Actually, I was arguing the merits of having an economy controlled by a Monarch, as opposed to a democratically elected bunch every few years … if it has to be controlled by someone … ala Hoppe.
Bascially, I am trying to point out just how shit democracy is as a means of getting things done
Not an option I’m afraid. There were attempts to set up an independent nation of Kurdistan but that wouldn’t occur without Saddam’s consent and his consent was obviously not forthcoming. Now that the Kurdish people have a voice in the governance of the country, “leaving the system” can enter the dialogue.
Well I suppose that my example was a little shaky since I’m not editing my posts, but it was an example of centralised power protecting minority rights when most people seem to think that democracy is analogous to a tyranny of a majority. I also cede the necessary correlate that if democratic rule leads to a reduction in rights (or a regression such as with the death penalty) that in a democratic society that has to be accepted. There can be economic incentives to not doing so though: such as retaining membership in the European Union.
Who watches the watchmen? If a particular outfit achieves hegemony in a region, who will enforce the law against them? What if there’s an armed dispute? Will it be any different from paying the mafia protection money? If there is a central authority to report to that can cut off a person’s pay if they’ve been found to contravene the law. In the instances where the police are already authoritarian such as with institutionalised racism, there is no reason to suppose that they’d cease to be so when working for private companies. For issues of personal property such as drugs, if they’re considered harmful by the community, they may continue to confiscate drugs.
In an issue of a riot, there may be no fiscal incentive to protect public places and police or security forces would congregate to protect larger buildings. If an individual is targeted by a police employee and killed as in the G20 riots, if they have no money, they have no recourse to the law in an anarcho-capitalistic society. Or take another example of the tragedy of the commons: fire stations used to operate as companies and if an individual had no fire insurance, could refuse to save people from burning houses. They’d also have little interest in combating forest fires for example.
Almost any example in history of hereditary power has led to corruption. If there is no limit to one’s term nor one’s legislative power short of revolution, then a revolution is what is required to limit power.
As for medical funding, the 2011 budget apportions 491b for medicare, 297b for medicaid and 68b for veteran’s interests (largely medical according to wallstats). Yet according to wikipedia’s reporting of the CIA factbook (IIRC) the US comes in 33rd in a list of infant mortality rates and 36th on lifespan expectancy on a list of countries, far behind countries that spend far less per capita on healthcare. Sweden, a country you seem to have antipathy to, comes 4th in infant mortality rate and 7th for lifespan. Accounting for homogeneity of a population, I’d argue the largest factor behind whether or not a country will have high quality of life indices is whether or not they have nationalised healthcare. It has also been postulated that democracies avert war and famines, increasing quality of life.
In democratic capitalist states, a corporation gets its right to operate from government and courts have their ruling legitimised by the fact that the laws are passed by the legislature drawn from the people. Should kangaroo courts be the basis of law, it would be the prerogative of the larger corporations. The people most affected by the Deepwater Spill largely lacked the funding to take on BP and if BP had access to a larger security force in an anarcho-capitalistic hypothetical scenario, the people would have no way to enforce their ruling. Not to mention that you essentially set up a rule by judges (krinocracy?) since their partiality causes them to assume all powers of the government, The one limit on their power would be their voluntary adoption of stare decisis.
Corporations would continue to control mainstream media and there would be no financial incentive for being involved in regulation.
I suppose the fundamental question is “who decides how I live? And by what right”? It doesn’t seem right that one man could decide how we live because of how he was born, but we differ on whether everyone in a country can dictate how another man lives… Except we both agree on the rule of law rather than force, so we’re left at the question again. I think Bertrand Russell put it that when two men are in disagreement, on what basis do we arbitrate between them? The Utilitarians contend that when one man is acting against the greater good of the people, we find against him and vice versa. Then the people as a whole elect a legislature to determine laws which discriminate between the general good and unacceptably bad for society (necessitating punishment), then a sample of the people determine in individual cases whether the law was contravened. The legitimacy is derived from the people – the legislature, executive and judiciary (including law enforcement agencies) decide how I live by the right of the people. Though again I’d contend that even if a politician has the will of the people, their decision might not and a platform is varied enough that no person will agree with every issue on the agenda, so direct democracy takes that a step further and claims that the people decide how I live, by right of the will of the people. Following Locke’s argument of the social contract, by continuing to operate in the parameters of society, you accept the “social contract” that you will obey the laws of society or forfeit the right to liberty in society. Again, this principle of the rule of law would continue in an anarcho-capitalistic society presumably, but the legitimacy of any legal proceeding would be derived from the jury and the judge rather than the people as a whole. More on this v.i.
