Showing posts with label Libertarianism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Libertarianism. Show all posts
The Ethics of Dynamite
I just finished listening to an episode of Free Thoughts, The Ethics of Dynamite, which I cannot recommend highly enough. Enjoy this calm and reasoned discussion on the legitimacy of the state based on the this essay of the same title. I'm clearly a little bit more radical than these guys in terms of my view on the legitimacy of the state, but it is so rare that I hear a debate of this subject on either side that is not inflamed with vitriol that I cannot contain my excitement.
Today's Act of Mental Heresy
Today, I would like you to commit serial thoughtcrime. Every time you encounter the word "government", I would like you to replace it with "organized crime" or an appropriate synonym. If you hear "leaders", or better yet, "public servants", replace it with "boss" or some equivalent. If you think this is silly or if it does not reveal any insight into our world, feel free to go back to your regular way of thinking tomorrow.
Disclaimer: To protect the delicate humors of your friends, neighbors and coworkers, be advised not to make any utterances of your revelations. Instead, provide your thoughts in the comments below.
Confessions of an Alleged Former Libertarian
I have often wondered, "Where are all the former Libertarians?" Well, I was delighted to come across tale of one on the School Sucks podcast. In the highly recommended episode Brett goes word-by-word though a Salon.com article titled, "Confessions of a former Libertarian: My personal, psychological and intellectual epiphany." I opened the article immediately upon arriving home from my daily commute. Even though Brett went through the article in great detail, I couldn't wait to read it with my own eyes, thinking that there had to be some substance that I missed by just listening to it. I was greatly disappointed. In spite of the title there was no description of an intellectual epiphany within the article. The author describes how the logical consistency of libertarianism made him feel good and allowed him to win arguments, but how, over time, the fact that he and his friends didn't feel that the ideology allowed him to act compassionately led to his conversion to "unremarkable liberalism."
I see. It's a simple matter of feelings over mind, so let's work through the illogical progression. I used to think that no one had the right the initiate the use of force against others. But this didn't sit well with me. What if some people don't have everything that I think they need, after all? Other people can provide it for them. Why shouldn't they be forced? Viola! I have a right to force A to give to B what i think B needs, because by God, that's the compassionate way to live!
I see. It's a simple matter of feelings over mind, so let's work through the illogical progression. I used to think that no one had the right the initiate the use of force against others. But this didn't sit well with me. What if some people don't have everything that I think they need, after all? Other people can provide it for them. Why shouldn't they be forced? Viola! I have a right to force A to give to B what i think B needs, because by God, that's the compassionate way to live!
Taxation Is Theft
There are those - and by "those" I mean "the vast majority of people" - who do not believe that taxation is theft. The minority of those people who have actually encountered the idea that taxation may be theft left the idea quickly in the dust with such euphemisms as "taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society." In order to accept this statement one must first ignore the fact that prices emerge from voluntary exchange, a blatant impossibility with a government decree such as the tax level. One must then proceed to accept an unspoken definition for "society", including such important aspects as who comprises it, how its will is to be determined and how that will should be executed. This is absolutely critical as it is clearly "society" who will be determining the constraints of what is "civilized", and there will be no shortage of highly energetic do-gooders who will be happy to interprets society's will for the good of civilization. On this point, I will leave the thought experiment to the great Lysander Spooner. From "No Treason — No. II. The Constitution.":
No middle ground is possible on this subject. Either "taxation without consent is robbery," or it is not. If it is not, then any number of men, who choose, may at any time associate; call themselves a government; assume absolute authority over all weaker than themselves; plunder them at will; and kill them if they resist. If, on the other hand, "taxation without consent is robbery," it necessarily follows that every man who has not consented to be taxed, has the same natural right to defend his property against a taxgatherer, that he has to defend it against a highwayman.
Just Think About the Average
It's not every day that you run into expositions on mistaken aggregation in popular culture. Maybe you aren't as big of a Rush fan as I am, so you might think that their lyrics from 1976 do not constitute 'popular culture.' Let's just assume you are wrong and carry on. In case you are not familiar with this epic piece (I really mean epic, not in the overly broad sense it has come to mean in our vernacular. The song runs just over 20 minutes.), I will poach a portion of the synopsis from the wikipedia page for the 2112 album:
In the year 2062, a galaxy-wide war results in the union of all planets under the rule of the Red Star of the Solar Federation. By 2112, the world is controlled by the "Priests of the Temples of Syrinx," who determine the content of all reading matter, songs, pictures - every facet of life. A man discovers an ancient guitar and learns to play his own music. Thinking he has made a wonderful discovery that will be a boon to humanity, he goes to present the guitar to the priests of the Temples, who angrily destroy it and rebuke him for unearthing one of the "silly whims" that caused the collapse of the previous civilization.The section I would like to focus on is the main character's meeting with the priests. After the priests deliver their initial rebuke, he says in absolute confusion and dismay:
I can't believe you're sayingTo which the priests angrily reply (italics mine):
These things just can't be true
Our world could use this beauty
Just think what we might do
Listen to my music
And hear what it can do
There's something here as strong as life
I know that it will reach you
Don't annoy us further!Picture the central planners of today and think of their conceit in reference to the priests. There is no average, no class of averages, no average person or average family that can enjoy the beauty of music or will miss its absence. These are actions and passions of individuals that cannot be summed, divided or averaged. It is true that this wonderful new discovery doesn't fit the plan, because the goal of the plan is to maximize something that doesn't exist - average happiness.
We have our work to do
Just think about the average
What use have they for you?
Another toy will help destroy
The elder race of man
Forget about your silly whim
It doesn't fit the Plan!
