Guys, i think you missed the point somewhat. What i was talking about is people, who have little capability of doing work, not strong healthy retired folks. I mean, they get good bonuses from govt, but without it, it would probably be some old dirty barrack with food scraps and other low cost features by charity. Also, expensive healthcare services would be unavailable to them, due to donations being smaller than govt equivelants.
I understand that it is a cost that is worth it in exchange for liberty, but try telling that to old and disabled people or in fact any statist who brings up the argument. Tell them that the old and disabled should just take care of themselves or hope for charity. It is just a weak reply to that argument for what it is worth to a lot of(most?) people
nandnor:Guys, i think you missed the point somewhat. What i was talking about is people, who have little capability of doing work, not strong healthy retired folks.
If you are alive and not in a hospital bed, the division of labour can find work for you.
nandnor:I understand that it is a cost that is worth it in exchange for liberty, but try telling that to old and disabled people or in fact any statist who brings up the argument.
Try telling old people who never served that they shouldn't be marching young people into deathtraps like Afghanistan. We don't generally assume we will have ideas the statists will like. We're calling for them to be thrown out of power, to stop leaching off us, and to compete productively with everyone else.
Needless to say, this is not a popular proposition amongst them.
nandnor:It is just a weak reply to that argument for what it is worth to a lot of(most?) people
Most people think dropping cluster bombs on Iraqi wedding parties is justice. Don't allow the mob to define your morality. You will find it very intellectually and spiritually dissatisfying.
If you find something evil that wobbles, push it. - Gary North
liberty student: nandnor:Guys, i think you missed the point somewhat. What i was talking about is people, who have little capability of doing work, not strong healthy retired folks. If you are alive and not in a hospital bed, the division of labour can find work for you.
The blind? And at some point, people get so old they can barely move without breaking something. (90+) Frankly LS, I am not sure what point you're trying to make. Yes, in a free world people might work a little longer (into their 80s) but I dont understand your almost complete dismissal of charity.
Semper Fidelis
sicsempertyrannis:The blind?
There are lots of things the blind can do.
sicsempertyrannis:And at some point, people get so old they can barely move without breaking something. (90+)
Look, if people want to subsidize people in that condition, knock yourself out. But I hope to be dead long before that. I have no desire to live, just to live.
sicsempertyrannis:Frankly LS, I am not sure what point you're trying to make.
Don't subsidize unproductive behaviour.
sicsempertyrannis:Yes, in a free world people might work a little longer (into their 80s) but I dont understand your almost complete dismissal of charity.
It's a dismissal of altruism. You are welcome to be as altruistic as you like. But frequently it is not productive. And approached differently, it can be. Which means that everyone benefits, instead of the subjective emotional rewards of paying someone else's way which does lead to moral hazard.
There is no greater indictment of charity than government pensions and welfare. Forget that it is taken coercively. Just look at how it is applied, what consequences that has, and what is being incentivized. You can't call for personal responsiblity by privatization, and then say that charity is how we solve our problems (not individual responsibility, be it production or prudence).
nandnor:I understand that it is a cost that is worth it in exchange for liberty, but try telling that to old and disabled people or in fact any statist who brings up the argument. Tell them that the old and disabled should just take care of themselves or hope for charity. It is just a weak reply to that argument for what it is worth to a lot of(most?) people
Yes, no doubt they will be angry they are no longer the recipients of stolen money. So what? Is that a good reason to continue fleecing the productive citizens? I say no.
And Liberty Student, I don't completely understand why you dismiss charity/altruistic acts. I can't see anything wrong with helping somebody get back on their feet so they can lead a productive life. I'm not saying you should be forced to donate, but I don't see anything bad with voluntary charity.
Fluery:And Liberty Student, I don't completely understand why you dismiss charity/altruistic acts.
Thanks for the feedback. Really. It's the first time I brought it up, and it's obvious my ability to explain it (could be tied to how good of an idea it is in the first place) is quite poor. I will have to refine and improve upon it.
Fluery:I can't see anything wrong with helping somebody get back on their feet so they can lead a productive life.
How do you know they will produce based off the charity you give them? How do you decide who gets your charity and who does not? How much you give and where you draw the line? That's my point. Charity has to have strings attached in order to be rational. We do not give without limit or expectation. Those limits and expectations are arrived at like any other exchange.
Fluery:I'm not saying you should be forced to donate, but I don't see anything bad with voluntary charity.
