This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
The Menace Of Egalitarianism
Submitted by Llewellyn H. Rockwell Jr, via The Mises Institute,
This talk was delivered at the Dallas-Ft. Worth Mises Circle, “Against PC,” on October 3, 2015.
A sharp Martian visiting Earth would make two observations about the United States — one true, the other only superficially so.
On the basis of its ceaseless exercises in self-congratulation, the US appears to him to be a place where free thought is encouraged, and in which man makes war against all the fetters on his mind that reactionary forces had once placed there. That is the superficial truth.
The real truth, which our Martian would discover after watching how Americans actually behave, is that the range of opinions that citizens may entertain is rather more narrow than it at first appears. There are, he will soon discover, certain ideas and positions all Americans are supposed to believe in and salute. Near the top of the list is equality, an idea for which we are never given a precise definition, but to which everyone is expected to genuflect.
A libertarian is perfectly at peace with the universal phenomenon of human difference. He does not wish it away, he does not shake his fist at it, he does not pretend not to notice it. It affords him another opportunity to marvel at a miracle of the market: its ability to incorporate just about anyone into the division of labor.
Indeed the division of labor is based on human difference. Each of us finds that niche that suits our natural talents best, and by specializing in that particular thing we can most effectively serve our fellow man. Our fellow man, likewise, specializes in what he is best suited for, and we in turn benefit from the fruits of his specialized knowledge and skill.
And according to Ricardo’s law of comparative advantage, which Mises generalized into his law of association, even if one person is better than another at absolutely everything, the less able person can still flourish in a free market. For instance, even if the greatest, most successful entrepreneur you can think of is a better office cleaner than anyone else in town, and is likewise a better secretary than all the other secretaries in town, it would make no sense for him to clean his own office or type all of his own correspondence. His time is so much better spent in the market niche in which he excels that it would be preposterous for him to waste his time on these things. In fact, anyone looking to hire him as an office cleaner would have to pay him millions of dollars to compensate for drawing him away from the extremely remunerative work he would otherwise be doing. So even an average office cleaner is vastly more competitive in the office cleaning market than our fictional entrepreneur, since the average office cleaner can charge, say, $15 per hour instead of the $15,000 our entrepreneur, mindful of opportunity cost, would have to charge.
So there is a place for everyone in the market economy. And what’s more, since the market economy rewards those who are able to produce goods at affordable prices for a mass market, it is precisely the average person to whom captains of industry are all but forced to cater. This is an arrangement to celebrate, not deplore.
This is not how the egalitarians see it, of course, and here I turn to the work of that great anti-egalitarian, Murray N. Rothbard. Murray dealt with the subject of equality in part in his great essay “Freedom, Inequality, Primitivism, and the Division of Labor,” but really took it head on in “Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature,” which serves as the title chapter of his wonderful book. It is from Murray that my own comments today take their inspiration.
The current devotion to equality is not of ancient provenance, as Murray pointed out:
The current veneration of equality is, indeed, a very recent notion in the history of human thought. Among philosophers or prominent thinkers the idea scarcely existed before the mid-eighteenth century; if mentioned, it was only as the object of horror or ridicule. The profoundly anti-human and violently coercive nature of egalitarianism was made clear in the influential classical myth of Procrustes, who “forced passing travellers to lie down on a bed, and if they were too long for the bed he lopped off those parts of their bodies which protruded, while racking out the legs of the ones who were too short.”
What are we to understand by the word equality? The answer is, we don’t really know. Its proponents make precious little effort to disclose to us precisely what they have in mind. All we know is that we’d better believe it.
It is precisely this lack of clarity that makes the idea of equality so advantageous for the state. No one is entirely sure what the principle of equality commits him to. And keeping up with its ever-changing demands is more difficult still. What were two obviously different things yesterday can become precisely equal today, and you’d better believe they are equal if you don’t want your reputation destroyed and your career ruined.
This was the heart of the celebrated dispute between the neoconservative Harry Jaffa and the paleoconservative M.E. Bradford, carried out in the pages of Modern Age in the 1970s. Equality is a concept that cannot and will not be kept restrained or nailed down. Bradford tried in vain to make Jaffa understand that Equality with a capital E was a recipe for permanent revolution.
Now, do egalitarians mean we are committed to the proposition that anyone is potentially an astrophysicist, as long as he is raised in the proper environment? Maybe, maybe not. Some of them certainly do believe such a thing, though. In 1930, the Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences claimed that “at birth human infants, regardless of their heredity, are as equal as Fords.” Ludwig von Mises, by contrast, held that “the fact that men are born unequal in regard to physical and mental capabilities cannot be argued away. Some surpass their fellow men in health and vigor, in brain and aptitudes, in energy and resolution and are therefore better fitted for the pursuit of earthly affairs than the rest of mankind.” Did Mises commit a hate crime there, by the standards of the egalitarians? Again, we don’t really know.
Then there’s “equality of opportunity,” but even this common conservative slogan is fraught with problems. The obvious retort is that in order to have true equality of opportunity, sweeping government intervention is necessary. For how can someone in a poor household with indifferent parents seriously be said to have “equality of opportunity” with the children of wealthy parents who are deeply engaged in their lives?
Then there is equality in a cultural sense, whereby everyone is expected to ratify everyone else’s personal choices. The cultural egalitarians don’t really mean that, of course: none of them demand that people who dislike Christians sit down and learn Scholastic theology in order to understand them better. And here we discover something important about the whole egalitarian program: it’s not really about equality. It’s about some people exercising power over others.
At the University of Tennessee this fall, the Office for Diversity and Inclusion explained that traditional English pronouns, being oppressive to people who do not identify with the gender they were “assigned at birth,” ought to be replaced with something new. The diversity office recommends, as replacements for she, her, hers, and he, him, his, the following: ze [pronounced zhee], hir [here], hirs [heres]; ze [zhee], zir [zhere], zirs [zheres]; and xe [zhee], xem [zhem], xyr [zhere]. When approaching people for the first time, students were told, we should say something like, “Nice to meet you. What pronouns should I use?”
When the whole world burst out laughing at this proposal, the university was at pains to assure everyone that these were just suggestions. Of course, what are not suggestions are the thoughts all right-thinking people are expected to have about moral questions that have been decided for us by our media and political classes.
Another aspect of equality that’s been in the news in recent years is, of course, income inequality. We are told how terrible it is that some people should have so much more than others, but rarely if ever are we told how much (if any) extra wealth the egalitarian society would allow the better-off to have, or the non-arbitrary basis on which such a judgment could be rendered.
John Rawls was possibly the most influential political philosopher of the twentieth century, and he advanced a famous defense of egalitarianism in his book A Theory of Justice that attempted to answer this question (among others). If I may summarize his argument in brief, he claimed that we would choose an egalitarian society if, as we contemplated the rules of society we’d want to live under, we had no idea what our own position in that society would be. If we didn’t know if we would be male or female, rich or poor, or talented or untalented, we would hedge our bets by advocating a society in which everyone was as equal as possible. That way, should we be unlucky and enter the world without talents, or a member of a despised minority, or saddled with any other disability, we could still be assured that of a comfortable if not luxurious existence.
Rawls was willing to allow some degree of inequality, but only if its effect was to help the poor. In other words, doctors could be allowed to earn more money than other people if that financial incentive made them more likely to become doctors in the first place. If incomes were equalized, people would be less likely to go to the trouble of becoming doctors, and the poor would be deprived of medical care. So inequality could be allowed, but only on egalitarian grounds, not because people have the right to acquire and enjoy property without fear of expropriation.
Since no one in his right mind accepts full-blown egalitarianism, Rawls was bound to run into trouble. That trouble came in the form of his attempts to deal with equality between countries. Even the most dedicated egalitarian living in the First World doesn’t seriously favor an equalization of wealth between countries. College professors who teach the moral superiority of egalitarianism during the day want their wine and cheese parties at night.
