Marx Or Mises

[Ben from Dover]

" England launched a massive program of government intervention" is there any evidence of that?

It is an interesting answer, and it is clearly necessary to have such an answer to such an obvious failing of the free market in Ireland.

But what about India? Is that the same answer? About 45+ million people died in Indian famines during "laissez faire" British rule in India. Since independence the Indian government has never adhered to free market principles - there have not been famines since independence...

I don't know much from an academic point of view on the subject but I did live for 2 months in India earlier this year. Personally I saw it as the most free market place I had ever seen. Whole families die in the street if the working age adults are drunkards. you get nothing you don't provide for yourself and because of this motivation there is always somebody around who would do almost anything for a few rupees. taking the train is quite an experience. Every few minutes somebody walks down the carriage selling some snake or nick nack.

People were shocked when I told them about our welfare system (I then stopped telling people as I thought they would all arrive in Dover a few weeks later)

If you were looking for a fully free-market economy not as ridiculous as Somalia India would have to be pretty high on the list.

And believe me it is not a utopia

[sharpe]

I don't know much from an academic point of view on the subject but I did live for 2 months in India earlier this year. Personally I saw it as the most free market place I had ever seen. Whole families die in the street if the working age adults are drunkards. you get nothing you don't provide for yourself and because of this motivation there is always somebody around who would do almost anything for a few rupees. taking the train is quite an experience. Every few minutes somebody walks down the carriage selling some snake or nick nack.

People were shocked when I told them about our welfare system (I then stopped telling people as I thought they would all arrive in Dover a few weeks later)

If you were looking for a fully free-market economy not as ridiculous as Somalia India would have to be pretty high on the list.

And believe me it is not a utopia

you are surely right on many levels.

but take agriculture now - all crop insurance has a 50% subsidy from the state in India. This is the same subsidy used in the US. in the UK farmers are heavily subsidised and having a rich farming class has meant ample food.

[Ben from Dover]

you are surely right on many levels.

but take agriculture now - all crop insurance has a 50% subsidy from the state in India. This is the same subsidy used in the US. in the UK farmers are heavily subsidised and having a rich farming class has meant ample food.

As I say I don;t know much about the academics of it , people did say that although you might be poor - you never starve in India. People selling really cheap street food wherever you go

[MrB]

Red Khama,

in answer to your question, I understand Somalia has very little in the way of a state, to intervene in the business affairs of its people.

I hear it has developed a thriving business in pirating, and emigration to the UK.

Amongst all of the idiotic reasons for rejecting any kind of 'libertarian' position - this has to be the most laughable.

Protection of person and property is its foundation. Not likely to see that in Somalia.

[scepticus]

Protection of person and property is its foundation.

that my friend, is the foundation of the state

[Ben from Dover]

that my friend, is the foundation of the state

But it is in effect supporting the appropriation of natures wealth into private hands. It is very easy to morally reject the absolute notion of private ownership of pretty much everything.

[MrB]

because not all interest and principal comes due at the same instant. If it did then you would be correct, but as it is the cycling and recycling of interest payments and profits over time is sufficient to pay down interest owing today, as long as velocity of money is compatabile with the interest rats being charged.

Amateurs like you who have read a bit of pseudo-economics at mises or watched the odd youtube video by other wikipedia economists who wrongly suspect that they have happened upon a deep insight into our economies, always get it wrong and view the economy like a static spreadsheet, rather than what is, which is like a wheel which is always turning.

But having developed your entire political and social philosophy based on this misunderstanding and then broadcast it on the internet, you can't admit you are wrong, not just because of the fear of being seen to be wrong, but because of the fear of having to re-assess your worldview and the self-doubt that implies.

I predict you will continue to shy away from any ideas which might convey and real understanding of the real world, since troughing on the stale buffet of certainties and motherhood-and-apple-pie axioms served up at mises.org is so much easier for your digestion than facing up to your inherent political sociopathy.

Having sufffered too many times the pain of your own amateurish cognition and tortured logic, you might benefit from the "motherhood-and-apple-pie axioms" served up at mises.

", always get it wrong and view the economy like a static spreadsheet" ?!

the DNA of Misesean logic is dynamc not static! The Austrian's pretty much invented the time concept in capital and interest.

[MrB]

But it is in effect supporting the appropriation of natures wealth into private hands. It is very easy to morally reject the absolute notion of private ownership of pretty much everything.

And this is wrong because?

(The state can allocate land/labour/capital much better than private individuals?)

!

[Injin]

that my friend, is the foundation of the state

No, it ain't.

States don't support property rights.

They never have. States were originally loose organsiations of slavers.