Again, what can pragmatically be proposed to resolve these issues? If the electorate can’t be trusted to be competent enough to judge, as a whole, the outcome of any issue on a political platform qua issue, then they couldn’t function in an anarchic society where “political” decisions were made by the individual. That leaves some form of “meritocracy”, but in almost every instance where an individual has claimed to have superior knowledge than the aggregate of the people in matters of governance (based on political theory such as dialectical materialism, say), they’ve proven to be inept, self-interested and somewhere between neglectful and genocidal.
Referendums can be made mandatory with the penalty of a fine following the Australian model.
I’ve already stated where I may be at odds with the majority on issues such as the death penalty and I wish people would read Bertrand Russell and Daniel Dennett when considering such issues. I also think that there is some degree of dissonance when considering the prohibition of drugs other than alcohol. I can’t help but come to the conclusion though that it’s my individual duty to change people’s minds on such issues by providing evidence where appropriate or pointing to historical precedence, rather than desiring my concept of a perfect state be applied to everyone.
I don’t see why a larger state wouldn’t recognise the sovereignty of an anarcho-capitalistic society as a sort of trial with willing participants, other than the strict laws regarding citizenship and secession in the United States. Well that and the possibility of collusion to commit offences such as on Pitcairn island (I suppose you recognise the right of the international community to intervene under similar circumstances?).
While consumers may be able to identify counterfeit goods, would there be a law against selling them? Would that law be international? Who would enforce the law and set terms for the punishment of counterfeiting? Likewise, I agree that the consumer could consult a partisan source for information about the safety of a product, but given a company produces a product that injures a person, how do they file suit? I’ve already covered the current way in which courts derive their laws from the legislature and their legitimacy from the people, but there are already abuses which are apparent when large corporations can afford the best legal defence as evidenced by Dave Morris and Helen Steel’s case against McDonalds. When there’s no national requirement for judges to be impartial, their pay may rest on the decision of a case and there is no national legislature, I can’t see how these concerns would be alleviated.
Well, the dissenting opinion: http://ideas.repec.org/p/cep/cepdps/dp0781.html
There’s also the issue of migrant workers being employed for essentially nothing and having to work more than one job, which could be combated if they were illegal immigrants but not otherwise. With the limitation of maximum work hours provided and a sub-poverty wage an individual would be held in bondage, being better off if they were made redundant so that they could go onto benefits than continuing to work.
One facet of legislation that companies might try and abuse is the reduction in employee work hours as an alternative to making them redundant, for whatever reason. I know a union worker who is trying to combat the trend since employees in a company have had their contracts amended to a minimum of 22 hours. Certain amendments to the contract also contravened the de facto arrangements for several years, which apparently constitute an unspoken contract in British law. Without union support though the company in question would be able to get away with anything with its workers.
Compulsory education is one factor of modern states that has a tangible impact on adult literacy rates and thus promotes a higher quality of life. It would be impossible to mandate schooling without providing education for free one way or another. In England there is also the opportunity to choose between several different schools whether they are state, private (public in the US) or faith schools (shame we don’t have a constitution that grants freedom from religion). There are several criterion for entry, with proximity being the primary factor for apportioning places, but as I understand it in the US the choice is limited to home-schooling, a public school, religious school or the nearest school only?
Could you imagine Dagny Taggart looking after a child with Down’s Syndrome? I can’t. There are people who have genetic traits that cause them to be “looters”, to borrow the terminology from Atlas Shrugged, to consume from society without returning. Her protagonists seemed to be adept and whatnot, which may have high heritability, but does not preclude the emergence of children with PKU. In a flexible society that accounts for such issues, there are institutions that can provide care for such individuals. There are two other opportunities available: to discount inheritance as in Plato’s Republic and to treat all members of society as brothers and sisters (presumably repulsive to a Randian for it’s humanistic camaraderie and likely to cause more congenital defects) or extermination/sterilisation.
I’m not sure this is always the case in capitalistic societies. As far as I can tell Tony Hoare has less money than Soulja Boy, Daniel Dennett than Wayne Rooney, Lawrence Krauss than Paris Hilton. You can’t always judge a persons worth to society on their wealth.
I’m not sure where I heard the aphorism regarding the liberal/conservative dichotomy, but I think it went that liberals trust professors and politicians and conservatives trust businessmen and priests. I have the unfortunate disposition towards mistrust, though I’d give more credence to an argument from a professor assuming it follows scholarly conventions (I.e sources cited).
I also can’t quite trust corporations to act in the best interests of the people based purely on the profit motivator. A board of directors may not even have their employee’s best interests in mind when they institute redundancies or pay reductions, yet largely apportion themselves bonuses. They may even oppose the concept of taxation to provide welfare to prevent the ruin of one of their former employees, yet when the concept is applied with unlimited liability to them, they resist it.