So Rawls came up with a strained and unpersuasive argument that although inequality between persons was outrageous and could be justified only on the basis of whether it helped the poorest, inequality between countries was quite all right. He then proceeded to give reasons that inequality between countries was quite all right, even though these were the exact reasons he had said inequality between individuals was unacceptable.
Even if egalitarianism could be defended philosophically, there is the small matter of implementing it in the real world. Just one reason the egalitarian dream cannot be realized involves what Robert Nozick called the Wilt Chamberlain problem; James Otteson has called something like it the “day two problem.” In Chamberlain’s heyday, everyone enjoyed watching him play basketball. People gladly paid to watch him play. But suppose we begin with an equal distribution of wealth, and then everyone rushes out to watch Chamberlain play basketball. Many thousands of people willingly hand over a portion of their money to Chamberlain, who now becomes much wealthier than everyone else.
In other words, the pattern of wealth distribution is disturbed as soon as anyone engages in any exchange at all. Are we to cancel the results of all these exchanges and return everyone’s money to the original owners? Is Chamberlain to be deprived of the money people freely chose to gave him in exchange for the entertainment he provided?
But the reason the state holds up equality as a moral ideal is precisely that it is unattainable. We may forever strive for it, but we can never reach it. What ideology could be better, from the state’s point of view? The state can portray itself as the indispensable agent of justice, while at the same time drawing ever more power and resources to itself — over education, employment, wealth redistribution, and practically any area of social life or the economy you can name — in the course of pursuing the unattainable egalitarian program. “Equality cannot be imagined outside of tyranny,” said Montalembert. It was, he said, “nothing but the canonization of envy, [and it] was never anything but a mask which could not become reality without the abolition of all merit and virtue.”
In the course of working toward equality, the state expands its power at the expense of other forms of human association, including the family itself. The family has always been the primary obstacle to the egalitarian program. The very fact that parents differ in their knowledge, skill levels, and devotion to their offspring means that children in no two households can ever be raised “equally.”
Robert Nisbet, the Columbia University sociologist, openly wondered if Rawls would be honest enough to admit that his system, if followed to its logical conclusion, had to lead to the abolition of the family. “I have always found treatment of the family to be an excellent indicator of the degree of zeal and authoritarianism, overt or latent, in a moral philosopher or political theorist,” Nisbet said. He identified two traditions of thought in Western history. One he traced from Plato to Rousseau, that identified the family as a wicked barrier to the realization of true virtue and justice. The other, which viewed the family as a central ingredient in both liberty and order, he followed from Aristotle through Burke and Tocqueville.
Rawls himself appeared to admit that the logic of his argument tended in the direction of the Plato/Rousseau strain of thought, though he ultimately — and unpersuasively — drew back. Here are Rawls’s own words:
It seems that when fair opportunity (as it has been defined) is satisfied, the family will lead to unequal chances between individuals. Is the family to be abolished then? Taken by itself and given a certain primacy, the idea of equal opportunity inclines in this direction. But within the context of the theory of justice as a whole there is much less urgency to take this course.
Nisbet took little comfort in Rawls’s pathetic assurances. Can Rawls, he wondered,
long neglect the family, given its demonstrable relation to inequality? Rousseau was bold and consistent where Rawls is diffident. If the young are to be brought up in the bosom of equality, “early accustomed to regard their own individuality only in its relation to the body of the State, to be aware, so to speak, of their own existence merely as part of that of the State,” then they must be saved from what Rousseau refers to as “the intelligence and prejudices of fathers.”
The obsession with equality, in short, undermines every indicator of health we might look for in a civilization. It involves a madness so complete that although it flirts with the destruction of the family, it never stops to consider whether this conclusion might mean the whole line of thought may have been deranged to begin with. It leads to the destruction of standards — scholarly, cultural, and behavioral. It is based on assertion rather than evidence, and it attempts to gain ground not through rational argument but by intimidating opponents into silence. There is nothing honorable or admirable about any aspect of the egalitarian program.
Murray noted that pointing out the lunacy of egalitarianism was a good start, but not nearly enough. We need to show that the so-called struggle for equality is in fact all about state power, not helping the downtrodden. He wrote:
To mount an effective response to the reigning egalitarianism of our age, therefore, it is necessary but scarcely sufficient to demonstrate the absurdity, the anti-scientific nature, the self-contradictory nature, of the egalitarian doctrine, as well as the disastrous consequences of the egalitarian program. All this is well and good. But it misses the essential nature of, as well as the most effective rebuttal to, the egalitarian program: to expose it as a mask for the drive to power of the now ruling left-liberal intellectual and media elites. Since these elites are also the hitherto unchallenged opinion-molding class in society, their rule cannot be dislodged until the oppressed public, instinctively but inchoately opposed to these elites, are shown the true nature of the increasingly hated forces who are ruling over them. To use the phrases of the New Left of the late 1960s, the ruling elite must be “demystified,” “delegitimated,” and “desanctified.” Nothing can advance their desanctification more than the public realization of the true nature of their egalitarian slogans.
The only Rothbardian word missing from that stirring conclusion is one of Murray’s favorites: “de-bamboozle.” It is that, above all, that needs to be done. The Mises Institute has accomplished many things over the years: advancing scholarship through our academic conferences and scholarly journals, educating students in the economics of the Austrian school, and reaching out to the public to give them a free education worth vastly more than what many people spend six figures for. But put it all together, and it amounts to perhaps the greatest de-bamboozling effort of all time. Once you understand the economics of the Austrian school and the philosophy of liberty in the tradition of Rothbard, you never look at anything — not the state, the media, the central bank, the political class, nothing — the same way again.
Help us carry on our great de-bamboozling mission, as we devise more and more programs and outreach to the public, and provide a new generation of brilliant young scholars with the tools they need to resist and defy a regime that would intimidate us into silence. Their way is violence, envy, and destruction. Ours is peace, liberty, and creation. With your help, we can tear down the state’s benign facade, which has bamboozled so many, and reveal for all to see that the only winner in the state’s crusades is the state itself.
»
- 15191 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
I remember when I dated a rather liberal female and she told me everyone on Earth was equal in all ways and no person is better than another.
First I laughed, and then I found out she was serious.
The lesson is indoctrination works.
I'm making over $7k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life. This is what I do... www.wallstreet34.com
All animal is equal but some is more equal than is other.
Most rational people don't think that everyone is or should be equal; however, they would say that the access to upward mobility
should be as unfettered as possible. If TPTB are able rig the system to the point that who you are, rather than what you are
is the greatest determinant of success, then we'll end up with a rigid caste system. Americans are not predisposed to this outcome,
(not yet any way) and this does not bode well for social stability if we persist on this trajectory.
The true meaning of "All Men Are Created Equal" simply refers to two simple ideas: 1) being born to wealth does not make one superior to one who is born into poverty, and does not give the former the right to rule over the latter; 2) the laws should be equally applied to all. America was never about egalitarianism. It was about equal application of justice and opportunity. The fact that this author confounds these concepts is typical of the Rand/Rothbard/Mises school of thought. The ideology is cover for robber barons.
I have huge issues with Liberartianism especially as it proposed on pages like these. Biggest issue for me is how they deal with children. I have asked and never gotten a response.
Any child has the right as an individual to seek the best economic environment - think this is what they are saying....
Will you adopt me? Am I allowed to run away from my parents? What if my parents are ... (fill in the blank).
Just doesn't work.
So, it takes a village?
Children are not the property or responsibility of the state. Progressives want the state to have all say over the lives of children to the exclusion of the parents. But they insist the mother has the right to choose to kill it in the birth canal. They care so much....about all of us, and are willing to have us sacrifice so much to prove it.
Children are also not chattel of their parents.
