Silk Road forums
Discussion => Philosophy, Economics and Justice => Topic started by: DoctaFeelgood on October 05, 2012, 04:27 pm
-
Happy Friday fellow travelers of the Road.. Its time for our second reading assignment! This week we are going to finish "Part 1: The State", which goes from where we left off at the top of page 31 to the bottom of page 94. (46-109 If your going by the PDF pages) I know this is a lot of reading but after this week we can stay at about 50 pages a week to finish these three sections on schedule.
For those just joining us:
The book is available for purchase or can be downloaded for free at the following website:
https://mises.org/document/3861/The-Left-the-Right-and-the-State
Enjoy!
-Doc
-
thanks for giving us a University Education under your organization, it isn't everyday an average person is able to apply himself to free training by the worlds most wanted drug lord..............
-
Just from the few books and lectures DPR has pointed me toward already I have learned soooo much. It's nice to have a moral justification and purpose when your a drug dealer. :D
And unfortunately there's not many universities that even teach this stuff. Its like forbidden knowledge, which makes it even sweeter. :)
-
anyone reading the second section? I just finished the part about "Why the State is Different". I thought the comparison between how the private sector and the state handle email spam was great, especially how he described a private company taking the exact same actions a state would.
-
I am on "Working Around Leviathan" I had underlined some interesting quotes, but I thought I would rather share something else that is bothering me especially much lately, we thoughts I at least have so many thoughts that I just know to now admire them rather than grasp at some ritualistic forced structure to remember it, in a biological reaction it would be more like transfering through a proton pump exchanging oneself through various layers of anon unknown ways to arrive to somewhere that can't really be handle with human energy alone.
Human energy was "Designed" to work a leveraged manner in peace with nature and also with the other good works of other humans. However the "Law" under the presumption of "Divine Right of the State" took hold on what was mans and lent it out to corruption and thieves.
This system has been evolving for a while but the computer is just making things advance much quicker so the plots become easier to recognize, but they know this and use technology to further their ends of control and ultimately leaving no way to reform the system this time within nature and time inset inside of current historical precedents.
I wonder what will someone do when they realize we are on a giant bomb that is planet earth, and when we go supernovae than you will know there is a God and that he is so far above our ways and his works on earth, he always likes people who right about his judgements, he took someone up to heaven just to be his historian.
What will you do planet earth when the cores unite?
Lets dance on the soil where lies millions of the fallen by God's judgment, and remember that life is something else, and that we should rather live in intellectual responsibility rather than seek the glory of men who worship false idols of vanity, envy, and malice.
-
Here I go!
I have mixed opinions on what I've read so far, but my disagreement with certain topics could be due to size constraints that prevented the author from taking his arguments as far as I had hoped. With that being said, I'm looking forward to the forum members tying off some of my loose ends. I also feel that in order to appeal to an academic audience, the author, although discussing very serious topics, seems to refer to them in a manner that fails to convince me at least, that he takes these issues as seriously as he should be. The author points out injustices and hypocrisy with ease, but so cynically that he almost seems disingenuous. This gives me the impression that he is comfortable writing papers and complaining about these problems (something he has been doing since the early 80's), but is unwilling to take the necessary steps, at least as an individual, in removing his own contribution to them.
In the essay titled "Civil Disobedience," Thoreau says:
"How can a man be satisfied to entertain and opinion merely, and enjoy it? Is there any enjoyment in it, if his opinion is that he is aggrieved? If you are cheated out of a single dollar by your neighbour, you do not rest satisfied with knowing you are cheated, or with saying that you are cheated, or even with petitioning him to pay you your due; but you take effectual steps at once to obtain the full amount, and see to it that you are never cheated again."
The political authors I have studied recently had dedicated their entire lives unconditionally to the solutions of the problems discussed in their literature, so naturally I am accustomed to a very serious tone. It is important to understand that I am holding the author to the standard that I am only because I believe the subject matter he chose requires it. I know absolutely nothing about the Mises Institute or the success that may or may not be attributed to it's efforts. All I can say is that in my opinion of this one work, this author appears more concerned about the delivery of his sarcastic remarks than he is in conveying a message true to the heart. When I read this work I don't get the feeling that the author is in the trenches on this one, and when I read political oriented material I very much enjoy feeling the author's passion and desperation for success. But enough about my opinion of the author and his writing style… Let's get on with the issues.
As any libertarian writer would, the author sees fair competition as the most effective means to stir innovation. However, he then goes on to belittle the state, arguing that the private sector is far superior in terms of industrial development. He continues this argument in an analogous form, referring to the state as a "demented elephant." The problem I have with this argument is that it neglects to mention one weapon the state wields and how in many ways this weapon represents a much more effective incentive for innovation than fair competition ever could. And that weapon is unfair competition; that weapon is war. I am going to use the author's choice of the cell phone industry to not only prove my point, but also point out the author's lack of research when it came to choosing examples to support his arguments.
