I love lightbulbs! Before the electric lightbulb, people at night used gas lamps (which were dangerous), fuel lamps (which were dangerous and dirty), and — for most of the time prior to the 20th century — candles (which also were dangerous and dirty).
Not only does the lightbulb provide reliable and ample light, it does so without polluting our homes’, workplaces’, and play-places’ interiors. And being much safer than candles, fuel-burning lamps, or gas lamps, lightbulbs are much less likely to ignite fires — fires that would burn down not only the buildings in which they started but also risk burning down surrounding buildings.
Podcast RSS Feed
Full EconTalk Text
{ 101 comments }
Don,
I think I understand your greater point about capitalism within this series of posts, but it seems a bit disingenuous to give these examples without a clear connection to capitalism. While I don’t know the whole true history of the light bulb, popular mythology would suggest light bulbs were invented through the dogged pursuit of science and invention that embodied Thomas Edison.
I do credit capitalism with the widespread availability of cheap and safe forms of light, and if this is your only point, then I have no gripes. But it seems that many of these inventions, though profitable, were not created out of a profit motive. I think that is a larger point about markets that Russ often makes and the pursuit of our broad self-interest, which include curiosity, pursuit of knowledge, and not strictly honest profits.
But at the same time, the government didn’t issue some edict that made Edison invent the light bulb. He did what free men do, invent stuff. Capitalism is not just profit motive, but freedom to innovate. Not having to deal with government bureaucrats questioning your every move.
The light bulb also wasn’t the result of government investments in raw technologies and pure science.
You can invent stuff for curiosity’s sake all day long but without capitalism, you will probably not distribute new inventions to billions of people.
“pursuit of our broad self-interest, which include curiosity, pursuit of knowledge, and not strictly honest profits.”
I don’t understand why it should be important to distinguish monetary profit from all other forms of profit as a motivator. Monetary profit is, afterall, ultimately just an abstraction of nonmonetary profit.
Seems there is an irrational bigotry against money at play.
Let’s call it ‘utility’, then.
Exactly. Credit where credit is due. And it is basic human decency to mainly pat the inventors on the back and to encourage future inventors by doing so at the same time.
This series could also be legitimately called:
Cleaned by Science
Cleaned by Mathematics
Cleaned by Education
Cleaned by Advertising
Cleaned by governement monopoly (patents)
Cleaned by Freedom
Other, yet fallacious options would be:
Cleaned by Men
Cleaned by Whites
Cleaned by Christians/Christianity
I am looking forward about the printing press in the “Printed by Feudalism/Confucianism” series.
Fuel lamps and gas lamps became widespread through markets as well. And those were great improvements in peoples lives. Capitalism (© Karl Marx) aka the freedom to invent and trade has no direction towards cleanliness. That is driven by consumers, all other things being equal. CFLs consume less energy, yet contain mercury, so that it is clearly a step back on the home safety front.
This series is exemplary to the more annoying, repetitious kind of libertarianism.
Who is this series supposed to convince? About what? Rabid, self-contradicting market Rejectionists who believe that Capitalism only produces unclean stuff? They don’t read this blog and are probably unmoved by these examples.
Or the mainstream Prius driving eco-left? Well they almost believe in magic capitalism. They believe that by banning or taxing incandescents or by mandating ludicrously low CO2 emission standards that entrepreneurial capitalism will come up with any super technology imaginable. Many of them probably suspect that corporations have already secretely invented supersonic, flying, zero-emissions cars.
Methinks activist technocrat environmentalists need sobering about what enterpreneurial capitalism can do and can be made to do with incentives, not the reverse.
I think this misses the broader point that capitalism is responsible for the existence of glass, tungsten, steel, and all of the other materials, instruments and processing techniques used by Eidson in his invention of the lightbulb.If you’ve never read the essay “I, Pencil” it will bring these factors into sharp focus.
A. White: Psssst. Edison was an entrepreneur-inventor motivated by (gasp!)…Profit. He was curious and pursued knowledge, but profit potential was the engine that drove him. He fought mightily for DC current over AC because he had a huge investment in DC. He was opposed to the death penalty but his demonstrations of the supposed dangers of AC current led to the invention of the electric chair (by others also seeking profit).
