Proving von Mises

You and I both know that quote comes no where near close to answering my question about democratic action as a manifestation of preferences.

Enron wrote:

B-Ran wrote:What about democracy?

More to the point, are we not as citizens of our society, consumers of our government? Are we not entitled to make decisions about the way we want our government to be based solely on our own interests? If not, why not?

No, we are not consumers of our government the way that we are consumers of anything else. The government is courting us for our business and we can't choose a different government.

Democracy does nothing to solve the problem that government is unable to meet the needs/wants of the consumer even close to what the free market can do.

We can't choose a different government? Isn't that what elections are for?

And anyway, what's a plausible alternative?

B-Ran wrote:

Enron wrote:

B-Ran wrote:What about democracy?

More to the point, are we not as citizens of our society, consumers of our government? Are we not entitled to make decisions about the way we want our government to be based solely on our own interests? If not, why not?

No, we are not consumers of our government the way that we are consumers of anything else. The government is courting us for our business and we can't choose a different government.

Democracy does nothing to solve the problem that government is unable to meet the needs/wants of the consumer even close to what the free market can do.

We can't choose a different government? Isn't that what elections are for?

And anyway, what's a plausible alternative?

You surely can't. Try opting out of paying income taxes and you will see that they will not let you opt out of the federal gov't's regs. Elections are for the majority to choose a politician to represent their interests.

A plausible alternative is the free market.

The free market is a plausible alternative to government?

And anyway, I'm talking about a plausible alternative to democracy, since apparently democracy is invalid.

Enron wrote:

B-Ran wrote:

Enron wrote:

B-Ran wrote:What about democracy?

More to the point, are we not as citizens of our society, consumers of our government? Are we not entitled to make decisions about the way we want our government to be based solely on our own interests? If not, why not?

No, we are not consumers of our government the way that we are consumers of anything else. The government is courting us for our business and we can't choose a different government.

Democracy does nothing to solve the problem that government is unable to meet the needs/wants of the consumer even close to what the free market can do.

We can't choose a different government? Isn't that what elections are for?

And anyway, what's a plausible alternative?

You surely can't. Try opting out of paying income taxes and you will see that they will not let you opt out of the federal gov't's regs. Elections are for the majority to choose a politician to represent their interests.

A plausible alternative is the free market.

Try walking out of a store with something that you didn't pay for. Same basic principle.

B-Ran wrote:

Enron wrote:

B-Ran wrote:

Enron wrote:

B-Ran wrote:What about democracy?

More to the point, are we not as citizens of our society, consumers of our government? Are we not entitled to make decisions about the way we want our government to be based solely on our own interests? If not, why not?

No, we are not consumers of our government the way that we are consumers of anything else. The government is courting us for our business and we can't choose a different government.

Democracy does nothing to solve the problem that government is unable to meet the needs/wants of the consumer even close to what the free market can do.

We can't choose a different government? Isn't that what elections are for?

And anyway, what's a plausible alternative?

You surely can't. Try opting out of paying income taxes and you will see that they will not let you opt out of the federal gov't's regs. Elections are for the majority to choose a politician to represent their interests.

A plausible alternative is the free market.

Try walking out of a store with something that you didn't pay for. Same basic principle.

Not at all. Someone taking something that you own is much different than someone not letting you take what they own.

I think this goes back to the natural rights thread, oddly enough.

I think this thread sums up why I am not a hard-line libertarian pretty well:

It's because hard-line libertarianism requires faith in a set of nondemonstrable positions and first principles. It's not that I don't believe that the free market doesn't make sense; I just have no good reason to believe that the world would be all that better a place were there as limited government interference as von Misesian-flavored libertarians would prefer.

B-Ran wrote:I think this thread sums up why I am not a hard-line libertarian pretty well:

It's because hard-line libertarianism requires faith in a set of nondemonstrable positions and first principles. It's not that I don't believe that the free market doesn't make sense; I just have no good reason to believe that the world would be all that better a place were there as limited government interference as von Misesian-flavored libertarians would prefer.

Yeah, I believe that the world would be a better place if the government would be that limited. Disagree to agree?

