Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
Raskolnikov38
Mar 3, 2007

We were somewhere around Manila when the drugs began to take hold
To be fair if an MRI was only twenty bucks I'd probably get one once in a while as a preventive measure thing.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Political Whores
Feb 13, 2012

This came up in the bitcoin thread and I thought of you all

Herman Merman posted:

http://mises.org/library/defending-blackmailer

let me just quote the last part in its entirety:

quote:

In addition to being a legitimate activity, blackmail has some good effects, litanies to the contrary notwithstanding. Apart from some innocent victims who are caught in the net, who does the blackmailer usually prey upon?

In the main, there are two groups. One group is composed of criminals: murderers, thieves, swindlers, embezzlers, cheaters, rapists, etc. The other group consists of people who engage in activities, not illegitimate in themselves, that are contrary to the mores and habits of the majority: homosexuals, sadomasochists, sexual perverts, communists, adulterers, etc. The institution of blackmail has beneficial, but different, effects upon each of these groups.

In the case of criminals, blackmail and the threat of blackmail serve as deterrents. They add to the risks involved in criminal activity. How many of the anonymous tips received by the police — the value of which cannot be overestimated — can be traced, directly or indirectly, to blackmail? How many criminals are led to pursue crime on their own, eschewing the aid of fellow criminals in "jobs" that call for cooperation, out of the fear of possible blackmail?

Finally, there are those individuals who are on the verge of committing crimes, or at the "margin of criminality" (as the economist would say), where the least factor will propel them one way or another. The additional fear of blackmail may be enough, in some cases, to dissuade them from crime.

If blackmail itself were legalized, it would undoubtedly be an even more effective deterrent. Legalization would undoubtedly result in an increase in blackmail, with attendant depredations upon the criminal class.

It is sometimes said that what diminishes crime is not the penalty attached to the crime but the certainty of being caught. Although this controversy rages with great relevance in current debates on capital punishment, it will suffice to point out that the institution of blackmail does both. It increases the penalty associated with crime, as it forces criminals to share part of their loot with the blackmailer. It also raises the probability of being apprehended, as blackmailers are added to police forces, private citizen and vigilante groups, and other anticrime units.

Blackmailers, who are often members in good standing in the criminal world, are in an advantageous position to foil crimes. Their "inside" status surpasses even that of the spy or infiltrator, who is forced to play a role.

Legalizing blackmail would thus allow anticrime units to take advantage of two basic crime fighting adages at the same time: "divide and conquer," and "lack of honor among thieves." It is quite clear that one important effect of legalizing blackmail would be to diminish crime — real crime, that is.

The legalization of blackmail would also have a beneficial effect upon actions that do not involve aggression, but are at variance with the mores of society as a whole. On these actions, the legalization of blackmail would have a liberating effect. Even with blackmail still illegal, we are witnessing some of its beneficial effects.

Homosexuality, for instance, is technically illegal in some instances, but not really criminal, since it involves no aggression. For individual homosexuals, blackmail very often causes considerable harm and can hardly be considered beneficial. But for the group as a whole, that is, for each individual as a member of the group, blackmail has helped by making the public more aware and accustomed to homosexuality.

Who What Now
Sep 10, 2006

by Azathoth

Political Whores posted:

This came up in the bitcoin thread and I thought of you all


This guys is saying that outing gays against their wishes, which in some cases can get the homosexual person in question killed, has overall been a good thing because it makes people "aware and accustomed" to gays? What the actual gently caress?! :psyboom:

Caros
May 14, 2008

Who What Now posted:

This guys is saying that outing gays against their wishes, which in some cases can get the homosexual person in question killed, has overall been a good thing because it makes people "aware and accustomed" to gays? What the actual gently caress?! :psyboom:

I've seen them defend contract killing as not a violation of the NAP so this isn't that shocking. Still stupid tho.

Buried alive
Jun 8, 2009

Caros posted:

I've seen them defend contract killing as not a violation of the NAP so this isn't that shocking. Still stupid tho.

How exactly is that supposed to work? I mean, there's no way it can without causing something else to collapse, but how is it supposed to work?

Captain_Maclaine
Sep 30, 2001

Every moment that I'm alive, I pray for death!

Buried alive posted:

How exactly is that supposed to work? I mean, there's no way it can without causing something else to collapse, but how is it supposed to work?

The argument is that the onus of guilt falls upon the person who takes the contract and commits the actual murder. The person who puts the hit out isn't committing any aggression themselves, they're just advertising their willingness to enter into a contract agreement with someone else who might, of their own free will, then go on to violate NAP. This reflects the moral sophistication we've all come to expect from bitcoiners, of course, and is in no way the equivalent of grade-school playground rules lawyering.

Captain_Maclaine fucked around with this message at 01:51 on Jan 3, 2015

Antares
Jan 13, 2006

But the killer would have no intrinsic motivation to kill the person until you made it valuable by offering remunerations for his services. It's still non-aggression because the hitman has mixed his labor with the decedent, making them his property to do with as he pleased.

woke wedding drone
Jun 1, 2003

by exmarx
Fun Shoe
Yeah and the target has presumably burnt all their bridges with any competing DROs who would normally negotiate on their behalf or defend them.

This is considered "great."

Mornacale
Dec 19, 2007

n=y where
y=hope and n=folly,
prospects=lies, win=lose,

self=Pirates

Antares posted:

But the killer would have no intrinsic motivation to kill the person until you made it valuable by offering remunerations for his services. It's still non-aggression because the hitman has mixed his labor with the decedent, making them his property to do with as he pleased.

The means justify the ends.

QuarkJets
Sep 8, 2008

Antares posted:

But the killer would have no intrinsic motivation to kill the person until you made it valuable by offering remunerations for his services. It's still non-aggression because the hitman has mixed his labor with the decedent, making them his property to do with as he pleased.

