Just a Theory
Through his various proposals, Barack Obama is intentionally prolonging and deepening the current economic collapse. He fully understands his proposals won't work. But nor is he a socialist committed to perpetual state ownership of capital. He is simply a thief seeking to pilfer as much wealth as he can for himself - and his allies - before retreating into a life of post-presidential leisure. The poor economy provides an excellent pretext for such theft, as the population is too concerned with its own survival to raise serious objections, and by the time the public becomes aware (and angry), Obama will have left office.
Comments (94)
Nathan
Over my last 2 years of study I have become convinced of your theory.
I'd like to believe that our policy makers are just misguided, and if we can win the war of ideas and show them the error of their ways we can turn things around. The problem is once you read a book like 'The Franklin Cover-Up: Child Abuse, Satanism, and Murder in Nebraska' you can no longer be so naive - because it reaches into the highest levels of power.
That being said, I always do my best to keep that aspect of the battle to infowars.com and separate from my involvement in C4L and Mises. I'm committed to not turning off those new to the liberty movement by scaring them off with the dark side of the battle... but for those that are already converts, you really need to continue the journey down the rabbit hole to get the big picture.
It's like the Art of War, if you don't understand your enemy, you aren't going to win. And if we approach our battle of ideas from the perspective that the other side has good intentions but is just mis-informed... then we're in a lot of trouble.
Published: June 18, 2009 11:43 AM
Taylor
Skip,
Doesn't this theory apply to all presidents and even all politicians?
My biggest take-away from G. Edward Griffin's The Creature from Jekyll Island was his explanation of the two "theories" of history: accidental, and conspiratorial.
Essentially, history is either a series of random accidents that occured without purpose or intent, or history is a series of "conspiracies" (not necessarily in the secretive sense, but not precluding secrets, either) between two or more individuals to secure a particular set of circumstances for a purpose.
So, when we look at the wreck our economy has become, for example, we can believe that, despite people's best intent, the economy has "accidentally" become a smoking trash heap of an excuse for wealth. Or, we can look at how this smoking trash heap coincidentally enriches the powerful and well-connected, shed our willful naivety and come to the conclusion that this is their design.
What did Mises teach us? Man acts.
Why does man act? To achieve his ends. Ends and preferences are revealed through action. The economy and political system we have are the ends. The means are all of these "misguided" policies taken to achieve them.
You have to convince yourself that political operatives just happen to be the world's most careless, clueless and unlucky people on the PLANET, to convince yourself of the accidental view of history.
I prefer to believe there is "conspiracy" afoot.
As a sidenote, I've been meaning to blog this point, but a corollary to this is that everything the govt does, it perceives to be to its advantage. For instance, when a police officer wrongly guns down an innocent, this could only be a mistake from the point of view of the govt if the govt made an attempt at paying some restitution or damages for this action to show it was a mistake. Instead, in these situations the people involved are usually cleared of any wrongdoing, signalling that this was not only just but that, from the govts point of view, this was a means to an end of theirs.
keep that in mind
Published: June 18, 2009 11:59 AM
DD
I believe he is a socialist.
Like most intellectuals, he doesn't believe in individual rights, although he won't admit it. He doesn’t understand what freedom is and how it works, and he certainly doesn't have a clue about want makes the economy tick.
Yes, he is a thief, but if you challenge him on that, he will, like most intellectuals, first deny it, and then try to justify it. Like all socialists, he has a quest for power and glory, and will always surround himself with others like him,
Published: June 18, 2009 12:05 PM
Joel Parkes
Time will tell us both if what Obama is doing will work. He certainly is attempting something of unprecedented scale. I hope he succeeds
Published: June 18, 2009 12:08 PM
ShedPlant
[Citation Needed]
Published: June 18, 2009 12:09 PM
Matt R.
I'm probably not the only one who noticed that President Obama, with his new regulations, doesn't admit any wrongdoing by Congress, the Fed or Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. That's unbelievable to me at this stage in the game. Obama is nothing more than another elitist on a power grab.
Published: June 18, 2009 12:12 PM
dewind
Regardless of his intentions, sinister or not, he and congress are doing all of the wrong things. The intentions of a tyrannical government are neither here nor there.
Published: June 18, 2009 12:23 PM
Taylor
Joel Parkes.
Time may tell, but logic dictates.
Logic dictates Obama's plan can't work and won't work in achieving the stated aims of economic recovery. In redistributing wealth and allowing for Obama and the connected elite to reap a windfall of power and prestige, it will succeed fabulously, at least for a time.
To believe Obama's ploy will work, you must first believe that theft is the foundation for widespread prosperity. You must believe that wealth is generated not through saving and production, but through stealing the property of others.
This is what Obama has set out to do and is currently in the process of doing-- theft, on an enormous scale.
Theft doesn't lead to widespread prosperity.
Published: June 18, 2009 12:25 PM
Curious
Yes, I agree. All politicians steal as much as they can get away with. But it's not the politicians to be blamed for this, it's the public that keeps electing these crooks. Such public doesn't get any sympathy from me, to the contrary, it deserves exactly what it is getting - getting robbed.
Published: June 18, 2009 12:40 PM
Curious
Curious,
You have an odd concept of moral culpability. Apparently people who engage in positive actions are blameless, while those who engage in negative actions (choosing to NOT do something) are fully responsible for particular outcomes.
So if I came up behind you and knifed you in the back, it'd be your fault for not looking behind yourself more frequently?
Curious, I am getting robbed too... don't I deserve some of your sympathy? I didn't elect any of these crooks. Part of my moral and ethical code is to never participate in any elections occuring between crooks.
Published: June 18, 2009 12:48 PM
Joseph Mises
I don't think these blog posts do the Mises Institute any good.
Published: June 18, 2009 1:03 PM
Walt D.
Matt R.
You forgot to mention the SEC and FDIC.
Published: June 18, 2009 1:03 PM
ShedPlant
Joseph Mises, I also cannot see how utterly baseless and wholly inflammatory remarks against a current head of state qualifies as intelligent or civil.
Published: June 18, 2009 1:07 PM
s burgess
i think most socialists and people will justify there ideas in there own mind unaware that their ideas they hold realy only serve or seeks to their self interest.im never surprized when i see a socailist scapegoating the rich or corporations.socialists by demonizing those they steal off they can sleep well beleaving they are on the side of good so they can fight another day against another mans freedom.few times in history if any have men in power not found ways to justify their power kings held they were placed by god or gods im sure they beleaved it.nor have many leaders not used their power for there own ends.no matter how much evil they do they will think they are on the side of good.
Published: June 18, 2009 1:13 PM
Joseph Mises
It's ridiculous. You have no idea how far out of mainstream libertarianism is in academic circles because of our coherent arguments in philosophy, ethics and politics. We don't need one of libertarianism's premier sites further polarized because of someone making these charged comments.
Additionally, we don't need Austrian Economics brought down, coupled with libertarianism.
It definitely says something.
Published: June 18, 2009 1:15 PM
Bruce Koerber
There is a swine flu epidemic and the ego-driven interventionists and the ego-driven interpreters are the swine.
Stopping the epidemic requires stopping the infectious disease at its source. The empiricist approach to economics is one of the principle causes and the fallacy of 'democracy' is another.
Anything that strikes at these virulent agents is part of the cure. Classical liberalism is good, Austrian economics is good but I must say the divine economy theory is the most potent of all remedies!
Published: June 18, 2009 1:18 PM
Taylor
Joseph Mises,
You seem to be an incredibly confused person. If you understand Austrian economics you understand that it not only implies libertarianism as a political philosophy, it also assumes it: Mises, Rothbard, Hayek etc. a priori explorations of human action begin with individual actors and "stateless societies" (that is, free markets) unhampered by coercion and state actors. Only later in the analysis is institutionalized coercion (the State) brought in for further exploration. Perhaps you need to do more reading, but the findings are never complimentary concerning the benificence of government actors.
