Does Money Taint Everything?
Let's pull this sentence out of the civic pieties of our time and see what's wrong with it: "We should all volunteer our time in charitable causes and give back to the community in a labor of love."
We can't argue with the instruction here, or the sentiment behind it. There is nothing wrong with giving and sacrifice. My argument is with the choice of language. It contains a word and three phrases the common usage of which can be highly misleading. FULL ARTICLE
Comments (163)
It's not a perfect world. I must agree that a migrant agricultural worker is choosing to pick fruit, but it isn't much of a choice if he is choosing between picking fruit and starvation. I think in many cases regarding the poor (if not others as well), they are not 'volunteers', but forced by coercive situations or impediments. Likewise, the person buying milk may feel the milk is outrageously over-priced, but her child needs it. There is not always and necessarily a 'variety of options' to choose from when the cost of any option is ruinous.
You touch slightly on ethics in one spot in your article (before dismissing them), when you state that "if the store clerk is sick and needs help, or the customer is poor and needs shelter, that's another matter." Why is this? It doesn't seem to jibe with the rest of the article. The last sentence of this paragraph seems telling, when you state that what might transpire due to those conditions has nothing to do with the economic transaction. I think this is a false premise. Purchasing your milk in a convenience store would be directly tied to being homeless, for instance. Likewise the clerk's health can be tied to his wage.
The next paragraph alsom makes a false assumption, in saying that a rich man has taken nothing from the community. The community not only provided him his opportunities, but nurtured him from conception in every way. I think you are taking much too narrow a view of things in implying that an economic transaction is nothing more than the exchange, or has no wider repercusions. In truth, the rich man could have harmed the community greatly by taking it's wealth to himself. Having begun from nothing, whatever increase he hoards is a detriment, is it not?
To go further, his gains must equal someone else's loss. I think this is obvious, though disputable, and can allow for both zero-sum and increasing economies. Perhaps there can be cases where only this man could profit and not another, but I feel that would be a special case. Even so, some future other man might have been able to step in those shoes. I am saying, however stupidly, that to say any mutually beneficial trade has no bearing on loss to the greater whole in any way is untrue.
In short, I think that you bring a great many of your own assumptions to your essay here that I disagree with. That was the subject of your essay, isn't it?
...I should put a smiley face here, probably
Published: May 8, 2008 9:38 AM
Jeffrey,
The choice of an investment banker making money off of a commercial real estate transaction is a piss poor choice of someone making a trade that benefits two parties while harming no one else. Without an inflationary monetary policy (which must be allowed by making fractional reserve banking legal), most real estate would be a piss poor investment (it would tend to stay at about the same price, maybe 0.4% per year real increases along the lines of Robert Shiller's residential housing price index)... and it is quite possible that the financing for the transaction came from a loan based on fractional reserve banking...
So a trade that derives most if not all of its value from a fiat monetary system controlled by the Federal Reserve.
DPirate -
What wealth has been taken from society? You're making two assumptions here:
1 - Nothing or not much is gained from the trades that take place between the businessman and his customers (the basis of economics is that a trade makes both parties better off, otherwise they wouldn't make it)
2 - The accumulation of wealth is a bad thing. This is very typical Keynesian thought - that holding on to wealth is a crime and that it should be spent or given back into the economy.
What you are ignoring here is that saving (wealth accumulation) has two main effects:
- Frees up resources & labor to lengthen and deepen the productive processes and capital structure.
- Lower consumer prices from a fall in effective demand, increasing the real incomes of everyone else slightly & moreso in the long run.
Published: May 8, 2008 9:53 AM
Sigh...
Published: May 8, 2008 10:00 AM
My initial response is poppycock-gibberish. The author sets up the assumptions and definitions then makes an unrealistic pedantic argument. This is intellectual masturbation. What is the issue anyway?
Published: May 8, 2008 10:04 AM
The author is demonstrating how the common evocation of these terms is duplicitous and hypocritical, that is what. Far from being intellectual "masturbation" it is an attack on the actual onanism that takes place when people speak of these terms, which is the actual "gibberish". His point is that these terms break down once one analyzes barter (that is, direct exchange) in the same way as they do monetary (that is, indirect) exchange. All this is nothing new to people who've familiarized themselves with the basic concepts behind it.
Published: May 8, 2008 10:11 AM
I will respond in depth later. Why do I get this all to familiar feeling that what we have here is a justification for greed. I recommend reading--the novel for the broader context.
"Testament" by John Grisham
Published: May 8, 2008 10:22 AM
In Australia, the Govt is attempting to railroad through the sale of the New South Wales Electricity system. Here is the draft of a letter I am sending to newspapers here about it
Cheers,
Clement Clarke
clementclarke@ozemail.com.au
_______________________
Privatisation and Money
Most of us have been encouraged to believe that the money we put in our banks is loaned out to others at interest. However logical and comforting it might seem, it just isn't like that.
As we all know, there are billions and billions of dollars of loans. And trillions going around the world each day. Question. Where did the banks get all that money to lend? And there most certainly is not sufficient Gold or Silver in bank vaults to back these loans up.
Well, the short answer is that banks create it. When you ask for a loan, all they do is transfer some numbers to your account, and put some other numbers in their account. As simple as that. You owe them, and your account has been filled with numbers called money. And then they start to charge you interest for the money they created "out of thin air". It costs them nothing.
Now, for those of you who can't believe it, Google "Fiat Money", or "Money as Debt". Documents and movies on the Internet show how it is done.
Because they can create virtually unlimited money (depending on the laws of the country) housing prices, food prices, petrol prices and other prices all rise and we are left work harder and harder to pay for all the interest on the loans!
In days gone bye, the Commonwealth used to create all the money we needed for Road, Telephones etc to be built, in a similar way, at extremely low interest. We then paid the Commonwealth back, and the infrastructure was ours.
The IMF is demanding that all countries sell their assets through its Structural Adjustment Program. But privatising our assets and funding through bank created money is the same as giving them away! Because the private banks create the money and buy the infrastructure.- effectively paying nothing for it.
And the Government gets "money" that it could create itself if it still had a National Bank!
It is a con, a fraud, and must not be allowed to happen again.
And the Government must start creating money once again, as it used to, to provide the life-blood for our society. With a new National Bank.
Write to your Politician and demand that he or she alters the laws to work for us, not some banking system that was created by humans (not God, not Nature) to keep us separated from each other and servile.
Clement Clarke
clementclarke@ozemail.com.au
Published: May 8, 2008 10:23 AM
"I will respond in depth later. Why do I get this all to familiar feeling that what we have here is a justification for greed. "
Because you're reading into the article what you want to see in it, that is why.
Published: May 8, 2008 10:27 AM
Quote from DPirate: "I think in many cases regarding the poor (if not others as well), they are not 'volunteers', but forced by coercive situations or impediments. Likewise, the person buying milk may feel the milk is outrageously over-priced, but her child needs it."
Then you should maybe give them what they need, but if I don't agree with you, then leave me out of it.
Quote from DPirate: "To go further, his gains must equal someone else's loss. I think this is obvious, though disputable, and can allow for both zero-sum and increasing economies."
No, completely wrong. See the published works on the web site.
Quote from ConradT: "Why do I get this all to familiar feeling that what we have here is a justification for greed."
Define greed?
Published: May 8, 2008 10:45 AM
Since when is greed something that needs to be stomped out by government? What do I care if someone is greedy? His greed is no justification for me or anyone else taking some of his property.
What's next? Laws against pride, sloth and gluttony enforced at the muzzle of a gun?
(Actually, I'm afraid the answer from some of these socialist control freaks might be 'yes.')
Published: May 8, 2008 10:46 AM
Wow, this article has really brought the socialists out of the woodwork! This should be a fun thread to watch.
I second Inquisitor's "Sigh..."
Published: May 8, 2008 10:58 AM
#######
#######
May 8, 2008
Find, below, the first three paragraphs from
my essay, "Your Property is Your Life":
"What's so good about an economy that's
destroying your property rights? Citizenship
is to nationhood what deed of ownership is
to private property. Your private property
is your life! Marxism and corporate greed
destroy your property rights—your life.
"What's so good about an economy
premised on destroying America's founding
race and culture through importation
of anti-white/anti-Western races and
cultures—premised on shedding borders
and the requisite national sovereignty
guarding private property and your right to
self-government?
"What's so good about that? Corporate
profits? Hot economy?"
You may have noticed that the idea
"volunteerism" has shifted from a self-
motivated giving of one's time and/or
personal property to this Orwellian idea
of - and I kid you not, as this term was
used in a newspaper column about
increasing volunteerism among high
school students - "compulsory volunteerism,"
which new approach would demand of
teen-agers a certain amount of time each
month at "volunteering"--as a credit in
their public education.
Your personal time and property ARE YOUR
LIFE, and to be forced to expend either one
for the benefit of someone else is LIFE-
THREATENING!
Truly, this is an ORWELLIAN AGE!,
effected by the Marxian Left.
