Well, equilibrium comes from arbitrage situations during the disequilibrium period.
If you ask me, it’s despisable, because it is so petty and contradictory.
For those who argue in favour it of see those who don’t as greedy and materialistic, but they still make arguments based on material demands and interests.
It is proof enough that egalitarianism is rooted in greed and materialism. I am not materialistic; I believe that if you have money, keep it or spend it, and forget about it. What’s the point of having a third party opinion on matters of money of other people? Egalitarianism is a religion and a religion only, because the end point of egalitarianism is nothing but egalitarianism.
It’s just like the dispute between liberals and “positive” liberals in Europe - the positive liberals always talk about being “free to choose”. Free to choose what?, we all ask, throwing our hands in the air. Equal for what?, I also ask, throwing my hands in the air.
Look at the local poster Jonathan M. Finegold Catalan. I read his blog regularly. The man earns minimum wage, and with whatever he gets and saves, he goes and buys serious heavyweight books. Just like the young Milton Friedman, who cleaned toilets for 78 cents an hour, and then used that money to buy advanced books on statistics. It’s not the money you have, but what you do with it. Garbage in, garbage out. Equal distribution of wealth does not make a man better, but a love of truth, a high moral character, and the honest prayer in his heart for other people makes him better.
Bravo for this Prateek.
This requires an essay length answer to do it right, and I don’t know when I will have time for that.
If I post it, I will let you know.
Not to speak for you, LS, but I think Rothbard says it pretty well here. Variation is an inherent part of our biology. To fight against it is as futile as fighting against gravity or the conservation of energy. A stance that favors the seizure of resources for the purpose of fighting against gravity or conservation would be an immoral stance. A stance that favors the seizure of resources for the purposes of fighting against variation in humans (egalitarianism) is an immoral stance.
Clayton -
For the record, Rothbard’s answer is not my answer.
and his answers is very weak. It is just an appeal to nature. A logical fallacy.
The man earns minimum wage, and with whatever he gets and saves, he goes and buys serious heavyweight books. Just like the young Milton Friedman, who cleaned toilets for 78 cents an hour, and then used that money to buy advanced books on statistics. It’s not the money you have, but what you do with it. Garbage in, garbage out. Equal distribution of wealth does not make a man better, but a love of truth, a high moral character, and the honest prayer in his heart for other people makes him better.
You assume egalitarian minded people do not agree with this. What is with the assumption that, because we don’t want people to have to struggle, when others live lives of luxury they never worked a day for, that we despise production? (ya ya, what is “we” and all that. you get the point. just change “we” to “individuals like me”)
Micheal Moore is my answer to that; loves to share the wealth, makes a ton of it too. Paid for one of his haters’ wife’s surgeries when they couldn’t afford it. Warren Buffet would like us to spread some of the wealth as well. This argument that egalitarian = unproductive is bogus. Were it true we never would have invented bow and arrows, wheels, fire, and all that good stuff.
The last sentence, I don’t know many/any who would disagree with it. “We” are just not so naive to think that a good education won’t create a “love of truth, high moral character…” The only way I could see you viewing this as true (egalitarian = unproductive) is if you assume the rich are biologically superior to the poor. That they make these decisions because of their genes, rather than their material opportunity.
Not to speak for you, LS, but I think Rothbard says it pretty well here. Variation is an inherent part of our biology. To fight against it is as futile as fighting against gravity or the conservation of energy. A stance that favors the seizure of resources for the purpose of fighting against gravity or conservation would be an immoral stance. A stance that favors the seizure of resources for the purposes of fighting against variation in humans (egalitarianism) is an immoral stance.
Once again, you think biology plays a greater part in success than culture?
Why not practice eugenics?
I am not going to make a biological argument.
Rothbard sometimes loved to be bold and take contrarian stances to other people, even when it wasn’t necessarilly “libertarian”. In many ways, Rothbard was Rothbard. One major proof of this is when Rothbard jestingly said that maybe the Tutsis ruled over the Hutus “because they are more I-N-T-E-L-L-I-G-E-N-T”. Many on this forum were appalled.
