This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Observations On The Road To Serfdom And An Open Thread
Due to some upcoming travel, posting over the next few days will be somewhat sporadic. We will attempt to provide recap thoughts on any major developments, although we have a sense the task will be pretty much comparable to the job of a weatherman in San Diego: "The market was... up. Back to you." Please use this post as an open thread for items of relevance. We leave you with this video in which Bruce Caldwell, a Professor of Economics and the Director of the Center for the History of Political Economy at Duke University and expert "Austrian," discusses a very relevant topic for our day and age: Friedrich Hayek's observations on the Road to Serfdom.
»
- 18044 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
An amazingly ignorant posting that essentially demonstrates a lack of understanding of the Austrian position and Hayek in particular.
First. Libertarian ideas draw a clear line between free markets and crony capitalism which is essentially corporativism posing as a free market. Crony capitalism is what is going on in the US at present. You can call it by many names, socialism for the rich, or even facism.
Second. Hayek and all knew that pure free markets do not exist. That is why the Heritage foundation rates countries on a relative basis (mostly free, etc). The goal is to reduce government because government is almost always less efficient than private enterprise and because government is almost always kidnapped by special interests (In other words, socialism is nothing more than the protection of these special interests under the veneer of social benefit)
Third. The deconstruction of the state and of socialism does have short-term negative impacts / dislocations. However, it has huge long-term benefits. The socialist state has immensely negative consequences, that as Hayek correctly predicted, eventually include the loss of freedom. This is why the change must be made, it is also why the change is avoided by politicians.
+1
where did cheeky bastard's post go that all this is based on?
+1, I replied to someone a few days ago whose post then disappeared. What the deal?
Yes, interesting question. Did Cheeky ask it be removed? Removing comments really messes things up. It seems Arm is replying to Tyler which he was not. Little too ministry of truth for my liking... especially for this site.
Winston Smith works in the Minitrue RecDep (Records Department), "rectifying" historical records to concord with Big Brother's current pronouncements, thus everything the Party says is true.
You going to erase this too ZH?
Either a horridly overzealous ZH drone is removing comments or their database is seriously fucted.
I think some clarification is in order here. I am increasingly finding my comments removed as well.
WHAT THE FUCK.
I am Chumbawamba.
Episode VII
Revenge of the Squid
WAR!
I bet the DB is hosed. The site crashes several times per day. Not good
I have watched comments come and go several times now..
So sorry for http://www.zerohedge.com/modules/wysiwyg_spellcheck/tinymce/spellchecker...); background-repeat: repeat-x; background-attachment: initial; -webkit-background-clip: initial; -webkit-background-origin: initial; background-color: initial; cursor: default; background-position: 0% 100%;">Jackin the post - my apologies.
However...
I/We have not Seen MARLA - post-comment-edit-or do anything in AT least 2 months!!!
WHAT..... ZH has become of Marla?? and the Great job she has done for this site??
Can someone please tell me why I have jipperest in the middle of my post????
Seems if you get *flagged as JUNK* more than 3 times, your post disappears.. First noticed this with goldbugs religiously flagging "Master Bates"; unless this rudimentary flagging mechanism is evolved, obviously all it takes are 4 dedicated operatives to censor any post anyone wants censored, at any time, for any reason.
Yup: as a test I just flagged DORK OF CORK's first comment below (sorry DOC), which was teetering at the edge of 3 junks...refresh the page...comment goes bye-bye!
so if we all agreed to junk to junk 4 people most of us would dissappear. yea! LOL these sure are funny times .
It does my lil old heart good to see so many posters. Its not like we are uninterested even if american idol is playing in the background.
This could be dangerous. Posts on HAARP, and other "conspiracies" are very important, not only for truth purposes and prospectuses, but to generate open debate. Personally I like looking at MBs posts that have been junked to the Nth degree. It is a reminder that gold is dominant ;)
Anywho, is this not unnecessary with the Anons gone? I know the ZH guys are hard at work, and when idiots get on here with nothing to say, and say it anyway, it is nice to have us rid the comment, but.....maybe we could have a two tier system. A **junked** reserved for MB like comments (whome we respectively disagree with, usually...NO NAME CALLING unless absolutely necessary! name calling serves little purpose) and a **JUNKED FOR TOILET** to rid of mean and nasty and abusive comments.
I feel a little bad about this, I suggested removal of posts that were junked. Although I think I recommended 10 junkings as the limit before removal. Sorry about that, I didn't think I had that much influence. As if. If it were the case though, that pisses me off that someone would junk Cheeky 4 times, I missed the post, but he usually has great insight. I'm responding to mere human cause he's another of the posters that I feel similiar to in mind set. Life just keeps getting faster and faster but mh seems to just hit the pause button and say fuck it. I fear that sooner or later we will all have no choice but to do the same, probably be better off in the long run though.
That then explains the comings and goings
of comments, not a db problem
10 was a good number, watched one of MB's posts disappear after 10, so the number has been reduced to 4
Should raise it back to 10
Should eliminate it altogether as it's being misused. Was originally intended for that iamned fag but now dickshits use it to express their personal dislike for someone else's opinion.
Assuming this is, in fact, the mechanism.
I am Chumbawamba.
All of us can now see the consequences of pure democracy and inane regulation. Tis a scientific illustration!
I think if someone gets junked on this site x10, it's safe to believe their posts add nothing.
BTW, I junk any post that has bigoted language......which "fag" is.......
year ago in my 20s i had a REAl guru. He gave me the mantra he felt was appropiate for me. "fuck it" Becuase at some point you have to turn it loose and deal with the moment or lose yourself to your mind and fears.
I now know after much research what to do to prepare and have done so .
I have explained and made it a point to inform all i know.
Then it came down to watching it unfold, kind of like an ambulance chaser watching the trainwreck that is our life.
Now i am not consumed by anger but pragmatism. i see it for what it is damnit, wish i didnt .
So what now, do i sit on my but and watch it unfold. Hell no, democracy is a participatory event. So now that i plan my personal march on washington the first job in weeks has come along. I will do it as we can use the cash. So now it looks like i am leaving in 6 days more or less. Not in a hurry, relaxed but certain in my commitment. I can only hope more of us feel the same way.
Harry K. in oregon
Wish I could join you, Harry. If we had a ZH march somewhere, I wonder how many would show up.
No, the comment doesn't go "bye-bye" (sheesh!). The comment first goes to Comment Purgatory where it is judged. Based on the judgement, the comment then either goes to Comment Heaven or Comment Hell.
Ok, it is confirmed that a low threshold of junks gets comments removed. That sucks and should be changed or explained perhaps Marla/Tyler whoever can look into this when they get back from wandering around with their grande lattes at the big Ikea sale ;)
Wrong, I just junked Davey (sorry bro!!!! I liked the comment too!!! please repost!!!! apologies sincerely!!!!) and it was instantly gone.
just got back from court and saw my comment and cheeky's gone then saw an interesting thread. Was not aware of the new ironic and automated censorship rule on the "outspoken" website.
Gee thanks , glad to know I was part of some empirical research - now we know that zero hedge has a invisible hand.
I wonder if the ZH powers that be mean to make a point. Rule 4, "Only two to a fight." Combined with, 'if you have something to say, say it without passitivity, ie **junking**'.
Perhaps???
Ironic we discover all this on an "open thred".
I feel this is a dangerous turn of events - it is a form of censorship of the masses without overt hints from the leader , a beautiful system of control really.
Given the makeup of the audience here anyone putting forward even mildly statist or anti gold remarks are liable to be wiped from the record.
People who feel they disagree with comments should counter these openly and then be given the privilege to mark down a blogger - A guy who marks down a comment only is just plain wimpish
Not a turn of events, it's been like this for months; just another reason the old blogspot/disqus was in many ways a golden age for ZH.
In a system such as this once a critical mass of a certain belief takes hold it becomes dominant - the dynamics are interesting and slightly different from a real life social group - not conducive to great robust debate however.
Nice points all, Cork. Censorship is an idea whose delivery is independent of who's doing it. When you muzzle someone's speech, it's censorship. Period.
I suspect this may be part of the experiment... Remember Anon posters were excluded due to "server overload"? Perhaps Tyler & gang wanted to see how well we "registered" members could handle ourselves in the absence of adult supervision...
Perhaps instead of removing post, it could be collapsed into "<ABC user> junked X times, click to read". I would certainly click to read Cheeky. Also, if there is a JUNK button, why not have a "PROPS" button as well?
+1
ZH could charge a buck per junk
daily allotment of junks?
i regret to say i have smoked my best at last.
This is one crazy movie. Cant wait to get on ZH to find i have already posted here .
seems all of Cheeky`s posts from earlier today vanished WTF - I haven`t posted in a couple of months but was encouraged to see him back again - and on a related topic where is Mayhem, I`m getting bored with the constant stream of MadHedgeFund et. al. self promoting articles that fill the contributor space (except for Kasting, Robo, Leo and Andy) - and what`s with the must sign in to contribute crap -- ZH please don`t go mainstream on us - and where the f is Marla? Perhaps Tyler is on a job interview... whatever off to see what BusInsider is saying, though they are getting way too political
Again, I believe I advocated removing junked posts but it was more in the interest of getting rid of spammers. Just remember ZH is more than just TD, MS and so on. We are all part of ZH. That is what makes this site so great, I enjoy and learn more from ZH than I ever could in a business school. I'm just a tradesman that's had to earn every penny but I find ZH'ers to be open and receptive to all walks of life. The inside information that allows us to plan is so valuable to all of us. I try to impart what I learn to others but sometimes it's a hard sell. So many people afraid to take the red pill. I'm sure they will make this website what the members want, after all this is a Democracy, isn't it?
I admire Leo for "takin' it like a man" but i don't care for how he promotes his new blog by asking readers to comment on it. Come on..really? Sounds more like a 12 year old girl trying to gain myspace popularity.
Look at it from Marla and Tylers point of view.
Not that i have any great insight or inside info.
is it worth it to them to keep on?
What are they up against, they have lives too.
Whatever reality may be i am thankful to have shared the space with you all. Thankful to ZH for having created the opportunity.
I know of no other site where the interaction is so good. Part of that is because we have a sincere need to lay the problem on the table, before the mirror. We help each other discover not only what is true, but how to view it, history and context fleshing the thing out to its final conclusion as a deliberate poverty storm to enrich a few. A giant taking, a harvest of countries or plunder. They are pirates sure enough
is it worth it to them to keep on?
Are you kidding? It must be pretty hectic to keep ZH up and running but This site has surpassed blog and moved into news imho.
The staff/owners (whoever the hell that is!) seem to be making a difference.
They are real real good at what they do.
They probably make a few dollars at it, and occasionally have time to have some fun.
Man, I think they are both/all up for the fight.
Added: http://www.quantcast.com/zerohedge.com What's the trend of that chart?
The bottom line is not whether or not we find it to be useful, but whether or not they find it to be useful. If it is not producing enough money or whatever else they're looking for it to produce, they can toss it just like anything else. Our 'need' for the site, and the noteriety of it only take you so far. I love ZH, and a lot of the people I know through it, but I understand how things can be.
We just got Cheeky back from a long haitus and us long time ZH'ers missed him. Enough with the junking everyone. Let's keep this conversation real. I know I go a little nuts sometimes but Miles is good at calming me down and I am going to just start skipping the stuff that really pisses me off unless I have something constructive to say.
In the meantime, fearless Fed heckler ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00ECLxK2YTs) Alan Grayson has a petition and if you are interested in signing, this is it:
At any moment, the Supreme Court will announce whether it will allow corporations to spend unlimited funds on political campaigns.
Sign my petition to the Supreme Court now, and tell them to keep unlimited corporate spending out of our federal elections.
PETITION TEXT
I support the "Save Our Democracy" Platform:
We cannot have a government that is bought and paid for by huge multinational corporations. We need a government of the people, by the people, and for the people.
--
http://salsa.mydccc.org/o/30019/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=4&tag=012009_email
He was on Dylan Ratigan this afternoon and the signings are huge, coming in in multiples by the minute.
I would just like to second Howard's comments. Cheeky, Marla, Project Mayhem... where ever you are... please come back!!
I especially miss Radio Zero. It was great to come home on Friday night, have a couple beers, listen to some techno, and banter about the market. Like it or not, it is the reason I exist.
Here... Here...
I have requested... no... BEGGED - for the Radio zero to return.
I have not Seen MARLA - post-comment-edit-or do anything in AT least 3 months!!!
WHAT ZH has become of Marla?? and the Great job she has done for this site??
Quit fn' junking unless it is that troll Wario or whatever that dudes name was.
Hey, I know your theme song, "Just keep trollin', just keep trollin'."
So sorry for http://www.zerohedge.com/modules/wysiwyg_spellcheck/tinymce/spellchecker...); background-repeat: repeat-x; background-attachment: initial; -webkit-background-clip: initial; -webkit-background-origin: initial; background-color: initial; cursor: default; background-position: 0% 100%;">Jackin the post - my apologies.
However...
I/We have not Seen MARLA - post-comment-edit-or do anything in AT least 2 months!!!
WHAT..... ZH has become of Marla?? and the Great job she has done for this site??
Let he among us who has never committed a tipo cast the first stone.
i like "tipo" (and so would alexander pope: and ten slow words oft creep in one dull line).
I just don't get his post. Outta nowhere Libertarian Jones has to run from Cheeky's massive rolling boulder. I agree that promises of Utopia are from deceiving jackals, but whatever happened to the freedom of the Press and the Rule of Law? We have whistle-blowers going to jail and the media serving fully as a distraction from reality - open corruption is now here to stay, and yet we get an acid attack from Cheek? What gives?
You can't have pure gold?
Effectively. I do not spell check. Posting on ZeroHedge is not my day job.
Furthermore, it is far more important to criticize ideas than forms.
I would say that to criticize either is pretty worthless.
people believe that pure libertarianism cannot exist... why? people also believed that the world was flat
the u.s. is not a socialist state. crony capitalism comes closer. if you think that goldman et. al. in a "free market" would lead to a better world than the one we have, welcome to it. yes they would probably have been bankrupted but so too most of the financial sector and a replay of the early thirties or worse would transpire.
it was "free market reforms" and political/corporate corruption that got us here. what kept some semblance of tolerability until the last couple decades or so was, perhaps, shame and some fear of consequences from law enforcement (fraud, insider trading, monopoly practices).
look at the nineteenth century. mostly depressions, market manipulating trusts and horrific treatment of workers. ok if you are the robber baron but for the vast mass of people, not so much.
what we need, even more than less government (which we do need) is better government. we have had it before and, perhaps, can have it again. audit the fed. vote for ron paul.
Socialism, like so many things in life, is a matter of degrees. The US is certainly more centrally planned than it was 50 years ago and infinitely more than it was 100 years ago.
The main instrument of socialist control is the control of currency, through fiaco's and fractional reserve banking. This allows the state to siphon revenues in a manner that is not obvious to the majority of the population. Sovereignage is a (or THE) major tax. The income from this tax is directed through central planning to sectors and industries deemed strategic by the government (or that are electorally favorable).
This covert tax scheme has two unfortunate side effects. The first is that it very unfairly benefits bankers (the middle men) and anybody who has capacity to leverage physical assets. The second, is that it creates a monetary system that is unstable by design and is always on the brink of collapse. Banks are ALWAYS 10x bankrupt (or 42x if you are LEH), the slightest sneeze in asset prices and banks fail.
The nineteenth century was actually one of the most progressive eras, with large amounts of people in the United States emerging from poverty. Game changing technological change was probably at its highest expression yet. Small enterprises were the norm (we have higher concentration of GDP in the hands of large corporates today), and most employees were in fact rural workers (I can't see a farmer exploiting himself).
There was a lot of social inequality during the era. That is true. But that begs the question. Why do you want equality? Are you of the school that would see us all poor above seeing a natural social pyramid? (that by the way is the main tenant of socialism)
Absolute wealth levels are the true measure of well-being. Children do not suffer from "relative" malnutrition. I rather have a prosperous unequal society than something resembling the Soviet Union.
Furthermore, as a by product, free societies are more equal. The fact is that humans have a tendency to regress to the mean. That means that when you take away the government support, and the expensive suit, a Goldman banker is about as good as your local branch manager. This means that in a truly competitive world you would be hard pressed to earn 20x more than another person of similar characteristics (as happens today).
Summary: You are confusing the critique of Crony Capitalism, with the critique of Capitalism. I completely share your critique of crony capitalism, it is aberrant.
Central planning is not a distinctive feat of socialism. Neither has fractional reserve banking anything to do with it.
I'd be interested in hearing your definition of socialism.
My definition - The active socialization (redistribution) of private wealth and productive resources for the perceived benefit of society. Socialists assume two premises. First, that most social problems arise from an unequal wealth distribution. Second, that markets are in no way efficient, and it is up to the state to channel productive resources.
In essence, as per Mises, socialists do not believe in price as a means of allocating productive resources.
I am sorry, but you are wrong. Central planning is the very core of socialism. Without the belief in prices, the only means to allocate resources is through central planning.
In laymen's terms. Socialists, usually very educated individuals, believe that their superior intelligence would allow them to solve the world's problems if only they could control the means of production. As such they look for methods to expropriate these assets from their current owners so that they can proceed to channel these resources "more efficiently".
This is essentially done through taxation. Fractional reserve banking is nothing more than an inflation tax (technical term is sovereignage). An easy lookup. All mainstream economics book cover this. Milton Friedman of course, but I believe even Ben Bernanke's Econ book has the term. The taxes collected by this means are directly socialized through government spending.
Sorry for the direct jab. but of course I would not expect an admirer of Alexander Hamilton, spiritual father of the US Central Bank, to agree.
Well said Arm
I'm sure you are aware that not all Socialists are Statists. I'm of course referring to Proudhon, Bakunin, Kropotkin and their intellectual decendants.
Hamilton was a douchebag extraordinaire.
Evidence; he got the "10".
To compare; Jefferson got the duece. Get it?
Have you read any works of socialists?
You may want to start here.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/inde...
All mainstream books cover this, hey. You have learnt nothing then.
Sorry for the direct jab. but of course I would not expect an admirer of Alexander Hamilton, spiritual father of the US Central Bank, to agree.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
You should also learn to read. Take a closer look at my name, what do you see?
The 19th century may have been the most progressive era for some but in the case of the US, this progressive era was largely enabled by generous contributors like the Indians who relinquished their lands to allow the US governments's handouts to its citizens. Nostalgia of this era can be cured by finding new Indians. Good luck in the search.
Socialism is either implemented via two methods:
1. Direct action, aka militant revolution. We have not witnessed that at this time.
2. Incrementalism. That is the path chosen in the 1930's, interrupted by World War II then accelerated in the 1960's by bleeding our reserves dry and forcing the U.S. out of the original Bretton Woods agreements. If one thinks we are not evolving into a socialist state, let's take a peek at what industries are now centralized under Government control, directly or indirectly:
Auto manufacturing
Banking
Educational Loans
Railroad-Passenger travel only
Mortgage origination/ownership
soon to join the list:
Medical Insurance and Medical care
We are well on the way to completing a conversion from "crony capitalism" to a command and control economic model where various power brokers in the political capitol control events across the land.
If you think Government is the solution then you are part of the problem.
Get out of my wallet, out of my bedroom, out of my life and those who believe in freedom will rebuild this place as the Founding Fathers intended.
And to think, in only 15 months. Now that is progressive. Progressing into oblivion. I'm afraid my kids will never be able to live a normal life. 13 and 8, what kind of a job will be available to them in 10 years? Farmer? That's what I should push. Although we may get screwed by the government, farmers get screwed by the government and Monsanto so that may not be the ticket either. Anybody believe in the 2012 crap? I must say that 1 year ago I'd laugh in your face, but now, I just don't know anymore.
Just teach them to like Brondo and they'll be fine, maybe they'll graduate from one of the finer universities such as Costco or fucking Walmart. Think positively.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y0O7_3o3BrI
...wait a sec....5 junks?
TD, was this a test? Did we pass?
People who understand Hayek should be the people who explain Hayek. Thanks for an excellent post, Arm.
Strong but limited governments turn into strong unlimited governments, case in point USA.
So private actors will fill the vacuum of state so what. Because they are not the state they cannot force you to be their customer. If I opened a court house and I was not the state I could not force you to settle grievances there at the point of a gun, you would resist, and others would join you. The state is a gang, armed to the teeth and willing to use force to force people to obey their monopoly of power. Monopolies are unnatural and all monopolies are linked to state sponsorship. Look at all monopolies and oligopolies now and in history, all receive state support for their actions.
If we accept that we need a government it will always grow until it consumes the enter economy and or there is a regime change brought on by a revolt or war. Of course this regime change will leave a lot of damage in it's wake. Most of the problems facing the world are through government action. If these financial institutions did not have the ability to get free money from central banks and then bailouts on top of it, would they have made such insane and reckless bets with their own money? Unlikely, and in a free system I expect that most would demand their pound of flesh for the open fraud and criminalty instead of having to rely on such saintly groups as the SEC (Syndicate Enabling Corruption), with a "strong government" they are shielded by the government cronies they buy off. Government is at best inept and at worse a total tyranny.
Now I do not expect we could ever get to a free society with no government, but why not strive to starve and weaken government as much as possible. Government can do no good, for any good it seemingly does it must first steal resources from another. Sure we may want the gov to give out goodies, but I ask how does it get those goodies? Might might say they will tax the rich but if you will look at history this is almost never the case, they tax the middle class and poor, and usually the rich are the "welfare queens'. This is the way history has shown us this works, and a simply look at the world today will confirm it.
I believe History can be looked at through a prism of understanding which encompasses a view of stability and instability within a system. In a certain period of time a Government will grow and perhaps become drunk with power but this is only a glimpse of now and to come up with the conclusion that governments are bad and private actors not so bad is incorrect. All of these institutions will strive for monopolistic power and at certain times the private cooperation can become the government or be indistinguishable from the Government.
But the Pendulum can only swing so far as the system will become unstable and if nothing is done will disintegrate and be possibly replaced by a outside entity.
The west is now in a period of late stage welfare entropy but that does not mean the state of the past did not achieve great feats.
The cultural hostility of America to the state is to some extent a product of your geographical isolation from Europe which fostered a belief in the power of the individual over the group.
America 19th century libertarianism would never have survived against the great central powers of Europe as there was a great pressure to centralise - to do otherwise would invite destruction on the battlefield.
Ah but how is the perception of fighting that monopoly? If there is a natural monopoly it is short lived because it will grow bloated wasteful and the profits will lure other actors in. With the government there is no choice for other actors, they will be shot for treason. If a company resorted to murdering or imprisoning their competitors I assure you public opinion would quickly turn against them. If WalMart marched out some traitors and shot hem or started imprisoning people I think people might not shop there quite as much, what do you think? And I think there might be a riot if WalMart started forcibly collecting taxes from people. By being a "government" this crime, this theft is legitimized in our eyes because we are indoctrinated into believing if a crime is done by the state it is not a crime.
This is not about a pendulum this is about freedom. government exists as a block on a personal individual liberty. And like most entities government seeks to grow and it will do so unless actively restrained. I assure you most governments are far to large and will destroy the nations supporting their bloated bulk.
Name me one great feat the state achieved that was not done through theft or removing liberty from an individual? I could achieve great feats of charity if I robbed you at gunpoint. Should I get the credit "Shameful is a great guy! Did you see the way he robbed Dork of Cork and gave 10% of his loot to the poor. Shameful is a great guy who really cares about the poor"
Ah the war argument. "We must give up our freedom or __________________ will get us!!!!" Lies. In WW2 Japan was fearful of invading because America was full of free gun owners who would defend their property. The lie of defense is one of the oldest state tricks in the book. The Swiss seem to have a fair amount of freedom and have guns and they have not been invaded much in the past 500 years...maybe it's the free people with guns that keeps the foreigners away. So long as you tolerate a massive centralized government with massive power you essentially tolerate to being robber. The government is not there to serve you, it is to serve itself. It exists only to profit itself no matter how well you pretend to dress it up. At it's core it is no better than any other band of murderous thugs preying off the people.
It is not a morality play that I am illustrating. It is power dynamics - as for Walmart gaining power perhaps not ,but I seem to remember other corporations in charge of the treasury now and there is no riots on the streets yet.
Yes I am a individual and yes I am a social animal - I cannot live alone , people since time began have formed tribes and the higher the energy density the bigger the tribe. So I accept some wealth transfers within reason so I can go about my business with civility and decorum.
A great achievement of your nation perhaps the best was when men who grew up in depression era America put the first manned steps on another celestial body.
As for Japan I do not understand your argument - they were in no postion to invade the continental US at any period -
The Swiss developed their governance because each mountain valley was very isolated and they could come up with the most efficient government at leisure - they were not all sweetness and light however as many Swiss were famous dog soldiers during the late medieval and early renaissance period - those earnings came back into the valleys I imagine.
excellent exchange you two
Right the power of government has been seized by private forces for their own gain! That is exactly my point! If that power was not allowed to exist, if we as people did not accept it then it could not be co-opted. When we allow theft to happen it only encourages more theft. If you are robbed and you do nothign to stop it you will continue to be robbed mroe and more boddly untill you have nothing left!
What is your line for wealth transfers? 50%-70%-100%? With the force of government and "right" behind it all numbers are legitimate as soon as you accept any percent. And you know better then most that this is not for social welfare any more then a medieval serfs taxes was for social welfare. It is a wealth transfer from the middle and bottom to the top. The guys on top wised up and decided to kick a little loose change to the bottom to get the bottom and the middle squabbling over the loose change while they walk away with the lions share of the loot. Pure con game.
Are you trying to link FDR and his inane polices with the moon landing? What's your rational? I could order men dig holes to, and rob to pay them, how does that make me good? If centralization is good then what is wrong with the Soviet model? They had a strong central government, they also had a bill of rights. Granted the strong government ignored it since like anything any piece of paper it is not self executing. The strong the government the more able they are to walk over rights they allegedly claim to hold dear.
We agree that people will always seek the power to dominate. But my position is that it is never ok. If I break into your house and rob you it is wrong. Does me having a badge from the government make it right? In my mind right and wrong exist and slapping the authority of the state behind it does not change it, evil does not become good because a law is passed. If they passed a law embracing cannibalism and murder would you do it? An extreme example to be sure but I only use it to point out that the state cannot dictate what is right or wrong merely what they see as legal and will crack down on with their monopoly of force. But we as a culture worldwide accept that if the government does something that makes it right. Having this mentality will lead us to a new age of feudalism.
And yes the Swiss were bad-ass mercs. Mercs fight for pay rather then their "nation". If a soldier fights for himself it is no better or worse then killing for a flag. Deeds are deeds no matter how you dress them up. I'm not pro killing, but it's no different then killing for God or country, it's at least more honest, they could not hide behind a shield of "I killed for God/country" no they killed for money. The act is the same, deeds not words.
As a white man I have general difficulties speaking with my closer black friends. I pull the Howard Zinn card and they discontinue general disagreement once a recognition that top-down problems are more important than white-black ones. I hate to ever bring up race, but it is the most vitriolic topic in our society at the moment - much more so than Social Security.
I am of the type that says: MAY THE BEST MAN WIN BITCHES!!! (no sexism implied, of course)
Recognition of our mutual plight is the only remedy. Buffer classes have always restrained and contained "equality" - and this must end before any bumper sticker can become something more than a bumper sticker. Sure, we will always have in our societies those that choose oblivion over dream-achieving, but at this juncture we are all losing!
History rhymes, as they say. Will it be a happy take, or the same mistake?
Cowardice is fighting an obviously weaker opponent. Courage is the fierce teeth of self-defense in the face of uncertain victory.
Race is a tool that is used for division and the first insult that is went to. One of my best friends is Hispanic, and looks very Hispanic. He is for control the borders and stopping illegal immigration. People have called him racist to his face...even though he is Hispanic and his family is from Mexico. It's simply he first weapon people go to. By invoking race at every turn discussion of the issues are stifled.
They will do anything they can to keep us divided while they loot us. And if tempers flair and we start fighting each other so much better for the power brokers. They will disappear off stage and to their fortified compounds to live the good life with stolen wealth.
The system is in flux now - the dynamic between the individual and larger forces is broken , they both cannot exist in their present state and elements of both realise this. We are more then individuals and less then a society, we are both - your view while admirable is the mirror image of the Soviet state , perhaps you would not use violence to coerce but a society of individuals are vulnerable to violence from soviets and indeed other less cohesive units.
Societies have always been dominated by elites - they are the people who take action first and the rest follow - indeed your own history is a good example.I do not wish to criticize but your puritanism is alien to me - I do not see things in black and white but I would find common cause with you regarding the governance of the western countries by the present elite - perhaps afterwards people can then disagree about how to create a future.
A very realistic assessment.
I agree with you that humans are part of society, I never claimed they are not. I simply want a world where these associations are voluntary. A world where their is not a monopoly of force. A true free society where people can come in and leave as they please. Now in our system if you are in it then you are in it and they own you. As an American I can't even give up my citizenship without facing penalties, and they will tax me anywhere on Earth.
Now I'm a bit in the black and white. For example I think theft is wrong. I think it's wrong if you were to rob me or the Government robs me. Theft is theft no matter who is doing it or what they are whereing or calling themselves. Theft if I'm robbed by a man in a uniform or wearing normal clothes, I'm still robbed.
And not everyone does not believe that theft is wrong, look at my government! Their corporate masters even think stealing is doing God's work! And hey use the monopoly of force from the state to steal, a trick done since recorded history.
Agreed that society is controlled by elites. And they can control us through state power. I want a change. If we don't change then nothing will change. If we keep doing what we have always done we will keep getting what we have always gotten.
BTW Like the exchange, and I think we agree on a lot. I'll admit my views are radical and on the fringe being an anarcho-capitalist. and I know I will not live to see that society, I simply believe it would be the best possible society. I simply do not think mankind is ready for it. But that does not stop me from having those views.
I don't think your views are strange. I can't believe that there are people out there that can disagree with anything that you are saying. Maybe they have stockholm syndrome. Maybe they like having masters.....go figure.
DOC, I respect your opinions here and appreciate your contributions, but this phrase is not correct in any way:
1) when there is not legitimized violent coercion, then there is no "mirror image" to any state, Soviet or otherwise.
2) individuals are ALWAYS vulnerable to violence from organized groups intent on theft via violence or the threat of violence, but without preordained legitimacy, these groups lose the great majority of their potential power, and can never be anything more than outlaw gangs... in other words, when you are getting held up by them, you KNOW you are being robbed. there is no evidence that suggest that society will not voluntarily organize to eliminate such gangs, in fact, the history of the old west shows that the free market will provide legitimate (i.e. voluntary) solutions to these kinds of problems.
3) there is no "trade-off" between the rights of the individual and the good of the group. the rights of the individual are paramount, they supersede the good of the group ALWAYS... ironically it turns out that (and it can be demonstratively proven) that upholding the rights of the individual leads to the greatest good for the group, as long as there is no structure in place whereby the individual can legitimately coerce others for his own gain... eliminate the notion that ANY coercion of individuals is legitimate, and you eliminate the ability of those who would seek power to gain it. in a market free of legitimate structures of coercion there is only one way to profit, and that is by enriching the lives of one's customers.
our system is not in flux, it has been completely hijacked by the international banking interests... our only chance at reversing complete serfdom is to reject the legitimacy of these bankers and those politicians who serve them, and this is unlikely to happen soon enough, what is more likely is the bankers will get their way, we will enter into a period of global enslavement, resulting in much more death, misery and sorrow for the common man, but also resulting in a greater appreciation of freedom and an awareness of the illegitimacy of the "ruling elite".
any belief that you hold that suggests that the individual should acquiesce to any form of coercion for the "common good" is fallacious. break outside the box of your European conditioning and envision a society where the rights of the individual are supreme. when i came of age and went out into the world, i expected that i would only be robbed by outlaws... as i grew older, i began to realize that i was being robbed by the institutions that claimed to "protect" my natural right to not be phucked with, not only through taxes but also by inflation and by artificial monopolies. at some point, i realized that i never entered into any contract with this group.... i never agreed to help subsidize the building of a Walmart Superstore in my town or the killing of brown people in Afghanistan.... contract law is really about natural law, if you are not party to an agreement, then you cannot be held liable.... just because i was born in this town i am party to this agreement? i don't think so...
the only legitimacy the state has is that we give it... you give it legitimacy because you believe that it serves you... when it turns on you you will change your opinion... and it may never turn on you, but what about the thousands of people who are just trying to honestly live their lives that it does turn on?
reject the state
reject any form of coercion of the individual for the "common good"....... its a fallacy.
Your post is great, however, would you be willing to rethink this statement? As much as I hate paying taxes to my local, state and Federal gov't(they don't get much from me, i'm really really far down the pay scale), it doesn't release me from responsibility for the actions of my gov't. Of course, having weighed my options, I think it's in my favor to continue putting up with the guilt of knowing my money is going to bomb communities and all the other distasteful things our .gov and co do with my tax dollars in the hopes that I can build something with which I could take elsewhere and make a real difference in the world.
Aren't we ultimately the enablers of these mad men? If we were to vote with our feet then we would be able to remove ourselves from responsibility of building wal mart etc.
With much knowledge and wisdom comes much responsibility, I think. While I greatly respect the ZH community for the unbridled rugged individuality and straight talk, I feel like the main concern is not for others but for ourselves. We can all bitch about how bad things are but if we were to step into the shoes of those who have lost a job, a retirement account, a future..reality would certainly hit harder. Unless we are doing something for others as well as ourselves, the piles of gold we store for this day of financial reckoning will serve as little more than to ensure our very own deaths at the hands of the roving gangs who will surely seek us out and we will die as individuals, much the same as we lived.
Fuck the gubbermint
OK we are more then atomised characters bouncing off the walls like free radicals. The great weakness of the Internet is that it exaggerates such characteristics although it could propel a second reformation which is both refreshing and frighting.
I am enjoying this little tussle but to be clear I think our views are very different - I am essentially a republican statist , yes statist - I know it is a dirty word on this site but so be it . I recognize the potential and limitations of both the individual, the state and anything in between. I get a kick out of a occasional boondoggle as it has a tendency to gel up a free market that can get skewed by price pressures which do not see a bigger universe . But of course there are limitations in any system.
The present elite have clearly smashed their contract on walls of fiat paper and need to be taken down - that I imagine is what can unite us for now but after every revolution there is a civil war - like night follows day.
I very much admire the quality of information provided on this site regarding financial matters but I must admit that the political rhetoric used by the eager commentators is somewhat deterring. It is amusing to read the passionate stances of frustrated people who believe "good" and "evil" exist in an objective reality that is somehow out of the context of the specific situation.
But who is to decide if the deeds are "wrong" or "right"? It seems to me that you believe that your personal moral preferences are to be considered universal and yet those of the person robbing the house (for example being motivated by his inability to provide food for his family) are ignored because that person is on the other side of your sentiments (interests). To deal with that problem civilization came up with representative democracy in order to forge the rules of what is wrong and what is right based on some level of agreement between the people that the rules would be forced upon. The dysfunctional state in which US "democracy" finds itself should not be a motive for blaming all of government (indeed generalization usually hides the real problems).
To examine a real life example you should look no further than Eastern Europe. Having witnessed the fall of communism first hand, I can assure you that the ensuing "freedom" and total abdication of the state from its responsibilities indeed resulted in a "spontaneous" order. That order greatly favoured those who had guns, lacked sympathy and pursued their self-interest beyond everything else. That quickly resulted in the forming of monopolies that were cemented by the very same property rights that were supposed to protect every individual's assets. Roads became derelict, quality of education has been on a downtrend ever since and health-care that used to be free and universal is getting more expensive and less adequate every single year.
You are wrong to label all central planning as "bad". If the plan is approved by the majority of the population in an educated dialogue addressing the whole spectrum of possibilities then what is the difference between consensus legislation and market choice? It is true that micromanagement of large scale plans is bound to failures but so it is in a free market choice in a business cycle regardless of the nature of the enterprise (whether private or public). The basics of public finance teaches that profit incentives are to be avoided when dealing with universally acknowledged rights (like health care, safety, education), because for-profit undertakings prosper on the exploitation of scarcity and that is in direct contradiction with the assumption of the universal nature of the above mentioned values.
I am in no way an advocate of big government or central planning (quite the opposite in fact), but I feel that a quality dialogue needs a good representation on both sides of an argument and I've noticed a "slight" sentiment towards one of the solutions in the comments so far. In fact I am a strong proponent of tackling individual problems separately and not including them in a grand design of society, whether a socialist or free-market one. Moreover I am against using such labels that are abundant in this particular discussion - "socialist", "free-market", "endoctrination", "good", 'bad".
To point a similar flow in the logic of the presenter from the video, I will consider his example of social justice where mr Caldwell states that if we assume that people differ in initial attributes then we are going to get different outcomes, however he fails to define what he considers a valid initial attribute. Is someone born in poverty in a slum in a major US city not entitled to the same right of healthcare, education and safety that a more "fortunate" person enjoys? Isn't that what feudalism basically consisted of - treating people unequally based on their "initial differences". I fail to agree with such a generalization although I recognize that it holds some merit in some particular cases but as in all political discussions, particular cases are avoided because they uncover the flaws of any simplified theory of social interaction.
Mr. Hedonist,
You bring up many valid thoughts that are on the minds of many today. It is a swirling, confusing arena.
I will simply provide my input, no insult intended.
Preying on fellow citizens is never acceptable - residential invasion should be strictly off limits. I feel that we should distinguish between the criminal mind and the simply desperate individual that has become "boxed in", that is, psychologically without any more solutions. Society should intervene in both cases, but with different approaches: violent and quick for the psychopath; warm and quick for those that would contribute to society under different circumstances.
Here is how to discover, simply, a psychopath: they don't have the inclination to leave other people alone. They are the few wolves, waiting for their moment to prey on the sheep. There is no cure for these predators. Many would contend that this is untrue, that there is treatment for everyone, but this is a lie. There have always been, and always will be in human civilization, those that would harm another for gain despite opportunities to earn an "honest living".
You have the right to be left alone. That is the only right that is inalienable, just, and natural. Before the Constitution was perverted it was the best attempt to do so in human history. It was a declaration against the psychopaths.
And who should pay for your doctor visit, your personal security, and your learning? Will you force others to pay for it out of "universal need"? That trinity should be provided first by the individual. Personal choice and responsibility will include proper diet, exercise, the will to defend oneself instead of relying on others, and the appetite to always learn and improve oneself - this does not require the action of others. Even without biases, it is humanly impossible to provide simultaneous equality - promises of such are made by psychopaths.
The sinister promise of equality has led to the murder of millions during the last century. Gov't has been used by the psychopaths to further their private gain. Limited gov't is about leaving ordinary people alone. Allowing individuals to travel and transact as they wish is the only solution. If an individual does not initiate force against, nor defraud another, then there should be no restriction - harm of any sort is adeptly addressed in any cohesive society through shunning and bringing the accused to trial by jury of peers.
We don't have either of those in true form today. If we leave people alone, and vigilantly guard against psychopaths, opportunities arise for the benefit and growth for all. The labels you disdain are mere symbols for larger ideas that are contorted and misappropriated today. The psychopaths rule now - there is only one solution.
Contain the psychopaths, leave the rest alone. That is the recipe.
Excellent comments, Shameful, every one of them.
Pretty much.
Where does the belief that people could resist an injonction to settle a grievance at a private court?
In Europe, during middle ages, republics did not exist and charges like justice were private. Did not seem to me that people could resist settling a grievance at a private court or that people followed when one wanted.
On the contrary, the ability to denounce the unproficiency of a court because of inappropriate authority was added later.
So where does the belief come from?
To understand what effect governments (especially ours) have on an economy, read this: http://freedom-school.com/money/how-...nomy-grows.pdf
Read it, and you will know more about how economies function that 95% of PhD economists.
Also, why the hell are we requiring captchas (none of which work by the way) for registered members?
How (and why) has Cheeky's original post disappeared?
Even the mini state of zero hedge has its sanctions perhaps , one of my posts was eliminated before for criticising the great demiGod in the sky - Jim Rogers.
Although I did use some crude Anglo saxon words
I do believe there is severe bugginess with ZH commenting. I often find my replies matched to the wrong comment, or entire threads completely re-worked where a comment thread is misplaced.
I tried reporting this to Marla months ago but she apparently didn't care.
I am Chumbawamba.
Every human grouping has rules or social mores - I just do not know where these rules ly - I was personally pissed off when my comment was removed as it was central to my argument - I unfortunately finished with a flourish of profanity and indeed that could have been removed and I would have been OK with that as it did not add to my argument.
I don't think anything is getting "removed" I think they are having server problems. This has happened before and when the problem passes, all the comments are back where they belong.
Nope, I think comments are being removed, and I believe the mechanism is an auto-delete if enough junks are collected.
Someone at ZH ought to clarify this. It's annoying, and it would be nice to know if censorship is being practiced so we can decide if we should be wasting our time commenting here.
I am Chumbawamba.
Yes, comments have been subject to expurgation under the *flagged as JUNK* pretext for months now. If you get flagged more than 3 times, your post disappears. First noticed this with goldbugs religiously flagging "Master Bates"; unless this rudimentary flagging mechanism is evolved, all it takes are 4 dedicated operatives to censor ANY post you want censored.
They need to fix that crap - comments are what makes this blog stand out. Great threads with great thoughts. Should be a simple agree\disagree or flagged as junk just makes it "hidden" with the option to unhide...
Ideally all posts should be unhidden by default, with the option to user-define a #junk threshold.
Recently Master Bates oblitered a thread with his comments.We replied, he (i assumed)removed his comments. Then all of our responses stood alone looking out of place and silly. Jokes on us from every direction.
Included was the one about betting on pissing us off. ie having fun at our expense and admitting it. Since then he has returned somewhat reformed. interesting respondents panorama isnt it. I still love zerohedge for my freedom.
BTW george bush ruined some things for me.
'Hard work" is now a beaten down dirty phrase.
I can no longer eat french fries.
and every day i wake to the american dream i want to change the channel.
Once your comment has received a reply, you can't change or modify it. So if a comment goes missing, it is for other reasons. It wasn't by the authors hand. There is no doubt that ZH is having database problems. Comments become re-ordered when traffic is high. I've gone back to a thread a few days latter, when interest and the flow has moved beyond, and suddenly everything is correct.
There does seem to be something new with this 3 junks and your out. But that is a different issue from the re-ordering of posts. In addition, has anyone considered that the anons, who can no longer post, might still be able to junk? Just a thought. I should log out and see what I can do as an anon.
I think that it is the "flag as junk" system. I also had a post on this thread disappear.
If you look through the posts that have been flagged, the vast majority seem to be flagged because of disagreement with the post instead of inappropriate content. Maybe we need to add "agree" and "disagree" buttons to help the intellect figure out what "junk" means.
I have had non-flagged replies disappear. Most recently on G. Gecko's gold expose. Master Bates was all over it, up and down, loving the attention he always gets, and then pfft-pfft-pfft. Suddenly there are all sorts of non-sensical, disjointed replies in the usual stream of back and forth ideas. It's enough to kill off even some of the most dedicated readership.
I was one of those disjointed replies. My reply then ended up as a reply to a different post and nothing made sense.
I think she does it on purpose because she knows that if she deletes a comment the reply to her comment (if it contains vitriol) will appear to be attacking the person to which she commented.
Simple fix: delete Master Bates' account.
I am Chumbawamba.
Chumba, How can you go on about censorship then advocate MB be deleted? I can understand limiting the amount of comments allowed but to just erase people because they disagree with the consensus.... not cool man. Besides being most space monkey's favorite teaser pony, he has actually made a couple intelligent comments lately.
Freedom of Speech vs Freedom from Abuse
You agree where the line has been drawn? 4 junks? Freedom from abuse has lead to abuse of freedom of speech in this case.
Better is "total" junks. Three strikes for blogging. Although it does lead to birth defects from patting everyone else on the back around here, but there has to be a threshold for "spam bitchez" commenting. Does HuffPost benefit from 4,798 comments on Lindsey Lohan's latest fiasco?
I wrote up a whole long spiel on junking last night and then decided not to post it. And it was because of people junking Cheeky and here we go again.
CB has very interesting posts and an incredible knowledge base. Those of us that have been here for a long time were thrilled to see him back. So what if you don't agree with him, what makes someone right or wrong here? Nothing. Nothing at all. Like the old saying goes, everyone has two things--an opinion and an asshole.
Leo is a bull on solars. That isn't deserving of being junked. That's his opinion and he is welcome to it. I am a big time bear and feel we will top in the next month. I have stated my intention to buy JPM Jan 2012 puts when I feel we are toppy enough. But that doesn't get junked. I could be wrong (but I sure hope not!).
ZH is a forum of ideas that include contributors and members from all walks of life, race, health, age, and gender. We owe it to Tyler to keep it from getting too one way or the other so they can keep increasing their ad revenue and update their servers. This puppy isn't cheap to run and they devote their lives to it. Let's not get labelled a "right" or "left" or "libertarian" site. Let's not get labelled anything more than a brilliant site full of great information and insightful, funny, often brilliant, not-your-run-of-the-mill commentators.
The junking is getting out of hand and deleting a post for 4 junks is absurdly low with the number of people this sight has grown to be since I joined.
Please, everyone, unless the person is so out of line (and Chumba you used to post some really racist comments--thanks for stopping that) that we are so offended by it that we must junk it. Just move on to the next post if it is not of your political persuasion or market inclination unless you want to express your disagreement, and then by all means do.
I was an asshole the other night and accused bingocat of writing from a mental institution because he was blaming the people for the problems we are having. I also called him a phucknut.
I probably should have kept it above the belt and used my brains instead of my emotions to respond to him. I still think his comment was ignorant but I was wrong to be so aggressive in my attack. Problem is, I'm mad as hell and not gonna take it anymore and sometimes that gets the better of me. But I am owning up to it and please, if Cheeky comes back--STOP THE JUNKING!
Well put HB. I'm new to ZH and appreciate the breath of opinions expressed and level of civility in the midst of a culture of incessant name calling. I also take no offense with the continued use of 'dead cat bounce.'
Using the word "nigger" should not automatically imply that the person on the receiving end of the epithet is of any particular race, nor should it necessarily impute racist inclinations on the part of the invoker. The word stands alone as an ugly and harsh derogatory and is often appropriate to evoke the proper vitriol being expressed, and as such is how I utilize it.
That being said, I appreciate your screed.
I am Chumbawamba.
Suffering blue blazes on popsicle sticks.
MB can have his account deleted because this isn't the public streetcorner. This thing, henceforth called ZeroHedge, should be thought of as someone's living room. Spewing filth and running away is not tolerated in civilized households. ZeroHedge belongs to someone(s) who do a lot of free stuff for us out of the kindness of their hearts, or 'for the cause,' or for some other reason. Those who demonstrate that their intent is to disrupt can go away. Those who disrupt unintentially can learn to act civilized, and will do so or go away, solely at the pleasure of our mysterious and philantropical ZeroHedge blog owners.
Damn. For some reason, that crap really pissed me off, and I now need a new keyboard.
This site has been modeled after "Fight Club" which was a lot more street corner than philanthropist's living room. Besides, you're contradicting yourself since it is not the kindhearted owners talking about deleting MB's account - it's some of the guys at the street corner or living room as you think of it.
Speaking of fights in living rooms...our host seems to be absent in the "featured story" section.
Hmm. Sudden road trip. Road to Serfdom...hmm...hmm......final warning to hunker down?
(sorry, the survivalist in me is always watching for the "baloon to go up")
TAKE COVER!!!
And a mighty good room it is!
Testy, testy, if we jettison Master Bates who will we get pissed off at? He is the whipping boy poster child.
I'm convinced the server is f***ed, I just replied to Chumba's 15:33 comment and it showed up 10 comments below his. Maybe I'm confused on how this works or .... not. Never mind, my absinthemindedness.
Possible to delete a comment? Ican't figure it out? This must be how the "alkemists" felt while searching for the philosophers stone....before FIAT that is...BASTARDS!
so why was your comment flagged? makes no sense. Could be some kid. Recently an entire thread was junked with few exceptions.
ignorumamungas
I was agreeing with Cheeky, which instantly garnered their scorn. My point was that it was no coincidence that the phrase "greed is good" came out in the US at the same time that China started its mercantilist push.
It’s time for Zero Hedge to provide the answers to these questions because its credibility as an open discussion forum is threatened. Unless there is an explanation, and it’s obvious by these comments it’s unlikely to be a server problem (if it is say so), then the contributors will be suspecting the worst. I have had a post removed and I can think of no reason but I can tell you it is a very chilling experience.
What a crime to have something so valuable as Zero Hedge for our country in its most critical hours to be infected with senseless bias censorship.
If you don't like it here, you can always leave. Teh intertubes is a big place.
ZeroHedge is having problems right now. Help them out, or get out of the way.
"First. Libertarian ideas ............ it is also why the change is avoided by politicians."
