Alcohol & Welfare Programs: Topics on today's show

[Homer]

We now seem to be descending into socialism.

Seems we are becomming an obamanation. Did I spell that right?

[Candlepower]

Homer asked,

Seems we are becomming an obamanation. Did I spell that right?

You spelled obamanation right, but you missed becoming.

[Homer]

I'm thinking I got confused. I spelled abomination as obamanation - messed up with the placement of the "a" and "o". But now I'm confused again. The words might be sinonyms, what with abortion and now gay marriage.

[Candlepower]

Kaufmanphillips,

Clearly, you don’t have a good understanding of literary economics either. You could say just as little with far fewer words. Which reminds me of an old adage that seems to fit here, and parallels my “All hat and no horse” image of your economic theories. It is, “If you can’t dazzle ‘em with brilliance, baffle ‘em with BS (Barnyard Stuff).”

You said,

“An artful rhetorician generally should avoid H(itler)-bombs and N(azi)-bombs.”

That’s a high-sounding attempt to avoid being held responsible for your associations. You proudly advertise you are a socialist. I pointed out that Hitler was a socialist, too. That’s history. If you don’t like “Hitler/Nazi bombs,” then don’t stand so close to Hitler.

Socialism is the economic system of totalitarians. You have chosen to align yourself, economically, with Hitler and other totalitarians. Kaboom! You dropped the bombs on yourself, Kaufman! Don’t blame me for calling a socialist a socialist.

I know the truth can be embarrassing, but you’re the one admitting he shares Hitler’s economic theory, which is Nazism (National Socialism). National Socialism is a bit of a misnomer, though, because as soon as Hitler crossed the border, he packed his socialism with him, making him an international socialist, like you. Like him, you long to see the chains of socialism fastened on the whole world. Of course, socialists see themselves as liberators, not oppressors. “Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!” (Isaiah 5:20)

Hitler’s megalomaniacal socialism and repugnant racism sprang from the same foul root: collectivism. Collectivists, like you, yearn to arrange and control society according to their elitist visions. They look at themselves as potters and humanity as mud for them to mold. There is only a short distance between economic manipulation and biological manipulation of humanity. The premise is the same.

Your stance with Hitler reminds me of those sack races…you know, where two people each put one of their legs into a burlap bag and then run. You and Adolph may not be altogether in the same bag, but you at least share one, and are running together. Awkwardly.

You said

not all socialists are authoritarian…

Yes they are, unless they’re in comas or are just smoking dope and goofing around about socialism. Think about it: if socialists are not authoritarian, then how can their theories ever be implemented and maintained? Every law system is authoritarian. Try not paying your taxes in a socialist system, or in any system. Try walking away from a gulag.

All socialists dream of their schemes being implemented and of themselves being in authority. I’ve never met or heard of a socialist who didn’t want socialism to be in authority. Socialism, by nature, is authoritarian, and usually very heavy-handed. It may appear as a velvet glove, but eventually the iron fist beneath is revealed. Orwell described it as "...a boot stomping on the face of man forever." Socialists lust for authority over others. Your posts drip with your desire to order society according to your theories…to have authority. God save us.

You claimed

I don't need to fall all over to "distance [my]self from the Nazis"; I'm only some decades and an international flight from a boxcar ride to Treblinka - that distance is significant enough.

No, it is not. There are socialists in America. In your town, even. Geography and time do not distance you from the Nazis (National Socialism). But saying, “I reject National Socialism,” would distance you from Nazism. I challenge you to do so.

[Ian]

John wrote:

Unfortunately our society seems to think that they have a God-given right to be served with things they have not worked for.

Yes, but don`t forget that there are an awful lot of failed small businesses in the history of the world where people have worked incredibly hard and, for whatever reason, their endeavour has not borne any or adequate fruit.

[thrombomodulin]

John wrote:
Yes, but don`t forget that there are an awful lot of failed small businesses in the history of the world where people have worked incredibly hard and, for whatever reason, their endeavour has not borne any or adequate fruit.

What do you say ought to be done about such a situation - if anything at all?

[john6809]

John wrote:

Unfortunately our society seems to think that they have a God-given right to be served with things they have not worked for.

Yes, but don`t forget that there are an awful lot of failed small businesses in the history of the world where people have worked incredibly hard and, for whatever reason, their endeavour has not borne any or adequate fruit.