[Guest Steve Cook]

it doesn't if you ****** the economy up enough. it's not much use to the 50 million or so Russians who starved to death to say "hey ho, shit happens." it won't ressurect the millions who died in the wars either.

Which is why mises says people shouldn't try it. The market system has at it's basis "******ed if I know, let's ask everyone."

Mixed economies don't stay mixed - they slide into totalitarianism.

In a world where people are able to generate surpluses, every damned method of organising human behaviour slides into totalitarianism

[Guest Steve Cook]

Look, there are just some ruthless, canny people who are relatively few in numbers at any given point in time. By luck, by deception or by violent action they manoeuvre themselves into positions of power and influence. They then use this power and influence to cement and extend their positions. They first got the opportunity to become top-dogs once we started farming and, in doing so, produced the first surpluses. They've been in charge ever since.

All of the bullsh*t fairy stories we have been forced to swallow down the millennia, the divinity of kings, the word of GOD, capitalism, communism and all the rest; These are all just after-the-fact justifications of the oppression of the many by the few.

Everything else is mere details

Edited March 31, 2010 by Steve Cook

[Injin]

Look, there are just some ruthless, canny people who are relatively few in numbers at any given point in time. By luck, by deception or by violent action they manoeuvre themselves into positions of power and influence. They then use this power and influence to cement and extend their positions. They first got the opportunity to become top-dogs once we started farming and, in doing so, produced the first surpluses. They've been in charge ever since.

All of the bullsh*t fairy stories we have been forced to swallow down the millennia, the divinity of kings, the word of GOD, capitalism, communism and all the rest; These are all just after-the-fact justifications of the oppression of the many by the few.

Everything else is mere details

Yep.

And if they give it up, they will wind up with more stuff.

[Ben from Dover]

And this is wrong because?

(The state can allocate land/labour/capital much better than private individuals?)

!

I don't know, perhaps a kind of native american system, where the is no ownership of anything other than your immediate personal belongings and land and other stuff is simply there to be used by wherever needs it at the time, is the only time that human kind have created an ownership system that could be called fair.

But obviously there is no way we can ever create that in the UK or even that any such society could survive the interacting with a society that did have private property ownership.

[Guest Steve Cook]

I don't know, perhaps a kind of native american system, where the is no ownership of anything other than your immediate personal belongings and land and other stuff is simply there to be used by wherever needs it at the time, is the only time that human kind have created an ownership system that could be called fair.

But obviously there is no way we can ever create that in the UK or even that any such society could survive the interacting with a society that did have private property ownership.

And yet those same tribes regularly kicked the sh*t out of one another in land conflicts.

Systems aren't the problem my friend.

We are

Though, I am bound to admit, that the type of human organisation to which you refer is probably the least bad. Largely as a result of its lack of complexity which, in turn, is a consequence of a lack of surpluses.

Edited March 31, 2010 by Steve Cook

[Ben from Dover]

Look, there are just some ruthless, canny people who are relatively few in numbers at any given point in time. By luck, by deception or by violent action they manoeuvre themselves into positions of power and influence. They then use this power and influence to cement and extend their positions. They first got the opportunity to become top-dogs once we started farming and, in doing so, produced the first surpluses. They've been in charge ever since.

All of the bullsh*t fairy stories we have been forced to swallow down the millennia, the divinity of kings, the word of GOD, capitalism, communism and all the rest; These are all just after-the-fact justifications of the oppression of the many by the few.

Everything else is mere details

I love the way that you have complained about all the ******** fairy stories we have been told down the years while just after trotting out a load of internet based conspiracy theorist fairy stories - ha

Dude there are no conspiracies just lots of people hoping they are going to have sex today - nothing to fear (except rape)

[Ben from Dover]

And yet those same tribes regularly kicked the sh*t out of one another in land conflicts.

Systems aren't the problem my friend.

We are

Though, I am bound to admit, that the type of human organisation to which you refer is probably the least bad. Largely as a result of its lack of complexity which, in turn, is a consequence of a lack of surpluses.

good point - though it wasn't 'ownership' that they were fighting over but (from my limited knowledge) more that they objected to the other tribe's right to exist in the first place.

Perhaps you could say that at least the concept of private ownership of stuff at least enables man to not want to totally annihilate anyone who isn't in their family.

My only other suggestion for a refreshing view on the notion of absolute right to the private ownership (particularly of land) is the way that biblical Israel was structured. The earth belonged to God and therefore could not be held perpetually , and on the year of jubilee (every 50 years) all land reverted to its original owner (or family / tribe). the purpose of the year of jubilee was to provide a regular redistribution of wealth, since wealth itself was viewed as belonging to God and not man.

could go on But I don't want to come over all religious two day in a row so I'll leave it and go a massacre some sweet old boomers and steel all their wealth.