I assume you're either new to Austrian economics and haven't "read that far," or else you're completely clueless and don't understand what you're reading.
ShedPlant,
Do you live in a bubble? "Utterly baseless?" Inflammatory though it may be (how many thieves and supporters of thieves enjoy being reminded of that fact?), I'm not sure what reasoning you employ when coming to the conclusion that the money printing, spending and foreigner aggitating habits of the current administration, to name but a few of their more disasterous vices, do not provide a base from which to conclude that these are malicious people we're dealing with here.
Or maybe you simply think that the REGAL heads of state deserve some special sense of respect and defference from the rest of us? Tell me, ShedPlant, do you kiss the rings of all popes and mafia bosses, or just the one living in the White House?
Published: June 18, 2009 1:29 PM
happylee
Robert A. Caro's books on LBJ should be required reading for kids in skool. Caro is a mainstream sort of fellow, but his general honesty in describing LBJ's rise to power, is instructive to all. (His last book on LBJ could have benefited from an introduction by Murray Rothbard and Charles Murras as to the consequences of all of LBJ's "visionary" legislative victories.)
Yes, the Great O is plundering the good ol' USA. Professor Hoppe, for one, would not be surprised.
Published: June 18, 2009 1:30 PM
Russ
DD wrote:
"I believe he is a socialist."
I agree. He may not want to permanently nationalize the means of production, but that is quibbling. To me, the sine qua non of socialism is not "nationalization of the means of production". That is just one means of furthering the core socialist philosophy of "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need". Obama has said he believes in "spreading the wealth" and thinks the wealth of this country should go back to its "rightful owners" (an implicit reference to the wholy discredited labor theory of value), and Joe Biden has said that paying more taxes is "patriotic". I think they have shown their true beliefs with these remarks.
Even if Obama merely wants the Federal gov't. to have *control* of the means of production (such as hiring/firing CEOs, telling companies to make green cars that people don't want, etc.) he is still a socialist. I believe that when this form of socialism was tried in the first half of the last century, it was called "fascism".
Joel Parkes wrote:
"I hope he [Obama] succeeds."
I know Rush Limbaugh is not terribly popular here, but I have to echo his sentiments. I hope he fails. Here's the logic involved:
1) Socialism will destroy our country.
2) Obama is trying to turn America into a socialist country.
3) Therefore, if Obama succeeds, he will destroy our country.
4) I don't want our country to be destroyed.
5) Therefore, I don't want Obama to succeed.
It's pretty simple, really.
@Joseph Mises and ShedPlant:
How is calling Obama a socialist a "charged" or "utterly baseless" remark? It's simply a true statement of fact.
Published: June 18, 2009 1:36 PM
eddy lee
S M Olivia - Who are you? What position do you hold? I'm just curious as most posts are created by academics or other prominents Austrians or libertarians, but I haven't read any of your books or papers.
Published: June 18, 2009 1:41 PM
Jake W.
Call me naive, but how is Obama going to get rich through his policies and actions?
Published: June 18, 2009 1:41 PM
Joseph Mises
Of course I know that Mises intended for free-market capitalism to be the cradle for classical liberalism. You are the one hasn't understood economics. My point is that Austrian economics is still an economic science onto itself. I'll paraphrase a comment made by Professor Walter Block who carefully said a dictator could potentially be an Austrian economist and apply all the Austrian analysis in his interventions on the market, like a central bank bringing about a boom and bust cycle. The dictator may yet choose to trigger the boom nonetheless. This is obviously an aggrandized scenario, but an important one that illustrates the separation between the economics and political philosophy.
Additionally, there is no need to make ad hominum attacks. You're attacking me as confused, and not my ideas. This is precisely combative mentality that Rothbard espoused and alienated the other half of the Libertarian movement.
It's not about being a lapdog to the president in office but its about maintaining an image that we are a center of scholarly tradition, not conspiracy bluffs.
Published: June 18, 2009 1:41 PM
Joseph Mises
Russ - You're just shooting poorly selected semantics into the arena. Bush was as much a "socialist" as Obama has demonstrated. They're both "socialists" under any sane libertarians reasoning, the only difference is that the former employs free-market rhetoric, and the latter appeals to words like "equality", "fairness" and "regulation". Oh wait, it's not "regulation" anymore, its "oversight". Sounds more decent.
Published: June 18, 2009 1:48 PM
Curious
"Curious, I am getting robbed too... don't I deserve some of your sympathy? I didn't elect any of these crooks"
Yes, you have my sympathy. That is the difference.
Published: June 18, 2009 1:49 PM
S.M. Oliva
eddy lee --
I'm not an academic and I hold no position. I'm just a nut who couldn't build a barbecue.
Published: June 18, 2009 1:51 PM
Chris
He is a pragmatist with no principles. He is guided by whatever sounds right at the moment. He can barely see past tomorrow and wants everyone to share that vision.
Published: June 18, 2009 1:55 PM
Russ
@Joseph Mises (if that *is* your real name ;-D):
While it's true that Mises' view of economics was that as a "deductive science", it must be value free, he was not just an economist. He was also a writer of very powerful polemic in favor of classical liberalism. This site is dedicated to Mises the man, not just Mises the economist.
Re us being "conspiracy buffs": Is it a conspiracy mentality to think that FDR and LBJ took us down the road to socialism, and that they hurt this country? I think not. Then why should thinking the same about Obama be any different? Whether he is a true believer in socialism (which I believe he is), a "pragmatic" politician without any really coherent political philosophy (ala FDR), or just a high-class hustler / narcissist who is trying to milk the system for all it's worth for his own personal agrandizement (ala Huey P. Newton), is immaterial.
Published: June 18, 2009 1:55 PM
Russ
"Joseph Mises" wrote:
"Bush was as much a "socialist" as Obama has demonstrated."
Yes, Bush was a socialist, although not quite as much of one as Obama. So what? I wasn't talking about Bush, didn't vote for Bush, and didn't much care for Bush's fiscal policy. As for Bush's foreign policy, I can't see how Obama's differs all that much from Bush's; in the time-honored Democratic tradition of never wanting to fight the war you're in, he just moved the war from someplace we were winning to someplace we weren't.
Published: June 18, 2009 2:01 PM
Taylor
Jake W.,
Maybe you haven't heard of Obama's book deals, for one? Do you think Obama (or any other politician) would sell as many books as they do if they didn't have a reputation for the policies they help to enact?
Another way Obama has enriched himself is through his salary and benefits as president of the US. I don't remember if it was here or elsewhere (I feel like it was here and might've been Skip that made the post) where someone had calculated the annual total compensation of the president of the US, beyond salary (healthcare, secret service details, Air Force one jet, rent-free use of White House and WH staff, presidential assistants, etc. etc. etc. etc.) and it came into the multi-millions of dollars.
Joseph Mises,
You did a poor job of explaining how I am the one who hasn't understood economics if you think simply stating that is proof enough.
You've failed again in trying to simplify economics as a "science onto itself." You've missed the writings and lectures of Hayek and other members of the Austrian school who actively reject the "scientism" of pseudo-scientific thought in the "social sciences," of which economics belongs. You've missed the Austrian emphasis on PRAXEOLOGY, that is, the study of human action, which encompasses far more within it than simple supply-demand aspects of "economics as a science," but goes into psychological and political studies of human action (you know Hayek wrote about neurosciences and psychology as well, don't you?).
Any dictator who would attempt to apply Austrian economic insights to his central planning would, if he were a consistent Austrian, quickly a dictator no longer be. Walter Block is but one of many voices around here, and he's bound to get confused himself from time to time. My assumption is you misread him, but if in fact that is an accurate interpretation of something he said, then Block has made an error in thinking that anything a dictator can do by forceful fiat is somehow representative of the voluntary free market. (Incidentally, Block is also an apologist for "it's wrong when socialists do it, but it's okay when libertarians do it"-type moral hypocrisy, so this would come as no surprise, really.)
The ideas you are sharing are wrong. The fact that you believe them to be right demonstrates your confusion. You are a confused person. There is nothing "ad hominem" about this. Grow up.
