Interventionism: Using Legal Coercion to Get Ahead in Life

Mainstream media (especially in the Philippines) never ceases to inculcate upon her audience of the need to have the "right" morals (mainly based on collectivism) for the political economy to prosper. Yet what they either ignore or omit to explain is how most of the unethical or unscrupulous behaviors have been products of the interventionist policies previously implemented. They also fail to deal with the potential ethical distortions from populist policies they advocate in addressing real time social problems.

At the Epic Times, Austrian economist, Dr. Richard Ebeling explains why this is so (ht: Bob Wenzel) [bold mine]

In an environment in which “public policy” determines individual lives and fortunes and in which social and economic life has become politicized, it is not surprising that many Americans have turned their attention to politics to improve their market position and relative income share. Legalized coercion has become the method by which they get ahead in life.

And make no mistake about it: Every income transfer, every tariff or import quota, every business subsidy, every regulation or prohibition on who may compete or how a product may be produced and marketed, and every restraint on the use and transfer of property is an act of coercion. Political force is interjected into what would otherwise be a system of peaceful and voluntary transactions.

Over time, interventionism blurs the distinction between what is moral and what is not. In ordinary life, most people take for granted that certain forms of conduct are permissible while others are not. These are the Golden Rules we live by. Government’s task in human society is to enforce and protect these rules, which are summarized in two basic principles: Neither force nor fraud shall be practiced in dealings with others; and the rights and property of others must be respected. In the moral order that is the free market economy, these principles are the wellspring of honesty and trust. Without them, America is threatened with ultimate ruin – with a war of all-against-all in the pursuit of plunder.

When individuals began to ask government to do things for them, rather than merely to secure their individual rights and honestly acquired property, they began asking government to violate other’s rights and property for their benefit.

These demands on government have been rationalized by intellectuals and social engineers who have persuaded people that what they wanted but didn’t have was due to the greed, exploitation, and immorality of others. Basic morality and justice has been transcended in the political arena in order to take from the “haves” and give to the “have not’s.” Theft through political means has become the basis of a “higher” morality: “social justice,” which is supposed to remedy the alleged injustices of the free market economy.

But once the market becomes politicized in this manner, morality begins to disintegrate. Increasingly, the only way to survive in society is to resort to the same types of political methods for gain as others are using, or to devise ways to evade the controls and regulations. More and more people, therefore, have been drawn into the arena of political intrigue and manipulation or violation of the law for economic gain. Human relationships and the political process have become increasingly corrupted.

In the 1920s, Ludwig von Mises explained a crucial aspect of this corruption of morality and law:

“By constantly violating criminal laws and moral decrees [people] lose the ability to distinguish between right and wrong, good and bad. The merchant, who began by violating foreign exchange controls, import and export restrictions, price ceilings, etc., easily proceeds to defraud his partners. The decay of business morals . . . is the inevitable concomitant of the regulations imposed on trade.”

Mises was, of course, repeating the lesson that the French classical economist Frederic Bastiat had attempted to teach in the 1850s in his famous essay, “The Law.” When the state becomes the violator of liberty and property rather than its guarantor, it debases respect for all law. People in society develop an increasing disrespect and disregard for what the law demands. They view the law as the agent for immorality in the form of legalized plunder for the benefit of some at the expense of others. And this same disrespect and disregard sooner or later starts to creep into the ordinary dealings between individuals. Society verges on the brink of lawlessness.

Read the rest here

So proposals to implement more interventionist solutions is like a dog chasing their own tail.

Video: Why Social Justice is a sweeping indictment of a free society

In the following video, Jonah Goldberg of the American Enterprise Institute exposes the hidden agenda behind the demagogical term 'social justice'.

Mr. Goldberg on the great F.A. Hayek's vehement objection to 'social justice':

Hayek understood that the need for political opportunism and intellectual laziness of the term social justice was a pernicious philosophical claim—meaning freedom must be sacrificed in order redistribute income. Ultimately social justice is about the state amassing ever increasing power in order to do “good things” What are good things? Whatever the champions of ‘social justice’ decide this week.

For me, social justice can be simplified as the politics of envy. 

Hat tip Cafe Hayek, video from Prager University

 

Walter Block: Why 'Social Justice' Should Not Be Thought in Schools

[update: I changed the title of this post]

I have communicated with the great Austrian economist Walter Block, I offered to publish some of his works here to help spread Austrian economics and libertarianism.