Brilliant and succinct summation. Thanks for this.
How many people reading & commenting on this thread even know what Hayek's true purpose & intent was in writing "The Road to Serfdom"? Was it to promote capitalism? No. Was it to advocate open, free markets? No. Was it a defense of democracy? Again, no.
Listen up, space monkeys, because the following distinction is very fine, yet critically important. While it is true that Hayek incorporated capitalism, open markets & the ideals of democracy into TRTS, the features of a free-society were advanced not so much for their intrinsic, collective benefits, but as a bulwark against the inevitable march towards tyranny if they were abandoned.
When was this book written? 1940-43 (published in 1944). Who was its audience? English intellectuals enamored with socialism. What was the common belief regarding Nazis/Germans? No one distinguished a difference between the two in 1944. Remember, the Brits had suffered through the BoB, the Blitz, and were now experiencing random V-1s (soon to be joined by V-2s) raining down on the them daily.
The commonly held belief amongst the Allies was that Germans were innately agressive & anti-social, and in fact, should be exterminated from the face of the earth. What was Hayek's main point? Socialism created Nazi Germany, and not the German people. Germany became a totalitarian aggressor not because they were savages, but because they were so advanced: They were the first modern state to fully incorporate socialism going back to the 1870s!
Hence, the German people had fully travelled the road to serfdom with the end result being Hitler & Nazi Germany. But more importantly, Hayek warned that the same exact thing could happen anywhere given the appropriate conditions. What he meant by anywhere was Great Britain and the USA.
If there is one book that everyone should have in their possession (besides the Bible for the 5,000 year old insights it provides), it is The Road to Serfdom.
http://www.amazon.com/Road-Serfdom-Fiftieth-Anniversary/dp/0226320618
As a public service announcement, I direct your attention to pages 152-153 in the 50th Anniversary addition. For it is on these two pages (which I have flagged and frequently revisit) that we find Hayek laying out exactly the process by which a dictator is able to take control in a socialist environment:
I leave it you dear readers to consider the parallels.
Most excellent. It's now it my top 3 "should have read a long time ago" selections. Your response also causes me to re-evaluate my position regarding Cheeky's phantom post.
An illustrated, cartoon version of TRTS was published in the 50s by General Motors back when it represented something like 50% of US GDP (hyperbole, but not too far off the mark). It is an excellent primer if one is interested in a preview of TRTS before diving into the full text version.
http://mises.org/books/TRTS/
Oooooooh goody. :-)
Erudite observations good sir...
Here's a little bit about more about demagoguery ...
http://anonymousmonetarist.blogspot.com/2009/12/destroy-this-invisible-g...
"How fortunate for governments that the people they administer don't think."
Adolf Hitler
The goal is to reduce government because government is almost always less efficient than private enterprise and because government is almost always kidnapped by special interests (In other words, socialism is nothing more than the protection of these special interests under the veneer of social benefit)
Yes privatization works just look at the privatization of our prison systems, semi-privatization of our military(Black Water), ect.. The prison system now has an incentive to keep more people locked up.
I am not discounting your definitions just wanted to point out that a lot of privatization is counterproductive.
have you considered that the private services might not be the problem but that it is instead their only customer?
Good point , but if it wasn't would it make a difference. They would still be motivated to do the same thing.
"Private" companies whose sole major client is the government are not really private companies. They are not subject to the market forces which make privatization productive.
I see your logic, but my point is that a well run goverment agency can do the job. Maybe thats an oxymoron(well run gov. agency in the U.S.) but in Singapore the SBS transit as well as other gov. run businesses turn a profit on a regular basis. Also the S.American countries didn't fair to well with the privatization of their oil companies.
In the US, it is an oxymoron.
Yeah? Well then explain why the state prison guards hoot and holler with delight of "job security" when a new bus load of prisoners arrives fresh from the county jails.
True that.
Arm: +1
So sorry for Jackin the post - my apologies.
However...
I/We have not Seen MARLA - post-comment-edit-or do anything in AT least 2 months!!!
WHAT..... ZH has become of Marla?? and the Great job she has done for this site??
How do you get to this conclusion? Who has done an "empirical proof" supporting this claim?
I agree that the movement toward a free market is asymptotic in its own way, but it is the best aspiration for humanity as a whole to strive toward.
Cheeky, I have long respected your contributions here.
In response to your well-put observation, I would like to add another thought for consideration.
A free market (pure capitalism), as you point out has never existed as a society. A free market would be defined as the lack of violent coersion. Historically, we have always had violent, religious and poltical rulers. Government (esp democratic government) is the current most popular manisfestation of violent power.
In our democratic societies, it is more difficult for the state-educated masses to see. It exists at an abstracted level of A)'pay your taxes' or B)'follow regulation X'. But behind these is a chain of events backed purely by violence. If you fail to perform A or B, then abstraction C comes into play, 'appear in court', failing that, abstraction D) 'pay this fine', on to E) 'you are under arrest', then refusing and failing all the above the real action, 'shot resisting arrest'.
So where to see a system that exhibits no violence and would represent a free market?
I would submit to you that the relationships you have with friends best exhibit this. For you to remain friends, in any honest situtation, both parties see value to the relationship. They continue the relationship (subconciously usually) for that very reason.
One's relationship with providers of services other than friendship might be viewed in a similar way...without violence, comes trust, systems and tools of acknowelging poteintial agents you can trust ('I see on social network Y she knows 5 of my friends').
Of course, corporations muddy the water here. Hopefully it will suffice to say that they are a creation of governments for government's own enjoyment and would thus not exist in a free market. One who chooses to research the history of corporations may be surprised at the shock and fear they first (rightly in my book) inspired in the masses.
Yours,
J
I agree with you but have to say that you must consider violence as something that is naturally human. We are not the rational beings that free market needs to function, we are animals that follow their instincts and feelings 90% of the time. However, we acknowledged that fact hundreds of years ago and decided to put artificial constraints on some irrational behaviours because experience taught us that teamwork achieves more than individual effort.
Yes, because we, humans, are violent beings to some extend and that is the precise reason that we use "violence" to prevent more violence. The same reason why we use discrimination against people who discriminate, don't we? Again the general principle should not be accepted as universal but must be considered for every individual situation. Do you suggest that violence among friends is unheard of? And if so what is the main deterrent from preventing violence from occurring, you reckon? And I find your explanation of "friendship" within the concepts of a value system to be inconsistent with the irrational nature of people but also very much true for the American "society".
Cheeky:
With the greatest respect, I have a suggestion for you.
You would do well to read the definitive study of the economic policies of the Third Reich: "The Wages of Destruction", by Prof. Adam Tooze. The massive government intervention in the German economy during the 30's is well described in the book. It was far from a free-market economy. In fact, it was quite the opposite and this intervention aided the restriction of political freedom.
"Free"-ish markets are messy indeed, but government control always ends in serfdom.
You Don't Say
March 17 (Bloomberg) -- Deutsche Bank AG, JPMorgan Chase & Co., UBS AG and Hypo Real Estate Holding AG’s Depfa Bank Plc unit were charged with fraud linked to the sale of derivatives to the City of Milan.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=avhfZfkuB3T0&pos=2