Image is for psychologically immature people (ie, your average politician or Federal Reserve chairman) to concern themselves with. It's for con-artists, liars and thieves, people like Bernie Madoff who live by the motto, "my reputation is my business" because it truly is... without it their confidence games fall apart.
Reality is for adults to concern themselves with. This sometimes involves calling a spade, a spade, or in this case, a president Obama a socialist and a thief. People who are worried about what "others will think of us" if we speak the truth, are unwitting servants to the very system of morals and politics they claim to abhor. Mises called this "middle of the road policy leads to socialism." I shan't compromise my understanding of reality just so socialists will feel more comfortable around me. If you think that's important and has value, I'd say again that you should consider growing up.
Published: June 18, 2009 2:02 PM
Matt R.
I agree with Russ. What's the big deal about commenting on what's going on? We certainly didn't support Bush's policies, either, although I like Peter Schiff's comment that Obama's economic polices are "Bush on steroids."
Published: June 18, 2009 2:03 PM
Joseph Mises
As far as anyone knows it, I'm uhm..uh his long-lost nephew who finally arrived in New York. I knew my father had got off on the wrong continent. ;-]
Anyway yes, I've read most of his works, even some obscure ones. I'm myself a follower of his political philosophy more so than the anarcocapitalists of the Rothbardian variety.
My point was merely that we shouldn't dwaddle away and speculate about Obama's motives because we can't know for sure. It's also unprofessional coming from an economic point of view, to attack someone ad ad ad hominem. It puts us on the offensive for something we really cannot prove. We can speculate, but that's annoying. I'd leave it for comic relief. What we can do is show why all of his policies will have no positive effect on the economy.
Published: June 18, 2009 2:07 PM
ShedPlant
@Russ, Actually the original post said Obama *wasn't* a socialist, which I thought was a counterfactual and baseless statement.
@Taylor, the accusation is not that the policies are ill-conceived (which I would agree with), but that the President and Democrats pursue them solely because they are malicious and evil. The original post suggested that they are aware of the Austrian economic position and believe it to be true, or at least they understand the fallacies of their Keynesian approach. Despite this, no explanation has been given for why they would follow policies contrary to their secret understanding, other than that are just Big Meanies.
I would suggest it is not wholly impossible that the current administration believes in the wisdom/necessity of what they're doing.
Notwithstanding your facetious comment, I would merely suggest that the head of state not be assumed to be inhumanly evil merely because of his position.
To follow up on what Joseph Mises has said, this is a website to promote a school of economics. This blog post is devoid of economic analysis but is simply a (libelous?) expression of hatred against one person. It's not appropriate!
Published: June 18, 2009 2:08 PM
David Walker
In simplest terms, the incumbents and their friends operate as follows:
1. Create the perception of a crisis that must be intervened.
2. Proffer your own convenient solution.
3. Lobby your solution into writ of law.
4. Profit by writ of law at the expense of the consumer and taxpayer.
5. Use your wealth and power to create the perception of another crisis...
This procedure has been spelled by the numerous crisis structures developed by the well-heeled and well-positioned, in America, at least since the lobby for a central bank in the Jacksonian era.
I'm damn tired of it.
Published: June 18, 2009 2:14 PM
Joseph Mises
Taylor - I'm actually quite familiar with everything you brought up. You have entirely mischaracterized my position by being on the offensive. Relax.
I don't disagree on your assessment on Block, but I'm also sure you also know Hayek isn't an Austrian in Misesian sense. Hayek was a Hayekian.
Published: June 18, 2009 2:14 PM
J Cortez
I disagree with SM Oliva. I think you're giving Obama too much credit. I think he has little to no understanding of what he is doing. I do think some of his advisors know better, but are marginalized by other advisors (who are wrong-headed) or Obama himself.
Published: June 18, 2009 2:16 PM
Joseph Mises
Taylor, you can say whatever you wan't to say. I just don't feel this is the appropriate forum for this.
Published: June 18, 2009 2:18 PM
David Walker
Cortez,
I'm not so sure Oliva is giving Obama any credibility -- he just happens to be President while all the mercantilists and socialists ply their trade. Frankly, his Presidency appears to be a screen for Daschle, Gore & Co. It's just easier to finger the messenger, i.e., Obama than it is to repeatedly identify all the greedy, self-serving players in the game.
Published: June 18, 2009 2:19 PM
ShedPlant
The original post is so baseless, in fact, that the meaning doesn't change if you direct it in the opposite direction.
Imagine the writer comes from a leftist ideological position that views free markets as exploitative and capitalists as thieves. Replace "Barack Obama" with "Ron Paul" and "socialist" with "capitalist". The statement remains an unfounded ad hominem attack, albeit one which is more objectionable to these readers.
"Through his various proposals, Ron Paul is intentionally prolonging and deepening the current economic collapse. He fully understands his proposals [lowering taxes and government spending] won't work. But nor is he a capitalist committed to free markets. He is simply a thief seeking to pilfer as much wealth as he can for himself - and his allies [i.e. the rich] - before retreating into a life of post-presidential leisure. The poor economy provides an excellent pretext for such theft, as the population is too concerned with its own survival to raise serious objections, and by the time the public becomes aware (and angry), Paul will have left office."
Published: June 18, 2009 2:19 PM
Taylor
ShedPlant,
I gave an explanation and they don't have to be "Big Meanies" (such a nuanced reading of the criticisms being presented here!) to fit into it. My suggestion was that you have to really suspend your disbelief quite a bit to believe that these people are trying, just trying so hard, to Do The Right Thing(tm), but somehow they just keep screwing it up. And they never, EVER think to question themselves and what they're doing, or seek answers from a different group of people or school of thought. They've adhered strictly to Keynesianism/socialism and continue to deliver the same fallacious, self-contradictory defenses of these failed policies over and over and over again.
As I suggested in my post, assuming their motives to be pure also means assuming they are the world's most unlucky people, ever. That, in effect, as they see it, this is allllll just an accident. (And yes, on the surface, that's the theory they subscribe to, with the whole "animal spirits" thing and what not.)
I am proposing a different interpretation of things: that they intend to do what they've done to the economy. Maybe they don't intend some of the extremes (like the panicy stock market and bond market crashing, for instance, which generate doubt of their ponzi scheme), but the general operation and the long-term structure of things is 100% according to what they hope to realize.
What is it about someone winning an election that makes you suddenly assume their intentions are self-less and pure? Bernie Madoff ran a humongous ponzi scheme and I doubt he ever tried to fool himself into thinking he was doing it for anyone else's good but his own. But if Bernie Madoff became a senator and ran the Fed govt ponzi scheme, suddenly you trust him to be a man of a good heart and self-sacrifical motives? What awe and reverence you hold for the mighty gods of govt!
Honestly, you didn't "merely suggest" anything, you name-dropped a title ("current head of state") as if his present function somehow entitles him to special respect or treatment. At least it's nice to see that you now consider him to be merely "one person" and not a god-king, as some political commentators have recently decided he is (re: the MSNBC clip of the doofusy hack proclaiming Obama to be "above the world, like god")
You and Joseph Mises need to stop telling us what this website is and isn't for, it's getting pretty tiring.
Published: June 18, 2009 2:24 PM
Russ
ShedPlant wrote:
"@Russ, Actually the original post said Obama *wasn't* a socialist, which I thought was a counterfactual and baseless statement."
Ah. Fair enough.
@Joseph Mises:
I am also more of a classical liberal than an anarcho-libertarian, for what it's worth, although I was very into ancap at one time. I consider myself a "recovering anarchocapitalist". *grin*
While I agree that we can't know for sure what Obama's true motives are, we can look at his past and make an educated guess. His father was a Marxist economist, and his mother was an anthropologist; so basically, red diaper baby. He worked with ACORN and known terrorists who are not in prison solely because of a technicality, Chicago machine types like Rezko, and spent 20 years in a black liberation theology church. Not to mention he had the most far left voting record in the Senate, and that with all his "present" votes. So I think we can make a pretty good guess at where he's coming from.