So I will start with Mr. Block’s take on academia's promotion of Social Justice. The following article is from Mr. Block’s Building Blocks for Liberty p. 235-237 (Thanks Professor Block)

On many university campuses, there is a push on to promote Social Justice. There are two ways to define "Social Justice."

First, this concept may be defined substantively. Here, it is typically associated with left wing or socialist analyses, policies and prescriptions. For example, poverty is caused by unbridled capitalism; the solution is to heavily regulate markets, or ban them outright. Racism and sexism account for the relative plight of racial minorities and women; laws should be passed prohibiting their exercise. Greater reliance on government is required as the solution of all sorts of social problems. The planet is in great danger from environmental despoliation, due to an unjustified reliance on private property rights. Taxes are too low; they should be raised. Charity is an insult to the poor, who must obtain more revenues by right, not condescension. Diversity is the sine qua non of the fair society. Discrimination is one of the greatest evils to have ever beset mankind. Use of terminology such as "mankind" is sexist, and constitutes hate speech.

Secondly, Social Justice may be seen not as a particular viewpoint on such issues, but rather as a concern with studying them with no preconceived notions. In this perspective, no particular stance is taken on issues of poverty, capitalism, socialism, discrimination, government regulation of the economy, free enterprise, environmentalism, taxation, charity, diversity, etc. Rather, the only claim is that such topics are important for a liberal arts education, and that any institution of higher learning that ignores them does so at peril to its own mission.

So that we may be crystal clear on this distinction, a Social Justice advocate of the first variety might claim that businesses are per se improper, while one who pursued this undertaking in the second sense would content himself by merely asserting that the status of business is an important one to study.

Should a University dedicate itself to the promotion of Social Justice? It would be a disaster to do so in the first sense of this term, and it is unnecessary in the second. Let us consider each option in turn.

Should an institution of higher learning demand of its faculty that they support Social Justice in the substantive left wing sense, it would at one fell swoop lose all academic credibility. For it would in effect be demanding that its professors espouse socialism. But this is totally incompatible with academic freedom: the right to pursue knowledge with an open mind, and to come to conclusions based on research, empirical evidence, logic, etc., instead of working with blinders, being obligated to arrive only at one point of view on all such issues.

This would mean, for example, in economics, the area with which I am most familiar, to be constrained to conclude that the minimum wage law is the last best hope for the unskilled, and that continually raising it is both just and expeditious; that free trade is pernicious and exploitative. It is more than passing curious that those in the university community who are most heavily addicted to diversity cannot tolerate it when it comes to divergence of opinions, conclusions, public policy prescriptions, etc.

What about promoting Social Justice in the second sense; not to enforce conclusions on researchers but merely to urge that questions of this sort be studied?

This is either misguided, or unnecessary.

It is misguided in disciplines such as mathematics, physics, chemistry, music, accounting, statistics, etc., since these callings do not typically address issues related to Social Justice. There is no "just" or "unjust" way to deal with a "T" account, a quadratic equation or an econometric regression; there are only correct and incorrect ways to go about these enterprises. To ask, let alone to demand, that professors in these fields concern themselves with poverty, economic development, wage gaps or air pollution is to take them far out of their areas of expertise. It is just as silly as asking a philosopher to teach music, or vice versa.

And it is totally unnecessary, particularly in the social sciences but also in the humanities. For if members of these disciplines are not already conducting studies on issues germane to Social Justice (and, of course, to other things as well) then they are simply derelict in their duty. If historians, sociologists, anthropologists, economists, philosophers are ignoring poverty, unemployment, war, environmentalism, etc., no exhortations to the contrary are likely to improve matters.

Colleges and universities therefore ought cease and desist forthwith from labeling themselves in this manner, and from promoting all extant programs to this end. It is unseemly to foist upon its faculty and students any one point of view on these highly contentious issues. It would be just as improper to do so from a free enterprise, limited government private property rights perspective as it is from its present stance in the opposite direction. For additional material critical of these initiatives, see Michael Novak and Walter Williams.

Of course, social justice may be defined in yet a third manner: as favoring justice in the "social" arena, as opposed to other venues. Here, all intellectual combatants would favor the promotion of this value; the only difference is that leftists, for example, mean by this some version of egalitarianism, while for libertarians justice consists of the upholding of private property rights. For a college to uphold social justice in this sense would be highly problematic, in that two very different things would be connoted by this phrase.