"Mixing your labor" is one of the dumbest features of libertarianism, and it's also my favorite because it's downright anti-capitalist in nature. If you take it to its logical conclusion, it completely destroys the bourgeoisie. If you work on an assembly line, you've mixed your labor with whatever part of the assembly line you happen to be working, therefore it becomes yours. This lets you charge the next guy in the assembly line a "fair market" value for whatever you produce, and in turn you pay the people behind you. The only person who does not get paid is the original factory owner, since that person doesn't work in the factory. Rinse and repeat; bakers own the ovens, the maid owns your house, etc. Libertarians hold themselves in great esteem and believe that they will become the factory owners in their libertarian free-market paradise, but if everyone follows the "mix your labor with the land to make the land yours" philosophy then there can be no factory owners.

QuarkJets fucked around with this message at 04:06 on Jan 3, 2015

Tacky-Ass Rococco
Sep 7, 2010

by R. Guyovich

QuarkJets posted:

"Mixing your labor" is one of the dumbest features of libertarianism, and it's also my favorite because it's downright anti-capitalist in nature. If you take it to its logical conclusion, it completely destroys the bourgeoisie. If you work on an assembly line, you've mixed your labor with whatever part of the assembly line you happen to be working, therefore it becomes yours. This lets you charge the next guy in the assembly line a "fair market" value for whatever you produce, and in turn you pay the people behind you. The only person who does not get paid is the original factory owner, since that person doesn't work in the factory. Rinse and repeat; bakers own the ovens, the maid owns your house, etc. Libertarians hold themselves in great esteem and believe that they will become the factory owners in their libertarian free-market paradise, but if everyone follows the "mix your labor with the land to make the land yours" philosophy then there can be no factory owners.

While the theory is lovely, this is a pretty clear misinterpretation. A farm worker getting paid a wage is not the same as a homesteader making a go of it on their own, and libertarian theory specifically speaks of the latter as their model for "mixing of labor."

Goon Danton
May 24, 2012

Don't forget to show my shitposts to the people. They're well worth seeing.

QuarkJets posted:

"Mixing your labor" is one of the dumbest features of libertarianism, and it's also my favorite because it's downright anti-capitalist in nature. If you take it to its logical conclusion, it completely destroys the bourgeoisie. If you work on an assembly line, you've mixed your labor with whatever part of the assembly line you happen to be working, therefore it becomes yours. This lets you charge the next guy in the assembly line a "fair market" value for whatever you produce, and in turn you pay the people behind you. The only person who does not get paid is the original factory owner, since that person doesn't work in the factory. Rinse and repeat; bakers own the ovens, the maid owns your house, etc. Libertarians hold themselves in great esteem and believe that they will become the factory owners in their libertarian free-market paradise, but if everyone follows the "mix your labor with the land to make the land yours" philosophy then there can be no factory owners.

Don't worry, the bourgeoisie get to keep all their poo poo. Mixing your Labor with the Soil only counts when it's unowned property, or property that belongs to savages people who aren't utilizing it. Once it's owned, it has to be either formally transferred to another person or "abandoned" to change hands like that.

A good rule of thumb with libertarianism is that if a theory seems to comfort the afflicted or afflict the comfortable in any way, you're probably misreading it.

ToxicSlurpee
Nov 5, 2003

-=SEND HELP=-


Pillbug

QuarkJets posted:

"Mixing your labor" is one of the dumbest features of libertarianism, and it's also my favorite because it's downright anti-capitalist in nature. If you take it to its logical conclusion, it completely destroys the bourgeoisie. If you work on an assembly line, you've mixed your labor with whatever part of the assembly line you happen to be working, therefore it becomes yours. This lets you charge the next guy in the assembly line a "fair market" value for whatever you produce, and in turn you pay the people behind you. The only person who does not get paid is the original factory owner, since that person doesn't work in the factory. Rinse and repeat; bakers own the ovens, the maid owns your house, etc. Libertarians hold themselves in great esteem and believe that they will become the factory owners in their libertarian free-market paradise, but if everyone follows the "mix your labor with the land to make the land yours" philosophy then there can be no factory owners.

But if you manage a factory you are increasing its efficiency which benefits everybody there. If you invent something you have made everything better and everybody that uses said invention must pay you. What they generally believe is that they are genius ubermensch that will have amazing ideas that will improve everything and make them rich. It destroys the idle rich yes but they believe they're just so amazing they'll be rich anyway.

Who What Now
Sep 10, 2006

by Azathoth

ToxicSlurpee posted:

But if you manage a factory you are increasing its efficiency which benefits everybody there. If you invent something you have made everything better and everybody that uses said invention must pay you. What they generally believe is that they are genius ubermensch that will have amazing ideas that will improve everything and make them rich. It destroys the idle rich yes but they believe they're just so amazing they'll be rich anyway.

Nope! Remember that there is no such thing as patents or intellectual property so the second you invent something expect everyone and their dog to reverse-engineer it produce their own versions for cheaper.

Muscle Tracer
Feb 23, 2007

Medals only weigh one down.

Captain_Maclaine posted:

The argument is that the onus of guilt falls upon the person who takes the contract and commits the actual murder. The person who puts the hit out isn't committing any aggression themselves, they're just advertising their willingness to enter into a contract agreement with someone else who might, of their own free will, then go on to violate NAP. This reflects the moral sophistication we've all come to expect from bitcoiners, of course, and is in no way the equivalent of grade-school playground rules lawyering.

The best part of this is that it applies equally to the State! It's not immoral for Bronco Bama to order the Army to forcibly confiscate a portion of your paycheck: it's actually YOUR fault for giving it to them. Quit aggressing against yourselves, ancaps!

Ms Adequate
Oct 30, 2011

Baby even when I'm dead and gone
You will always be my only one, my only one
When the night is calling
No matter who I become
You will always be my only one, my only one, my only one
When the night is calling



Who What Now posted:

This guys is saying that outing gays against their wishes, which in some cases can get the homosexual person in question killed, has overall been a good thing because it makes people "aware and accustomed" to gays? What the actual gently caress?! :psyboom:

The best part here is, even if the argument was itself sound and not reprehensible, libertarianism is supposed to be about the individual, not society. Their reaction should be "So what if it helps society as a whole? Individuals were harmed, and their wishes directly contravened." not "Oh well it's a shame some people suffered, but it helped that minority as a group and society in general." If they weren't trying to justify their own surrender to their most base of instincts, of course.