I don't see anything wrong with voluntary anything. Throwing money into a money pit can be done voluntarily. Smoking crack cocaine can be done voluntarily.
My point is that there are unintended consequences to smoking crack (or perhaps intended) and there are unintended consequences to charity which is basically subsidy if there are no strings attached (an exchange).
There is nothing wrong with helping someone, and profiting from it. It is a double good. It is the foundation of the market system.
I'm drawing on the Rabbi Daniel Lapin speech at the last ASC, Ayn Rand's rational egoism and a strong sense of markets as the perpetual system of human interaction. I think if someone is familiar with these 3 trains of thought, my perspective doesn't seem as alien.
Mm, I sort of see what you mean now, and I completely agree that you should have some kind of rules when you give out money otherwise it might be counterproductive (in that it will further encourage them to be unproductive and maybe make them dependent on charity)
I'm not particularly familiar with those trains of thought, as I'm pretty much a newb :P
Thanks for the thoughtful response
This may sound harsh, but I have freaking HAD IT with old people (libertarian old people excluded, assuming that any even exist). Old people have robbed this country blind, knowing they'll be long dead by the time the rest of us suffer the consequences. And nobody can say a thing about it because then you're a big meanie who "hates the old" and wants to flush their meds.
Fluery: I'm not particularly familiar with those trains of thought, as I'm pretty much a newb :P Thanks for the thoughtful response
Skip Rand, and I am a market zealot so if you read my posts, you will get enough pro-market propaganda to last you a lifetime.
But check out the Lapin speech from ASC 2009. I think it is fantastic. I've probably watched/listened to it 5 or 6 times. He makes the moral case for capitalism, in a way that should make everyone feel less guilty about doing well, or making a profit. Ayn Rand does the same thing, but her examples are much harder and at times seem much less human. Lapin explains why atheists and theists should all rejoice in being profitable because it means we have served our fellow man.
(the first 7 minutes are not Lapin, but Joe Salerno)
And welcome to the forum!
Cork: This may sound harsh, but I have freaking HAD IT with old people (libertarian old people excluded, assuming that any even exist). Old people have robbed this country blind, knowing they'll be long dead by the time the rest of us suffer the consequences. And nobody can say a thing about it because then you're a big meanie who "hates the old" and wants to flush their meds.
If it wasn't for those old people you'd be speaking German right now, show some respect son.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
If it wasn't for those old people you'd be speaking German right now
A silly war propaganda cliche.
I fixed the link. This forum messes up internal site links sometimes.
You can also find the speech on Youtube in the MisesMedia channel.
liberty student:It's a dismissal of altruism. You are welcome to be as altruistic as you like. But frequently it is not productive. And approached differently, it can be. Which means that everyone benefits, instead of the subjective emotional rewards of paying someone else's way which does lead to moral hazard.
I don't really know how you're using the word "productive" but it's very similar to how some sort of presubjectivist economist might use the term "wealth". The fact of the matter is that if my money is going voluntarily to any cause then that in itself shows the money is being used productively, provided that I haven't made an entrepreneurial error.
Now the fact of the matter is that to some people (most people, ignoring the Randroids, Molynoids and Marxists that is) their family and friends matter, so once they've got to an age at which they can't go much work they'll be supported by voluntary means. In fact, that is one of the very strengths of the family model, it allows the younger members of a household (in the broader meaning of the term) to be supported at a given age and then as time goes by it allows them to support the older members of the family. You can dismiss altruism as much as you like, it's part of nature, however, to be altruistic. Not only that, but it tends to have good consequences.
liberty student:There is no greater indictment of charity than government pensions and welfare. Forget that it is taken coercively. Just look at how it is applied, what consequences that has, and what is being incentivized
There is no greater indictment of business than today's corporatist model, there's no greater indictment of defense than today's armies, there's no greater indictment of money than today's fiat money... See how this works? The fact of the matter is that the state hasdone everything it has to abolish the family and the church (read: the two institutions that have usually provided charity).
Cork:Ein albernes Kriegpropagandaklischee.
I fixed it for you.
Cork: If it wasn't for those old people you'd be speaking German right now A silly war propaganda cliche.
Indeed, I'm somewhat shocked to see such a hackneyed bit of foolishness appear here.
Yes, thank God they delivered half of Europe to STALIN. Yes, they should really be proud of themselves.