Then we should take care, for as we become dependents of the state, the state feels more than justified in deciding what we can and cannot do. Not by any contract we sign or submit to, but by the simple process of birth. Parents, those creatures that yet so far are the only ones capable of creating a child, and who are absolutely held responsible for them (up to the age of 26 now I believe) have no rights to this child's life, to its actions, to its values or behaviors. Please explain as to who's chattel we are now to become, if we cannot hold control of our children? Humans have a long history of struggle, of barely squeezing an existence from this earth and for thousands of years children, from a very young age, participated in this. We have seen our living standards improve of late, and as such have seen fit to outlaw child labor, regardless of circumstance. Now, government supplies. And as we watch now not only children are not required to labor, but no one is. This will not end well and I fear we will revert to the centuries old mean, really mean.
Sheesh mate , you're on a roll tonight.
Thanks for your thoughts.
Egalitarians would have us believe that we have no more of a right to invade Syria uninvited than Russia does at the request of their current government. They don't know that our foreign policy is a sports game and foreign policy is just the coaching of "our team" in the "global arena". They don't see the real problem is that Russia scored a point in this "game". Quick! Let's bomb a country!
People say Equality, because it sounds better than Envy.
-Kobe Beef
Localism, not Libertarianism, is the best response to the valid issues raised by this article. Only localism has the means to defend a population from the tactics globalists used to centralize power, therefore in the end it will be either localism or globalism http://www.amazon.com/Localism-Philosophy-Government-Mark-Moore/dp/06922...
And why libertarianism and central statism fail where localism can succeed... http://www.amazon.com/Localism-Defended-between-Anarchy-Central/dp/09962...
My comment last time vanished. I am going to put this one right below it this time so I can track my place if it happens again.
"The ideology is cover for robber barons"
I agree fullly! Now all they have to do is get the libertarians to accept and praise the TYRANNY of monopolies, the TYRANNY of the corporate feudal state...just persuade them that private TYRANNY is wonderful.
Too late.
Sorry, I don't belive gays are equal to me.
In Russia, there is no gay.
Of course there is, even bars that cater to them in Russia. They're just being warned by the general society that "their" minority ain't gonna replicate the 1917 Bolshevik tiny minority rolling over an entire society.
I thought it might be that Russians just aren't that "discriminating". A definition without a difference?
Just kidding Boris...
There is lot of everything in Russia, but officially, there is only orderly civilized.
If you are a normal bisexual haman being, and have found no value in expressing the sexuality of the gender you were not born with since puberty, you are, in fact, NOT equal to "gays"
You are toss word like bourgeoisie salad, lots of motion but there is no meanings.
MEN AND WOMEN ARE EQUAL.
END THE BAN OF WOMEN IN NFL AND NBA.
SEXIST AMERICAN MEN PIGS!
Let Ronda Rousey fight Brock Lesnar no holds barred.
They are both fighters and she's undefeated. Based on records, she should win.
"END THE BAN OF WOMEN IN NFL AND NBA"
do you really want the black unemployment rate to jump 500%? it's bad enough whites are only quarterbacks, coaches or point guards...now you want women in there? next you will ask why are the bulk of the cheerleaders mostly hot white chicks....this is definitely raysziziszist
Most differences are just definitions. Real differences are really hard to find.
That makes NO sense.
Same is different.
You have my sympathy.
Is it a real or definitional difference that I can ourun the bear and you cannot? That I can hit what I aim and you cannot? That I can create things with my hands and mind and you cannot? In an immeasurable world, you may be right, but this world sees people killing each other over these "definitions of difference" every day.
As a male pushing 50, I can be outrun by many younger females. It is true that males of the same age of females tend to have greater muscle mass, but that is also true of average black males versus white males.
Obviously we are all far from equal. Yet you will not hear a progressive say such a thing other than to be used as proof of another area in need of repair. How long will it be before we are forced to take hormone supplements to equalize the sexes? As we know men and women cannot compete directly on most physical attributes, and it is undeniable, will it not need to be "repaired"?
Drink from a plastic bottle lately? If so, you're volountarily taking hormone supplements to equalize the sexes.
http://www.naturalnews.com/047376_water_plastic_BPA.html
They don't have to force you as long as they control what (bad) choices you have to choose from.
I find it odd that men have nipples.
Every bull has tits. The secretion is less useful than that from the female mammary gland.
You strike me as somewhat odd:-)
Communists LOVE their fantasies...egalitarianism, gubbamint that is pure and good, Marxism that actually works.
Like religious zealots, reality don't mean shit compared to their fantasies.
And like religious zealots, they always seem to feel the need to kill anyone who disagrees with being forced to live out their fantasies.
Randists love their fantasies as well. After all, she wrote fiction. Except we do have a real world example of Rand in action, Alan Greenspan. How did that work out in practice?
There has never been a pure free market economy anywhere. Company stores, check. Child labor, check. Free pollution of the environment, check. Concentration of wealth among a few and massive poverty for the many before a national government even began to assert itself. Check. Religious zealots have nothing on followers of Mises and Rand the others of their ilk in terms of believing in fantasy.
Company stores, check. Child labor, check. Pollution of the environment, e.g. Colorado, check. Concentration of wealth among a few and massive poverty for the many despite an overbearing, bankrupt, national government overexerting itself. Check.
"There has never been a pure free market economy anywhere." Perhaps it's high time it was tried. Remind me again how this,*sniff*, litany of abuses (despite which, and how, we managed to escape feudalism) is maintained were it not for the power of the state and its corruption of markets.
"Perhaps it's high time it was tried."
It was tried, in the 1800's and early 1900's. It led to things like companies that paid their workers in company money where the workers could buy things at the company store. This really isn't rocket science. Oligarchs and sociopaths corrupt all systems. There is no ideal world, and certainly no pure ideology that solves everything.
In order to have a society that provides all that everyone wants, it needs to first indoctrinate everyone to want the same things. Obviously we live in a world where freedom and liberty are not universally desired or valued. Some have no problem with dependency while others do. Unfortunately, the independents amongst us are obviously independent in need from others, while the dependents have little choice but to band together and use FORCE of government to derive the basis of the dependencies from those independent of any other. To ensure that the independents conform to the desires of the dependents, they themselves too become forced dependents of the system that robs them as ALL other means of deriving their independence are removed. Therein lies your perfected governance.
Doubleplusgood
"This really isn't rocket science." I know. But try telling your fellow proggies that, there, LTER. The trouble simply is that THEY(you?) refuse to recognize that some systems are LESS BAD than others, to wit, for just one simple example:
"Most economic historians conclude that this legislation was not (emphasis emphatically not mine)the primary reason for the reduction and virtual elimination of child labor between 1880 and 1940. Instead they point out that industrialization and economic growth brought rising incomes, which allowed parents the luxury of keeping their children out of the work force. In addition, child labor rates have been linked to the expansion of schooling, high rates of return from education, and a decrease in the demand for child labor due to technological changes which increased the skills required in some jobs and allowed machines to take jobs previously filled by children. Moehling (1999) finds that the employment rate of 13-year olds around the beginning of the twentieth century did decline in states that enacted age minimums of 14, but so did the rates for 13-year olds not covered by the restrictions. Overall she finds that state laws are linked to only a small fraction – if any – of the decline in child labor. It may be that states experiencing declines were therefore more likely to pass legislation, which was largely symbolic."
http://eh.net/encyclopedia/child-labor-in-the-united-states/
So, it was the market, corrupted as we know it can be, that saved the day, and not the daydreams of proggie flower children with their misplaced guilt and desire to control. Indeed, the state, as always, a day late to the party, but never so with the bill.
A pure free market economy is like a football game with no rules. It's not really football anymore, it's smear the queer, and at the end of the game there will be one big mean dude left standing and everyone else will be tore up. Pure capitalism can never work because it relies on competition, but at the same time companies naturally seek to destroy their competition.