I don't disagree with you Ian. Notice I was writing about those who haven't worked hard. I have also worked very hard at certain things and found very little success. I could hope somebody would compensate me for my efforts, but nobody owes it to me. We don't have to look very far to see that life is not always fair. I do empathize with those who, through no fault of their own, can't seem to buy a break. I don't know what the answer is, aside from continuing to serve God with all that we have and leaving the results up to him.

[thrombomodulin]

Paidion,

Since your suggestion to look into the merits of social credit, I read have Douglas's book as far as through the second chapter of Part II. Douglas appears to be basing his theory on a premise that I am having trouble finding any agreement with. I am writing to ask if you might be able to explain where I am misunderstanding him, or if you know where I may be making an error in rejecting his premise.

The premise is that Douglas affirms that without a flow of bank credit it necessarily follows that not all of the products produced by industry are able to be sold because "wages, salaries, or dividends" are an amount less than the total cost of production. I do not understanding why he affirms this to be a true statement. For it is the case that whatever other expenditures one company may have are at one and the same time income to the owners of the other companies from which those purchases are made. As far as I can see, the owners of those other companies obtain all of the money which is allegedly missing to fund purchases of the total industrial output.

However, even if it were true that industry had some monetary expense which was absolutely not recoverable, I am still of the opinion that Douglas's premise is false. For suppose an angel were to destroy 50% of the money each person owns in the middle of the night. Would it not be the case that those employees who recognize it will be much more eager to work at yesterday's wages rates, but much less eager to spend any of it? And employers would likewise no longer be willing to pay the old wage rates, and much less willing to sell their inventory? Thus, it should be the case that such a scenario would cause all wages and prices would fall by approximately a factor of two. A business owner who restricts himself to selling his inventory at a nominal profit, as Douglas would have it, would surely find a lack of willing buyers. His unsold inventory, however, is of little personal benefit to himself. Sooner or later, as his needs for consumption cannot perpetually go unfulfilled, he will have to accept the lower prices and sell at a nominal loss. In so doing, however, he does not sell at a real loss for the by selling for $.50 cents on the dollar he recovers approximately the same amount of purchasing power as was expended in the creation of the product. Thus he can produce onward in business at the new price level. If the situation were that the angel had only targeted employees and not employers, or vice versa, a similar deflationary outcome occurs with a one time wealth transfer from one group to the other.

There is also a nebulous idea involved, I think, to the effect that the man who grows, e.g. a ton of potatoes, also grows the purchasing-power of a ton of potatoes. The facts are far otherwise, as no doubt large numbers of potato-growers could testify.

In the above remark Douglas references what I believe is a correct understanding of production and purchasing power, but he dismisses it by saying "the facts are otherwise" without elaboration. I don't see why the facts are otherwise. For when anyone purchases goods on the market and undertakes efforts to transform them into something more highly valued in the marketplace, then he is able to obtain money via such productive work. The potato farmer does exactly this. Engaging in productive activity is the means by men obtain money. Each person, of course, does so for the purpose of using it in the future to buy, among other things, consumption goods. Since a man is able to work in excess of the amount he consumes (e.g. by building his cash reserves, or more accurately increasing their effective purchasing power), it follows that the overall volume of production is not limited in any way by the quantity of currency in circulation. If all men were to attempt to restrict consumption and save at the same time they will not, of course, in the aggregate increase the nominal quantity of the cash reserves, but what they will succeed in doing is increasing the amount of purchasing power available because the prices of consumer goods falls. Equilibrium exists when prices fall far enough that men no longer have a greater preference towards increasing their cash reserves as opposed to spending those reserves on presently available goods. Thus, an environment of deflation (increasing goods, with a constant amount of currency) does not hinder the expansion of production.

I would appreciate if you could help me out where my understanding of Douglas's premise is wrong, or if the reason I expressed above for disagreeing with it is invalid.

Thanks
Peter

[kaufmannphillips]

kaufmannphillips wrote:
Is there any other locus, besides scripture, where G-d has positively granted the authority to define said principle?

thrombomodulin wrote:
In stating commands such as "do not steal", or "do not covet what belongs to your neighbor's", God has affirmed the concept of private property. If it were otherwise, the notion of coveting and/or stealing what belongs to someone else would be meaningless. The task before us is to discern which property belongs to which person. As the scripture does not explicitly define property ownership, and one cannot deny its existence, it is in my judgement fair to deduce what those principles are. I am unaware of a superior analysis than expressed by John Locke, and am willing to follow this line of reasoning until such a time as a superior definition of could be articulated and defended. You might recall that my final challenge to you on the usury thread was to articulate a competing definition of property rights.