#######
#######
Published: May 8, 2008 11:06 AM
clement clarke says:
"In days gone bye, the Commonwealth used to create all the money we needed for Road, Telephones etc to be built, in a similar way, at extremely low interest.
sorry to burst your bubble, but the rba is doing a mighty fine job of money creation. you might want to look at the narrow and broad money aggregates - doubled over the last 10 years. .
as for telephony, i can remember thirty years ago, when the erstwhile government monopoly carrier (telecom) used to laugh when you rang in and reported a fault. months would pass....
perhaps the low interest rates you're referring to are those prior to the seventies, when nixon severed the us dollar's last link to gold, and sent rates soaring till 1981. in australia, mortgage rates were kept low in the good ol' days by rationing credit. had to really grovel in front of the bank manager.
the power companies are a lovely environment for union feather-bedding, and revel in sticking it to the rest of the populace. i hope iemma doesn't get shafted by your types.
about the only thing i'll agree with is your sense of outrage at the banks' fractional reserve rort, and the devastating effects of rising prices on the least well-off. but the reserve bank (and ultimately the government, even though the rba has its own "independent" charter) is where you should be directing your spleen.
Published: May 8, 2008 11:16 AM
Its not the money that taints-its the person whose a little too greedy. To Magnus-greed would be important to you if you had had shares of stock in a corporation like "Enron"-wouldn't it? I'm not a socialist, I'm a realist. The exchange market is not incompatible with social justice-its the miscreants we protect. Pedantic articles bury the real life relevant issues. Human behavior-how about that Ron?
Published: May 8, 2008 11:17 AM
Oh, hum - another unjustified non sequitur, to which I in like assertoric fashion oppose "an exchange society is the only one consistent with social justice". No, it is pedantry of the sort that tries to obfuscate the similarity between "love of labour" and working for cash that is doing the real burial work. Of course you won't admit you're a socialist. Few do these days. Perhaps we should have laws against being a control freak.
Published: May 8, 2008 12:08 PM
DPirate: "To go further, his gains must equal someone else's loss."
That is the premise on which all socialism, mercantilism, state intervention and all other kinds of failed economics are built on. And it's simply not true. It may have been true in the days before the advent of capitalism when the nobility gained their wealth through warfare and theft. But it's certainly not true today. A simple proof is to look at the total wealth in the world a century ago compared to today.
New wealth has been created every day for the past 400 years, except in socialist countries and in countries with high levels of corruption. The process of wealth creation is very simple: save and employ those savings in producing more goods. New technology speeds up the process.
In a relatively free economy with the rule of law, it's nearly impossible for someone to get wealthy without using the process of wealth creation. Theft and fraud benefit very few people for a very short time. About 85% of the wealthiest people in the US got rich by growing a business. About 10% got that way through their job. Only about 3% inherited their wealth.
Published: May 8, 2008 12:14 PM
Hmm seems I misread - again though, where in the above article has there been an attempt to define away terms so as to justify greed? What greed? Whose? The author is doing something entirely different; namely, showing that two allegedly different activities are exactly the same minus the one involves money whereas the other doesn't. It seems that you grasp that exchange is not inherently immoral If you think the author is an apologist for the status quo, I recommend you research this site better...
Published: May 8, 2008 12:19 PM
To Magnus-greed would be important to you if you had had shares of stock in a corporation like "Enron"-wouldn't it?
No, it wouldn't. I don't give a fig about any executive's greed and more than I care about his lust. I want every every manager of every business I own (via stock) to be as interested in making a PROFIT IN A FREE MARKET as much as humanly possible.
The problem with Enron (which caused its ultimate demise) was not greed but its practice of stepping outside of a free market and turning to government favors. Enron actively sought (and obtained) various forms of governmental intervention in the electricity and natural gas markets, and eventually managed to get the government to partially re-regulate it.
Published: May 8, 2008 12:21 PM
Seems to me that a few people (well most of you actually) are miunderstanding the definition of the term community which was mentioned in the article.
The 'community' that the author uses to support their argument can only possibly include those with money to spend because those could only possibly be the ones that benefit from 'beneficial exchange'.
We go back yet again to the major flaw in pure free-markets - they cannot guarantee the lives of those members of the community that cannot for whatever reason, and whatever length of time, fend for themselves (Because of health, misfortune or any other reason).
It is simply the 'volunteerism and giving' that the writer of the article gives passing lip service that helps these people.
Therefore the call by some to 'volunteer and give back' is a call to help fix the problems that the free-market causes. For the most part in western countries the government does most of this job on behalf of the citizens because most people see it as something they believe in. If there was not to be any redistribution of wealth in this fashion then people would very much need to "volujnteer and give back' to those in the community that need it most.
Published: May 8, 2008 12:53 PM
Well, I'm a bit taken aback at the fury here. I guess it struck a nerve, which I didn't expect. I've been hearing these terms for years and been bugged by them, suspecting an agenda behind their conventional usage. I guess I was right in that sense.
Published: May 8, 2008 12:59 PM
Every word or phrase has an agenda (something to be done) behind it, except we usually call that the 'meaning'.
Published: May 8, 2008 1:21 PM
We go back yet again to the major flaw in pure free-markets - they cannot guarantee the lives of those members of the community that cannot for whatever reason, and whatever length of time, fend for themselves (Because of health, misfortune or any other reason).
Since when is that the sole criterion for deciding the issue of whether you will respect my property?
Besides, paying the destitute is about 0.5% of what the modern state actually does.
Let's get rid of these following forms of governmental interference in our economic lives first, and then we'll see if using the state to take other people's property and giving some of it to the poorest of the poor is still necessary:
The cash outlays to pay for these things is only the tip of the iceberg. You can't even calculate the true cost of them.
Published: May 8, 2008 1:26 PM
Whoops. Wacky formatting. But you get the idea.
Published: May 8, 2008 1:32 PM
You are correct that it is about 0.5% of what governments these days actually do. I fully agree with you and (especially the USA) spends far too much on stuff that is not required.
As for it being a reason to "not respect your property" well property is a right just as basic necessities are regarded as a right in many countries. It just so happens that yes, most western countries regard everyone's right to basic necessities as ranking before your right to property. Another way of saying it is that your right to property is contingent on everyone having the basic necessities.
Published: May 8, 2008 1:35 PM
It just so happens that yes, most western countries regard everyone's right to basic necessities as ranking before your right to property.
Countries don't regard anything. People do.
Typically, these are self-interested people, since many of them are the beneficiaries of some part of the $99.50 out of the $100 they systematically take from more productive people -- and THEIR theft can't be justified by resort to your "necessities" theory.
And even if they weren't so obviously compromised by having benefited from the crime, they are wrong. Any claim that someone is entitled to have, by whatever means, some quantum of stuff belonging to others also necessarily means that one asserts the right to enslave others for one's own benefit. The theft by someone in dire need may be excusable, in light of the duress, but it can never be justified.
Published: May 8, 2008 1:57 PM
Hmm...I wouldn't regard basic necessities as a "right". Nor would any libertarian, for that matter. Everyone does have a right to provide basic necessities for him or herself, but that is something entirely different from what you suggest.
By saying that one's "right to property is contingent on everyone having the basic necessities" you are saying that everyone has an obligation to provide the basic necessities to everyone else. As soon as everyone is provided for, you can have whatever fruits of your labor are left over, eh? But, if you have too much left over you obviously haven't provided for everyone you could, so you'll have to give up that excess as well.
So, you're advocating altruism as a philosophy and communism as a system of government, neither of which are sustainable, and both of which are anathema to human nature and destructive of human life. How very compassionate.
Published: May 8, 2008 1:59 PM
In order to have that right, you must let others violate it, so that you have it, so they can violate it, so... It all works out in the end.
Published: May 8, 2008 2:03 PM
#######
#######
Bottom line:
Got gold and food?
#######
#######
Published: May 8, 2008 2:04 PM
Ron:
Why don't you keep on extrapolating and somehow deduce that I killed JFK despite not having been though about then? (yawn) Are you by any chance some kind of storyteller or cartoonist?
Back to the real world though. Yes you are right libertarians don't believe that basic necessities are a 'right'. This is merely a difference of opinion with the majority of society which in fact does believe necessities are a right and further that they rank above property. So until the balance of numbers in that equation changes things will stay similar to what they are now.
Good luck!
Published: May 8, 2008 2:07 PM
As Ron points out, basic necessities are not rights. No one has a right to have basic necessities provided by someone else.
What is interesting is how a few of the commenters miss the conflict between the call to volunteerism and state redistribution. The latter is not voluntary in any manner.
Published: May 8, 2008 2:13 PM
Magnus magnus magnus...
Have you yet to learn that right and wrong are relative terms? They can only be enforced by one with power to enforce them. Guess who that is? The government (representing the most powerful group of people in an area).
What you consider to be "never justified" is considered 'completely justified' by those who support the government. Until you can outnumber or outpower the government you cannot impose your view of what is justice on anyone else.
