For the Want of Bill Gates's Money
" Mises coined the term Fourier Complex in 1927 to describe the ends sought by those who dream of the world envisioned by Charles Fourier, the utopian socialist of the 19th century. Its sufferers desire equality in starvation rather than variation in plenty.
Redistribution is not ethical; it's theft and destruction. It is simply a means to satisfy the envy of some who seek to harm those who have obtained greater wealth through the satisfaction of the wants of consumers. If we succumb to its siren song, the gravestone will read: "For the want of Bill Gates's money, the world wrought its end." FULL ARTICLE
Comments (36)
I've often wondered why socialists like Michael Moore and Hollywood types love Cuba so much, when the lives of Cubans is so awful. I have suspected that they preferred equality in poverty to any inequality with wealth. Now I have a good name for it.
The Fourier Complex reminds me of a book on Russia after the collapse of the USSR. The author predicted that capitalism wouldn't take root quickly in Russia because Russians in general had the attitude that they would rather all starve to death than see a neighbor do better. This is nothing less than envy and a breaking of the Biblical command to not covet your neighbor's possessions.
Published: November 2, 2007 9:29 AM
Of course, as Nozick points out, as material inequality diminishes, envy becomes more intense in those last few domains in which humans are unequal (e.g. looks etc.) Should we begin redistributing beauty as well, then?
Published: November 2, 2007 9:49 AM
But ... but ... Bill Gates's entire fortune is based on intellectual property laws, which are aggression and so his wealth *should* be seized ... [/cognitive dissonance]
Published: November 2, 2007 9:52 AM
Welcome to democracy. 1000 poor idiots make a law to steal from the 1 rich smart guy. Since FDR taught poor people how to legally steal from the rich, there is no turning back unless that power is taken from them (and everyone). The poor people of course don't see the implications of their actions, because, well, they're poor for a reason.
On the other hand, the rich are quite good at having the government steal for them too, especially the farmers and large corporations.
Left out of this huge crime ring, the middle class; people who work honestly for their money and would never knowingly steal from anyone. The current middle class mostly blinded by patriotism and by the JFK ask what you can do for your country nonsense. The future middle class is poisoned by statist and doublespeaking college professors and celebrities. I'll paraphrase something my gov professor said two semesters ago:
Sure, Lincoln arrested people for no reason, had people executed without a trial, restricted free speech, and ordered a brutal war on the south. But he was reelected, therefore he was not a tyrant.
Wow. I couldn't help but laugh. I know lots of people in the class automatically accepted that as truth. Sometimes I feel like I'm in Invasion of the Bodysnatchers when I consider how most people refuse to think for themselves.
Published: November 2, 2007 10:18 AM
haha I knew that IP was going to come up in this one. I thought the anti-IPers would strike first though. Anti-IPers don't support the redistribution of wealth, just innovations. Because, after all, we all would have come up with the code for Windows Vista by ourselves. How dare those bastards rob our brains like that.
Published: November 2, 2007 10:32 AM
I actually heard a too-wealthy society is as doomed as a dreadfully poor society because people who have too much time and money especially when they were born into it are prone to feeling special and are quick to absorb any whizbang '-ism' that comes along. Take the Sauds, for example, with their huge oil wealth they created an amazing welfare state that doesn't rely on much taxes. Soon when the oil money dries up they may be in for a very rude wake-up call (assuming they're not already paying attention).
Published: November 2, 2007 10:35 AM
Robert_M.: If you believe IP enforcement is a type of aggression, that OBLIGATES you to advocate the seizure of money acquired this way (with perhaps a caveat about long-past historical wrongs).
Comments, Stephan_Kinsella?
Published: November 2, 2007 10:40 AM
Sam:
Indeed, just like the old Chinese proverb that says money only lasts three generations. The first father works hard to get rich. The son of the first father sees his dad work hard to earn his money and therefore learns to protect the money. The third son never sees work or learns the value of money, and when he inherits it, he wastes it all.
Published: November 2, 2007 10:44 AM
Seize for who?
Published: November 2, 2007 11:11 AM
I dont think it obligates you to advocate seizure. That's like saying that if you're against taxation, you are obligated to advocate taking back all of the money and giving it back to the people. I don't think that's accurate. I think some would just like to see the aggression stopped. I would like to see no more IP laws and instead IP agreements written into contracts, so the right people are help accountable.