I’m largely arguing from a background in politics, I have meagre to no knowledge of economics which is why my arguments may seem a little disjointed. I hope they’re no less valid for being from a different (incomplete) conception of the issue. I’m willing to check the links provided to hopefully gain a better understanding and argue my position better, or perhaps even adjust it. The reason for the choice of this forum was largely the discretion of Liam I guess.
As for democratic reform for the better: I’d say the sexual offences amendment act of 2000 was a good example of clarifying law, leading to more personal freedom. As was the race relations act of 1968.
Why I brought up Rand in the first place? I saw a lecture on Atlas Shrugged was being promoted on the front page which led me to think about the ramifications of the book. I believe the philosophy was designed to show the Utilitarian value of capitalism and how it could benefit people generally, since the magnanimous man was necessary for civilisation, rather than the producer dependent on the consumer, a sort of rejoinder to the concept of the workers that wanted to control the means of production. At its best, it demonstrates how a society could be based on principles of self-interest but continue to work towards a collective goal. If I recall correctly Dagny is at her most miserable when divorced from society since she can’t apply her talents, talents which benefit society generally. Said talents are part of the cultural leap where we no longer need to sacrifice individuals to ensure the sun rises, where people no longer die “of their teeth” as Hitchens adroitly puts it, where we can benefit from a glimpse at our lowly origins and envision aspirations for the future. All an answer to the Romantic conception of the noble savage, where society is the corrupting force on the human spirit. Without society we would have no psychiatry, no markets, no news, no journals, no internet, no television, no theatre, nor ballet, nor opera, no clubs, no new music, no transmission of cuisine, no video games, electricity, no running water. All of these are incentives to adapt to society. What is interesting in Rand’s utopia provided in Atlas Shrugged is that all members of society are treated as equals and their founding doctrine isn’t the acquisition of wealth, but of mutual informed trade and progress. There is no reliance on “helots” or “bronze or clay” men as in other envisioned utopias, but rather a passion for performing the jobs that people are best at and mutual contribution to society. Value of the currency is set by fiat and rational self-interest in concern to fiat money contributes to the health of society, with money being the means, rather than an end. I always take the opportunity when someone justifies fraud as “Darwinian” or “Randian” to elucidate the fact that the highest virtue espoused by Rand was informed mutual trade between equals and that fraud is the domain of the “Second-hand” or “looter”. It would also be wrong to try and justify greed or predation on evolutionary grounds. Such behaviour is definitely within the purview of evolutionary science and may be modelled under the “retributive” evolutionary stable strategy in game theory. Does that mean an individual can justify behaviour to the community by alluding to Darwinian precedence? On the contrary, the community should feel compelled to punish such behaviour under the retributive model, along with rape and murder – fraud and other vices may further promulgate the individual perpatrator’s genes, but do nothing for the community. Anyway, a slight digression. I certainly don’t hold the misconception that Ayn Rand was advocating the above traits and Rand provides a coherent example of a functioning capitalist society with no formal system of government, where no individual is subjugated.
However, from my reading of the Atlas Shrugged at least (I haven’t read much other accompanying literature) I found there were a few flaws with the concept of such a society, one of which I gave above (the reliance on eugenics in order to guarantee productive members of society). To expand on that idea a little more, what of the person laid low in late life by cancer, or that has sustained an injury and cannot sustain themselves through such a period? There was little regard for charity in the course of the book and the only ones “provided for” were children. Since there wasn’t a focus on hoarding money either, what would become of the terminally ill individual without the surfeit to cover the medical bills? What if they had no family within the community?
Another issue would be that of the provision for pure research. While Bertrand Russell maintained that doing so would become a pastime if the bureaucracy of work was reduced, in democratic societies there is a unique opportunity for academics to research at a loss as doing so contributes to universal understanding and may eventually have industrial benefits, such as in quantum computing. If all academics are in the employ of a company such as Rearden steel, they may be less inclined towards theoretical exploration (such as of string theory) and more towards the pragmatic. If the motivator for the pragmatic is the acquisition of currency, there is no guarantee that it will act as a common interest. Maintaining a monopoly on a cure for cancer, say, would be far more profitable than publishing the details of the cure.
Finally there is the possibility that damage to the environment would occur as a result of focus on short term issues. Perhaps the operations of D’Anconia Copper cause the extermination of a species which another species relies on for pollination and so forth. Likewise If a farmer in the society does not produce a surplus then they will have to continue farming (like the Soviet farmer that could produce two harvests a year) until the point of soil erosion.
