After reading my quotation of Mencken, my friend G.M. Curtis pointed out that the “Notable & Quotable” in today’s Wall Street Journal is this germane passage from St. Augustine’s City of God:
Justice being taken away, then, what are kingdoms but great robberies? For what are robberies themselves, but little kingdoms? The band itself is made up of men; it is ruled by the authority of a prince, it is knit together by the pact of the confederacy; the booty is divided by the law agreed on. If, by the admittance of abandoned men, this evil increases to such a degree that it holds places, fixes abodes, takes possession of cities, and subdues peoples, it assumes the more plainly the name of a kingdom, because the reality is now manifestly conferred on it, not by the removal of covetousness, but by the addition of impunity. Indeed, that was an apt and true reply which was given to Alexander the Great by a pirate who had been seized. For when that king had asked the man what he meant by keeping hostile possession of the sea, he answered with bold pride, “What thou meanest by seizing the whole earth; but because I do it with a petty ship, I am called a robber, whilst thou who dost it with a great fleet art styled emperor.”
Share
{ 76 comments }
What is the use of bemoaning robbery if you’re unwilling to do anything about it?
Hayek’s.
“Redistribution” is “the crucial issue on which the whole character of future society will depend,” and “it would be disingenuous to avoid discussing” it.
The Constitution of Liberty, P 306
The moral arguments against it are the worst, for they are actually economic arguments for it.
All of the other arguments against redistribution, social, political, and moral still leave the economic arguments for it. And all of the other economic arguments against it still leave the argument that it reduces inequality. Only the argument that it doesn’t reduce but increases inequality would wipe out every other argument for it, every moral, social, and political, as well as economic argument for it. And only then may there be an end to aggression, to war, holocaust, and the terror in the night, for only then may the majorities bent on looting agree to the most essential human right, the right to be let alone.
So, the course of action is to argue that redistribution increases inequality instead of calling it robbery?
Or better yet, how does Hayek explain that it increases inequality?
We see that today in every nation every society. What more proof do you need. I know there is a huge “income gap” in the US but compare that to places with less free-markets; Mexico, India, China Where you have even larger gaps. The poorest live in squallor compared to the poorest in the us, yet Mexico can now claim to have the richest man in the known universe! The poor of India are even worse off. Bilionares exist there to. Yet no one looks at the redistributive regimes that rule these countries as the cause of the gap. Why do we think these same regimes can change it for the good?
One difference is that in other places, income differences are less correlated with age, education, and hours worked.
From The Forbidden Theory of Redistribution at, and I hope the link works this time,
http://econotrashtalk.org/#The Forbidden Theory of Redistribution-New
“The increasing inequality deplored by the Left is, at least in part, a consequence of its own policies, and the very ones meant to reduce it. For in accordance with The First Law of Economics, that for every action against the market there is an opposite and more than equal reaction, taking from the rich to give to the poor could not reduce but only increase income inequality and “social injustice.”
Put simply: it doesn’t just draw money but manpower downward upon the hierarchy of production, and the manpower faster than the money. For manpower doesn’t merely follow money but anticipates it. And, with manpower and competition among the poor increasing faster than the redistributed money, they’ll be poorer than they would have been without it.
And since the Left depends entirely on the assumption that taking from the rich to give to the poor reduces inequality, it would be utterly demolished by the opposite-most conclusion, that it didn’t reduce but increased it.
But, being a new idea, at least when first presented decades ago, and an affront to anyone who hadn’t thought of it first, it has been resented and shunned by the Right as much as the Left. Without it, all that the Right can ever say about inequality is that it isn’t really getting any worse. But that is to concede that there’s something wrong with it, and with capitalism, which depends on it.”
Included in this essay are the thoughts of the greatest Austrian and libertarian economists, Mises, Hayek, Hazlitt, Rothbard, Friedman, and my own correspondence and discussions with Rothbard, Kirzner, Larry White, David Friedman, Tom Hazlett, and, briefly, Friedman and Hayek. The discussions with Rothbard, Kirzner, White, Hazlett, and D. Friedman, are especially significant.
It isn’t enough to tell others how much you hate robbery. That doesn’t make them hate it too. You have to understand why they love it, and attack their own reasons for doing so.
The reason, as affirmed by the greatest thinkers of our time, including Mises, Hayek, and our own Boudreaux, was redistribution, the assumption that taking from the rich to give to the poor not only made the poor richer but reduced inequality.
Showing otherwise is the ultimate task of the Austrian School, that it has been running and hiding from for the last thirty years.
Isn’t it time to stop running and hiding and start fighting in earnest?
Sorry that the link didn’t work right. So just take it as far as it will go, to the beginning of the book, scroll down a bit, to Book Two, in blue, click on that, and then in the Table of Contents, click on The Forbidden Theory, in blue.
anthonyl & vikingvista – Good points.