IRS Wastes Money to Save Us From "Total Anarchy"
This IRS made video would be humorous if it wasn't so enraging. Count the crimes. Your money (reportedly $60,000) was taken to make a terrible Star Trek parody with the intention of training 'public servants' in the proper practice of taking more of your money.
It's 10 o'clock, do you know where you ideas are?
The first thing you need to do, as usual, is check with the State. Someone else may have had the same idea, or a similar one, and applied for a state-granted monopoly on the use of it. If you forge ahead, you could stand accused of stealing someone's idea, regardless of its actual origin! You had better hire a lawyer to search the government's file of officially recognized ideas, though having done due diligence will grant you no immunity from future litigation. If that goes well, you will need to hire another lawyer to help draft an otherwise very unhelpful document. It will need to describe as many potential manifestations of the idea as possible, even though you already know what manifestation it will take. The document will need to be both as specific and as general as possible. After all, you need to protect your specific idea in as broad a manner as you can. This will, of course, make the document unreadable and uninteresting to anyone not being paid $500/hour to interpret it, but it is very important that you protect yourself from someone taking your idea away from you in the dark of night. Worse still, someone could submit your idea in writing to the state, and they will come take it, though it will probably be in the light of day.
What if the Federal Government Ended?
What if the federal government of the united States shut down and came to an end? I'm not advocating or talking about a violent overthrow by any entity foreign or domestic. This shouldn't even be interpreted as a protest, just a hypothetical. What if the leaders just said, "We're tired of everyone begging goodies from us on one hand and their unwillingness to pay with the other. We've come to the 'Fiscal Cliff' and have reached no final, lasting resolution. Forget it, we're packing up, going home and getting jobs. This is isn't a temporary shut down while we point fingers across the isle like you've seen before. Mom and Dad aren't fighting; we're shrugging and splitting up."
Would their be any jobs? Would we be safe? Could we trust our doctors, our food supply, our clean air and water, our banks and our employers? What about the states; are they up to the challenge of managing our safety and security?
Would their be any jobs? Would we be safe? Could we trust our doctors, our food supply, our clean air and water, our banks and our employers? What about the states; are they up to the challenge of managing our safety and security?
Stossel: Freedom 2.0
I have lately been a little bit bored with Stossel, not because I don't think his topics are interesting and important, but because I have just heard it all before. I am hearing the sermon from choir.
But his latest episode, Freedom 2.0, was fantastic. He covered some of my favorite topics in considerable detail including:
But his latest episode, Freedom 2.0, was fantastic. He covered some of my favorite topics in considerable detail including:
- Government Transparency
- New Media (Including Jimmy Wales, the founder of Wikipedia).
- Government-free regulation of important markets
- Artificial Intelligence and its potential effects on our lives and the economy of the future
- Bitcoin, the government-free currency of the future (hopefully).
The We-Firsters - A Lesson in Statism
You're familiar with me-firsters right - those people who always want to go first and get the first, best items all for themselves? You probably revile these people and rightfully so. I don't advocate altruism in the sense that one's duty is first to sacrifice for others, but I do recognize that a man leads a better life if he loves and gives. Trampling on others without respect for their wants and needs deserves some reproach. But what I propose to you is that you revile, high above the me-firsters, the we-firsters. These are the apparently kind souls who, upon hearing of something they don't like or broadly disapprove of, claim that "we ought to do something." Whether that something is to invade country x, y or z (or all three), establish a federal schooling system, ban handguns, large capacity magazines and semi-automatic weapons, or pass legislation aimed at keeping drugs off the streets and away from the children, these busy-bodies always want what is best. They just aren't willing to go it alone. They need the help of the royal "we".
Example: "Why don't we do something about Darfur, Afghanistan, and Libya?!"
To me this is like saying, "why don't we do a better job at the Olympics?" "We" isn't the correct word to use. What is meant is "the US Olympic team", just as above is meant the "US Government" or the" US military."
You want to contribute to the success of the Olympic team? Get off your duff and start training. Donate money or volunteer to drive struggling young gymnasts to training at the crack of dawn every day. You want to help the poor or protect the children? How about starting within your self? Champion a cause, donate money to a charity, volunteer your time or peacefully protest that which you see as evil. Stop invoking the long arm of the law to force "us" to help you. See something evil worth stopping? Think "me first!"
Example: "Why don't we do something about Darfur, Afghanistan, and Libya?!"
To me this is like saying, "why don't we do a better job at the Olympics?" "We" isn't the correct word to use. What is meant is "the US Olympic team", just as above is meant the "US Government" or the" US military."
You want to contribute to the success of the Olympic team? Get off your duff and start training. Donate money or volunteer to drive struggling young gymnasts to training at the crack of dawn every day. You want to help the poor or protect the children? How about starting within your self? Champion a cause, donate money to a charity, volunteer your time or peacefully protest that which you see as evil. Stop invoking the long arm of the law to force "us" to help you. See something evil worth stopping? Think "me first!"
The Productive, Peaceful Sector and the Nonproductive, Violent Sector
No, "public" and "private" just won't do.
How about this: the "productive sector" and the "nonproductive sector"? Admittedly, the "nonproductive sector" is a little cumbersome, so we may want to consider variants in wording, but you get the idea. Some would argue that the government and its agents, public-private partnerships (yuck!) and the like, occasionally produce goods and services people want, to which I would argue, "not without forcibly creating monopolies for themselves." Be that as it may, it is prudent to search for better, more universally accepted alternatives.