Finally, I don’t think an egotistic philosophy can survive, which to a degree Rand adopted from Nietzsche. Nietzsche seemed to exult in the idea that a new breed of humans would come and assert their supremacy, but didn’t consider the possibility that such men would be enthused about the soporific introspective philosophical life (unless his joy was masochistic as well as sadistic). If I recall correctly he admired Lycurgus of Sparta as regaled by Plutarch, but given that society he likely wouldn’t have made it past boyhood and certainly wouldn’t have the time for musings or lecturing. Sparta was eventually conquered by a civilisation with more advanced technology, which provides a useful historical lesson: if a state focuses all its attention to cultivating the military with no time for rumination, its neighbouring states will eventually overtake them in science and emerge victorious. Likewise with Heraclitus (I call it the strong misanthropic principle), it’s less useful morally to hope that some heroic individuals will overcome the social issues of the day than to imagine yourself in the position of the downtrodden of society. If I were born black, or disabled, how would I wish society to function? To a degree, this is Kant’s moral imperative (and the basis of a proposed objective system of morality by Sam Harris) and an optimist can track trends for an increase in this conception both in enlightened governments and in the general populace.
In regards to the fairness of inheritance: well, it is one of the impediments of wealth tracking merit in a free market society (u.v. Paris Hilton). Free will is an illusion, you’re statistically more likely to be wealthy if you come from a wealthy family. The exceptions demonstrate that a genetic predisposition or slight environmental variance can generate anomalies.
Some of my oppositions to corporations have their analogues in the prior denunciation in representative democracy, namely the strictures of convention and the lack of informed choice. Once a company (or political party, or political or cultural view or opinion) asserts a hegemony, familiarity precludes the emergence of choice. If a supermarket has a contract with Nestlé they can strongly object to the principle of selling baby formulae in third world countries, but they know that they can’t violate the contract nor discourage consumers from buying Nestlé products at risk of their own profit or legal findings against them and they also know that consumers will continue to buy Nestlé products because they’re familiar and well advertised.
Sorry for the long and belated reply, I was studying for exams for some time.
gamerunknown,
Do yourself a favor, stop wasting your (and everyone else’s) time and educate yourself about (Austrian) economics. It will be like viewing the political world with the correct prescription glasses for the first time. Start with Hazlitt’s “Economics In One Lesson”.
I briefly read about Hoppe on wikipedia, it said he advocated a form of paleolibertarianism in conjunction with Pat Buchanan, including one where homosexuals were not allowed in a truly libertarian society?
If his points have more evidence to support them than his instincts, then I’ll consider them, but otherwise I don’t see what distinguishes his biases and mine.
"In regards to the fairness of inheritance: well, it is one of the impediments of wealth tracking merit in a free market society (u.v. Paris Hilton). Free will is an illusion, you’re statistically more likely to be wealthy if you come from a wealthy family. The exceptions demonstrate that a genetic predisposition or slight environmental variance can generate anomalies. "
Wealth in terms of what? How is wealth created?
Hoppe’s book Democracy: The God that Failed is good. There are plenty of worthwhile lessons in it.
Assets, production or labour depending on your background. But those aren’t the only ways you can transmit wealth, obviously.
I watched the first video on the minimum wage issue and while I did enjoy the particular slant (governments harming businesses by doing nasty things like providing labour laws), his argument seems to be based on spurious claims: the first is that a rise in unemployment can be attributed to the implementation of the minimum wage without even discussing extraneous variables or providing the rate of change, though the graphs origins were 0 and sources were cited. A substrata of this claim is that minorities are disproportionately affected, but again, the rate of change in umemployment for the African American population was not given. Finally, he introduces a red herring or a slippery slope by claiming that any minimum wage laws are analogous to disproportionate minimum wage laws. One obvious variable he neglects to mention is the recession (unless you believe that it was caused by minimum wage laws), another is the fact that minimum wages will need to be increased infrequently to track inflation and the poverty line. As far as I’m aware if you’re made redundant then you can claim welfare in the United States, but if you quit or you’re fired, you can’t. So a worker that is unlikely to find a higher paying job that is working below the poverty line is better off claiming welfare, assuming it can raise them out of the poverty line.
Milton Friedman’s objection is covered under the same banner, though it has a suspect undercurrent: equivocating between minimum wage laws and racism. He says that the value of some people’s skills is worth below that of the minimum wage and that a disproportionate amount of these people would be African Americans. Essentially he’s advocating that African Americans work under a form of wage slavery, working disproportionately more hours than anyone else just to subsist. Funnily enough he was worried that the unemployment rate crept up to 20% or something in the 1950s, which was the purported catastrophic rate after the 2008 increase in minimum wage. If you want the reverse analogy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oztdRo9GLLk
I’ll watch the videos in the media section and read the linked pdf next.
?