QuarkJets
Sep 8, 2008

Jack of Hearts posted:

While the theory is lovely, this is a pretty clear misinterpretation. A farm worker getting paid a wage is not the same as a homesteader making a go of it on their own, and libertarian theory specifically speaks of the latter as their model for "mixing of labor."

The rules of working the land are entirely arbitrary and subject to interpretation, in libertopia. As an example, if the farm owner went away for 10 years while the farm hands continued working, then under the homesteading rules the farm hands would surely get the farm. Now suddenly you have to determine how long is long enough for claiming ownership. Does the farmer have to work the land once every 10 years in order to continue claiming ownership? Yearly? Monthly? Daily? At what point do the farmhands say "the owner has been gone for too long, now we're the owners"

And since all of this poo poo is arbitrary anyway, why couldn't it be applied to a factory or a grocery or an office building? Because libertarians dislike the possibilities created by these scenarios, so the free market wouldn't let it happen to CAPTAINS OF INDUSTRY

paragon1
Nov 22, 2010

FULL COMMUNISM NOW
You are making the assumption that workers are people and not indistinguishable units of labor QuarkJets.

Mavric
Dec 14, 2006

I said "this is going to be the most significant televisual event since Quantum Leap." And I do not say that lightly.
Pretty sure its called human resources.

Mornacale
Dec 19, 2007

n=y where
y=hope and n=folly,
prospects=lies, win=lose,

self=Pirates

Mister Adequate posted:

The best part here is, even if the argument was itself sound and not reprehensible, libertarianism is supposed to be about the individual, not society. Their reaction should be "So what if it helps society as a whole? Individuals were harmed, and their wishes directly contravened." not "Oh well it's a shame some people suffered, but it helped that minority as a group and society in general." If they weren't trying to justify their own surrender to their most base of instincts, of course.

Ah, but you're forgetting about the freedom of the poor blackmailer!

Captain_Maclaine
Sep 30, 2001

Every moment that I'm alive, I pray for death!

Mister Adequate posted:

The best part here is, even if the argument was itself sound and not reprehensible, libertarianism is supposed to be about the individual, not society. Their reaction should be "So what if it helps society as a whole? Individuals were harmed, and their wishes directly contravened." not "Oh well it's a shame some people suffered, but it helped that minority as a group and society in general." If they weren't trying to justify their own surrender to their most base of instincts, of course.

Why, it's almost as if libertarian reasoning is but the thinnest wallpaper over an ideology of naked self-interest, in the service of which literally anything is justifiable! :monocle:

asdf32
May 15, 2010

I lust for childrens' deaths. Ask me about how I don't care if my kids die.

Captain_Maclaine posted:

Why, it's almost as if libertarian reasoning is but the thinnest wallpaper over an ideology of naked self-interest, in the service of which literally anything is justifiable! :monocle:

I still have a big problem with people conflating actual ancaps with conservatives. It gives the ancaps far too much credit. They have nothing to do with one another and there is a vast gulf between them.

Ancap ideology isn't accounted for by "naked self-interest" because it's not plausibly in anyone's interest. The only thing that accounts for ancap ideology is delusion. Buckets of conspiracy theory/religious cult level delusion.

Fados
Jan 7, 2013
I like Malcolm X, I can't be racist!

Put this racist dipshit on ignore immediately!

asdf32 posted:

I still have a big problem with people conflating actual ancaps with conservatives. It gives the ancaps far too much credit. They have nothing to do with one another and there is a vast gulf between them.

Ancap ideology isn't accounted for by "naked self-interest" because it's not plausibly in anyone's interest. The only thing that accounts for ancap ideology is delusion. Buckets of conspiracy theory/religious cult level delusion.

Said everyone about every ideology ever. But listen I found this one that's really it...

Muscle Tracer
Feb 23, 2007

Medals only weigh one down.

Fados posted:

Said everyone about every ideology ever. But listen I found this one that's really it...

Most political ideologies are based on the analysis of fact. It's easy to forget that libertarianism isn't, and from its very genesis rejected even the possibility of empirical testing.

ToxicSlurpee
Nov 5, 2003

-=SEND HELP=-


Pillbug
A lot of current libertarian thought comes from organizations funded almost entirely by dark money from people like the Kochs. In some cases they are all of the funding. Take a wild guess who is supposed to benefit from libertarian policy.

Goon Danton
May 24, 2012

Don't forget to show my shitposts to the people. They're well worth seeing.

How do people feel about This Week in Mises.org becoming a weekly thing? If you all had enough "fun" with the first round, I'll sift through the site again and post something tonight or tomorrow.

Fados
Jan 7, 2013
I like Malcolm X, I can't be racist!

Put this racist dipshit on ignore immediately!

Muscle Tracer posted:

Most political ideologies are based on the analysis of fact. It's easy to forget that libertarianism isn't, and from its very genesis rejected even the possibility of empirical testing.

I really disagree. Every ideology is based on the need to cover an universal existencial anguish with a certain narrative. Facts are then manipulated to fit in to it.

paragon1
Nov 22, 2010

FULL COMMUNISM NOW
Promise you'll wear gloves.

Mornacale
Dec 19, 2007

n=y where
y=hope and n=folly,
prospects=lies, win=lose,

self=Pirates

Nolanar posted:

How do people feel about This Week in Mises.org becoming a weekly thing? If you all had enough "fun" with the first round, I'll sift through the site again and post something tonight or tomorrow.

Please do.

Muscle Tracer
Feb 23, 2007

Medals only weigh one down.

Fados posted:

I really disagree. Every ideology is based on the need to cover an universal existencial anguish with a certain narrative. Facts are then manipulated to fit in to it.

If you're talking about religion or libertarianism, sure. That's not how something like socialism, capitalism, liberalism, etc. are formed.

QuarkJets
Sep 8, 2008

Nolanar posted:

How do people feel about This Week in Mises.org becoming a weekly thing? If you all had enough "fun" with the first round, I'll sift through the site again and post something tonight or tomorrow.