I don’t mean that a business politician won’t steal; stealing is his business. But all politicians are nonproductive. The only commodity any politician has to offer is jawbone. -- Lazarus Long
Dog-eat-dog Capitalism
The Utopian dreams of Communism abound with adolescent attacks against free markets and trade. For example, "A dog-eat-dog struggle for goods will give way to a family of humanity."
Ayn Rand was fond of saying that the "dog-eat-dog" description of capitalism didn't aptly apply to either dogs or men. As a broad general statement of course, this is true. However it goes far beyond that. Capitalism, or volunteerism, or free markets, or whatever you want to call it is precisely the opposite of dog-eat-dog. It is dog-please-dog.
Take the infamous and much hyped Cola Wars waged between Coke and Pepsi. Despite the moniker, this "war" was waged over the opportunity to bring you the cheapest, sweetest, carbonated beverage imaginable and was waged without drones, planes, bombs, guns, whips, chains or military prisons. I doubt so much as a fist fight broke out between the two sides, and I am not aware of a single unkind word officially spoken by either side about the opposition. Yet to hear the enemies of capitalism tell it, you would think that two companies, engaged in a violence-free "war" to give you pleasure, were starving hyenas snapping at each other while ripping the flesh from your cooling carcass.
There are none so blind as those who will not see. The essence of capitalism is voluntary exchange. The goal is an improved standard of living, and the means to achieve that goal is to provide it to your neighbor according to your ability and his needs. But, and here's the big "but", you must do it without the aid of a knife, or a gun, or a mob, else you are a thief.
If dogs were able to negotiate the trade of physical objects for services rendered (think two chew toys for one dead bird), we would instantly transform into giggly 9-year-old girls, reflexively declaring "how cute" the exchange was. Yet, when this is the behavior of men are we to believe it should be curtailed, that it must be bridled or else we will be strapped with run-away, free-wheeling, dog-please-dog capitalism? The horror!
Ayn Rand was fond of saying that the "dog-eat-dog" description of capitalism didn't aptly apply to either dogs or men. As a broad general statement of course, this is true. However it goes far beyond that. Capitalism, or volunteerism, or free markets, or whatever you want to call it is precisely the opposite of dog-eat-dog. It is dog-please-dog.
Take the infamous and much hyped Cola Wars waged between Coke and Pepsi. Despite the moniker, this "war" was waged over the opportunity to bring you the cheapest, sweetest, carbonated beverage imaginable and was waged without drones, planes, bombs, guns, whips, chains or military prisons. I doubt so much as a fist fight broke out between the two sides, and I am not aware of a single unkind word officially spoken by either side about the opposition. Yet to hear the enemies of capitalism tell it, you would think that two companies, engaged in a violence-free "war" to give you pleasure, were starving hyenas snapping at each other while ripping the flesh from your cooling carcass.
There are none so blind as those who will not see. The essence of capitalism is voluntary exchange. The goal is an improved standard of living, and the means to achieve that goal is to provide it to your neighbor according to your ability and his needs. But, and here's the big "but", you must do it without the aid of a knife, or a gun, or a mob, else you are a thief.
If dogs were able to negotiate the trade of physical objects for services rendered (think two chew toys for one dead bird), we would instantly transform into giggly 9-year-old girls, reflexively declaring "how cute" the exchange was. Yet, when this is the behavior of men are we to believe it should be curtailed, that it must be bridled or else we will be strapped with run-away, free-wheeling, dog-please-dog capitalism? The horror!
What is My Vote Worth?
It has become in vogue within libertarian/anarcho-capitalist circles to proclaim that one's vote does not matter or is of no value because of the historical improbability of any individual vote determining the outcome. However, when determining whether or not to vote and for whom, one needs to evaluate this position a little bit more deeply. The prospective voter must consider, "What is my vote worth?"
The value of one's vote is subjective, so the answer to this question depends on the reference frame one takes in evaluating it. From the perspective of the outcome of local, state and federal government election results, your vote is statistically meaningless in all but very rare (usually local) circumstances. So the point is well taken that if your only goal is effecting the make up of government, you are money and time ahead to stay home on election day. However, when viewed from the perspective of the individual, the value of a vote takes on an entirely new dimension much greater than the spitting-in-the-ocean effect on the election outcome. To me, voting is an opportunity to express my opinion - usually dissatisfaction with the dominant parties and the political system in general. This election I will be casting my vote for Gary Johnson because he represents a radical improvement over past administrations and the republican and democratic nominees. I know little of local politics, so I may just write in obscenities. I like Ben Dover's position on the tough issues. This may be blasphemy for the statist, but it makes the trip worthwhile for me.
Related Post: The Not So Fundamental Right to Vote
The value of one's vote is subjective, so the answer to this question depends on the reference frame one takes in evaluating it. From the perspective of the outcome of local, state and federal government election results, your vote is statistically meaningless in all but very rare (usually local) circumstances. So the point is well taken that if your only goal is effecting the make up of government, you are money and time ahead to stay home on election day. However, when viewed from the perspective of the individual, the value of a vote takes on an entirely new dimension much greater than the spitting-in-the-ocean effect on the election outcome. To me, voting is an opportunity to express my opinion - usually dissatisfaction with the dominant parties and the political system in general. This election I will be casting my vote for Gary Johnson because he represents a radical improvement over past administrations and the republican and democratic nominees. I know little of local politics, so I may just write in obscenities. I like Ben Dover's position on the tough issues. This may be blasphemy for the statist, but it makes the trip worthwhile for me.
Related Post: The Not So Fundamental Right to Vote
How to Argue with Liberals, Progressives and Other Leftists - The Central Tenet of Statism
The key to rhetorically dominating any flawed ideology is in attacking its basis, which is naturally usually mistaken. The root of leftist, progressive, social democratic and other euphemistic variants of socialist/statist thought is the idea that people basically suck. It goes like this.