Were you replying to me? How is a wikipedia entry on Hoppe relevant to my suggestion that you read Henry Hazlitt’s “Economics In One Lesson”? In general:
(1) Please avoid third parties’ opinions on someone’s arguments. Go to the source directly and face his arguments head on.
(2) Please separate someone’s subjective opinions (prejudices, tastes) on some subjects from their arguments and logic on others. Otherwise you’d be throwing a lot of babies out with the bathwater. In my case, there is not a single person in mankind’s history (and the present) with whom I agree completely on every issue. I wouldn’t have it any other way.
Well, it constituted a reply to Liam Anthony, but also a reply to you, to the degree that your view was that I could argue more effectively once versed in the Austrian school of economics. I know that associating a subjective opinion with an author is a form of ad hominem, but Hoppe is supposed to constitute the authority of the central argument. It’s been intimated that I should familiarise myself with their argumentation rather than tackle the summaries given by Liam Anthony because otherwise I can’t offer anything but conjecture… but I can’t help but infer that given the nature of their argument (that monarchies are preferable to democracy) and the conclusions they draw on social issues that there is an underlying trend towards political conservatism rather than a specific economic vehicle that drives them towards their beliefs.
I don’t want to inflate that argument towards the whole Austrian school, nor to any of Hoppe’s technical findings, but I have yet to see any great predicate on which the support for a monarchical system over a democratic one lies, which is the central argument of concern for me. So far reading the pdf of the book by Henry Hazlitt has been enlightening. Reading his wikipedia article (a third source, I know, but the importance of evidence is that you can track sources in order to refute them) he defended Utilitarianism and was a friend of Ayn Rand, which is interesting since Rand was influenced to a degree by Nietzsche, who very strongly opposed the principles of Utilitarianism.
I don’t want to inflate that argument towards the whole Austrian school, nor to any of Hoppe’s technical findings, but I have yet to see any great predicate on which the support for a monarchical system over a democratic one lies, which is the central argument of concern for me
Good insight, because I just want to restate - Hoppe does not speak for “Austrian Economics” as a whole. He is a pretty contrversial figure even within this realm.
Reading his wikipedia article (a third source, I know, but the importance of evidence is that you can track sources in order to refute them) he defended Utilitarianism and was a friend of Ayn Rand, which is interesting since Rand was influenced to a degree by Nietzsche, who very strongly opposed the principles of Utilitarianism.
My advice is to ignore this Moral aspect of things - this is actually really confusing and technical. The utlitarianism Hazlitt is talking about is not the same as John Stewart Mill’s. You will find many Austrian’s in the same camp as Stirner/Nietzsche (such as myself), Rothabard (nonutilitarian), Ayn Rand, or other forms of utilitarian. It is best not to focus much on the moral aspects of this, and just focus on the conclusions one draws from the economic aspects. For libertarians economics is the issu e, there is no way around it. For us it is how politics and social sciences/ philosophies are thought of.
And yes Economics in 1 lesson is a good, quick, way to get the very very raw basics
An argument in favour of one kind of -archy or -cracy over another is not of Earth-shattering relevance to most libertarians, as they tend to believe that -archy/-cracy is neither necessary nor inevitable, and at the very least should be rational.
Nevertheless, the arguments favouring monarchy over democracy are not difficult to understand… The mob moves in mysterious ways, but you might just get through to one man. Enlightened absolutism may be unlikely, but it’s certainly possible, and history is full of examples. Enlightened democracy, on the other hand…
Totalitarian dictatorships of the post-Enlightenment age are the product of the unrestricted French revolutionary thinking as much as democracies are. They always call themselves democracies. Though one man, such as Stalin, is effectively in control, he presides over a government that declares itself democratic, and therefore has unlimited jurisdiction over its subjects, since it claims to be its subjects. He rules through fear and terror, unlike the old-timey kings who rule largely through convenience and the inertia of custom, and certainly never claim to be one and the same being as their subjects. The old-fashioned feudal monarchy - even the ‘absolutist’ monarchies of the Rennaissance - were far more limited in scope than modern ‘democracies’ of either the American or French revolutionary traditions.
Hoppe doesn’t have many nice things to say about Buchanan in Democracy the God that Failed so I’m not sure why he would ever be grouped with him. Regarding the homosexual thing, the quote is often shortened to say:
Ok, kind of offensive right? Well here it is again in context:
See the difference? It’s not that libertarian societies must expel gays, its that societies which found themselves on the purpose of “family values” must ban those who opose them from their communities. Its no different than saying jewish temples must physically remove neo-nazis.
Also, in the larger context of the book, Hoppe is appealing to conservatives in such a way that shows that the “do whatever you want so long as it hurts no one else” mantra need not lead to a libertine society, but rather to a largely “family and tradition” type society. Or at least that if family and kin are your values, the state is a poor means to reach those ends.