So long as you remember that when you stare into the abyss, the abyss stares back into you

Captain Sheepy
Nov 22, 2013

My apologies!

Nolanar posted:

How do people feel about This Week in Mises.org becoming a weekly thing? If you all had enough "fun" with the first round, I'll sift through the site again and post something tonight or tomorrow.

I say :justpost:

Libertarian articles are the funniest poo poo.

Goon Danton
May 24, 2012

Don't forget to show my shitposts to the people. They're well worth seeing.

paragon1 posted:

Promise you'll wear gloves.

If I were choosing protective equipment for this, I'd have to go with a private browsing session. Youtube is already suggesting Stefan Molyneux videos after my last excursion.

SA is being ornery, so I'm typing this in notepad while I wait for it to be fixed. Apologies for any formatting issues I don't catch. Anywho,

:ancap: This Week in Mises.org! :ancap:

Vintage Rothbard to Ring In The New Year :confuoot: posted:

As you spend the day with family and friends, we thought you might take some time away from bowl games to enjoy a vintage Rothbard speech that touches on twin themes appropriate to January 1st: reflecting on the past while looking to the future.

Filmed on the Stanford University campus at the second Mises University in 1988, he contemplates the future of liberty and Austrian economics against the (then) current backdrop of a disintegrating Soviet Empire. And while the moustaches, feathered hair, and mullets in the audience may no longer be fashionable, Murray's message is timeless.

This thing is over forty-five minutes long. Have at it.

Government Spending Does Not Help the Economy posted:

Some economists such as Nobel Laureate Paul Krugman [Krugman! :argh: -ed] hold that during an economic slump it is the duty of the government to run large budget deficits in order to keep the economy going. On this score — given that from 2011 to 2014 the rate of growth of real gross domestic product (GDP) hovered at around 2 percent — many experts are of the view that the budget deficit, which stood at $483 billion in 2014, wasn’t large enough.

[Chart showing correlation between change in GDP and budget surplus/deficit]

According to this way of thinking, if overall demand in the economy weakens on account of a weakening in consumer outlays, then the government must step in and boost its spending in order to prevent overall demand from declining. Note that government outlays in 2014 stood at $3.5 trillion against $1.788 trillion in 2000 — an increase of 96 percent.

[...]

Why More Spending Is Bad News

We suggest that the goal of fixing the budget deficit as such, whether to keep it large or trying to eliminate it altogether, could be an erroneous policy. Ultimately what matters for the economy is not the size of the budget deficit but the size of government outlays — the amount of resources that government diverts to its own activities. Note that contrary to Krugman we hold that an increase in government outlays is bad news for the economy.

Observe that a government is not a wealth generating entity — the more it spends the more resources it has to take from wealth generators.

[...]

For instance, if the government would have lifted taxes to $3 trillion and as a result would have a balanced budget, would this alter the fact that it still takes $3 trillion of resources from wealth generators? In fact, an increase in government outlays sets in motion an increase in the diversion of wealth from wealth generating activities to non-wealth generating activities. It leads to economic impoverishment. So in this sense an increase in government outlays to boost the overall economy’s demand should be regarded as bad news for the wealth generating process and hence to the economy.

Contrary to commentators such as Krugman, the IMF, and various Fed officials, we suggest that a cut in government outlays should be seen as great news for wealth generators. It is of course bad news for various artificial forms of life that emerged on the back of increases in government outlays.

I like that the possibility of government spending being able to generate wealth is dismissed out of hand with zero discussion.

Chinese Savings vs. American Spending posted:

Furthermore, America’s mainstream financial media often stresses the importance of consumption for economic growth. The belief that if citizens refuse to spend (the media often takes Japan as an example), the government will need to spend on people’s behalf to encourage economic circulation. This flimsy theory goes further and claims that if growth is far from the target rate, the central bank will have to intervene, printing money to stimulate consumption or use negative interest rates to punish savers, forcing them to spend. For decades after World War II, only the top 10 percent who really understood the rules of the game invested their savings in multinational stocks, real estate, jewelry, antiques, and artwork. Apart from this group of asset holders, who are difficult to punish through induced inflation, the majority of people avoid government penalties through consumption and low savings rates. The problems begin when consumption becomes a habit, most people lose the ability to save, and the government is forcing itself to bear future responsibilities of these short-term thinking and welfare-reliant individuals.

According to 2011 data, 108 million low-income Americans receive welfare, exceeding the 110 million full-time employed individuals in the country. Together with non-means-tested welfare programs, including social security and veteran living expenses, the total number of people receiving benefits amounts to 150 million, which is nearly half of the US population. The question must then be asked: despite boasting top innovators that contribute strongly to society, due to America’s large scale of non-saving and highly non-productive citizens who are a huge burden on the state, how can such a nation not fall behind eventually?

This one is mostly just standard "China is eclipsing the USA" rhetoric that wouldn't seem out of place in any normal news outlet, except for the quoted bit. This isn't doing it for me. I need something stronger.

How Reducing GDP Increases Economic Growth posted:

Recently, the Financial Times published an article containing charts displaying the correlation between government spending and real GDP growth.1 Based on these correlations, the author of the article, Matthew Klein, comments: “It’s no secret that spending cuts (and tax hikes) have retarded America’s growth for the past four years.” He goes on to argue that from mid-2010 to mid-2011, the reduction in government spending in the US shaved 0.76 percent off of the economic growth rate. Klein conjectures that this slowdown in the growth rate caused a level of real GDP today that is 1.2 percent less than it would have been in the absence of this exercise in “austerity.” He also points out that since 2012 almost all of the depressive effect on real GDP growth of government austerity was the result of the reduction in military spending. While some of the reduction was beneficial, Klein opines, “some of it represents a self-inflicted wound.” Indeed it may represent a self-inflicted wound on the Federal government, but in that case it benefits the private economy.