Why bother? Because if we can pound it through the heads of the mindless masses Obama is indeed a socialist, maybe we can convince them that the honeymoon should be called off, and maybe even the marriage annulled.
Published: June 18, 2009 2:26 PM
Taylor
Joseph Mises,
I don't disagree on your assessment on Block, but I'm also sure you also know Hayek isn't an Austrian in Misesian sense. Hayek was a Hayekian.
Bold. And Rothbard was a Rothbardian.
You and ShedPlant may want to go digging in the Literature and Media sections you have seemingly ignored. There's a lot more there than just economic scribblings in there. A lot of it (especially stuff from Lew Rockwell and Jeff Tucker) sound like this original Oliva post you are so bent over.
ShedPlant,
And they'd be free to do that, and we'd be free to explain their errors, a rebuttal the socialists would be incapable of accomplishing as Oliva's position is based upon an observation of reality, whereas a socialist would have a hard time explaining how Ron Paul (pbuh, the Holy Prophet of Austro-Libertarianism and Savior of Free Markets in America) was advocating exploitation and theft, if those words have constant definitions and mean anything at all.
Published: June 18, 2009 2:31 PM
Joseph Mises
Fine, we won't tell you.
Read the statement made right beneath the "Ludwig von Mises Institute" banner of this website right now.
Yes, actually I just wrote a letter to a new friend I made during my lunch break at work on why I felt ancap wasn't feasible. It was amateurish, but I'm thinking of making into a paper next year for my senior seminar and submitting it to JLS.
Published: June 18, 2009 2:32 PM
Jay Greathouse
the difference between the nation-state employing the threat of military intervention to coerce big capital and big capital co-opting the nation-state to further an usurptatious agenda is lost on me
the debate seems to be about the best way to impliment a global work camp, just with differences in the illusions of freedom
the goal of those with the armies has always been the most efficient separation of production from the producers
Published: June 18, 2009 2:32 PM
Taylor
Joseph Mises,
Funny, I just re-read the inscription and I didn't see anything about "this is a website solely for advancing economics as a science."
Do you need glasses?
btw, is your scholarly work on the infeasibility of ancap going to conclude with a call for govt as an alternative?
Published: June 18, 2009 2:36 PM
Russ
Taylor,
I believe that a lot of the lefties (a perfect example is Barney Frank) really do believe they're helping people (by helping them get homes they can't afford, etc). Are they corrupt? Sure. But that's easy to rationalize to yourself if you think you're doing good things. After all, if you're helping millions, why shouldn't you get a little back for yourself? The karma balances out. And after all, it only hurts the greedy capitalists, and who cares about them?
In other words, just because they are corrupt (and what politician at the federal level isn't, except maybe Ron Paul?), that doesn't mean they aren't true believers.
Published: June 18, 2009 2:42 PM
Taylor
Russ,
I'm not saying they're not true believers. In fact, I believe they are. And I believe they're so narcissistic that they've conflated their own needs with everyone elses and can't even distinguish between the two. These are people who are incredibly psychologically immature-- like children, they have no conception of themselves as individuals, they are unable to distinguish and separate in their own minds their needs and wants from everyone elses, they imagine in their mind that all property is communal and provided as a state of nature and their pragmatic philosophy (as suggested by another poster) is, like a child, the sign of a mind that has not yet developed a consciousness of the continuance and distance of time and the way in which cause and effect are interrelated.
I definitely believe they're "true believers." And I think that, like every good criminal, crime pays for those who are willing to commit it.
It's funny you mention Barney Frank specifically because he's an absolutely PERFECT example of all of the things I just mentioned. That guy is like a big, stupid child, constantly throwing fits and tantrums (most recently on air) if he doesn't get his way. He's a big Man-Baby. It's truly pathetic.
Published: June 18, 2009 2:50 PM
Kris
Blog entries like this do a disservice to the majority of rational and logical brilliance of much of the content on Mises.org. Regardless of whether your analysis is correct - and I'm skeptical of its accuracy - you (and by implication, this website) come off looking paranoid and polemical rather than dispassionate and even-handed. Self-awareness is a valuable weapon to possess in the battle of ideas, and if propenents of Austrian economics (of which I consider myself) ever hope to make mainstream inroads, I would suggest embracing a bit of self-awareness.
Disappointing.
Published: June 18, 2009 2:52 PM
ShedPlant
Alright, I admit that I thought heads of state should be treated with a modicum of respect. I suppose that wasn't justifiable.
It was never my position that government actors' intentions are always benevolent and good.
Between the two extremes that you propose - incompetent stupid would-be central planners and evil but extremely adept central planners - I still would tend to favour the former interpretation (although of course they're not entirely mutually exclusive). I figure, it's much easier to fail to implement a public policy than it is to masterfully pull it off.
Published: June 18, 2009 2:54 PM
jc butte
My own opinion is that the oligarchy that controls the US (and world) economy and for whom Obama is merely their latest designated spokesman, is deliberately monkeywrenching the US economy in order to equalize incomes with the emerging markets in China, India, Brazil, etc. Consider the demographics and it becomes pretty obvious where the future profit potential lies.
For Obama, all the crises his and his predecesssor's policies have wrought will enable him to become President-for-life.
Perhaps when most americans are reduced to "nothing to lose" status they will rise like the brave people of Iran to shirk their oppressor but it will likely be too late by that time (and I wouldn't bank on it's likelihood anyway). If things work out, I may emigrate to Iran so that I can witness the final collapse of the american empire from the balcony of some airy bungalow overlooking the caspian sea, in the company of heroes.
Published: June 18, 2009 2:56 PM
Taylor
Kris,
Good god, not another one.
Have you ever read anything by Rothbard or Albert Jay Nock, listened to any of the many lectures by Rockwell, or delved anywhere below the general surface of the entire collection of literature and media on this website?
This place isn't about making friends and shaking hands with the enemy. It's about TRUTH. Rothbard called the government a racket and the politicians who run it a mafia. Albert Jay Nock argued that the American Revolution was a direct criminal conspiracy aimed at taking away the power of taxation (theft) and regulation of commerce away from the British king and into the hands of the powerful colonial elite and nouveau riche themselves.
LvMI as an institution, and adherents to the Austrian school (of economics, philosophy, politics, history, etc. etc. etc., the entire study of human action and all its implications) have never been a dispassionate group. And impassioned scholasticism does not imply a lack of even-handedness or a renunciation of polemics.
Austrians are, as far as I have seen, the single most self-aware group of thinkers around. Maybe you've confused them with Keynesians, Marxists and other stunted-intellectuals masquerading as economists, politicians and heros of humanity?
Published: June 18, 2009 2:59 PM
Taylor
ShedPlant,
I'm glad I wasn't totally crazy in thinking you were referring to politicians as praiseworthy human beings. As for me, I generally choose not to laud theives as a class of people.
Perhaps you misunderstand me-- I think these people are both stupid AND evil. I think the reason you are confused by what you say is you assume that I believe their stated aims ("to save the economy") which I do not.
They're stupid because they've convinced themselves they're important and doing god's work. They're evil because they utilize coercion to spread the gift of salvation to others. They're despicable because they know that what they do ALSO enriches them and their cronies.
I think if you really study socialist philosophy and economics you will see that, good intentions aside, the reality of what these people are after (leveling of society, spreading of wealth, etc.) is truly disturbing and anti-social, and because we know by now that it always leads to impoverishment and suffering, it's anti-human, too.
I don't know about you but I value human life and prosperity, especially my own. I look at people whose true, pursued ends are the negation of those things, to be pretty bad dudes.
Published: June 18, 2009 3:07 PM
Russ
Taylor,
OK, I guess our beliefs aren't so far apart after all. I certainly agree that Obama, Frank & Co. are narcissists par excellence. Hayek said it best; they have a fatal conceit. They think they know what's good for us better than we do, and they also think they know how to make their perfect world a reality. And if while bringing about heaven on earth, you have to break a few eggs, well....
Also, while I agree somewhat that Oliva's post is wrong-headed (I don't think Obama is just a thief), and fairly poor polemic as well (it's preaching to the choir, and will convince nobody who isn't already convinced), I do I agree with part of his post: "Through his various proposals, Barack Obama is intentionally prolonging and deepening the current economic collapse." After all, as Rahm Emmanuel has said, a good crisis shouldn't be allowed to go to waste. And perhaps it should even be prolonged. I do believe that Obama is narcissistic enough to think that he can control the crisis, and pull it back before it goes too far. Even if he's not just a hustler, as Oliva thinks, that alone is scary enough, and worthy of some consideration.
Published: June 18, 2009 3:12 PM
Brutus
"I figure, it's much easier to fail to implement a public policy than it is to masterfully pull it off."
I would suggest Robert Higgs' essay The Myth of "Failed" Policies.
Published: June 18, 2009 3:13 PM
Taylor
Russ,
I actually am in full agreement with your post. The only caveat I'd add is that if you try to read Oliva's post a little deeper I think he's trying to formulate a conception of why Obama does what he does to convince people that he's dangerous not just because he's wrong but because he's poorly motivated, too.
But yes, this post probably belongs to a recent series by Mises blog authors that don't seem incredibly well-thought out or "well-researched" but come across more like off-the-cuff midnight notepad scribblings after waking up from a bad, political nightmare.
However, at the same time, it sure is generating a lot of discussion, haha! And it's also something different, as a lot of the posts have become entirely predictable, not only in their topics but also in their borrowing thoroughness.
Published: June 18, 2009 3:16 PM
Taylor
Brutus,
Thanks! I was just thinking of that post myself and was trying to make the same point but I think Higgs says it best.
Published: June 18, 2009 3:19 PM
Mike
Taylor,
You're not necessarily wrong about anything, you're just not being civil. Your posts are dripping with smugness. Please try to be civil, and not contribute to this turning into a flame war.
Published: June 18, 2009 3:32 PM
Michael A. Clem
Last I checked, this site is for Austrian economics AND libertarian political thought. Of course, given comparative advantage and division of labor, the Austrian economics is the best card to play, but I don't think we can deny them some good, old-fashioned libertarian rhetoric.
Perhaps, as President, we should expect him to be more knowledgeable on economic matters, and thus be led to the conclusion that he is merely evil or short-sighted in not pursuing the best economic policies for the nation. There's always Public Choice theory, which, basically stated, says that public officials are still human beings and that they are still pursuing their own personal interests while in office. That doesn't necessarily mean he has to be evil, though.
On the other hand, when so many economists are NOT Austrian, it's not hard to believe that a President (pick a President, any President) would not hold to the Austrian view of economics, and might genuinely believe he is utilizing the best or most proper economic policies for the nation, or at least that he is deluding himself of that.
And as others have suggested, if Obama truly is socialist, he may well believe that socialist policies will be better for the nation than capitalist, non-interventionist policies.
I don't think we can readily dismiss the idea that Obama is merely misinformed and misguided, at least, not yet.
Published: June 18, 2009 3:33 PM
Magnus
Joseph Mises,
If you think that your appeal to popularity via electoral politics will lead to a more free-market set of government policies, you are mistaken.
This debate over market freedom is as old as the hills. If you are still in school, then you have not seen enough of the world, or lived through enough electoral cycles to see how the same tired old rhetorical crap get recycled again and again.
Statists know your arguments. They just don't care.
Your belief that the State will accede to your request for more market freedom, merely by virtue of the correctness of your ideas, is like a slave asking a slave-master for more liberty, deference and conciliation.
Not. Gonna. Happen.
Published: June 18, 2009 3:35 PM
Alexander S. Peak
I agree with Mr. Cortez that SM Oliva is giving Obama "too much credit" and that he probably "has little to no understanding of what he is doing."
Mr. Parkes, hope is irrelevant.
Mr. Taylor, not every philosopher who starts with considerations of human existence within a state of nature is a libertarian. Hobbes immediately comes to mind. Mr. Joseph Mises's paraphasing of Dr. Block indeed does reflect accurately something Dr. Block once said in a radio interview, one that I believe is available on this website.
You write, "Any dictator who would attempt to apply Austrian economic insights to his central planning would, if he were a consistent Austrian, quickly a dictator no longer be. Walter Block is but one of many voices around here, and he's bound to get confused himself from time to time. My assumption is you misread him, but if in fact that is an accurate interpretation of something he said, then Block has made an error in thinking that anything a dictator can do by forceful fiat is somehow representative of the voluntary free market."
You have completely twisted what Dr. Block said. Dr. Block never said that the dictatorial central planner was a "representative of the voluntary free market." Dr. Block's point was that a person can (A) know that interventionism is bad and yet still (B) employ it anyway, specifically to hurt people and destroy the economy. In this way, just because someone is an Austrian--i.e. someone who knows that central planning is economically destructive--doesn't mean that the person is necessarily a libertarian--i.e. someone who opposes the use of central planning.
Mr. Curious writes, "Yes, I agree. All politicians steal as much as they can get away with. But it's not the politicians to be blamed for this, it's the public that keeps electing these crooks. Such public doesn't get any sympathy from me, to the contrary, it deserves exactly what it is getting - getting robbed."
Do I deserve to get robbed? After all, although I did not vote for Obama or McCain, I am a part of the "public." Further, even if I had voted for one of the two aforementioned crooks, a vote is not a legitimate grant of power or consent, and thus it remains the crooks themselves who are to blame.
Yours,
Alex Peak
Published: June 18, 2009 3:40 PM
Taylor
Alexander S. Peak,
I believe I was confused on what Block said. Joseph Mises said:
a comment made by Professor Walter Block who carefully said a dictator could potentially be an Austrian economist and apply all the Austrian analysis in his interventions on the market, like a central bank bringing about a boom and bust cycle.
My interpretation of this was that he was saying Block was saying that a dictator could somehow "fine-tune" his interventions through Austrian economic analysis (ie, perhaps he'd use his knowledge of the effects taxes have on supply to specifically target the production of something he detested). My remark was that that wouldn't be a form of Austrian economics but rather socialist manipulation, and that if a dictator WERE acting according to Austrianism he'd not be a dictator.
I see where my confusion arose and I agree that I misinterpreted. As you describe Block's remark (and now that I re-read it, Joseph Mises re-phrasing of it), I would have to say I agree. But then Block would seem to be arguing for the impure motives of someone like Obama-- were he to be aware of Austrian econ and even understand it and believe it, and do what he does anyway, he would be a very awful person indeed.
I don't know what I said to make you think I conflate a priori, state-of-nature reasoning with libertarianism. The point I tried to make above in pointing it out was only to show that Austrian economics use that state of nature as a beginning point and looks at the state as something inorganic to human society, not something that is necessarily a part of it. Certainly there have been other thinkers who have used the same beginnings for their reasoning and have been lead to other conclusions, Hobbes being one of them.
Published: June 18, 2009 3:48 PM
Joseph Mises
***#
Joseph Mises,
If you think that your appeal to popularity via electoral politics will lead to a more free-market set of government policies, you are mistaken.
This debate over market freedom is as old as the hills. If you are still in school, then you have not seen enough of the world, or lived through enough electoral cycles to see how the same tired old rhetorical crap get recycled again and again.
Statists know your arguments. They just don't care.
Your belief that the State will accede to your request for more market freedom, merely by virtue of the correctness of your ideas, is like a slave asking a slave-master for more liberty, deference and conciliation.
Not. Gonna. Happen. ***
I'm not sure where I ever said that in this blog.
Alexander, that's exactly what I was referring to with Professor Block. I apologize for not articulating the preciseness of his example, it's been over a year since I heard that audio file from the archive, and I was in a rush since I am on a computer from work.
Taylor, I'd suggest you tone down your standoffish mentality.
Published: June 18, 2009 3:55 PM
Joseph Mises
True, that's my bad Taylor. I should've quote more appropriately.
Published: June 18, 2009 3:58 PM
ShedPlant
Taylor,
If I misunderstood you, perhaps you misunderstood me too. Your argument, that politicians tend to suffer from fatal conceit (partly stupid and partly evil - "narcissists par excellence"), is plausible and not that to which I was originally opposed.
I cannot read the original post and reach any other conclusion but that: the author does not think Obama is stupid and conceited, as you do; rather, Olivia is asserting that he is intelligent and intentionally, maliciously evil, who doesn't believe for a moment that his policies will acheive the stated aim. Do you disagree that that is what he/she is saying?
I - and apparently you too, going by what you've said, but I don't want to speak for you - do not accept, without solid evidence, that any individual in government (or elsewhere for that matter) is actively and wilfully trying to promote general harm and destruction.
Published: June 18, 2009 4:08 PM
Taylor
ShedPlant,
Here is the nuance of my belief system and philosophy, I guess... I don't equate the belief in or justification of, theft, to be intelligent. That necessarily makes a person stupid in my mind. It's a contradiction of reality and a negation of self to behave in that way. It is not a "sustainable" standard of survival and it comes unjustly at the expense of others. I think you have to be stupid to convince yourself you're better than others and therefore you are justified in behaving anti-socially in this regard.
Other people have no problem calling someone like this intelligent. I can't tell if that's what Oliva is saying or not.
As I hinted at in a previous comment, I believe if you examine what socialism actually means, as a system of production (ahem... consumption), governance, philosophical underpinnings, etc., I believe it IS a system aimed at promoting general harm and destruction. I believe some people who are socialists DO understand this and follow socialism out of spite, malice and envy for those they are jealous of (this goes back to my belief that socialism is an outgrowth of psychological immaturity, denial, inability to deal with reality), while others maybe haven't fully realized the implications of that which they are proposing, yet understand it enough that they should be condemned for their support.
For example, maybe you (general "you", not specifically you, ShedPlant) don't realize that socialism inevitably leads to dictatorship, social decay, falling standards of living, etc. But surely you DO realize that it is a levelling mechanism and that's one reason you call for it. I've never met a socialist who supported socialism because they thought it'd make everyone better off, but you did not understand that, in the process, some people would be made worse off than they are now. That little bit, the making people worse off than they are now, is one way in which a socialist is willfully trying to promote general harm and destruction.
I hope this makes my position more clear to you? And I appreciate your attempt to understand me.
Published: June 18, 2009 4:19 PM
Lee
As much as I don't like the current administration, and as much as I agree with S.M. Olivia's viewpoint, this article could stand a few references, or maybe a relevant recent event or two.
Heck if you want to talk about Obama making power grabs, why hasn't anyone talked about the census bureau being moved to the white house? For God's sake, how does THAT help the economy? If anything, that will just assist the political parties rig future elections.
Or how about his statements about health care costs;
"A big part of what led General Motors and Chrysler into trouble were the huge costs they racked up providing healthcare for their workers - costs that made them less profitable and less competitive with automakers around the world." -Obama Jun 15
If healthcare costs contributed to the bankruptcy of GM and Chrysler then why would we want the government to do it?
Quite bluntly, he IS making a power grab. It's not just a theory.
Under ObamaCaid we'll pay more for less and our health care will be like Logan's Run. Over 30? RENEW! RENEW!
Published: June 18, 2009 4:57 PM
ShedPlant
Fair enough.
But let's return to my original point (for which you called me names :'( ).
"Barack Obama is intentionally prolonging and deepening the current economic collapse. He fully understands his proposals won't work."
I don't understand how Olivia claims to have such an intimate knowledge of Obama's psychology. He talks and acts like a sincere socialist, so on what evidence does Olivia claim he isn't a socialist at all, but a self-acknowledged plunderer?
No, indeed, I say it is a baseless assertion, not to mention rude and a little paranoid. You put it quite well yourself as "off-the-cuff midnight notepad scribblings after waking up from a bad, political nightmare".
Although I don't claim to be privy to Obama's personal intentions, it's not possible for him to be a "true believer" narcissistic socialist (your position) and a deliberate saboteur of the American economy (Olivia's position).
Published: June 18, 2009 5:11 PM
ShedPlant
Lee,
Yes, the position could become far more convincing if evidence was presented. Thanks for demonstrating that :) .
Published: June 18, 2009 5:21 PM
Russ
ShedPlant wrote:
"I do not accept, without solid evidence, that any individual in government (or elsewhere for that matter) is actively and wilfully trying to promote general harm and destruction."
I do think Obama *may* be doing this actively and willfully, but in order to prolong the crisis, and hence be able to take advantage of it to further the socialist agenda (which in his mind is worth it), not out of sheer malice.
Taylor wrote:
"I think you have to be stupid to convince yourself you're better than others and therefore you are justified in behaving anti-socially in this regard."
I don't know about this one. Common criminals do tend to be stupid losers. (Ever watch the cartoon League Of Super Evil, or LOSE? Hilarious!) High level criminals, however... And high level politicians are the most high level criminals, of course! Pol Pot died in his sleep...
Published: June 18, 2009 5:51 PM
A. Viirlaid
When asked why he robbed banks, Sutton simply replied, "Because that's where the money is."
The above quote is from http://www.fbi.gov/libref/historic/famcases/sutton/sutton.htm
I think the original blog entry WAS just a LITTLE provocative. A straw man? Maybe that was the intention. And most of us bit.
The President intentionally steal? Is his middle name "Spiro"?
Willie Sutton did not see the irony in his response to the question of WHY, because of his worldview. Sutton simply gave the most practical answer he knew. Most of us laugh because the thought of stealing money is foreign, let alone trying to figure out the best location wherefrom we could steal it.
Most of us (hopefully) would simply interpret the Willie Sutton-question as "WHY do you steal?"
In the same vein, President Obama may indeed very well think he is doing good, without having the faintest idea that Austrians even exist on this planet. We should not be so naïve as to have preconceptions about someone else's overall economic knowledge. Intelligence does not equate to being well-informed.
President Obama is young enough and has the social background that could easily have sheltered him from Austrian philosophy.
It seems to me that Austrians are fighting many battles at once. Too many to be effective.
We don't have to convince ourselves of the frightening cost of "sharing the wealth" when it so frequently seems (in history) to lead to forgetting to "grow the pie bigger" before or during the time of slicing and 'sharing'. We don't have to convince ourselves about the use of force and the attendant loss of liberty that is so often required (in history) in order to 'liberate' the wealth that is to be 'shared'.
But convincing those in the President's administration that harm is being done is something that DOES need to be done.
How can this be done, when even Nobel laureates like Paul Krugman say that this Administration isn't doing ENOUGH (damage)?
President Barrack Obama's "share the wealth" philosophy comes from a worldview that suggests that, for him, his thinking is as perfectly natural as mother's milk.
So I agree with ShedPlant's last point (made at 5:11 PM June 18). It is not clear exactly what the President understands or doesn't understand, IMO. It is not clear what he is doing "intentionally" or "unintentionally". For us in this blog to suggest otherwise is a waste of time and passion.
We all have a pretty good idea as Austrians of the damage that will likely come about from these recent government interventions --- most of the posters have made that clear.
We can all speculate about "intentions" but only the future will clarify what those actually were.
Having said all that, I do share some early concerns that there are disturbing signs in this Presidency. I remain thus far less convinced than some others above.
However, given some of these disturbing signs, I believe it behooves us to stay informed, watchful and wary. "Forever Vigilant" like the VP-92 Minutemen.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VP-92
One video I saw recently that raised some concerns for me was at http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/11453
Here you can see Rachel Maddow claiming that President Obama is lying.
Is this just a Dis or a real Disaster-in-the-Making? Time will tell.