There is no such thing a natural law because laws between humans can only exist when they are capable of being physically enforced by a dominant power. Without enforcement, laws are simply hollow words...
simple really...
Published: May 8, 2008 2:14 PM
Yancey Wardq:
What is a right? It is a human creation defining what one is entitled to. Can you see where i am going with this? It comes out of the heads of humans and is subject to opinions and beliefs.
[b]"No one has a right to have basic necessities provided by someone else." [b]
...thats right! just your opinion.
(psst...other people have different opinions - surprised?)
Published: May 8, 2008 2:18 PM
Owen,
The difference is that you have to violate my rights as I see them to enforce your conception of rights- the converse is not true.
Published: May 8, 2008 2:23 PM
Which means all this whining about people not being fed etc. is empty talk, and therefore it makes no difference whether a system maximizes death or life, because after all we construct what is right. Social justice, too, is fiction. All these concepts fall together. In fact, I say that given the above, there is absolutely no reason not to enforce a government a la Brave New World. Might makes right, and all that relativist crap.
Published: May 8, 2008 2:23 PM
Inquisitor:
Finally talking some sense...must be that coffee!
Published: May 8, 2008 2:29 PM
Yancy:
Actually you will find that the converse is true.
Tee hee.
Published: May 8, 2008 2:31 PM
Owen you wrote "We go back yet again to the major flaw in pure free-markets - they cannot guarantee the lives of those members of the community that cannot for whatever reason, and whatever length of time, fend for themselves (Because of health, misfortune or any other reason)."
I have three members of the community in my household that fit your description of the ones that need to be cared for by the community. Please send me a monthly check for their sustenance. I will leave to you the amount of it.
Thank you from my kids, my wife and me.
Published: May 8, 2008 2:32 PM
Owen: "Why don't you keep on extrapolating and somehow deduce that I killed JFK despite not having been though about then? (yawn) Are you by any chance some kind of storyteller or cartoonist?"
Wow...you've stumped me. I have no idea what you're talking about.
Wait, do you mean that you believe it was a stretch to say that you advocate communism (or at the very least socialism, or "communism light") as a system of government? C'mon, dude...at the very foundation of communism is the precept that rights (if they exist at all) are secondary to necessities. "From each according to his ability. To each according to his need" right?
Published: May 8, 2008 2:34 PM
Well, from that "sense" it also follows that Final Solutions and the like are perfectly fine. There is no presumption against them. If it is the will of The People, so be it. Let those pesky Jews speak of such opinions as their "rights".
Published: May 8, 2008 2:34 PM
Inquisitor is finally waking up the reality of the world. Maybe it will better inform her skewed thinking from now on.
But then we can all dream...
Published: May 8, 2008 2:39 PM
Owen,
No, the converse is not true. I need apply no coercion to enforce my rights over you. However, I don't expect you will understand this since people of your mindset are seemingly impervious to the concept of property rights.
If you are ever burglarized, just take heart in the idea that the burglar had every right to your property.
Published: May 8, 2008 2:41 PM
Ron:
And I had no idea what you were talking about...
Wow you found something similar! And austrian economics is a system of economic thought, and so is neoclassical economics.
So you are a neo-classical economist!
logic (shrugs)
Published: May 8, 2008 2:41 PM
No, I'm just demonstrating the conclusions of your sophomoric pseudo-philosophical views. For you, it is perfectly admissible for a majority to kill millions, because it's its opinion that it's right. Which makes all your whining about free markets not providing guarantees on food and so on so far nothing but disingenuous ranting.
Published: May 8, 2008 2:41 PM
"Maybe it will better inform her skewed thinking "
Amnesiac or troll, your pick.
Published: May 8, 2008 2:43 PM
There is no such thing a natural law because laws between humans can only exist when they are capable of being physically enforced by a dominant power. Without enforcement, laws are simply hollow words...
I see.
Thomas Aquinas, Sir Blackstone, Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, Aristotle ... were all just flat-out wrong.
But "Owen" has figured it all out.
Look, your "philosophy," such as it is, is not new. It is puerile. It is "might makes right." It is "the ends justify the means."
You are denying the existence of a natural right to property while also promoting a natural right to have basic necessities. It is absurd, actually. A self-contradiction.
If the only thing creating my right to property is my ability to physically lock it down and fight off those who would take it, then neither you nor the "poor" who want it to pay for their "basic necessities" have a "right" to take it. I am stronger than you. I am certainly stronger than the nearly-starved and destitute. Neither you nor they have any claim at all. You can't CONVINCE me to give up my property, and you can't physically take it from me, either.
The realm of law, justice, morality, ethics and other abstractions are, in a sense, entirely separate from the realm of force and violence. Violence can't be reasoned with. It knows no limits and recognizes no abstractions. Might can never "make right." Might simply is, and it can't be argued with.
If you think that the existence of a right depends entirely on its enforcement, then you have got things very mixed up.
If you want to dispel, deny and disregard all conceptions of legitimacy, justice and morality, then fine. But don't deny them while also appealing to them. It makes you look stupid.
Published: May 8, 2008 2:45 PM
magnus:
many people have asserted what laws man might live under. Unfortuately many more have disagreed.
I am not promoting a natural right to anything because there is none. Rights are conceived and enforced by one person against another.
I think you will see that in most countries if you decide not ti 'give it up' then you will have action enforced upon you. Do you not pay any taxes? How do you do that? Do you just tell the IRS "No"? What was their response? "Ok"?
He he
I never said the existence of a right is dependent on it's enforcement (you need glasses). It is LAWS that are dependent on enforcement.
Rights can be conceived by everyone. This does not mean that any one persons conception of a right is better than another's - because this is a matter of opinion.
The rights that get enforced are simply those that are favoured by the most powerful group in society (i.e. the government).
Welcome to the real world.
Published: May 8, 2008 2:59 PM
I never said the existence of a right is dependent on it's enforcement (you need glasses). It is LAWS that are dependent on enforcement.
Rights are a form of law. (You need a basic education.)
Rights can be conceived by everyone. This does not mean that any one persons conception of a right is better than another's - because this is a matter of opinion.
The entire body of jurisprudence, morality and ethics ever written or espoused by anyone in the history of planet earth is an attempt by those writers to show how their "opinion" is correct.
But we can erase all of these writings from the face of the earth because Owen says it's a waste of time. Please. Get over yourself.
But you yourself engaged in the promotion of natural law, in your own tiny, infantile way, when you characterized as a "flaw" the supposed failure of free markets to "guarantee the lives of those members of the community that cannot for whatever reason, and whatever length of time, fend for themselves."
You came up with that normative assertion somehow. You relied on some moral precept to think it up. You have some concept of justice and legitimacy. You therefore have some (unspoken) basis to believe that your assertion (the "right to basic necessities") is morally superior and more legitimate than others.
But still, you persist in claiming that rights are all relative and none can be morally superior or more legitimate than others.
Your assertion leads to a self-contradiction and is therefore disproved.
QED
The rights that get enforced are simply those that are favoured by the most powerful group in society (i.e. the government).
That is the essence of "might makes right."
Published: May 8, 2008 3:20 PM
ConradT,
"Its not the money that taints-its the person whose a little too greedy."
What is "greed" anyway? Dictionary definitions point us to "excessive desire" for something, usually wealth. But is this really something to condemn? Leave a man in the desert for a few days and he will develop an "excessive desire" for water, but would we call that greed? Similarly, someone living in poverty might be desperate to earn a few more dollars a week. She might work two jobs, endangering her health and neglecting her family. Is that greed?
I think that there is more at work here when people use that word, a specific line of reasoning that brings people to label a person or institution as "greedy". Usually, this line of reasoning is actually the manifestation of another of the seven deadly sin, called envy. People are labeled "greedy" because they possess what most people do not: fantastic wealth. And yet, who wouldn't want to be rich? Why is it okay to want wealth and be unable to attain it, yet wrong to want wealth and actually have that want satisfied?
"greed would be important to you if you had had shares of stock in a corporation like "Enron"-wouldn't it?"
Ah, but now we are talking about something different, aren't we? Something called "fraud". Now, it's easy for many people to make the jump from thinking "greed" to "fraud". In fact, some lefties seem to think that the two are synonymous. However, there is a difference between desiring wealth and the acts of lying and stealing. The problem lies not with a person's desire for wealth, but with their willingness to act dishonestly and unethically.
When you confuse "greed" with a lack of ethics, you make all wealthy people guilty by implication, something that the vast majority of them certainly don't deserve. Unfortunately, as I mentioned, many leftists don't see the difference. In fact, they see wealth itself as evidence of a crime against them. This position is so insanely self-contradictory that it shocks the hell out of me that I can't get some people to see it.
The only true crimes that exist involve coercion. If I steal your money, or lie to you or threaten you to get you to hand it over, I have just committed a crime. Just don't call me greedy. You probably wanted to keep your money about as much as I wanted to take it from you.