People suck so:
Granted, few people I know would ever justify their world view by bluntly stating that people suck, though I can recall at least one who has. Somehow the premise for these ideologies is generally given as a love or respect for people, but I fail to see the logic behind loving and respecting humans so much as to advocate for their control, in whole or in part.
Of course the human condition is more complicated than "people suck" vs. "people don't suck". I tend to the believe the latter more often than not, though I try to shy away from such banal generalities.
Individuals have a variety of skills, aptitudes and ambitions. They interact, exchange, improve and decline in unpredictable and fascinating ways. People, even at the "lowest" rungs of society, think and act with volition; there is no such mass of poor, starving automatons who need to have their lives planned for them. There are people like you and me who want to be free from coercion. Even those who do not recognize this just and moral sentiment of human interaction should be granted the privilege. If you care so much for your common man but fear that the remainder of society is too evil or inept to help of their own accord, please volunteer your own resources to the cause before advocating codified force against your neighbor.
People suck so:
- They will not educate their own children up to our standards. We must take their money and their children and educate them ourselves.
- They will not help each other, especially rich people who look down on the helpless poor masses. We must take a portion of everyone's money, especially the rich because they won't miss it, and give it to people who can't support themselves. Anyone who considers this thievery doesn't care about the poor.
- They are unscrupulous and will rampantly profit off of the ignorance of consumers by selling them defective, dangerous products. We must wield the long arm of the law to regulate the production and marketing of practically every product in every market to protect the poor, stupid masses.
- They are easily conned and too ignorant and lazy to look out for their own interests. See above.
- They will destroy their minds and bodies with drugs, alcohol and unhealthy food if left to their own discretion. Some drugs are just too dangerous to be in the presence of these poorly programmed automatons; they must be banned. Other drugs, such as alcohol, must be tightly controlled and highly taxed to prevent the breakdown of society. The amount of salt, saturated fat, sugar and other nasty ingredients in the commoner's diet must be managed by law if possible. If we fail in that, we can take their money and educate them on the matter.
Granted, few people I know would ever justify their world view by bluntly stating that people suck, though I can recall at least one who has. Somehow the premise for these ideologies is generally given as a love or respect for people, but I fail to see the logic behind loving and respecting humans so much as to advocate for their control, in whole or in part.
Of course the human condition is more complicated than "people suck" vs. "people don't suck". I tend to the believe the latter more often than not, though I try to shy away from such banal generalities.
Individuals have a variety of skills, aptitudes and ambitions. They interact, exchange, improve and decline in unpredictable and fascinating ways. People, even at the "lowest" rungs of society, think and act with volition; there is no such mass of poor, starving automatons who need to have their lives planned for them. There are people like you and me who want to be free from coercion. Even those who do not recognize this just and moral sentiment of human interaction should be granted the privilege. If you care so much for your common man but fear that the remainder of society is too evil or inept to help of their own accord, please volunteer your own resources to the cause before advocating codified force against your neighbor.
"You Didn't Build That" - A response in favor of peace
For those of you living under a rock, there has been a recent uproar over something our gentle public servant Obama said the other day. If you search for "you didn't build that", you will doubtless find a great number of news items describing, quoting, misquoting, spinning and backpedaling on the statements of the president. I will not sully my site with the banal news cycle. I simply wish to provide my thoughts on the subject.
There are various arguments of the type, "You couldn't have accomplished (or you wouldn't have possession of) X, Y or Z without the government. The government invested in the internet, microchips, space exploration, your education, and roads. They provided laws and boots for your protection including such things as patents, police, armies, navies and courts. Governments paid Columbus to "discover" the new world and Lewis and Clark to explore and document it. Therefore, you have no cause to complain about taxation or other government interventions which have provided for your general welfare."
These arguments are generally given by the left, though the right is only conditionally allergic to them. They are given in opposition to the simplistic, dare I say Randian, portrayal of the rugged individualist entrepreneur standing alone against the world to profit in a capitalist paradise. They so often end with some variant of, "You didn't accomplish this alone." Well of course is it overly simplistic to think that anyone succeeds in business (or in life for that matter) purely on the merits of their own efforts, but does it follow that we should back off any opposition to government based on this fact?
Of course we all rely on the kindness, savings, investments, intelligence, innovation and business of others in extraordinary and unpredictable ways. You must receive your business inputs, you must obtain the capital and skills to produce your output and your customers must find you and decide to purchase your product at the price you have set. You stand on the shoulders of inventors and discoverers who have come before you and presume that somehow a population will have the wealth and the desire to purchase your wares. You didn't plan all of this; you would have had to start before you were born. So if you succeed in business through loss of your own blood, sweat and tears, whom do owe and how much?
Certainly you can account for the prices paid for your raw materials, your capital equipment, your employees and your education. You will pay interest or give up a portion of future profits to investors. Your parents are unlikely to insist repayment for your upbringing, so you're off the hook there. You either pay rent for your property or you purchased it outright. Last but not least, your customers pay you, which ultimately allows you to pay for all of your inputs. So maybe you owe your customer the most; you clearly couldn't have done it without them. But wait a minute, they received something in this transaction - your product. Did they pay too much? Should you give something back, if not to them then to society? Unless you defrauded them, forced them or sold a defective product, you should not feel the need to repay anyone. The price paid for any good is a reflection of the subjective valuation of that good to the purchaser at the given place and time. You give a man a hamburger, he gives you $5 and you owe each other nothing but mutual thanks. This relationship recurses back through every transaction in the chain of production and we end up with this beautiful, spontaneous, chaotic order in which we can peacefully make progress and profits off the backs of our neighbors and owe them nothing but our thanks.