I would, but there's a stubborn instinct in me that demands I understand certain things... Not necessarily know the truth, but understand. To me, von Misesian libertarianism is incoherent. If you take the disparate parts of the philosophy by themselves, I agree with most of them. The problems for me are the fundamental underlying assumptions of the philosophy taken as a whole. Maybe you could answer a few questions to help me. I'll just go one by one.

What does it mean to own something?

Own-of, pertaining to, or belonging to oneself or itself (usually used after a possessive to emphasize the idea of ownership, interest, or relation conveyed by the possessive): He spent only his own money.

I didn't ask for a definition of "own." I asked what it means to own. What is different about something owned that differentiates it from non-owned things?

B-Ran wrote:I didn't ask for a definition of "own." I asked what it means to own. What is different about something owned that differentiates it from non-owned things?

Nothing is physically different about the property. In order for someone to own something, they must get those goods via voluntary exchange, unless it is not owned yet. If it is not owned by an individual yet, there needs to be a way to lay claim to the item. Within a society, methods of laying claim to unowned items naturally arises.

And, in fairness, what do you think it means to own something?

That's fair.

Owning is illusory. To say one owns a chair means what, exactly? That, maybe, it's in his house? That he "paid money" (whatever that means) for the chair at some point?

What it really means is that you have unfettered access to the chair by virtue of no one walking off with it. The reason they don't walk off with it? Because, sometime long ago, people came up with this idea of "ownership," that is, unfettered access to goods to the exclusion of others. But it's only an idea, one of a great many set up as a social system called "private property ownership." In the world outside of people's heads, there's no such thing as ownership.

The crux of the issue is that ownership only exists because everybody else agrees it exists. It couldn't possibly be an individual right, since an individual alone has no need of "ownership." He can own everything he sees, or maybe own nothing at all. Either way, without anyone to challenge his assertions, he's just one person alone with a bunch of stuff that he can call his own all he wants.

Now, you could argue that someone owns his labor, and he can agree to trade it with someone, and then that person can give him something "in exchange" for his labor. But the fact is, ownership is still illusory. What you are really saying when you make that contract is "I'm going to walk off with this thing, and you're going to not follow me and beat me up and take it back because I did something for you." But at the end of the day, you are still left with the inert object that the other had in his vicinity now in your vicinity, plus some ideas.

I can't stress this point enough: the radical individualist position of modern libertarianism is untenable. Human beings are social creatures by nature, and determined to a large extent by the society they grow up in and the things they are exposed to. We have liberty, of course, but it's bounded liberty. The bounds can be expanded, even broken entirely by some people, but they are there.

Consider: there is no one in a society more free than a sociopath.

What you just wrote wouldn't necessarily put you at odds with Mises. Mises does not rely on some mystical property rights. He believes them to be a social contract of sorts. I am not sure where the big difference comes in.

However, I would argue that development of property rights is natural among any group of people. Put a group on an island, and they will develop some form or another of property rights. Maybe those property rights are defined differently, but property rights naturally arise out of a society because there is stuff and people naturally coordinate to determine who has rights to what. Now, I am not suggesting that equal property rights are necessarily naturally occurring (even though I am sure they are in some circumstances).

B-Ran wrote:I can't stress this point enough: the radical individualist position of modern libertarianism is untenable. Human beings are social creatures by nature, and determined to a large extent by the society they grow up in and the things they are exposed to. We have liberty, of course, but it's bounded liberty. The bounds can be expanded, even broken entirely by some people, but they are there.

You do not need to believe in a God-made set of property rights to see the value in having those rights. Obviously society is better off with well defined property rights. Mises' arguments usually consisted of showing why defining those property rights to an individual instead of a group was so much more economical.

Do I believe that the free market system is inherently more moral? Yes. But someone doesn't need to believe in the same objective morality that I do in order to see that the free market system is more productive, less controlling, more just, and makes more of what individuals want more accessible.

I would certainly agree that the free-market system is all in all as according to self-propagating pro-social mores. That's something that I can't disagree with, because, as they say, the proof is in the pudding. If you are measuring tangible non-"economic" things like technological advancement, mortality rates, etc, as your standard, then societies based off the market principle (at least socially, if not in practice; see the Scandinavian countries) are far and away the most successful civilizations out there.

But I tend to believe, (again, using the Scandinavian countries as an example) that it's not so much the free market itself that makes these societies successful as it is deeply-ingrained Western value systems. I believe the free market is consequent to these value systems, arising as a natural outgrowth of respect, kindness, positive regard, civic pride, and all the other hallmarks of traditional Western cultural probity. The free market is something that "good people," that is, those people who have most successfully integrated the Western value systems we've been talking about, naturally gravitate toward.

I feel the greatest problem we have in our country now has less to do with government interfering in our lives than it does cultural diffusion. The socialists, who are the antithetical opposites of Westerners, have known for a long time that the best road to their vision (which is not really an economic vision, but almost a spiritual calling) is decaying the Western cultural framework that holds free market capitalism up. The market economy is fragile, and depends for its strength on the ethical integrity of all its members. For forty years, the socialists and change agents have worked at undermining the foundation of our cultural, knowing that doing so would undermine the foundation of our economy, knowing that doing so would eventually cause a chain reaction pulling both down into the mire and muck of mediocrity.

Government interference in the marketplace will not change until there is a cultural sea-change in this country. I'm not talking about a revolution. I'm talking about a realignment to the cultural ideals that have brought us as far as we are. The free market cannot exist outside of the culture that gave birth to it. Society just won't have it, no matter how many good reasons you give them, because their weak and shifting mores are not fit to handle the burden. It's not as if this is a war we have the luxury of fighting on two fronts. It must be fought on the beach of culture before it can reach the inland of policy.

How do you think we can change the culture? I think that has to involve discussion of the free market. Besides, there is no reason that you can't pursue cultural change and ideological changes. They definitely are not mutually exclusive.

The main problem I see is that the culture is largely unprepared to speak the language of the free-market. We no longer live in a culture defined by a wrong-versus-right mentality. As evidenced by, say, the overwhelmingly negative treatment Israel gets for retaliating against Hamas rocket strikes, we live in a culture dominated by a strong-versus-weak ethos, where the strong is always the wicked oppressor and the weak is always the righteous victim, no matter the circumstances. Some time later, I'll tell you about my Social Stratification and Social Systems class... Suffice it to say, it's opening my eye to the irrationality of the emergent culture. Just because the free market makes ordered, logical, modernistic sense doesn't mean anything to a culture who believes all of those thing are evidence of a wicked oppressive Western hegemony.

It's important to remember that the New Deal, as poorly-designed as it was, was still informed by what most people considered at the time a reliable, "scientific" view of economics (regardless of whether it was actually that, that's how it was perceived). The Great Society, on the other hand, was informed by the nascent strong-versus-weak ethos. That was the beginning of the end. Comparatively speaking, Roosevelt's cultural damage was small beans compared to the damage inflicted by Johnson, because at least Roosevelt was trying to save an America that was. Johnson was trying to create an America that had never been, and in so doing only managed to start a process culminating in the end of America as we'd known it.

On a related note, you really ought to read White Guilt by Shelby Steele. I have it here on my bookshelf. Not only is it super skinny; it's also one of the best books written about the beginning of the end.

B-Ran wrote:The main problem I see is that the culture is largely unprepared to speak the language of the free-market. We no longer live in a culture defined by a wrong-versus-right mentality. As evidenced by, say, the overwhelmingly negative treatment Israel gets for retaliating against Hamas rocket strikes, we live in a culture dominated by a strong-versus-weak ethos, where the strong is always the wicked oppressor and the weak is always the righteous victim, no matter the circumstances. Some time later, I'll tell you about my Social Stratification and Social Systems class... Suffice it to say, it's opening my eye to the irrationality of the emergent culture. Just because the free market makes ordered, logical, modernistic sense doesn't mean anything to a culture who believes all of those thing are evidence of a wicked oppressive Western hegemony.

It's important to remember that the New Deal, as poorly-designed as it was, was still informed by what most people considered at the time a reliable, "scientific" view of economics (regardless of whether it was actually that, that's how it was perceived). The Great Society, on the other hand, was informed by the nascent strong-versus-weak ethos. That was the beginning of the end. Comparatively speaking, Roosevelt's cultural damage was small beans compared to the damage inflicted by Johnson, because at least Roosevelt was trying to save an America that was. Johnson was trying to create an America that had never been, and in so doing only managed to start a process culminating in the end of America as we'd known it.

On a related note, you really ought to read White Guilt by Shelby Steele. I have it here on my bookshelf. Not only is it super skinny; it's also one of the best books written about the beginning of the end.

I agree that we have plenty of cultural issues to deal with. Some lack of sympathy for Israel or Palestine or whoever is most likely a consequence of entangled alliances and us try to police the world directly and indirectly... but even so, I know we are in a really wierd culture.

However, I think there is hope for change (sorry Obama). Really, I do. As the government's failures become more and more blatantly obvious and people become poorer and poorer, it seems inevitable that the culture will be prime for change. Hopefully that change isn't toward more total control for the government, although it could be. Hopefully people begin to wake up during the hard times and realize that the government wasn't taking care of them all along. Hopefully people can realize that it is not the government that makes your workplace, your food, and your medical care safe. Hopefully people will realize that as scary as terrorists are, our government can be far worse. I think that this sort of change is possible. This is why I support Dr. Ron Paul, the Ludwig von Mises Institute, and other institutions that promote freedom.

Here is where all of this comes full circle for me...

Compromise of free market values will not work. I know that it is culturally engrained in us that no one is more right than anyone else. It is not socially correct to say that someone is flat out wrong. However, the free market is the best economic system for all (except those that would receive special priviledges through the govenrment). If I start falling back to compromise here and there, I have violated the only principles that I am trying to promote. The way for me to promote the free market is through transparency. Will my ideas always be met with acceptance? Of course not. If my goal was acceptance, I would never aim to change people's ideas. Since I do aim to change people's ideas, it might mean that a lot of people resist the ideas that I talk of. However, I believe that there are some important allies to the change that I hope for. Freedom, peace, and prosperity are inherently attractive to most. People also value the truth. Whether or not the value for truth is as high as it was 100 years ago, who knows... I just know that many people I know simply want to know the truth. I simply want to know the truth. Even though the culture may be against the free market, it can only be so once people stop valuing freedom, peace, prosperity and truth enough to do their homework. I think people still have that in them.

I think you vastly underestimate the power of the crypto-socialist machine. Like I said, it's not the concepts that people aren't prepared to hear; it's the entire language of the free market. You need to find yourself a group of college students and just sit down and try to talk to them about your ideas. In fact, there's a challenge for you. Next time you're at Roma, just try to even make one inroad with the regulars there. These are the people who elected President Obama, the people who sincerely believe that the government is the only thing keeping the rich from raping the poor even more than they already do. People like me... Well, I'm an old-school libertarian. I was registered as a member of the Libertarian party from the time I could register (in 2002) up until this year, when I registered Democrat (heh). I'm not someone you really need to convince of anything.

In college, where I do regularly try and punch holes in the myths of the crypto-socialists, I'm not really called on to talk anymore. I am the opposition, and in a place that diverse, you can't have the opposition in there actually making people think. You seem to believe that your ideas will resonate just because they are logical. Well, I've got news for you. We didn't get to where we are today because people listened to logical ideas.

B-Ran wrote:I think you vastly underestimate the power of the crypto-socialist machine. Like I said, it's not the concepts that people aren't prepared to hear; it's the entire language of the free market. You need to find yourself a group of college students and just sit down and try to talk to them about your ideas. In fact, there's a challenge for you. Next time you're at Roma, just try to even make one inroad with the regulars there. These are the people who elected President Obama, the people who sincerely believe that the government is the only thing keeping the rich from raping the poor even more than they already do. People like me... Well, I'm an old-school libertarian. I was registered as a member of the Libertarian party from the time I could register (in 2002) up until this year, when I registered Democrat (heh). I'm not someone you really need to convince of anything.

B-Ran, I have conversations with people about this stuff almost every day. I talk to people at work or anywhere else I have the chance. I talk to my friends and family also. If the opportunity presents itself at Roma, there would be plenty of resistance to the idea, but I will be happy to talk to them too. I talk to people that think I am crazy every day. Parts of my own family think I am radical (and not in the Ninja Turtle way). Yes, I run into plenty of resistance.