Published: May 8, 2008 3:22 PM
"Well, I'm a bit taken aback at the fury here. I guess it struck a nerve, which I didn't expect. I've been hearing these terms for years and been bugged by them"--Jeffrey
I second that. Reading your article I thought "aha, maybe this will make the collectivists finally see the light." But in the back of my mind, I somehow knew they still wouldn't get it.
Thank you especially for your dissection and skewering of the nonsensical "giving back to the community." It's bugged me for years too.
Published: May 8, 2008 4:12 PM
josh m :
Kicked any cripples today?
Published: May 8, 2008 4:40 PM
The article does not go far enough. It is only when we get paid for community work that we can sure that the community really does value what we do. And the more it pays, the more evidence of value.
Most people do plenty of unpaid work. All our leisure time is unpaid. Some people prefer to spend that time helping others, and some do not. It is not a question of which is better, but of what you enjoy more.
Published: May 8, 2008 4:46 PM
fusgerm :
Question: What if the community didn't value provision of neccesity services to a particular unfortunate member (i.e. an african child) who couldn't provide them for himself?
Answer: You let them die. And you are doing a great job in that - roughly 30,000 per day at last count. Congratulations!
Published: May 8, 2008 4:53 PM
"Kicked any cripples today?"--Owen
Nice. Well, to answer your question, it doesn't look I'll be needing to today since everyone else has been disposing of your posts just fine.
Published: May 8, 2008 5:04 PM
Owen - Starvation is an insoluble problem only in countries which do not have free markets. Sadly, the best will in the world will not feed people under the yoke of a government which uses death as a political weapon.
Published: May 8, 2008 5:14 PM
josh m
"Nice. Well, to answer your question, it doesn't look I'll be needing to today..."
Just as I thought, another one who doesn't give a damn about anyone except himself. (eyes roll)
Published: May 8, 2008 5:15 PM
Oh where to start, where to start!
Sadly Yancey Ward when a property right is enforced which leads to some member of society having a lack of basic necessities then this does voilate their right (as they conceive it) to...you guessed it BASIC NECESSITIES. So the converse is true.
Do you wanna buy a vowel?
Next, Eduardo:
No problem. If you live in my country you will be getting it vie my appointed agant the government. If not then apply to your own one.
Inquisitor:
Once again cannot grasp basic concepts. Get some more coffee ok mam? Killing millions is against my concept of rights but might be ok according to others. Ever heard of Hitler? Well my government which I support has a different conception or human rights which are in accordance with the UN and I am quite happy with. Wow you are stupid for someone with big words.
magnus magnus magnus...
Such basic mistakes you make, elementay you are. Please show where I said that rights were not a "form of law" as you called them. Rightsd are enforced through explicit laws. Rights or laws are conceived in the heads of men and are enforced with guns. What planet do you live on, Nebulus?
The free-market does not even try to feed those that cannot afford to feed themselves. What do I need to assert, Austrian economics does this itself. Donations have thus far failed to feed everyone in Africa which seems like a a failure to me.
That'll do for now.
Published: May 8, 2008 5:30 PM
Fusgerm:
Lets copy your logic:
(P1)Starvation is an insoluble problem only in countries which do not have free markets.
Crime/earthquakes/bad weather/car accidents...are insoluble problems only in countries which do not have free markets.
Because there are no free-markets.
So we shall never know. So you have said....absolutely NOTHING.
(P2) "...the best will in the world will not feed people under the yoke of a government which uses death as a political weapon."
Um, England, Germany, France and Australia PROVE YOU WRONG. They feed everyone and have redistribution systems!!
Anything else?
Published: May 8, 2008 5:36 PM
"Once again cannot grasp basic concepts. Get some more coffee ok mam? Killing millions is against my concept of rights but might be ok according to others. Ever heard of Hitler? Well my government which I support has a different conception or human rights which are in accordance with the UN and I am quite happy with. Wow you are stupid for someone with big words."
Spare me the puerile jabs at my intelligence. You're in no place to make them. Your conception of rights is nothing more than opinion, and by this it follows that Hitler's actions are no more wrong than someone giving to charity. This stems inevitably from your premises. You may think otherwise, but so what? You have no real argument against Hitler and his gang.
Published: May 8, 2008 6:18 PM
Inquisitor?
And your conception of rights is not more than an opinion? Oh I'm sorry, that's right - you found the Ark of the Covenant and the rights you adhere to were written on there, you and Indy got out just in time did ya?
Someone thinks her *@^& smells better than everybody elses on earth?
Published: May 8, 2008 6:45 PM
So, is Hitler as moral as the nun giving to charity then? Because that is what your view implies, silly evasions trading on non sequiturs notwithstanding. As for your subjectivist claptrap, the funny thing is that to formulate it properly, you must state "Necessarily, all talk of morals is a matter of opinion." Where did you derive this necessary truth from, exactly?
Published: May 8, 2008 6:53 PM
Owen = troll.
This conversation is over.
Published: May 8, 2008 6:54 PM
@ Owen who said "The free-market does not even try to feed those that cannot afford to feed themselves."
Who or what exactly is "the free market" in this sentence. You seem to perceive "the free market" as some sort of unitary actor, or some kind of totalitarian system wherein (you claim) nothing is tried "to feed those that cannot afford to feed themselves".
It is exactly this kind of reasoning with collectivist concepts that makes your slang gibberish for the regulars here at this site.
There is no such thing as THE free market, there is a thing called natural law, and there are 'things' called individual human beings, there is a thing called human action, and there is a thing called subjective human ends. There are such things as institutes that - in the true meaning of the word - are the result of human action but not deliberately designed by an unitary/collectivist actor.
The state is based on coercion and breaking the law of individual property, which is the most basic law because it justifies me writing this comment, and you writing others wherein you differ of opinion with the most of the regulars.
All things properly called prpoerty derives from the fundamental claim that I, you, everyone owns his or her own body. If you beg to differ, please do, but you can't because it would contradict your claim and let mine pass. In other words, you cannot reject the claim that you own your own body, because by rejecting it you confirm it. Long story short: the state cannot be justified.
And in either way, it's doing a bad job in businesses as charity, wealth creation and wealth distribution because those are actually the institutions that were created by the free market, i.e. the sum of individual human action obeying to the fundamental ethics of natural law.
PS: it seems to be a constructive feature in a discussion when both parties actually expound their positive theories of how the world works and how phenomena should be identified and explained. You never seem to communicate that positive theory, you are only "critical" and ïnvestigative" without a theory for yourself to defend.
It is that you seem to bring up the best answers to cliché misconceptions of myths by the rest of the commentors or else I would suspect you're just being a troll.
Published: May 8, 2008 6:58 PM
Agreed. Up to Jeffrey whether to ban him at this stage.
Published: May 8, 2008 6:59 PM
@ Owen who said "Um, England, Germany, France and Australia PROVE YOU WRONG. They feed everyone and have redistribution systems!!"
I live in the Netherlands, not the most libertarian country in the Western world (maybe it was in the 17th century which is still called the Golden Age in history lessons which do not really explicitly say what kind of government and social system were in place back then, for obvious reasons), which has food banks, or how to you call them.
You know, those places where people who cannot feed themselves can get free food. The food banks rose from private and unsibsidized initiatives because the residstribution system does not work. (And here I only mean that is does not work in a practical management kind of sense, it surely does not work theoretically, just as communism doesn't work.)
The funny thing is that those food banks even make money, profit, because they combine the service channeling away leftover/unuseful foods from food companies (which these companies will pay for, just as they normally pay the companies that will dispose of their waste) with the service of people wanting food because they cannot provide for it themselves.
Mostly, these beneficiaries are in so-called debt cleansing programmes because the government has built up a 'social' system wherein there is little incentive for lowly educated people who are not that high on the societal ladder to work, produce and develop themselves and their offspring. At the same time banks provide cheap loans with the printed money.
My point in recap, these countries/governments with their redistribution systems you mention DO NOT feed all their citizens. And these systems simply do not work the way you implicitly suggest. But they indeed 'work', for the rent-seeking politicians and other crackpot ideologues, that is.
Published: May 8, 2008 7:11 PM
Magnus:
And another weak argument bites the dust. Who's next. This is easy!
Arend:
Sorry but you are wrong. There are only two reasons why the redistribution system in the Netherlands fails some:
(1) it is not implemented properly
(2) it puts conditions on those receiving welfare such that some are unable to meet them
If the answer is (1) then this same accusation can be levelled at the organs of state under free-markets which still require a legal system with enforcement to operate efficiently.
If the answer is (2) then this is not what true redistribution is because true redistribution does not have conditions placed upon those receiving it.
So you are wrong. All the rest of your libertarian mumbojumbo I have heard before. Stay on topic or you will also be a troll.
Inquisitor (Troll):
Morals and rights are in the heads of each person. I am sure Mother Mary has her conceptions of Rights and I have mine. Hitler has a completely different set of rights which I disagree with and many people went to war with him to eliminate his idea of rights. Are you a baby that you cannot grasp such a simple concept?