Profit is right up their with sex in making the world go around, Mr. White. You’ll have to adjust, I’m afraid.
I’m not sure profits are what drove him. Solving a big problem most likely did. But profits made his efforts worthwhile (to him).
Ah but the bigger point is that it’s important to live in a free society that allows the profit motive AND curious endeavors like inventing stuff just for the sake of it. Where socialists fail is that think that because X number of people are profit-driven, thus everyone is. However, a free society works because the naturally curious types will get together with the profit-seekers and society benefits as a result.
But then that’s not capitalism – that’s a free society.
I wouldn’t back off this so easy. It was profits that motivated Edison and it was profits that gave us the modern lightbulb at a reasonable price. Free society is great too – but there’s no need to back away from Don’s title.
My point is that capitalism is something that happens in a free society. Also one has the freedom to be a non-profit organization. The problem comes when some people decide such freedom is not desirable. People like you and muirbot.
“But then that’s not capitalism – that’s a free society.”
A free society is a requirement for capitalism, and to the extent a society is free, we usually observe capitalism emerge.
Edison was about as entreprenurial as inventors get. I think he enjoyed simply discovering things, but if you have to pick an inventor unmotivated by profit, it wouldn’t be Edison. Maybe Nikola Tesla – you could probably make a pretty good case that he was purely motivated by science and the good of society.
I’m not saying Edison was wrong to be motivated by profit at all – I’ve agreed with these posts, they’re great. I’m just saying if you’re going to choose a straight-scientist with no profit motive at all, I think Edison is the last one I’d choose!!
Daniel,Your post is spot on. Interestingly, Tesla and Edison crossed paths in their careers. This is from memory so apologies for any errors, but Tesla was convinced of the value of AC and that he could develop the technology to make AC work. Edison promised to pay him $50K for the invention when it was ready. Edison ended up reneging on the deal when Tesla brought him the prototype. Tesla then took it to Westinghouse who bought the invention and promised to pay Tesla $x for every x number of horsepower installed. The deal would have made Tesla an insanely wealthy man, but he and Westinghouse thought that the additional money to pay Tesla’s royalty might slow the spread of electrification. Tesla tore up the contract, basically saying, “fehgeddaboutit,” and ended up dying in poverty some time later. Edison was a tough and shrewd businessman who wanted to plow his profits back into more R&D so he could make more money.
Oh they definitely crossed paths – they hated each other. I don’t know the history too well though. Does anybody know a good book on Edison/Tesla? I’m intrigued now. The Westinghouse screw-over sounds right to me – I seem to recall that.
Tesla is an interesting guy – he’s a real cult figure and a lot of paranormal conspiracy theories swirl around him too, which always makes for a more interesting story.
Thanks for the “spot on” acknowledgement… it’s so rare that I hear that on here, I very much appreciate it
He fought “mightily” for the inferior Direct Current over Tesla’s superior Alternting Current
Yeah that’s right Edison got in bed with big government to give his method a monopoly. Further illustrating my point that all long-term monopolies are government created.
Yes, government promoted rural electrification allowed even remote houses to take advantage of these advances as private markets initially found such prospects non-profitable.
Where the markets were unable to succeed government helped bridge the gap. Now many markets have government run electric utilities and many are privately run. No obvious efficiency or cost difference is to be found as far as I know. Well excluding the disaster of Enron.
Yes indeed, cleaned by social democracy.
Muirgeo, are you aware of the concept of “that which is seen and that which is not seen?” Government-promoted rural electricfication is what you see. What you don’t see – and cannot see – is what might have become of the resources confiscated by the government to provide rural electrification. Government robbed from Paul to make life more enjoyable for Peter. Peter’s material life was enriched (what accepting stolen goods from the government has done to his soul is for another post). Paul’s life, in contrast, was impoverished to the degree that Peter’s was enriched.
The clear winner in the process was the government. Now Peter and Paul are in a constant state of conflict over who will be the recipient of the next hand-out. In one fell swoop the government increased its power. That’s what government do. That’s what ALL government do.
Don’t forget that the Rural Electrification Program led to the disuse of windmills all across the U.S.Who knows how that technology may have developed otherwise.Now the government subsidizes wind power technology.
