I'd like to get opinions on this

Miscellaneous Current Events
41

“Full disclosure: Porco Rosso is my brother, and he (gently) goaded me into coming on here. And, I don’t know why the avatar’s a woman. It just came up that way.”

Mmm, wonderful we’re in the middle of a little family dispute.

“Well I don’t really have much to take. My bike? My debts? They’re already taking my house.”

You have absolutely no clue how well off you have it compared to at least half of humanity, do you? Wealth redistribution won’t solve anything over the long term.
It also once more sounds like you’re focusing, not on the truth of the matter, but instead taking how you want the world to work, and certain problems, and assuming that the world indeed works like that. It doesn’t. Being rid of the opressions of the state would end most of what you’re complaining about, and result in a system which capitalists can actually defend.

42

“Mmm, wonderful we’re in the middle of a little family dispute.”

No need for that. It’s just a friendly debate.

43

You ignored my entire argument against wealth limits.

My point is actually that the system we have in place now functions as a vampire, living off the work that others do

Consider talking to F4L, the resident individualist hunter/gatherer if you would not like to live off of the work of others.

the rest of us

You mean these guys or these guys?

Why defend capitalists when you probably aren’t one of them and may never be one?

Why defend people’s freedom of speech? Why intervene in WWII to help the Jews? Heck, why give any charity to the poor? Why doesn’t everyone advocate a monarchy with themselves as king?

First they came for the communists,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a Jew.

Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.

Furthermore, the free market works​. Why not support a system that can get bananas from Madagascar delivered to a restaurant in Kansas served to a man who makes his money investing in iron mined in the Alps? This incredible system of interactions solves the coordination problem better than any one entity can.

44

“we’re in the middle of a little family dispute.”

You weren’t in the middle of anything until you decided to comment.

“You have absolutely no clue how well off you have it compared to at least half of humanity”

It comes off as very presumptuous to assume how one lives and what they know about the world after reading a few internet forum posts.

“Being rid of the opressions of the state would end most of what you’re complaining about”

Agreed. I never argued otherwise. Conversely, I think the state and capitalism (what you call corporatism) go hand in hand.

45

“You ignored my entire argument against wealth limits.”

Yeah, because, to be honest, I don’t believe in the accumulation of wealth, period. Not in the sense of a capitalist enterprise. For one, it’s a constant growth machine, and nothing can grow forever. Maybe in Unicornlandia.

“…the free market works​. Why not support a system that can get bananas from Madagascar delivered to a restaurant in Kansas served to a man who makes his money investing in iron mined in the Alps?”

I thought Miseans argued that we don’t have a free market? I guess my point would be that, eventually the people who pick Mr Kansas’ bananas, deliver them to his restaurant, and mine his iron will decide that they can get a better deal working together as a class for their class; thus expropriating the expropriator. Just because this system is the ‘best’ we’ve come up with so far doesn’t mean we can’t do better. Besides this current system means misery for lots of people on the planet. (Maybe some of them aren’t as miserable as they were as peasants, but is that really the point?)

The reason I joined in on this post is because of the article the OP referenced, wherein people in the real world are experimenting with an alternative currency. Something similar is occuring in Greece. I don’t actually think that’s the best way to go about changing the world, but at least they’re trying something. So that brings up a question: What is the Misean project for action in the real world? Where are Miseans putting theory into practice? Ideas that are not tested in the real world are just ideas.

46

“I think the state and capitalism (what you call corporatism) go hand in hand.”

If that is true, then it is even more so the case with socialism since socialism and the state are almost indistinguishable.

47

And no, the food in my fridge and the car in my driveway is not wealth accumulation.

48

“It comes off as very presumptuous to assume how one lives and what they know about the world after reading a few internet forum posts.”

If you have enough money to have acess to the internet in the United States you’re guaranteed to have a better standard of living that 3 billion people. That isn’t a hard concept to grasp and shouldn’t be considered presumptuous.

“Agreed. I never argued otherwise. Conversely, I think the state and capitalism (what you call corporatism) go hand in hand.”

Are you arguing the marxist/socialist libertarian view that the state is a result of capitalism or that capitalism in the absence of the state benefits almost all participants?

49

“Yeah, because, to be honest, I don’t believe in the accumulation of wealth, period. Not in the sense of a capitalist enterprise. For one, it’s a constant growth machine, and nothing can grow forever. Maybe in Unicornlandia.”

First of all the “growth” that you are talking about is a consistent rise in productive output and standard of living, it is not a growth machine as such, the “machine” will pursue growth at all costs, but this is a sign of its efficiency. We have never seen a period in human history where no further growth and productive output is possible, until we do it will keep growing, if we see such a day then it must stop and there will be nothing that “the machine” can do about it. So what’s your point. It’s not a growth machine, it’s a machine that pursues growth in the same way that an ambitious farmer moves to more and more promising farmland. He will keep doing this, but nothing negative happens when he finally reaches the most fertile field which he can find.