Where do you get your truth from Troll? The Ark of the covenant?
Published: May 8, 2008 7:41 PM
Do not feed the troll. He'll get bored and will go away.
Published: May 8, 2008 9:41 PM
DPirate,
It's not a perfect world. I must agree that a migrant agricultural worker is choosing to pick fruit, but it isn't much of a choice if he is choosing between picking fruit and starvation.
I do not think a migrant worker has only those two choices. Migration takes effort and money.
Likewise, the person buying milk may feel the milk is outrageously over-priced, but her child needs it. There is not always and necessarily a 'variety of options' to choose from when the cost of any option is ruinous.
DPirate, even if the case were that a mom feels milk is "over priced" (whatever that meant), the fact is that in a free society there would be MORE choices than in a less free society.
The next paragraph also makes a false assumption, in saying that a rich man has taken nothing from the community. The community not only provided him his opportunities, but nurtured him from conception in every way.
DPirate, you are making a false assumption, that somehow the opportunities were obvious to the community and thus had a stake on them. Also, the statement "[...] but nurtured him from conception in every way" makes little sense - what is that supposed to mean? Would it not be the same for every individual in the community - that all were nurtured from conception in every way? What makes the case of the wealthy man so special?
In truth, the rich man could have harmed the community greatly by taking it's wealth to himself. Having begun from nothing, whatever increase he hoards is a detriment, is it not?
No. You ignore something very basic - that the rich fellow had to CREATE something that was exchangeable in order to obtain his wealth. He then did not take from the community - he GAVE the community something,in exchange of which the community rewarded the rich man. You think a rich person somehow obtained his wealth through thievery.
To go further, his gains must equal someone else's loss.
Why? If the rich man's gains came from his efforts to produce goods enjoyed by others, why would that be someone else's loss, equally?
Published: May 8, 2008 10:17 PM
Arend,
Who or what exactly is "the free market" in this sentence. You [Owen] seem to perceive "the free market" as some sort of unitary actor, or some kind of totalitarian system wherein (you claim) nothing is tried "to feed those that cannot afford to feed themselves".
Owen thinks in those terms - he believes the free market to be a store.
Published: May 8, 2008 10:22 PM
Arendt: "My point in recap, these countries/governments with their redistribution systems you mention DO NOT feed all their citizens."
The redistribution system in the US doesn't work either. We also have many private charities to help the poor for that same reason. Just ignore Owen. He's not interested in the truth, just in promoting socialism. No matter how many times the state fails, and it fails a lot, people like Owen will still promote more state intervention because they're motivated by envy, not by concern for the poor or interest in the truth. If he cared about the poor he would care about what really works instead of promoting more failed socialism that has impoverished and murdered more people than anything in the history of mankind.
Published: May 8, 2008 10:24 PM
Owen,
Back to the real world though. Yes you are right libertarians don't believe that basic necessities are a 'right'.
The reason is because nobody can define what a "basic necessity" is supposed to be. However, life, property and freedom can be perfectly defined, and considered a right - the necessary and moral conditions for a person to thrive.
Rights cannot be positive, that is, I cannot say I am entitled to something, because that concept implicitly entails coercion, as in: you have to give me food, since I have a right to it. They should be considered in the negative, as in: I have no right to stop you from living, or I have no right to take what belongs to you. This is the reason we have exchange and mutually beneficial transactions, precisely to fulfill our necessities without violating someone else's right to his property.
Rights are conceived and enforced by one person against another.
Then they are not rights, since by definition, something that is enforced upon another is a violation of the other person's freedom.
Published: May 8, 2008 10:35 PM
Fundamentalist,
No matter how many times the state fails, and it fails a lot, people like Owen will still promote more state intervention because they're motivated by envy, not by concern for the poor or interest in the truth.
Owen makes his case for socialism in a very torpid way, by using fallacious arguments like appeals to emotions (stating that poor people cannot buy food), changing to hypothetical scenarios with disabled people that cannot fend for themselves, all to demonstrate that the market (that is, free people) cannot help them. He seems to believe the free market is this big store owned by someone very callous, instead of conceptualizing it as it really is: the network of interactions between millions of people, engaged in mutually beneficial exchanges.
Published: May 8, 2008 10:44 PM
An exchange market economy is the best system devised by man. However when one disagrees with some human action taking place in our exchange market economy and another refers to that person as a socialist he is like an angry child.
An example, when a 3 year old takes some blocks away from another (i.e. disagrees) the other child stomps and cry's. How many children have thrown their blocks today?
Published: May 8, 2008 11:29 PM
ConradT:
"How many children have thrown their blocks today?"
I am counting about 6 so far!
Published: May 9, 2008 1:05 AM
Francisco:
"Nobody can define what a "basic necessity" is."
The resouces every human in the world MUST consume in order to remain alive.
Are you stupid?
You cannot conceptualise in your small brain that there might be some people left out of this "mutually beneficial exchange"?
Stupid again.
"Rights are conceived and enforced by one person against another.
Then they are not rights, since by definition, something that is enforced upon another is a violation of the other person's freedom."
Um, no. Your conclusion does not follow from your first proposition. Rights can be violated, reduced and amended by other rights. There may always be some rights that are in conflict such as one persons right to freedom of action and anothers right to protect their property.
Stupid again. (wow you are STUPID!)
Rights CAN of course be positive. Who says they can't you? Rights are what any person or group of people decide they are. But they only mean something when they are enforced. Until then they are just hot air.
Stupid yet again. (sheesh)
Fundamentalist:
Your "Charities" have not fed the poor in America - the over 15 Federal redistribution policies do most of that job - Stupid!
Africa is still hungry despite huge increases in wealth in the West. The cost of feeding the poor Africans reamains but a tiny percentage of this amount yet the gap still cannot be closed. There is no basis to believe that it will ever close. So Charity does not work!
Published: May 9, 2008 1:24 AM
Actually Owen any right is a positive claim to privilege or entitlement. "People have no right use to force & fraud" is a positive claim to the actions of others - you have a positive duty not to use force & fraud against me. A more apt description to be a non-hypocritical stance towards negative rights would be - "I don't want you to use force & fraud against me but should you do you'll face the consequences of my actions". I'm sure anyone claiming 'natural' rights would feel different if they were held up by a mugger at night and the mugger made non-negotiable demands and sure as hell wasn't going to sit down and debate philosophical issues of wealth creation and destruction and so forth. I'm sure most people (esp. Libertarians) would only feel their rights to safety was if they could produce a weapon that made the mugger think twice and run away thus confirming rights require enforcement. As besides might does make right if it's the might that can defend oneself and family members against every evil in the world.
Published: May 9, 2008 2:07 AM
Did some leftist site link to this article?
Anyway, great article and funny comments.
Published: May 9, 2008 3:34 AM
Averros, you are correct. His grasp of philosophical concepts is so paltry it is almost certain that he is either an imbecile, or someone here just to get a rise out of people. The way he's going he'll be banned soon enough. And it'll be good riddance to one terrible troll.
Conrad, you didn't even understand what this article was about, so I'm not sure what gives you the right to say any of that.
Published: May 9, 2008 4:52 AM
Inquisitor:
...manages to make another post saying nothing at all.
I guess she has been reduced to a mess afterall.
Published: May 9, 2008 5:12 AM
Inquisitor:
Only a socialist would resort to market interference when she was losing an argument at every turn.
How does it feel to be a social interventionist deep down when the heat comes on?
Published: May 9, 2008 5:16 AM
About as "interventionist" as removing a monkey jumping around in my yard.
Published: May 9, 2008 5:30 AM
Inquisitor:
So she hates other women and black people!!
You are gonna get yourself banned real quick honey.
That lip is vile!
Published: May 9, 2008 5:35 AM
Qoute from magnus: "Owen = troll. This conversation is over."
I agree. Its a waste of time to argue with a fool.
Published: May 9, 2008 6:37 AM
From the clueless Owen:
As I wrote before, I knew you would not understand it. I only have to apply force once you have attempted to violate my rights by attempting to take what is mine. You must act first, otherwise I have never violated your rights at all.
Published: May 9, 2008 8:34 AM
Owen:
"So she hates other women and black people!!
You are gonna get yourself banned real quick honey.
That lip is vile!"
I don't know about anyone else, but that comment did it for me. Just a quick recap of Owen's behavior:
1. Makes claims and refuses to provide justification for them.
2. When presented with a solid counterfactual argument, ignores it or changes the original argument to something new. In some cases, this has actually led him to return back to the previous argument once the new argument comes under attack.
3. Refuses to acknowledge the assumptions inherent in his own thinking, usually calling these beliefs "obvious". When asked for logical justification, often resorts to relativism and outright denial of the possibility of ANY justifications. He then proceeds to make statements that deny the possibility of relativism.
4. Uses various labels to describe those who engage him in argument, including, "stupid", "idiot", "sick", "numbskull" and others.