Published: November 2, 2007 11:14 AM
So you're saying that the politicians/parasites are 'entitled' to all the goods they've stolen ?
I think that Person has at least half a point. I mean, is Gates really the poster child for free-enterprise ?
Published: November 2, 2007 11:55 AM
"ake the Sauds, for example, with their huge oil wealth they created an amazing welfare state that doesn't rely on much taxes. "
And the Norsk. I think they realize their welfare state will be endangered once the oil runs out, though, as they seem to be gearing their economy towards fostering entrepreneurship. Sweden, on the other hand, is already feeling the bite, as it never had Norway's oil profits to shelter itself to begin with.
Published: November 2, 2007 12:15 PM
"So you're saying that the politicians/parasites are 'entitled' to all the goods they've stolen ?" - Juan
Based on the sheer amount of entitlement, benefits, etc in this country, in order to take everything back from the parasites we would all be taking everything from everyone (we're all parasites at this point).
I wouldn't worry too much about what Person posted, he's obsessed with Kinsella.
Published: November 2, 2007 1:19 PM
Juan:
I'm not sure what "they" you are referring to. It's not like the politicians keep (all) the money in their personal checking accounts.
Other than the whole IP debate, Gates seems to me to be a pretty free-market guy. Maybe I'm wrong, in which case I'm sure you'll enlighten me. After all, he did fight the FTC for years because he wouldn't give enough money to Clinton's campaign.
And on IP, if his company hadn't created it, it wouldn't exist, therefore the company should be able to profit from it. Innovate! don't copy.
Published: November 2, 2007 1:34 PM
Ah, I love the smell of rationalization in the morning!
(And by "love" I of course mean "am irritated by".)
(And by "morning" I of course mean "afternoon".)
(And by "smell" I just mean the general attitude with respect to this issue.)
(And by "in the afternoon", I mean to refer to "all times.)
Published: November 2, 2007 1:38 PM
Invid,
I agree that the amount of cross subsidies is staggering, so it may not be practical to force people to give back what do not belong to them...
Still I ask : Is Gates worried about the property of his neighbours ? Is he interested in equal rights ? Does he oppose government ? Or is he just a wealthy lefty do-gooder ? (I do have an opinion, but I'm willing to be proved wrong)
http://www.gatesfoundation.org/
Published: November 2, 2007 1:48 PM
Robert :
"I'm not sure what "they" you are referring to. "
'They' means : all the people who get money using the political means.
Published: November 2, 2007 1:57 PM
Person : "But ... but ... Bill Gates's entire fortune is based on intellectual property laws, which are aggression and so his wealth *should* be seized ... [/cognitive dissonance]"
Which good example of a highly envied US billionaire hasn't taken advantage of US law?
Sheesh.
Published: November 2, 2007 3:02 PM
Two things: 1) It's interesting how the people who embrace socialist ideas like redistribution and government intervention like Hilary Clinton and Michael Moore are rich? 2) I can't remember where I read it (I think it was a book called "The Experts Speak" containing famous examples of failures in judgment by "experts") but I remember a Vietnamese government report that contained this tid-bit: "We have successfully spread poverty equally."
Published: November 2, 2007 3:36 PM
The Ethics imbedded in their soul is exposed,
especially those in Washington D.C.
It is not their own happiness that they seek but the destruction of those that are.
We are all born Tabula Rasa, unfortunately most stay that way. Our educational system is geared to that. Thank goodness for the Mises Institute.
Published: November 2, 2007 8:42 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong, I'm no expert, but I thought that Microsoft is more protected by the fact that they only make their source code available in binary form (which you can't read or modify), than by IP laws. In fact they recently lost in EU court over this very issue and will now have to share their source code with the competition.
Published: November 3, 2007 1:20 PM
Copyright imposition is government aggression, not just Bill Gates aggression. Technically Microsoft has been deceived too by being told that they have this glorious property right, when it is really just a sham. IMHO, it'd be wise to just kill copyright and let it go - otherwise there is the risk of escalating retaliation.
Published: November 3, 2007 10:25 PM
Libertarians are defenders of the principal of property rights, not of "property rights" as they exist under any given statist system. The fact that Gate's wealth does not represent the product of legitimate homesteading or fair trading makes it up for grabs for whatever non-aggressor can take it. Just as government property is illegitimate, property acquired through statist means by nominally "private" institutions is also illegitimate.