Now enter a gang of thieves who disrupt this harmonious relationship with force or subterfuge. Their guns represent an attempt to get something from the beautiful order of man without giving anything in return. The gang may in special circumstances provide money in exchange for their takings, but this "price" is meaningless on account of their weapons and their "right" to use them. Imagine a gang large enough to repel all other gangs between the sea and the nearest mountain range. The pragmatic gang will not disrupt the order enough to destroy it as it provides for the welfare of all. They will protect their borders with troops and the order on their streets with police. They will take their cut of commerce flowing in, out and within their realm. The population will become so accustomed to these takings that the guns will be rarely taken out of their holsters for the robbery, which then will be called a tax. If possible they will monopolize the currency used by the populace to aid in extracting the resources required to "maintain" the order, which preceded their existence. Finally, the populace will thank them and sing their praises for false promises written on paper to constrain the power they have already usurped for themselves. They will put roads and build bridges where it pleases them and pay prices that mean nothing for materials and labor. With funds taken from the people, they will pay meaningless fees to scientists to discover things they think people are interested in knowing and engineers to build things they think people will want. In the same way they will enforce a curriculum upon the youth. They will mistake progress with comfort and destroy both by paying men to dig ditches and fill them in. For all of this they will claim a right to thanks from the citizenry. They will shout down objections to their power with claims that the order would not exist without them and that their theft was necessary and beneficial. And at this point, their resemblance to the state is complete.
There are various arguments of the type, "You couldn't have accomplished (or you wouldn't have possession of) X, Y or Z without the government. The government invested in the internet, microchips, space exploration, your education, and roads. They provided laws and boots for your protection including such things as patents, police, armies, navies and courts. Governments paid Columbus to "discover" the new world and Lewis and Clark to explore and document it. Therefore, you have no cause to complain about taxation or other government interventions which have provided for your general welfare."
These arguments are generally given by the left, though the right is only conditionally allergic to them. They are given in opposition to the simplistic, dare I say Randian, portrayal of the rugged individualist entrepreneur standing alone against the world to profit in a capitalist paradise. They so often end with some variant of, "You didn't accomplish this alone." Well of course is it overly simplistic to think that anyone succeeds in business (or in life for that matter) purely on the merits of their own efforts, but does it follow that we should back off any opposition to government based on this fact?
Of course we all rely on the kindness, savings, investments, intelligence, innovation and business of others in extraordinary and unpredictable ways. You must receive your business inputs, you must obtain the capital and skills to produce your output and your customers must find you and decide to purchase your product at the price you have set. You stand on the shoulders of inventors and discoverers who have come before you and presume that somehow a population will have the wealth and the desire to purchase your wares. You didn't plan all of this; you would have had to start before you were born. So if you succeed in business through loss of your own blood, sweat and tears, whom do owe and how much?
Certainly you can account for the prices paid for your raw materials, your capital equipment, your employees and your education. You will pay interest or give up a portion of future profits to investors. Your parents are unlikely to insist repayment for your upbringing, so you're off the hook there. You either pay rent for your property or you purchased it outright. Last but not least, your customers pay you, which ultimately allows you to pay for all of your inputs. So maybe you owe your customer the most; you clearly couldn't have done it without them. But wait a minute, they received something in this transaction - your product. Did they pay too much? Should you give something back, if not to them then to society? Unless you defrauded them, forced them or sold a defective product, you should not feel the need to repay anyone. The price paid for any good is a reflection of the subjective valuation of that good to the purchaser at the given place and time. You give a man a hamburger, he gives you $5 and you owe each other nothing but mutual thanks. This relationship recurses back through every transaction in the chain of production and we end up with this beautiful, spontaneous, chaotic order in which we can peacefully make progress and profits off the backs of our neighbors and owe them nothing but our thanks.
Now enter a gang of thieves who disrupt this harmonious relationship with force or subterfuge. Their guns represent an attempt to get something from the beautiful order of man without giving anything in return. The gang may in special circumstances provide money in exchange for their takings, but this "price" is meaningless on account of their weapons and their "right" to use them. Imagine a gang large enough to repel all other gangs between the sea and the nearest mountain range. The pragmatic gang will not disrupt the order enough to destroy it as it provides for the welfare of all. They will protect their borders with troops and the order on their streets with police. They will take their cut of commerce flowing in, out and within their realm. The population will become so accustomed to these takings that the guns will be rarely taken out of their holsters for the robbery, which then will be called a tax. If possible they will monopolize the currency used by the populace to aid in extracting the resources required to "maintain" the order, which preceded their existence. Finally, the populace will thank them and sing their praises for false promises written on paper to constrain the power they have already usurped for themselves. They will put roads and build bridges where it pleases them and pay prices that mean nothing for materials and labor. With funds taken from the people, they will pay meaningless fees to scientists to discover things they think people are interested in knowing and engineers to build things they think people will want. In the same way they will enforce a curriculum upon the youth. They will mistake progress with comfort and destroy both by paying men to dig ditches and fill them in. For all of this they will claim a right to thanks from the citizenry. They will shout down objections to their power with claims that the order would not exist without them and that their theft was necessary and beneficial. And at this point, their resemblance to the state is complete.