5. Deliberately attempts to bait others, such as referring to Inquisitor, who has revealed himself to be male, as "girl" and (most childish of all), accusing him of a racial slur when one was obviously not made.
6. Never, ever, ever admits to being wrong, even when a contradiction in his own statements is cited.
Considering the above mess that I have outlined, it becomes clear that debate with Owen is a useless exercise, not because of his brilliant use of debate tactics, but because he refuses to play by the rules of debate and logic. Truth means nothing to him. Posturing and the rush of the fight are all that matters.
I have the impression that Owen is a young person, and I hope that impression is true. That makes it more likely that he will mature out of all of this and begin to realize that being right doesn't mean screaming your beliefs loudly and defiantly, but analyzing them for possible faults and refining them as you gain understanding. Make your beliefs fit the facts, not the other way around.
Published: May 9, 2008 9:35 AM
P ^ ¬P -> Q. :)
Published: May 9, 2008 10:31 AM
Scott D: "I have the impression that Owen is a young person..."
I'm betting you're right, Scott, and that the reason he/she/it has yet to post today is because he/she/it is at school...possibly a public school, which would help explain a few things.
Published: May 9, 2008 10:42 AM
Errata:
My use of the word counterfactual was out of place in my previous post. A better word would have been "contrapositional" in this context.
Published: May 9, 2008 11:17 AM
Ugh, some hack professor introduces Owen to Derrida and for some reason he sought out this site to share his newfound insights. Lucky us...the blog has become nearly unreadable since most posts have become Owen-centric.
Published: May 9, 2008 11:23 AM
Who cares if people starve? What is your problem with that?
Published: May 9, 2008 12:31 PM
Greed is love. Economic slavery is love. Hell must be a lovely place.
Published: May 9, 2008 12:40 PM
Billwald,
For the sake of clarity, please explain "economic slavery".
Published: May 9, 2008 1:30 PM
It's incredible how cognitive dissonance reigns, in privileging non-profit voluntary actions with some sort of moral dignity, whereas this is not accorded to actions which involve profit in pecuniary terms, rather than psychic terms alone (which the former inevitably entails.)
Published: May 9, 2008 1:35 PM
Owen, again, will have to go one by one:
FT-"Nobody can define what a "basic necessity" is."
Owen-The resou[r]ces every human in the world MUST consume in order to remain alive.
Granted - WHICH ones? I am not playing dumb, Owen, but showing you that such definitions are subjective - what my wife thinks is a "basic necessity" may not agree with me, and vice versa.
Are you stupid?
Are you being serious by asking that, Owen? Have I been that crass with you?
You cannot conceptuali[z]e in your small brain that there might be some people left out of this "mutually beneficial exchange"?
Of course there may be, Owen. So? In this world, SOMEONE will be left out due to negligence, non communication, solitude, whatever. The problem I have with your argumentation is that you use those extreme cases as a kind of "Gotcha!" to argue against the free market. That is fallacious.
Um, no. Your conclusion does not follow from your first proposition. Rights can be violated, reduced and amended by other rights.
Owen, seems to me that you either do not understand the concept of rights - a right is a human condition that cannot be changed, otherwise his condition as human changes. A human is free, has reason and free will and owns his body. From these axiomatic propositions, we can derive human rights like right to live (or right not to have his or her life taken by force), right to property (since property derives from the axiom of self-ownership) and right to pursuit his or her happiness (self interest). It is obvious that any coercive action against any of these rights do not NEGATE the rights, but are simply violations of such rights.
There may always be some rights that are in conflict such as one persons right to freedom of action and another[']s right to protect their property.
Those rights do not contradict each other. The problem is that you are conceptualizing them in the positive: You have the right NOT to have your freedom taken by force, and you have the right NOT to have your property taken by force. This implies ipso facto that a person cannot exercise his or her freedom by violating another person's right to freedom or property. These rights do not cancel each other out.
Stupid again. (wow you are STUPID!)
Please refrain from insults, Owen. You are liable to be banned from the forum, for a foolish reason.
Rights CAN of course be positive. Who says they can't[,] you? Rights are what any person or group of people decide they are
If that were the case, Owen, then anything can become a right - like the right to take your house, or your family, or your freedom.
But they only mean something when they are enforced. Until then they are just hot air.
Rights do not need to be enforced, Owen. People act according to these rights all the time - which is why there are markets and not simple wholesale thievery.
Published: May 9, 2008 4:18 PM
The idea that people who make lots of money are greedy is ridiculous.
You can have three people go into the same kind of business and have varying results. One person may be so inept that they can barely make their bills, the next person makes enough to live comfortably, and the last person turns the business into a goldmine.
Are you going to say that the third person is greedier than the other two, because he/she was the most successful?
Even though they are under no obligation to do so, I find that many companies sponsor community events, have tuition remission and will match employee donations to charitable organizations.
Finally, when their hands aren't tied by unions with their one-size-fits-all employee manuals, businesses will frequently accommodate the special needs of their employees.
Published: May 9, 2008 4:52 PM
See above for my thoughts on it.
Published: May 9, 2008 5:14 PM
Thanks to Tucker for an excellent article.
The nature of mutually voluntary exchange is to be found in the fact that both parties agree to the exchange because they gain in the ex-ante sense.
Why does there seem to be a general trend to morally elevate the unremunerated acts we call charity? A number of theories have been posited, from social utilitarian, to state brainwashing, to religion. I find Walter Block's theory of evolutionary selection for 'altruism within the tribe' to be an under-appreciated and compelling explanation, though it shouldn't be seen as the only cause.
This viewpoint has been nicely expounded in "The Evolution of Morality by Richard Joyce:
http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/default.asp?ttype=2&tid=10894
To the subject of Natural Rights see Rothbard's 'Introduction to Natural Law'
http://mises.org/story/2426
.. and the Ethics of Liberty
http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/one.asp
If you prefer mp3, Hoppe has some great insights to this:
http://mises.org/media.aspx?action=author&ID=164
But other speakers do also, and I don't remember the lecture in which Hoppe most thoroughly expounds the concepts of self ownership and property. Here's a good one though
"The Nature of Man and the Human Condition: Language, Property, and Production" http://mises.org/multimedia/mp3/hoppe/1.mp3
Natural Rights are not subjective. We establish them by a process of introspection and discovery, using nothing more than the nature of our being and our capacity for logic.
Published: May 9, 2008 7:19 PM
Hi Jon,
I scanned through the postings four times and had someone else look for me as well, but I could find no posting with your name.
Could you possibly have posted under another name?
I'll be honest, I didn't read all the posts, because it appears that Owen has taken over the postings, and I find his inability to refrain from rude remarks to be tiresome.
Hope to hear from you.
Published: May 9, 2008 7:57 PM
Who's to say natural rights have any bearing FT? The story of the Hebrews being slaves to the Egyptians is a good one. The Hebrews escape from Egypt and make to the Promised Land only to later enslave surrounding tribes. Hence the Hebrews were quite happy with the concept of slavery as they didn't do away with it when they were in power. Any Biblical saying goes by the tune of "live by the sword, die by the sword" and most people in history had no problem with attacking other people nor complained when they were attacked.
Published: May 9, 2008 10:07 PM
The article is superficial. "Volunteering"- all Tucker has done is redefine the meaning of volunteering.
What should be significant and substantive is the motivations of the person, the executive.
What motivates the human act is the crucial question. The article does not address motivation.
To "give back" is very real. So many corporate executives are over paid. The evidence is profound wherein so many corporations witness poor performance as measured by fall in the price of stock and poor earnings yet their CEO's continue to be over-compensated.
The article really dabbles in justifying obsessive greed by shrouding itself in definitions. We have so many examples of executives today and throughout history that in their pursuit of money become obsessive and loose sight as to what is there mission (i.e. to create, to build, to steer the ship). They get lost in the short run with the obsession to make and get more "money" and this is when the exchanger or executive looses his human decency and any conscious feeling of shame. So maybe they really give back or should give back because they didn't earn it to begin with.
I know the market exchange economy is still the best, but I wonder about article. Maybe its real value is that it makes us think. As Socrates would ask, How so? What is the truth?
Published: May 9, 2008 10:56 PM
It seems to me that some of you do not understand what a "right' is. A right is not the "driver of human actions' as some think. Let's try the oxford dictionary definition:
"a moral or legal entitlement to have or do something"
Therefore in common usage (that is with the other 5.99 billion people who are not in this forum) a right is simply something that one is entitled to.
Each person may attempt to assert their 'rights' in relationships, in contracts, in the workplace and especially in the society but they are still only 'rights' and exist in one's head.
When rights begin to be forumlated into law then they are enforced. It is sadly for many jere the case your your conception of your "moral or legal entitlement to have or do something" is different to that of the majority in the societies you live in.
So what can you do? You can give up, or passively or activey resist. But you have no other options.
Yancy cannot understand how property rights might conflict with a right to basic necessities. An example is where someone with no place to live and nothing to eat is starving but has a right to these necessities. They are entitled by their right to either receive these necessities or to take them from others' private property because SPECIFICALLY because their right to basic necessities allows them to do so.