UN’s FAO on World Hunger: Let them eat insects

Many nasty side effects of inflationism has not only been to reduce the quality of products and services (value deflation) as well as to promote fraud, for instance in food (rat meat, horse scandal) but has also prompted policymakers to desperately scamper for solutions based on absurd premises. 

From the BBC.com (hat tip Zero Hedge)

Eating more insects could help fight world hunger, according to a new UN report.

The report by the UN Food and Agriculture Organization says that eating insects could help boost nutrition and reduce pollution.

It notes than over 2 billion people worldwide already supplement their diet with insects.

However it admits that "consumer disgust" remains a large barrier in many Western countries.

Wasps, beetles and other insects are currently "underutilised" as food for people and livestock, the report says. Insect farming is "one of the many ways to address food and feed security".

Remember these multilateral institutions are taxpayer funded. This means that such bureaucracies have been benefiting from wealth transfers (taxpayers to bureaucrats) which should have been redirected instead to “hunger”.

Yet in order to sustain their privileges, they recommend bizarre elixirs instead of promoting real market based reforms. Such is an example of ‘social justice’ based on central planning.

The UN and her subsidiary the FAO should set an example.  UN-FAO leaders should require all their employees to have insects as part of their daily fare.

The last time a political leader allegedly declared sarcastically “let them cake”…such led to a bloody revolution.

Why I Will Not Vote; Liquor Ban and No Stock Market Commentary

I will not participate or risk my life and limb or spend scarce time, effort, and resources in the selection process of so-called political leaders, undergirded by a political system that legitimizes the systematic picking of people’s pockets and the progressive curtailment of liberty through organized institutional violence under the guise of the ‘social justice’ sham

I will also not partake on the delusion where individuals have been programmed to believe that they are primarily members of the collective, which the individual is subordinate to, and that people have control over such leaders. In reality, such elections serve no more than a spectator sport or the race to bottom to manipulate the electorate with freedom constricting, “free lunches” tomfoolery themes in order to justify their assumption to office. This quasi mob rule (either by majority or plurality) selection process, of course, serves as the foundation to the system’s legitimacy.

Such pretentious virtues can already be seen via the election liquor ban regulation. The edict logically implies that election violence is a direct result of alcoholic intoxication rather than of mainly impassioned electoral competition (among the other many but trivial or coincidental factors). The ban essentially lumps two different variables into one, which is a logical absurdity. Electoral violence will happen with or without alcohol.

The Supreme Court struck down the administration’s extension of such ban. Yet such arbitrary regulations reveals of the priorities of those in power that gives preference to the political—the coercive picking of the pocket of Juan to give or transfer some of Juan’s money to Pedro, as the chosen political leaders keep the rest of the booty for themselves—rather than to the socio-economic system. More signs why today’s economic boom has been a paper tiger.

Of course, every arbitrary rule has beneficiaries. Aside from politicians, the tourism industry is exempted from such prohibition, thus the ban signifies an implicit subsidy to the latter. So there will be a boom in tourism and tourism related establishments at the expense of the sari-sari stores, carinderias, bars, and etc.., where the latter group will theoretically bear the brunt in terms of lost incomes. See how arbitrary rules promote inequality? Under the whims of political agents, those politically blessed get the benefits while the rest are left stuck in a rut. That’s “social justice” for you.

On the other hand, affected consumers, like me, will be displeased as prohibition takes away our satisfactions, and most importantly, limits our freedom of choice.

Also the people who will patronize prohibition exempted tourist and tourist related establishments are most likely the well off. So the “haves” can publicly swill on alcohol while the “non-haves” cannot. Thus prohibition statutes essentially discriminate against the lower segments of the society, which ironically and duplicitously, such supposed “virtuous” institutions proclaim to protect.

Worst, repressive prohibition fiats are imposed on us by people who pretend to know what is best for us. In reality, political paternalism represents a charade which has been used as an excuse to pick on our pockets and expand political control over our actions. As an old saw goes, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

But the good thing is that because the domestic posse (dictionary.com: a body or force armed with legal authority) will be concentrating much of their efforts in the monitoring of electoral grounds or voting precincts, this means the prohibition will likely be infringed upon or would generally be toothless, but with exceptions. 