Penny4NASA Follow-Up
This thought came to me in the shower, as most good thoughts do, and I thought it was a shame I didn't include it in my previous post:
Consider for a moment the capital expended to mass produce the first automobiles. Now think of how quickly they were adopted, how drastically they changed human activity and productivity and how unbelievably quickly they improved with respect to speed, mobility, style, reliability and efficiency. All of that was produced with hard-earned capital, voluntarily given in expectation of profit, and a healthy dose of enterprising individuals employed for the same cause. Now compare this with NASA's history. The expenditure has been enormous, not to mention it was all taken by force, and the payoff relatively small. The so-called "spin-off" technologies and secondary externalities created by the agency seem paltry compared to the advances in technology Ford alone developed. I encourage anyone to look them up. While you're at it, read Garet Garett's The Wild Wheel.
Freedom, Peace and Liberty - 1
Tyranny, Force and Plunder - 0
Related Posts:
Pennies for Flying Cars - Another Tale of the Unseen
Pennies for NASA - Ignoring Cost at all Cost
Consider for a moment the capital expended to mass produce the first automobiles. Now think of how quickly they were adopted, how drastically they changed human activity and productivity and how unbelievably quickly they improved with respect to speed, mobility, style, reliability and efficiency. All of that was produced with hard-earned capital, voluntarily given in expectation of profit, and a healthy dose of enterprising individuals employed for the same cause. Now compare this with NASA's history. The expenditure has been enormous, not to mention it was all taken by force, and the payoff relatively small. The so-called "spin-off" technologies and secondary externalities created by the agency seem paltry compared to the advances in technology Ford alone developed. I encourage anyone to look them up. While you're at it, read Garet Garett's The Wild Wheel.
Freedom, Peace and Liberty - 1
Tyranny, Force and Plunder - 0
Related Posts:
Pennies for Flying Cars - Another Tale of the Unseen
Pennies for NASA - Ignoring Cost at all Cost
Pennies for Flying Cars - Another Tale of the Unseen
Wouldn't it be great if I drove a flying Mercedes-Benz? I certainly think so! Wouldn't it be great if everyone else did too? No doubt. Of course we would need to nationalize a major car company, but I don't anticipate any obstacles there.
How much would you pay for the universe (of flying cars)? How do we examine the costs and benefits?
Besides the mere fact that everyone would be flying in style with little concern for congestion, just think of all the stimulative effects it would have on society. We would probably all save a bunch of time going to and from work. The ability to fly would eliminate many of the complexities associated with driving and would probably facilitate automating the process. This would free us from the drudgery of the daily commute and essentially make the world smaller, expanding our zone of employment and improving our earning power. Besides all that, I certainly would feel better about myself and my status, being a hot-rod pilot and all. I would probably start dressing better, and maybe I would have the esteem to go for that big promotion at work. Multiply that by millions of people so effected and imagine the economy purring along like a spoiled kitten. Children everywhere would be inspired by the wonder of daily flight, as well as the precise engineering, the smooth handling and the attractive contouring that go along with the now ubiquitous, flying Mercedes-Benz. Just imagine the young crop of overachieving engineers, scientists, designers and artists growing up and really getting after it in an ever expanding world of opportunity! Beyond all of that, we're bound to happen upon a great many wealth-producing discoveries and labor-saving inventions in our quest to mass produce flying cars. We can't afford to let go of this dream! People probably won't go for it voluntarily, so we'll probably need the government to foot the bill.
Foolish, childish ideas and hyperbolic extrapolations? Absolutely. No one would ever seriously propose such an expensive, narrow-minded, centrally-planned "national greatness" program simply on the grounds that it would be inspirational or generally stimulative. First of all, to attribute the life decisions and successes of any individual in an advanced society (let alone that of a group of such individuals) to a single program, stimulus or event is utter foolishness. Further, to claim that directing that desire toward a particular field in lieu of all others is an improvement on the situation of men is a fatal conceit indeed. Inspiring a young Sam Walton to design thrusters for the new F-Class would have deprived us of Walmart, which would have been an injustice nearly beyond this author's will to consider.
The rationalization of the program based on the stimulative effects of inventions made in the process is a particularly special pleading based on ignoring the costs of the program itself. Of course the monetary price we would pay for the program is obvious, but the activities forgone in order to support it will forever be hidden to us. I am not speaking here of what other great national work must be given up, like the Federal Jetpack Program, though that is a viable concern. I am considering what activities in the private (or peaceful) market place must be displaced in order to make the flying car dream a reality. It takes real saved wealth to pull off a project like this, and since the government has none, they'll have to take it away from someone (more likely a whole bunch of someones). Your guess is as bad as mine as to what that saved wealth would have been used for. Some of it no doubt would have been saved for consumption at a later date, while some of it would have been consumed right away on things like candy, shirts, smart phones and regular, old-fashioned rolling cars. So that's simple enough; we're just asking for little Johnny to go without his chocolate for the week, or little Susan to cut back on the texts or 16 year-old Franklin's parents to go for the fixer upper instead of certified pre-owned. That's not so much to ask of the patriotic citizen for the common dream of flying cars. If you buy that argument, I guess this is where we go our separate ways, but there is one last thing I would like you to consider - investment. Some of that wealth would have been invested in a broad array of forward-looking ventures, most of which probably would have had a better chance of turning a profit than the lofty dream of flying luxury cars. Some, no doubt, would have been massive failures that were either poorly managed or not well thought out or both, but if history is any guide, a great many of them would have been successful, some of them fantastically so. There would have been some AOL-TimeWarner's and some Betamax's, but there would also be the Amazon's and the Apple's. Maybe we would be missing out on the next Iphone, Ipad, or hell, the Icar (not flying til generation 4.f). Maybe Bayer would have cancelled a line or research on some young drug that would have turned out to cure cancer, or AIDS, or diabetes. Maybe Pfizer pulled back on the next great erection enhancer. Maybe Kenmore's new dishwasher would have saved us more time at less expense than the flying 'Benz. The fact is, we'll never know the costs of the great flying machine project because they are simply immeasurable. So you tell me if you can justify taking your neighbor's wealth by force to support this or any other technological fantasy.