The author wrote the following about the cell phone industry: "It is highly significant that this industry is rooted so deeply in the private sector." He also adds, "This much we do know: when the federal government allowed just a little bit of light into the room, entrepreneurs took it from there to create a dazzling display." Now I would argue that the technical success of the modern cell phone is not the product of the private sector, but instead resulted from the combination of several technologies that had been specifically developed for military and law enforcement. That is to say the state. Put it this way: The state's contribution to the modern cell phone can be seen as a lot more than just "little bit of light."
The first commercially available cell phone was the DynaTAC from Motorola Inc. Motorolla was "founded as Galvin Manufacturing Corporation on September 25, 1928," by Paul Galvin. After a trip to Europe in 1936, Galvin recognized the likelihood of war and began preparing his firm for such an event. For example, he oversaw the development of the "Police Cruiser," a radio designed to receive police broadcasts."
Already things are starting to take shape. Needs have arisen; needs that would shape the telecommunications industry. But who's needs were these? Did they belong to the people? It would seem that regardless of how it required the funds, the state represents a huge demand in its own right, and just as the market thrives by satisfying the wants of the people, industry also sees huge improvement when met with the new and large demands of the state.
Three years later "the company created a hand-held, two-way radio, known as the "handie-talkie," for the U.S. military. Believing that radio communication products would be increasingly called upon to enhance military efforts, Galvin created a separate communications products division. Sales that year reached nearly $10 million."
It was a terrible choice to go with the communications industry to exemplify the might of the private sector. At the time, the heavy demand for a wireless communications device would simply not have existed in a civilian atmosphere. The premise might not even have existed had it not been for the radical, out-of-the box thinking that is demanded by the military atmosphere. Because of the life or death nature of the business, the military has more pressing needs than any civilian ever could. Industrial development to them is a lot more important than an improvement in business logistics to increase stocks a of couple points. Many lives are at stake and a tactical or technological edge is a requirement for any force that wants to remain on this Earth. Such a demand cannot be felt in the private sector and for this reason I see militarism as a much more successful form of capitalism than free trade between civilians. Nothing changes quicker than the conditions of the battlefield. This is also why I have a problem with the author constantly citing the history of the United States solely as a private capital success story, for in order to do so one would have to forget that this country has been constantly at war since its conception. It is simply impossible to separate the United State's capitalist successes from it's military history and the author is in the clouds when he keeps trying to do just that.
The author demonstrates further lack of understanding when he argues against the premises of the TSA. The following is a statement made by the author and I agree with at face value, however when taking a situation into consideration, it is important to include all of the incumbent issues in your thought process, and in my opinion, the author fails to do this.
"Airports and airlines are a good example. Fearing the inability of the private sector to provide airline security—under the bizarre assumption that airlines and their passengers have less reason than the government to care about whether they die flying."
This statement does not take history into consideration. The fact is that airplanes have been used countless times as political weapons. Whether it be Panam 103, or 9/11, when a plane crash is seen in the correct context, destruction can certainly exceed the rubble pile of the crash site. One role of the federal government is to protect the land from foreign enemies, and it turns out that foreign enemies have used the airline industry to carry out acts of war against the United States. Planes can be used to strike economic, military and political targets, and in the case of 9/11, they have even crashed the stock market. When considering federal responsibility in airport security it is important to understand that national interests are at stake. With this being the case, the establishment of the TSA, at least in theory, can be seen exclusively in terms of the federal governments responsibility to protect domestic interests from foreign enemies. Basically, by seeing the issue of airline security only as far as the effect it has on passenger safety, the author falls short in presenting a realistic argument, and for that reason he must go back to the chalk board.
Anyways, this is getting long so I'll just cut it off here. Sup.
-
The political authors I have studied recently had dedicated their entire lives unconditionally to the solutions of the problems discussed in their literature, so naturally I am accustomed to a very serious tone. It is important to understand that I am holding the author to the standard that I am only because I believe the subject matter he chose requires it. I know absolutely nothing about the Mises Institute or the success that may or may not be attributed to it's efforts. All I can say is that in my opinion of this one work, this author appears more concerned about the delivery of his sarcastic remarks than he is in conveying a message true to the heart. When I read this work I don't get the feeling that the author is in the trenches on this one, and when I read political oriented material I very much enjoy feeling the author's passion and desperation for success. But enough about my opinion of the author and his writing style… Let's get on with the issues.
This is a great critique. I think the only course of action the author sees is "spreading the word". I've heard him admit he's no entrepreneur or businessman, though he has overseen a big expansion in the Mises Institute. So yea, I think he's developed a blow-hard tone just to try to compete with the other talking heads out there trying to penetrate the consciousness of the masses.
