“Everyone Sang” by Siegfried Sassoon

Everyone suddenly burst out singing;
And I was filled with such delight
As prisoned birds must find in freedom,
Winging wildly across the white
Orchards and dark-green fields; on–on–and out of sight.

Everyone’s voice was suddenly lifted;
And beauty came like the setting sun:
My heart was shaken with tears; and horror
Drifted away … O, but Everyone
Was a bird; and the song was wordless; the singing will never be done.
-Siegfried Sassoon

How to Come Across as Economically Illiterate

1) Condemn “capitalism” without having at least some vague understanding of the differences between such things as laissez-faire principles, Keynesian theory, Marxism etc.

2) Assert that there is any remote semblance of a free market existing in large scale.

3) Assert that free market principles are to blame for any given economic problem. Disregard or outright ignore state intervention in markets, past or present while doing so.

4) Assert that shortages are necessarily the fault of those with “abundance”. See point 5.

5) Follow from the premise that wealth can only be extracted and not generated; that wealth accumulation occurs in a zero-sum-game scenario (as seen under a pie-chart model) regardless of perceived mutual benefit.

6) Assert that voluntary transactions are “exploitative” / justify using force against those engaging in voluntary transactions.

7) Assert that scarcity can somehow be eliminated. Rely on appeals to emotion to back your claims.

8) Ignore profit and loss scenarios when they don’t apply to monetary units under the preclusion that it is somehow a completely different system at work.

9) Assert that free market principles operate within a monopolistic fiat currency system. See point 10.

10) Disregard the effects of central banking or better yet, remain ignorant of what central banking is.

On Terms, Such as “Hierarchy”…

You will often hear leftists of the Chomsky type (the man who owns no cabins in Montana) dismiss all forms of hierarchy as non-voluntary or coercive or in some way or another deem to be unfavorable based on any number of sociological and other factors. It should be fair to address that upon the many applications “hierarchy” can have, the anti-property rights “anarchists” seem to cherry pick this matter to suit their limited world view. From an Austrian economics perspective one could view the rationale and impulses that motivates someone towards this anti-propertarian, anti-hierarchical belief and easily deduce that at best it is rooted in envy and at worst misanthropy. I think by and large though, that this is not the case. After reading Proudhon and Bakunin I was, for a short period, an anti-propertarian myself in my younger years – not because I was jealous that my employers had more things than I did or that I hated humanity – but that I felt the very act of having to show up for a job instead of being able to do whatever I wanted in some fanciful land of abundance was “not fair”. Of course, the real abundance I failed to recognize was my very own surroundings growing up in a largely economically free and prosperous society.

The trade guild is not coercing the apprentice, yet most would agree that there is a hierarchy of skill-sets involved.

At first glance one can safely presume that no man wishes to live in chains, to be enslaved or made to function in much of any capacity against his will, yet we remain in pursuit of desires that can often be fruitless. Since the pursuit of desire is motivated by dissatisfaction, idleness is not yet superabundant (regardless of the efforts of welfare advocates).  Often the critique the anti-propertarians make against employment under a capitalist system is that it is “exploitative”, largely without explaining in any detail how a better alternative for a proper maintenance of civilization would realistically come about. This isn’t to say that capitalism is a perfect system, but since the methods of anti-propertarianism have been tried in large and small scenarios in many instances without any great deal of success or even real prosperity it should be fair to deduce, as is commonly the claim, that anti-propertarianism is utopian and contrary to the aims of civilization. I could suggest one do a quick Google search for “successful communes” or “successful examples of Marxism” but to be fair, these types generally don’t tend to honor the very notion of “success” in the first place or at best these types have the honesty to admit their idea of success is generally a very different one that the average person holds. Even in small scale egalitarian communes one wonders how easy it is to save for a retirement or medical emergency or heaven forbid a luxurious vacation. Without a division of labor in this system the task of cleaning the latrines (for example) becomes degraded, since after one person does a continually poor job, the motivation for the following performer is reduced etc. It would not be worth mentioning if these sorts of unfavorable outcomes were minimal. In light of the history of overall anti-propertarian experiments that we know of these unfavorable outcomes are a large part of why most of civilization knows to avoid this economic program. A similar, contrary, argument against a laissez-faire system is the condition of child labor or hazardous working conditions etc. but we see these sorts of episodes continue to be reduced as societies advance largely under a laissez-faire system. The only other option is to outlaw such practices doing little to address why they occur in the first place. The reliance on these types of claims is very telling of how the anti-propertarians seek not merely an intellectual or economic revolution, but a revolution against the very human condition of personal development, intellectual growth, advancement of skill-sets or any other form of individual progress.

It is another step altogether to imply that property ownership as we know it is a fundamentally flawed position and make no mistake that this is a view that has indeed been adopted by the more rigid “what’s mine is yours” sorts as witnessed under various anarcho-communist collectives where, taken to such extremes, they view the ideas of pair bonding as fundamentally hierarchical (typically from a patriarchal bent) and so believe in a sort of free-love perspective. One can only imagine the results of this outcome a few generations down the line had this sort of reasoning taken flight – even the Khmer Rouge attempted to decimate the established notion of family, so to pass this off as merely peripheral strikes me as quite dangerous. Another mistake is the assumption that the division of labor is fundamentally coercive and should be abandoned and I find that the anti-propertarian who subtly or not seeks to disregard this on its face or downplay its overall implication as fundamental to their framework is failing to be consistent in their application. Unfortunately many of these sorts seem to rely on giving themselves as many outs as possible should their consistency be called into question. The trade guild is not coercing the apprentice, yet most would agree that there is a hierarchy of skill-sets involved. The machinist is not coercing the boy who sweeps the shop floor when the boy looks to advance his skill-sets any more than the teacher does not coerce the student. Yet herein are all examples of hierarchy devoid of despotism of any sort.

ἀρχός (arkhos) Ancient Greek, Noun. 1. Ruler, leader, prince.

I’m no student of Ancient Greek but this definition strikes me as a political term far more than a socioeconomic one. Just sayin’.

Not The Only Ones Making Digs at Adam Curtis

Oh, this is just too rich! In my post on the Zeitgeist Movement I wrote a bit on Adam Curtis’s film “All Watched Over By Machines of Loving Grace” criticizing his portrayal of Ayn Rand and Alan Greenspan’s philosophical views and their influence. The other day I came across this video poking a bit of fun at Curtis’s style and lack of objective (no pun intended) research. I haven’t seen much else in the way of criticism towards Curtis’s work so I thought I’d share, it’s pretty funny.

In Defense of Stefan Molynuex’s DeFOO Thing

In light of Stefan Molyneux’s recent announcement of his cancer diagnosis I thought it would be fair to offer a bit of defense of his views of DEFOOing (De- Family Of Origin). It is one of the most frequent objections I come across against him which basically entails leaving your family if you deem them abusive. On its face there seems to be nothing objectionable about this at all. It seems that the objections out there are from parents who have done nothing wrong to their children and are heartbroken that they have been ostracized. I haven’t done a vast amount of research into this but from what I’ve heard from Molyneux is that he is not so very hard-lined to propose that if one’s parents do not immediately adopt libertarian, non-aggression ethics they should be outright abandoned. The problem is that this seems to be the criticism most voraciously leveled against him. I’ve listened to quite a few of his podcasts, and though I don’t subscribe to his own philosophy of Universally Preferable Behavior, he does offer what I believe are quite valuable insights on parenting. Further listening to some of his call in Sunday shows and the personal accounts of some his younger listeners in regards to their home life is really enlightening in just how intolerable situations can be for young people.

My position in regards to this comes from that of experience. Not so much personal, thankfully, my parents have done what I consider their “fair share” of raising me, though I certainly wouldn’t say it was to the best of their ability nor that I should have left them any earlier. I think it’s fair to have an honest acknowledgement of the parenting I’ve witnessed of others throughout my life, which at times was exponentially worse than what I went through. I think of the ways my parents lost their temper with me and am just astonished at the idea of treating a child this way. Though I’m not a parent myself, I have had room-mates in the past whose children would visit on weekends and I have watched them from time to time when the parent had to run to the store etc. Even when the children get out of control (which was very rare, they were extremely well-mannered) my methods in addressing their behavior are based on just that; addressing their behavior and explaining why I don’t want them to act in such a way, explaining how the results of such behavior affects others around them etc. Obviously I was not subject to the stress of being a parent and have no idea of that, I do think of the upbringing that some of my friends have had to go through and times when my parents behaved poorly.

It’s fair to assume that many of us have to some degree witnessed appalling or at best careless acts parents have committed when rearing children. Maybe if these people condemning Molyneux for recommending young people cut off all family ties with abusive members had listened to the personal experiences of some of the callers on his show they might have a better understanding of just how barbaric and unapologetic many parents can be. I tend to think there is a fair amount of willful ignorance on the part of those who fail to even remotely conceptualize why a child or young adult would want to abandon their family, as examples of these sorts of poor parenting are rather prevalent if one cares to look.

Capital Accumulation is the Failure of Anarcho-Communism

Every time I come across one of these seemingly (read; otherwise) brilliant anarcho-communists/syndicalists/mutualists they seem to always skirt away from the perceived “problem” of capital accumulation. Even under the sweeping economic revolution which they desire they fail to adequately address that issue, wherein one person decides to accumulate capital (by whatever barter unit is used) and thus inspires others to follow suit as a means to better whatever situation they find themselves in – even if that situation is seemingly a Proudhonian utopia. Force is the only means in which to correct this “problem” since the AnCom’s mystical shift in consciousness (read; atavistic longing) can not occur universally. Once again, the socialist would rather have everyone equal through poverty and mediocrity than to allow the cunning or even frugal few to better the situation that they find themselves in. Of course, I have no intention of stopping these barbaric sorts from living in caves and fighting off polio – I only wish that they would extend the same courtesy to me, and the fact that they do not really speaks volumes of how all forms of socialist experiments end in failure.