Published: June 18, 2009 5:53 PM
Russ
I wrote:
"I do think Obama *may* be doing this actively and willfully, but in order to prolong the crisis, and hence be able to take advantage of it to further the socialist agenda (which in his mind is worth it), not out of sheer malice."
Oh, I forgot the evidence. Why do I believe this? Well, how about the fact that the president said that the Stimulus package was an emergency measure that simply had to be passed immediately, but the funds in the bill itself are very "slow release". A large portion won't be spent until next year or later. So why the emergency? I got this point by reading Thomas Sowell's excellent book on the housing crisis, and he says that he believes this is evidence that Obama's real agenda is not to fix the current crisis, but to effect long term change in the American political system. Hey, if Thomas Sowell believes it, at least I'm in good company.
Published: June 18, 2009 6:05 PM
Joseph Mises
http://www.hulu.com/watch/72439/saturday-night-live-geithner-cold-open#s-p1-st-i3
Since we're all friends again, let's focus on the disgusting policies the Treasury is taking. It looks like SNL has some pretty decent writers.
Published: June 18, 2009 6:06 PM
Joseph Mises
Not really.
Published: June 18, 2009 6:11 PM
hashem
I would have thought this was a given. It's hard to believe anyone makes it through the political matrix of corruption to presidency without manifest knowledge of the fallacies and violence that define the position.
Published: June 18, 2009 7:21 PM
Conza88
There is a move towards world government.
- Methodological individualism. Doesn't just happen by itself.
Published: June 18, 2009 8:41 PM
Gil
"It's not about being a lapdog to the president in office but its about maintaining an image that we are a center of scholarly tradition, not conspiracy bluffs."
That's a fair statement, J. Mises.
Published: June 18, 2009 9:00 PM
Brutus
"I would have thought this was a given. It's hard to believe anyone makes it through the political matrix of corruption to presidency without manifest knowledge of the fallacies and violence that define the position."
I agree with hashem's comment. I don't see how anyone rises to the top of government power in a democractic process unless he is a skilled liar, potential thief and potential murderer.
And I don't think that questioning the motives of elected leaders is somehow irresponsible or unbecoming of the Mises Institute. The State is a monopoly on aggression. Everything it does is backed by violence, as Mises himself pointed out. We should wonder what motivates a person to seek control of such an entity. What should we think of a person who wants the power to beat, imprison, and kill people who disagree with him and are willing to resist his rule? And if you think that I am exaggerating try not paying your taxes or start a business without a license. Obama could be a true believer of socialism with pure motives and flawed means, but he could also be a power hungry psychopath who has fooled the masses into believing that he means well and will do the best he can.
Published: June 18, 2009 10:51 PM
Curious
Alex Peak,
I said that the public that elects these crooks deserves to be blamed for the stealing done by the politicians.
Since you didn't vote for him, you are not part of the public that elected him and therefore you don't deserve the blame and you don't deserve to get robbed.
Had you voted for him, you would deserve all of it.
My apologies for not making it clearer.
Published: June 19, 2009 12:34 AM
Ryan
He is an educated man and knows exactly how destructive these policies are.
Published: June 19, 2009 12:58 AM
Mushindo
I for one don't buy this theory ( actually, hypothesis - theres nothing 'just' in the sense of 'only' abut a theory - a verified theory is as close to the truth as it is possible to get in any science. The term 'only' or 'just' is usually found next to 'theory' only in creationist references to natural selection. Relativity , and quantum theory and yes praxeology are also theories.....I digress).
Anyway, I believe that Obama is ignorant and well-meaning, and not wilfully malign. He honestly believes he is doing the right thing, but his actions are based on economic ignorance and the hubrisic belief that government actually is capable of doing things that benefit the citizenry.( His economic advisors should however know betterand they are the ones who should be brought to account).
This is not to defend him - when it comes to weilding power, history has shown that those who exercise it in the sincere belief that they are Doing Good, or ( heaven forbid) Doing God's Work, are the very ones who wreak the most havoc, and their evil persists for longer.
the intentionally malign tend to get exposed for what they are, and are hence neutralised much more quickly.
Published: June 19, 2009 2:50 AM
Ian Mansell
I think what most people don't spot is that its not presidents that decide economic theory it’s their economic advisors.
Because the types of economic advice are so predictable those that understand the likely outcomes always alter their position to benefit most from them.
Worst of all, what might be the most prudent economic policy is not necessarily followed as politicians want to be re-elected at the next election and economic restructuring talks longer cycles.
Published: June 19, 2009 5:09 AM
Gil
Is not this conspiracy hypothesis testable? The obvious Obama and co. can be stealing in the way that put the money in their literal pockets would be through giving companies they have major interests in government contracts and/or laws & regulations passed or dropped that would benefit those particular companies. This is the argument that some were using against Dick Cheney and Haliburton.
Published: June 19, 2009 5:50 AM
Thinker
Gil
Very good point. Organizations (not businesses, at least so far) closely associated with the President have received significant sums of money, most notably ACORN and the UAW. This would indicate that Obama is not trying to get rich in the monetary sense, but certainly reward political allies with resources and power (ACORN is being contracted to work on the 2010 census, for example) in the hopes that they will then use these gifts to assist him in other areas. This, of course, is standard politics-as-usual, but the scale is alarming.
Published: June 19, 2009 5:57 AM
Larry N. Martin
If you have power, you don't need money, or you can easily get money when you do need it.
Published: June 19, 2009 10:31 AM
Alexander S. Peak
Mr. Ryan,
I believe he is educated enough to know--at least deep down--that humans have inalienable rights. I believe he is educated enough to know--at least deep down--that his actions are naturally criminal, that they invariably violate the natural rights of the masses, that he is himself violating natural law, and that there is absolutely no natural justice in his actions. He might deny natural law, of course, like so many do, but he's educated enough to know--deep down--that he cannot justify his actions, that his station is wholly illegitimate, and that his acts are inherently unethical. Even if he suppresses this knowledge, and denies it to himself and to others, it is impossible that he does not experience this nagging feeling that his actions and overseer position are immoral, unethical, and criminal. Deep down, it is impossible for him to completely deny this and convince himself that his actions are in any natural or legitimate way lawful or just.
But, I don't believe it necessarily follows from this that he is educated enough to know that his economic policies are necessarily and unavoidably destructive. We could debate whether or not he cares--I can't truly be sure, since I do not know what goes through his head--but I would not be the least bit shocked to learn that he truly believes that his insane, Bush-on-steroids policies might have some actual positive effect, in at least either the short- or long-runs.
Mr. Mushindo,
He certainly is "wilfully malign," lest he wouldn't be dictating to people how they are to live their lives and spend their money. But I agree with you insofar as you intend to say that he may very likely believe some positive benefit could arise from his wilfully malign activities, even if we all recognise that interventionism does not work to benefit the masses.
Mr. Curious,
As I had intended to make--and thought I made--clear with my earlier reply, I do not believe that even those who did vote for the Criminal in Chief are "responsible" for his actions.
Respectfully,
Alex Peak
Published: June 19, 2009 3:40 PM
Stephen Grosman
>[jc butte]My own opinion is that the oligarchy that controls the US (and world) economy and for whom Obama is merely their latest designated spokesman, is deliberately monkeywrenching the US economy in order to equalize incomes with the emerging markets in China, India, Brazil, etc.
Global capitalism would equalize incomes among nations.
Published: June 20, 2009 9:38 AM
Stephen Grosman
>[Taylor:] history is either a series of random accidents that occured without purpose or intent, or history is a series of "conspiracies" (not necessarily in the secretive sense, but not precluding secrets, either) between two or more individuals to secure a particular set of circumstances for a purpose.