Regarding monarchy vs. democracy, the brunt of Hoppe’s argument is in analogizing monarchy and democracy to private and public property. A king is apt to treat his kingdom as if it is his; he passes it on through his bloodline and there is a strong desire to maintain rather than consume for this reason. Alternately, democratic leaders are in office for a relatively short time and are incentivised to have a 4 to 8 year time preference, to deplete capital sooner for immediate gratification since its not really theirs and they can’t pass it on in the family.
So, there really is content to what the guy is saying and its not just him trying to advocate hetero dominance and feudalism .
Well, I can agree that not all dictatorships are tyrannies, but again, the fundamental question to ask when surrendering your rights to a higher power is “by what right?”. A man can choose to be a member of society or not (theoretically), but if he is a subject, he loses that choice. As free market advocates you probably appreciate the power of competition, a monarch is essentially a nationalised industry, or a financier who chooses everything for you down to what you wear and read.
As for whether democracies can be “enlightened”, I’d say America adopting the principles of Locke, the Virginia Statute on religious freedom and the above mentioned legislation were all examples of achievements by (representative) democracies. The very fact that America permits public criticism and protests and voting quite endears some people to it.
I lost the notes I took on the Hazlitt book, but there were some issues I found with it, though it was informative. He attributes a decline in the amount of workers in the railway industry to the increasingly high price they were being paid, while equally noting the unparalelled growth of the automobile industry. He also concludes that a reduction in cost of cotton picking is the result of new technologies, when it was possible that workers were accepting sub-poverty line wages during the Depression. Also lacking is the impression that a man should be entitled to the sweat off his back: he doesn’t think that factory workers should be able to afford the goods they produce (not that I’m advocating a worker being paid the price of a car to make a car, just that it’d be reasonable to earn in ratio to what you’re producing), nor is there any distaste for the landowner who can get rich off other people’s toil. He also opposes governmental intervention in collapsing industries, saying that it’s natural that some industries die when new technology causes them to be obsolete and skilled workers will need an intermission to learn skills with new technologies. It’s when government intervenes to make a borderline industry unsustainable that unemployment is bad. The compounding issue is that he considers money saved in some form (either the abolition of tax or tariff or whatever) as money that will enter the market at some other point volitionaly, contributing to growth. But if workers do not save shrewdly and their industry happens to be the one hit by technological innovation, then they will need some form of restitution: which he also views as bad, as it lowers the “real wage” of the worker (not to mention the costs incurred by choosing to work). While usually quite proportional, he also neglects to mention that taxes, even curved taxes, may disproportionately affect the poor. If incurring a cost means the difference between paying rent or not, it makes a huge difference in terms of quality of life for the individual. When it means having one less martini for lunch, it makes less of a difference. I do think a minimal state that does provide for unemployment would work under his synthesis.
The concept of disproportionality was grasped quite well in “the imprisoner’s dilemma”. Fixed fines disproportionately penalise the poor. They’re also less likely to be able to afford a solid legal defence or out of court settlements. Contrast OJ Simpson, McDonalds, Kate Moss, Ryan Giggs. I think part of the problem stems from the Just World Hypothesis: that the rich are virtuous and healthy and the poor are addicts and criminals. Those that go to jail deserve to be in jail because they’re in jail! Some of the problem stems from what Noam Chomsky terms the “criminalisation of black life”. Black men are disproportionately represented in prison populations as a result of several factors including the “drug war”, institutional racism and profiling and ghettoisation. There are many opportunities for reform, such as making the punishment match the crime: the vandal could have to rebuild property, the thief to recover lost stock. I’m not sure what he intended for intellectual property though? They’d definitely need some form of law enforcement in order to have the concept continue. I also don’t think integration into society is possible for all individuals. Prisoners have far higher instances of mental illnesses than the average citizen and psychopathy may prevent an individual from ever usefully contributing to society without constant surveillance. If in doubt, consult “The Moral Landscape” by Sam Harris where he gives a chilling description of a psychopath who sexually abused a young boy in his care while strangling him, then when the boy passed out and turned blue the psychopath jumped on his chest while masturbating and found it rather amusing. This kind of abuse went on for years.
Which leads me, by tangent, to wonder whether age of consent laws would exsist in anarchocapitalist states? What about age restrictions for alcohol and other drugs?
On an unrelated note, I read that Wal-Mart established supermarkets in areas with small local competitors and operated at a loss by cutting prices until their competitors were forced out of business, then recouped their profits by increasing prices since inhabitants of the area had no other options. Wouldn’t that contradict the principles of competition?