Now it is certainly true that a reduction in real government spending causes a reduction in real GDP, as it is officially calculated. But contrary to Mr. Klein, the reduction in government spending does not retard the growth of production of goods that satisfy consumer demands and, in fact, most likely accelerates it. In addition, real incomes and living standards of producers/consumers in the private sector rise as a direct result of the decline in government spending. The reason for this seeming paradox lies in the conventional method used to calculate real output in the economy. Let me explain with a simple example.

Let us suppose a simple island economy in which the private sector produces 1,000 apples per year. Suppose further that the government of the island taxes the private producers 200 apples per year to sustain its military as it invades a neighboring island in order to neutralize a “potential terrorist threat.” [This example continues at this exact level of nuance for some time.] The [private sector] apples were voluntarily produced and therefore were demonstrably more highly valued than the resources (effort and time) used to produce them. In sharp contrast, there is no evidence whatever that the private producers/consumers valued the military services supplied by government more highly than the cost of producing them or even that they valued them at all. The reason is because government military spending was financed by the coercive extraction of resources from the private sector, whose members had no choice and therefore expressed no valuations in the matter.

The same conclusion holds for any coercively-financed venture, such as government construction of an island infirmary. In the absence of voluntary production and exchange, there is no meaningful way of ascertaining the value of goods and services. The government investments and services may have some value to private consumers, but there is no objective scientific method of gauging what that value is. Indeed, assuming government wastes at least 50 percent of the resources expended [:allears:], the net benefit to consumers of government production would be zero.

So for these and other reasons, national income accounting on Austrian principles would exclude government expenditures in calculating the total production of the economy. Thus in our island economy real output or what Austrians, following Murray Rothbard, call “Gross Private Product” or “GPP” is equal to only the 1,000 apples produced by the private sector and excludes government expenditures of 200 apples on the provision of military services (or an infirmary). But the 1,000 apples of GPP actually overstates the resources left at the disposal of the private sector, because 200 apples were forcibly siphoned off from potentially valuable private consumption and investment activities to fund government activities that can only be judged as wasteful from the point of view of the original producers of those resources. In this sense the 200 apples paid in taxes can be seen as a “depredation” on the private economy as measured by GPP. [Ed: I believe we are now suddenly treating government spending as 100% waste instead of a "mere" 50%.]

Netting out this depredation we then arrive at what Rothbard calls “private product remaining in private hands” or PPR. PPR equals GPP minus total depredation (i.e., government spending). In our hypothetical island economy PPR is therefore 800 apples (= 1,000 apples – 200 apples). Thus government spending should not be added to private production but rather subtracted from it to get a sense of the living standards of private persons engaged in productive economic activity.

[...]From the Austrian standpoint, then, the path back to immediate economic health and sustainable long-term growth is massive tax and spending cuts anywhere and everywhere. Yes, this is austerity — but only for the government. Slashing political depredation on the private economy will release a cornucopia of current and future benefits on private consumers. And these benefits are virtually cost free because the resources consumed by the government budget are almost all a pure waste from the point of view of the private producers of those resources.

Yeah, that's the good stuff. Take that "bad thing actually good thing" and inject it straight into my veins!

The 'Dog-Eat-Dog' Delusion posted:

When people want to add extra “oomph” to negative depictions of self-owners acting without coercion — that is, market competition under capitalism — they turn to name-calling. One of the most effective forms is describing such competition as dog-eat-dog. When that characterization is accepted, the mountain of evidence in favor of voluntary social coordination can be dismissed on the grounds that it involves a vicious and ugly process so harmful to people that it outweighs any benefits.

Unfortunately, dog-eat-dog imagery for market competition is entirely misleading. It not only misrepresents market competition as having properties that are absent in truly free arrangements, but those properties are essential characteristics of government, the usual “solution” offered to the evils of dog-eat-dog competition. Further, it frames the issue in a way that precludes most people from recognizing why the analogy fails.

To begin with, dog-eat-dog is an odd way to characterize anything. I have never seen a dog eat another dog. I don’t know anyone who has. In fact, some trace the phrase’s origin back to the Latin, canis caninam not est, or “dog does not eat dog,” which says the opposite (and makes more sense, as an animal may try to protect its feeding grounds against competing predators, but it does not eat those competitors). It is nonsensical to rely on an analogy to something that doesn’t actually happen in animal behavior as a central premise toward condemning market systems as ruthless and hard-hearted.

The dog-eat-dog characterization of capitalist systems is the polar opposite of reality. The private property on which capitalism is based mandates solely voluntary arrangements. Since the weak do not voluntarily consent to aggression that violates their rights, it protects them against coercion based on superior ability to harm others. In Herbert Spencer’s words, it is “an insistence that the weak shall be guarded against the strong,” which stops dog-eat-dog predation, the default setting in the absence of respect for individual rights.

[...]Dog-eat-dog can be descriptive of behavior during war, which can cause desperation-induced atrocities. But war is not a market failure. It is aggression by a government or governments against others. In the process, it also involves government aggression against its own citizens through higher taxes, implicit inflation “taxes” and government expropriation of resources and citizens, as with military drafts.

Dog-eat-dog language is also increasingly descriptive of politics. As Bruno Leoni noted, politics has increasingly become used “merely as a means of subjecting minorities in order to treat them as losers in the field,” as in war. In such a world, as Friedrich Hayek noted in The Road to Serfdom, the massive payoffs to political hegemony lead the worst rise to the top. Along the way, we observe continued escalation of what former President Clinton called “the politics of personal destruction,” in scorched-earth electoral marches to Washington.

All of the above abuses can be seen as dog-eat-dog in nature — humans predating on other humans. But they are that way because government made them so, not because they are in any way inherent in freely chosen arrangements.

Despite the dog-eat-dog analogy’s usefulness in describing government behavior, how has it bait-and-switched people into blaming freedom and free markets? By directing attention away from two essential ways that market competition differs from predators in the animal world. The animal kingdom’s competition is a zero-sum fight for fixed resources provided by nature. But that zero-sum fight occurs only because animals do not trade, and therefore do not produce for other animals. But people do produce for others, and all parties can then benefit via trade. That makes market competition an incredibly positive-sum “game” in which each benefits him- or herself by finding ways to benefit others, made necessary by the need to get mutual agreement. As George Reisman noted, the result is very different — “one man’s gain is positively other men’s gain.”

