.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

A Pox On All Their Houses

Thursday, August 31, 2006

Go North, young ma'am.

Gary North hits one out of the park today. [link]

I'm often a fan of his, though he's inconsistently good, and holds some odd beliefs.
But on economic issues, he seems to "strike the root" more than a lot of people in this thing of ours.

I don't even need to add commentary to that article (not like I have much time to do so, I've been fiendishly pressed for time lately, but I'll endeavor to get some original thoughts up here soon).

Tuesday, August 29, 2006

A new ally

Pro Libertate - Man, he's good.
Thanks to Vache Folle and JL Wilson for the heads up on him. I've actually followed links back to the Birch Blog before and always liked what I read there, but never actually read it on a regular basis. Now I regret that decision.

So Wm Norman Grigg, you are on my blog links.

(From my experience, the Birch people tend to be the best or the worst, depending. I mean they definitely see through the standard "left-right" spectrum. And the understanding that the Elite use the sub-proletariat for their own purposes was way ahead of its time. Sometimes they're too nationalistic and constitutionalist for my taste.)

Sunday, August 13, 2006

Truth and Evasion

You know, it always makes me smile crookedly, to see discussions about this particular thing or that that the government has done, when the people discussing it don't have their tongue firmly in cheek.
Ok, I know it serves a purpose as a sort of signalling, like "ok, I think we're hitting the threshold now". But does anyone in this thing of ours still deny that the end point of all this is going to be full-on totalitarianism? I mean, open up your eyes. All three if necessary.

But seriously now. To make the point clear so that you can't dodge it:
The United States is going to become a totalitarian state, sooner than anyone expected. This is not arguable. It's surely going to happen. Europe is already there, and no one sees it.
It's not going to work the same way the old school totalitarians did it, because these guys have read all those books too.

Every day will be like every other day, for everyone, everywhere. That's what they want.
That is spiritual genocide. If you're robotically acting out a script, you're not actually alive, in any human sense.
Artificial intelligence will begin in the bodies of human beings. We are the robots.

The only way out of this is to destroy the capacity of the state to function. This will also happen, and hopefully sooner than I fear. But until it does, we're on the road to serfdom, and the pedal is to the metal. So don't be surprised when they make a law saying you have to bend over and present your asshole for inspection every day. After all, it's for your own good, right?

Bastiat, the Left-Libertarian?

Here are some quotes from Economic Sophisms (with bold emphasis by me) that I think have a direct bearing on left-libertarian thought:
In the same way, we could make a survey of all industries, and we should always find that producers, as such, have antisocial attitudes. "The merchant," says Montaigne, "prospers only by the extravagance of youth; the farmer, by the high cost of grain; the architect, by the decay of houses; officers of justice, by men's lawsuits and quarrels, Even the ministers of religion owe the honor and practice of their high calling to our death and our vices. No physician takes pleasure in the good health of even his friends; no soldier, in the peace of his country; and so it goes for the rest."
It follows that, if the secret wishes of each producer were realized, the world would speedily retrogress toward barbarism. The sail would take the place of steam, the oar would replace the sail, and it in turn would have to yield to the wagon, the latter to the mule, and the mule to the packman. Wool would ban cotton, cotton would ban wool, and so on, until the scarcity of all things made man himself disappear from the face of the earth.
Suppose for a moment that legislative power and executive authority were put at the disposal of the Mimerel Committee, and that each of the members of that association had the right to introduce and enact a favorite law. Is it very hard to imagine what sort of industrial code the public would be subjected to?
If we now turn to consider the immediate self-interest of the consumer, we shall find that it is in perfect harmony with the general interest, i.e., with what the well-being of mankind requires. When the buyer goes to the market, he wants to find it abundantly supplied. He wants the seasons to be propitious for all the crops; more and more wonderful inventions to bring a greater number of products and satisfactions within his reach; time and labor to be saved; distances to be wiped out; the spirit of peace and justice to permit lessening the burden of taxes; and tariff walls of every sort to fall. In all these respects, the immediate self-interest of the consumer follows a line parallel to that of the public interest. He may extend his secret wishes to fantastic or absurd lengths; yet they will not cease to be in conformity with the interests of his fellow man. He may wish that food and shelter, roof and hearth, education and morality, security and peace, strength and health, all be his without effort, without toil, and without limit, like the dust of the roads, the water of the stream, the air that surrounds us, and the sunlight that bathes us; and yet the realization of these wishes would in no way conflict with the good of society.
Perhaps people will say that, if these wishes were granted, the producer's labor would be more and more limited, and finally would cease for want of anything to occupy it. But why? Because, in this extreme hypothetical case, all imaginable wants and desires world be fully satisfied. Man, like the Almighty, would create all things by a simple act of volition. Will someone tell me what reason there would be, on this hypothesis, to deplore the end of industrial production?
I referred just now to an imaginary legislative assembly composed of businessmen, in which each member world have the power to enact a law expressing his secret wish in his capacity as a producer; and I said that the laws emanating from such an assembly would create a system of monopoly and put into practice the theory of scarcity.
In the same way, a Chamber of Deputies in which each member considered solely his immediate self-interest as a consumer would end by creating a system of free trade, repealing all restrictive laws, and removing all man-made commercial barriers—in short, by putting into practice the theory of abundance.
Hence, it follows that to consult solely the immediate self-interest of the producer is to have regard for an antisocial interest; whereas to consider as fundamental solely the immediate self-interest of the consumer is to take the general interest as the foundation of social policy.