However, I am making progress. People at work now come to me with a "what do you think about (insert political or economic event) that happened yesterday", at least a few times a week. When they do so, they are coming to ask me about it to know what really is going on and what they should believe. I have people here asking me for advice on investment strategy, and that leaves the door wide open to talk about why things are the way that they are. This is because I have built rapport with them and I am very open and honest about my beliefs. Parts of my family have began to look at the role of government and the economic consequences. Some of my friends now pay attention to what happens in the news, and ask questions later. You see, there is progress to be made. Public opinion is made up of millions and millions of individuals. Grassroots is the way that the message of freedom will resonate. No advertisement or flyer will convince one person or another. Even well written books do not contain the power that is in the spoken word from someone you trust. I am not arguing against flyers, ads, or books. I think all of those have their place. However, nothing that we do will replace the person to person conversations. I have so far found progress. Do 9 out of 10 people simply reject my ideas right off the bat? Yes. Of those 9 people that do not even consider that what I am saying could be true, a few of them come to me later on to ask a few questions. At least I know that they were thinking. All I am saying, is that there is progress being made.

B-Ran wrote:In college, where I do regularly try and punch holes in the myths of the crypto-socialists, I'm not really called on to talk anymore. I am the opposition, and in a place that diverse, you can't have the opposition in there actually making people think. You seem to believe that your ideas will resonate just because they are logical. Well, I've got news for you. We didn't get to where we are today because people listened to logical ideas.

I thought you were the one that would refuse to be hopeless, even if it was delusional to be hopeful. You are sounding hopeless when there actually is hope. Yes, if you see people as a single entity... there seems to be no hope. When you realize that people are individuals and are struggling through ideas and struggling through life, just like you and I, you realize that there are a lot of people who really do value the truth of the matter.

If you think that this sort of message does not resonate with the people, you would have agreed with Ron Paul before he started his presidential campaign. People had to convince him to run, even though he thought that America was not ready to accept anything that he was saying. He ran anyway and was blown away by the support he received. He set fundraising records all through the campaign. His was the campaign that led the Republican party in money donated from our soldiers. He was the 2nd to last Republican in the race. Did he win? Not the presidency. However, now there is a movement that is beginning to take hold. That movement is a group of people who are more fired up than the Obama-fans or the Palin-ites. Hillary's supporters do not come close to contesting the enthusiasm and determination that the Ron Paul supporters have. Yes, it is not a dominant group in the political arena yet. However, with lots of hard work, it can be. Part of that work involves speaking logically and knowledgably about the economy, governemnt's role, and freedom in general. Maybe for you it involves writing in a paper and for me it means talking to my co-workers. For Brain-Train, it might be speaking up in class or holding a sign. You see, there is not one way that we are going to change the culture to a culture that demands logical answers. We will change it through millions of tactics. Hopefully as we learn from trial and error what works and what doesnt, we refine our efforts to be as effective as possible. I am not ready to give up on the hope that enough people can love freedom more than false security. We are entering a very tumultuous economic and political time. The next 10 years could be the nail in the coffin for America or it could be a revolutionary period. Ultimately, we can go along for the ride or we can do everything in our power to use the hard times to bring us back to the fundamentals that made this country so great in the first place. Ideas will end up making or breaking us as a country.

"Everyone carries a part of society on his shoulders; no one is relieved of his share of responsibility by others. And no one can find a safe way for himself if society is sweeping towards destruction. Therefore everyone, in his own interest, must thrust himself vigorously into the intellectual battle."
LvM

Oh, don't get me wrong... I'm far from hopeless. But I am literally shut out of the conversation a lot of the time. My hand, as it were, doesn't get called.

It's good to hear that you're talking to people at your work. I try and talk about these sorts of issues in my circle of influence.

Do I think change is possible, even probable? Actually, yes. And maybe my vision is a tad-bit skewed from having been "in the game" for as long as I have (I've been paying near-religious attention to politics since I've been eight), but I think that change will only come if you can give people something concrete to look at that proves your point. And I'm not talking about something negative that simply disproves someone else's point, I'm talking about something that can be observed, quantified, and judged as obvious in ten minutes.

Then again, there are many "game-changers" waiting in the wings: the recession, the dissolution of the climate change myth, and Obama failing to deliver on any of his promises are things I see as possible inroads in the future.

I guess, do what you can with what you have, right? After all, you gotta have faith.