[...]Dog-eat-dog imagery does offer some insight into understanding war, politics, and the failures of government, all because of their subversion of freedom. But it makes no sense to portray economic freedom, constrained to respect participants’ rights, as creating a desperate battle for survival, where “anything goes.” Such “I win, you lose” behavior traces back to given, limited resources, which is the constraint faced only in the absence of production and voluntary exchange [:psyduck: -ed.]. But that is not at all the case with capitalism, which has done more than any other social “discovery” to replace such behavior with win-win possibilities. As long as people’s ownership of themselves and their production is respected, that is, as long as arrangements are voluntary, production and exchange is the process by which all gain. And humans benefiting one another is a far cry from a dog-eat-dog world.

Is trying back up your argument with entomology just the universal sign for "I have no intellectual leg to stand on" at this point? Also, I enjoy them pointing out that animals predate on one another with no government, and then just asserting that humans don't ever do that.

Mornacale
Dec 19, 2007

n=y where
y=hope and n=folly,
prospects=lies, win=lose,

self=Pirates

quote:

Yes, this is austerity — but only for the government.

Ah yes, remember how in other countries, austerity policies include a government decree that private persons should refuse to spend money and intentionally starve the economy?

paragon1
Nov 22, 2010

FULL COMMUNISM NOW
"One man's gain is positively another man's gain [unless that man is gaining through a government program]"

Caros
May 14, 2008

So a bit of a short post, but I wanted to go back to something i'd talked about the last time we had the conversation about white supremacy and libertarians, particularly in light of recent events.

So just recently we've had a bit of a public uproar regarding Congressman Steve Scalise, in particular regarding his attendance of a European-American Unity and Rights Organization meeting. For those who don't know, EAURO is a white power organization through and through. Most notable for the purposes of this discussion, Scalise, the third ranking member of the house republicans was threatened with losing his leadership position in congress simply because he attended one of these events. In all likelihood his attendance in 2002 was a simple matter of not knowing the group before he went, but simply attending the event risked his political career, in no small part because the organizer of that group was former KKK Grand Wizard David Duke.

Now that name sounds familiar.

Murray Rothbard posted:

Well, they finally got David Duke. But he sure scared the bejesus out of them. It took a massive campaign of hysteria, of fear and hate, orchestrated by all wings of the Ruling Elite, from Official right to left, from President Bush and the official Republican Party through the New York-Washington-run national media through the local elites and down to local left-wing activists. It took a massive scare campaign, not only invoking the old bogey images of the Klan and Hitler, but also, more concretely, a virtual threat to boycott Louisiana, to pull out tourists and conventions, to lose jobs by businesses leaving the state. It took a campaign of slander that resorted to questioning the sincerity of Duke's conversion to Christianity – even challenging him to name his "official church." Even my old friend Doug Bandow participated in this cabal in the Wall Street Journal, which virtually flipped its wig in anti-Duke hysteria, to the extent of attacking Duke for being governed by self-interest(!) – presumably in contrast to all other politicians motivated by deep devotion to the public weal? It took a lot of gall for Bandow to do this, since he is not a sacramental Christian (where one can point out that the person under attack was not received into the sacramental Church), but a pietist one, who is opposed to any sort of official creed or liturgy. So how can a pietist Christian challenge the bona fides of another one? And in a world where no one challenges the Christian credentials of a Chuck Colson or a Jeb Magruder? But logic went out the window: for the entire Establishment, the ruling elite, was at stake, and in that sort of battle, all supposedly clashing wings of the Establishment weld together as one unit and fight with any weapons that might be at hand.

But even so: David Duke picked up 55 percent of the white vote; he lost in the runoff because the fear campaign brought a massive outpouring of black voters. But note the excitement; politics in Louisiana rose from the usual torpor that we have been used to for decades and brought out a turnout rate – 80 percent – that hasn't been seen since the nineteenth century, when party politics was fiercely partisan and ideological.

One point that has nowhere been noted: populism won in Louisiana, because in the first primary the two winners were Duke, a right-wing populist, and Edwin Edwards, a left-wing populist. Out in the cold were the two Establishment candidates: incumbent Governor Buddy Roemer, high-tax, high-spend "reform" Democrat embraced by the Bush Administration in an attempt to stop the dread Duke; and the forgotten man, Clyde Holloway, the official Republican candidate, a good Establishment conservative, who got only five percent of the vote. (Poor Human Events kept complaining during the campaign: why are the media ignoring Clyde Holloway? The simple answer is that he never got anywhere: an instructive metaphor for what will eventually be the fate of Establishment Conservatism.)

A left-wing populist, former Governor Edwards is a long-time Cajun crook, whose motto has been the rollicking laissez les bon temps roulez ("let the good times roll"). He has always been allegedly hated by businessmen and by conservative elites. But this was crisis time; and in crisis the truth is revealed: there is no fundamental difference between left-wing populism and the system we have now. Left-wing populism: rousing the masses to attack "the rich," amounts to more of the same: high taxes, wild spending, massive redistribution of working and middle-class incomes to the ruling coalition of: big government, big business, and the New Class of bureaucrats, technocrats, and ideologues and their numerous dependent groups. And so, in the crunch, left-wing populism – phony populism – disappeared, and all crookery was forgiven in the mighty Edwards coalition. It is instructive that the Establishment professes to believe in Edwards' teary promises of personal reform ("I'm 65 now; the good times have mellowed"), while refusing to believe in the sincerity of David Duke's conversion.

They said in the 60s, when they gently chided the violent left: "stop using violence, work within the system." And sure enough it worked, as the former New Left now leads the respectable intellectual classes. So why wasn't the Establishment willing to forgive and forget when a right-wing radical like David Duke stopped advocating violence, took off the Klan robes, and started working within the system? If it was OK to be a Commie, or a Weatherman, or whatever in your wild youth, why isn't it OK to have been Klansmen? Or to put it more precisely, if it was OK for the revered Justice Hugo Black, or for the lion of the Senate, Robert Byrd, to have been a Klansman, why not David Duke? The answer is obvious: Black and Byrd became members of the liberal elite, of the Establishment, whereas Duke continued to be a right-wing populist, and therefore anti-Establishment, this time even more dangerous because "within the system."