Edited March 31, 2010 by Ben from Dover

[Guest Steve Cook]

I love the way that you have complained about all the ******** fairy stories we have been told down the years while just after trotting out a load of internet based conspiracy theorist fairy stories - ha

Dude there are no conspiracies just lots of people hoping they are going to have sex today - nothing to fear (except rape)

Either you've not read carefully what I have posted or I have explained it inadequately.

No one individual or group necessarily has this larger picture in mind to which I refer (though on occasion I am sure some have done). This larger picture, though, is the pattern of human organisation that inevitably emerges.

Think of it in the same way that, in the biological world, an emergent ecology can be clearly seen as existing in a given environment in all of its patterned complexity. None of the organisms that live and die in that ecology need have any knowledge of it's existence. Nevertheless, their behaviour is circumscribed and organised by it. The lion is no more able to avoid being a lion than the gazelle is able to avoid being a gazelle. They just ended up in that position given their starting points. In that sense, the top-dogs in human affairs are, at a deeper level, no more in charge than we are.

[Ben from Dover]

Either you've not read carefully what I have posted or I have explained it inadequately.

No one individual or group necessarily has this larger picture in mind to which I refer (though on occasion I am sure some have done). This larger picture, though, is the pattern of human organisation that inevitably emerges.

Think of it in the same way that, in the biological world, an emergent ecology can be clearly seen as existing in a given environment in all of its patterned complexity. None of the organisms that live and die in that ecology need have any knowledge of it's existence. Nevertheless, their behaviour is circumscribed and organised by it. The lion is no more able to avoid being a lion than the gazelle is able to avoid being a gazelle. They just ended up in that position given their starting points. In that sense, the top-dogs in human affairs are, at a deeper level, no more in charge than we are.

Yer - I could go along with that - we are in agreement

But perhaps we ought tyo kill all the lizards in the world just in case eh

[scepticus]

Systems aren't the problem my friend.

We are

steve, your best post ever!

perfectly succinct. I must try harder!

[sharpe]

that my friend, is the foundation of the state

I agree with this. Private property has to be backed by force of some kind. This same debate has been here on this forum for years now.

If stateless societies were so much more efficient, then why are their none in the first world? Why do we have to look to African back waters which on closer inspection are riddled with slavery and atrocities?

In ancient Greece there were many types of states competing for power, there were no stateless entities springing fourth in great efficiency to outperform all other organisations. How do these realities fit with the vision of a stateless society - is it just the same as a communist ideal (also stateless)?

[Guest Steve Cook]

Yer - I could go along with that - we are in agreement

But perhaps we ought tyo kill all the lizards in the world just in case eh

perhaps....

[Guest Steve Cook]

steve, your best post ever!

perfectly succinct. I must try harder!

Occasionally, Scepticus, I like to offset the Yin with a little bit of Yang....

[scepticus]

I agree with this. Private property has to be backed by force of some kind. This same debate has been here on this forum for years now.

If stateless societies were so much more efficient, then why are their none in the first world? Why do we have to look to African back waters which on closer inspection are riddled with slavery and atrocities?

In ancient Greece there were many types of states competing for power, there were no stateless entities springing fourth in great efficiency to outperform all other organisations. How do these realities fit with the vision of a stateless society - is it just the same as a communist ideal (also stateless)?

libertarians are awaiting the final freedom. the fact there has never been such a mode of being in history is of no import to them, because they bear the banner of freedom, and freedom is truth don't you know and the rest are just liars.

it has nothing to with reality.

in fact in this regard we can drop them down the well of bad ideas with the communists. in a few hundred years neither movement will merit a passage in the autodidactory archives for young setient entities, or whatever history is called then.

[scepticus]

Occasionally, Scepticus, I like to offset the Yin with a little bit of Yang....

ommm

[Grimbert]

libertarians are awaiting the final freedom. the fact there has never been such a mode of being in history is of no import to them, because they bear the banner of freedom, and freedom is truth don't you know and the rest are just liars.

it has nothing to with reality.

in fact in this regard we can drop them down the well of bad ideas with the communists. in a few hundred years neither movement will merit a passage in the autodidactory archives for young setient entities, or whatever history is called then.

So what should one do to prepare for the end of time yet still live in the current paradigm? I now own a fair bit of furniture, a car that is getting older every day, an ounce of gold, 10 oz of silver, a bit of sterling, a few thousand usd and various other colourful pieces of paper, and three quite nice children, but we rent a house. I also have no debt whatsoever.