“I thought Miseans argued that we don’t have a free market? I guess my point would be that, eventually the people who pick Mr Kansas’ bananas, deliver them to his restaurant, and mine his iron will decide that they can get a better deal working together as a class for their class; thus expropriating the expropriator. Just because this system is the ‘best’ we’ve come up with so far doesn’t mean we can’t do better. Besides this current system means misery for lots of people on the planet. (Maybe some of them aren’t as miserable as they were as peasants, but is that really the point?)”

Those places which have seen capitalism for the longest see the greatest numbers of people who have escaped poverty. Those places which are the most primitive are those areas which have seen the most government for the longest. There is little that can deny the wonders that liberalized markets bring. Misesians do not argue that we live in a free market, instead they argue that what good we have seen is a result of those aspects of capitalism and free exchange which have been allowed to flourish.

“The reason I joined in on this post is because of the article the OP referenced, wherein people in the real world are experimenting with an alternative currency. Something similar is occuring in Greece. I don’t actually think that’s the best way to go about changing the world, but at least they’re trying something. So that brings up a question: What is the Misean project for action in the real world? Where are Miseans putting theory into practice? Ideas that are not tested in the real world are just ideas.”

I would argue that something put directly into an experamental phase without a period of theory first is almost certainly doomed to failure. However, I agree with you. Who knows if capitalism is the best method of production? But why must it be a choice between systems? The wonder of a voluntaryist society is that it does not necessarily favor capitalism, it simply favors voluntary behaviors. Communes, horizontal firms, and any sort of organization possible is allowed, you just have to convince people that it’s a good idea. Social experamentation is how human kind moves forward, the most essential aspect of this is to remove the absolutest mindset of statism from social experamentation.
Libertarians have embarked on a number of projects, the first and currently most evident is the Ron Paul campaigns. Others involve:
The formation of the Mises Institute and other free market think tanks in order to help to educate, which is obviously a form of action
The free state project
The various sea steading institutes (which I personally think is the stupidest idea ever)
Agorist ideas (I do not know if anyone has ever attempted seriously to institute them)
The formation of the libertarian party
The tea party protests, which, ORIGINALLY included a large percentage of libertarians.

50

Or, you know, reducing government intervention in the market, liberalizing trade, etc.

51

“Or, you know, reducing government intervention in the market, liberalizing trade, etc.”

… What?

Edit

I’m sorry I just don’t know what exactly you’re responding to.

52

You just kind of mentioned the really minor kinds of things that libertarians have accomplished or try to accomplish. I think free trade is the most important thing that past classical liberals worked towards and now libertarians are trying to work towards.

53

“It’s not a growth machine, it’s a machine that pursues growth in the same way that an ambitious farmer moves to more and more promising farmland. He will keep doing this, but nothing negative happens when he finally reaches the most fertile field which he can find.”

So, in theory, we’d be close to the most fertile field. I think the Marxist (a la Loren Goldner) read on this is that the rate of profit is dwindling, and that the current crisis is part of the sequence of crisis beginning in the '70s. This analysis is not my strong suit, but it’s clear that capitalism is in crisis, and left with very few avenues to bring the rate of profit back up. I think Goldner points out three: intensification of labor exploitation; liquidation of old capital; green products/DNA products/other crazy shit.

“There is little that can deny the wonders that liberalized markets bring.”

Markets just bring the wonders. Human creativity and labor creates the wonders. Surely there are plenty of ways to ‘deliver’ the wonders that would be non-hierarchical, unlike the way markets are.

“Social experamentation is how human kind moves forward, the most essential aspect of this is to remove the absolutest mindset of statism from social experamentation.”

I totally agree. At its base statism is power and control. A democratic, egalitarian, classless society would allow human creativity to flourish. Incidentally, of the examples you gave, at least four of them entail seizing state power.

54

Could you post that marxist study here? As for higher exploitation of workers you mean the asian workers? They are bearing the burden of manufacturing base for the world’s consumerist economies underneath a STATE-capitalist regime. Workers in countries with high capital accumulation can hardly be said to be exploited.

As for your comment on markets: why do you think humans do the things they do? They do it because they will be rewarded proportionately to their successes. They’d do it at the very least because their success would make them self-sustainable. No system utilizes the way the human mind works to the benefit of everyone the way that capitalism does. Look at the past two centuries, the dawn of liberalism. Look what happened. Machines, internet, freedom, automobiles, and that wasn’t even under a purely free system. All these things were accomplished despite state-enforced monopoly and other forms of ‘inequality’. Why would an inventor invent something in a world where his work will not be given credit? Where he will not reap as he sows?