Edit:
I can see the rhetorical difference, but I can’t distinguish the moral content. There has been plenty of repressive legislation that has been passed on the auspices that it protected Christian family values or something of that sort. If he was making the point that such societies were unworkable because of that requirement, then that’s commendable (if a little incongruent: surely celibates would have to be included on the list otherwise?), if he was couching economic rationale in reactionary demagogic terms, that’s disingenuous, if he actually holds that opinion, it’s execrable.
We are not talking about “oughts”, we are talking about the mechanics of society and what can be said about their operations - likewise with what is set up we can even talk about the consequences of hampering any such operation. Whether a worker ought to be able to own or whether I ought or ought not buy one more martini, is not a question we even know the meaning of ; all we can say is what is produced and consumed and how it is produced and consumed, the fact that a labor is laboring for a reason, and the consequences of hampering said actions.
Even if you want to try and say you can do x and y, it is only because a very good market mechinism with good affluent custom is in effect. Capitalism is the engine and perspective of all sociological thought and decision making, it is unavoidable. Any hampered market political policy exists soley because the market is doing well eough to tax without too much soical unrest. Furthermore the policy put into effect will most likely be a marginal policy in th over all scheme of things, because no one can really put truly radical socializing policies into an affluent culture without a major negative shock to the system
.On an unrelated note, I read that Wal-Mart established supermarkets in areas with small local competitors and operated at a loss by cutting prices until their competitors were forced out of business, then recouped their profits by increasing prices since inhabitants of the area had no other options. Wouldn’t that contradict the principles of competition?
No it is not “operating at a loss” if you gain something out of it.
I can see the rhetorical difference, but I can’t distinguish the moral content.
There is no moral content, the point is in a society arbitrary discrimination is unavoidable - there are just customs and habits people dislike and will not tolerate (most societies don’t like random mass killing for example) due to being inconvienent with the norms and expectations set up. We can not rationally discuss what is good and bad, we just leave it up to the results of custom to tell us what affluence is.
.
I think you’re deriving a causative relationship from a correlation. While societies with high human development indices also have successful industries, there may be an underlying element. That element may be “social cohesion” or even an undefinable “x”. A society can have high rates of employment, many natural resources and still have overwhelming poverty for most of its workers if it operates under feudalistic principles. An example may be Nigeria: they’re in the bottom 30 of 170 countries ranked on the human development index.
Another thing that isn’t mentioned in the economics book from what I remember is the 3rd and 4th sectors of industry, services and information management. An individual may become incredibly wealthy without ever producing a product. While they wouldn’t be able to do so without food, nobody claims that wealth is equivalent to food, water and air, since that’d be a fallacy of composition.
Well, it may be a sly business technique that will benefit them in the long run, but they definitely had to draw their profits from other areas in order to subsidise branches. They were able to sell at under the production cost for longer than their competitors and only raised prices when they put local competitors out of business. This means that consumers choices are far more limited; from their point of view, supermarkets may as well be nationalised, since they have no other options in terms of price, variety or quality of service now. Similar instances of conglomerates protecting their own interests by price fixing at non-competitive rates have arisen in the UK with airlines.
It is possible to discuss moral concepts rationally, since rationality involves proportion. Thus we can say that if murder is bad, mass-murder is worse and extirpation is worst. Likewise we can discuss moral concepts logically through the use of syllogism. If we take the proposition that murdering humans is wrong (thus, only causing someone a fatal wound without their approval, nor the states, avoiding the difficulty of sanctioned killing and vegetarian complaints), then if separating a stranger’s head from their body kills them, then separating that stranger’s head from their body is wrong (incoming logical positivists). It is possible to further operationalise these concepts by doing just noticable difference tests and using a neuroimager to determine how much pain a person feels in various scenarios (where ethically possible). Then we adopt the concept that we should promote the ability to feel pleasure and reduce the capacity for pain in as many humans over as long a period as possible. This concept may not be sufficient to determine the correct course of action in contentious scenarios where there is a dearth of information (for example, whether it is better to research finding a cure for cancer or a treatment, or whether to fund a cure for cancer over a cure for AIDS). However the principle does make testable predictions which may be framed along the lines of “allowing murderers free reign to do as they wish is worse for society than not”, with societies health being measured by the human development index. This view could be partially supported by evolutionary stable strategies under game theory too. It can also be useful as a justification for restricting the liberties of those that would severely impede the liberties of others to a greater degree (i.e stopping those that would execise their freedom to swing their arms at the expense of your freedom of not being punched in the face). You could also frame the justification of murder as being wrong as that it lacks consent, it causes an individual pain and it prevents them from ever pursuing pleasure again.
