Magnetic Synthesizer Posted December 26, 2016 Posted December 26, 2016 Written in 1956, LUDWIG VON MISES brings insight into the anti-capitalist memetic forces throughout society of a time not too distant from ours. He provides both information and explanations. Maybe some of you will enjoy it. I've read till page 50 so far. I've learned quite a few facts I didn't know of and got acquainted with very plausible explanations behind what drives these memes. ''One may wonder whether Sir William Harcourt was right when, more than sixty years ago, he proclaimed: Weare all socialists now. But today governments, political parties, teachers and writers, militant antitheists as well as Christian theologians are almost unanimous in passionately rejecting the market economy and praising the alleged benefits of state omnipotence. The rising generation is brought up in an environment that is engrossed in socialist ideas.'' For my not so popular semantics above: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memetics you can get it from: https://mises.org/files/anti-capitalistic-mentality3pdf/download?token=H2MnKaZC https://mises.org/library/anti-capitalistic-mentality 1
Donnadogsoth Posted December 27, 2016 Posted December 27, 2016 The ancap project seems to have two simultaneous justifications. 1, it's good for the individual not to have to pay to support a bureaucracy, and 2, it provides for the general welfare even better than the State can. This seems like serving two masters, hence we can imagine two types of ancapists, the former who just want to stop paying taxes and being drafted, the rugged individualist, and the latter, the collectivist who sees ancap as the better way to achieve collectivist goals.
DaVinci Posted December 27, 2016 Posted December 27, 2016 I would argue that a lot of the anti-capitalistic sentiment is a reaction to the business owners who shrug their shoulders at putting other people out of business. Saying "Oh, well, that's the free market" is actually driving people to socialism 1
Magnetic Synthesizer Posted December 27, 2016 Author Posted December 27, 2016 I would argue that a lot of the anti-capitalistic sentiment is a reaction to the business owners who shrug their shoulders at putting other people out of business. Saying "Oh, well, that's the free market" is actually driving people to socialism We should say: That's to the greater benefit of others.
EclecticIdealist Posted December 27, 2016 Posted December 27, 2016 I believe an analysis of foundational moral instincts and how they tend to drive behavior provides the best explanation for the existence of anarcho-capitalists who are more rugged individualists and anarcho-capitalists who are more codependent collectivists. For the former, anarcho-capitalism is driven primarily by instinctual moral aversion to external controls and authority, for the latter, it is an intellectual recognition of human nature and economy and a selection of the most pragmatic means to an end given the data.
DaVinci Posted December 27, 2016 Posted December 27, 2016 We should say: That's to the greater benefit of others. I'm not sure what you are saying. Are you saying we should tell people the free market is for the "greater benefit"? Can you clarify this for me please.
EclecticIdealist Posted December 27, 2016 Posted December 27, 2016 I'm not sure what you are saying. Are you saying we should tell people the free market is for the "greater benefit"? Can you clarify this for me please. It sounds like what he is saying is that when some businesses put other businesses out of business, we that advocate anarcho-capitalism should say that, "It is for the greater benefit of all that some businesses put others out of business." Of course, that presupposes no government interference and that the reason it puts other businesses out of business is competition that is in fact beneficial to all parties involved (at least in the long run) as is supposed would be the case under a truly free market capitalist system.
DaVinci Posted December 27, 2016 Posted December 27, 2016 It sounds like what he is saying is that when some businesses put other businesses out of business, we that advocate anarcho-capitalism should say that, "It is for the greater benefit of all that some businesses put others out of business." Of course, that presupposes no government interference and that the reason it puts other businesses out of business is competition that is in fact beneficial to all parties involved (at least in the long run) as is supposed would be the case under a truly free market capitalist system. If that is what he means, then what do you say to people who are wary of the free market considering we do have government interference and don't have a free market. Isn't it hurting moving away from government and towards a free market for people who are putting others out of business to say "That's the free market" when it isn't a free market and they might be putting someone else out of business because of some benefit that is only derived from state power?
Magnetic Synthesizer Posted December 29, 2016 Author Posted December 29, 2016 I would argue that a lot of the anti-capitalistic sentiment is a reaction to the business owners who shrug their shoulders at putting other people out of business. Saying "Oh, well, that's the free market" is actually driving people to socialism I'm not sure what you are saying. Are you saying we should tell people the free market is for the "greater benefit"? Can you clarify this for me please. Telling people that the free market is good is better than ''Oh, well, that's the free market'' Idk if it it's good or bad, but that's what it is. (Mwahaha I don't care.)
Magnetic Synthesizer Posted December 29, 2016 Author Posted December 29, 2016 We have to make both the arguments from reality and arguments from morality, and especially, the arguments from morality.
EclecticIdealist Posted December 29, 2016 Posted December 29, 2016 If that is what he means, then what do you say to people who are wary of the free market considering we do have government interference and don't have a free market? General wariness indicates an emotionally charged concern. Responding with a rational argument will not resolve the irrational or non-rational concern. One must first resolve that irrational or non-rational concern. To do that, one must first identify and acknowledge the fear, validate it, and then properly frame it (how probable, how much of an effect is it likely to have, etc.) Finally, after properly framing the problem, then properly frame the solution, following up with making emotional appeals to the superior methodology of the free-market approach to address and resolve not only their concerns, but also other concerns they may not have had. Isn't it hurting moving away from government and towards a free market for people who are putting others out of business to say "That's the free market" when it isn't a free market and they might be putting someone else out of business because of some benefit that is only derived from state power? Yes, it is. That is why it is better to point out that it is NOT the "free market" necessarily (sometimes it is), but rather, point out that such is what happens when certain politically connected entities benefit from government favoritism to the detriment of other parties and why it's NOT a good example of free market capitalism, but rather chrony-capitalism, corporatism, or fascism.
DaVinci Posted December 29, 2016 Posted December 29, 2016 If that is what he means, then what do you say to people who are wary of the free market considering we do have government interference and don't have a free market? General wariness indicates an emotionally charged concern. Responding with a rational argument will not resolve the irrational or non-rational concern. One must first resolve that irrational or non-rational concern. To do that, one must first identify and acknowledge the fear, validate it, and then properly frame it (how probable, how much of an effect is it likely to have, etc.) Finally, after properly framing the problem, then properly frame the solution, following up with making emotional appeals to the superior methodology of the free-market approach to address and resolve not only their concerns, but also other concerns they may not have had. Isn't it hurting moving away from government and towards a free market for people who are putting others out of business to say "That's the free market" when it isn't a free market and they might be putting someone else out of business because of some benefit that is only derived from state power? Yes, it is. That is why it is better to point out that it is NOT the "free market" necessarily (sometimes it is), but rather, point out that such is what happens when certain politically connected entities benefit from government favoritism to the detriment of other parties and why it's NOT a good example of free market capitalism, but rather chrony-capitalism, corporatism, or fascism. How do you know what company is a "free-market" company and what is a "crony" company if sometimes it could be either one? It seems like defaulting to saying "That's not necessarily the free market" isn't going to have much of an impact. Especially given the largely theoretical nature of how a free market now, or in the future would work.
EclecticIdealist Posted December 31, 2016 Posted December 31, 2016 How do you know what company is a "free-market" company and what is a "crony" company if sometimes it could be either one? It takes research to find out. It seems like defaulting to saying "That's not necessarily the free market" isn't going to have much of an impact. Especially given the largely theoretical nature of how a free market now, or in the future would work. That's true.
Recommended Posts