In my previous post on the subject of Penny4NASA, I focused on the fiscal irresponsibility of clamoring for increased NASA funding. Now I hope I have demonstrated the fallacious nature of the arguments used to present the supposed benefits of increased funding for the program as expounded on said website:
I hope my work can be a massively huge inspiration bringer to young thinkers everywhere so that they can root out the legal plunder of the future, today.
Related Posts:
Pennies for NASA - Ignoring Cost at all Cost
How much would you pay for the universe (of flying cars)? How do we examine the costs and benefits?
Besides the mere fact that everyone would be flying in style with little concern for congestion, just think of all the stimulative effects it would have on society. We would probably all save a bunch of time going to and from work. The ability to fly would eliminate many of the complexities associated with driving and would probably facilitate automating the process. This would free us from the drudgery of the daily commute and essentially make the world smaller, expanding our zone of employment and improving our earning power. Besides all that, I certainly would feel better about myself and my status, being a hot-rod pilot and all. I would probably start dressing better, and maybe I would have the esteem to go for that big promotion at work. Multiply that by millions of people so effected and imagine the economy purring along like a spoiled kitten. Children everywhere would be inspired by the wonder of daily flight, as well as the precise engineering, the smooth handling and the attractive contouring that go along with the now ubiquitous, flying Mercedes-Benz. Just imagine the young crop of overachieving engineers, scientists, designers and artists growing up and really getting after it in an ever expanding world of opportunity! Beyond all of that, we're bound to happen upon a great many wealth-producing discoveries and labor-saving inventions in our quest to mass produce flying cars. We can't afford to let go of this dream! People probably won't go for it voluntarily, so we'll probably need the government to foot the bill.
Foolish, childish ideas and hyperbolic extrapolations? Absolutely. No one would ever seriously propose such an expensive, narrow-minded, centrally-planned "national greatness" program simply on the grounds that it would be inspirational or generally stimulative. First of all, to attribute the life decisions and successes of any individual in an advanced society (let alone that of a group of such individuals) to a single program, stimulus or event is utter foolishness. Further, to claim that directing that desire toward a particular field in lieu of all others is an improvement on the situation of men is a fatal conceit indeed. Inspiring a young Sam Walton to design thrusters for the new F-Class would have deprived us of Walmart, which would have been an injustice nearly beyond this author's will to consider.
The rationalization of the program based on the stimulative effects of inventions made in the process is a particularly special pleading based on ignoring the costs of the program itself. Of course the monetary price we would pay for the program is obvious, but the activities forgone in order to support it will forever be hidden to us. I am not speaking here of what other great national work must be given up, like the Federal Jetpack Program, though that is a viable concern. I am considering what activities in the private (or peaceful) market place must be displaced in order to make the flying car dream a reality. It takes real saved wealth to pull off a project like this, and since the government has none, they'll have to take it away from someone (more likely a whole bunch of someones). Your guess is as bad as mine as to what that saved wealth would have been used for. Some of it no doubt would have been saved for consumption at a later date, while some of it would have been consumed right away on things like candy, shirts, smart phones and regular, old-fashioned rolling cars. So that's simple enough; we're just asking for little Johnny to go without his chocolate for the week, or little Susan to cut back on the texts or 16 year-old Franklin's parents to go for the fixer upper instead of certified pre-owned. That's not so much to ask of the patriotic citizen for the common dream of flying cars. If you buy that argument, I guess this is where we go our separate ways, but there is one last thing I would like you to consider - investment. Some of that wealth would have been invested in a broad array of forward-looking ventures, most of which probably would have had a better chance of turning a profit than the lofty dream of flying luxury cars. Some, no doubt, would have been massive failures that were either poorly managed or not well thought out or both, but if history is any guide, a great many of them would have been successful, some of them fantastically so. There would have been some AOL-TimeWarner's and some Betamax's, but there would also be the Amazon's and the Apple's. Maybe we would be missing out on the next Iphone, Ipad, or hell, the Icar (not flying til generation 4.f). Maybe Bayer would have cancelled a line or research on some young drug that would have turned out to cure cancer, or AIDS, or diabetes. Maybe Pfizer pulled back on the next great erection enhancer. Maybe Kenmore's new dishwasher would have saved us more time at less expense than the flying 'Benz. The fact is, we'll never know the costs of the great flying machine project because they are simply immeasurable. So you tell me if you can justify taking your neighbor's wealth by force to support this or any other technological fantasy.
In my previous post on the subject of Penny4NASA, I focused on the fiscal irresponsibility of clamoring for increased NASA funding. Now I hope I have demonstrated the fallacious nature of the arguments used to present the supposed benefits of increased funding for the program as expounded on said website:
NASA contributes to society in massively huge ways in terms of technological, economical, and inspirational progress. The progress that we have seen in the last 40 years comes largely from the world's extremely talented scientists and engineers. Now, talk to most any scientist and/or engineer of the last 40 years, and we are willing to bet that they were drawn into their chosen field by something NASA related. And more often then not, they refer to the Apollo, Gemini and/or Space Shuttle program where humans were physically advancing a frontier. It's the human spirit of exploration that drives the world's greatest technologists to invent the future, today. We want to see to it that the US annual budget allocation for NASA reflects that hugely important role technology, economy, and inspiration bringer.
I hope my work can be a massively huge inspiration bringer to young thinkers everywhere so that they can root out the legal plunder of the future, today.
