Re: [at-l] Taking you to the Austrian School (was: Jokes)

["Malcolm Fuller" <mfuller@somtel.com>]

> Actually has Trail content.

Good-oh.

>>> On the practical level, I disagree, having concluded the
>>> totality of disutility imposed by "prejudicial" capital
>>> owners on the rest of society exceeds the disutility imposed
>>> on them by holding them "responsible" for certain (non-
>>> prejudicial hiring) performance requirements...

>> Disutility? According to whose values? Even if it's true,
>> what business is it of yours, or of "society?"

> Hoo-boy. We're back to that "collective action" thing about
> whether and when you can decide to make yourself a member
> of a group, and when you can decide to "opt out." I prefer
> a more concrete, "lifetime membership" thing, like US
> citizenship, as a more efficient vehicle for undertaking
> collective action than more temporary ad hoc arrangements?

Of course you do. Coercion is much more efficient than
getting people's explicit consent. But unlike you, I'd
rather be free than efficient.

The concept of citizenship is also a useful ethical fig
leaf for collectivism. When you and your droogs act in
concert to take something without paying for it, you can
invoke my citizenship status, and my participation in
government (such as voting, paying taxes and submitting
census forms), as tacit consent for your acts. Even if I
disagree with the specific act in question, one can claim
that by merely participating in the system of government
I am consenting to the *process* by which you accomplish
your thievery.

Furthermore, collectivism demands, as political and ethical
cover, to say that they are acting in the name of "we the
people" and for the "public good." Everyone else needs to
be implicit partners in crime. That way, they can't object
with the righteousness of an innocent man.

If this isn't the case, then why would you care whether
I'm a part of your collective if you can coerce me to
your whim anyway? Why else is this facade of consent so
durn important to you?

> "fair weather" citizens want to have all the parks, but
> none of the taxes. 

Yeah, well most people in the hiking community want to
have virtually all of Saddleback, but not pay for it
themselves beyond that miniscule fraction of their taxes
that would go toward (ahem) "just compensation" of the
former owner. Worse still, many of these civic-minded folks
seem totally unconcerned whether the property owner even
wants to sell the land in the first place.

But let's not go over *that* again. As I discovered last
summer, it wastes my time and annoys the pod people.

http://www.attackcartoons.com/libman6.GIF

I have no problem with paying for services that I've both
requested and received, even if this means in the final
tally I've paid more in a fee-for-service system than
in the present wealth redistribution system. It's, you
know, a freedom thing.

> Sooooo, you ask "Whose values?" Mine. (Good as any!) You
> ask of propriety, I answer "Society's!" and Society's by
> virtue of our shared membership in it.

No! Wrong! Very bad. Fetch me my cane...<whap, whap, whap>

"After centuries of civilization, most men -- with the
exception of criminals -- have learned that the above
mental attitude is neither practical nor moral in their
private lives and goals. There would be no controversy
about the moral character of some young hoodlum who
declared: 'Isn't it desirable to have a yacht, to live
in a penthouse and to drink champagne?' -- and stubbornly
refused to consider that fact that he had robbed a bank
and killed two guards to achieve that 'desirable' goal. 

"There is no moral difference between these two examples;
the number of beneficiaries does not change the nature of
the action, it merely increases the number of victims. In
fact, the private hoodlum has a slight edge of moral
superiority: he has no power to devastate an entire nation
and his victims are not legally disarmed. 

"It is men's views of their public or political existence
that the collectivized ethics of altruism has protected from
the march of civilization and has preserved as a reservoir,
a wildlife sanctuary, ruled by the mores of prehistorical
savagery. If men had grasped some faint glimmer of respect
for individual rights in their private dealings with one
another, that glimmer vanishes when they turn to public
issues -- and what leaps into the political arena is a
caveman who can't conceive of any reason why the tribe may
not bash in the skull of any individual if it so desires.

"The distinguishing characteristic of such tribal mentality
is: the axiomatic, the almost 'instinctive' view of human
life as the fodder, fuel or means for any public project."

-- Ayn Rand, from "Collectivized Ethics"

The entire essay may be found at the following link. You
really need to read it all to get the full context of the
above excerpt.

http://www.sinc.sunysb.edu/Stu/wboot/collect.html

Despite the Objectivist gobbledygook, the above article
pretty well explains my misanthropic tendencies. When
evaluating a person, I cannot separate their political
ethics from their ones in private dealings. I don't care
if he's the most polite, respectful person at the
campfire, if he's a ballot box thug I'm going to think
somewhat less of him.

Politics in today's society ain't no game. Being a
Demopublican or a Republicrat isn't the same as being
a fan of the Houston Oilers. People's lives are destroyed
as a consequence of you stepping behind the shower curtain
and tugging at levers, and while most people like to say
that "the Great and Powerful Government" did the deed, I
refuse to pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

> If my values are shared by Society on a given issue, I'll
> see no problem in how Society handles the issue; if my
> values are at odds, I *will* see a problem. I can then
> try to change Society, and maybe I'll be successful,
> and maybe I won't. But in a collective, you gots to take
> the good with the bad.

Neither are acceptable to me if people's rights are
violated.

>                        To go back to the old thread, we
> have an Appalachian Trail insured for our children because
> of the sometimes distasteful, for some "heavy-handed",
> involvement of a government with "police powers" over
> lands, including "eminent domain" and condemnation. (Trail
> Related!!!!!! Forgive the droning writing, please. I'm
> working on a sleep deprivation project.)

Whose children?

[...]

>> That doesn't change my intended meaning. To this minarchist,
>> the only role of government with respect to labor relations
>> is to enforce the contracts, formed out of mutual consent,
>> between labor and management.

> Again, with an ideal world as a starting point, I absolutely
> agree. But I *do* go further and say that there *is* a
> role for collective action beyond market failure affecting
> property rights. I might be open to saying that property
> rights would be a role first among equals, but provision of
> "public goods" ? goods/services which benefit society beyond
> an individual's singular contribution ? such as the whole
> of the 2150 mile Appalachian Trail ? well, I think that's
> a worthy undertaking, too. It seems, then, on reflection,
> that you and I disagree on not just where exactly to draw
> the line (between what's a proper role for government and
> what's not) but when to even ask the question.

Correct. I have very little respect for the concept of
"public goods."

> Now, I know there's some soft white underbelly in my 
> arguments (or faulted logic, as above{!}), but I have to
> point out that

> 1) This is an Appalachian Trail list, of which *you* are
> a member of your own free will, and

Which, by itself, says *nothing* about my opinion of the
Appalachian Trail or hiking thereon, beyond the fact that
I'm interested enough in the subject to be on this list.

> 2) You have yet to respond to the implicit oxymoron of
> your abiding, longstanding interest in this, the greatest
> collective effort at public recreation ever accomplished
> in the history of the country (and annually renewed and
> recertified as such through the blood, sweat and gear of
> thousands of volunteers up the length of the east coast).
>
> So tell me, How can you be *for* an Appalachian Trail, but
> *agin* the government that's moved it (by collected request)
> into a protected status?

It should be evident to any long-time reader of this
list that I am *not* for what the Appalachian Trail has
become. It has been transformed from an inspiring monument
to voluntary cooperation, respect for individual rights
and freedom into just another land grab prompted by so-
called special interests -- owned by no one and acquired
with stolen loot. To some degree, I walk the trail as one
walks through an historic battlefield or a museum, with
thoughts more of what was, rather than what is today.

-MF


* From the AT-L |  Need help? http://www.backcountry.net/faq.html  *

==============================================================================