As an aside, this doesn’t mean that banned establishments will be serving alcohol but rather transactions will be done underground.

The exclusion is that the liquor ban policies can be or will be used selectively as strong-arm or harassment tactic against political foes.

This can also be used by authorities as pretext to mulct on the hapless consumer which is a source of corruption

In other words, such skewed, unfair and immoral legal restrictions, aside from heated political competition, incentivize electoral violence regardless of the presence of alcohol.

All these reveals how arbitrary statutes debauch on society’s moral fiber. These are things the public does not see and which the political class and media will not tell you. Economics function as a fundamental pillar of ethics.

In view of the senselessness of “feel good” politics, I will take this opportunity to spend precious moments with my family this extended weekend. Thus I will not be publishing my weekly stock market commentary and may limit my blogging activities

And if you want to know more on why I wouldn’t vote, my favorite iconoclast comedian the late George Carlin explains two reasons which I share…

Thank you for your patronage.

Have a great and safe weekend

Yours in truth and in liberty

Benson

The government consists of a gang of men exactly like you and me. They have, taking one with another, no special talent for the business of government; they have only a talent for getting and holding office. Their principal device to that end is to search out groups who pant and pine for something they can't get and to promise to give it to them. Nine times out of ten that promise is worth nothing. The tenth time is made good by looting A to satisfy B. In other words, government is a broker in pillage, and every election is sort of an advance auction sale of stolen goods.  

-- H. L. Mencken

(1880-1956) American Journalist, Editor, Essayist, Linguist, Lexicographer, and Critic

Video: Hayek: Social Justice is a Meaningless Concepcion

The great Austrian economist and Nobel laureate Friedrich A von Hayek in a discussion with Firing Line host William F Buckley Jr. and George Roche III (Hillsdale College) on Social Justice (source LibertyPen, hat tip Mises Blog)

Hayek (5:06)

There are no possible rewards of a just distribution in a system where the distribution is not deliberately the result of people bringing it about. Justice is an attribute of individual action. I can be just or unjust toward my fellow man. But the conception of a social justice to expect from an impersonal process with nobody can control to bring about a just result, is not only a meaningless conception, it’s completely impossible. You see everybody talks about social justice, but if you press people to explain to you what they mean by social justice…what to accept as social justice, nobody knows.

Quote of the Day: The State is Not an Instrument of Justice; It's an Instrument of Power

Think about it. If you steal my chicken or I steal your cow, this is a dispute between us; what does the government care about it? The answer should be it doesn't care at all but because the state loves power and the state does not like to share power, it likes to resolve all disputes the way it wants to resolve them. This drives up the cost and diminishes justice because it forces the disputants to follow the state's rule and the state's command and the state's way, and this does not inure to politeness, civility or even the idea that a dispute could possibly be resolved amicably and justly, without the state being involved.

The state is not an instrument of justice; it's an instrument of power

This is from Judge P. Andrew Napolitano interviewed by Anthony Wile at the Daily Bell (source lewrockwell.com)

Understanding Political Terminologies 2: Social Justice, Greece, Austerity and Insurance

Political language have been deliberately mangled to suit and promote the interests of political agents and their followers. I have given a few examples earlier.

More examples:

1. SOCIAL JUSTICE

Once again here is the brilliant Thomas Sowell on “Social Justice”

If there were a Hall of Fame for political rhetoric, the phrase "social justice" would deserve a prominent place there. It has the prime virtue of political catchwords: It means many different things to many different people.

In other words, if you are a politician, you can get lots of people, with different concrete ideas, to agree with you when you come out boldly for the vague generality of "social justice."

Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said that a good catchword can stop thought for 50 years. The phrase "social justice" has stopped many people from thinking, for at least a century -- and counting.

If someone told you that Country A had more "social justice" than Country B, and you had all the statistics in the world available to you, how would you go about determining whether Country A or Country B had more "social justice"? In short, what does the phrase mean in practice -- if it has any concrete meaning?

In political and ideological discussions, the issue is usually whether there is some social injustice. Even if we can agree that there is some injustice, what makes it social?

Surely most of us are repelled by the thought that some people are born into dire poverty, while others are born into extravagant luxury -- each through no fault of their own and no virtue of their own. If this is an injustice, does that make it social?