There is a difficulty I’ve found though with Utilitarianism and questions of political expedience and personal freedoms. Someone may claim to be caused distress by simply viewing minorities. I know some certainly experience it when seeing a woman in a burqa, others may be opposed to turbans, or even the colour of other people’s skin. In the latter case, discrimination based on a characteristic an individual cannot change is quite untenable and doesn’t really need to be discussed. However, in the above cases such as what clothes someone wears or what they say could cause a person to claim distress. In the cases of severe verbal chastisement over long periods of time, such a claim may even be warranted. In studies we read in psychology, stressors have been demonstrated to correlate with a reduction in immune system response and thus high stress may be correlated with greater incidences of illnesses. This may manifest itself in Irritable Bowel Syndrome for example, which may be caused because of reduced blood flow to the bowel due to the brain being given more support to deal with stressors. In the above case, where an individual is severely bullied (say on the basis of their skin colour by their boss), they may end up with worse physical effects than if the boss had slapped them. Yet the right to free speech is a fundamental one. Likewise with cigarettes: all indications point to the fact that their benefit to an individual is short term and that they cause serious long term damage to most individuals, but banning them would be an impingement on personal freedom. But the fact that a black market would exist for cigarettes shouldn’t be a reason to not ban them: black markets exist for assassinations in countries where murder is illegal. It’s also difficult to suggest how culpable the person purchasing the services of the assassin should be! If they receive the same term as an assassin, they’re being imprisoned for what they’ve said rather than what they’ve done. I also have reservations about arguments based on the viability of a foetus that may be aborted: they can only survive in certain critical conditions, but the same is true of diabetics and those in intensive care. One other concern is based on the moral dilemma of the passengers in the lifeboat that would only survive by throwing those poor at rowing overboard. It may be morally right to sacrifice some so that not all die, but those responsible for the sacrificing should also be held accountable. Why? Because of the political necessity that murder is punished to provide a deterrent against murder. A society where whether or not to murder was based on a crude quick calculation in the absence of information because such examples would be a mitigating factor, where society may end up worse off as a whole.
So by no means do I think morality can be black and white (and from what I can tell, Hume is credited with the distinction between “is” and “ought”), just that there is something that can influence our moral decisions: whether humans as a whole will be better off as a result of them.
An individual may become incredibly wealthy without ever producing a product
Production is an ontological subjective evaluation, there is no such thing as “obective production”. This is the whole point of the market mentality. When I say affluence, I mean prefered by obvious choice of actions, not anything like food = wealth. Or “what is, is” - I can call industry neither good nor bad, just something that exists.
Well, it may be a sly business technique that will benefit them in the long run, but they definitely had to draw their profits from other areas in order to subsidise branches
Once again I have no real objective definition as to “thing” that is a gain or a loss - this is all completely subjective. Nor could I tell you what “optimal” consumer choice is. No amount of empiricism, no amount of collected data can say otherwise, it is beyond their language to make such statements.
Thus we can say that if murder is bad,
No. All that can be said is murder is a legal term of custom - other than that it really isn’t a “thing”. And legal terms are not science, nor are they deducible by “rational” thought. We can only say murder is bad in the context of the court that sets the definition for murder.
And once again all the morality talk will just lead to confusing “meta” arguments where people talk past each other so it is best to discard them. If anything focus on what can and can not be said in the real world that we can describe and actual consequences of those actions
Well if we wanted to be pedantic we can’t even accept the proposition that industry exists because of the problem of simple enumeration. However, having a common basis for argument and a set of shared propositions is the only thing that enables human discussion. While we may differ in terms of emphasis, if we can’t even find a common grammar in terms of syntax or logical principles then there’s no chance we’ll generate a synthesis. I’m not attempting to introduce political and philosophical terms to be obtuse or the try and discredit what may be very sound economic principles, just to demonstrate the logical consequences of adopting certain principles in a pragmatic, empirical realm. For that reason I think that it is possible to say that in a developed society that intangibles such as service and information may be as important to the countries’ wealth as physical products with a qualifier: a country cannot be wealthy without any physical products (though with comparitive advantage a country that only offers services could trade them for products with a country that has access to services and physical products), but a country with many physical products and no breathable air cannot be wealthy. That’s a claim that is amenable to disproof and could perhaps be observed in reality. If that’s not an acceptable criterion for making a claim, I may not be able to pursue any further argument.
Well if we adopt relative terms then a sale is a loss if it the sale price is lower than the price of producing it. The theme of “choice” has been recurrent in the thread, I assumed that it was an aspect of the Austrian school that choice was to be desired? If choice is an aspect of the economic theory, then it would be odd to negate it in this scenario but to embrace it in others.
This is where the teleological departs from the pragmatic: perhaps it isn’t useful to say “why is bad bad?”. We can deduce the mechanical, proximal effects of actions both on the individual and on society, but we can’t state conclusively why x leads to y, nor say that it does so in all cases because of the law of simple enumeration.