As competition is so destructive, I take it that you reject Darwinism and the theories of evolution and survival of the fittest. All that we experience today is obviously the result of some grand socialist scheme of the creator.
Per Vlad: "A pure free market economy is like a football game with no rules. It's not really football anymore, it's smear the queer, and at the end of the game there will be one big mean dude left standing and everyone else will be tore up. Pure capitalism can never work because it relies on competition, but at the same time companies naturally seek to destroy their competition.
@ Vlad: Yes there are rules. A market arise through free exchange of ideas, goods and services. It is not required, but If competition arises, all the better.
Rules:
1. No Force
2. No fraud
The introduction of either or both destroys the market. Highwayman, con man, .gov. Which one of these "big mean dudes is currently standing". And you want the government to regulate? The gov taxes more than 50% of my income and they are supposed to protect me from force and fraud but don't e.g. (2008 banking crisis/heist). Take 1/2 my income and not supply services, see no.2.
You are correct in saying that comapnies try to destroy the competition. Without government help, how do they do it? They supply better products and lower prices.
Perhaps you're not familiar with monopolies and anti-trust regulations? Most people think they are beneficial to the consumer, which drives the US economy by the way.
If you want to see what pure capitalism looks like most, visit a third world country. You have a small number of wealthy, almost no middle class, and the majority live in shanties and participate in the underground subsistence economy. In America we do not even allow our poor to do that much. They must either buy into the system, sign up for welfare, or die in the street.
@Vlad: anti-trust laws are very vague and are used to the benifit of the gov. You are correct, 3rd world means little of no middle class. What do they resort to? " the underground subsistence economy" a.k.a the black market. Pure capitalism with no gov intervention. That is what saves them.
"were it not for the power of the state and its corruption of markets."
In order for me to accept that, add also "were it not for the power of the markets and it's corruption of the state." It goes both ways, ask K Street.
Perhaps it's high time it was tried.
Yeah - let me know how that works out.
Remind me again how this,*sniff*, litany of abuses (despite which, and how, we managed to escape feudalism)
If you don't understand that we haven't escaped feudalism then you don't understand they just changed the game and the game pieces.
You're welcome to compare your lot with that of a feudal serf. Less bad or not? Let me know how that works out.
You know, I'll bet if all the tuth were known, some event occurred in Greenspan's life, after the age of 30 or so, which moved his perspective from its original Randian free market view to something different; a view which made him think he could "have his cake and eat it too", so to speak, and he got sucked up into a vortex he was not anticipating. He may even be best understood as "a reluctant Francisco d'Anconia." Who is John Galt? :-)
Or a quite willing shaved chimp with glasses. Who is DeezNutz.
Rand? Really? Rand's construct was no less a fantasy than a liberal's fantasy that egalitarianism will make everything OK.
Who is John Galt? He is a fictional character in a book of fiction. He doesn't exist. I would be surprised if even 1% of the population is as morally and ethically perfect as John Galt. The problem is that in order for Rand's fantasy to work, you need probably at least 60-80% of the population to be as perfect as John Galt.
Libertarians like their fantasies too...like the fantasy that if we only had true free market capitalism everything would be great. Not that I'm a fan of either communism of socialism, but I love how these mises institute tards rant on and on about communism, socialism and the evils of egalitarianism as if these are the reasons why the world (and more specifically, the economies of the world) are so fucked up. Meanwhile not one of these authors ever discusses the evils of monopoly capitalism, oligarchy, and the collusion which occurs in capitalist economies and how to avoid these things which seem to naturally occur.
Apparently all you need for humans to behave and allow capitalism to function as God intended, is become a libertarian. Somehow once one becomes a libertarian they never break laws, fuck over their common man, exercise just the proper amount of greed (even though it is one of the seven deadly sins - but I guess we just ignore that).
Monopoly can only legally exist with the consent of government. And if breaking laws precipitates injustice, why is our government not enforcing our laws and punishing the law breakers? Most of our laws were derived from libertarian principles. It has been all of the compassionate modifications and lack of enforcement that has enabled your loss of justice. Libertarians may be a simple minded lot in thinking it could work but it is the socialists who are making sure it doesn't.
"Monopoly can only legally exist with the consent of government"
Well then Capitalism will always lead to monopoly because to exist it requires a symbiotic relationship with a government of some sort (fascism seems to be a favourite, though democracies and their onerous regulations are suffered; because market share) in order to maintain any level of justice. Not to mention backing the most important thing of all to Mises, I'm assuming: fulfilling contractual obligations
otherwise try getting these guys to respect the local 'vegan understanding'
The manners of the Anthropophagi are more savage than those of any other race. They neither observe justice, nor are governed, by any laws. They are nomads, and their dress is Scythian; but the language which they speak is peculiar to themselves. Unlike any other nation in these parts, they are cannibals.
—?Histories, Book 4 (Melpomene), trans. George Rawlinson, 1858-1860
Human nature: not always pretty.
"And if breaking laws precipitates injustice, why is our government not enforcing our laws and punishing the law breakers?"
So no actual thieves in any of the prisons? Zero fraudsters? No loser weakling cowardly worthless scumbag wife beaters? No murderers? No rapists?
You sure about that strawman? What, your pet peeve didn't get indicted? BOO HOO. If you actually have any evidence step up to the plate MF! I mean, yah, a bunch on my list of shit pots are stalking around free too, but I'm not about to throw away a system that strives to be decent just because I witness that it is being corrupted. Try to save the fucker sounds like a better strategy than the bellum omnium contra omnes, where the only thing that talks is money and might. As if either of those powers require decency to wield.
I'll lay it on the line for you lot one more time to see if it can crack those concrete blocks
Socialism: seeks to empower labour through ownership of production. End of.
Eg.Statoil (And a Fucking HOME RUN too! I don't mind saying)
Mixed Economy: seeks to pay the nations bills by nationalizing a key industry while otherwise encouraging private enterprise.
Fascism: seeks to entrench a plutocracy by any means available. Where Money talks; Might makes right.
Eg. You know exactly where. (And a Fucking Grand Slam too! I am sorry to say.) So what are you going to do about it? keep mistaking it for 'socialism'?
Look how far that is getting you...
Why would monopoly be more dependent upon capitalism when socialism guarantees it?
And while we see untold numbers imprison for lots of different offenses, those directly attributable to our economic circumstances of corruption, monopoly and general malfeasance is nonexistent. Those crimes so often attributed to capitalism seems invisible to law enforcement, almost like they are deliberately creating destruction.
And regarding socialism, what exactly is it about capitalism that prevents labor's ownership of production? There is none, and further there seems to be little interest by labor to own anything, concentrating mostly upon consumption. It is socialism that seeks to force this ownership of production upon labor, through the forcible taking of it from its creators and owners. Admittedly though, as socialists see labor as completely unsuited to the ownership and maintenance of the means of production, or much of anything else, hold its title in their sweaty palms.
There is absolutely no physical or legal constraint for ANYONE from holding ownership of the means of their production. They simply choose not to. Proof is to witness how few are willing to even attempt to become self employed, instead CHOOSING employment as the SAFER, more reliable path. Yet still are indoctrinated to DEMAND ownership of that which they are unwilling to work for, to sacrifice for, and while accepting that they never will own it...don't want to own it, that they are content for GOVERNMENT to claim ownership of it in their name, only to find the new boss is the same as the old boss except bigger, less caring, more corrupt, and completely and absolutely unavoidable, as there is now no other choice.
All isms are false choices. Freedom to succeed and fail is the only real choice. Surrender to the security of a system, especially one that demands your capitulation of most basic freedoms is not anything a free and thinking people would ever desire.
Good grief you lot are one stubborn herd of asses
"It is socialism that seeks to force this ownership of production upon labor, through the forcible taking of it from its creators and owners"
If that is true, then just exactly who did Norway 'forcibly take' their oil wealth from, you, or flying spaghetti monster, the creator of all?