Here’s why I don’t believe in a biological argument. The king of Babylon, Nebuchaddarezzar, defeated his enemies in Judea twice and built a powerful prospering kingdom. Yay! The Persian is #1. We are #1! Those Meditterraneans got their comeuppance twice! Maybe we Babylonians are all powerful, and maybe those Judeans are doomed as failures. But wait! What’s happening? Nebuchaddarezzar is on all fours! He is barking like a dog now! He is walking on all fours butt naked and barking like a dog. We are not so cool now!
The lesson here is simple. Nature is like a great, multifaceted thing. We are all small mirrors that reflect a small part of it. The greatness of all nature and creation can be peered into in the smaller achievements that come in the form of Mozart’s music or Shakespeare’s work. But we are always smaller than the greatness of all the rest of creation, and we must understand that we by ourselves have limits. Even Nebuchaddarezzar didn’t transcend all the things of this world, for even this great man could be nothing more than a barking dog if his talents were suddenly taken away, by illness or otherwise.
von Mises believed in a methodological dualism. Not a philosophical dualism, but a methodological one, in that there is a difference between mind and matter, and that we are incapable of bridging the two. Rothbard also believed in it, but only for the purposes of his profession. Otherwise, he still thought that biological make somewhat influences human action, even though as an economist, he would not say the same. I don’t think dualism should be purely methodological, because many ethnic groups with low IQs today once had very high IQs and many ethnic groups with low IQs yesterday are now with high IQs. It means mind still has power where matter does not, in achieving.
So going by that Misesian dualism, I feel that education will not produce or change human character. Human beings are responsible for human character - they choose and they act. I don’t mean this in an offensive way, but it is a Marxist argument to think education will solve all of society’s ills, because it’s based on the idea that material incentives influence all human activity and diverting resources to a social problem will solve a social problem. I know this, because I have personally known Marxists who make such materialistic arguments (many of them in New Delhi). And the same way, material advantage and opportunity is a very small advantage and opportunity, when we go by the Misesian dualism. It’s the person who acts. If Bill Gates were fired from Microsoft and dispossessed of every asset he had, he’d become a billionaire all over again in the next few years, because he possesses rare and specific knowledge and companies will rush to hire him and offer him huge stock.
It’s not a biological difference, but a matter of human choice. We see it in school. Some five year olds solve the problem quicker, because they put their mind to it, and some just don’t want to put their mind to it, and it’s their choice. No push and pull will change their performance across school, although Bush thought putting billions in education would.
So going by that Misesian dualism, I feel that education will not produce or change human character. Human beings are responsible for human character - they choose and they act.
It’s not just any education, it is a good one. It is less education, than it is culture. If you take poor public/private schools in america, and rich public/private schools, there is a different culture to how education is approached. Of course their will always be the slow kids and the fast ones. A small few of those slow kids will get successful (entertainers, sports stars, maybe a good business deal), and a few of those smart kids will not (drugs, kids, etc) (By kids I mean they have kids and now have to get a full time job, and cant further themselves as effectively).
I don’t mean this in an offensive way, but it is a Marxist argument to think education will solve all of society’s ills
None taken, I’m not completely anti-Marx.
because it’s based on the idea that material incentives influence all human activity and diverting resources to a social problem will solve a social problem. I know this, because I have personally known Marxists who make such materialistic arguments (many of them in New Delhi). And the same way, material advantage and opportunity is a very small advantage and opportunity, when we go by the Misesian dualism. It’s the person who acts
Yes, but the question is; why do some act in a certain way? Is it culture, biology, or both? If both, is it an even mix, or does one outweigh it? As far as I know, most of the evidence nowadays points to it being more culture than biology. (Which would fit with our extreme K selection)
There is nothing I despise more than the forced day-care we call education (at least here in the states). It is not reading Hume, or Kant that will help humans realize their potential (per se), nor is it learning the history of Egypt, or the physics of pudding. It is critical thinking skills, and motivation.
If you argue with a socialist that believes teaching kids 4+4 is why education is good, they obviously don’t understand the issue. But, I think it’s clear that those who are taught critical thinking skills and personal effort towards a goal (I like how the chinese sum up that phrase much better; gung fu, force development), are far more likely to understand their situation and how to change it.