Therfore a landowner who denied the starving man food would be denying that man his HIGHER ORDER right to basic necessities..
Simple really.
Back to the topic,
Published: May 10, 2008 12:15 AM
someone with no place to live and nothing to eat is starving but has a right to these necessities. They are entitled by their right to either receive these necessities or to take them from others' private property because SPECIFICALLY because their right to basic necessities allows them to do so. Therfore a landowner who denied the starving man food would be denying that man his HIGHER ORDER right to basic necessities..
Ladies and Gentlemen,
It is about time someone delivers a handfull of the homeless needy poor creatures, who are available in enough numbers in any western country, to the Owen place of dwelling. So that Owen the landlord can get a taste of what he's talking about. Arranging some Haitians skilled in "taking from others' private property" would be worth it too.
Some human beings here are able to carry out this as gedanken experiment, they can imagine and indeed feel through what that proposal would mean for both the starving man AND the landlord.
Some others are so focused on the very existence of the individuals, who have more wealth than NOT the poor BUT these figthers-for-the-poor do possess, that they never even consider that their preaching should be applied to themselves too, and what would it mean.
While the former ability is called compasion and empathy, the latter is better described as envy, noted already in Scott D post.
If you live in my country you will be getting it vie my appointed agant the government. If not then apply to your own one.
Yes, completely unable to admit he himself could one day be taken to face the task proposed, hiding behind empty words - we all pay taxes, including the landlord who is on top of that proposed to be deprived of his property whenever the poor come knocking. The government is agent of all us taxpayers. Better question is why the poor and homeless are NOT getting their basic neccessities already.
The issue with government redistribution is that in addressing such things as poverty this agent is so ridiculously ineffectve, clueless and often also contraproductive, that the society would be better off if we gave the money to some other agent, or even to no agent at all.
Published: May 10, 2008 2:29 AM
Ireland:
Still cannot answer how the poorest of the poor would be fed in a free-market where charity has never proved it is able to feed averyone.
Ireland's last post spent a whole lot of woeds saying nothing at all. Sad that.
Published: May 10, 2008 3:41 AM
Well, then the question remains an entitlement to what? Not to be intervened with? Rights are not axiomatic truths; they require justification, and must be derived from prior axioms. Just saying "because the law enshrines it!" or "because most people think it's right!" (ad verecundiam and ad populum fallacies) does nothing to justify it. If you want to say needs generate rights and the right to enslave others to provide them, then PROVE it.
Published: May 10, 2008 4:35 AM
Rights can be conceived in any way the believer wishes to conceive them. Most of all rights do not need to be justified, they only need be enforced. To be enforced they need to be believed in by either the majority or the most powerful minority in a group in a society.
Inquisitor you are not dealing with the realities of the world outside your head. In your mind maybe rights need be 'aciomatic' but in the real world they do not.
They are simply a belief in an entitlement. No amount of moaning and complaining can change that.
Published: May 10, 2008 5:07 AM
Interesting how whenever someone challenges Owen they're saying "nothing". Funny, because with his subjectivist view of rights, it is he who is saying nothing, by his own standards.
Published: May 10, 2008 5:07 AM
Inquisitor:
No, actually I am usually referring to unrequested off-topic comments which add nothing to the debate.
It is usually you, but there was someone else who gave their whole life story in austrian economics which bored everyone to death and had nothing to do with the topic.
It should at least be a minimum requirement that those commenting on subjects such as Austrian Economics have minimally read them instead of expecting others to teach them here. Newson is a prime example in a nother thread where he.she showed a surprisingly poor knowledge of macroeconomics.
I stay on topic unless drawn away by trolls like you.
Published: May 10, 2008 5:22 AM
Using force against others always needs justification, so sorry, that's utter nonsense. One can fail to provide justification for it, but that's just an implicit admission that they have none.
You can't even spell axiomatic, and you did not read what I said. Please stop trying to act smarter than you actually are. You're not very intelligent, and it's showing through.
No amount of moaning will change that "beliefs" in entitlements are unjustified nonsense, so until you prove it, no one has any reason to take you seriously or anyone who claims such a right, anymore than they need to take someone who has a belief in some invisible fairy that demands they hand her all their property.
Published: May 10, 2008 5:22 AM
But you are actually saying nothing, by your very own standards. As for macroeconomics, you're the one who knows next to nothing on the topic, not Newson. As for your ability to stay on topic, your massive slew of insults is direct disproof of this empty assertion. You're the troll here, just in denial. And an unintelligent one at that.
Published: May 10, 2008 5:28 AM
No you'll find that any off-topic comments were in simple response to the off-topic comments of others, nothing more. Keep your pants on.
So now that you thuink newson was right explain to all of us how and why GDP does not include intermediary production.
This will be great!
Published: May 10, 2008 5:54 AM
Still waiting to hear about why why GDP does not include intermediary production Inquisitor.
Man, you jumped onto a sinking sjip there!
Published: May 10, 2008 6:08 AM
Did you read Reisman's article? Or not? Because it explains it quite clearly.
Published: May 10, 2008 6:40 AM
GDP does include intermediary production by definition-- Economics 101
Inquisitor,
errors basic principle in logic--"Ad hominem"---attacking the person to discredit him rather than to discredit the substance of an argument.
Are you lost to your own subjectivity assuming you are brilliant and everyone else is a fool.
How do you handle the ----
"Declaration of Independence-1776 which states"...Laws of Nature...certain unalienable Rights that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."???
The Austrian school doesn't deny the U.S Declaration --does it? Economics is not separate from the social good which includes rights and freedom from starvation.
Again we must look to justification through the looking glass of human motives as to why we act.
Published: May 10, 2008 7:33 AM
So, what if they starve?
Published: May 10, 2008 7:58 AM
Scineram...How so?
As I wrote posted above, what if certain humans loose the sense of shame and human decency.
What happens to society and economics if certain humans live without social economic values?
Published: May 10, 2008 8:17 AM
Conrad, how about you demonstrate that it includes it, then. Furthermore, regarding the piece of paper you cited, the Austrian School says nothing about it. It is a particular, contingent fact of the American political history. It still needs further justification. Appeals ad bacculum/ad verecundiam will not suffice to make an argument. So one is as free as one wishes to deny it if it is devoid of justification, collectivist attempts at obfsucation notwithstanding.
Published: May 10, 2008 8:22 AM
*obfuscation
Published: May 10, 2008 8:29 AM
Inquisitor
So now you deny Freedom for the sake of argument?
Published: May 10, 2008 8:29 AM
Inquisitor
So now you deny Freedom for the sake of argument?
Published: May 10, 2008 8:30 AM
Inquisitor
So now you deny Freedom for the sake of argument?
Published: May 10, 2008 8:30 AM
I deny that pieces of paper can mean anything without further argument to justify them. The paper you cited doesn't even cite positive rights as a part of it, FYI.
Published: May 10, 2008 8:36 AM
From the increasingly confused Owen:
The initiation of coercion is the issue at hand, Owen. I have denied the starving man nothing until he tries to take it from me. The two conceptions of rights are not equal in this respect.
If you want to engage honestly, then let me pose the question directly: would you prosecute a thief who stole from you? Would you try to prevent the theft directly?
Published: May 10, 2008 11:16 AM
Owen,
You say that people who are starving have the right to steal what they need from others. Would it not be more appropriate for them to obtain what they need from charitable organizations? Consider what would happen if one no longer had to provide for one's family other than to steal from another. What would happen to personal initiative? If those who had less could steal from those who had more, then what becomes of safety? Are you suggesting a one-size-fits-all society where no one has more than another? Again, what would happen to personal initiative?
The welfare state destroys initiative by making people dependent upon the government. They become accustomed to entitlements, courtesy of taxpayers like you and me. It is both an emotional and economic trap designed to make people feel that they can't function without government, which, of course, is what gives government it's power; so, that in the end government is no longer of, by or for the people.
Published: May 10, 2008 2:21 PM
Inquisitor:
Outline the reasons here for why GDP does not include intermediary produciton.
I am still waiting.
This will be great!
Yancy Ward
Exactly, and when he tries to take it from you, under one conception of rights, he is not voilating your rights but you violate his if you stop him.
His right to food comes above your right to property (in that conception of rights)
Wow, you finally realised that the reason this occurs is because of different concpetions of rights. Do you want a nobel prize? Most people in the world realise that people have different conceptions of rights and that often these will conflict.
IMHO
Yes I would prefer they get their basic necessities without having to steal which is why minimal redistribution is necessary when necessities are places higher in rank order than property rights. Charitable organisations cannot guarantee 100% that all basic necessities will be provided hence the need for minimal redistribution.
Published: May 10, 2008 8:01 PM
"I have denied the starving man nothing until he tries to take it from me."