Also by refusing to define ‘enough’, you really can’t make any claim on wealth inequality. Is enough when we all have 2 swimming pools and beach houses? We would have to enslave the rest of the world to do that.

At the risk of sounding presumptuous, I don’t think anyone here means you to take any offense at their comments. They merely are trying to stimulate you to realize the subtleties of reality and economic law that don’t mesh well with socialism. These realities make it such that in a socialist society the working man is poorer and less free than in the free market society.

55

There’s a lot to cover since I left, I think you guys are letting octopi get away with a lot of stuff that you shouldn’t let slip by. :slight_smile:

It’s easy to lose these discussions in the dogpile that often occurs. Wanted to touch on this quote though:

  • Markets just bring the wonders. Human creativity and labor creates the wonders. Surely there are plenty of ways to ‘deliver’ the wonders that would be non-hierarchical, unlike the way markets are.

Firstly, the market IS human creativity and labor. Secondly, and related to the first point, the market does not “deliver”, it allows people to exchange goods with lots of information in the price, so they can make the best decisions as to how to use resources available. Without this free exchange, complicated projects, products, or services become almost impossible to implement, or you end up with huge amounts of waste. It’s all about information.

I’ve watched many discussions among leftists trying to implement a “democratized” system of exhange, and it’s quite funny, almost every time they end up suggesting a system where people’s “votes” are inherent in thier economic activites. That is, rather than getting everybody together in a big General Assembly or comittee and deciding what to produce (because this obviously becomes prohibitively time consuming, inflexible, and cumbersome), people collect more voting power by producing more, and can exchange these “votes” with others for what they want. They don’t even realize they’ve just recreated money.

The “market” is not some nebulous heirarchical order. It’s the direct result of “human labor and creativity” interacting among individuals. You’re placing the blame in the wrong places.

56

?“So, in theory, we’d be close to the most fertile field. I think the Marxist (a la Loren Goldner) read on this is that the rate of profit is dwindling, and that the current crisis is part of the sequence of crisis beginning in the '70s. This analysis is not my strong suit, but it’s clear that capitalism is in crisis, and left with very few avenues to bring the rate of profit back up. I think Goldner points out three: intensification of labor exploitation; liquidation of old capital; green products/DNA products/other crazy shit.”

With new markets opening up and a vast variety of new technologies appearing there are pleanty of areas for profit to occur. Furthermore “the average rate of profit” means nothing and has nothing to do with the current crisis.

“Markets just bring the wonders. Human creativity and labor creates the wonders. Surely there are plenty of ways to ‘deliver’ the wonders that would be non-hierarchical, unlike the way markets are.”

Hierarchy in the work place exists specifically because it has proven to be more efficient than all other forms of industrial organization that has been tried and allowed to exist. So the answer to that question is that I don’t know an neither do you, and the market is not inherently hierarchical in the same way that democracy is not inherently statist, that is simple a piece of historical data. The market creates an inherently collectivist environment where men must use their talents and strengths to satisfy the wants of others.

“I totally agree. At its base statism is power and control. A democratic, egalitarian, classless society would allow human creativity to flourish. Incidentally, of the examples you gave, at least four of them entail seizing state power.”

I don’t trust democracy and I hate the idea of egalitarianism, but with that being said I don’t wish to enforce my views on you. I can tell you why capitalism will bring prosperity, I cannot tell you if this will be more prosperous than the free commune, but I can give you reasons why this would be. Let’s have both systems side by side and let the better one win out, or discuss why one or the other would be more efficient.

57

http://johnlocke.org/news_columns/display_jhcolumns.html?id=8351

58

“You just kind of mentioned the really minor kinds of things that libertarians have accomplished or try to accomplish. I think free trade is the most important thing that past classical liberals worked towards and now libertarians are trying to work towards.”

That’s because libertarianism is an extremely small movement in the world today and there isn’t much that it’s actually doing right now besides slowley spreading. The request was to name things have actually been worked towards by libertarians today, not just the theory of what they want done. I didn’t consider the work of the classical liberals because of the fact that we haven’t seem much of them for about a century now, and as for the real influence that they have wielded since the 50’s it has always been through others who have mismanged the procedure (reagan/Thatcherism)

59

red pig will your brother not respond to the questions? I’m curious to see what he says.

60

I think this is a good point for the left to meet the right. There are probably a lot of misunderstandings and such. I mean the whole rate of profit thing makes no sense whatsoever to me. I’ve heard of that before, but to me, now, it seems like a load of bullshit, a Marxist delusion perhaps.