If only irony was nutricious. Then we’d be all set.
Dan,
Unforeseen consequences may occur in a positive direction as well. Rural farms may have become more efficient in producing and getting their produce to the market. Cheaper produce may have benefited us all more then the initial investment in getting electricity to rural locations. Also it was found that rural locals used more electricity then urban locations thus making initial cost estimates of getting electricity to them much over estimated.
So again the evidence suggest the government succeeded in an instance where the market was unable to. It ended up being a win win.
What then of Urban Electrification? Isn’t virtuall ALL of the electrical a government initiative because you can only have one set of power lines running down the streets. If Telsa’s concept of wireless power transmission had of worked then there’d be competition in eletricity delivery but there isn’t.
The problem with wireless electricity is we don’t know the health impact of being constantly inundated with E-M fields. Somehow I suspect it wouldn’t be good for us.
gbalella,
Of course unforeseen consequences are a part of life. They occur in every transaction. The difference is this: unforeseen consequences in a private transaction affect only those involved in the enterprise. Unforeseen consequences when a state has intervened affect the entire society.
Further, it is immaterial if unforeseen consequences as a result of government fiat are positive. The fact that the government used the threat of force, or, in some cases, actual violence (see the history of the TVA for instance) is the mitigating circumstance. The government “chose the winner.” The government forced a winner on an unsuspecting populace. Regrettably we don’t get to see what might have happened had the government not become involved, and the population as a whole is the poorer for it.
The government – or, more precisely, a person or group of people who had control of the police power of the state – decided it knew what was best, and acted accordingly. That attitude is morally reprehensible, and until we as a society come to understand how damaging it is we will continue to follow the same “road to serfdom” that humanity has followed since the beginning of time.
“That attitude is morally reprehensible…”
No its not morally reprehensible. Society has to make decisions. We do that democratically not via threat. I am so tired of people in a democracy crying “threat of force” when ever they don’t get their way. The only logical conclusion from such gibberish is that you are a full scale anarchist.
Use either name, George. It’s still muirdiocy
muirgeo,Just because something you think should happen, doesn’t happen, doesn’t necessarily mean it is a market failure. I WANT to live in a million dollar home, the fact that I don’t, isn’t a market failure and by no means should government take money from others to provide it for me simply because I WANT it. Would it have cost more for rural areas to get electrification, absolutely, it is only common sense that serving the same amount of people in a vastly larger area (urban vs rural) should cost more. What rural areas WANTED was below cost electricity.
Why do people reply to muirgeo? Surely you don’t expect him or her to change his or her mind, do you? Seems to me like replying to muirgeo is a form of masturbation: it feels good, but doesn’t make the world a better place.
Your against reasoned debate? What you have all the answer?
Since when have you ever offered reasoned debate, you friggen troll.
“Seems to me like replying to muirgeo is a form of masturbation”
I’m confused. Are you trying to encourage replying to muirgeo?
From capitalism.org: “Capitalism is a social system based on the principal of individual rights”. This is the social system from within is given the freedom of private ownership of the factors of production; capital, land and labor. Thomas Edison would not have been able to perspire on pursuing his inspirations without the freedom of capitalism. We must have the means to protect our freedoms with a strong economy by trading with other capitlist nations.
This is why muirbots fail. Capitalism is not about the profit motive, it leaves the freedom for it. However, if all you want is to operate a dime-store that just makes the expenses you are free to do so. Nothing in capitalism requires a profit. It’s just that socialists don’t like people who actually go for that.
It was just 100 years ago that farmers plowed the field with horses. Indoor plumbing was the exception rather than the rule. Most people worked on farms. Schools often had more than 1 grade in a class. Light was provided by kerosene lamps. Food was stored in a cellar. Canning of food was common. Ice was the only way to keep food cold. Baths were once a week if at all. Stoves and heating were powered by wood in rural areas and perhaps coal in the cities. Telephones were rare. Trains were the common mode of travel over long distances. There was little electricity in rural areas. If you wanted water, you had to pump it. People chopped wood before breakfast and gathered eggs from the hen house, meat from the smokehouse, fruit from the orchard. I could go on and on…
muirgeo,
Just because something you think should happen, doesn’t happen, doesn’t necessarily mean it is a market failure. I would LIKE to live in a million dollar home, the fact that I don’t, isn’t a market failure and by no means should government take money from others to provide it for me simply because I WANT it. Would it have cost more for rural areas to get electrification, absolutely, it is only common sense that serving the same amount of people in a vastly smaller area (urban vs rural) should cost more. What rural areas WANTED was below cost electricity.