It is fascinating that there was nothing in Duke's current program or campaign that could not also be embraced by paleoconservatives or paleo-libertarians; lower taxes, dismantling the bureaucracy, slashing the welfare system, attacking affirmative action and racial set-asides, calling for equal rights for all Americans, including whites: what's wrong with any of that? And of course the mighty anti-Duke coalition did not choose to oppose Duke on any of these issues. Indeed, even the most leftist of his opponents grudgingly admitted that he had a point. Instead, the Establishment concentrated on the very "negative campaigning" that they profess to abhor (especially when directed against them). (Ironic note: TV pundits, who regularly have face lifts twice a year, bitterly attacked Duke for his alleged face lift. And nobody laughed!)

WHAT IS RIGHT-WING POPULISM?
The basic right-wing populist insight is that we live in a statist country and a statist world dominated by a ruling elite, consisting of a coalition of Big Government, Big Business, and various influential special interest groups. More specifically, the old America of individual liberty, private property, and minimal government has been replaced by a coalition of politicians and bureaucrats allied with, and even dominated by, powerful corporate and Old Money financial elites (e.g., the Rockefellers, the Trilateralists); and the New Class of technocrats and intellectuals, including Ivy League academics and media elites, who constitute the opinion-moulding class in society. In short, we are ruled by an updated, twentieth-century coalition of Throne and Altar, except that this Throne is various big business groups, and the Altar is secular, statist intellectuals, although mixed in with the secularists is a judicious infusion of Social Gospel, mainstream Christians. The ruling class in the State has always needed intellectuals to apologize for their rule and to sucker the masses into subservience, i.e., into paying the taxes and going along with State rule. In the old days, in most societies, a form of priestcraft or State Church constituted the opinion-moulders who apologized for that rule. Now, in a more secular age, we have technocrats, "social scientists," and media intellectuals, who apologize for the State system and staff in the ranks of its bureaucracy.

Libertarians have often seen the problem plainly, but as strategists for social change they have badly missed the boat. In what we might call "the Hayek model," they have called for spreading correct ideas, and thereby converting the intellectual elites to liberty, beginning with top philosophers and then slowly trickling on down through the decades to converting journalists and other media opinion-moulders. And of course, ideas are the key, and spreading correct doctrine is a necessary part of any libertarian strategy. It might be said that the process takes too long, but a long-range strategy is important, and contrasts to the tragic futility of official conservatism which is interested only in the lesser-of-two-evils for the current election and therefore loses in the medium, let along the long, run. But the real error is not so much the emphasis on the long run, but on ignoring the fundamental fact that the problem is not just intellectual error. The problem is that the intellectual elites benefit from the current system; in a crucial sense, they are part of the ruling class. The process of Hayekian conversion assumes that everyone, or at least all intellectuals, are interested solely in the truth, and that economic self-interest never gets in the way. Anyone at all acquainted with intellectuals or academics should be disabused of this notion, and fast. Any libertarian strategy must recognize that intellectuals and opinion-moulders are part of the fundamental problem, not just because of error, but because their own self-interest is tied into the ruling system.

Why then did communism implode? Because in the end the system was working so badly that even the nomenklatura got fed up and threw in the towel. The Marxists have correctly pointed out that a social system collapses when the ruling class becomes demoralized and loses its will to power; manifest failure of the communist system brought about that demoralization. But doing nothing, or relying only on educating the elites in correct ideas, will mean that our own statist system will not end until our entire society, like that of the Soviet Union, has been reduced to rubble. Surely, we must not sit still for that. A strategy for liberty must be far more active and aggressive.

Hence the importance, for libertarians or for minimal government conservatives, of having a one-two punch in their armor: not simply of spreading correct ideas, but also of exposing the corrupt ruling elites and how they benefit from the existing system, more specifically how they are ripping us off. Ripping the mask off elites is "negative campaigning" at its finest and most fundamental.

This two-pronged strategy is (a) to build up a cadre of our own libertarians, minimal-government opinion-moulders, based on correct ideas; and (b) to tap the masses directly, to short-circuit the dominant media and intellectual elites, to rouse the masses of people against the elites that are looting them, and confusing them, and oppressing them, both socially and economically. But this strategy must fuse the abstract and the concrete; it must not simply attack elites in the abstract, but must focus specifically on the existing statist system, on those who right now constitute the ruling classes.

Libertarians have long been puzzled about whom, about which groups, to reach out to. The simple answer: everyone, is not enough, because to be relevant politically, we must concentrate strategically on those groups who are most oppressed and who also have the most social leverage.

The reality of the current system is that it constitutes an unholy alliance of "corporate liberal" Big Business and media elites, who, through big government, have privileged and caused to rise up a parasitic Underclass, who, among them all, are looting and oppressing the bulk of the middle and working classes in America. Therefore, the proper strategy of libertarians and paleos is a strategy of "right-wing populism," that is: to expose and denounce this unholy alliance, and to call for getting this preppie-underclass-liberal media alliance off the backs of the rest of us: the middle and working classes.

A RIGHT-WING POPULIST PROGRAM
A right-wing populist program, then, must concentrate on dismantling the crucial existing areas of State and elite rule, and on liberating the average American from the most flagrant and oppressive features of that rule. In short:

l. Slash Taxes. All taxes, sales, business, property, etc., but especially the most oppressive politically and personally: the income tax. We must work toward repeal of the income tax and abolition of the IRS.

2. Slash Welfare. Get rid of underclass rule by abolishing the welfare system, or, short of abolition, severely cutting and restricting it.

3. Abolish Racial or Group Privileges. Abolish affirmative action, set aside racial quotas, etc., and point out that the root of such quotas is the entire "civil rights" structure, which tramples on the property rights of every American.

4. Take Back the Streets: Crush Criminals. And by this I mean, of course, not "white collar criminals" or "inside traders" but violent street criminals – robbers, muggers, rapists, murderers. Cops must be unleashed, and allowed to administer instant punishment, subject of course to liability when they are in error.