The proscriptions on covetousness and stealing do not require a concept of private property. Rather, we may identify these proscriptions as matters of stewardship and honor.


Discussing this further:

You have paraphrased the command “do not covet what belongs to your neighbor’s” [sic]. In Hebrew, the command uses three conventional grammatical possessive constructs: (a) “the such-and-such of your neighbor”; (b) “his such-and-such”; and (c) “all which is to/for your neighbor.”

The question, then, is whether use of a grammatical possessive implies a theory of private property. Quite simply, it does not. And how may we determine this?

For the first two constructs above, we may consider the case of an individual’s father: “the father of Shlomo”; or “Shlomo’s father.” Despite the grammatical possessive, one’s father is certainly not one’s private property. Rather, the grammatical possessive connotes some manner of associative correlation between the two (i.e., Shlomo and the father).

Likewise for the third construct: “to/for Shlomo” is expressive of an associative correlation; something is associated with Shlomo in some manner. Let’s make it a tomato: the tomato is to/for Shlomo. (We also could say that it is “the tomato of Shlomo” or “Shlomo’s tomato.” Tuh-may-toh, tuh-mah-toh.) When we say that the tomato is “to” Shlomo or “for” Shlomo, this does not necessarily connote that it is Shlomo’s private property. The tomato may be associated/correlated with Shlomo in some other fashion.


What “other fashion,” then, shall we consider? Most eminently, I propose stewardship. Note here: close attention to Genesis 24 reveals that the steward is using his master’s camels, and yet the text refers to them as “his” (i.e., the steward’s) camels. This demonstrates that the grammatical possessive can be used in the context of stewardship, without requiring a connotation of private property.

Of course, there is a close association/correlation between a steward and property – a steward manages property, invests property, protects property – but a steward does not own property. A steward does not regard the property as a matter of his/her own private interest; rather, the steward realizes that there is legitimate interest in the property, beyond his/her own, and the steward acts to serve that legitimate interest.

Now, the person of faith may conceptualize along the lines of being a steward for G-d; the secularist may conceptualize along the lines of being a steward for the public. And the two conceptualizations may find tremendous common ground, when both G-d and public-mindedness require love of neighbor.


What, then, of stealing and covetousness? Without a notion of private property, how do these proscriptions fit in?

We may recognize that stewardship is an important and pervasive aspect of being human. Every person of passable competence has some assortment of stewardships that comprise the fabric of their lives: stewardships of materials; stewardships of relationships; stewardships of abilities, etc.

And in an Ancient Near Eastern/Mediterranean context, this all becomes entangled with the eminent question of honor. Honor has largely been jettisoned in our society, but it was an immense factor in ancient societies, and it remains immense in other non-Western societies today.

Participation in an honor-focused social framework requires careful attention to the dignity of others and to their honorable roles and activities. And upon reflection, there is little more honorable, and little more intrinsic to our dignity, than stewardships (when they are rightly acquitted).


Accordingly, stealing from a steward can become an issue of honor in a number of respects – it can be an insult to the steward, implying low esteem for his/her stewardly activities; it can threaten the honor of the steward, to the extent that stewardly honor hinges upon protecting goods from theft; it can disrupt or obstruct honorable activities of stewardship through a resulting lack of materials and/or diminished public trust in the competency of the steward.

A due regard for honor requires that one party should not act in a way that compromises the honor of another – at least, not without an overriding and just concern. But (broadly speaking) matters of overriding and just concern should be prosecuted in a straightforward manner, affording a fair opportunity to defend or conserve honor. Stealing is surreptitious and avoids this sort of due process.


On a similar tack, covetousness is an issue because it militates against duly honoring others’ stewardships. This may lead to stealing, or to slandering, or to other activities that injure the honor of another.


In this thread, I will press you: it is one thing for you to favor Locke's analysis, and to follow his reasoning in your own ethical behavior - but by what authority could you impose this definition on others?

You wrote: "Since stealing not a positive law, but rather negative law, I would like ask if you clarify what you mean by 'imposing'. Perhaps you could clarify with an example."