Again, you guys are the ones with blinders. It’s all a success of capitalism in your view. In my view the success was a combination of capitalism and planning.
There is , in my opinion , no evidence based reason to believe a pure capitalistic society would like anything near as “clean” as what we have.
Government fails regularly but so does capitalism. Pure capitalism and pure government are far less efficient then a reasoned combination of both. It’s only a need to adhere to a strict ideology in spite of huge contrary evidence that some are willing to neglect the evidence seen in the real world.
And the fool continues to bray. Continue on your straw men about “pure” this and “pure” that while pragmatic men actually do things. You seem to be one of those ivory tower folks that don’t actually make society go.
Don’t diss muirduck’s point about government planning and action being an effective cleaner.
Government planning and action cleaned out Randy Weaver’s life pretty effectively.
Government planning and action cleaned out the Branch Davidian Compound near Waco, pretty effectively.
Damn good thing the tool, capitalism, can’t be used like government planning and action.
When government plans and acts, the end result is most generally real people being cleaned in a permanent way.
Pray tell, muirgeo, would you please cite evidence “seen in the real world” that shows “pure capitalism” lacks efficiency. I am unable to conjure up a single instance. But then I can’t remember a single instance in human history where “pure capitalism” has existed.
Now, all you have to do is open any history textbook to find page after page showing evidence of the inefficiency of government, indeed the outright evil that it perpetrates.
Virtually every action taken by government makes the society poorer. Why would you want to compromise with such an entity? I swear, you seem like a nice guy, and I think we could be friends if we lived near each other; but your willingness to climb in bed with something that instigates one evil after another baffles me.
“Now, all you have to do is open any history textbook to find page after page showing evidence of the inefficiency of government,..”
Government is inefficient? Pure capitalism is best but has never existed. Hmmmm… that makes sense to you?
The most successful societies in the history books have all had governments. I know of NO successful ungoverned societies and of no successful pure capitalist societies.
Governed societies created the light bulbs, leak-less roofs, hand sanitizer, screen mesh, refrigeration, the metal can, ciprofloxacin, plastics ect…
Pure capitalistic societies … have produced nothing. ZERO!
There has never existed a pure capitalistic country muirdiot. Especially because people like you make sure it can’t ever happen. What are you afraid of?
Keep fightin’ the good fight muir. Don’t let those straw men win.
“Governed societies created the light bulbs, leak-less roofs, hand sanitizer, screen mesh, refrigeration, the metal can, ciprofloxacin, plastics ect…”
Societies that have murderers and child molesters created…
Societies that have dogs as pets created…
Societies that have drug addicts created…
Societies that have brain-washed idiots created…
Societies that use shoes in pairs created…
Societies whose breasts outnumber their women created…
You need to work a little more understanding that correlation is not causation, and that mechanism is of some importance.
Capitalist societies have supported slavery, segregation, war for profit ect…
You’re right government alone is not a condition to developing cleaned societies… neither is an economic system based on capitalism. You need both a well governed society and capitalism (properly regulated) to get light bulbs, toilet paper….
Unregulated markets were around a long time before these niceties of modern life arrived.
Bottom line free market… unregulated capitalism did NOT produce these things. It was regulated capitalism in conjunction with democracy that made our lives what they are.
I can admit to the successes of capitalism you can NOT admit that it was ReGULATED capitalism that succeeded and you insist in the unfounded belief that if only it were less regulated it would be even more successful… there’s no evidence to support the claim. The evidence is contrary in fact.
If you like incandescent light bulbs you might want to start stockpiling some soon. They are on their way out here in the US, taking a cue from Europe, which has already banned them. The cheaper, better incandescent bulbs are to be replaced by compact fluorescent lamps, which are more expensive, and don’t provide the same quality of lighting.
Maybe they’re cheaper, but I find the light from incandescent to be harsher then fluorescent lights. However, this is not an area that the government should be messing around in. Let the market decide.
There’s also the issue of mercury poisoning, your classic liberal unintended consequence. Plus some people get headaches from the cycle rates of fluorescents. I guess they are just SOL.
Actually incandescent light bulb generate a great deal of heat – only 20% of its power consumption goes to light generation.
Strange how Don doesn’t mention CFLs or LEDs but the old-fashioned incandescent light bulb?
More like 2%
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incandescent_light_bulb#Efficiency_comparisons
CFLs and LEDs are far more efficient in terms of light produced per watt. CFLs are also far more inefficient for production: CFLs are only worth it overall if you run them for most of their lifetime.
Don’t make the mistake of an incomplete accounting. The cost of that excess heat dissipation is for most people exceeded by the excess cost of an LED bulb at the same level of utility.
When that is no longer the case, which I suspect will be very soon (and is already the case in very limited applications), people will simply choose LED over incandescent bulbs.
CFLs are closer to that mark, and people are increasingly choosing them.
But don’t think that it will ever be the case that NO application is best suited for incandescent bulbs. Part of the way LED and CFL increase our wealth is by the additional choices that they give us.
The type of bulb is relevant to Don’s point only because of the widespread use of the incandescent bulb over the decades, as the immediate successor to gas and candles.
They don’t make socialists like they used to,
Still waiting for one to shoot this back at you,
Cleaned Out by Capitalism!
Hehe.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/us_germany_bulbs
These “Cleaned by Capitalism” posts are getting tedious, and they never were very interesting to begin with.
Although I appreciate the point, with so many other interesting things on the web, these kind of posts have got to be losing you readers.
Thanx for flooding my mail box with all those statements from Daniel and Muirg. I don’t have audio, but I actually heard my computer scream.
But thanks to the congress, we now have to switch to CFLs even though incandescents have become more energy effcient over the years. I have read several stories of CFLs having caused house fires because they cannot be used in fully enclosed fixtures of the type that many people have on their back porches (no one knew that until it happened). All of the fires were caused by such fixtures and no cause was found other than overheating (no electrical malfunction.) Since the fires started outside, there was extensive (or complete) damage before any detectors in the home went off. Also, those with dimmers or in their lighting systems could not, until recently, use CFLs. The new dimmable versions are even more expensive than the regular CFLs, but who cares about costs if it helps the environment, right? Oh, wait, mercury is dangerous and the bulbs can’t go in the landfill and must be recycled, and I am sure that is going to happen. If you shop at IKEA, they give you a label to mail the bulbs back for recycling, but no one else does, so guess where they will end up? I read that GE lobbied for this bill and that the plant that made incandescents has been closed and the workers are now (or will soon be) in the unemployment figures. They will have to go to China for the green jobs. Rent-seeking, anyone? Are these intended or unintended consequences? P.S. I am not against China making stuff, that is just commentary on the great green jobs creation that is going on.
danphillips noted, in response to muirgeo:
Paul’s life, in contrast, was impoverished to the degree that Peter’s was enriched.
Yes, Dan, that’s absolutely true. However, it is crucial to understand that a statist like muirgeo doesn’t care whose life must be ruined or destroyed to satisfy his lust for the unearned. He has a moral vehicle — altruism — that tells him he has a right to the proceeds of such government robbery.
As Ayn Rand has so brilliantly pointed out, in the statist world-view, the act of producing and thus earning a value disqualifies one from having a right to it. Only those who did not produce and earn it may claim a right to it. Only altruism makes this insane inversion possible.
It works like this: According to altruism, if you produce and earn a dollar, and keep it entirely for yourself, that action is automatically “selfish” and thus evil. However, if you give it away to someone who has not earned it, your action is “unselfish” and therefore good and virtuous.
What, then, is the status of those who accept this unearned dollar? If you are being good and virtuous by giving the dollar away, are they not being selfish and therefore evil and vicious when they accept and keep the dollar? Is the purpose of “virtue” to serve evil?
No, according to altruism, the receivers are not immoral for accepting the dollar — it’s perfectly okay for them to keep the dollar, because they did not earn it.
Thus, according to altruism, living by earning what one needs is selfish and evil — but living by begging is virtuous and good. Producing is immoral, but mooching is a virtue. “Need” — according to altruism – the mere absence of a value, the failure to produce and earn that value — automatically endows one with the right to that value, whereas the very act of producing a value automatically endows one with a moral obligation to give it away.
It’s an insane moral code which, as Rand points out, will not survive a single word: Why? Why does “need” — which is only a zero, an absence, a failure to produce — why does a nothing endow one with a right to a value, while producing the value creates an automatic obligation to surrender it? No one has ever offered a justification for such insanity, and no one can.
Such is the nature of the moral code accepted almost universally by mankind and invoked by the Obama’s of the world to justify their looting and enslavement of the productive members of society.
Capitalism gives you something government can never provide. The freedom to gain knowledge and learn from mistakes. As long as the search for knowledge goes on, so will capitalism.
You see, it’s what the commie kiddies will never get. Capitalism is really not a system. It’s simply what free men do with a legal framework to prevent fraud and abuse. That’s all.
If history is making lighting more safe, why is it that I know have to call for a HazMat team if I break a CFL lightbulb?
Let’s not forget electricity was discovered when Kings and Queens ruled Europe.
Perhaps we should credit the dead loyalties for their great accomplishment!
This is yet another self serving practitioner of the dismal science taking credit for other disciplines.
And soon the lightbulb will be illegal. The government interference with capitalism is in favor of mercury laden bulbs that don’t fit in all your fixtures and don’t work with dimmers or are extra expensive if they do.
Economic systems don’t produce anything. It’s inaccurate use of the language to say they do.
Everything that is created, is created by individuals endeavoring singly or in multiples to produce value via their intellectual and physical labors.
OAN
What happened to the forum?
“Society” does not make decisions. THAT…is gibberish.
Decisions are made by people, individually, and cooperatively.
Most government decisions are made by a relatively few people.
THAT’S the reality of it.
“the only logical conclusion … is that you are a full scale anarchist.” Your logic is impeccable. I am indeed a “full scale anarchist!”
“We do that democratically not via threat”
It is almost never the case that a democratic decision is enforced without threat.
You don’t recognize the potential evil of collective decisions, because you are blinded to those who vote “No.”
Hmmm. I would say that the democratically arrived at decision to prohibit marijuana consumption is mightily backed up by the use of force, namely the police. Care to dispute that, muirduck?
muirgeo wrote:
The only logical conclusion from such gibberish is that you are a full scale anarchist.
This is a fallacy that you always trot out in these discussions — the fallacy that our choices are limited to: 1) A totalitarian government that ignores individual rights and implements the will of the majority, whatever the hell it may happen to be, OR: 2) Anarchy.
You seem to function on the hope that if you pretend there are no other choices — that is, if you pretend that a constitutionally-limited republic based on individual rights is an impossibility — that we, too, will agree to pretend the same thing. Just as your advocacy of socialism depends on pretending that the events of the 20th century never took place, your advocacy of democracy depends on us pretending that the first 140 or so years of our country’s existence never took place.
In fact, your attempt to promote this false alternative is a confession that you have nothing better which with to justify the notion that mob rule — the actual meaning of democracy — is the appropriate way for human beings to coexist. You want us to buy the notion that the majority has a right to form a lynch mob and hang the local minority — because the only alternative is to have unorganized murder by random individuals.
The truth is you’re only interested in finding a way to legally loot those more productive than yourself and, lacking any argument that actually justifies such organized theft, you invoke the boogey man of anarchy. Who, exactly, you hope to spook into agreeing with you by such a tactic is an ongoing mystery .
You can’t at least give him the credit of supposing that by “society has to make decisions” he most likely meant “individuals have to collectively make decisions”?
I try to call ‘em like I see ‘em, DK. I think that you do the same and even if we disagree I think that you do the same.
Best,
T Rich
David Bowie played a fictional Tesla in “The Prestige”.
Language reveals thought and thought often follows language.
The use of “society” expresses what I believe to be unwarranted connotations.
Do you believe in unlimited majority rule?
How and where shall the majority be limited?
IAC, collective decision making too often means “too bad, minority”, and George often expresses that sentiment.
You’re confusing me with something else. I can’t think of much that’s more desirable than freedom. You don’t have much of anything without that.
What’s confusing? You don’t understand the tie between freedom and capitalism?
I understand the tie between the two, I’m just saying they’re not synonyms. And I’m a fan of both – cool your heels.
Ah, I see the confusion over “confusion”.
I’m not confused. I said YOU must be confusing me with someone else, because you’re not describing anything I’ve ever expressed.
Look at some of my recent discussions with Justin Palmer or jimierq about the Constitution. I absolutely don’t believe in unlimited majority rule.
“too bad, minority”It only takes two divisions of divide-and-conquer majority rule before you can say “too bad, majority”.Collective decision-making has a place, but a very limited place. A more ethical concept than ‘collective decision’ is the ‘veto’.
Setting aside theoretical about freedom. I judge a country’s freedom index by how much capitalism they allow. Not the kind China practices where bribes are expected to government officials, or special tax breaks for businesses in America to build a shopping center from the local cronies. That is not capitalism to me. You see until we can agree on definitions Daniel, we can’t make progress.
What I’m saying is capitalism is in the subset of freedom. Other freedoms include the right to smoke, drink, sex, not make a profit, and leave other people alone. I hope you understand basic set theory.
Dude – I have the same definition. I never said they were unrelated. Freedom encompasses more than economic freedom although economic freedom is intertwined with all other freedoms. Don’t try to pull a “more Catholic than the pope” attitude on this with me. I’m not disputing freedom, capitalism, or the centrality of capitalism to freedom.
Perhaps a country’s freedom index can be judged by the size of its black market.
See the comment I just posted – I’m glad you agree with me on this.
Daniel, the problem that you claim to be such a fan of freedom doesn’t jive with your pro-government musings from other threads. You talk a good game, but whenever something like national heath care comes down the pike you lean towards the government solution.
And the problem with your claim that you have any clue what I think is that every time that we’ve talked about health care I’ve come out strongly against national health care, against mandates, and hugely skeptical of even a public option. But of course you’re under the impression that I support national health care despite your inability to produce anything I’ve ever said to that effect, because you’re happier to sit there convinced you know better than I do what I think.
RE: “But of course you’re under the impression that I support national health care despite your inability to produce anything I’ve ever said to that effect, because you’re happier to sit there convinced you know better than I do what I think”And if I recall, Hayek cautioned against this sort of hubristic fallacy.
Alright, I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt going forward.
I can see we are making some progress now. You don’t believe in total mobocracy like muirduck. Of course he didn’t believe in democracy from 2001-2007 either which remarkably coincided with GOP control!
That was more of a rhetorical question.
That’s a good point. Look at the black market in illegal drugs and what devastation that causes. Yet 80% of Americans support the insane “war on drugs”.
We are inundated constantly and our whole lives with E-M fields. We always have been. Of course the frequency and intensity matters. Most frequencies don’t interact with human tissues, some heat them, some ionize them.
As far as wireless power goes, the problem is efficiency. The energy must be directed to be efficient (surface area of a sphere, and thus energy dilution from a point is as r^2, or as roughly r for Tesla’s electricity through the ground idea). Laser E-M waves can concentrate energy along line-of-sight, but line-of-sight is usually less reliable and useful than using wires.
The most useful wireless power applications involve E-M induction. Currently they are inefficient except over short fixed distances. However, there are currently companies developing induction technologies that are capable maintaining coupling over long distances (almost room-size distances) and through continuously varying relative positions. Potential applications include charging your computer or cell phone, and lamps and TVs, merely by having them within a properly equipped room.
Those technologies can be safe because current is not generated except between devices specifically equipped for coupling. Human tissue is not so equipped, so tissue heating is not an issue (and the E-M frequencies used are not ionizing).
Wireless transmission over distances from the regional power generator to your house is not likely to be the most efficient technology for many many decades.
I’ve read about short-distance induction power for things like recharging batteries on mobile devices. But it’s impossible for large-capacity, long-distance electricity generation.