Now, the result is that each man sees the immediate cause of his prosperity in the obstacle that he makes it his business to struggle against for the benefit of others. The larger the obstacle, the more important and more intensely felt it is, then the more his fellow men are disposed to pay him for having overcome it, that is, the readier they are to remove on his behalf the obstacles that stand in his way.
A physician, for instance, does not occupy himself with baking his own bread, making ins own instruments, or weaving or tailoring his own clothes. Others do these things for him, and, in return, he treats the diseases that afflict his patients. The more frequent, severe, and numerous these diseases are, the more willing people are—indeed, the more they are obliged—to work for his personal benefit. From his point of view, illness—which is a general obstacle to human well-being—is a cause of his individual well-being. All producers, with respect to their particular field of operation, reason in the same manner. The shipowner derives his profits from the obstacle called distance; the farmer, from that called hunger; the textile manufacturer, from that called cold; the teacher lives on ignorance; the jeweler, on vanity; the lawyer, on greed; the notary, on possible bad faith, just as the physician lives on the illnesses of mankind. It is therefore quite true that each profession has an immediate interest in the continuation, even the extension, of the particular obstacle that is the object of its efforts.

Let its go back to the thirteenth century. The men who then practiced the art of copying received for the service they performed a remuneration determined by the average rate of wages. Among these copyists, there was one who sought and discovered the means of multiplying rapidly copies of the same work. He invented printing.
At first, one man became rich, while many others were being impoverished. However marvelous this discovery was, one might, at first sight, have hesitated to decide whether it was harmful or beneficial. Apparently it was introducing into the world, as I have said, an element of limitless inequality. Gutenberg profited by his invention and employed his profits to extend its use indefinitely, until he had ruined all the copyists. As for the public, the consumers, they gained little, for Gutenberg was careful to lower the price of his books only just enough to undersell his rivals.
But God had the wisdom to introduce harmony not only into the movement of the spheres but also into the internal machinery of society. Hence, the economic advantages of this invention did not remain the exclusive possession of one individual, but instead became for all eternity the common inheritance of all mankind.
In time, the process became known. Gutenberg was no longer the only printer; others imitated him. Their profits at first were considerable. They were compensated very well for being in the vanguard of the imitators, and this extra compensation was necessary to attract them and to induce them to contribute to the great, approaching, final result. They earned a great deal, but they earned less than the inventor, for competition was beginning to operate. The price of books kept falling lower and lower, and the profits of imitators kept diminishing as the invention became less novel, that is, as imitation became less deserving of especial reward. Soon the new industry reached its normal state: the remuneration of printers no longer was exceptionally large, and, like that of scribes in earlier days, it was determined only by the average rate of wages. Thus, production itself became once more the measure of compensation. Yet the invention nonetheless constituted an advance; the saving of time, of labor, of effort to produce a given result, for a fixed number of copies, had nonetheless been realized. But how was this saving manifested? In the cheapness of books. And to whose profit? To the profit of the consumer, of society, of mankind. Printers, who henceforth had no exceptional merit, no longer received an exceptional remuneration. As men, as consumers, they doubtless shared in the advantages that the invention had conferred upon the community. But that was all. In so far as they were printers, in so far as they were producers, they had returned to the conditions that were customary for all the producers to the country. Society paid them for their labor, and not for the usefulness of the invention. That had become the common and freely available heritage of all mankind.

I confess that the wisdom and the beauty of these laws evoke my admiration and respect. In them I see Saint-Simonianism: To each according to his capacity; to each capacity according to its production. In them I see communism, that is to say, the tendency of goods to become the common heritage of men; but a Saint-Simonianism, a communism, regulated by infinite foresight, and in no way abandoned to the frailty, the passions, and the tyranny of men.
What I have said of printing can be said of all the tools of production, from the nail and the hammer to the locomotive and the electric telegraph. Society possesses all of them in having an abundance of consumers' goods; and it possesses them as gratuitous gifts, since their effect is to reduce the price of commodities; and all that part of the price that has been eliminated as a result of the contribution of inventions to production clearly makes the product to that extent free of charge.

In a temperate zone where coal and iron ore are at the surface, one need only stoop down to get them. At first, I readily agree, it is the inhabitants of the favored region who will profit from this lucky circumstance. But soon, as competition develops, the price of coal and iron ore will continue to fall until the gift of Nature is available free of charge to everyone, and human labor alone is remunerated in accordance with the average rate of wages.
Thus, as a result of the operation of the law of supply and demand, the gifts of Nature, like improvements in the processes of production, are—or continually tend to become—the common and gratuitous heritage of the consumers, the masses, mankind in general.

The theory whose outlines I have attempted to sketch in this chapter still stands in need of a great deal of development. I have considered it only in its bearing on the subject of free trade. But perhaps the attentive reader may have perceived in it the fertile seed that is destined, when it matures, to eradicate not only protectionism, but, along with it, Fourierism, Saint-Simonianism, communism, and all those schools of thought that aim at excluding the law of supply and demand from the governance of the world. From the point of view of the producer, competition doubtless often clashes with our immediate self-interest; but, if one considers the general aim of all labor, i.e., universal well-being—in a word, if one adopts the point of view of the consumer—one will find that competition plays the same role in the moral world as equilibrium does in the physical world. It is the basis of true communism, of true socialism, and of that equality of wealth and position so much desired in our day; and if so many sincere publicists and well-intentioned reformers demand arbitrary controls, it is because they do not understand free exchange.

Saturday, August 12, 2006

Some short things to ponder

It's late and I'll expand on things soon, but for now:
1. It's not unreasonable to believe that economics (and it's violent distortions) plays as much of a role in foreign policy as much as it does in everything else. The people involved are likely not sentimentalists AT ALL.

2. A deeper perspective on the Dot Bomb and Greenspan. This kind of blew my mind, and if you put as much significance on the financial side of things as I do, perhaps it will blow yours too.

3. Bastiat was really important to the history of left libertarianism in a way most people have never focused on (though I've seen it obliquely mentioned). Re-read "things seen" and perhaps "sophisms" to see what I'm getting at.

4. James Leroy Wilson, inspired by Lady Aster: (emphasis mine)
I will add that in many ways direct welfare payments - giving money to people for doing nothing, is not nearly as bad as "make work" programs, corporate welfare, and unnecessary military hardware.

With welfare, money is taken from person A through taxes, to give to person B. So, the economic choices of A are diminished by that amount, and those of person B increased. There are strong economic and moral arguments against this; I am not defending it, though I don't fault the recipients.

But I'd rather a person be on public support than work at a manufacturing plant that produces tanks or aircraft that the military doesn't need, but that brings profits to the corporate contractor and "jobs" to a Congressional District. Not only is he making his living from other people's taxes, his job is actually doing the economy harm. How so? $10 billion spent on manufacturing unwanted and impractical tanks is $10 billion that could have been spent manufacturing computers, x-ray machines, surgical equipment, cars, homes, or other things that people actually want and need. If we paid his salary directly and let him sit at home all day, we'd be better off. Not as well off as if he manufactured something that a free market would demand, but better off nonetheless, because precious resources wouldn't be used for expensive boondoggles.

Government redistribution of incomes is bad, but government redistribution of capital is worse.

He's on to something big there.

Wednesday, August 09, 2006

Et Tu, all of you?

I've decided, after being tagged multiply for this book virus thingy, that I'm flattered enough that you're still reading this thing that I'm going to do it. :)

* One book that changed your life:
The Nausea by JP Sartre.
(Unlike many of you folks, I was a libertarian before I knew I was, and I was gradually introduced to the ideas of libertarianism by a mentor.
I eventually outgrew him and became an anarchocapitalist in college. So no one libertarian book opened my eyes to anything.)

However The Nausea made me see that there's more to the world than the dry scientistic public school p.o.v.
I read it at age 13, my dad was an existentialist and he finally let me read it. It devastated me, but afterwards I knew...
There is more, and less, than most people realize out there.

* One book that you have read more than once:
The Tao Te Ching by Lao Tzu
The subtlety and perfection of his pattern recognition only becomes more clear upon multiple re-readings.
I don't know if you can really call it philosophy, but this book is one of the greatest works of genius of all human history.

* One book that you would want on a desert island:
Finnegan's Wake by James Joyce

* One book that made you laugh:
My Cousin, My Gastroenterologist by Mark Leyner

* One book that made you cry:
The Nausea. See above.

* One book you wish had been written:
Equilibrium by Adem Kupi (but there's still time)

* One book you wish never had been written:
The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money by JM Keynes
This should be a no-brainer. Keynes was more devastating to the world than any other thinker.
I guess that's something to put on your resume... if you're an evil genius.

* One book you are currently reading:
Gravity's Rainbow by Thomas Pynchon

* (more than) One book you have been meaning to read:
Calculated Chaos by Butler Shaffer
The Theory of Money and Credit by L Von Mises
A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism by HH Hoppe (curious, mostly)

However I'm going to spare you all and not tag anyone. So there.