When you figure it out let me know, I'd like to offer the silly sod my condolences.
hahahahaha!
Those are some loud freaking
<CRICKETS!>
It has been all of the compassionate modifications and lack of enforcement that has enabled your loss of justice.
And the bankers, the militarists, and politicians have had NOTHING to do with the 'lack of enforcement' or breaking laws? Are you really that naive? I don't disagree with you in principle - that the reason why our gov't doesn't work and some gain an unfair advantage is because of criminality and lack of enforcement - but the idea that this is ALL the socialists' fault is really over simplifying the matter. Either that or all the people who proclaim to be capitalists (especially the bankers) are really socialists.
Either that or all the people who proclaim to be capitalists (especially the bankers) are really socialists.
Yep. ESPECIALLY the banksters.
Don't blame capitalism for the torpor , lassitude, and general laziness of the populace, which attitudes allow capitalism to become plutocracy.
Nice, empty rhetoric, ready to be stuffed with whatever cheese you please.
-Don't blame the Quebec Nordiques for the torpor, lassitude, and general laziness of the populace, which attitudes allowed the Nordiques to become the Colorado Avalanche (tabernac!)
-Don't blame the Great Lakes for the torpor, lassitude, and general laziness of the populace, which attitudes allowed the Great Lakes to become unconscionably polluted by 'dilution is the solution'
-Don't blame Marxism for the torpor, lassitude, and general laziness of the populace, which attitudes allowed Marxism to become Stalinism.
Or are you some sort of elitist calling for a post-penultimate solution?
Regardless of your desired form of government, they all rely on the people to stand and demand justice and accountability from it...the government, for it to not become oppressive and dominated by corruption. There is absolutely NOTHING about socialism that makes it superior in this regard and if anything more greatly predisposed to corruption given its general belief in its power as dominant to that of the people, a people too weak and stupid to care for itself, to CHOOSE for itself. The role of a parent rather than a hired manager.
Yet another person having a knee jerk reaction to any criticism of either capitalism or the folks that believe a true free market can exist.
My argument is not that socialism or communism or egalitarianism are good. Rather that NO system is perfect because humans are imperfect. And libertarians' knee jerk reaction that all the ills of society, gov't, and economy are due solely to either socialism, communism, or egalitarianism when those supposedly in charge (the bankers/wealthy/elite) have used their money, power to circumvent the laws which are necessary for ANY socio economic system to function properly.
The issue isn't the system - it's the way in which people in power distort the system to their benefit. Again the issues we face today are less to do with egalitarianism as they are with the unequal application of the law.
Unfortunately many so called liberal/progressives also have a knee jerk reaction in that somehow egalitarianism will rectify unequal application of the law. I agree it won't. But blaming egalitarianism for the fact that human beings in any system will not adhere to the law is not going to get anyone anywhere.
There are two tenets of libertarianism though often only the first, maximum individual freedom is mentioned. The other is personal responsibility. Rand's writings constantly emphasize the necessary of the latter for true freedom to function.
Here's something for everyone to ponder: A persons material desires are potentially unlimited. Yet, resources are finite. What economic method can be used to reconcile these contradictions? My Answer: a free market which, though flawed by human psychology, best matches supply and demand.
Or to put it simply: how much more should Lebron James earn compared to a postal worker? Or how much is the "fair" price of a gallon of milk? I defy any statist, central planner to answer these queries rationally.
Don't complain about imperfect free markets run by imperfect human beings. That's life, evolution, and all that.
Capitalism needs the state to enforce contracts/administer justice.
That's statist. So 'free market' as an absolute is just a buzzword used to appeal to the unscrupulous, and lure the gullible into believing that the civil oversight of industry isn't in their best interests, even though historical record clearly suggests that it most certainly is.
Or to put it simply: how much more should Lebron James earn compared to a postal worker?
I dunno, I'd have to see the posties letter delivery stats compared to those of Mr. James'. For all we know the postal worker deserves a raise or something for pulling your uncle back to the sidewalk when a bus was about to flatten 'im, especially since the only thing that compelled him to act was his reflexive decency...I suppose what I am suggesting is that if you live your life believing that the only things that are valuable are things that make money or come at a price, there may be one or two things you've overlooked.
Or how much is the "fair" price of a gallon of milk? I defy any statist, central planner to answer these queries rationally.
Why the market price of course, except, for example, in an emergency. The state needs capitalism as capitalism needs the state; what matters is the manner in which they utulize one another. Eg. a socially democratic state may employ a mixed-economic strategy to mitigate capitalism on behalf of labour, while a fascist state would reserve capitalism for a selection of elites with everyone else subject to the company store.
Rational enough for you?
Mitigate freedom of one for the benefit of another. Sure sounds fair to me. Who is the sheep and who is the wolf now?
The state needs capitalism much more than capitalism needs the state. It is corruption that needs the state,not capitalism or trade. People free to choose, to decide who to trade with can exist largely outside the realm of government. People have always relied on trust and honesty as the bedrock of trade, not contracts, especially contracts whose terms are defined by those with the deepest pockets or best connections. As a small business dealing with very large corporations, I rely very little on contracts as I understand if push comes to shove I will lose. What is important is outlining the terms and expectations so the customer is always satisfied. Government has not afforded me much protection, as I know that if it becomes necessary to fall back on their power, I have already lost.
The state mitigating on behalf of labor is simply another middleman requiring payoff....a big middleman indeed. If you expect them to protect YOUR interests, be prepared to dig deep. It is no surprise that government is dominated by lawyers. We complain about how many people are in our jails and then consider how much revenue these cases and imprisonment have generated for those most directly connected to government, all while demanding that our government does more. To even attempt to claim that our government is "capitalism" in action is in complete denial of the reality of government domination of our economy. Anything BUT capitalism or free markets.
FTR
I am not saying, implying, endorsing or asserting any of your long list of misrepresentations, misconceptions, and unfounded foregone conclusions
I'm going to make it really simple:
If you honestly believe the reason the world is fucked up because of egalitarianism then you haven't been paying attention. Egalitarianism is just a stupid knee-jerk reaction by politicians to make it look like they actually care about the peasants they're supposed to be serving. Just like the Fed was supposed to reduce bankers influence.
I got my silver spoon, got yours?
"In the course of working toward equality, the state expands its power...."
Articles like this remind me why the Mises Institute is complete garbage. The state is not "working towards equality", nor are those who run it. I'll give Mises that the current system is fucked up, but the Institute's ideas are even more fucked up and certainly more simplistic and sophomoric.
We need to show that the so-called struggle for equality is in fact all about state power, not helping the downtrodden.
Doesn't get any clearer than that, does it?
Do you disagree with this proposition?
Perhaps you should try reading what is actually written rather than snuggling up in your nice comfy anti-Rand blankie.
The struggle for equality in things like justice is what America is all about. The government today pays lip service to these concepts, while obviously not advancing them. This author suggests that the concept itself is the problem, as opposed to the implementation. This entire country was founded on the idea of all men being equal. Before that, we had oligarchs ruling us without any illusion of freedom. That is what this author advocates, even if he is too ideological to realize it, or even if you are too ideological to see that this is what he is advocating.
How do you have true equality in justice when justice is individually judged? The problem with government claiming the responsibility and BURDEN of seeking and defining equality in all things is that it is impossible, and in knowing this becomes an infinite rube, much as is the "war on poverty" only to find more poor people than before the war was pursued. You acknowledge that government is incapable of equality and justice because of inevitable corruption, yet still seem to think it a worthwhile cause. If this pursuit of equality is inevitably corrupt and likely causing more harm than good, why would we continue to pursue it other than to salve the emotions of those so self-righteous to see the intent outweigh the effect?
"You acknowledge that government is incapable of equality and justice because of inevitable corruption, yet still seem to think it a worthwhile cause."