5. Take Back the Streets: Get Rid of the Bums. Again: unleash the cops to clear the streets of bums and vagrants. Where will they go? Who cares? Hopefully, they will disappear, that is, move from the ranks of the petted and cosseted bum class to the ranks of the productive members of society.

6. Abolish the Fed; Attack the Banksters. Money and banking are recondite issues. But the realities can be made vivid: the Fed is an organized cartel of banksters, who are creating inflation, ripping off the public, destroying the savings of the average American. The hundreds of billions of taxpayer handouts to S&L banksters will be chicken-feed compared to the coming collapse of the commercial banks.

7. America First. A key point, and not meant to be seventh in priority. The American economy is not only in recession; it is stagnating. The average family is worse off now than it was two decades ago. Come home America. Stop supporting bums abroad. Stop all foreign aid, which is aid to banksters and their bonds and their export industries. Stop gloabaloney, and let's solve our problems at home.

8. Defend Family Values. Which means, get the State out of the family, and replace State control with parental control. In the long run, this means ending public schools, and replacing them with private schools. But we must realize that voucher and even tax credit schemes are not, despite Milton Friedman, transitional demands on the path to privatized education; instead, they will make matters worse by fastening government control more totally upon the private schools. Within the sound alternative is decentralization, and back to local, community neighborhood control of the schools.

Further: We must reject once and for all the left-libertarian view that all government-operated resources must be cesspools. We must try, short of ultimate privatization, to operate government facilities in a manner most conducive to a business, or to neighborhood control. But that means: that the public schools must allow prayer, and we must abandon the absurd left-atheist interpretation of the First Amendment that "establishment of religion" means not allowing prayer in public schools, or a creche in a schoolyard or a public square at Christmas. We must return to common sense, and original intent, in constitutional interpretation.

So far: every one of these right-wing populist programs is totally consistent with a hard-core libertarian position. But all real-world politics is coalition politics, and there are other areas where libertarians might well compromise with their paleo or traditionalist or other partners in a populist coalition. For example, on family values, take such vexed problems as pornography, prostitution, or abortion. Here, pro-legalization and pro-choice libertarians should be willing to compromise on a decentralist stance; that is, to end the tyranny of the federal courts, and to leave these problems up to states and better yet, localities and neighborhoods, that is, to "community standards."


Oh yeah, its from that essay by Murray Rothbard where he talked about how great it would be if Judge Dread was an actual thing instead of a satirical cartoon, provided that he only got to do it to 'thugs' and not white collar criminals.

To be clear, there are plenty of things in David Duke's platform that could not, or should not be embraced by anyone with sense, even paleo-conservatives or libertarians. For one thing David Duke ran on a platform of mandatory birth control for welfare recipients. For another he equated affirmative action to the holocaust (ironic considering he claims he does not believe the holocaust to have happened.)

While Rothbard can claim that David Duke totally had gotten past that whole Nazi Klan phase, it was clear in 1991 that this wasn't the case. Most notably a jewish republican party member followed Duke around, recording some... interesting things:

quote:

For a time, Duke took Rickey to lunch, introduced her to his daughters, telephoned her late at night, and tried to convince her of his worldview: the Holocaust was a myth, Josef Mengele (the Aushwitz physician who performed experiments on Jews and selected which prisoners would die) was a medical genius, and blacks and Jews were responsible for various social ills. Rickey released transcripts of their conversations to the press. She also provided evidence establishing that Duke sold Nazi literature (including Mein Kampf) from his legislative office, and that he had gone to neo-Nazi political gatherings while he held elective office.

So to be clear, David Duke wasn't a 'former' anything, and there is no way that a smart man like Rothbard didn't know it. Or his editor, Lew Rockwell for that matter. Two of the most prestigious and well known libertarians ever born were unabashed supporters of David Duke in 1991... what else do I have to say.

Mornacale
Dec 19, 2007

n=y where
y=hope and n=folly,
prospects=lies, win=lose,

self=Pirates
It's impressive how it just takes a moment's thought to realize that saying "there was nothing in Duke's current program or campaign that could not also be embraced by paleoconservatives or paleo-libertarians" says a whole hell of a lot more about conservatives and libertarians than it does about David Duke.

Rhjamiz
Oct 28, 2007

I especially like that Rothbard makes sure to specify "not white-collar criminals", as if to say "Ho ho, of course I don't mean you, dear robber-baron reader, but those drat ni-uh, I mean, street thugs."

Goon Danton
May 24, 2012

Don't forget to show my shitposts to the people. They're well worth seeing.

I like that invoking the Klan and the Nazis is a "bogeyman" to discredit a literal Grand Wizard who sold Mein Kampf from his office. Also, in what loving universe did the establishment in the 60s "gently chide the violent left?" Like, what is he even talking about? Hell, referring to the KKK as just a bogeyman to rile up the blacks, and then turning around and trying to invoke the Weathermen :supaburn: to scare his readers is just beautiful.

Also this:

quote:

But all real-world politics is coalition politics, and there are other areas where libertarians might well compromise with their paleo or traditionalist or other partners in a populist coalition. For example, on family values, take such vexed problems as pornography, prostitution, or abortion. Here, pro-legalization and pro-choice libertarians should be willing to compromise on a decentralist stance; that is, to end the tyranny of the federal courts, and to leave these problems up to states and better yet, localities and neighborhoods, that is, to "community standards."

Federal anti-segregation laws? That would be a fatal compromise to our beliefs, sir! We're all about personal freedom without exception, except when freedom would upset Pat Buchanan. But we're not just paleoconservatives, honest.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Ms Adequate
Oct 30, 2011

Baby even when I'm dead and gone
You will always be my only one, my only one
When the night is calling
No matter who I become
You will always be my only one, my only one, my only one
When the night is calling



That's one of the craziest drat things I have ever read in my life. If you'd shown teenage me that screed, I doubt I would have ever embraced libertarianism for that unfortunate phase we all seem to go through.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply