Quote of the Day: Distinguishing Property from Wealth

Property is a legal concept, whereas wealth is an economic concept. The two are often confused, but they should be kept quite clearly distinct. The one refers to a set of rights, the other to how people value such rights. The same legal claim to property may yield great wealth today and none tomorrow. Market exchanges change the values of property claims continuously, as Ludwig Lachmann explained clearly in his important essay on “The Market Economy and the Distribution of Wealth.”

This is from Cato Institute’s Tom G. Palmer, in the continuing debate over negative and positive rights at the Cato Unbound

Quote of the Day: Free Migration would be Great for the World

If First World governments simply respected everyone’s right to accept job offers from willing employers, most of the world’s poor wouldn’t need charity. They could take care of themselves. Any able-bodied person living in poverty would be free to sell his labor to the highest bidder in the world. Instead of paying years of income to coyotes, the global poor could migrate for the cost of a bus or boat ticket. Instead of crossing the border in fear to compete for illegal jobs, the global poor could cross the border openly to compete for any job they’re qualified to do.

Wouldn’t this simply drive First World wages down to Third World levels? No. Basic economics tells us that trade barriers don’t just redistribute wealth; they destroy wealth. Confining able-bodied workers to the Third World is like confining agriculture to Antarctica. Standard economic estimates say that open borders would roughly double world output. While trade liberalization never benefits absolutely everyone, free migration would be great for the world and great for the world’s poor.

(italics original)

This is from Professor Bryan Caplan in a debate over “negative and positive rights” at the Cato Unbound

Quote of the Day: The Taint Inherent in Absolute Power is Anti-Humanity

The corruption inherent in absolute power derives from the fact that such power is never free from the tendency to turn man into a thing, and press him back into the matrix of nature from which he has risen. For the impulse of power is to turn every variable into a constant, and give to commands the inexorableness and relentlessness of laws of nature. Hence absolute power corrupts even when exercised for humane purposes. The benevolent despot who sees himself as a shepherd of the people still demands from others the submissiveness of sheep. The taint inherent in absolute power is not its inhumanity but its anti-humanity.

This is from American Moral and social philosopher Eric Hoffer from Ch. 15: "The Unnaturalness Of Human Nature" of his book The Ordeal of Change (1963)

Robert Higgs: Strategy for Winning People Over to Libertarianism

Austrian economist Robert Higgs at the Independent Institute articulates on how the ideals of libertarianism can be won through the premises of consequentialism (utilitarian) and deontology (ethics) 

[bold mine, italics original]

In any event, after the more recent decades of my libertarian journey, I am now struck by a different aspect of this longstanding debate, which has to do with our strategy for winning people over to libertarianism. Strategy 1 is to persuade them that freedom works, that a free society will be richer and otherwise better off than an unfree society; that a free market will, as it were, cause the trains to run on time better than a government bureaucracy will do so. Strategy 2 is to persuade people that no one, not even a government functionary, has a just right to interfere with innocent people’s freedom of action; that none of us was born with a saddle on his back to accommodate someone else’s riding him.

In our world, so many people have been confused or misled by faulty claims about morality and justice that most libertarians, especially in the think tanks and other organizations that carry much of the burden of education about libertarianism, concentrate their efforts on pursuing Strategy 1 as effectively as possible. Hence, they produce policy studies galore, each showing how the government has fouled up a market or another situation by its ostensibly well-intentioned laws and regulations. Of course, the 98 percent or more of society (especially in its political aspect) that in one way or another opposes perfect freedom responds with policy studies of its own, each showing why an alleged “market failure,” “social injustice,” or other problem warrants the government’s interference with people’s freedom of action and each promising to remedy the perceived evils. Anyone who pays attention to policy debates is familiar with the ensuing, never-ending war of the wonks. I myself have done a fair amount of such work, so I am not condemning it. As one continues to expose the defects of anti-freedom arguments and the failures of government efforts to “solve” a host of problems, one hopes that someone will be persuaded and become willing to give freedom a chance.

Nevertheless, precisely because the war of the wonks—not to mention the professors, pundits, columnists, political hacks, and intellectual hired guns—is never-ending, one can never rest assured that once a person has been persuaded that freedom works better, at least in regard to situation X, that person has been won over to libertarianism permanently. If a person has come over only because of evidence and argument adduced yesterday by a pro-freedom wonk, he may just as easily go back to his support for government intervention tomorrow on the basis of evidence and argument adduced by an anti-freedom wonk. As John Maynard Keynes once cleverly replied to someone who asked him about his fluctuating views, “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?” If libertarians choose to fight for freedom solely on consequentialist grounds, they will be at war forever. Although one may accept this prospect on the grounds that “eternal vigilance is the price of liberty,” this kind of war is deeply discouraging, given that the anti-freedom forces with which libertarians must contend possess hundreds of times more troops and thousands of times more money for purchasing munitions.

In contrast, once the libertarian has persuaded someone that government interference is wrong, at least in a certain realm, if not across the board, there is a much smaller probability of that convert’s backsliding into his former support for government’s coercive measures against innocent people. Libertarianism grounded on the moral rock will prove much stronger and longer-lasting than libertarianism grounded on the shifting sands of consequentialist arguments, which of necessity are only as compelling as today’s arguments and evidence make them. Hence, if we desire to enlarge the libertarian ranks, we are well advised to make moral arguments at least a part of our efforts. It will not hurt, of course, to show people that freedom really does work better than state control. But to confine our efforts to wonkism dooms them to transitory success, at best.

If we are ever to attain a free society, we must persuade a great many of our fellows that it is simply wrong for any individuals or groups, by violence or the threat thereof, to impose their demands on others who have committed no crime and violated no one’s just rights, and that it is just as wrong for the persons who compose the state to do so as it is for you and me. In the past, the great victories for liberty flowed from precisely such an approach—for example, in the anti-slavery campaign, in the fight against the Corn Laws (which restricted Great Britain’s free trade in grains), and in the struggle to abolish legal restrictions on women’s rights to work, own property, and otherwise conduct themselves as freely as men. At the very least, libertarians should never concede the moral high ground to those who insist on coercively interfering with freedom: the burden of proof should always rest on those who seek to bring violence to bear against innocent people, not on those of us who want simply to be left alone to live our lives as we think best, always respecting the same right for others.

Mr. Higg’s proposition of libertarians making “moral arguments at least a part of our efforts” has been the bedrock of my “policy analysis” which some have mistakenly construed as being partisan.  

For clarity purposes, libertarianism is a cause to advance a free “non-aggression based” society and not to promote superficial and delusory "personality based politics" predicated on the principles of aggression.

Quote of the Day: The False Doctrine of Altruism

Altruism is a code of ethics which hold the welfare of others as the standard of "good", and self-sacrifice as the only moral action. The unstated premise of the doctrine of altruism is that all relationships among men involve sacrifice. This leaves one with the false choice between maliciously exploiting the other person (forcing them to be sacrificed) or being "moral" and offering oneself up as the sacrificial victim.

This is from Jeff Landauer and Joseph Rowland at the ImportanceofPhilosophy.com

Quote of the Day: The Perils of Unlimited Democracy

Of course there is something very wrong with unlimited democracies. There is simply no justification for the majority of the population in a country imposing its will on everyone. The idea is completely misguided. Why on earth should a great number of people have the authority to force a small number to obey them? There is no argument anywhere in the history of political philosophy and theory that would make out the case for this? If it were a valid point, it would imply that a large number of thugs somehow have the right to subdue other people to serve them. The famous example of the lynch mob that hangs an accused person make the point without difficulty. Expanding the will of vicious people doesn’t make it virtuous. And even if what the larger group wants is actually virtuous, forcing it on others is still not justified since they would have to make the free choice to be virtuous. Human virtue must be a matter of free choice. Only in self-defense may force be applied to others!

The election process in so called democratic countries is anything but justified or moral. Even when it hides behind the term “we” as it tries to do in too many instances--just listen to politicians anywhere around the globe and notice how often they pretend to be speaking for and acting in behalf of everyone--the will of the majority simply has no moral authority, none! Anyone who can dodge it successfully is perfectly justified to do so!

This is from Philosophy Professor Tibor R. Machan at weblogbahamas.com

Has Communism been Shaped by Karl Marx’s Self-hatred?

Not to be accused of Tu Quoque “you too” fallacy, experience plays an important part in influencing our outlook and personal philosophy. Has self-hatred been the cornerstone of Karl Marx’s political philosophy known as Communism?

Here is an excerpt of the narration by Murray N. Rothbard of Karl Marx’s path to Marxism, (bold added)

Also prefiguring the man was a trait that Marx developed early in his youth and never relinquished: a shameless sponging on friends and relatives. Already in early 1837, Heinrich Marx, castigating his son Karl's wanton spending of the money of others, wrote to him that "on one point … you have wisely found fit to observe an aristocratic silence; I am referring to the paltry matter of money." Indeed, Marx took money from any source available: his father, mother, and throughout his adult life, his long-suffering friend and abject disciple, Friedrich Engels, all of whom fueled Marx's capacity for spending money like water.

An insatiable spender of other people's money, Marx continually complained about a shortage of financial means. While sponging on Engels, Marx perpetually complained to his friend that his largess was never enough. Thus, in 1868, Marx insisted that he could not make do on an annual income of less than £400-£500, a phenomenal sum considering that the upper tenth of Englishmen in that period were earning an average income of only £72 a year. Indeed, so profligate was Marx that he quickly ran through an inheritance from a German follower of £824 in 1864, as well as a gift of £350 from Engels in the same year.

In short, Marx was able to run through the munificent sum of almost £1200 in two years, and two years later accept another gift of £210 from Engels to pay off his newly accumulated debts. Finally, in 1868, Engels sold his share of the family cotton mill and settled upon Marx an annual "pension" of £350 from then on. Yet Marx's continual complaints about money did not abate.

As in the case of many other spongers and cadgers throughout history, Karl Marx affected a hatred and contempt for the very material resource he was so anxious to cadge and use so recklessly. The difference is that Marx created an entire philosophy around his own corrupt attitudes toward money. Man, he thundered, was in the grip of the "fetishism" of money. The problem was the existence of this evil thing, not the voluntarily adopted attitudes of some people toward it. Money Marx reviled as "the pander between … human life and the means of sustenance," the "universal whore." The Utopia of communism was a society where this scourge, money, would be abolished.

Karl Marx, the self-proclaimed enemy of the exploitation of man by man, not only exploited his devoted friend Friedrich Engels financially, but also psychologically. Thus, only three months after Marx's wife, Jenny von Westphalen, gave birth to his daughter Franziska in March 1851, their live-in maid, Helene ("Lenchen") Demuth, whom Marx had "inherited" from Jenny's aristocratic family, also gave birth to Marx's illegitimate son, Henry Frederick. Desperately anxious to keep up haute bourgeois conventions and to hold his marriage together, Karl never acknowledged his son, and, instead, persuaded Engels, a notorious womanizer, to proclaim the baby as his own. Both Marx and Engels treated the hapless Freddy extremely badly, Engels's presumed resentment at being so used providing him a rather better excuse. Marx boarded Freddy out continually, and never allowed him to visit his mother. As Fritz Raddatz, a biographer of Marx, declared, "if Henry Frederick Demuth was Karl Marx's son, the new mankind's Preacher lived an almost lifelong lie, and scorned, humiliated, and disowned his only surviving son." Engels, of course, picked up the tab for Freddy's education. Freddy was trained, however, to take his place in the working class, far from the lifestyle of his natural father, the quasi-aristocratic leader of the world's downtrodden revolutionary proletariat.

Marx's personal taste for the aristocracy was lifelong. As a young man, he attached himself to his neighbor, Jenny's father Baron Ludwig von Westphalen, and dedicated his doctoral thesis to the baron. Indeed, the snobbish proletarian communist always insisted that Jenny imprint "nee von Westphalen" on her calling card.

I suggest a read of the entire article which is rather short and includes Karl Marx’s supposed conversion to "militant atheism"

The point being; people who in good intentions believe that public welfare can be acquired through the collectivist route via communism or related socialist branches thereto, are in fact running contrary to their desires. A philosophy founded on seeming self-hatred or founded on base human instincts will not bring about prosperity but perdition through violence.

Proof of this has been the harrowing 20th century experiment where about 94 million people perished, according to the Black Book of Communism, out of the desire to achieve a utopian communist society. In other words, it took 94 million lives to prove a failed experiment and an unfulfilled utopia. Yet many are still out there preaching the same.

Quote of the Day: To Be Governed

To be GOVERNED is to be kept in sight, inspected, spied upon, directed, law-driven, numbered, enrolled, indoctrinated, preached at, controlled, checked, estimated, valued, censured, commanded, by creatures who have neither the right, nor the wisdom, nor the virtue to do so…

To be GOVERNED is to be at every operation, at every transaction noted, registered, enrolled, taxed, stamped, measured, numbered, assessed, licensed, authorized, admonished, forbidden, reformed, corrected, punished.

It is, under pretext of public utility, and in the name of the general interest, to be placed under contribution, trained, ransomed, exploited, monopolized, extorted, squeezed, mystified, robbed; then, at the slightest resistance, the first word of complaint, to be repressed, fined, despised, harassed, tracked, abused, clubbed, disarmed, choked, imprisoned, judged, condemned, shot, deported, sacrificed, sold, betrayed; and to crown all, mocked, ridiculed, derided, outraged, dishonored.

That is government; that is its justice; that is its morality.

This is from French mutualist philosopher Pierre-Joseph Proudhon in The General Idea of the Revolution in the 19th Century, 1851 p.294

Quote of the Day: Libertarianism is the Philosophy of Freedom

libertarianism is simply the philosophy of freedom: freedom for one to do with his person and property as he chooses as long as in doing so he doesn’t aggress against the person or property of another. “The only freedom which deserves the name,” said political philosopher John Stuart Mill, “is that of pursuing our own good in our own way, so long as we do not attempt to deprive others of theirs, or impede their efforts to obtain it.” Or, in the simple words of Leonard Read, “anything that’s peaceful.”

That’s from the splendid review by Lawrence Vance of Judge Andrew P. Napolitano’s latest book It Is Dangerous to Be Right When the Government Is Wrong: The Case for Personal Freedom (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2011); 240 pages. (lewrockwell.com)

Judge Napolitano's book is on my wishlist.

Quote of the Day: Good Conduct is a Consequence of Freedom

Great part of that order which reigns among mankind is not the effect of government. It has its origin in the principles of society and the natural constitution of man. It existed prior to government, and would exist if the formality of government was abolished. The mutual dependence and reciprocal interest which man has upon man, and all the parts of civilised community upon each other, create that great chain of connection which holds it together. The landholder, the farmer, the manufacturer, the merchant, the tradesman, and every occupation, prospers by the aid which each receives from the other, and from the whole. Common interest regulates their concerns, and forms their law; and the laws which common usage ordains, have a greater influence than the laws of government. In fine, society performs for itself almost everything which is ascribed to government.

That’s from Thomas Paine, English-American author, pamphleteer, radical, inventor, intellectual, revolutionary, and one of the Founding Fathers of the United States quoted from the Rights of Man Part 2, by libertarian author Sheldon Richman who aptly sums it up…

good conduct isn’t a precondition of freedom; it is a consequence of freedom

Video: Greek Central Planner Goes Berserk!

Writes Bob Wenzel at the Economic Policy Journal,

Central planning in action.

Greek far-right Golden Dawn Mp slaps another member on LIVE Tv. Golden Dawn spokesman Ilias Kasidiaris was apparently provoked when his alleged involvement in an armed robbery was mentioned. The fun stuff comes in the last 12 seconds of the clip

Politics is religion to many.

For central planners and their followers, who assume that they have far superior knowledge than the rest, any opposition to their views may lead to violent responses as they are hardly tolerant of adverse opinion.

First they resort to fallacies, then ad hominem to score debating points, and eventually such personal attacks incites physical violence.

This essentially exhibits the innate ethical philosophy of statism: the use of force.

Some pseudo experts try to dominate discussions through supposedly a 'gentle' persuasion approach. But whose subtle but incessant (nonsensical) bombardments represent no more than attempts to brainwash, in the guise of 'investment insights' or 'social justice'. They think that discussions should strictly run along their lines (even if they are based on gaping fallacies). You may even consider their spiels, a spam. And if you resist, you are deemed an idiot. They simply cannot respect diversity. For them it is either black or white, with me or against me (false choice).

Nonetheless, fatal conceit in action.

Is the Enthusiasm for Democracy Sustainable?

Because of the ongoing revolutions in the MENA region, Pew Research attempts to distill on the sustainability of enthusiasm for democracy using past experiences.

In a recent study, using the East Europe’s experience, the Pew Research finds that enthusiasm for democracy has declined.

Pew Research’s James Bell writes,

These findings do not mean that East Europeans were inclined to abandon democracy. Publics across the region broadly endorsed the demise of communism. Rather these opinions point to the gap between what East Europeans hoped for and what they perceived in terms of political change. On one hand, East Europeans generally agreed that two decades of political and economic change had disproportionately benefited business owners and politicians, rather than ordinary people. On the other, many East Europeans felt democratization had yet to match expectations. In 2009, the median percentage in each country who said a fair judiciary, multiparty elections, uncensored media, freedom of religion, freedom of speech and civilian control of the military were very important significantly exceeded the median percentage who claimed these institutions described their country very well.

Reflecting on Mr. Bell’s statement, the issue isn’t about the loss of interest on democracy but rather the mismatch between people’s expectations on their definition or their concept of democracy and that of economic prosperity.

So when economic distribution has had “disproportionately benefited business owners and politicians” this only means that the political economic framework has segued from communism to one of crony capitalism based on a social democratic form of governance.

Furthermore, expectations for more freedom have not been met perhaps due to the same reasons.

This phenomenon seems to reflect on the Philippines too. After two People Power revolts, Filipinos have still been waiting for Godot.

Filipinos appear to be impassioned on democracy as demonstrated by the eagerness to vote. However eventually they get frustrated again. That’s because their expectations clashes with the reality: Filipinos largely see economic salvation from political distribution rather than from their own efforts.

We, Filipinos, seem to have little understanding that political distribution is a zero sum game (one gains the other losses, i.e. picking on Pedro’s pocket and giving to Mario), while economic distribution is a net value added.

Yet this doesn’t mean that any nation aspiring for democracy isn’t fit for it. It takes time for people to learn, understand and embrace the concept of economic freedom and civil liberties as this is a process of discovery.

And it all starts with the “right” education.

Is Honesty Enough For A Society To Succeed?

On my facebook, I frequently post a quote from a famous person or from an article I read or came across whose message, I THINK, is noteworthy to be remembered.

I posted this quote about 2 weeks ago from Alfred Whitney Griswold: "Certain things we cannot accomplish… by any process of government. We cannot legislate intelligence. We cannot legislate morality. No, and we cannot legislate loyalty, for loyalty is a kind of morality."

Probably in reaction to this, an indirect comment by a friend pointed out that relationships of people are best governed by honesty.

So to test the merits of the argument I responded with a question from a possible case-scenario.

“Suppose that I went to an ATM machine to do a transaction. I noticed that because it was late at night, there was nobody around the premises. So as I transacted with the machine, I noticed a 1,000 peso bill on the floor about a foot away from the ATM.

“Assuming that no one returned during the course of your transactions to claim the money, or after x minutes of wait.

“I have a set of options:

“1. ignore the money and leave the premises.

“2. pick up the money with the intent to give the money to the bank by daytime

“3. pick up the money and surrender it to the police station

“4. pick up the money and donate it to the church or to the mendicant at the next street corner

“5. pick up the money for myself

“Which of do you think among these options represent as honest which you recommend that I should take? And why?”

To my surprise two respondents made different choices on the above case. One chose 2 and the other chose 4.

This prompted me to make my reply and drive to the point.

“Going back to the issue, so what defines honesty? According to Dictionary.com, it is “truthfulness, sincerity, or frankness.” In my opinion, ‘truthfulness, sincerity, or frankness’ is rooted on upon the individual’s conscience or the moral or ethical values or principles. Simply said, the sense of right and wrong or the sense of justice that undergirds one’s thoughts and actions.

“So how do we arrive at our sense of right and wrong? We acquire these from an amalgam of factors: the teachings of our parents, the school, religion, culture, tradition, peers, what we read or watch, and the norms observed or practiced by the community.

“I would also presume that if this were to be an open survey, the answers by people will reflect on such diversity. In short, there will be NO universal single ‘honest’ answer.

“In addition, what some people will say and what they will do can differ in actual experience, as some people can be influenced by reputation, e.g. some don’t want to be seen “selfish”, or moods.

“This only illustrates that people can have different but honest opinions and intentions about how they interpret and judge specific events based on their sense of values at the time when such conditions emerge.

“Of course, lest be accused of framing, there are many alternative actions that can result from such a scenario (tearing up the money, burning the money etc.), but we will leave it to these selection to make it simple.

“The important question is, “can differences in “honesty” create conflict among people?” Unfortunately, the answer is yes.

“Here is an extension of my earlier example.

“Suppose that I have been undecided as to what to do with the money and thus brought it home, but shared this dilemma to my best friend Louie. Because of Louie’s excitement he went to tell the church, the police and the bank.

“The next day the lawyer of the bank emerges to claim the money, citing that their accountant reported that the ATM, where I transacted with, recorded a missing 1,000 pesos. The bank also cited that since the money I recovered was under their property premises, hence, it was rightfully theirs.

“[Of course, money lost by the ATM may not be the same money that I found; correlation does not imply causation.]

“A priest and the mendicant also appear on my front door to lay claim on the money. They priest cite “social justice”, which means redistribution of unowned property to the mendicant, as reasons why they deserved the money.

“A representative of the police and the central bank also surfaces. They argue that since money is a legal tender, therefore, having no claimant, the default ownership is with the government.

“On the other hand, I am thinking that since no one claimed the money, the “finders keepers” principle should apply, or the Lockean Proviso on claims to unowned resources. [‘enough as good’]

“As you can see four of us, could be honest and well-meaning, but have different opinions, divergent interpretations of truth, disparate justifications and antipodal interests. Does plain “honesty” then resolve our problem? Apparently not.

“With no fundamental parameters to rely on, our honest dispositions will only lead to an impasse.

“Why? Because the problem isn’t about honesty, but about ownership rights.

“In the above case, the worst part is for central bank through the police to arbitrarily confiscate the money I found under the threat of prosecution or under the barrel of the gun. This is called compassion (i.e. ‘honesty’) mixed with aggression, a violation of property rights.

“Bottom line: Honesty is an ideal but insufficient trait necessary for a well functioning society.

“Hence, honesty will benefit people but only under the strictures of the respect of ownership rights, the rule of law (and not the rule of men) and individual liberty from which the former two have been framed upon.

“We can all be honest under such existing conditions.

“Think of it, did honesty govern in communist Mao, or Soviet’s Stalin or North Korea’s Kim? Unfortunately, no; because people had NOT been permitted to be honest as they were treated as indentured servants deprived of ownership rights.

“[We must realize that voluntary exchange, e.g. what we buy and the services or products that we sell in exchange, are all based on property rights. Money, is essentially, about property rights, ergo medium of “exchange”-of properties.]

“In other words, “honesty” becomes an amorphous abstraction frequently used by politicians to bamboozle the public. Remember, the recent brouhaha over “I am not a thief?...sounds familiar?

The Lesson:

As Ludwig von Mises wrote, ``If history could prove and teach us anything, it would be that private ownership of the means of production is a necessary requisite of civilization and material well-being. . . . Only nations committed to the principle of private property have risen above penury and produced science, art and literature."