GilesStratton: Cork: This may sound harsh, but I have freaking HAD IT with old people (libertarian old people excluded, assuming that any even exist). Old people have robbed this country blind, knowing they'll be long dead by the time the rest of us suffer the consequences. And nobody can say a thing about it because then you're a big meanie who "hates the old" and wants to flush their meds. If it wasn't for those old people you'd be speaking German right now, show some respect son.
Entitlement only goes so far, & I doubt many of them fought fascists so we anti-statists could live on to bring down the state they defended "voluntarily". I wouldn't generalize all of them being inconsiderate of the consequences my (our) generation will face, but I wouldn't generalize that all of them give a shit, either. Cork has made a difficult to accept, but excellent point. If we're lucky, when we get older & will be largely unable to retire, we will tell our children not be such narcissistic, selfish pricks, but not to be blind altruistic fools, either (& maybe teach em the value of being more a producer, than a consumer, & save more money, & use less a little less credit, too). We will have to remind people of how much stupid is currently going on, because even now, many are forgetting, swallowing state propaganda whole, passing the buck to the responsible who are suffering consequences of the irresponsible & moving on.
WARNING: This signature violates Rule 5. Stay classy!
Nitroadict:Entitlement only goes so far, & I doubt many of them fought fascists so we anti-statists could live on to bring down the state they defended "voluntarily". I wouldn't generalize all of them being inconsiderate of the consequences my (our) generation will face, but I wouldn't generalize that all of them give a shit, either.
I was sorting of kidding, but now I'm making a more serious point.
I don't doubt that a lot of them wouldn't appreciate you libertarians trying to bring down the state, I can tell you my grandfather wouldn't be very receptive to your ideas. On the other hand, I also don't doubt that a lot of them really did fight with the best of intentions, namely fighting of Hitler or whatever else, and that a lot of them have had their lives influenced in a very negative way by a war that had nothing to do with them. Which is why it's ridiculous that libertarians go around saying that war veterans gave Europe to Stalin, they didn't. The lines that were to be drawn on Europe were decided by politicans who never entered the war, just like it is now in Iraq.
That's what so tragic about Iraq, the two groups that have been most harmed by the war are the American soldiers and the Iraqis that have their country destroyed, whilst my sympathy lies more with the latter, it's no stretch to say that the former have been lied to and tricked into going into war. On the other hand the politicians are benefiting from a war the horrors of which they don't have to see. The same applies for WWII, just, libertarians have a horrible tendency to attribute to evil what can be attributed to ignorance.
GilesStratton:The fact of the matter is that if my money is going voluntarily to any cause then that in itself shows the money is being used productively, provided that I haven't made an entrepreneurial error.
This ignores opportunity cost. You have argued before about time preference. The same applies here. Not all actions are equal, or equally productive or even productive at all. We agree that people have the right to make any decision they like, such as to sell their body for sex, or to do heroin. But we don't believe that those preference choices are equal to all of their alternatives.
GilesStratton:You can dismiss altruism as much as you like, it's part of nature, however, to be altruistic.
No, it is rationally incoherent. You cannot live for others, without first living for yourself. You are having that discussion elsewhere. I do not wish to port it here, and I do not wish to participate in the semantic game elsewhere. An understanding of rational egoism clears this up.
GilesStratton:The fact of the matter is that the state hasdone everything it has to abolish the family and the church (read: the two institutions that have usually provided charity).
Watch the Lapin lecture to get a different perspective on theism and capitalism. I hope you will enjoy it. I obviously think very highly of not only the argument, but the fantastic presentation.
GilesStratton: Cork:Ein albernes Kriegpropagandaklischee. I fixed it for you.
Chicken or the egg problem aside, they do deserve some recognition for providing a future territory in which many of us just happened to be born, but not the full blown heroic worship that frequently passes for "patriotism" & sticking yellow ribbons on shiny vehicles.It's a similar situation with Germany & Hitler. Do you think Germany is regularly saluting Hitler for defending the country bravely from the scourge of Allied Forces? Yea... lol. Difficult situation, emotionally, but rationally & morally, it's a bit easier.
liberty student:This ignores opportunity cost. You have argued before about time preference. The same applies here. Not all actions are equal, or equally productive or even productive at all. We agree that people have the right to make any decision they like, such as to sell their body for sex, or to do heroin. But we don't believe that those preference choices are equal to all of their alternatives.
