On Higgs's Schlarbaum Address
Paul Gottfried writes as follows:
I've just reread Bob Higgs's Schlarbaum Address, which is so BRILLIANT that it would require an entire book to answer the questions therein raised. Bob is absolutely correct that "liberal democratic" government is unmistakably oligarchic, that it continues to put its subjects in harm's way, and that it milks people for money in return for services that it delivers quite badly. But managerial democracy, if polls are to be believed, is also quite popular with most of its subjects. It is also constantly expanding and from what we can judge by the present levels of support for the two parties, the voters are willing to accept more rather than less bureaucratic control over their lives. In a word, there is nothing in the performance of the liberal democratic welfare state that would justify its apparent indispensability in the lives of its subjects. The way the modern state gains this unjustified control is by having its priesthood located in the media, public education, and the two parties create a consensus together with a pseudo-history that allows the power-grab to go on. The democratic regime also systematically weakens all independent alternatives to itself by introducing "social and family policies." Its oligarchic character works like the communist nomenclatura but more successfully. It manipulates and intimidates for the purpose of applying the principle of equality or, in the American case, fighting discrimination. The mistake made by its neocon-liberal critics, which Bob does not commit, is falsely ascribing noble motives to this process.
Comments (11)
The economist and VP of the Nassau Institute (for over 10 years) felt constrained to resign from the Institute for the decision of the Directors to re-print the Higgs Schlarbaum lecture.
We appreciate Paul Gottfried's response to the Higgs' lecture and his distinction of Managerial Democracy - confused with Liberty.
It reaffirms our decision to publish the lecture even though we never doubted its validity.
Published: April 6, 2008 2:59 PM
Another article of how Democracy is Socialism in the political sphere? Then again, of course, who knows? It could be a case of "well duuuuhhh!". If an external power took control of a business and made the business owner subject to decisions given to the workers who in turn voted on the future of how the business is run this would be referred to as 'Socialism', wouldn't it? The only alternative is private property owners engage in self-rule and self-determination. Elsewhere this would referred to as a 'Monarchy'.
Published: April 6, 2008 5:58 PM
Under monarchy the monarch rules over property he does not own as well as his own holdings, so if anyone calls that monarchy they're mistaken. Not that feudalism was as evil as it is made out to be...
Published: April 6, 2008 6:22 PM
The mistake made by its neocon-liberal critics, which Bob does not commit, is falsely ascribing noble motives to this process
I didn't know that processes had motives! Usually we ascribe motives to those who support the process, not the process itself.
Published: April 6, 2008 7:58 PM
But if a self-styled Monarch keeps to their own land then what's the problem? Just because some were imperialist in times past shouldn't bring down every and all Monarchs.
Published: April 6, 2008 8:59 PM
Mangerial democracy is fundamentally popular because of a peculiar flaw in human behavior: the vast majority of people in the world look at themselves as the honest, hard-woking, generous members of society that are keeping everything together and it's the other people who screw everything up because they don't live by the same principals and morals. Therefore regulation is needed to make other people behave like "me", which of course would make for a fantastic world.
These people think that they either aren't giving any liberty up (they only punish those who are doing wrong, not me) or are willing to give up some liberty because they believe forcing all the other people to behave at "my" level is a good thing and worth the inconvenience.
The reality is that most of the people who are causing the problems could very well be "me", and the problems I see that could be corrected are usually not caused by the usual scapegoats - selfishness, dishonesty and laziness - but by systemic factors whose causes are obscured, but usually are the result of the myriad of interferences by the government in the first. In a lot of ways it is an accidentally self-reinforcing process that leads to more and more government interference.
Human nature is difficult to fight, which is why liberty is always in danger.
Published: April 7, 2008 6:45 AM
If a Monarch only ruled over their own territories, and did not presume to control lands that were not their own, they'd be a Monarch in name alone,. Monarchy is a form of state. Stripped of its statist elements, it ceases to be a monarchy.
Published: April 7, 2008 7:25 AM
Which would be . . .? Apart from self-aggrandizement and meaningless pomp and ceremony a Monarch being stripped down is simply a private property owner.
Published: April 7, 2008 7:52 AM
Incorrect. A Monarch makes a claim over property that he himself has not homesteaded and does not own that falls under his territory. In that regard a Monarch is just like any other state ruler. They could always, of course, prop up an artificial monarchy based on contractual arrangements, whereby the original owner retained some elements of ownership over the property that was sold (and which this individual had justly appropriated and not merely conquered or claimed) replicating a monarchy, but this is so out of place with historical monarchy that it is ridiculous to then equate the two.
Published: April 7, 2008 8:09 AM
TWLP Sam:
You forgot to mention that the workers in this business have a very difficult time terminating their employment, and that their children are automatically assumed to be employees, beginning training for the job at a young age. Oh, and the pay structure is a bit different. Everyone pays money to the business, who then distributes it back out rather unevenly and not based on productivity. Oddly enough, in that horrible "monarchy" you describe, employees can leave at any time and people are paid according to their contribution to the business.
The use of aggressive force may seem like a minor detail to you, but some of use believe it's kind of a big deal.
Published: April 7, 2008 9:29 AM
Government is about forcing people to do things. It doesn't matter how the decisions are madeo--a monarch acting alone, or a democracy acting as a group--it is the application of force that is the inherent evil of government.
As long as the populace accepts that coercion is legitimate, it will not matter what kind of government they have. When and if the day comes that the people reject coercion, they will be free under any "form" of government that is held in abeyance.
Published: April 8, 2008 3:02 PM