The baby born into dire poverty might belong to a family in Bangladesh, and the one born to extravagant luxury might belong to a family in America. Whose fault is this disparity or injustice? Is there some specific society that caused this? Or is it just one of those things in the world that we wish was very different?

If it is an injustice, it is unjust from some cosmic perspective, an unjust fate, rather than necessarily an unjust policy, institution or society.

Investing guru Doug Casey also shares more verbal twisting (Greece and Austerity)…

2. GREECE

it's not "Greece" we're talking about, but the Greek government. It's the Greek government that's made the laws that got people used to pensions for retirement at age 55. It's the Greek government that's built up a giant and highly paid bureaucracy that just sits around when it's not actively gumming up the economy. It's the Greek government that's saddled the country with onerous taxes and regulations that make most business more trouble than it's worth. It's the Greek government that borrowed billions that the citizens are arguably responsible for. It's the Greek government that's set the legal and moral tone for the pickle the place is in.

3. AUSTERITY

the term "austerity" is used very loosely by the talking heads on TV. It sounds bad, even though it just means living within one's means… or, for Europeans, not too insanely above them. But who knows what's actually included or excluded from what the EU leaders think of as austerity? Take the Greek pension funds, for example: exactly how are they funded? I'd expect that private companies make payments to a state fund, as Americans do via the Social Security program. I suspect there's no money in the coffers; it's all been frittered on high living and socialist boondoggles. Tough luck for pensioners. Maybe they can convince the Chinese to give them money to keep living high off the hog…

4. I would add INSURANCE as camouflage for the Welfare State

From Murray N. Rothbard,

The answer is the very existence of health-care insurance, which was established or subsidized or promoted by the government to help ease the previous burden of medical care. Medicare, Blue Cross, etc., are also very peculiar forms of "insurance."

If your house burns down and you have fire insurance, you receive (if you can pry the money loose from your friendly insurance company) a compensating fixed money benefit. For this privilege, you pay in advance a fixed annual premium. Only in our system of medical insurance, does the government or Blue Cross pay, not a fixed sum, but whatever the doctor or hospital chooses to charge.

In economic terms, this means that the demand curve for physicians and hospitals can rise without limit. In short, in a form grotesquely different from Say's Law, the suppliers can literally create their own demand through unlimited third-party payments to pick up the tab. If demand curves rise virtually without limit, so too do the prices of the service.

In order to stanch the flow of taxes or subsidies, in recent years the government and other third party insurers have felt obliged to restrict somewhat the flow of goodies: by increasing deductibles, or by putting caps on Medicare payments. All this has been met by howls of anguish from medical customers who have come to think of unlimited third-party payments as some sort of divine right, and from physicians and hospitals who charge the government with "socialistic price controls" — for trying to stem its own largesse to the health-care industry!

In addition to artificial raising of the demand curve, there is another deep flaw in the medical insurance concept. Theft is theft, and fire is fire, so that fire or theft insurance is fairly clear-cut the only problem being the "moral hazard" of insurees succumbing to the temptation of burning down their own unprofitable store or apartment house, or staging a fake theft, in order to collect the insurance.

In the world of politics,lies, distortions and equivocations are the norm.

Don't fall for them

Quote of the Day: Emotional Inequality

Why should exhibiting those particular feelings be primary in making the case for a free society? Other passions are part of the morally-healthy package: Admiration for those who have achieved a lot. Anger at those who violate rights. Respect for those who exhibit independence and integrity. And of course empathy for those who are struggling with poverty. But empathy for the poor is not more morally special than respect for integrity or anger at bullies and tyrants, and it is a mistake to single it out for special foundational political status. Instead, political theorists concerned with the moral foundations of liberal society should be concerned with general principles of moral character that enable individuals to live freely.

That’s from philosopher Stephen Hicks discussing one the flaws of social justice oriented bleeding heart libertarians (hat tip Professor David Henderson)

Quote of the Day: Omniscient Social Justice

The question is not what anybody deserves. The question is who is to take on the God-like role of deciding what anyone else deserves. You can talk about 'social justice' all you want. But what death taxes boil down to is letting politicians take money from widows and orphans to pay for goodies that they will hand out to others, in order to buy votes to get reelected. That is not social justice or any other kind of justice

That’s from the brilliant Professor Thomas Sowell who defends inherited wealth from charges of inequality in his book the Controversial Essays. The equally profound David Gordon of the Mises Institute has a review of the book from which the above quote has been sourced.