So let us imagine that Karl does not buy into Lockean reasoning, and annexes forty acres of land that you (by Lockean reasoning) consider to be yours. He fences you out, and arranges for diligent guards to patrol the acreage. From your personal outlook, Karl is robbing you of your property. But by what authority would you require Karl to submit to your definition and desist from holding the land?

kaufmannphillips wrote:
If the principle by which private property is established has not been authoritatively defined, then how could one demonstrate that one is a rightful owner?"

thrombomodulin wrote:
By concluding that property ownership can be deduced by reasoning from natural law. If this conclusion were incorrect, then it necessarily follows that the command "do not steal" is meaningless. Since God's commandments cannot be considered meaningless, I must conclude that God's word affirms property rights and expects that human beings are able to reason correctly about what those rights are.

To begin with - an appeal to "natural law" will not conclusively demonstrate one's favored principle of ownership. Charles might hold that it is "natural law" for humans to struggle in competition with each other, no holds barred; theft, violence, treachery would all be part of the natural order, sieving the gene pool for human strength. Thomas might hold that it is "natural law" for humans to innovate and impose communal paradigms, involving any variety of potential stipulations, as a coping mechanism in a harsh and challenging world.

Different persons may have differing concepts of "nature"; accordingly, they may have differing concepts of "natural law"; and given these differing concepts, they may settle upon differing concepts of "property ownership." Since human reason can (quite reasonably) afford such a variety of different concepts, appeal to "natural law" cannot be relied upon for conclusive demonstration of one's favored principle.


Next - the command "do not steal" does not have to depend upon "natural law" to define its implication; the command was instituted in a particular place, at a particular time, when there may have been a commonly-held understanding about what sorts of behavior would and would not have been referred to. In other words, the implication of the command may have hinged upon contemporary social context, and not upon what somebody might favor given their (potentially anachronistic) concept of "natural law."

The command may have had plain and obvious implications in the minds of its intended audience: ancient Israelites and/or Jews. And so it would not have been meaningless. But one might complain that, due to lamentable ignorance of ancient social context, it is impossible for a present audience to identify what the implication of the command might have been in precise and appropriately nuanced terms. Of course, life is rife with complaints; but not all complaints will receive satisfaction. It simply is not requisite, that we twenty-first-century denizens must be able to identify the original implications of ancient ordinances.

It is lamentable, for example, that we cannot identify some of the beasts that are mentioned in the dietary code. The community failed to preserve the ancient understanding of certain words. But life is subject to vicissitudes. In the latter part of the Second Temple era, there was no ark of the covenant in the sanctuary. Quel dommage - people coped with the shortcoming and pressed onward. There is no guarantee that every generation will be able to recover the estate of the ancients in full.

Then again, it is not altogether necessary to do so: present engagement of a command does not have to derive from its engagement within previous historical context. Laws may be engaged differently in different times and places; the sword may become a plowshare, and the plowshare a sword. Law is a tool for the people of G-d, and they may employ that tool flexibly, with proper respect.

kaufmannphillips wrote:
What burden rests upon a purchaser if they are purchasing a type of good that is notoriously liable to have been stolen?

thrombomodulin wrote:
None, could you point me to a law in the scripture anywhere which states otherwise?

One shall not covet that which is to/for his neighbor - one should be careful not to yearn for an item, when there is a reasonable likelihood that the item was stolen and still might rightfully be to/for the stewardship of another.

One shall love one's neighbor as oneself – incaution about purchasing would expand the viable market for stolen goods, increasing the temptation to pursue larcenous enterprise; if one prays “lead me not into temptation,” it might behoove one to avoid increasing temptation for one’s neighbor.

One shall serve HSHM - if one sustains a concern about being a good steward, one might avoid expending money carelessly on items when there is a reasonable likelihood that one will have to turn around and surrender them to their rightful steward.

kaufmannphillips wrote:
But if the homesteading principle has not been authorized by positive grant, how shall it be held to invalidate "swath" claims?

thrombomodulin wrote:
If homesteading is invalid then the merits, or lack thereof, of "swath" claims need be assessed on other grounds. Do you wish to affirm swath claims? Which particular ones do you recognize in the past as valid? Are there any you don't recognize as valid? How do you decide between mutually contradictory swath claims? Will you accept it if right now I choose to make a swath claim of the whole world for myself?

I do not consider "swath" claims to be categorically invalid; some may be valid and some may not, hinging upon the question of rightful stewardship. And rightful stewardship is contingent upon capacity and/or potential to satisfactorily fulfill the role of steward over the property in question.

I am not convinced of your capacity and/or potential to rightfully steward the whole world; but if you like, you may present argumentation and evidence to persuade me otherwise.

kaufmannphillips wrote:
Also, for the sake of discussion: if the homesteading principle were upheld, how then might wilderness be protected? Without improvement, the land would be unowned; without ownership, one could not dispute another person's taking and improving the land.

thrombomodulin wrote:
I agree that there is not a basis for disputing unowned land from being developed, thus the wilderness is not protected.

Do you have a remedy to propose for this?

kaufmannphillips wrote:
The contract could include some stipulation: e.g., on a recurring annual basis, landowner X will pay a sum, to be assessed by Society, Inc., and the sum shall be applied to the defense and/or general welfare of Society, Inc.; and the penalty for failing to pay said sum on any particular occasion will be the forfeiture of X's landholdings to Society, Inc.

Now, let us imagine that certain influential members of a population form one of these contractual bodies; and then they shrewdly and inflexibly apply blacklist/boycott/embargo tactics to pressure others to join the contractual body. Once a tipping point in social mass was surpassed, it seems highly probable that only a very few persons would persist in refusing to join the contractual body.

thrombomodulin wrote:
I agree that a corporation can be formed by a specific or particular set of contracts, and that pursuant to those contracts others could be made. The idea that a person would become a participant in such a one sided contract, or a contract where the penaties are so great, is very unlikely if not impossible.

On one hand, history shows that people quite often do enter into contracts that sap their autonomy and freedom, and that pose a serious liability to their assets and/or their personal welfare.

On another hand, it might not be "such a one-sided contract"; quite plausibly, there might be other stipulations redounding to the landowner's benefit, e.g., security services, arbitration of disputes, defined use of corporate properties, subsidized training, limited insurance in case of disability or disaster - all provided by Society, Inc.

And so signatories would gain access to a large market, and the shelter of a corporate body that looks out for signatories' defense and welfare. In other words, they would get civilization. And for millennia, humans have been relinquishing their independence to sign that sort of deal.

kaufmannphillips wrote:
What about residents who do not own property?

thrombomodulin wrote:
Residents who do not own property are able to establish a contract with a property owner to allow them to live on said land owners holdings per the term and duration of the contract. Any person other than the property owner does not have the rightful authority to overrule the decision of the property owner. This is similar to one going to disney land. The owner(s) of disney land agree that I may be present on their property in exchange for a certain payment. A person who does not own disney land not have the authority to expel a person from Disney land.

So let us imagine that an individual cannot find an independent landowner who is willing to take them as a tenant; all they can find are landowners who require that they sign on with Society, Inc. What then of the individual's liberty?

It seems that this line of thought would yield a real-estate-based oligarchy. Persons who do not own property would fall into the hands of persons who do own property - all the more so as wealth became concentrated into the hands of a few, as it rather tends to do. The owners of vast estates could extort almost anything in terms of wealth and/or behavior from their tenants, simply in exchange for a place to live.

Every human needs a place to live. So if Lockean reasoning establishes a rubric whereby some persons can leverage this need to enslave others, there had better be a good rationale for why landholding is a justifiable means-test for occupying that level of power.

kaufmannphillips wrote:
And what about persons whose property is mortgaged? I suppose major financial institutions aren't terribly interested in being blacklisted/boycotted/embargoed and trying to survive under a state of autarky.

thrombomodulin wrote:
How is the case of a mortgage relevant to the question at hand.

If major financial institutions were anxious to avoid being blacklisted/boycotted/embargoed, then they would not offer mortgages to persons who refused to contract with Society, Inc. This would pose a significant obstacle to refuseniks being able to obtain land in the first place, and thus an obstacle to living apart from Society, Inc.

thrombomodulin wrote:
I do not think it is possible that such autarky can arise under a free market.

How does one arrive at blithe faith in a "free market"? Unregulated markets quite easily develop into oligarchic markets. Wealth, power, and control become consolidated into the hands of the few, and then those few manipulate the market. Meaningful challenges are stifled, sidelined, strong-armed, sabotaged, or simply bought out.

Once a free market has become an oligarchic market, it is quite feasible for economic coercion to begin, pushing people to choose between compliance and autarky.

kaufmannphillips wrote:
In socialism, the axial interest is society - how society will be structured, so as to meet the needs and interests of society. In capitalism, the axial interest is stuff - how stuff will be managed, so as to yield and acquire more stuff.

In one, the economy is about people; in the other, people are about the economy (n.b., the phrase "human capital"). In one, the significance of stuff is what it can do for people; in the other, the significance of people is what they can do for stuff.

Candlepower wrote:
By the way, Human Action is the title of the monumental work by Ludwig Von Mises. In it, he demolishes socialism. You ought to read it. It will help you understand economics.

kaufmannphillips wrote:
If you "understand" it, how's about you make the points yourself. Surely that would be more advantageous for readers here than a ~900-page reading assignment.

thrombomodulin wrote:
Kaufmannphillips - your comment indeed reveals an ignorance of Human Action. For, in this work Mises expresses that the ends sought after pertain to the satisfaction of that which humans desire. The focus is on the needs and interest of human beings - not on stuff. The content of this book represents the foundation of capitalism: Mises, among other things, develops praxeology, subjective value theory, and carefully considers the crucial question of whether the means employed would attain the end sought after. Given your very high degree of interest in refuting capitalism as being inferior to socialism, I concur with Candlepower that you ought to read and gain an understanding of this work. As a follower of Mises's I will do my best to represent his argument as we continue to dialog on this forum, but understand that getting the information from a novice like myself in a very summarized form, is going to be inferior to reading from an expert in full detail.

Perhaps you can understand disinterest in plowing through a 900-page tome on the recommendation of a "novice." Either you understand the principles well enough to present them yourself, or you do not. And if you do not understand them well enough to present them yourself, then why should I imagine you have chosen well as to who/what to follow and believe?


Now, whatever the theoretical contrivances of von Mises, in the real world we see that the axial interest of capitalism is not the needs and interests of people. Cigarette manufacturers do not produce highly addictive and toxic products because they want to meet the needs and interests of people. Soda manufacturers do not impose a 2500% markup because they want to meet the needs and interests of people. Popular artists do not charge hundreds of dollars a head for meet-and-greets with their fans because they want to meet the needs and interests of people.

Of course, capitalists do pay some attention to the needs and interests of people - so long as it will afford an advantage to profit. But there are other means to the profitable end, and capitalists employ them readily. Marketers devise multimillion-dollar campaigns to generate interest and sense of need, quite often when there is no substantive interest or actual need to begin with. At times, marketers strive to tear down people's interest in and sense of need for competitors' products, even though those products may do a better job of meeting people's interests and needs. And corporate lobbyists pour millions of dollars into convincing elected officials to go against the general needs and interests of constitutents. Over and again, people's genuine interests and needs are steamrolled or shoved aside or steered askew if they happen to stand in the way of profit and/or advantage.

When particular companies or individuals break from this pattern, and prioritize the interests and needs of people over their own advantage and/or profit, they do not do so because they are capitalists - they do so because they are not only capitalists, but human beings with other sensibilities that also demand satisfaction.

kaufmannphillips wrote:
all human efforts at justice involve the imposition of values upon others ....Et Frederic Footballeur a dit...

thrombomodulin wrote:
Right - but the issue is not whether or not there should be an absence of impositions, but rather discerning which impositions are just or unjust. The capitalist position is that the right to impose exists over the property that one owns, but does exist over property that one does not own.

A capitalist position - not the capitalist position. Capitalists who pursue seizure under eminent domain, for example, would appear to hold a differing position.

Upon what basis is it determined that a person may hold an exclusive right to determine the usage of property?

thrombomodulin wrote:
Thus, one should say of the "Footballeur": I dispute the right to impose these plays contra the wishes of the owner of the playing field. The owner of the playing field may admit whichever players as he wishes (e.g. those who abide by certain rules), or expel those who disregard his wishes (e.g. those who do not abide by a curfew). I do not dispute my teammates' right to invent strategic plays, to practice them, to employ them in the midst of competition with other teams. He may do whatsoever he wishes - on his own property. Whether or not a player is wiser or more foolish is irrelevant.

And what owner wishes to indulge the whinging of a non-cooperative player?

Cher Frederic - the owner does not lease the field in twenty-two fractions to sundry individuals! Quel ridicule! To have one sportif doing his own thing, while the other twenty-one must play around him?! Mais non - the field is for teams, and the sportif who is not a team-player, he will not play.

Now, let us explore - in the sacred literature, the land was given to the children of Israel, and different Israelites laid claim to different parcels of land. So let us imagine that Ish-bosheth decides to have done with his clansmen, and live under autarky. Does he retain a rightful claim to the parcel of land he has occupied and tended? Or does his renunciation of Israel mean he has renounced a rightful claim to the land as well?

kaufmannphillips wrote:
Even under American convention, individual “rights” are understood to have limits. A classic example: the individual’s legal right to freedom of speech does not entitle them to unnecessarily cry “Fire!” in a crowded theatre. In such a circumstance, the individual’s “right” does not extend so far as to afford the unwarranted endangerment of others.
...
An individual’s “right” to hold property comes into tension with another individual’s “right” to receive charitable provision. How shall these “rights” be resolved?

thrombomodulin wrote:
On page 52 and 53 of For a new liberty, Murray N Rothbard observes that a correct ethical analysis of this case involves the application of property rights. Thus he demonstrates that one need not "circumscribe rights", but rather that property rights are foundational and the notion of a "right of free speech" should be rejected altogether. One avoids conflict by affirming negative rather than positive statements: For example, no conflicts result from the affirmation "you shall not murder", but conflicts can result from affirming "has a right to life". Another example: One should affirm than one person may not take property that belongs to another (i.e. "thou shall not steal") rather than one has a right to take ownership of stuff (i.e. "a right to receive provision").

Does Rothbard bother to notice that a man without property (excepting his person) might then be deprived of free speech? If all property-owners require him to limit his speech as a requirement of allowing him on their property, or if property-owners only allow him unlimited speech if he pays an unaffordable fee, then property "rights" have silenced a man.


The reduction of all "rights" to "property rights" - this bears the stench of mammonolatry. Somehow, the most eminent and inviolable element of human being is supposed to be “ownership”? Skubalon.


I will point out that in both Jewish and Christian traditions, there are imperatives to love. And I will point out that these are not negative precepts, but positive ones. Yes, it is true that this might not allow one to avoid "conflicts," when one love comes into tension with another. But this is the nature of being: paradox; tension between righteous/cherished concerns.

[kaufmannphillips]

Candlepower wrote:
Clearly, you don’t have a good understanding of literary economics either. You could say just as little with far fewer words. Which reminds me of an old adage that seems to fit here, and parallels my “All hat and no horse” image of your economic theories. It is, “If you can’t dazzle ‘em with brilliance, baffle ‘em with BS (Barnyard Stuff).”

You may take a thrifty approach to literary economics, Candlepower: reducing to caricatures; reusing others' material; recycling stale cliches….

But I need not be sparing with my word count; after Steve Gregg’s post, I no longer have to maintain a limited-pie mentality, so I can go ahead and serve up hefty slices. And it poses no greater burden to you, Candlepower; you can scurry past many words or a few with a cursory insult.

kaufmannphillips wrote:
An artful rhetorician generally should avoid H(itler)-bombs and N(azi)-bombs.

Candlepower wrote:
That’s a high-sounding attempt to avoid being held responsible for your associations. You proudly advertise you are a socialist. I pointed out that Hitler was a socialist, too. That’s history. If you don’t like “Hitler/Nazi bombs,” then don’t stand so close to Hitler.

There were socialists long before Hitler was born. So it is not a question of socialists standing close to Hitler, but Hitler standing close to socialists.

What? Shall all socialists utterly abandon their ideas and ideals, because this Austrian painter came along and led people to act out upon their frustrations and dark prejudices? Of course, there have been other socialists - perhaps nominal, perhaps flawed - who have perpetrated gross misdeeds. But have there not been Americans - sworn officials and patriotic citizens - who have perpetrated atrocities? Shall Americans surrender our entire political heritage, because some parties (not few, but many) at some times (not few, but many) have butchered and plundered and oppressed?

Every long-standing philosophy, over time, will field paragons and rogues. From the paragons, we learn about the best potential of a philosophy; from the rogues, we learn about its worst potential. So with any philosophy, its adherents must develop workable ways to arrive at the best, while hedging against the worst.

Candlepower wrote:
Socialism is the economic system of totalitarians. You have chosen to align yourself, economically, with Hitler and other totalitarians

Of course, socialism is not “the” system of totalitarians; there have been plenty of non-socialist totalitarians. And there are non-totalitarian socialists. (You were highly impressed by them, remember?)

Candlepower wrote:
I know the truth can be embarrassing, but you’re the one admitting he shares Hitler’s economic theory, which is Nazism (National Socialism). National Socialism is a bit of a misnomer, though, because as soon as Hitler crossed the border, he packed his socialism with him, making him an international socialist, like you.

Hitler himself said "The basic feature of our economic theory is that we have no theory at all." And he spoke against internationalism (and democracy) as a vice of Jewish Marxism.

Hitler vaunted one particular nation over against others; and he crushed parties – including socialist parties – who could challenge or moderate his power within a democratic system. To lump die Fuhrer together with internationalist democratic socialists is an instance of association fallacy, viz., reductio ad hitlerum.

Candlepower wrote:
Like [Hitler], you long to see the chains of socialism fastened on the whole world. Of course, socialists see themselves as liberators, not oppressors. “Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!” (Isaiah 5:20)

"Woe," indeed – it's sad that you view economic cooperation, mutual support, and mutual responsibility as "chains." But are we to pretend that economic competition, mutual disengagement, and mutual neglect do not cripple the greater potential of a community?

Candlepower wrote:
Hitler’s megalomaniacal socialism and repugnant racism sprang from the same foul root: collectivism. Collectivists, like you, yearn to arrange and control society according to their elitist visions. They look at themselves as potters and humanity as mud for them to mold. There is only a short distance between economic manipulation and biological manipulation of humanity. The premise is the same.

Individualists also want to arrange and control society according to their preferences: a society where millions of petty autocracies vie for their idiosyncratic interests, without the inconvenience of positive responsibility to any but themselves and G-d (which is to say, to themselves and to the cobblings of their own theological fancies). But at least it’s not an elitist vision....

But what, then, is the vision of your scriptures? Does your bible view people as unfettered individuals, standing independent in glory and in strength? Or does it view people as members of a community, and as sheep in need of shepherds?

Invective along the lines of "megalomania" and "elitism" and "manipulation" could be levied at many a strong leader throughout human history - not only bad ones, but good ones as well. Sic semper tyrannis and all that.

If you wish to find a repugnant root of German anti-Jewishness, you will find one, deep and venerable <<cough>>, in the holy church. Need I quote Herr Doktor Luther?

Candlepower wrote:
Your stance with Hitler reminds me of those sack races…you know, where two people each put one of their legs into a burlap bag and then run. You and Adolph may not be altogether in the same bag, but you at least share one, and are running together. Awkwardly.

Of course, communists and social democrats were targeted and interned by the Nazis. When these socialists were suffering in the concentration camp, were they too running sack-races with Adolph? Must have been at the famous Dachau picnics .

Once again, we have the association fallacy: by your simplistic reductionism, all Christians would be cohorts of Torquemada; all US military personnel, collaborators at Abu Ghraib; all Republicans, colleagues of Richard Nixon; etc., etc.

kaufmannphillips wrote:
not all socialists are authoritarian…

Candlepower wrote:
Yes they are, unless they’re in comas or are just smoking dope and goofing around about socialism. Think about it: if socialists are not authoritarian, then how can their theories ever be implemented and maintained? Every law system is authoritarian. Try not paying your taxes in a socialist system, or in any system. Try walking away from a gulag.

All socialists dream of their schemes being implemented and of themselves being in authority. I’ve never met or heard of a socialist who didn’t want socialism to be in authority. Socialism, by nature, is authoritarian, and usually very heavy-handed. It may appear as a velvet glove, but eventually the iron fist beneath is revealed. Orwell described it as "...a boot stomping on the face of man forever." Socialists lust for authority over others. Your posts drip with your desire to order society according to your theories…to have authority. God save us.

You mean George Orwell, the leftist who wrote “Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism, as I understand it.” How shall I take you seriously, with this sort of reference?!

Now, I have introduced libertarian socialists in a previous posting. You dismiss them with ham-handed insults. Must be convenient, to dispatch inconducive facts with invective. Probably saves lots of time and effort.

Candlepower wrote:
You claimed

I don't need to fall all over to "distance [my]self from the Nazis"; I'm only some decades and an international flight from a boxcar ride to Treblinka - that distance is significant enough.

No, it is not. There are socialists in America. In your town, even. Geography and time do not distance you from the Nazis (National Socialism). But saying, “I reject National Socialism,” would distance you from Nazism. I challenge you to do so.

Well, now look who wants to call the tune and have others dance....