“Capitalist societies have supported slavery, segregation, war for profit ect…”
It is truly unbelievable how incapable of learning you are. You just keep uttering the same nonsense. Societies which have had capitalism HAVE had slavery, segregation, wars, not to mention serial killers, auto accidents, morons who repetitiously say stupid things, dirty diapers, diarrhea, hangnails, injustice, sadness, ignorance, ugly people, 3-legged flatulent dogs, people who sing out of tune, earthquakes, hemorrhoids, dull razors, country music, fights with wives, and ANTICAPITALISM…
I could go on forever.
But NONE of those things ARE capitalism. None of those things even characterize a capitalist society. They don’t even correlate. I mean it is just a plainly stupid thing to say.
“You’re right government alone is not a condition to developing cleaned societies”
I’M right?!! I never said or suggested any such thing. Sounds like you just say what the voices in your head tell you to say.
Right – I think I said as much in response to arrowsmith. But their close relation does not make them synonyms. I entirely agree.
The reason the concepts are distinct is because it is imaginable, even if never observed, that an entire population of people could unanimously (not democratically) and of their own free will choose to live as voluntary “slaves”.That of course is not actually seen. In any population of sufficient size, capitalism and a free society go hand-in-hand. (And to preempt muir-apples=oranges-drivel–I’m talking about the PORTION of a society that is free is the SAME portion that is capitalistic.)
OK, I have no idea why you feel the need to be so nitpicky about everything I bring up.
Capitalism is the freedom to truck, barter and exchange. As I’ve said, it’s an important facet of a free society. But it’s only a facet. It’s possible to have the freedom to truck, barter, and exchange and not have the freedom to worship how you choose (a non-market transaction – I know you were having trouble distinguishing between market and non-market goods in the other post, so I wanted to clarify).
Likewise, you can have the freedom to worship how you choose but have your ability to truck, barter, and exchange taken away by the government.
I’d prefer all of the above, myself – but that doesn’t mean I think a capitalist society is the same thing as a free society. I think you have it backwards. You can have capitalism without a free society (ie – capitalism but no freedom of religion or with no election of leaders). You can’t have a free society without capitalism, because economic freedom is so central to freedom in general
“I have no idea why you feel the need to be so nitpicky about everything I bring up.”
I was merely adding comments. Not nitpicking. Not even disagreeing. But since you insist…
“I know you were having trouble distinguishing between market and non-market goods in the other post”
DK, you really don’t want to go back there. You’ve embarrassed yourself enough. Just learn and move on. Your ego will get over it.
“Likewise, you can have the freedom to worship how you choose but have your ability to truck, barter, and exchange taken away by the government.”
Hmm. I wonder what I meant by…
“(And to preempt muir-apples=oranges-drivel–I’m talking about the PORTION of a society that is free is the SAME portion that is capitalistic.)”
I know! I meant to keep you from making the presumptuous mistake that you proceeded to make anyway.
“I think you have it backwards. You can have capitalism without a free society (ie – capitalism but no freedom of religion or with no election of leaders). You can’t have a free society without capitalism, because economic freedom is so central to freedom in general”
Don’t you mean “forwards” instead of “backwards”? Yes, you can have capitalism without society being 100% free. You can also have free speech without society being 100% free. And free religion, likewise. And it is also true that in a 100% free society (in my words “of sufficient size”) you will have all of those things.
The point, is that freedom is a fundamental requirement of capitalism. No, a 100% free society is not a requirement. Freedom of religion is not a requirement. But where there is not SUFFICIENT freedom, there can be NO capitalism.
RE: “Don’t you mean “forwards” instead of “backwards”? Yes, you can have capitalism without society being 100% free. You can also have free speech without society being 100% free. And free religion, likewise. And it is also true that in a 100% free society (in my words “of sufficient size”) you will have all of those things.
The point, is that freedom is a fundamental requirement of capitalism.”
Ummm… once again, you seem to be agreeing with what I’m saying – as you did in the very first comment on this thread. I’m not sure why you insist on continuing to act like you don’t.
You seem to think the mere act of replying to you is an act of disagreement.
No problem. I don’t get much out of replying to you anyway. Good luck.