Related Posts:
Pennies for NASA - Ignoring Cost at all Cost
Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter?
I saw the trailer today for the Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter movie today. The last thing we need is further deification of the presidency in general and of Lincoln in particular. The concept would seem more silly if it weren't so sickening.
Political Guy
There has long been a strain of progressivism underlying "Family Guy" with Brian, the family dog, being the liberal conscience of the family. This is unfortunate because it happens to be one of my favorite shows. The most recent episode was the most political yet. Not surprisingly, it was the furthest off the mark. The show began with Peter operating his own jack-of-all-trades business from his home. Ostensibly out of fear that he may hurt someone by doing bad business and explicitly because he didn't have the appropriate license, the city shut him down. Peter's reaction was to join the Tea Party and bring and end to the city government. This is where the realism of the show deteriorated. The remainder of the show was devoted to an inaccurate caricature of the movement as more centralized, coherent and anarchistic than it truly is. The incoherent nature of the Tea Party is made obvious by simply observing the diverse opinions of those who pretend to lead it. I will grant creative license here and criticize no further - a realistic portrayal of squabbling within the movement would not make for an entertaining show. I will however take umbrage with the anarchistic strain in Peter's Tea Party.
Few would argue that the Tea Party is considerably anti-government in general, but fewer still would argue that the movement is anarchistic, anti-all-government, at its base. Rather, the movement favors less government or limited government and generally appeals to traditional limitations to its size and scope, such as the federal constitution. If the movement was consistently anarchistic, very few if any of its adherents would get involved in the political process at all. Lest you think I am over interpreting the distinction here or giving to too much importance, note the scene where a dissenter, a man who holds a sign reading, "A little bit of government", is physically assaulted by the mob and presumably killed. Similarly, a lone dissenting voice among the mob is later silenced via gunfire immediately prior to the dissolution of the city government. A predictable and tired depiction of the breakdown of society - due to the lack of city governance mind you - then followed including such statist fear mongering as the garbage piling up, chaos on the roads, planes falling out of the sky and riots in the streets.
Perhaps, you say, I should not derive deep political meaning from the raunchiest cartoon on television. This line of thinking is betrayed by the fact that the conclusion of the show is devoted to making a strong, albeit simple, statement about the morality and practicality of democracy. The program was not just poking fun at everyone for the hell of it as it usually does and which I usually enjoy. There was clearly the intention of a distinctly political message - a moral of the story so to speak.
So let's recap the strategy:
I am all for poking fun at just about anyone, even people who want less government, but people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. Remember the "Fellas At The Freakin' FCC"?
The proper role of government deserves serious consideration given by serious adults. Politics and satire are similarly cheapened by moralizing, partisan cartoons.
Few would argue that the Tea Party is considerably anti-government in general, but fewer still would argue that the movement is anarchistic, anti-all-government, at its base. Rather, the movement favors less government or limited government and generally appeals to traditional limitations to its size and scope, such as the federal constitution. If the movement was consistently anarchistic, very few if any of its adherents would get involved in the political process at all. Lest you think I am over interpreting the distinction here or giving to too much importance, note the scene where a dissenter, a man who holds a sign reading, "A little bit of government", is physically assaulted by the mob and presumably killed. Similarly, a lone dissenting voice among the mob is later silenced via gunfire immediately prior to the dissolution of the city government. A predictable and tired depiction of the breakdown of society - due to the lack of city governance mind you - then followed including such statist fear mongering as the garbage piling up, chaos on the roads, planes falling out of the sky and riots in the streets.
Perhaps, you say, I should not derive deep political meaning from the raunchiest cartoon on television. This line of thinking is betrayed by the fact that the conclusion of the show is devoted to making a strong, albeit simple, statement about the morality and practicality of democracy. The program was not just poking fun at everyone for the hell of it as it usually does and which I usually enjoy. There was clearly the intention of a distinctly political message - a moral of the story so to speak.
So let's recap the strategy:
- Create a farcical situation in which the main character, the show's biggest boob, gets involved with a political movement you disagree with.
- Misrepresent the positions of that movement to align it with one of history's greatest boogiemen - anarchists.
- Misrepresent what might happen if the city government were to disappear overnight.
- Make an over simplified speech extolling the values you hold directed at knocking down the straw men that you have set up - the fictitious anarchist tea partiers.
- Preemptively make fun of anyone who might call you out on the internet.
I am all for poking fun at just about anyone, even people who want less government, but people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. Remember the "Fellas At The Freakin' FCC"?
The proper role of government deserves serious consideration given by serious adults. Politics and satire are similarly cheapened by moralizing, partisan cartoons.
University Pelf
I went to my home state's flagship university for my undergraduate engineering degree. I had a classmate there who thought he was particularly bright. Most of us begged to differ, and he didn't have the most endearing personality. He once laughed at me in 2006 for suggesting that Microsoft would loose market share to its competitors and that the specter of its "monopoly" would run its own course if left alone. He struck me as particularly lazy, both intellectually and physically, and he was a poor leader of our senior design team despite his campaign to the contrary. I was delighted to learn this morning in our alumni magazine that he is now a professor at the university and the new poster child of a considerable DOD grant to develop the next super weapon for the never ending War on Everyone. I couldn't think of a more appropriate person to represent the suckling piglets of university pelf.
pelf - money or wealth, especially when regarded with contempt or acquired by reprehensible means.
It has become an archaic term, but I suggest we bring it back.
pelf - money or wealth, especially when regarded with contempt or acquired by reprehensible means.
It has become an archaic term, but I suggest we bring it back.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
