription (or one like it) was not immediately implemented. People thought they'd all be rich once the Russians departed and communism was gone. They waited for assistance, leadership and advice from the West. Strangely it was almost like a cargo cult. So many hugely (over) educated people but what to do...how to act. What a wasted opportunity... Still, I'm glad I was lucky enough to see it all first hand.
I've been back on several occasions (business and pleasure trips) but there's no way I'd settle in any of those countries- ditto for Western Europe as well). The Pacific and Oceania are better places to live, have friends and bring up the children.
Talofa!
Sione
Published: March 17, 2007 1:29 PM
Sasha Radeta
I came back to this thread because I found an interesting article:
http://www.katalaksija.com/template.php?lang=en&dbtopic_id=1&dbarticle_id=260
PS
Sione,
Everything you ever asked about IP and its justification was answered. You tend to ignore the answers that you don't like. I ignore your postings when they get so boring and pointless (and have nothing to do with our topic).
By the way there's no point in comparing a small-time crook Putin with the mass-murderer like Bush. There is simply no comparison... By the way, NATO is trying to pressure Russia from those "poor" countries along its border -- not vice-versa. And I cheer for small-time crooks while they are trying to stop the neoconservative plan for Kosovo, because that will be a dangerous precedent that will legalize the outcome of ethnic cleansing against Serbs and reward the Albanian terror tactics. Also, the only force of reason in the world (with the "veto" power in the UN Security Council) are not my anarcho-capitalist brothers and sisters -- but the Russian Federation. In other words, if the U.S. Congress is powerless to stop another WMD lunacy against Iran, I hope Russia is not -- for the sake of our World, as well as America and its future.
Published: March 24, 2007 9:17 PM