Yes, I do. Elected government subject to corruption is still better than oligarch rule where corruption isn't even necessary. I realize that you believe that mankind can exist as independent beings that can live freely without collective action to keep sociopaths and oligarchs in check, but all of human history says otherwise.
And as such claims the right to oppress anyone who does not agree, and has the right to manipulate and indoctrinate public opinion to suit their needs.
No one is suggesting we should have no government, only that government is limited in its capabilities AND by the Constitution, and that in those areas where it is proven that corruption absolutely distorts any desirable agenda, it should be extremely limited in its agenda.
I'll leave this thread on a high note that you and I absolutely agree with the concept of limited government, and that the current government (state and federal) in the United States is utterly corrupt and acting like the oligarchs our forefathers fought against because there is no longer any effective shield against oligarch control. The two party system is a big part of this.
The bigger problem is security of tenure.
The problem is easily fixed by enforcing limits on tenure of office"
In other words, disestablish the career politician.
Everyone seeks protection, especially those who believe or have been CONVINCED that they cannot defend themselves. Those who absolutely believe they CAN defend themselves are the perceived threat, as presented by those selling PROTECTION.
Here in Godzone , we are fortunate to still have an unarmed police force , whose primary duty is the protection of the public.
Of course there is a special unit , known as the ArmedOffenders Squad, but even they are dedicated to the preservation of human life where possible.
Many of us are well able to protect ourselves, but are happy to be taxed so that the obligation is borne by the police.
The problem with people like the author is that they take their personal success in life as a given, but if bad luck befell them do you think they'd starve to death in the name of principal before asking for handouts from somebody more fortunate?
No, they'd get on their knees and beg, if they were sane. And lucky for them they'd probably find someone of kinder ilk than themselves who'd lend a hand.
Problem with most liberals isn't that they're evil, it's just not possible or beneficial to scale "goodwill towards men" up like that, to make it illegal to neglect weak and unfortunate people.
Equal protection under the law.
Freedom of association.
Egalitarianism is just another euphemism for moral relativism, political correctness, multi-culturalism, and post-modern thought. Those four ideas/worldviews will ENSURE the death of liberty and the west.
The constitution states that all men are equal 'in the eyes of the law." Obviously, this is a high ideal and should be enforced in a just society. It doesn't say all men are equal. Neoliberal scum have distorted this, along with just about every other noble pronouncement by the found fathers. But, the assholes in the deep state have managed to let fellow assholes like Jamie Dimon accrue a BILLION dollars of personal wealth, while promoting the idea that everyone is equal. It's just another symptom of a totally borken system.
The center cannot hold...
Maybe, or it could just mean equality before the law, depending on who is doing the talking.
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar
Vive la difference .... eGAULitarianism is a French concept .... modern translation .... equality of outcome .... give the niggers passing grades .... no matter how stupid they are !
To paraphrase F. Scott Fitzgerald: The French are different. As a New York city cab driver put it, "If Frenchmen are men, why don't they talk like men?"
"The income tax is racist .... graduated income tax is genocidal !" Lincoln Applegate Hahn 1945 - ?
Why so many words; the last paragraph makes the point... how many readers won't get there...
"the egalitarian doctrine"
there is no "doctrine"... there is Control enabled by ignorance, fueled by met expectations, fueled by lies of the Controller.
Ignorance makes the world go round.
Egalitarianism is for the great unwashed. If we were all equal, would there be a need for government? Your favorite career politicians, central bankers and wall street executives are getting a good laugh right now.
Not all men and women are equal. That's just reality and to say otherwise is idiocy. But all men and women are equal in their ability to evolve and adapt to their surroundings. Case in point Asians on average used to be shorter when compared to the rest of the world. But recently changes in diet and exercise have caused an increase in the average height of many Asian communities.
We have the power to evolve and perhaps reach a point close to equality but when you call everyone equal not only are you lying but you stop people from working to get better. We aren't equal in our potential and our gifts but we are equal in our ability to evolve as a species, it just takes time.
I think the Martian would be amazed at how certain people think it's okay to lie-to, steal-from, and kill others who don't believe in the "story" they believe in. (story is just a polite word for lie.) And it doesn't seem to matter how ancient that "story" is.
We know few of any species are equal, and any thinking person understands our moral code only extends to the benefit of the doubt until inequality is confirmed. We also understand that in a world of man made laws, the only protection from those laws is the equal and blind application of them to one and all. While minorities experience these injustices occasionally we know this extends to all of us when we see the system at work. It is our job to insist that all laws are equally applied. More so that gun rights or even free speech, we must DEMAND IT. What we have seen instead of the equal application of the laws is the progressivizing of the laws so that these laws can be deliberately applied unequally as a "correction" or affirmative action to compensate for prior "corrections". We now live in a world that demands equality, even when it means discrimination and deliberate unequal treatment under the law.
So much for blind justice.
On top of all of this I will also contend that NO ONE wants equality. They will demand it when they perceive it lacking, but once achieved it is never enough. It is nature that we all desire superiority. What is so odd is that only now, in this time in history, we suddenly decide that superiority is wrong and must be discarded, surrendered to the losers, in the false hope that this will provide the much desired EQUALITY.
FOOLS
Wildly stupid. The half smart do think they have figured it out, then they bray their ignorance to the skies.
;)
Hard to take this article seriously when you factor in the rapid impact of the technology which will make the so called 'division of labor' irrelevant. Hard to have a place in society when you are not able to exchange your labor services for a monetary income as robbie the robot has taken your job - white or blue collar. Under such circumstances the division of labor and rewards will be even more extreme.
Yes, it is so sad that we are simple drones, incapable of making effective choices to benefit our future. We are forced by our simp!e minds to buy food produced through automation and advanced fertilizers, pesticides and genetic manipulation rather than from local farmers. Likewise we are helpless to our puny brains to buy cheap foreign made products rather those made by our families, neighbors and countrymen.
I contend that automation domestically would not displace jobs if it was actually produced here and was not developed with borrowed money. Debt is pulling future production into today's economy. We are using future earnings to pay for automation today. Technology advances only as it is economically feasible, unless outside distortions like government development or massive influxes of money derived through debt.
And yet there are still places on this planet where these things that you regard as inevitable are still choices.
Choices that the majority embraces, I agree, but some of us are free to choose otherwise.
Yes , I have the latest computerised John Deere tractor, but there are half a dozen "obsolete" British Leyland tractors, all electro- mechanical, just waiting to be pressed back into service.
Possibly not in the U.S.
The only thing I see as inevitable besides death is humans always making the easy choice which is always the bad choice. Hard choices are the ones that naturally exist, whereas the easy choices are those that have been created for us as a means of taking advantage of our weaknesses (stupidity).
In rural societies the easy choices are nearly always extremely costly.
The hard choices are nearly always very fulfilling.
Fulfilling yes, but seldom instant. Easy choices are typically also instantly gratifying and almost as instantly dissipating. I build furniture for a living and it is NEVER instant or easy. Farming I'm sure is the same. Too few people experience actually creating anything these days and just can't relate. They work at jobs they hate and then attempt to find happiness in buying things they really don't want or need...an addiction that leads to debt and ruin in many cases.
I sure as hell will not disagree with that.
Farming does force one to take the long view. That is even more the case in sustainable agriculture endeavours.
Climate cycles of 30years or so dictate that the long view is pre-requisite for enduring success.
Egalitarianism isn't the issue - the issue is that laws are not applied equally.
The latter has caused just as many problems (probably more) than the former.
Haven't read Rockwell in a while, and this essay is a great example why. The origin of the phrase has its historical roots in the tradition of natural law, and the equal standing of all men thereunder.
