- Hot
- New
- Categories...
- Producer's Lounge
- Producer's Vault
- The Gulch: Live! (New)
- Ask the Gulch!
- Going Galt
- Books
- Business
- Classifieds
- Culture
- Economics
- Education
- Entertainment
- Government
- History
- Humor
- Legislation
- Movies
- News
- Philosophy
- Pics
- Politics
- Science
- Technology
- Video
- The Gulch: Best of
- The Gulch: Bugs
- The Gulch: Feature Requests
- The Gulch: Featured Producers
- The Gulch: General
- The Gulch: Introductions
- The Gulch: Local
- The Gulch: Promotions
- Marketplace
- Members
- Store
- More...
So later I mentioned that remark to someone else, who proudly stated, "Why yes! The University of Massachusetts has some of the finest Marxist scholars in the world!"
These scholars and their intellectual heirs are still busy disassembling the United States, for its crime of having been successful. I think that the underlying scheme in American education is Fabian socialism, known as Progressivism in the US. Nearly all American educators understand the Progressive agenda to be correct, even if they feel themselves to be conservatives.
"Now, in non-fiction!"
Precisely. It stems from a lack of fundamental values. That is not to say that those who have firm convictions don't ever re-evaluate their position, but if one is constantly evaluating every decision, what one is actually doing is attempting to redefine his or her moral position at every encounter. To me, this sounds mentally exhausting and prone to error.
Conservatives do not believe that everyone can do anything if they only try hard enough and are persistent. They believe that most people, if they are not incentivized to do little, will work hard. Some people really have serious physical, mental, or emotional handicaps. Conservatives never deny that some people need to be helped in order to live decently. They tend to feel that people who make money on their own have a responsibility to such unfortunates.
Personally I don't see that I have any such responsibility. That is one reason I am an Objectivist. I like to help folks at times, but I don't feel like I'm worth less as a person if I choose not to help those folks.
That text book does not look at the issues from the viewpoints of an actual Conservative, much less an Objectivist. That's why I despise it.
I am wondering, as I think aloud, if you had any experiences like mine. I'm not talking about absolute similarity, but rather some degree of convergence so that you know, emotionally, what I am talking about.
Best always,
Mike
What's up with the primarily domestic functions thing!? I'd love to follow the parenthetical source.
I esp reject the claim that it's useful to have poor people. I don't know anyone who says that.
It's clear that the book was written from a liberal progressive perspective and since when has accuracy been a factor in books written for the purpose of indoctrination?
Fred Speckmann
commonsenseforamericans@yahoo.com
You figured it out, being capable does not mean being willing to do something, especially when welfare steps in to take the pressure off the individual.
Furthermore, anyone with a lick of sense would recognize the absurdity of the concept of useful poor people for the sake of wealthy peoples success.
Fred Speckmann
commonsenseforamericans@yahoo.com
I mean, we're not stupid. We can look and see that if we gave 100 people everything they ever needed in life, plus some luxuries for them and their kids, probably 50 of them wouldn't do any work at all, while 75 of them wouldn't do any USEFUL work.
Heck, has anyone read the Bible? It's got the most true view on human nature I've ever seen. Selfish, lazy, greedy, jealous, envious, covetous, gluttons...
What else would you expect anyway?
If we *have* to describe this model (we really don't), this textbook does not seem outrageous. It all sounds right to me except for the things about people being incapable of charity and wanting to have an underclass.
The joke about conservatives is their for law and order, mainly order not so much law.
I'm around people who mostly think their "liberal". I don't think they want to tax, fine, and outlaw things as you say. But I question if they really are liberals or if liberalism is even real. It is just something everyone says to avoid being on the wrong side of a shouting match that exists only on TV and radio?
Conservatives believe that laws are universal and that governments are instituted to uphold these universal truths. They hold that every valid law applies to everyone equally.
I'll just toss in Libertarians here, because the main difference I see between Conservatives and Libertarians isn't in the principle of universal law, but rather the Source of universal law: conservatives generally attribute a divine source to law and Libertarians generally attribute reason as the source of law.
Liberals/Progressives are based on social freedom and financial controls.
Conservatives are based on social controls and financial freedoms.
Libertarianism is based on both social and financial freedom.
Anarchism, on the other hand, is not merely freedom but outright lack of any systems.
and does your definition of financial freedom mean freedom from property rights?
And property rights are a necessary foundation of financial freedom.
Rothbard's Man, Economy, and State (1963) was patterned after Human Action, and in some areas--monopoly theory, utility and welfare, and the theory of the state--tightened and trengthened Mises's own views. Rothbard's approach to the Austrian School followed directly in the line of Late Scholastic thought by applying economic science within a framework of a natural-rights theory of property. What resulted was a full-fledged defense of a capitalistic and stateless social order, based on property and freedom of association and contract.
But to get back to the original theme - by and large the Austrian School does in fact support private property rights. As with many things, there are of course exceptions/nuances.
The story of the Austrian School begins in the fifteenth century, when the followers of St. Thomas Aquinas, writing and teaching at the University of Salamanca in Spain, sought to explain the full range of human action and social organization.
These Late Scholastics observed the existence of economic law, inexorable forces of cause and effect that operate very much as other natural laws. Over the course of several generations, they discovered and explained the laws of supply and demand, the cause of inflation, the operation of foreign exchange rates, and the subjective nature of economic value--all reasons Joseph Schumpeter celebrated them as the first real economists.
The Late Scholastics were advocates of property rights and the freedom to contract and trade. They celebrated the contribution of business to society, while doggedly opposing taxes, price controls, and regulations that inhibited enterprise. As moral theologians, they urged governments to obey ethical strictures against theft and murder. And they lived up to Ludwig von Mises's rule: the first job of an economist is to tell governments what they cannot do.
Real, tangible property rights result from natural scarcity. Note this is not consistent with Locke, who states the property rights derive from the fact that you own yourself so you own the product of your efforts. This is the basis of the US Declaration of Independence and Common Law.
I don't know where you got the info on Austrian school and intellectual property. I'm no expert, but that doesn't jibe with what I understand about the body of thought. Innovation is a key aspect of the Austrian School, and so I would find it hard to believe that they would advocate policies that would hinder innovation. Can you provide a source? I'd be interested in where that came from.
For my own two cents, there is a difference between advocating for Private Property rights and advocating for the Patent System...but probably not in khalling's world view. Not going to enter into that debate - just seeking to provide some context to a prominent Austrian view of patents.
The problem that I have with patent law in particular is the concept of "prior art." Regardless of whether an entity (person or company) develops an idea totally independently, if it were documented by someone else at an earlier time, then that earlier instance has primacy. That seems immoral to me. I understand protecting the investment that one makes in an innovation from being ripped off by another who then uses the idea to make profit without having incurred the original investment, but should that protection override the first instance of independent development?
As an engineering manager, I had to read patents to ensure that we weren't going down paths that were going to get us into trouble. While not a patent attorney, I have some experience from an actual IP perspective on these things.
So, with all due respect, I have to disagree on the ease of searchability.
As an engineer, I'm competent to read a patent and should be able to understand it.
Plus, I have experience with patent attorneys who forthrightly stated that it was their job to make the understanding of the patent as difficult as possible so as to hide the innovation.
Being an engineer is one qualification for expertise in doing a search and opinion-based on the reading of claim structure. There is special skill that is developed in the writing and reading of claims based both on engineering and patent law. No one stops you for taking the risk of doing one yourself, however.
This paper on the differences between Hayek and Rand shows the problems with the Austrian theory of economics. Fundamentally Austrians do not ground economics in reality and reason, they ground them on the limited power of reason to know reality.
Hayek made a powerful argument as to why socialism could not work based on the inability of any human or group of humans being able to know all cause and effect information in real time so as to properly and efficiently allocate resources to satisfy the wants and needs of the populace. Thus, a socialist system will always be less efficient than a free-market system (notice I didn't say Capitalist) whereby the actions of individuals will cause the most efficient allocation of those scarce resources.
Yes, however it was all based on man's inability to know enough as a central planner. He was not morally against socialism. That is important.
Particularly notable quotes from Mr Hayek:
"There is no reason why in a free society government should not assure to all, protection against severe deprivation in the form of an assured minimum income, or a floor below which nobody need descend."
"Nor is there any reason why the state should not assist the individuals in providing for those common hazards of life against which, because of their uncertainty, few individuals can make adequate provision. Where, as in the case of sickness and accident, neither the desire to avoid such calamities nor the efforts to overcome their consequences are as a rule weakened by the provision of assistance – where, in short, we deal with genuinely insurable risks – the case for the state's helping to organize a comprehensive system of social insurance is very strong"
My view: Hayek was staunchly anti-Socialist. However, it is a fair assessment that he was not pro-Capitalist out of any core philosophy that lead him there, and that's why you see such surprising things come out of the mouth of a guy that despised Socialism. He's basically advocating Socialist positions here - they just weren't what the socialists of his day were agitating for.
The article is very interesting. I think it is fair to argue that Rand and Hayek may have differing epistemology. That being said: I believe they came very close to the same policy preferences. For that, I still value Hayek. My understanding, was not so much that Hayek believed man could not know, but that any one man could not know everything happening in the market... not limited power to know reality, but to be knowledgeable of all factors. I may have to investigate further some of the references provided. Either way Hayek's economic vision would be a boom and a stark contrast compared to what we have now.
Regards,
O.A.
You don't seem to want to accept that morality is arbitrary. Let's just look at murder. Is murder moral? Most would say not, but then what about abortion and the death penalty? Rational and logical arguments can be made on different sides of the issue and all be "right."
Have you read The Virtue of Selfishness? Our country was founded on the principle that Man owns himself. That is not arbitrary. It is a moral basis. Socialism is based on the opposite principle. Therefore is evil. One should not base their life on pragmatism. People do. That's why we keep having to fight socialism in the world.
So, yes, morality is arbitrary. Lucky for us that most of us have an instilled code of morality coming from a religious basis.
I would state it differently: there are systems of law that are derived from the standpoint of universal law - where everyone is subject to the same laws and that the laws exist independent of any governing body - and arbitrary law - where each individual determines their own moral standards. They are philosophically contradictory models. By virtue of our ability to determine our own course, we independently choose the kind of morality we pursue, so in this we all make an individual moral decision on the type of moral compass to employ. Once we select either the relative of universal model, (most choose the universal one) we must then delve into all of the many versions of the universal theory - which is where any particular moral stance (such as one's position on the punishment for murder) comes into play.
I don't think "arbitrary" is the right word to use because it indicates a lack of a thoughtful position, but for some people it probably applies. ;)
I agree. Experience is a great teacher, and he was trying to find the best way to be persuasive. IMHO he succeeded.
Regards,
O.A.
Summary: Mises sees economic calculation as the most fundamental problem in economics. The economic problem to Mises is that of action. Man acts to dispel feelings of uneasiness, but can only succeed in acting if he comprehends causal connections between the ends that he wants to satisfy, and available means. The fact that man resides in a world of causality means that he faces definite choices as to how he satisfies his ends. Human action is an application of human reason to select the best means of satisfying ends. The reasoning mind evaluates and grades different options. This is economic calculation.
Economic calculations are important, however, with any proof, it needs to first derive from a logical foundation.
Hayek is often criticized for the statement that if there were a omniscient entity that knew all effects and future effects there would be no cause for liberty. This, of course, is impossible for humanity, so the very idea is merely a thought experiment. Since this is not the case, then the most efficient means for an economy is through full liberty.
Science does require a certain philosophical basis. A is A
Rand did not explore the science of physics or economics. But she did explore the philosophy of science. I think Economics falls into the science category.
The general Austrian economic view of property rights is a system for defining ownership over scarce resources.
"Kinsella presents this view of intellectual property as a creation of the State; an artificial construct that would not exist in a free market system. I believe this is the main reason for libertarian opposition to the concept of intellectual property – because it is framed in the context of the State, and associated with all of the terrible things that the State and crony capitalist firms have done in the name of IP. From the evil censorship laws proposed in CISPA and SOPA to major corporations like Apple using IP laws to shut down competition through “patent trolling”, the State and it’s crony partners in crime have used intellectual property as a cover for all sorts of nasty, anti-liberty maneuvers."
IP as codified by patent and copyright laws are in fact artificial creations of the state.
Now if they start declaring all IP property of the State (like they do in China), one can assuredly assert IP as an artificial creation of the State.
For example, I've worked for several companies in which I was required to sign away my IP rights as a condition of employment. If it were a natural right, then this would not be permissible.
The idea behind natural rights is that they derive from the fact that you own yourself. That any other possibility means you are a slave-that's not natural. It doesn't mean that others will respect your rights.
There is a difference between your natural rights and the exact implementation of laws to protect those rights (ie. deed)
I could have stated it differently thus:
Liberals want to be free to separate decisions from their consequences. Conservatives recognize that choices lead to consequences - that they are inseparate. The differences between Conservatives and Libertarians is on the nature of the consequences, which is why they tend to differ on social issues but concur on economic issues.
Any of these ideologies can easily be recognized in their policy-making and results.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/02/...
Here we have the Mayor of New York City proposing a set of rules, but not applying those same consequences to himself. Is this just a case of mistaken causal vectors or just blatant hypocrisy?
The quandary regarding progressives boils down to a fundamental premise: do progressives look out for the best interest of society. We can take either the optimistic view and accept their claims that they do despite the results of their policy decisions, or we can take the more realistic view: that they make policy decisions with regard only for their own personal interest. The proof of the detrimental effects to society of progressive policies extends through history. Yet they continue to make the same flawed policy decisions. As a result, one can only reasonably conclude that either progressives arrogantly believe that they are different than previous progressive decision-makers and that somehow they can divorce cause and effect for their decisions, or that they are liars when they claim to be making decisions that benefit others. I can see no other explanation (barring extreme incompetence and ignorance).
It all eventually comes back to assumptions and motivations. The problem I see with progressives is that they have motivations which are built on the accumulation of power and control. This is amply demonstrated by looking at the effects of any of their policies. Ignore the rhetoric and the arguments entirely and solely focus on the results. The rhetoric is a sales pitch designed to appeal to the temporary emotions.
The larger problem is that when viewed as a basis for society, these ideals crumble and fail under their own weight every time they are used! History itself is replete with examples - "Atlas Shrugged" notwithstanding.