We don’t need the state.

We don’t need it at all.

Freedom and the Scientific and Industrial Revolutions

Rakkur Crowley and I discussing this topic on his radio show this morning:

http://www.austriancircle.com/old_shows.php?id=19

 

What Election Day Means To Me

It means power.  It means people fighting for power over other people.  Dems want power.  Reps want power.  We all want power over each other.  Democracy is mob rule.  One vote distinguishes between oppressor and oppressed, slave and master.   Serve or rule.  Today it will be decided. 

We fool ourselves.  None rule.  All serve.  All are slaves to each other.  All are oppressed by each other.  Enslaved masters.  A mob that destroys itself.  What an ugly system we have created.

Giordano Bruno on majority opinion

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”

-Giordano Bruno (16th century heliocentric astronomer)

Quoted in The Freedom Outlaw’s Handbook Claire Wolfe.

Collaboration vs. Competition

Assertion: 

1.  In situations where group survival is the goal, collaboration is better than competition. 

2.  Group survival is the goal for the human race on spaceship earth.

3.  Therefore, collaboration is better than competition for the human race on earth.

Objection #1:  Premise 1 is only clearly true if the survival of the whole group is the goal.  That is, if the goal is to maximize the number of survivors, premise 1 is likely not true.  For example, if a group is being chased by lions, it is likely that competition for first place among the runners will result in greater numbers of survivors, whereas everyone staying behind to fight off the lions will not.

Objection #2:  It is not at all clear that whole group survival is the goal for humanity on planet earth.  It is not even clear what such a goal would mean.  It is not possible for all humans presently alive to survive even for a few minutes past any particular starting time.  Therefore, the goal must be reduced to some sort of maximization of survival.

Is the maximization of survival to be in terms of numbers of people?  Or is it in terms of longevity of the race?  Or is it some combination of the two?  The answer would likely make a difference.

If it is to be a maximization of numbers, then I see no reason that collaboration should be better than competition.  If by collaboration we mean some sort of socialism or communism, then it seems that competition is certainly more capable of increasing numbers of people better than the alternative.

If we mean maximum longevity of the race, again, I see no reason collaboration should be better.  Natural selection should see to that.  Likewise, it would seem that the incentives provided by competition could be an effective means of increasing survivability.   The same would hold true for some combination of maximum population and longevity.  It is through competition that the record times and distances in the Olympics grow every year.

It will be objected that competition will result in wholesale destruction of earth or degradation that would reduce survivability, longevity, and population, and that therefore collaboration is necessary.  But there is no reason that mere competition should lead to degradation.  In fact, in a free, private ownership society, there is strong incentive to conserve resources, unlike in a socialistic society, where the tragedy of the commons extends to all things.  

Objection #3:  If group survival is the goal, whose goal is it?  Mine?  Yours?  There is no “group mind” that would have “group goals”–there are only individuals and individual goals.  The goals of individuals may or may not coincide with each other.  An individual may or may not care how many humans are still on the planet in 100,000,000 years.  Such things cannot be logically deduced, since they are value judgements.

It is reasonable that an individual should desire his own fulfillment, and generally that is enhanced by the well-being of the community at large (and certainly the environment), but it does not follow that an individual must value the population in a billion years.  Nor does it follow that he must value a healthy population or environment more than some other aspect of his life, such as his family or his own life. 

Who gets to decide what the goal is?  This is the crux of the issue.  Collectivists assume that there is some great group mind that can and should make the decisions, but there is no such entity.  There are only individuals, individuals with different values and goals.  Individuals weigh options against each other and choose what they value more highly.

It comes down to this:  some apparently value the longevity of the race above all.  These individuals wish to force others to support their goals.  They think that ultimate longevity of the race outweighs all other possible goals.  This is not necessarily the case for all individuals (in fact, I doubt that there are many who feel that way).

And even if longevity of the race were the highest goal for all, it is not at all clear that collaboration is the answer.

Objection #4:  Whose earth is it, anyway?  Those who call for collaboration over competition (socialism/government control over free markets) are assuming they have ownership and the “right” to control the earth’s resources.  But who really has the right to control the resources of the earth?

Ownership is control.  If everyone owns it all, then no one can do anything with anything without the consent of all, at least not legitimately.  If the majority own them, then the ownership and therefore the control is in constant flux.  If no one ones them, then no one can control them or use them.  None of these make sense.

If, however, individuals gain ownership through first usage and labor, then legitimate control is possible, and through private ownership, there are strong incentives for wise use.

Those who call for government control of resources want control of other peoples property because they think it will advance their goals.  This is not morally legitimate, nor is it an effective means of achieving their ends.

A comic book explanation of the economy

No Man Escapes…

No man escapes when freedom fails.

The best men rot in filthy jails.

 And those who cried, “Appease! Appease!”

 Are hanged by those they tried to please.

- Anonymous

Thanks to Claire Wolfe, author of The Freedom Outlaw’s Handbook.

Freedom from want vs. true freedom

It is common to confuse the concept of true liberty (freedom from coercion) with a vague and fallacious idea of “freedom” from want…

Is the Starving Man Free? – Ben ONeill – Mises Institute.

The Case for Anarchy

  

Saying the Unsayable on PBS « LewRockwell.com Blog.

Witness the Freest Economy: the Internet – Dan OConnor – Mises Institute

Looking for an example of a free market?  You’ll have to look online.  Writes Dan O’Connor:

“On the internet, the beautiful aspects of human nature manifest themselves, and we see individuals and companies maximizing their talents and resources for reasons of profit, pleasure, altruism, and mere progress in itself. Given that the government neither inhibits the activities of the internet nor props up or favors any particular actors or individuals, perhaps we are witnessing the closest thing to a free market that man has ever witnessed…

The internet is a model of the free market. It represents all of the aspects of capitalism that we cannot witness in our current offline world due to the high level of government intervention that pervades our society. Online, we see widespread competition, low barriers to entry, voluntary exchange, rapid technological advancements, decreased prices, and a flowering of creativity.”

Witness the Freest Economy: the Internet – Dan OConnor – Mises Institute.