Rothbard said as much in "Confiscation and the Homestead Principle" http://mises.org/journals/lf/1969/1969_06_15.pdf In this piece Rothbard advocates syndicalizing statist corporations and privatizing Columbia University!!!
Published: November 5, 2007 10:54 AM
Forcing Bill Gates to liquidate his Microsoft holdings amounts to an artificial increase in the supply of Microsoft shares. This has all the effects the that you have mentioned, but it does not end there.
This increased supply causes investors to choose Microsoft shares (a malinvestment in this situation) over an alternate investment. A full analysis of the influence of this forced sale must include the effects of the loss of that other investment. What damage does the state cause by influencing entrepreneur/investors to make the easier choice of investing in Microsoft over the harder choice of finding another investment?
Published: November 5, 2007 11:22 AM
I'd just like to voice my agreement with a number of posts which pointed out that Microsoft's vast wealth arises mostly from copyright and patent monopolies. Do away with these "laws," and Bill Gates would become a regular successful businessman -- and all but the most black-hearted Fourierists and Luddites would have nothing to kvetch about.
But, we must not confuse so-called "IP rights" and the right of a programmer (or his employer) to distribute his code in unmodifiable binary form. Likewise, entering into a conditional purchase agreement that stipulates that software not be copied and redistributed is also not problematic, as far as I can tell. Breaches of such a contract would be simply a matter for arbitration.
For those of us who seek a simple, immediate step toward righting the injustice of "IP laws" there is a readily-available option: download and install an open source operating system like Linux and BSD. There are lots of distributions to choose from, and many are just as easy to use as Microsoft's offerings. Those who are interested can browse the latest offerings at http://distrowatch.com/.
Published: November 6, 2007 3:02 AM
Any Wikipedians here? I admit to being a rather desultory one, and I created an article on Fourier Complex at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourier_complex.
Such material is what I call "liberal bait" (or statist - you get the idea) and I'm accustomed to my offerings of this type getting shredded (deleted, reversed, and worse) very quickly after I post them. So go there QUICK before they do (they are numerous, vigilant, and energetic) to see what I put there for its brief moment of glory.
Sorry you have to paste the URL into your browser - I don't remember how to embed a link in HTML.
Published: November 6, 2007 7:37 PM
Too many so-called 'internet warriors' (i.e. people with too much time on their hands) circulating that site.
Published: November 6, 2007 9:22 PM
Jim, while I share your concerns, your piece is both overwrought and unencumbered by an understanding of our deep tribal behavior patterns whose manifestations concern you - and which in the west we have battled for centuries in order to form modern, open societies.
Yes, we should contine the battle against jealousy and the use of the state for theft, but let's get a better sense of what underlies the egalitarian urge.
Simply, we evolved in smaller family, clan and tribal units where individual wealth was difficult to accumulate to begin with, and sharing of resources was an important means to ensure the health of the group upon which one relied for one's own long-term survival and defense. Those who have more were expected to share and those who hoarded resources were reviled.
What we see as nepotism and corruption today are still seen in more tribal societies as virtues. The state, of course, enables forced "sharing", which may shade into intertribal theft.
Perhaps some of these recent pieces on how our foolish "democratic" mission in Iraq has foundered on the shoals of tribalism might make a good start in puzzling out what correctly bothers you at home:
''Liberal democracy is based on the Western idea of autonomous individuals committed to a public good, but that's not how members of these tight and bounded kin groups see the world. Their world is divided into two groups: kin and strangers.'' Iraqis frequently describe nepotism not as a civic problem but as a moral duty.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9800E7DA103DF93BA1575AC0A9659C8B63
http://www.isteve.com/cousin_marriage_conundrum.htm
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1226/p09s01-coop.html
http://www.antiwar.com/utley/?articleid=8900
Palestinian-Israeli conflict: http://www.spme.net/cgi-bin/articles.cgi?ID=803
Regards,
TT
Published: November 7, 2007 6:18 AM
Actually, the recent piece on Somalia came to a similar conclusion as to why Western attempts to impose democracy on African countries have failed; namely, that they are still dominated by a tribal culture. I would say that even Western societies have not advanced too far beyond this, yet (one could call pressure groups nothing more than a sophisticated form of association.)
Published: November 7, 2007 9:15 AM
TT: "Simply, we evolved in smaller family, clan and tribal units where individual wealth was difficult to accumulate to begin with, and sharing of resources was an important means to ensure the health of the group..."
That could be true, but it implies that we haven't advanced much in the past 10,000 years. There are probably many reasons for the egalitarian impulse. The strongest and longest-running fallacy about wealth is that it's zero-sum, like a poker game: one person can gain only at the expense of others.
The problem with this fallacy is that it wasn't a fallacy until about 400 years ago. Until the advent of capitalism, the most honored ways to increase one's wealth involved some sort of theft (bribery, extortion, kidnapping, war, gaining a monopoly from the king, etc.), so it was true that one person gained only at the expense of others.
But with the advent of capitalism, most of the age-old ways of gaining wealth were outlawed. The new way was through business in which one could increase one's wealth only by providing something of value to others. Since then, most wealth has been earned through business and the total wealth of society, and the world, has increased dramatically.
Nevertheless, the old mercantilist idea still dominates the thinking of most people, even most economists.
Published: November 7, 2007 12:32 PM
TT,
We are still very tribal. Consider the family member pleading the innocence of a known guilty relative.
It's no different than the changing beliefs of the party loyals in the political arena; beliefs that change to align with the politician in office.
The Republicans still support Schwarzenegger eventhough he is farther to the left than Clinton I. But, he's a Republican, and therefore must be innocent.
Published: November 7, 2007 9:44 PM
Fundamentalist, I agree with much of what you say. In my view, we have inherited tribal impulses that can play havoc with our perception and leave us vulnerable to counterproductive reactions and to manipulation by others. Steven Pinker`s Blank Slate makes the same point as you about our failure to understand modern welath generation through market xchange, and tendency to see the welath of others as something akin to the spoils of theft.
But as I`ve noted before (see Yandle and Ostrom), we are a highly cooperative within our clans, although this should be distinguished from our suspicion of, hostility to and willingness to steal from outsiders.
Within clans, expectations of sharing of wealth was not zero-sum, but was a form of collective wealth-maximizing that made sense, not only as mutual insurance, to benefit relatives but also as individual "wealth" was highly perishable. This cooperation is what made possible the many "private law", community property mechanisms that enhanced the food and other resources of communities - as scholars of native American and other traditional societies know very well. All were expected to contribute to communal projects. This impulse is what underlies our willingness to pay taxes - even as an elelment of theft by rent-seekers/insiders is undeniable.
Regards,
Tom
Published: November 7, 2007 10:32 PM
Jim, I`m happy to see that you also share this perspective.
Our tribal nature is why we find it so easy and satisfying to consider ourselves and our allies as good and out policies as noble, and to view others as evil and mendacious.
The tricksters at the top use this both to deceive us while they loot us and to justify themselves as they do so; those at the bottom use it to justify either direct theft or welfare and taxation policies that sock it to the rich (and others).
Regards,
Tom
Published: November 7, 2007 10:41 PM
Anthony, thanks for your comment on Somalia, which point to one of the chief factors underlying failed development - states in these areas were created too early and have essentially been hijacked by dominant tribes. The concomitant theft, corruption and nepotism strangles the development of market economies and broader loyalties.
These countries need to decentralize if they are ever to grow wealthy, much less democratize.
Published: November 7, 2007 10:47 PM
TT: "Within clans, expectations of sharing of wealth was not zero-sum, but was a form of collective wealth-maximizing that made sense, not only as mutual insurance, to benefit relatives but also as individual "wealth" was highly perishable."
Nevertheless, the sanctity of private property is also very ancient. It's older than the history recorded in the Bible, and the commandment to not covet your neighbor's possessions goes back at least to 1500 BC. And tribal societies in North America also recognized and valued private property. They had clear boundaries about what was to be shared and what wasn't. Tribes in NA had wealthy families and poor families. Wealthy families in plains tribes had larger tipis with more elaborate paintings on them and a lining inside to hide the poles. And they owned large herds of horses. They didn't share their horses or tipis with others. But the buffalo hunt was communal and the meat shared.
My point is that while sharing and communal activity are ancient, so is private property and rules against theft.
Published: November 8, 2007 8:02 AM
I think Fundamentalist raises a good point. There seems to be absolutely no discontinuity between medieval systems and the transition to laissez-faire in most people's minds. In fact it is possible to encounter people who think the middle ages were an example of laissez-faire... I suppose taken together with the tribal nature of some societies it can be very damaging (e.g. notice the hatred of 'price-gouging', which comparatively few people feel with regard to rations, even though 'price-gouging' is merely a sophisticated rationing mechanism.)
Published: November 8, 2007 8:25 AM