Already things are starting to take shape. Needs have arisen; needs that would shape the telecommunications industry. But who's needs were these? Did they belong to the people? It would seem that regardless of how it required the funds, the state represents a huge demand in its own right, and just as the market thrives by satisfying the wants of the people, industry also sees huge improvement when met with the new and large demands of the state.
There is an important point you are overlooking in your assessment of the positive benefits of warfare, and that is the costs, both seen and unseen. The seen costs are obvious: death and destruction. However, the unseen costs alone make the benefits you mentioned not worthwhile. That unseen cost is lost demand in the private sector. It's simple: the resources used in warfare are unavailable to private individuals. We have no idea what people would've done with the trillions of dollars worth of resources that have gone into blowing people and things up, not to mention the resources that were directly destroyed. Considering the efficiency with which people competing in the market operate, and the inefficiency of the military bureaucracy, I suspect that the innovation and wealth produced by a world without war would make any advances the military has made look negligible.
Because of the life or death nature of the business, the military has more pressing needs than any civilian ever could. Industrial development to them is a lot more important than an improvement in business logistics to increase stocks a of couple points. Many lives are at stake and a tactical or technological edge is a requirement for any force that wants to remain on this Earth. Such a demand cannot be felt in the private sector and for this reason I see militarism as a much more successful form of capitalism than free trade between civilians.
This is an interesting point. It certainly cannot be denied that the conditions of war and peace and quite different. Look at your example of Motorola, a private company, responding to the intense demands and needs of the military. The life of Motorola's employees and stakeholders was not at stake. They were simply responding the the huge profit opportunity that the military budget afforded. Well, that goes back to my earlier point. If the military wasn't spending that money, someone else would be, and the same amount of demand would be coming from other sources pursuing other ends and Motorola would be servicing those ends with the same ingenuity and intensity.
Another great point about TSA. It is bigger than passenger security because of an airplanes capacity to be weaponized. Kinda opens a can of worms about the state's role in national security. Here's a market solution for ya: hold airlines accountable for any destruction that comes about as a result of misuse of their planes or other property. They would then insure against it and actuaries would be able to put a price on this potential cost and the risk reduction of security measures in airports so airlines could make economic decisions about what measures to take. Customers would also get a say as they choose their airlines based on cost vs. security measures taken.
Thanks for contributing to the discussion caesar :)
-
Quote "There is an important point you are overlooking in your assessment of the positive benefits of warfare, and that is the costs, both seen and unseen. The seen costs are obvious: death and destruction. However, the unseen costs alone make the benefits you mentioned not worthwhile. That unseen cost is lost demand in the private sector. It's simple: the resources used in warfare are unavailable to private individuals. We have no idea what people would've done with the trillions of dollars worth of resources that have gone into blowing people and things up, not to mention the resources that were directly destroyed. Considering the efficiency with which people competing in the market operate, and the inefficiency of the military bureaucracy, I suspect that the innovation and wealth produced by a world without war would make any advances the military has made look negligible."
I have to disagree. Having spent almost 30 years in the military I have seen the best and the worst of what they have to offer. The hardest concept I had to grasp when reconciling my personal beliefs with my service was that the military is an evil necessity. If we had no defense force we would be, at a minimum, attacked relentlessly and, at worst, succumb to a country with an even worse government than we already have. Doing a tour in acquisition and logistics I saw the incredible waste and inefficiency of a bloated bureaucracy but I also saw incredible creativity and devotion to serving others. I saw many tirelessly fighting to change the system and make improvements so the taxpayer gets their money's worth. Some of the advances coming out of the system were astounding, and not always for destructive purposes. Great effort went into systems that would protect the warrior and the citizen.
Many young men and women went into the military with no purpose in their lives and became new people after serving. And I don't mean mindless killing machines. Many, many veterans are doing fabulous things to help their fellow brothers and sisters and using the skills and abilities learned in the military to do good for everyone.
There is much wrong with the military, but there is even more that is right. The most damage is done by the civilian political leadership (many with no military experience) when they use the military for their hidden agendas. The fighting men and women have to follow orders, the defense of you and everyone else depends on it.
I spent many sleepless nights thinking about these things and in the end I made peace with myself because when I tallied up the pros and cons, the pros came out way ahead. Please do not rush to judgement when thinking about or commenting on our military. There is so much you cannot understand if you haven't worn the uniform. SR has many, many vets as members (like me) who see that we have to make some changes but it is because of them and those who came before them that we have what freedoms we have, even if they are being eroded each passing second, but that is not the warriors fault. The fault lies in the political arena and that's where the fight has to be fought and the war has to be won.
Jackie9191