"If we look to the laws, they afford equal justice to all in their private differences; if no social standing, advancement in public life falls to reputation for capacity, class considerations not being allowed to interfere with merit; nor again does poverty bar the way" -- Pericles
"Whereas the late King James the Second, by the assistance of divers evil counsellors, judges and ministers employed by him, did endeavour to subvert and extirpate the Protestant religion and the laws and liberties of this kingdom." -- An Act Declaring the Rights and Liberties of the Subject 1689
"That all men are by nature equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights of which . . . they cannot deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety." -- Virginia Declaration of Rights
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." -- Declaration of Independence
"All men are born free and equal, and have certain natural, essential, and unalienable rights; among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; that of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property; in fine, that of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness." -- Massachusetts Constitution
"Equality Before The Law" -- Nebraska state seal
The source of the shortened phrase is due to one Italian-born patriot, Philip Mazzei.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Mazzei#Mazzei_letter
The law only means what the man with the gun says it means. This reverence for "The Law" seems to be a religious belief of those who have been herded into the conservative plantation.
If you want your bellum omnium contra omnes you can have your bellum contra omnes, nihilist.
Even atheists and anarchists can recognize basic morality.
Libertarians are interested only in the beginning of the economic development cycle, in a phase of setting up of economic rules within society that would reinforce equality of chances but not outcomes.
Such attitude ignores what the economic process of production and capital accumulation is all about namely those who proclaim allegiance to free (equal chances) market principle when they accumulate enough capital are no longer interested in a fair rules or following free principles but the greed and lust for money and opulence overwhelm them through seemingly rational quests for efficiency and competitiveness which is truly aimed for monopoly and destruction of the competition.
They no longer pursue their individual or local interests of the moment but strategic plans including collusion and fraud, sacrificing immediate gain or benefit in order to deform the markets and hence control them and by that fact denying equal chance of success to others especially newcomers. The so-called competitive advantage quickly deteriorates to big capital, cheap labor and cheap financing advantage over the small local capital run on cash flow only no matter how talented young entrepreneur may be it does not mater at all. He will economically die of become slave of wage for cartels.
True egalitarianism is not about equal outcomes, as propaganda trying to insinuate that's not even possible but to limit disparities of wealth that twist or destroys market rules as well as social control over the representative government, a rule maker, as we all know well.
More on that I found at:
https://contrarianopinion.wordpress.com/2015/01/28/slaves-of-wage/
Also thr crucial role of many controlling economic and social relations beyond entrepreneurship and equal opportunities in economic realm is nicely reviewed at:
https://contrarianopinion.wordpress.com/2015/04/14/plutus-and-the-myth-of-money/
Even theoretically free market is an illusion, a economic dead end as is posited here.
https://contrarianopinion.wordpress.com/2015/01/29/invisible-hand-and-other-paranoid-delusions/
And yet, when the corrupt , crony, amoral plutocracy collapses and becomes rubble, what arises is at first a free market form of capitalism.
Funny, that!
How can you not have disparities in wealth when you have disparities in all other things. Is the wealthy genius a disparity requiring remedy to the mentally challenged person? By how much and who will decide? There has always been wealth disparity. As far as I can tell it is only through the power of government that wealth disparity can become so great as to be harmful. Government seeks to disrupt competition, and competition is the only thing that can rebalance the scales.
In the view of the political "class", "vive la difference"applies only to the maintenance of their privilege.
Libertarians are only interested in the just use of force in a society. The rest is just consequence.
How about simply 'equality before the law'?
Sounds like a decent place to start.
The manners of the Anthropophagi are more savage than those of any other race. They neither observe justice, nor are governed, by any laws. They are nomads, and their dress is Scythian; but the language which they speak is peculiar to themselves. Unlike any other nation in these parts, they are cannibals.
—?Histories, Book 4 (Melpomene), trans. George Rawlinson, 1858-1860
The Malice of Libertarianism
'Even the most dedicated egalitarian living in the First World doesn’t seriously favor an equalization of wealth between countries.' Really? So the neverending bailouts in Europe from rich to poor countries is an illusion? The transfer of industrial capacity from established economies to developing economies as encouraged by trade deals, that is also an illusion? The allowance of free movement between EU countries which only takes place in one direction - from poor to rich countries, is an illusion? The mass immigration from ME and Africa into Eurpoean countries, already under the burden of huge unemployment, is an illusion? You are correct in lambasting egalitatrianism but I think you better wake up and take a look around before proclaiming that it is not on an integrated global level. The only twist is, it is not being done for 'equality' sakes, it is being done to achieve the lowest common denominator or 'equality' for the wages of all working people while stripping out wealth to the elites.
But capitalists demand equality of opportunity for themselves in a free market. That's what the "free" in free market means. If that is indeed the case, which it is, then how is egalitarianism a contradiction? Isn't the real message here, "Give me freedom and equality but allow me my rationalizations for depriving it to potential competitors." And that is exactly what we have in our current system - a shutting out of opportunity to those who lack the right kinds of power (money, status, connections). Conclusion: this article is a sophisticated series of justifactions for injustice.
It is as if Mises is saying,
"Here's a garden path; follow me. I'll de-bamboozle you with flummery"
Fluellen, what kind of a name is that anyway? (jk Nos Da)
Demands? Not in a free market.
Those on the Right may tell you they have succeeded on their own merit and are in favour of the survival of the fittest, but their policies indicate they know they need the wealth of their parents to help them take every step.
A meritocracy gives everyone equal opportunity to compete on a level playing field and is necessary for Social Darwinism.
What does a meritocracy look like?
1) In a meritocracy everyone succeeds on their own merit.
This is obvious, but to succeed on your own merit, we need to do away the traditional mechanisms that socially stratify society due to wealth flowing down the generations. Anything that comes from your parents has nothing to do with your own effort.
2) There is no un-earned wealth or power, e.g inheritance, trust funds, hereditary titles
In a meritocracy we need equal opportunity for all. We can’t have the current two tier education system with its fast track of private schools and universities for people with wealthy parents.
3) There is a uniform schools system for everyone with no private schools or universities.
The Right are only too aware their future generations are unlikely to make it on their own merit and actively support the mechanisms that circumvent Social Darwinism.
The Right are self-reliant as long as Mummy and Daddy are there to help them on their way.
Easy to be rich if you successfully lobby gov't for favorable tax policies, subsidies, QE's 1, 2 & 3, TARP, ZIRP and a host of other tiny tax loopholes inserted into dull sounding legislation passed at 4 am (Oh I remember that ploy!). How can you be successful?
1. Get rich.
2, Use riches to purchase gov't support and help (Bankrolling a Senator is great if you can afford it)
3. Use gov't to maintain your status. (Keep bankrolling those same gov't reps)
If you're born rich, skip step 1.
Once accomplished, you can call yourself a "Self Made Man," right?
+100
@barroter Gov gov gov. Remove all references to and doings by the government from your 7:32 post and all you have left is:
1. Get rich
4. Once accomplished, you can call yourself a "self made man".
Fixed it!
Yank every stimulus penny, yank every gov't supplied freebie and we'll see how many wealthy will fall flat on their face.
The issue is that libertarianism, as manifested currently in the US political sphere is a mantra of the "market" economy's unquestionable supremacy over and above and to the exclusion of the "social" economy.
Libertarianism in that respect is an ideological perversion of the neo-con supremacist age that spawned the NWO political global construct of the Reagan-Bush age.
Market economies are not fair. Social economies are not fair.
Both are necessary for Human survival. Balance is the key between the Hoi Oligoi and the Hoi Polloi.
That has been man's POLITICAL timeline since our Greek inspired civilization began under the cultural aegis of Paganism; aka even before the judeo-christian culture was spawned.
Zh keeps pumping the UBER market economy culture as the only route to Man's salvation. This affirmation is as DOGMATIC as the Creationist Abrahamic Culture of Man's salvation based on Blind Faith in the inerrance of the Holy Scriptures, or the Koran or the Torah/Talmud "holy" books.
Back in 1230 Holy Emperor Frederick II -- an incredible modernist for the dark ages--denounced that manipulation of the Superior Being obscurantist culture by writing a treatise called the "Three Imposters"...precisely for Political reasons to fight Papal theocracy at home and to denounce the Crusades as a lost cause and chimera. He wanted to dialogue with the Ayyubid sons of Saladin not sing "God wills it" to their "Allah o akbar"...like mirror opposites of politically regressionist culture even for that age. He got beaten by the Saint Louis crusade and Papal revolt which only went on to prove by its subsequent debacle that Frederick was right and the Papists were wrong as political cum theocratic paragons of a false mantra!
In around 1465, as a result of the Cataclysmic loss of Constantinople which put a final bullet in the "God wills it" mantra, the West (thanks mainly to Cosme de Medicis in Florence) re-invented the Renaissance culture and put Plato and Aristotle on a pinnacle at par with the Creationist culture; as depicted by Michael Angelo, Raphael and Botticelli in the Vatican itself. The subsequent Enlightenment made secularism, rationality and science the bedrocks of our western civilization.
So having moved away from dogmatic reasoning of the past bygone age the West now falls into the new dogmatism of the "Invisible Handed Market GOd age" which is a new chimera.
Just like the exploitation of the Abrahamic God age was shown to be--and is currently displaying its resurgent dystopia by the Muslim regression into Shia Theocracy and Sunni Salafism-- to which the West now bows in lip service--irony of ironies-- because it needs the OIL of these regions!
We are our own best enemies time and again.
But for the US libertarians to revert to this mixture of "born again christian" dogma allied to "invisible handed market" dogma; as expressed by the "false nosed" Libertarian Mantra prevalent in the populist extreme right of the US political spectrum; is an admission of "head up ass" logic that smells of a regression of Jefferson's land into the awesome trap of resurgent neo-fascism.
Donald Duck of populist Groucho soup and irate brown shirtism.
The livestock of the world have never had it better. Free healthcare, free food and shelter. Higher populations than ever before in history. If not for the farmer the poor animals would still live in the unforgiving wild, facing unknowable perils daily. We saved them....but why?
Could it be because we were hungry????
Those who seek to protect us, DO NOT see us as them. They are the elite, the intelligent, the farmer. Is this not more about them than it is us? Has poverty abated or has world peace taken us over in the wake of their kindnesses and considerations?
Or are we a necessary component in THEIR survival? Is our harnessed production, our capitulation to the feedbag, not what drives them? The evils that they so adamantly despise, are also an absolute requirement for their survival. They produce NOTHING and would most assuredly starve if not for their position as the indispensable middleman.
Extremely unfair and tendentious account of what Rawls says. When Rockwell says, "He[Rawls] then proceeded to give reasons that inequality between countries was quite all right, even though these were the exact reasons he had said inequality between individuals was unacceptable," it is a pretty clear indication that Rockwell doesn't know what Rawls actually says in this regard and is way too impatient to actually do the work and find out. Whatever one thinks of Rawls, that is not his view. He most definitely does not give the same "exact reasons". Different problems have different contexts and hence different reasons apply. Does Rockwell want every problem of justice to be handled the same way? Justice in health care to be treated like justice between nations?
Does Rockwell have a problem with equal liberty also? That's at least 1/3 or Rawls' concern, but Rockwell doesn't take up that form of equality at all.
This is an embarrassing hatchet job. So many people have written at length about Rawls, it's astounding that Rockwell thinks he is adding anything to the debate.
Localism is also a defense against the tyranny of egalitarianism, without the abuses of the more extreme forms of libertarianism that you alluded to. In addition, libertarianism has no defense against the stratigies globalists have used to centralize power, Localism does. http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00B0GACAQ
Egalitarianism is an excuse for the state to insinuate the "expert" into the fabric. The "expert" is always licensed in some way by the state to "prove" their expertise. "Equal" means control by setting equal standards, limits and rewards that are explained as necessary by experts.
It is not "the market" or even "free markets" that is good, it is "competitive markets," you dimwit. Marx and Adam Smith are agreed that excessive wealth concentration ruins a market economy and the society within which it exists.
Is there any greater concentration of excessive wealth than that which is held by government?
Is there any greater manipulator and disrupter of free and natural markets than government?
Is it possible that the cure is worse than the ailment?
actually, we are given a precise definition of what equality is. it is called The Declaration of Independence
["Indeed the division of labor is based on human difference. Each of us finds that niche that suits our natural talents best, and by specializing in that particular thing we can most effectively serve our fellow man. Our fellow man, likewise, specializes in what he is best suited for, and we in turn benefit from the fruits of his specialized knowledge and skill."]
--“In the progress of the division of labour, the employment of the far greater part of those who live by labour, that is, of the great body of the people, comes to be confined to a few very simple operations, frequently to one or two. But the understandings of the greater part of men are necessarily formed by their ordinary employments. The man whose whole life is spent in performing a few simple operations, of which the effects are perhaps always the same, or very nearly the same, has no occasion to exert his understanding or to exercise his invention in finding out expedients for removing difficulties which never occur. He naturally loses, therefore, the habit of such exertion, and generally becomes as stupid and ignorant as it is possible for a human creature to become. The torpor of his mind renders him not only incapable of relishing or bearing a part in any rational conversation, but of conceiving any generous, noble, or tender sentiment, and consequently of forming any just judgment concerning many even of the ordinary duties of private life. Of the great and extensive interests of his country he is altogether incapable of judging, and unless very particular pains have been taken to render him otherwise, he is equally incapable of defending his country in war. The uniformity of his stationary life naturally corrupts the courage of his mind, and makes him regard with abhorrence the irregular, uncertain, and adventurous life of a soldier. It corrupts even the activity of his body, and renders him incapable of exerting his strength with vigour and perseverance in any other employment than that to which he has been bred. His dexterity at his own particular trade seems, in this manner, to be acquired at the expence of his intellectual, social, and martial virtues. But in every improved and civilized society this is the state into which the labouring poor, that is, the great body of the people, must necessarily fall, unless government takes some pains to prevent it.” -- Adam Smith.
["So there is a place for everyone in the market economy."]
Effectiveley meaning the system needs slaves confined to a debilitatingly small share of collective output as a sine qua non condition for viability. In essence claiming the virtuous pretention to "freedom" while programming the system of a role playing game.
["Then there’s “equality of opportunity,” but even this common conservative slogan is fraught with problems."]
In deed. Problems the author seems unable to argue for in any tangible, cogent argument. That's pretty fucking lazy.
[“Equality cannot be imagined outside of tyranny,” said Montalembert. It was, he said, “nothing but the canonization of envy, [and it] was never anything but a mask which could not become reality without the abolition of all merit and virtue.”]
And the myth of the free market is nothing but the confusion of freedom with the right to unearned income, or income by harmful means. The canonization of rentiers parasites. You need a particularly thoroughly intellectually sodomized population for that...
Besides, ...EQUALITY IS NOT THE AIM HERE.
Sounds to me like someone trying to justify the status quo by saying it is impossible to attain perfection of outcome.
Of course equality of outcome cannot be guaranteed, or promised. But equality of opportunity IS something we can effect. And it is THIS that TPTB are afraid of!
To allow a true level playing field, TPTB would have to let go of many of their privileges and benefits. Which of course they will never do willingly...So, they ridicule to whole NOTION of equality as simply impossible, by focusing on the OUTCOMES, which of course are NOT equal.
"Oh, equality would mean you have to pay a busboy the same as you pay a plumber..." Umm, no...no it doesn't. What it MEANS is that your busboy has an equal CHANCE to be a plumber! Whether he can do it, and what he makes depends on how good he is. A level playing field gives him the opportunity, it does NOT guarantee success in the endeavor.
Here's the speech if anybody's too lazy to read
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-rPFmCD---Y