I know there are probably quite a few people who do get it here. All of the anarchists that go here know what the statists and the pro world government statists really want. But there are so many people here that will just keep on arguing over whether Keynesian economics works/doesn’t work, and, about new economics, and their failures. They seem to miss the point altogether. Statists left and right and center don’t really care if their economic policies work.
Mises had it right. These people who are against market forces be it from the left, the right, the center, or those involved in the market, all are interested in securing privileges for themselves. That’s why our system is corrupt. It’s because everyone thinks they’re in favor of some sort of entitlement program. That’s why we have a whole system of corporate lobbying which is anti-Democratic where all these corporations lobby the government for privileges, and, it’s why the federal reserve exists, and, why we have this corrupt government where everyone is fighting for resources.
It’s not just enough to say that all of their economic policies won’t work, etc. You must also expose their corruption, etc, and who they really want to help. People are wondering why the government is so corrupt and they see all these special interest groups fighting amongst themselves and well they’re part of the problem too because they support certain special interest groups that influence Washington as well.
I just think more attention needs to be focused on who’s helping who. Statists aren’t really interested in facts. If their policy fails they’ll just try to figure out a way to try to make their policy more effective. Even if it’s proven time and time again that the policy that they want, or the regulation that they want isn’t effective/doesn’t work, they’ll just turn around and ignore us, and they’ll just assume we’re just against big government so our opinion doesn’t matter. I just thought I’d say something… we can talk all we want about how their policies fail, but, I think it would do it more good to expose them for what they really are: control freaks.
In a sense, I’ve tried to become an educator like Ron Paul has. Without saying what I truly am, I just keep stressing several points over and over again whether it be in the classroom, with the family, or wherever. I try to be as civil and composed as possible without becoming hostile. Hopefully, with all the redudancy and questions I keep asking, the students/ people that care will start to look into this.
I’ve also found that actually asking a seemingly honest question to a poor argument often allows the argument to unravel by itself, because people began realize how ridiculously flawed the argument is.
Interestingly enough, I have an example for just how unprincipled certain people may be. I have a cousin that was very anti-union a few years ago, now that she is becoming a public school teacher, she has become an ardent supporter of the unions, wants everybody to pay higher taxes for public education, and wants more benefits. She always scoffs at my position(s) and is always looking for an argument these days. I refuse to argue with her and am very content with her making an ass out of herself.
People are against market forces because they want to live at other people’s expense. This is a not a scientific or logical problem, it is a moral problem.
It hasn’t changed since Bastiat’s The Law pointed it out. It hasn’t changed since the Roman Empire, or the Pharaohs.
Yeah but, in the long run, everybody would benefit from free markets more than they would from being parasites. As we all know, it’s a difficult point to get across to most people, but it can be done to an extent.
I generally agree, though, that a bottom-up revolution is a waste of time. That’s why I think that something like Seasteading is the right type of thing to pursue.
I disagree. Many people want to live off each other because they believe it’s in their rational self interest; but it’s not. Those who are open minded and reasonably intelligent can understand their mistake.
I do think that it’s a moral choice for the statists who seek to be in a position of power over others. That’s a relatively small minority, in my view.
I don’t mean to disparage the value of education here. I just don’t think that the study of power should belong within the sole hands of leftists, statist conservatives, marxists, and conspiracy theorists. I think that the idea about entitlements and privileges is an area of classical liberal thought that has gone overlooked by many people who have studied the ideology, and, are adherents to it.
What I am saying is that while we should talk about how market intervention doesn’t work, and, all that kind of thing, we should also speak truth to power, and confront the state power directly. it’s not about making a moral argument out of it. It’s about showing what laws benefit whom, and, what special interests benefit the most from certain government intervention, in addition to showing that the intervention won’t do what it’s designed to do. Do you kind of see what I’m getting at here?
It seems true that all the economics arguments only have force for the voters and the more high-minded politicians.
However, if politicians were really only out to make a quick buck, wouldn’t they be printing money 24/7? There is some level of stewardship, even if only so as to be a more successful parasite - a bigger artery to suck blood from. I think many at the top actually do believe Keynesian economics, and if they knew the insights of the Austrian school things would be at least a bit better, or at least more prosperous.