Who said anything about success? Why is “success” the ultimate value? The point is that the Prince saying, “I’m taking your stuff so I can make people more equal” is an obviously vacuous excuse, as vacuous as, “I’m taking your stuff so we can build an anti-gravity machine” or “I’m taking your stuff so we can build a Zero-Point Energy device.” It’s an unattainable goal, therefore, it cannot possibly be a moral (or legal) justification for seizing people’s property.
Because it’s evil?
Clayton -
Who said anything about success? Why is “success” the ultimate value?
Variation is an inherent part of our biology. To fight against it is as futile as fighting against gravity or the conservation of energy. A stance that favors the seizure of resources for the purpose of fighting against gravity or conservation would be an immoral stance. A stance that favors the seizure of resources for the purposes of fighting against variation in humans (egalitarianism) is an immoral stance
Um… you?
Variation is “inherent,” some will succeed some will fail. To fight against it would be like NASA seizing resources to fight against gravity… disgusting.. right?
I didn’t bring up success, you did. If you think I did, then you’re simply failing to comprehend what I wrote.
Some children die at birth. Others die of cancer. Some are born with two heads, live for a while, then die. You can try to save lives, you can try to develop new methods of curing things but not everything can be fixed. So, we’re left with the question of deciding what’s worth fixing? As Thomas Sowell explains in his book Basic Economics, even an medical triage specialist at a battlefield is an economizer… he or she must choose who to help first since only one person at a time can be helped. No point helping those so badly wounded they will almost certainly die before reaching a real hospital. Of the others, some are wounded less severely and are more likely to survive even if they don’t receive immediate medical attention. So, you help those who are the most severely wounded but not so severely wounded that they will almost certainly die before reaching more robust medical help.
Is it a tough choice? Yes. Is it the moral choice? Yes.
The real question that egalitarians seek to avoid is whether the use and threat of violence is justified in order to equalize. Is equalization a proper rationalization for the use of force? When stripped of its ideological grandeur and placed in a courtroom context (strict individual liability, ala Rothbard), it’s clear that equalization is not a sufficient justification for the use of violence. If it really were a sufficient justification, then the thief who stole only from the rich and provably donated all his proceeds to charity should be above conviction. He doesn’t hurt anyone and his theft is justified because he uses it to equalize the poor and the rich. If anything, we should make such a thief our leader, which pretty much sums up modern Western society.
Pouring resources into the building of an anti-gravity device is as immoral as simply lighting people’s houses on fire. It’s just destruction for destruction’s sake.
Clayton -
I take it you’re not a fan of Robin Hood.
You know, it was once legal to beat your slave, as long as he could get back up (nvm that it was legal to have slaves).
It’s not just any education, it is a good one.
This would be true, except education doesn’t really exist. It is merely a term of custom, if used outside of that context we are talking religion and then bringing the ghost in the machines, and religion can not be spoken of with any coherent sense. This goes for the phrase"solving societies problem" or"equality", this is a term without any real philisophical or economic cognition. They are simply legal/ethical/religous/aesthetic/cultural fictions that can serve no real function in discussion about the premise of wealth maximization.
Yes, but the question is; why do some act in a certain way? Is it culture, biology, or both? If both, is it an even mix, or does one outweigh it? As far as I know, most of the evidence nowadays points to it being more culture than biology. (Which would fit with our extreme K selection)
This is a question that can not be asked in philosophy or economics, much less answered. The question doesn’t exist. We only care about how material shifts from point A to point B, nothing more. Economics can only speak of economics, biology can only speak for biology, etc. In so much as you can not absolutely dominate the action of something, it can not be spoken of with any logical sense. If you wish to study “why people do things” perhaps the very dubious subject of psychology could be studied.
This would be true, except education doesn’t really exist. It is merely a term of custom
Close, except custom/culture is education. That is literally the definition of culture, customs we teach to each other, unlike natural actions.
They are simply legal/ethical/religous/aesthetic/cultural fictions that can serve no real function in discussion about the premise of wealth maximization.
The question, “what plays a bigger role in knowledge and drive, biology or culture” is not important to the study of wealth maximization?