Well, presumably you and the starving man are the only one around, why else would he steal from you? So if you and the man are the only one around, and (since you are not starving, for if you starve you have nothing that can be stolen) you have all the food, presumably it is your inability to share that is the reason the man starves.
Published: May 10, 2008 8:11 PM
Owen,
What I wrote, since you have the inability to understand it, is that my conception of rights forces their violation first, as you conceded above. I never wrote that people don't have different conceptions of rights, or in your case, no defensible rights whatsoever.
Published: May 10, 2008 8:12 PM
Yancy:
What you failed to understand from the start is that there is no reason for other people to agree with nor argue from, your conception of rights.
You also fail to understand the concept of a rank order of rights which most other people in the world understand - that one right can come before another.
This can lead to the right to property being subordinated to other more important rights (in the eyes of the conceiver) - which is the basis for minimal redistribution policies of governments (also termed sociel welfare).
So you cannot argue on a theoretical ground that such redistribution policies are wrong because they are only wrong in your mind because of your different conception of rights.
Sadly, your conception of rights is the distinct minority at the moment so you will continue to get taxed to pay for others' welfare.
Published: May 10, 2008 8:21 PM
Own,
Sigh....
My point is not that other people don't have a different conception of fundamental rights, my argument is that mine has higher priority in the sense that mine have to be violated first before I can violate your's.
The point I am trying to make is that you have to start somewhere with a system of natural rights. That starting point must be the right to self-ownership- even your conception of rights requires this starting point. We can disagree with what should have priority, but you have to recognize that the positive right to basic necessities requires the abrogation of one's right to self-ownership.
Published: May 10, 2008 10:54 PM
No, you are wrong Yancy. People do not have to start anywhere that YOU say to define what they consider to be THEIR rights. They can define them any way they choose.
You are exactly right that most people agree on certain rights but simply disagree on their priorities.
So what is the point you are trying to make? All of this is common sense.
Published: May 10, 2008 11:07 PM
Owen,
"Yes I would prefer they get their basic necessities without having to steal which is why minimal redistribution is necessary when necessities are places higher in rank order than property rights."
What you have just described is extortion...paying people off so that they don't cause harm. The only problem is that extortionists keep upping the ante.
Come to think of it, politicians enable extortionists when they "pay" people off in the form of entitlements as a way to get votes.
This is the kind of society you think works best?
And you never did address the effect that entitlements have upon personal initiative.
Published: May 11, 2008 12:31 AM
IMHO:
Extortion? Semantics. ha ha I prefer 'redistribution' but each to their own.
Political pandering is acknowledged as one of the deficiencies of democracy. But for those in the west democracy with all it's faults is still the desired decision-making mechanism for society.
To someone dying of starvation, your concept of 'initiative' is a bit of a wasted word. They need to have basic necessities met before they can go out and earn a living for you.
Published: May 11, 2008 12:43 AM
Some on this blog demonstrated in great detail the lengths they're willing to go in an effort to justify and encourage theft, extortion and other violent crimes against their fellow human beings.
The good news is they no longer dare to put it flat as it is, and feel the need to seek at least some sort of twisted "justification", though it's one that doesn't bear closer scrutiny. The bad news is such newspeak is much harder to decode for what it really means, and has the ability to confuse. (This applies to those who use it themselves too.)
In the end, the debate nicely shows why the Second Ammendment is so important for us the people: it comes handy should someone with a twisted "rights" scheme come aknocking on our door.
Published: May 11, 2008 1:38 AM
Actually Ireland for most conflicts in history most sides believed they were defending themselves from their emenies. The Nazis had their propandga against Jews being primarily they were thieves and the Nazis were just defending themselves with retalitory force. Similarly if Libertarians shoot tax collectors then they are acting within their belief of defense and it the other peoples' problem who don't share Libertarian views.
Published: May 11, 2008 1:54 AM
"Some on this blog demonstrated in great detail the lengths they're willing to go in an effort to justify and encourage theft, extortion and other violent crimes against their fellow human beings."
You mean those that would deny food to starving people in a free-market system. Yes they did and shame on them.
"...and [they] feel the need to seek at least some sort of twisted "justification"
Not really. The state of nature ensures that any set of rights is imposed in a country based on force. There is no use justifying it or not. It just is the way it is and no amount of moaning is gonna change the world you were born into. It just so happens that in the West your conception or rights is horrendously outnumbered. And long may it be so.
The satus quo is maintained by guns, or have you rebelled against the laws in your country recently and been greeted with flowers and handshakes? (eyes roll)
The second amendment was put in place by those with the guns and defended by them too. So by running to the shelter of it's defence you are advocating the use of violence against those that oppose it. You are therefore a hypocrite. I on the other hand accept that rules and law must be defended with force.
TLWP Sam:
You are exactly right. How come it has taken you this long to figure that little gem out? Do they not teach you that on Mises.org? Force is the determining factor on which set of rights are enforced.
If you wanna shoot the tax collector that is your choice and you will face the consequences. Because you infringed on the rights of another according to the dominant power in your country.
Published: May 11, 2008 3:19 AM
Interesting article but one thing did strike me and that there is a difference between 'Charity' and paid work. I am free to take any job I like (within reason) in order to get paid (amongst other things) so yes my decision to be an energy economist is voluntary, however I am not free not to earn money so to speak because I must eat and drink. So I think there is a difference (I'm not disaggreeing with the definition of voluntary here) but to the only difference between 'Charity' and paid work is money is not the whole story. I am forced to take a salaried position, but that's just life (the need to eat), whereas me volunteering for a crisis hotline doesn't help me survive.
Published: May 11, 2008 5:17 AM
Rober Arbon:
this is a very good observation, and I sincerely encourage to follow it a bit deeper:
I am forced to take a salaried position
Well here are a few unpleasant but important questions: Who exactly is exercising this force? Is it some neighbor, or friend, or maybe enemy of yours? Is there enough evidence of really being forced or extorted? Answer this honestly is what matters when getting to the correct result.
volunteering for a crisis hotline doesn't help [me] survive
There are charitable operations that offer participation in the program to those whom they're helping, and indeed these often take part in exchange for food or housing. Volunteering for the right crisis hotline could help :).
What I mean is that whoever operates the charity, is aware that to maintain it, his operatives need to make their living too. Providing it for them may very well be part of the charity.
Then there are other programs, aimed at people who are economicaly independent, and their donation to the charity includes them bringing their own food etc. It's the same "one size doesn't fit all" as with everything.
Published: May 11, 2008 6:19 AM
Hello TLWP Sam,
let's say that with the funny tax collectors idea this was carried a bit too far perhaps :-).
We know there are good reasons to have a government, and then we have to provide means for its existence. The question is quantitative, how big (the government) and how much (the taxes). Also it should be legitimate to use the established democratic means for an attempt at ammending the present instance of "government".
The point was that THIS society sides with defenders of property, and if anyone attemtps, as suggested by some here, "to take them [basic neccessities] from others' private property", he's better prepared to be refused by the society, not just the owner. And it's nice to have it that way.
Published: May 11, 2008 6:46 AM
Owen, I will when you demonstrate how you came by this truth that "necessarily, all morals are relative". That'll be even more fun.
Published: May 11, 2008 8:20 AM
Owen: "Your "Charities" have not fed the poor in America - the over 15 Federal redistribution policies do most of that job - Stupid!"
Then who are they feeding? They seem to be under the illusion that they're feeding poor people.
"Africa is still hungry despite huge increases in wealth in the West."
No one has ever claimed that the West could feed the entire world by itself.
Owen: "The cost of feeding the poor Africans reamains but a tiny percentage of this amount yet the gap still cannot be closed."
We sent enough aid to feed most of Africa. It's not our fault that the state's of Africa steal most of it and stash it in their bank accounts. Besides, Africa is one of the most blessed continents on the planet when it comes to agricultural potential. Why can't they feed themselves?
Owen: "So Charity does not work!"
And as you point out, state charity doesn't either: people are still starving.
Published: May 11, 2008 8:27 AM
Inquisitor
Your reference to my last post that the U.S. Declaration of Independence is "a piece of paper and that I violated a fallacy in logic (ad verecundiam) makes me wonder on your breadth of knowledge and learning. First, the Declaration is an historical fact declaring human rights; Second, I did not appeal to the higher authority, I appealed to the substance of what the declaration states and this is not ad verecundiam.
Human rights are legal rights given to us by the cultural/social/economnic political system; in this case the U.S.A.
This is the reality which we are born into and must function within this system.
Published: May 11, 2008 8:55 AM
Inquisitor
Your reference to my last post that the U.S. Declaration of Independence is "a piece of paper and that I violated a fallacy in logic (ad verecundiam) makes me wonder on your breadth of knowledge and learning. First, the Declaration is an historical fact declaring human rights; Second, I did not appeal to the higher authority, I appealed to the substance of what the declaration states and this is not ad verecundiam.
Human rights are legal rights given to us by the cultural/social/economnic political system; in this case the U.S.A.
This is the reality which we are born into and must function within this system.
Publi