When I say things aren't equal I happen to be talking entirely in terms of their economic viability without the state. Now, it just so happens that I believe in a world in which you can't go to the state to support you in the your old age, you'd better set a good example for your children by looking after your own parents. Furthermore, in a society in which reputation is everything, kicking your parents out on to the street so you can live your life as you please isn't going to do you a great deal of good.
liberty student:No, it is rationally incoherent. You cannot live for others, without first living for yourself. You are having that discussion elsewhere. I do not wish to port it here, and I do not wish to participate in the semantic game elsewhere. An understanding of rational egoism clears this up.
Of course you can live for others, you're just setting up the same strawman that all objectivist do and knocking it down successful - not a hard task considering what strawman you've set up. Altruism does not mean, conventionally understand, what most egoists take it to mean. But as you wish.
liberty student:Watch the Lapin lecture to get a different perspective on theism and capitalism. I hope you will enjoy it. I obviously think very highly of not only the argument, but the fantastic presentation.
Big exam coming up (which reminds me that perhaps I should get off the forums), but I'll watch it when I get the time, thanks for the recommendation.
Nitroadict:It's hard to respect those before us, when they're the one's handing us the mess, which they valiantly defended, just so it could go on, unfixed but patched up in entitlements, deficits, fiat, war, welfare, & duct tape?
I'm not really sure what you mean by "us", so forgive me. If you mean the users of Mises.org, then yes, perhaps you have a point and their is some warrant for our annoyance at the mess they've got us in. But at the end of the day, "our" generation is doing the exact same thing now, they're applauding Obama for far worse than what you're getting annoyed at here. The fact is that the vast majority of the people have been sold this stuff because they've been sitting in public schools since they were 5 and had this nonsense stuffed down their throats even before that from the TV or whatever else. The fact is that WWII veterans (just like the average American in Iraq) went into war with the belief that they would be fighting for some ideal that would be crushed if Germany had won, its far easier to say that this isn't the case when you've got the advantage of hindsight and access to unbiased media through the internet. When you're having war propaganda shouted at you from every side I suspect things may look somewhat different.
Nitroadict:It's a similar situation with Germany & Hitler. Do you think Germany is regularly saluting Hitler for defending the country bravely from the scourge of Allied Forces?
I think Germany was stuck between a rock and a very hard place. Either the communists were coming into power or the Nazis were, it just so happens that the latter group looked less threatening to big business and consequently won. When you look at WWII against the background of the ToV things become to look far more understandable from the German perspective, Hitler represented the chance that Germany could get back what had been stolen from them, and wit the ToV a lot had been.
So yes, I think the Germans acted as any people would, and I think that if things were different and people here were living back in the Weimar Republic a lot of you would probably be supporting Hitler.
GilesStratton: Nitroadict:Entitlement only goes so far, & I doubt many of them fought fascists so we anti-statists could live on to bring down the state they defended "voluntarily". I wouldn't generalize all of them being inconsiderate of the consequences my (our) generation will face, but I wouldn't generalize that all of them give a shit, either. I was sorting of kidding, but now I'm making a more serious point. I don't doubt that a lot of them wouldn't appreciate you libertarians trying to bring down the state, I can tell you my grandfather wouldn't be very receptive to your ideas. On the other hand, I also don't doubt that a lot of them really did fight with the best of intentions, namely fighting of Hitler or whatever else, and that a lot of them have had their lives influenced in a very negative way by a war that had nothing to do with them. Which is why it's ridiculous that libertarians go around saying that war veterans gave Europe to Stalin, they didn't. The lines that were to be drawn on Europe were decided by politicans who never entered the war, just like it is now in Iraq. That's what so tragic about Iraq, the two groups that have been most harmed by the war are the American soldiers and the Iraqis that have their country destroyed, whilst my sympathy lies more with the latter, it's no stretch to say that the former have been lied to and tricked into going into war. On the other hand the politicians are benefiting from a war the horrors of which they don't have to see. The same applies for WWII, just, libertarians have a horrible tendency to attribute to evil what can be attributed to ignorance.
I would also include manipulation, in addition to ignorance & individual morality, but yes, I largely agree. It's tragic, however, that has always been a minority that saw the problems of each conflict since the start of the USA, but they've exponentially have been ignored in favor of ignorant rationalizations & societal guilt.
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap