My last serious blog encounter prior to the move was with Dave Budge, and it resonated. The man was arrogant enough to say
…I’m working on a long post, Mark, that you’re going to have to research to argue against.
As I learned afterward, he wasn’t asking me to critique it. He merely wanted to play teacher-student. His post, The Pulse of my Bleeding Heart: Part I (Part II never appeared), was devoid of one important thing: research.
I approached it with some anticipation, however, as I regarded him as a scholarly man. I put it off until a Saturday morning when I would have time to read it. And then I got through it, and did some writing. In retrospect, the real conclusions I draw form his post go deeper than what I wrote that day.
I am surprised. He’s not all that smart. He’s not all that thoughtful. His long post was mostly a citation of others with whom he agreed, patting himself on the back for taking the trouble to quote people with whom he otherwise disagrees, but with whom is was in agreement with on the subject at hand: sweatshops. He doesn’t like them, but thinks them necessary. They are the price that (other) people pay for prosperity. He offered no empirical data – only an affirmation that others had done so.
Sweatshops, like the stockyards of Upton Sinclair’s “Jungle,” are merely investors grabbing at opportunity. Budge looks backward and sees sweatshops in the distant past for countries that have developed well, and imputes cause and effect. It is not only wrong and backward, but servile. Such conclusions benefits oligarchy. He may not be well-paid in the terms of our bought priesthood, but he is bought nonetheless. He literally self-indoctrinates for benefit of the wealthy sector.
But there’s more to his flawed thinking than mere false narrative. There is massive, overwhelming, blatant and obscene confirmation bias. Budge went so far as to say that Japan and Korea developed because of sweatshops. All he had to do, all anyone has to do, is look a little deeper. What do Japan and Korea have in common? As with China, they were never colonized. That confirms my bias – that countries that were colonized by Europe and the U.S. in past centuries, like India and those in Latin America, suffer from retarded development. There may have been sweatshops in Japan and Korea, might still be, and it means nothing more than investors still pursue opportunity as it presents itself.
Sweatshops are just a tool for extracting wealth, a form of oppression, slave labor by many for the benefit of a few, and justified by the bought priesthood.
I didn’t set out here to write about sweatshops again. My reason in sitting down this morning was the wonderment I felt this week that the man with whom I have argued so much, and for whom I had grudging admiration, turned out to be so shallow. In the end, he reminds me of Rob Natelson, rigorously affirming what he knows to be true, ignorant of all that contradicts it, and calling the outcome “scholarship.”
Piece of Mindful 
Mark
that countries that were colonized by Europe and the U.S. in past centuries, like India and those in Latin America, suffer from retarded development.
The point of your argument fails because you do not define sweatshops properly.
You believe low pay for producing goods is a crime. But that is an emotional outburst and wholly an example of economic illiteracy.
As far as colonialism, I would agree. It established by government force an exploitative society. My experience in Latin America shows this still grips them.
There they believe if you are rich, you must have stolen it. That is the base mindset – and established by the actions of Europe.
LikeLike
Many see living beyond one’s needs, with more than is necessary to live life, with some in reserve for emergencies, as theft. Resources on a sphere are limited. Hoarding is theft of someone else’s opportunity to meet those same needs. The rich do not live better lives, just more expensive ones, and usually at others’ expense. Talk about “inefficiency.”
LikeLike
I am channeling Steven Weinberg here, but it all stems from the notion that some people are more entitled to the benefits of living on this planet than others, and that it all boils down to an abstract quality that some have and most don’t – the ability to accumulate wealth.
LikeLike
People accumulate wealth by solving problems of other people
or
By stealing the wealth of others.
A person can only consume so much, and it is the EXCESS of their earnings over their consumption that is called WEALTH.
People are poor if they consume more than they earn.
LikeLike
That’s about the most simpllstic piece of nonsense I’ve read… the last time I started a debate with you.
Your metrics for poverty are way skewed by your johnny-one-note non sequiters.
Poverty has a myriad of causes and contributors, not the least of which is oppression at the hands of free market ideologues.
LikeLike
Mark,
That is what poverty means – you are consuming more than you earn.
It is not a measure of “why” – it is a measure of “condition”.
Poverty is eliminated when a man earns (or steals) more than he consumes.
Because you do not understand this, you create policies which will increase – not decrease – poverty.
LikeLike
Whoops, sorry, Mark – above was a response to JC!
LikeLike
And likewise, a person who is boxed in by rigid economic ideology will always get the wrong answers in poverty.
Do you think this person “consumed too much”?
LikeLike
JC,
Yes, he did, thus he is poor.
It is sad that his earning is less than he needs to satisfy his basic needs.
The solution is not to attack those that earn more than they consume, but to help these people to do the same – that is, earn more than they consume. That is the only sustainable way to eliminate poverty.
LikeLike
As with your statement about physics, your attempts to explain poverty and its solutions is nothing more than reductio ad absurdum.
Your economic ideology does not address the root causes of poverty. If you want to help people, like the child in Sudan and others, you will help them to overcome oppression: economic, political, military.
And doing so necessitates that we “attack those that earn more than they consume” when they are oppressors. That attack can take many forms.
Including attacking a false god ideology (an absolute devotion to free marketism) that allows someone to say:
When asked if a person who is dying from malnutrition consumes too much.
Your answer reveals that your devotion to your false god has rendered you as anti-social, inhuman, and unfeeling.
You lambast those who don’t adhere to your mantra to do no harm, and not steal from your fellow human beings. Yet when presented with the evidence of a person to whom harm has been done and everything has been stolen from them, you resort to blaming the victim for “consuming too much.”
Your position is emblematic of everything that is evil in this world. I do not know if you yourself are evil, but your ideas are such that they allow evil to flourish in a world full of misery and suffering at the hands of those who “earn more than they consume” and consume everything needed for basic human life.
LikeLike
Last sentence should read: “basic human life of others.”
LikeLike
JC
Of course your claim is completely untrue.
It is a fact, and there is nothing absurd about facts.
There can be many causes which prevents a man from earning enough to sustain himself, but that does not dispute the fact he is not earning enough to sustain himself.
I agree. Let’s end government violence on the innocent and set them free.
All the oppression comes from the government. But that is your solution, right?
The matter of the amount of wealth someone has is completely irrelevant.
It is the fact that they are violent actors oppressing innocent people is the problem – whether they are millionaires or beggars.
Read carefully:
He is consuming more than he earns.
Nowhere did I say he is consuming “too much”.
Therefore the solution is to help him produce more than he consumes, and the solution IS NOT to steal wealth from others and give it to him.
Yours is a philosophy of envy. You want what you did not earn, and are willing to steal it.
That is the highest order of anti-social, inhuman behavior.
I do, because doing violence on non-violent people is the root of all human caused suffering
Your strawman.
No where did I say he was consuming too much.
I said, quote:
his earning is less than he needs to satisfy his basic needs.
No, it is a matter of your inability to comprehend written English.
LikeLike
This is what you wrote above, and to which I have been addressing all of my debate. So you most certainly did say, to paraphrase your above quote “he was consuming too much”. You can try to argue semantics with me all you want to backtrack out of your original statement, but your words are there for everyone to read.
Poverty is not merely a function of consumption/earnings. No matter how you try to spin it.
I have challenged your basic assumptions using your own logic. Your attempts to use pure free market ideology to solve problems outside of the realm of economics is, in your own words will “…always – get the wrong answers”.
I will not debate your feeble attempts always to resort to your mental free-market masturbatory methods and madness.
If you choose to debate whether or not your axiomatic economic theory can be used to solve real problems in the world, we can start by examining your assumptions (axioms), singly, by which you apply “Reason” in order to derive your “laws.”
Which one would you like to start with?
LikeLike
JC
And JC, that is a fact no matter how much emotional baggage you wish to attach to it.
Your paraphrase was purposely inaccurate and wrong. You then tried to argue against that strawman.
Your argument failed.
You are the one who paraphrased incorrectly, you are the one with the failure of semantics.
Argue MY point, not your strawman.
It is absolutely that and nothing else.
If you cannot earn (produce) enough for your wants and needs, you will suffer, whether you live in Africa or North America.
I’m still waiting for such a challenge. So far, you’ve attacked paper tigers rather well buts that’s all.
Anywhere – as long as you argue my points, and not some strawman you’ve dreamed up.
LikeLike
That ability is not, I believe, unique, but rather a – conscious or subconscious – psychological need for status. Is it a mark of self-assurance, or insecurity? Perhaps temperament dictates who ultimatelly obsesses about material hoarding, and who is satisfied with living simply. Culture assigns the value but many behavior traits are not choices.
LikeLike
Weinberg again – I should find the essay – he’s a Nobel Laureate astrophysicist, but had better ideas about economics than anyone else I have encountered.
Anyway, he gets way from Flag’s mindset, that we’re all about exchange of value for value and accumulation. Far from it – respect is highest on the list of rewards. We all need respect – even very wealthy people who do not command respect, like Leona Helmsely or Michael Jackson, for instance, suffer immensely.
And there is the matter of “enough” – after a million, what does a second million matter? If I make ten million and then lose nine, I am miserable. But I still have a million. Hoarding is not respected, and frankly, is not part of what most of us want after we have taken care of basic needs and wants.
LikeLike
Mark
It is dangerous to assume that a guy who deals in Physics knows economics because of his physics. They often -well, always – get the wrong answers in Economics.
That being said….
There you go again misrepresenting my position.
I have never said that we are “all about exchange of value”.
I have said if you are talking about economics, then we are talking about Human Action and that People trade (exchange of value) so to improve their own condition.
If you are not talking about trade – but, say, the color of your house paint, then you are not talking about economics – but “something else”.
But the moment you want to “somehow” connect the color of your house to justify you taking my money, you create a massive social problem, including a large economic problems as well.
Respect and trust are important Political goals – and have nothing to do with economics itself.
Before a trade will occur the prospects must evaluate the trust of the other party – for if they fail to abide by their side of the agreement, there will be a Win/Lose consequence.
If I do not trust you, I will not trade with you – no matter how sweat the deal may appear.
Trust and respect precede trade and thus, precede economic calculation.
Maybe not for you, but maybe for me it matters.
Who are you to judge me?
“Hoarding” to you, or “Investing” to me is all about retaining a portion of our earnings of today for the possibility of being unable to earn in the future.
It seems you can predict the future. Therefore, you do not care about creating wealth. You consume everything you have right now.
Unlike you, I cannot predict the future.
Therefore, I reduce my consumption to be less than my earnings, save my wealth (“hoard” it, in your words) so that if the future deals me misadventure, I have ample wealth to provide for me – so that I don’t make a choice of whether I have to steal it from you
But you have no problems stealing other people’s wealth, so you have no need to create wealth.
LikeLike
You know less about me than you apparently think you do.
LikeLike
Mark,
That maybe true, as we have never met except online.
However, I make my comment so to highlight your disconnect between “hording” and “investing or saving”.
LikeLike
As if I do not know the difference? We all do.
LikeLike
Mark,
Do you?
You haven’t shown such an understanding so far.
LikeLike
Easy enough – when you have more than you need for care of yourself and your family and a reasonably secure future, you are hoarding. No law against it, mind you. Just antisocial.
Please explain, when you get a moment, the terms “exclusion”, “commons”, “value”.
I have an idea of their meaning. You haven’t shown such an understanding so far.
LikeLike
Mark
The anti-social aspect is just you applying your judgment on other people.
You do not know what they want or need – you base their needs on your subjectivity and then apply you judgment of good and evil on them.
This is an act of self-centered egotists, that is, what you deem is right is must be right for all people.
You do not allow others to make their own choices.
“Goods for me, the costs to you” is your mantra.
Exclusion – act of being excluded.
Exclude – To prevent from being included.
Commons – (in economic terms) – belonging to or used by a community as a whole.
Value – (in economic terms) -Worth in usefulness or importance to the possessor.
LikeLike
Many communities shun hoarders – the Navajo, for instance. Islamic culture demands that all take care of all. It is only your European background that insists on this hoarding and fear of others mentality.
Exclusion, in economic terms is withholding of a portion of the commons for the purpose of charging others for their use. For instance, Google and Verizon now are in the process of building a fence around the Internet (commons) to charge access fees. Large Western ranches were built by excluding others from use of water, and then forcing a sale.
That sort of thing. That’s exclusion.
LikeLike
By the way, it is even more dangerous to assume that economists know anything about economics. This is why the profession garners so little respect – they obfuscate on behalf of their benefactors. Hence, “free market” economics that happens by coincidence to heavily favor oligarchy while appearing to do otherwise.
LikeLike
Mark,
I cannot disagree that most “mainstream” economists hold disastrous economic theories – nor can I disagree that many in academia create fallacies that support government policies and enforce the position of a ruling elite.
However, that does not equal that there exists no such thing as valid economic theory.
LikeLike
Ladybug
Status is conferred by society on those that create massive wealth, because society reaps massive benefit from such people.
It is natural act of society to champion those that best solve societies human problems.
LikeLike
The Beatles said: “Money can’t buy me love.”
People seek love(and respect). Is that a “political goal” with no connection to “Human Action … to improve their own condition.” Oversimplification can distort the simplest of ideas.
LikeLike
Ladybug,
But you must use the complete sentence, for your incompleteness creates a fallacy.
…that People trade (exchange of value) so to improve their own condition.
LikeLike
Mark
So do African tribes – for a reason.
Picking bananas off a tree in excess for one’s food for the day wastes bananas. They rot when they are not on the vine.
The bananas will be there tomorrow, on the vine, so there is no need to “save them” (what you would call hoarding). Thus, in their culture – savers cause food problems.
However, in Northern Climates and Agriculture based societies, the opposite is true.
If you do not save some of your grain, you will die over the winter. Unlike cultures that do not suffer “winter”, saving is vital.
Thus, your confusion.
You advocate social policies of cultures that have “easy” access to food resources and apply them to cultures that exist by producing such food resources.
Thus, your core and dangerous mistakes of policy.
“Fear of others?” – no, that is your bias and confusion.
But you are correct. It is a European mindset, because Europeans suffered winters. Food that is not saved cannot be eaten, and people die of starvation. There are no banana trees from which to eat their next meal.
Thus, as a culture, saving and production became highly valued. Those that produced great excess were championed, for it meant that the masses had improved their ability to survive the winters. Those that consumed less than they produces were championed, as they had the ability to sustain themselves over the winter.
This is the European culture mindset – excess production and saving.
That is your incorrect definition of Exclusion. You create a condition that all property is communal – how very Communist of you.
LikeLike
Not hardly. I simply believe that we have communal and private property, and that both are essential to our survival and happiness.
Regarding food storage and the like, you will find it hard to survive in the Mideast without grain storage. That is, after all, where crops originated. You are quite an ass-puller.
LikeLike
Mark,
Private property is essential to our survival and happiness, I agree.
Communal property? I cannot say the same thing. It could be, perhaps, but unlike Private Property it is an unnecessary condition.
I agree – which is why you save. You confirm my point.
LikeLike
BF, let’s start at the beginning. Your task here is to defend your axiomatic economic theory and how it is applicable to finding solutions in the real world that address the root causes of poverty, even when many of those root causes are outside the purview of economics.
You get the first post. Pick your first assumption and how you justify it to be an axiom.
LikeLike
JC
That’s usually a good tactic.
Firs, you cannot “justify” an axiom – that is why it is called “an axiom” – it is an unprovable statement.
It is or it is not. Period.
The axiom I hold is:
Humans act with a Purpose
LikeLike
That is not an absolute statement, and cannot be treated as such. Humans may act with purpose. Humans may also act randomly, reflexively, and involuntarily. Thus not all human actions are purposeful.
Humans are capable of actions that have no purpose.
Trying to justify that “to act” implies purposefulness, or conversely if something a human does is not purposeful, then it is not an action is a tautology.
Tautologies cannot be used build theories.
LikeLike
JC
It is an absolute statement because that is what all humans do, have done and will do.
It is a human’s choice to act randomly.
Reflex is a matter of physiology and not in the scope of economics. But no “reflex” sustains human action – you do not “knee jerk” down the street when you walk out of the doctors office.
Involuntary – as in political action and force – is a matter of choice as well – though the choice maybe one to save one’s life.
… in your opinion. You are merely judging another person’s action from your point of view – and claiming that -from your inaccurate, incomplete and ignorance- another persons action is without purpose.
But that is your judgment and not any truth except as it may apply to you.
Axioms do build theories – especially when they explain with great clarity reality.
LikeLike
“It is true because I say it is true.”
You offer no proof for the absolute nature of your statement, other than your opinion.
Then you admit that humans can freely choose to act randomly. Humans also exhibit random behavior that is not of their own choosing–behavior that is not reflexive.
Involuntary: “done contrary to or without choice”. Merriam-Webster does not agree with you. You are not allowed to rewrite the dictionary.
Science is built upon our observations. I have repeatedly, in the pursuit of scientific inquiry, observed nonpurposeful action in humans. It is not my opinion. It is scientific fact.
And speaking of opinion, the following is a good example of one:
Your axiom is full of swiss cheese, which renders your opinion about as clear as the whey used to make cheese.
And speaking of reality, you have no special ability to discern the nature of reality. Your axiom is but one possible explanation of “reality” in a universe where multitudes of possibilities exist.
You say that physicists are always wrong when describing economics. And I say that economists (and economist wanna-be’s) are always wrong about the nature of reality and the universe, when trying to describe it through the lens of economics.
You cannot resort to using words like “reality” when clearly no human, or other being or entity (unless you are claiming to be a “god”) has a monopoly on the nature of reality.
I’d give you about a .5 on a scale of 1-10 so far. You haven’t scored high enough to move on to your next axiom, so you had better get to work.
LikeLike
Pardon me for interjecting here, but the statement
is patently wrong. Our brains are made up of a primitive, or reptilian brain, a limbic system, and a cerebral cortex. Reptilain brain is in charge of much of our behavior – fight or flight, sensing of danger, rage, what we call “intuition” deception.
Limbic controls emotions, sense of pleasure, association and memory – you once wondered how I know if animals have emotions. They have limbic systems.
None of the above, which is the bulk of our behavior, and which daily interferes with our cognitive thinking, are voluntary.
LikeLike
Mark,
You are incorrect to assume that the “bulk” of our behavior is involuntary action.
We humans act with purpose, unless of course, you writing this blog was an act of a infinite series of monkeys pounding on a keyboard.
LikeLike
Unless you are thinking about breathing and placing one step before the other, you are allowing your backburner to manage your existence. Your emotions are behind the scenes like the captain of a ship gently steering your intellect to places where the emotions take comfort. Your ideas regarding the nature of humans are wrong in general, as we are communal and sharing when we manage our group behaviors to provide for one another. We are not isolated tigers hunting prey and sleeping alone.
You are an interesting case – you are an existentialist, in that you affirm the rightness of your beliefs without offering empirical evidence. Fair enough – we all have to start somewhere, but you have taken it to extremes, citing a host of “axioms” that are easily shown to be false or at best, falsifiable.
But of more interest to me is the emotional captain of your ship that has driven you to strive for comfort in isolation and yet at the same time seek out community to promote your solitary views. You are guided not by intellect, but by need, and I sense much pain coming from you.
An interesting case.
LikeLike
Mark,
My breathing does not cause me to chose my desires.
While that may be true, it is also true that it is my choice to allow my emotions to rule or not.
Unlike you, I am not a human robot.
We are herd animals – true.
We are individuals – also true.
We are not one or the other as you demand. We are capable of being both at the same time.
Nonsense. The world around you exists as my evidence. You just chose to blind yourself to it, but that is not my problem.
What a bunch of emotional blubbering.
It is you who has cried about your affairs and your suffering – and in that suffering, have demanded others suffer with you.
You have never heard such cries from me, nor will you.
LikeLike
Oh, I hear it. You are a rock, you are an island.
And debating your axioms is pointless, as you refuse to debate them, saying they are axioms and are therefore not subject to debate. The world around you screams that you are wrong – it’s a very gray place.
LikeLike
Mark,
You are as ignorant about what “axiom” means as JC.
As he did, you either accept them or you don’t.
If you don’t, you must place another axiom in its place, build your theory set, and make your decisions based on those theories. I wish you good luck.
However, the moment you believe you have a right to steal from me, I don’t care about your axiom, or your evil reasoning. You are evil and if you are successful, you will destroy civilization. I place all my effort in resisting people like you.
LikeLike
You are wrong. In a gray world there are few axioms that can be said to be true. There are scientific theories that have survived long enough to be considered factual, such as the speed of light in a vacuum.
In human affairs, dealing with the human brain, there are no truths or axioms. Everything that is true is also false. Sorry to bear the bad news.
Every one of your truths is either false or falsifiable by evidence. Most of us go through life collecting useful information and acting accordingly. Hence, your notions that government is evil, that taking from another is “violence” are sometimes true, but often not.
You cannot deal with such gray, such uncertainty. Again, you are an interesting case.
LikeLike
Mark
98.28% probability says I am not.
That may be true, however, that does not make my axiom not a truth.
The speed of light is not a theory, it is a fact.
Perhaps that is why you are confused – you have trouble discerning between fact, theory, axiom and reasoning.
You have provided no evidence of this.
Government is evil as the root of its existence completely depends on using violence on non-violent people to enforce itself.
LikeLike
JC
Again, you fail to understand what an axiom means.
I do not need to prove my axiom – it exists for itself</b.
So before you go any further, you need to get your mind straight here.
Axiom:
one that is accepted as true without proof as the basis for argument; a postulate.
Correct. The purpose to be “random”.
They can be drugged – true, but that is not a point of economics, but medicine.
You do have trouble with English, don’t you? Do you not read …”as in political action and force”… or do you purposely remain ignorant?
…not of your own free will or design; forced or compelled…
If you cannot keep up on the definitions, sir, our dialogue is pointless.
Prove it. (But don’t bother, because it cannot be done).
Somewhere, you will some some insanity or biological distortion – but that is not what we are talking about here – this is not a dialogue on biology or medicine.
It is a dialogue on economics.
HUMAN action is purposeful behavior. Or we may say: Action is will put into operation and transformed into an agency, is aiming at ends and goals, is the ego’s meaningful response to stimuli and to the conditions
of its environment, is a person’s conscious adjustment to the state of the universe that determines his life. Such paraphrases may clarify the definition given and prevent possible misinterpretations. But the definition itself is
adequate and does not need complement of commentary.
From Mises: On Human Action – which is a book I recommend you read.
You do not understand the concept of axiom.
I would further guess you do not understand much mathematics and such, either.
Your scale is meaningless to me.
Whether you wish to continue or not, is up to you – a decision by you – a Human Action.
LikeLike
I choose to not accept it as true. So let’s move on to the next axiom.
LikeLike
JC,
Why would I move on to another axiom? Only one axiom is required and I prefer mine as it is a truth.
You can create whatever axiom you wish, build your theory set and make your decisions on that basis. I have no problem with that either.
However, if your axiom depends on the use force on me to pay for you then you merely are creating a justification for evil. Evil destroys society, and therefore, you will be advocating for the destruction of society.
LikeLike
I could follow your axiom with a different line of reasoning and come to different conclusions. What i am trying to show you is that you have created an end product, “free market economic law” and then have worked backwards to justify your position.
I could just as readily start with “communally and socialistic economic law” and work backwards to the same axiom.
Your attempts to create a rigid path from your axiom to your law is fraught with perils. Not the least of which is the noncompliance of the human race to adhere to your strictures.
I can challenge your assumptions and conclusions reached in your “reasoning” every step of the way. And offer alternatives that reach different conclusions.
As I’ve said before, and as others here have said, you have no special knowledge of the world or of its “laws”, no matter how you have deduced them. Your self-inflated “proclamations” carry no weight in the real world. As MArk pointed out above, humans are not rational beings. We are capable of rational thought, but at our core, we are built on a biochemical model that has survived thousands of generations by acting in other than rational or purposeful ways.
A few thousand years of movement from hunter gathers to agrarian, and technological culture has not been accompanied by any significant evolutionary changes that have given our rational minds any more control over our primitive selves. We continue to be a species with deep seated roots in animalistic survival modes. WHen it comes to the “flight vs. flight” response, for instance, there is no rational thought taking place. We do not act with a purpose–we just react. And that reaction is controlled by the evolutionary processes we are born with.
And likewise, many of our “rational” decisions are actually a product of deep seated evolutionary reactions and emotions. Not purposeful action.
Your free market economic “laws” are built on a house of cards. And no matter how fast you try and replace the ones that are, it will eventually come tumbling down.
LikeLike
JC
I do not believe that you could – however, until you try we will never know.
By applying my reasoning from the axiom, I have been able to deduce the consequences of policies in advance to their manifestation.
Thus, I can claim that my theories are the best at explaining these manifestations at this present time. So far, all other theories have failed.
I am satisfied with them to continue to use them to predict future consequences of policies and actions.
Do whatever you wish, and base your decisions on that process.
Good luck.
“Perils”? Hardly. As I champion freedom and non-violence, the perils of that are irrelevant to the horrors of government violence and coercion.
Theft is very profitable, and humans tend to chose the most profitable path. This is no surprise.
However, civilized man knows legitimized theft is unsustainable in a civilized society.
Thus, the choice I continually offer to you and Mark – either you are Savages – and champion theft as a legitimate tool of profit – or you are civilized and denounce theft.
You cannot have one foot a Savage and one foot Civilized.
You certainly can – and as you’ve demonstrated, you can do so irrationally.
But that does not mean your arguments are correct or worthy of consideration.
Repeat that to yourself as many times as you need.
What you believe is irrelevant to me. I am not here trying to convince you of anything.
You are immune to reason and married to the demands of theft – for you cannot earn your own way.
I offer I counter-view, proven by consequences, of political action in economics.
You have provide no argument of merit in any manner.
You do not accept my axiom. Fine. But you have not provided your axiom, reasoning, nor argument to explain the consequences of such political action as it has occurred. You are a mute.
You cannot be my argument with no argument.
Rational or not, such a position is not a necessary to my economic theory. No where did I state such a requirement.
Again, you argue strawman. And again, you are heap full of fallacy.
Free market is based on freedom of men to voluntarytrade with each other.
If freedom is merely a house of cards for you, then you have placed yourself well within the walls of coercion, force and violence – and as such, advocate evil as a legitimate tool for human interaction. You advocate the mantra of the Savage, and as such, find yourself directly opposed by me and all other freedom loving, civilized men.
LikeLike
Your entire rant above is a non sequiter, irrationally deduced from what I have said, or what you think I said, or your illogical conclusions placed on who you think I am and think.
Freedom to me does not equate with the free market. Non violence does not equal not taxing.
You would allow violence to be perpetrated upon millions of people in poverty because your solution “teach them to earn more” does not match with the reality of their lives. Political, military and religious oppression have combined to thrust hundreds of millions of people into poverty, and needless suffering and death.
And yet when shown a picture of a hollow shell of a person dying from malnutrition at the hands of political oppression, all you can do is look at it through the lens of your ideology–and apply a solution “earn more” to it that is meaningless.
If you truly believe in freedom and nonviolence, then you would be much better served to fight oppression of the poor and the masses by leading them to revolution, or by leading the world to end the tyranny that is oppressing them, rather than offering them hollow platitudes.
Your ideology is useless because it is nothing more than a mental masturbatory exercise that has no practical application. Indeed, people resort to it in lieu of taking real action that will promote freedom and nonviolence.
You and your ideology are a fraud, BF.
LikeLike
JC
Lots of “blah blah”, JC- yet, completely devoid of argument.
I am interested in your definition of freedom!
And as I said, you legitimize theft and you believe that changes it to a non-violent act, just as war killing innocent people is not murder but merely “collateral damage”.
You represent the great evil of the State.
In Politics, there is no Murder
Alexandre Dumas, through is story, The Count of Monte Cristo and character – M. Noirtier says this:
“You know as well as I do, dear boy, that in politics there are no people, only ideas; no feelings, only interests. In politics you don’t kill a man, you remove an obstacle, that’s all.”
In politics, there is no murder.
People are things that represent ideas; in war (which is just an extension of politics) they have today been declared “collateral damage.” Innocent men, women (even the pregnant ones), children, infants: collateral damage, not worthy of even being counted.
Not only is there no murder, there are no lies, no theft. Politics is the Ten Commandments written by Satan and turned inside out.
I “allow” no such thing.
I am not fooled by your redefining violence to include non-violent action. I understand it is necessary for your irrational position – since you cannot argue within the definition, you must change the definition to suit your argument.
Revolution within the Form is your tactic – completely deceitful – however, often effective in perverting many people’s ideas.
Your solution – to steal from others and give to them guarantees their poverty, for tomorrow they are no better than today.
Thus, it requires you to continue your thievery in the name “the End justifies the Means” – until your victims – on both sides- revolt against you.
Hear, hear!
So let’s end government, dissolve their armies, and end government-support for religions!
Grand idea, JC!
So you point to government as a cause which in your dementia means that more government is needed.
Lunacy knows no bounds of its own insanity.
What part of non-violence completely misses your understanding?
The use of violence to create change only increases violence and its evils.
No revolution succeeds. All fall back into tyranny as the victims turn to use the very same tool of evil that victimized them.
With no surprise, evil wins.
History has proven that economic prosperity is the very best way to lift an oppressed people. All prosperous nations have done this in this manner, and this process will continue to be the primary means of improving the lot of mankind.
Your way – government oppression – is guaranteed to increase government oppression. This is self-evident – except to you, it seems.
First, comes ideas. Then comes action.
When like you, you reverse this process, the odds are you will be easily tricked into an evil path.
You have presented nothing.
My argument beats your nothing argument hands down.
LikeLike
JC
Here is the online version for your read.
Click to access humanaction.pdf
LikeLike
Go read some Kropotkin. Temper your holy free market ideology with an exposure to the concept of mutual aid. The Conquest of Bread and Mutual Aid say everything that needs to be said at this point.
I don’t need to resort to your fallacious model to argue alternative economic systems, and refute the failures of free market capitalism. Far better thinkers and writers have already done that.
LikeLike
JC,
Kropotkin held many contradictions.
“society free from central government and based on voluntary associations between workers”
However, if one advocates “voluntary” associations while at the same time advocates through “public ownership”, one cannot achieve the latter by the former means. The latter can only be achieved by force.
However, how can I argue with “..The Conquest of Bread, Kropotkin proposed a system of economics based on mutual exchanges made in a system of voluntary cooperation.“ It is precisely the point I repeat – which you endlessly deny! (I will disagree with him and say (and prove) that -contrary to his contention – price mechanisms (ie: money) will naturally evolve as a measure and a means of value for trade)
I have not disputed cooperation – indeed , you will have noted my comments as such on many responses to you and Mark.
I dispute your violence. You believe you can force my cooperation by violence when I say “no”.
You do not like my “no” – and as such you do not understand one wit what voluntary means.
To you “voluntary” must always mean a “yes” to your demands – irrational or not, for to you a “no” cannot exist.
Perhaps your task is for you to really understand what “freedom” means, what “voluntary” means,
LikeLike
Good on you, Mark. I thought Budge’s language sounded familiar, and had been putting together a post quoting antebellum defenses of slavery. I’m glad you see it, too.
LikeLike