This damn professor...

Miscellaneous General
61

I’m starting to think that he assumes all libertarians were influenced by and/or follow Ayn Rand’s writings and philosophy. He mentioned Alan Greenspan again today, and noted that Ayn Rand never really followed her own philosophy or…something like that. In a nutshell, he called her hypocritical. I can’t really comment on that because I don’t know all that much about Objectivism or Ayn Rand’s actions.

Specifically, he mentioned the “rugged individual,” which is why I’m starting to think he’s lumping all libertarians in the “<3 Ayn Rand” group, because, if I recall correctly, Rand had a vision of the “individual man.”

Threshold does mention Hayek at least once, but he is drowned out in all of the Milton Friedman and Ayn Rand bashing. Therefore, I’m not sure my professor is aware of libertarian philosophy outside of Rand.

Edit - Another note. He [the prof] keeps saying the Federal Reserve is a private entity, and that putting “Federal” in the name is really a misnomer used to confuse people. I have The Creature from Jekyll Island, but don’t plan on reading it for a while. To me, it’s fairly obvious that it isn’t a private entity in the market sense, which is [probably] how the prof is perceiving it. It’s probably just as private as Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Blackwater (he had a field day on Blackwater today), or any sort of pseudo-governmental corporation.

62

To be fair, some people use different terminology. For instance, some would say that total costs are the sum of implicit costs and explicit costs (accounting costs). If you know that much, you know enough to use oppurtunity cost in your thinking.

63

“Both Hartmann, his followers, and my professor seem to think Greenspan is a free-marketeer.”

Have you pointed out that he is the chairman of a government granted monopoly over currency, appointed by the President and approved by Congress?

64

@David: Yes. I noted in the essay that Greenspan essentially abandoned any influence Rand had on him when he because Chairman, and because of what he did as Chairman. I don’t recall the prof. making a comment on this, but if you read up a few posts, I noted that the prof. commented upon my mentioning of Greenspan earlier in the essay, stating Greenspan publicly admitted to the “flaws of the market.”

Given what I just said, I figured out who he was talking about when he [the prof.] stated that one of the leading free-marketers came out and said that the market isn’t working. He couldn’t recall who it was, but said it may be Milton Friedman. Turns out it was Greenspan, which just makes the statement hilarious.

65

+1 point to me.

I walk into class, prof. asked me how I’m doing. I told him I was tired because I went to bed late. He asked why I went to bed late. I told him I was reading as the reason (which was a lie. I was playing Halo, but he isn’t a fan of “distractions” like TV, Facebook, video games, et al, and I didn’t want any flak). He asked what I was reading. I told him For a New Liberty, and he proceeded to write the title down.

Hopefully he reads it. He also asked if it was a libertarian book. I said “yeah pretty much,” half remembering the subtitle is “The Libertarian Manifesto” haha.

66

Reading stories like this makes me thank God I go to Auburn University, which is almost literally just across the street from the Mises Institute (the main economics building, Lowder Hall, is a stone’s throw from the Institute). My history professor and I were debating in class about the an article we read on how the Roman government demanding taxes in specie rather than in, say, grain or whatever was produced helped the economy. Like you, Blueline, I possess a modicum of eloquence with my pen but tend to stutter and perform badly in the heat of the moment when arguing verbally. But at some point in the argument I basically said something to the effect of “If this is true, then we should hire a bunch of thugs to go around demanding gold from every house.” The professor responds with a completely straight face “Isn’t that what government IS?” Astonished, I smile widely and triumphantly respond “That’s EXACTLY what government is!” He and I later chatted a bit and apparently he reads Hayek and Rothbard.

It’s not all like that, though. I had another history professor for 18th century European history who would have discussions on varous readings from the era. Much of it had to do with Marxism. The man was quite the neoliberal and when economics issues were raised, I’d be the only person defending free markets while the rest of the class dogpiled on me (I vividly remember how my hands were shaking as I floundered and fumbled my way through trying to explain the arguments for ancap and how they never let me finish a thought before another would pounce on me). The professor would often argue against me in many debates but he WAS rather respectful. Like you, Blueline, I largely attempted to sway him on some matters through the essays I turned in and I believe I got through to him on some issues. I still carry a deep, DEEP shame that haunts me even a year after the class from not doing as well as I could in the verbal debates, though. I’m far too hard on myself.

Rambling aside, I’m glad you seem to be getting through to him a bit, though, Blueline. If nothing else, at least he’s honest enough to look at new ideas rather than through. HIs rants merely mean he’s passionate, which is not really such a flaw–it’s the first step towards anarchism, I believe. The only reason I’m here today is because rather than growing up apathetic to politics, I was imbued with a passionate neoconservatism. The greatest enemy of liberty is not passionate statism but apathy.

67

Bump for effect.

We’re getting into a new “unit” of sorts. The prof. says its about “food” or something like that. Why we’re talking about food in a writing class, I have no idea. But I can tell that the lessons will consist of him going on tirades about corporations and such.

He’s also showing more of his environmental side. He follows the Thom Hartmann line that current meat consumption is a major factor in global warming, and that if we cut down on our meat production + consumption, we could cut down on greenhouse gases. The prof. follows this up with “but no, people think they need meat every time they sit down. And the corporations want you to keep buying meat!”

It’s like he has a catch-all cause of the problems of the world today. Pollution? CORPORATIONS! Brainwashing? CORPORATIONS! Poverty? CORPORATIONS! Loss of democracy? CORPORATIONS! Shrinking of the middle class? CORPORATIONS! It’s not that he’s wrong, but it seems he has a rather twisted view of corporations; he sees all of them as “private” and products of the “free market.”

Basically I feel ill-prepared for some of his arguments. I’m not a scientist (although I have a great appreciation for all things science), so I can’t really reply to his statements about global warming. But he will shoot me a sideways look whenever he relates climate change to “private” pollution and such.

He also stated that “we don’t have government. We have corporatocracy! We need government, but we don’t need corporations.” or something similar.

And toward the end of class today, he went on a rant about advertising. I’ve been confronted with the advertising argument before, and it basically goes like this: “Most of us think advertising is harmless, but corporations are so tricky in their advertising practices that they create the illusion that we need whatever they sell. They make us think we need all of these iPods and shoes and new clothes. Consumerism! Consumerism!” I have a rebuttal for this argument, but I still feel weak on it. How can advertisers and corporations create demand for those items? Unless they’re quite literally injecting the thought of “MUST HAVE” into our brains, the argument is bunk. Demand comes from the consumer, from us, not from some sort of pretty commercial or billboard a corporation produced.

Bah! Frustrations! Most of this post was probably jumpy and didn’t make much sense, so if you’re confused, don’t worry.

68

I would relate to him that “limited liability” is a creation of the state. Then give him the Jefferson quote about central banks (“if our nation were to set up one, america would drowned under all the corporations that spring up out of it” or something like that).

But advertising I’m going to tend to agree with him. Advertising is the same as propaganda, it’s brainwashing, and a gross waste of money. But, I wouldnt stop a business from doing it, I just try to get people to realize when they’re being brainwashed.

69

My economics text book rejects libertarianism because well, stop lights reduce liberty but they are still useful. So why maximize liberty?

I’m not even joking.

70

“But advertising I’m going to tend to agree with him. Advertising is the same as propaganda, it’s brainwashing, and a gross waste of money. But, I wouldnt stop a business from doing it, I just try to get people to realize when they’re being brainwashed.”

Advertising takes many forms. Me putting up a sign down the street for my garage sale is a form of advertising. A lot of advertising is simply getting your name out there so people will know about your product. Selling far below cost is a way to get your product known. It’s a form of advertising. I don’t see those forms of advertising as propagandistic.

71

Epicurus, I’d say that anti-advertising views are irresponsible and perhaps dangerous.

If elderly people did not get know that a medication could reduce their chance of heart attacks, would we say that they are better off, because at least advertising didn’t brainwash elderly people so that drug companies could prey on them and get their money?

Such is what we call zero-sum thinking, where we believe that every transaction is one person losing out in order for another to gain. For the record, I don’t watch television or read newspapers (both are full of garbage), so I am free from most advertisements, but I know most necessary things I buy are cheap, because they are advertised widely enough to be mass produced. I am sure that my all-weather pens would have been very expensive were they not advertised widely enough for people to know them.

That aside, I don’t think you should say that “limited liability” is a creation of the state. My parents run a small business. Banks often refuse to lend money to your incorporated company, and often are only willing to lend it to you on your name and with your assets attached. It’s by their own consent that they choose to lend to your corporate entity if you are experienced and responsible, making it virtually a contractual matter. I should also add that there is a free market in business law - the American Management Association or the All-India Management Association have their own business arbitration services. In India, for businessmen who use the services of these associations, instead of courts (which can be bribed), limited liability is also offered as a part of contractual arrangements. Also, every company writes its own Articles of Association, which lays down all the guidelines about how disputes and business arrangements are to be handled, because written law can not cope up with changing needs of business. Venture capitalists and entrepreneurs also make “agreements to negotiate in good faith”, where they make non-binding agreements on how share capital is to be allotted and how liabilities are to be serviced, although they can be flexible and keep changing these things. Also, Chambers of Commerce often make standardized guidelines on how Articles of Association and agreements to negotiate in good faith are to be handled, for the sake of consistency.

What normally happens is that what was already convention for a long time is just put into written law of government, just to have it as it should be. In India, the government also started a Company Law tribunal, and all heads of business, legal experts, and government officials sit together to make their own company law as per changing needs of business.

In short, corporations as a “creation of state” only reflect rules that already exist under private law. What is wrong with the state doing something that just as well already also exists in a free market?

72

dvertising takes many forms. Me putting up a sign down the street for my garage sale is a form of advertising. A lot of advertising is simply getting your name out there so people will know about your product. Selling far below cost is a way to get your product known. It’s a form of advertising. I don’t see those forms of advertising as propagandistic.

I would agree with that. Thanks for not taking me way out of context, unlike some people I know

73

Epicurus, I’d say that anti-advertising views are irresponsible and perhaps dangerous.

If elderly people did not get know that a medication could reduce their chance of heart attacks, would we say that they are better off, because at least advertising didn’t brainwash elderly people so that drug companies could prey on them and get their money?

Way out of context. I’m not going to respond to that.

That aside, I don’t think you should say that “limited liability” is a creation of the state. My parents run a small business. Banks often refuse to lend money to your incorporated company, and often are only willing to lend it to you on your name and with your assets attached. It’s by their own consent that they choose to lend to your corporateentity if you are experienced and responsible, making it virtually a contractual matter

As far as I remember, corporations had always required government charter. They were initially developed for short term projects like bridges, canals, etc. I have serious doubts a market would accept legal personhood (as opposed to natural personhood) for any kind of long-term goal.

Also, I said “are a creation of the state” not that they “require a state.” So, honestly this;

In short, corporations as a “creation of state” only reflect rules that already exist under private law. What is wrong with the state doing something that just as well already also exists in a free market?

is a giant straw man

74

Does he realize that the corporations exist because of his beloved governments?

Does he realize that most food production is provided by large corporations?

Does he realize that most organic food production is provided by large corporations? The misconception people tend to have is that organic food helps the local, small farmer.

How does he intend the world to provide for it’s food? Subsistence farming? How may people is he willing to eliminate in order to go that route? Why are you taking a writing class when it’s apparent he requires more people to be small farmers? What is his stance on genetically modified foods? Is he a vegan? If not, why the fuss over meat?

What global warming? The world is in currently in a natural cooling trend. If eating more meat causes global warming, then why is he not proposing this as a solution to global cooling? He seems to be 3-5 years out of date with the propaganda and needs to be re-educated.

I don’t think your professor has thought through any of his arguments.

The first corporation chartered in America was Harvard University, specifically "The President and Fellows of Harvard College". Does he consider this institution as “evil”? If not, why? What constitutes an “evil” corporation? Money? Harvard has a financial endowment of $26.5 billion (as of September 2009). Granted, this amount has been declining, and probably accelerating downward due to the current economy, but it’s still a ton of money.

Personally I think your writing class is total crap. You didn’t sign up for Fallacy 101. It might be cool if it was conducted that way, and might have value in that respect, but obviously it’s not. This guy could be the subject of someone’s thesis on what’s wrong with the American college education system.

75

How did Prateek takes this statement out of context?

76

You just flunked economics and advertising. You don’t even know what advertising is. Propaganda is marketing, not advertisement.

77

How did Prateek takes this statement out of context?

But advertising I’m going to tend to agree with him. Advertising is the same as propaganda, it’s brainwashing, and a gross waste of money. But, I wouldnt stop a business from doing it, I just try to get people to realize when they’re being brainwashed

!=

If elderly people did not get know that a medication could reduce their chance of heart attacks, would we say that they are better off, because at least advertising didn’t brainwash elderly people so that drug companies could prey on them and get their money? (People are better off when they die)

You could have just informed me I was mistaking advertising for marketing (^ see above), and even more specifically, commercial marketing.

I also never said propaganda = bad. This whole website, and any other like it, is propaganda: http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=define:+propaganda

Such is what we call zero-sum thinking, where we believe that every transaction is one person losing out in order for another to gain. For the record, I don’t watch television or read newspapers (both are full of garbage), so I am free from most advertisements, but I know most necessary things I buy are cheap, because they are advertised widely enough to be mass produced. I am sure that my all-weather pens would have been very expensive were they not advertised widely enough for people to know them.

Ugh, don’t put words in my mouth. I said advertising is designed to influence people to buy your product, and I support people realizing what that means. Are you against critical thinking?

lol, and I’m sure this has more to do with the price of our cheap goods than marketing.

78

About killer coke.

Why dont the workers quit then?

What evidence is there to the claims?

How fortunate that the TEAMSTERS UNION, that Ghandi like non violent union, is out there helping those poor workers.

A quote or two from Wiki:

But corruption became even more widespread in the Teamsters during the Tobin administration. By 1941, the union was considered the most corrupt in the United States, and the most abusive towards its own members. Tobin vigorously defended the union against such accusations, but also instituted many constitutional and organizational changes and practices which made it easier for union officials to engage in criminal offenses.

Under the heading “The influence of organized crime” in Wiki:

Infiltration by organized crime dominated the agenda of the Teamsters throughout the 1950s. The Teamsters had suffered from extensive corruption since its formation in 1903.[11][12][13] Although the more extreme, public forms of corruption had been eliminated after General President Cornelius Shea was removed from office, the extent of corruption and control by organized crime increased during General President Tobin’s time in office (1907 to 1952).[9][12][22][63] In 1929, the Teamsters and unions in Chicago even approached gangster Roger Touhy and asked for his protection from Al Capone and his Chicago Outfit, which were seeking to control the area’s unions.[64] Evidence of widespread corruption within the Teamsters began emerging shortly after Tobin retired.[65] In Kansas City, corrupt Teamsters locals spent years seeking bribes, embezzling money, and engaging in extensive extortion and labor rackets as well as beatings, vandalism and even bombings in an attempt to control the construction and trucking industries.[22][66] The problem was so serious that the U.S. House of Representatives held hearings on the issue.[67]

Hoffa’s attempt to challenge Beck caused a major national scandal which led to two Congressional investigations, several indictments for fraud and other crimes against Beck and Hoffa, strict new federal legislation and regulations regarding labor unions, and even helped launch the political career of Robert F. Kennedy. Believing he needed additional votes to unseat Beck, in October 1956 mobster Johnny Dio met with Hoffa in New York City and the two men conspired to create as many as 15 paper locals[68] to boost Hoffa’s delegate totals.[69][70] When the paper locals applied for charters from the international union, Hoffa’s political foes were outraged.[62][71] A major battle broke out within the Teamsters over whether to charter the locals, and the media attention led to inquiries by the U.S. Department of Justice and the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the U.S. Senate Committee on Government Operations.[72] Beck and other Teamster leaders challenged the authority of the U.S. Senate to investigate the union,[73] which caused the Senate to establish the Select Committee on Improper Activities in Labor and Management – a new committee with broad subpeona and investigative powers.[74] Senator John L. McClellan, chair of the select committee, hired Robert F. Kennedy as the subcommittee’s chief counsel and investigator.[75]

The Select Committee (also known as the McClellan Committee, after its chairman), exposed widespread corruption in the Teamsters union. Dave Beck fled the country for a month to avoid its subpoenas before returning.[76] Four of the paper locals were dissolved to avoid committee scrutiny, several Teamster staffers were charged with contempt of Congress, and union records were lost or destroyed (allegedly on purpose), and wiretaps were played in public before a national television audience in which Dio and Hoffa discussed the creation of even more paper locals.[77] Evidence was unearthed of a mob-sponsored plot in which Oregon Teamsters unions would seize control of the state legislature, state police, and state attorney general’s office through bribery, extortion and blackmail.[78] Initially, members of the union did not believe the charges, and support for Beck was strong,[79] but after three months of continuous allegations of wrong-doing many rank-and-file Teamsters withdrew their support and openly called for Beck to resign.[80] Beck initially refused to address the allegations, but broke his silence and denounced the committee’s inquiry on March 6.[81] But even as the committee conducted its investigation, the Teamsters chartered even more paper locals.[82] In mid-March 1957, Jimmy Hoffa was arrested for allegedly trying to bribe a Senate aide.[83] Hoffa denied the charges, but the arrest triggered additional investigations and more arrests and indictments over the following weeks.[84] A week later, Beck admitted to receiving an interest-free $300,000 loan from the Teamsters which he had never repaid, and Senate investigators claimed that loans to Beck and other union officials (and their businesses) had cost the union more than $700,000.[85] Beck appeared before the select committee for the first time on March 25, 1957, and invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination 117 times.[86] The McClellan Committee turned its focus to Hoffa and other Teamsters officials, and presented testimony and evidence alleging widespread corruption in Hoffa-controlled Teamster units.[70][87]

Also note that without the govt helping them out with violence, they lose their power:

In 1979 Congress passed legislation that deregulated the freight industry, removing the Interstate Commerce Commission’s power to impose detailed regulatory tariffs on interstate carriers. The union tried to fight deregulation by attempting to bribe Senator Howard Cannon of Nevada. That attempt not only failed, but resulted in the conviction in 1982 of Roy Williams, the General President who had succeeded Fitzsimmons in 1981. Williams subsequently resigned in 1983 as a condition of remaining free on bail while his appeal proceeded.

Deregulation had catastrophic effects on the Teamsters, opening up the industry to competition from non-union companies who sought to cut costs by avoiding unionization and curbing wages. Nearly 200 unionized carriers went out of business in the first few years of deregulation, leaving thirty percent of Teamsters in the freight division unemployed. The remaining unionized carriers demanded concessions in wages, work rules, and hours.

So forgive me if I ask for evidence before taking the word of the Teamster’s union. Read the whole Wiki. Very educational. Also go the library and get books with photos of how the Temaster’s operate. The ones with old men getting kicked in the belly as they lie helpless on the ground. And in the true crimes section of the library, get some confessionals by Teamster members, like the guy who killed Hoffa. Read up on their organizing activities,

79

First, I don’t think this problem is confined to columbia. Second, yes, unions can become as corrupt as any other enterprise. But:

http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/fellows/colombia0106/video_chapter3.html

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/06_04/b3968079.htm

http://www.organicconsumers.org/starbucks/coffee-beans.cfm

Honestly, until the people stop thinking they can appoint some plutocracy over themselves, they will have to keep dealing with such corruption.

80

Your professor seems to be diagnosing some real problems. You may disagree on how the disease is cured of course. But that universal vaccine of yours called “freedom” doesn’t give much hope does it??