"Just as a man’s actions are preceded and determined by some form of idea in his mind, so a society’s existential conditions are preceded and determined by the ascendancy of a certain philosophy among those whose job is to deal with ideas. The events of any given period of history are the result of the thinking of the preceding period. The nineteenth century—with its political freedom, science, industry, business, trade, all the necessary conditions of material progress—was the result and the last achievement of the intellectual power released by the Renaissance. The men engaged in those activities were still riding on the remnants of an Aristotelian influence in philosophy, particularly on an Aristotelian epistemology (more implicitly than explicitly)." Ayn Rand
Published: June 20, 2009 9:44 AM
Russ
Brutus wrote:
"Obama could be a true believer of socialism with pure motives and flawed means, but he could also be a power hungry psychopath who has fooled the masses into believing that he means well and will do the best he can."
Yes, Obama *could* be a consumate sociopathic liar, thief and killer, even though we have no hard evidence of such. But of course, if he were the Hannibal Lector of politicians, he would be so good at covering his tracks that we couldn't get such hard evidence...
This sort of thinking that has absolutely no basis in evidence, yet (deliberately?) cannot be falsified by evidence, is exactly what constitutes conspiratorial thinking. It's also the same sort of thinking that the Left use against everybody who disagrees with them; they must not only be mistaken, they must be evil. Why can't we be gracious and give the man the benefit of the doubt that he intends well? We still have plenty of good arguments that his good intentions will lead us down the road to hell (or serfdom, as the case may be).
Published: June 20, 2009 7:59 PM
Gil
Are you kidding, A. S. Peak? "If President Obama won't take up our view of what a President should do then he's an Evil Socialist"? But then why should those who voted for Obama not be responsible? They put him there.
Published: June 20, 2009 10:47 PM
Curious
Alex Peak,
"Further, even if I had voted for one of the two aforementioned crooks, a vote is not a legitimate grant of power or consent, and thus it remains the crooks themselves who are to blame."
If I put a fox in charge of guarding the henhouse, regardless of what powers I grant or don't grant to it, in the morning, the henhouse will be empty. Who is to blame?
Published: June 20, 2009 10:49 PM
Alexander S. Peak
Mr. Gil,
1. Yes, I'm completely and absolutely serious.
2. Please do not place words into my mouth. I do not believe a president should exist, and therefore the words you are putting into my mouth amount to this: "If Obama exists, he is an Evil Socialist." But I do not believe Obama is either evil or socialist merely for existing. It is never evil to merely exist, but it is evil to wish to enslave one's fellow man. Not only did Obama vote for such things as the USA PATRIOT Act reauthorisation and the REAL ID Act, he has repeatedly made clear his willingness to slaughter innocents with nuclear annihilation. People run for the presidency for only one of two reasons: (A) to decrease statism as much as humanly possible or (B) to gain a position of slavemaster over others. The vast majority of people who run for office are evil by definition.
3. I did not use the word "socialist" at all. The term is too vague, as it means different things to different people. Brad Spangler has, for example, made a strong case for calling Rothbard a "stigmergic socialist." I don't really care whether a person fancies herself a socialist or not, so long as she adheres to the non-aggression axiom.
4. I can see no proof that anyone on the planet voted "for" Obama. It seems more likely that most of the votes Obama received were votes against the Republican candidate.
5. The people who voted for Obama did not "put him there" (i.e. in office). That criminal band we call the state put him there. It merely chose to put him there rather than someone else because it took an opinion poll (on the Tuesday after the first Monday in November) and discovered that the public was least likely to take up arms against the criminal gang if it were to place him in the office. Voters have no real power and thus cannot be responsible for the election results. To hold the voters responsible is to pretend that the voters actually had the option of eliminating the state; but, of course, they did not, because the criminal band would never actually give them this option. As the popular quote often attributed to Emma Goldman goes, if voting changed anything, they'd make it illegal.
Mr. Curious,
Voters do not put presidents into office.
Sincerely yours,
Alex Peak
Published: June 21, 2009 4:41 PM
Alexander S. Peak
Mr. Curious,
I've given some further thought to your analogy, and I've come up with a way to improve it.
A bunch of foxes get together and form a gang. They then come to you and place a gun against your head, saying, "Choose one among us to stand guard at your henhouse. If you should refuse to choose, we shall choose one for you." Not wishing to have the most vicious of the foxes chosen, you go ahead and select, at gun-point, one of the foxes from the bunch. The next morning, the henhouse has but one hen left in it. Who is to blame, you or those who imposed an "electoral system" upon you?
Sincerely,
Alex Peak
Published: June 21, 2009 4:50 PM
Gil
Who's puttting words into who's mouth then?
"If Obama exists, he is an Evil Socialist." - A. S. Peak.
What I wrote:
"If President Obama won't take up our view of what a President should do then he's an Evil Socialist?"
Apparently your worldview is such that it is evil to be non-Libertarian not merely different.
Published: June 21, 2009 8:18 PM
Curious
Alex Peak,
there was a good choice - Ron Paul.
Published: June 21, 2009 8:50 PM
Alexander S. Peak
Mr. Gil,
The exact words you put into my mouth were, "If President Obama won't take up our view of what a President should do then he's an Evil Socialist."
The point I made was that these words thus imply that I believe the following: "If Obama exists, he is an Evil Socialist."
But I never said the original set of words, and thus the latter set of words cannot be necessarily claimed to reflect my actual beliefs.
As a matter of fact, neither set of words reflects my views.
You now go on to say, "Apparently your worldview is such that it is evil to be non-Libertarian not merely different."
I find it interesting that you capitalised the word "Libertarian." I honestly don't care whether or not you support the party, and thus it can be accurately said that your statement regarding my world view also fails to reflect my actual beliefs.
Had you said "libertarian" instead of "Libertarian," you would have been only a modicum closer to accurate. But, ultimately, you would still be failing to accurately portray my beliefs.
Libertarianism is an ideology, and I don't much care whether or not a person believes in it. Beliefs are irrelevant, actions are what matter. One can hold the ideology of fascism, can believe that people are too free or should submit to some arbitraty executive, and still be a good, just person if she always refrains from initiating force or fraud. It's aggression with which I have a problem, not belief structures per se. So, in short, it is neither my worldview that it is evil to be non-Libertarian nor non-libertarian. It is only unethical and naturally criminal to engage in aggression.
Mr. Curious,
I believe the point you raise, although fairly accurate, is irrelevant. The vote is nothing more than a statement of preference; it is not an actual grant of power, and those who happen to gain power remain wholly responsible for their own actions.
To exemplify the point, let me pose the following thought experiment: Let us say that Obama does something completely criminal (such as steal money from the people and redistribute it to auto manufacturers). This is a crime, and crimes ought to be punished. So, do we (A) hold everyone who voted for Obama responsible, imprisoning them all, while leaving Obama in office to do as he pleases? Or do we (B) arrest the criminal himself?
Reason dictates that if anyone is to be arrested, it would have to be the criminal himself.
If I give a criminal candy, do I become responsible for his crimes? Of course not. And one's vote is more worthless than candy, since it (A) is not an actual grant of power, (B) legally has no market value, and (C) is not an actual "thing" in any sense of the word, but is instead simply a statement of principle, and thus something more akin to intellectual "property."
If I say "all lawyers should die" and you go out and actually kill one, natural law dictates that you, not I, are responsible. Yet this statement, that "all lawyers should die" (not an actual view I hold, by the way), is no different than the statement, "Obama should be president."
In case my thought experiment seems abstract and not practical to the real world, let me remind all here that there are actually persons out there who want to kill people in America for voting for the people for whom we vote. I have made the point elsewhere that bin Laden is flawed, that one cannot hold the people responsible for the actions of their rulers (despite what he claims), and that therefore the 9/11 attacks were wholly unjust (despite the fact that he has "justified" the attacks on these grounds). Of course I do not mean to imply that you or anyone else here defends bin Laden or his views, my point is merely to show that the thought experiment holds applicability to the real world.
To conclude, criminals are responsible for their own actions, and cannot pass the blame along to others. People need not be responsible for their beliefs, but merely their actions. And to blame society for the actions of specific persons is to give a free pass to those specific persons who committed the actions.
Regards,
Alex Peak
Published: June 22, 2009 11:13 PM