DG Lesvic – Thank you. I followed your links and found this nice reduction of the second paragraph. Am I reading correct that this is from “Human Action” p. 678?
“At the line between rich and poor, but one penny of income separates them. So, when it is taken from the rich and given to the poor, their stations are reversed. The rich become poor and the poor rich, which attracts manpower from the occupations of the one to those of the other. To restore the manpower allocations it preferred, the market must bid the net wages of the formerly higher paid occupations back up and of the formerly lower paid back down. But, anticipating increasing rates of redistribution, and compensating not just for the current but for the greater anticipated rates, the market must bid the net wages of the formerly higher paid to even higher levels and of the formerly lower paid to even lower levels than before, for differentials even greater than before.”
Anthonyl,
Good point. Egypt adopted socialism after the 1952 revolution and its economy (and culture) has been sliding backward ever since.
Today, the military leaders and Mubarak are billionaires, with Mubarak’s wealth estimated at between 50B and 70B. The average Egyptian’s annual income is less than $2,000 and 40% live on less than $2 per day.
Neither Mubarak nor any of his inner circle have ever started a business or inherited one from their parents.
Seth,
Those words and thoughts were mine.
And, as I followed them up, “Mises (as could be seen on P 678) never got that far in his analysis.”
Seth,
No, Hayek did not get that far in his analysis. None of them did. That was the new idea.
DG Lesvic – Excellent work.
Excellent.
“What thou meanest by seizing the whole earth; but because I do it with a petty ship, I am called a robber, whilst thou who dost it with a great fleet art styled emperor.”
What thou meanest by demanding my fruits of labor; but because I deny you in my belief of individual freedom and contract, I am called a cheat, whilst you who attempt to take it with your gang of thugs are called government.
The difference between the mob and the government is the number of people paying protection.
If you would like to go completely insane today, check out the interview with Stiglitz in this week’s Barron’s. Another Muirgeon.
If someone has received a Nobel Prize, then, unless I know something else about them, I conclude that they are not worth reading or listening to, unless as an example of how bad ideas are rewarded.
With that logic you can say that anyone who advocates self-defence is merely trying to justify their violent ways.
Also well stated in Rothbard’s short essay “Anatomy of the State”
The State, in the words of Oppenheimer, is the “organization of the political means”; it is the systematization of the predatory process over a given territory. For crime, at best, is sporadic and uncertain; the parasitism is ephemeral, and the coercive, parasitic lifeline may be cut off at any time by the resistance of the victims. The State provides a legal, orderly, systematic channel for the predation of private property; it renders certain, secure, and relatively “peaceful” the lifeline of the parasitic caste in society. Since production must always precede predation, the free market is anterior to the State. The State has never been created by a “social contract”; it has always been born in conquest and exploitation. The classic paradigm was a conquering tribe pausing in its time-honored method of looting and murdering a conquered tribe, to realize that the time-span of plunder would be longer and more secure, and the situation more pleasant, if the conquered tribe were allowed to live and produce, with the conquerors settling among them as rulers exacting a steady annual tribute. One method of the birth of a State may be illustrated as follows: in the hills of southern “Ruritania,” a bandit group manages to obtain physical control over the territory, and finally the bandit chieftain proclaims himself “King of the sovereign and independent government of South Ruritania”; and, if he and his men have the force to maintain this rule for a while, lo and behold! a new State has joined the “family of nations,” and the former bandit leaders have been transformed into the lawful nobility of the realm.
Yeah but is the nature of the state not just the result of the nature of the need for multiple people with differing views trying to work out a way to make society orderly. Is it not just a result of the nature of man?
What the libertarian wants is for all the bandits and kings to suddenly see things his way and to change their nature. Does anyone really think that is applicable to the real world. Is this in anyway practical? Isn’t the libertarian ultimately just complaining about the very nature of man? Is his argument with “bad evolution” relevant?
And apparently I can’t even ask what THEIR solution is because such is against the orthodoxy… to have solutions or to set up conditions of the state. This is why I see the libertarian view as irrelevant except for those with power and wealth to use the view to urge society to be set up to their advantage.
To me the question is does the state represent the will of the people? How best to set up society to the greatest benefit of all. THAT is what I believe the founding fathers were trying to do and did so however imperfect.
same chestnut, different thread.
Your need for attention is pathetic. Where you not breast-fed long enough as a child?
It’s not so much a need for attention as a desire for deep thoughtful conversation. I’m curious how one arrives at the libertarian viewpoint. This site has proven to me that for the most part libertarians are very superficial thinkers. They’re not into thinking much past their emotions. (You exemplify this as good as any.) They don’t care if their ideas have pragmatic or practical application. And for some they actually lower themselves to a 5th grade school yard level of debate when confronted with deeper levels of thought that they are unaccustomed to delving into. It’s morning time now go eat you Cheerio’s sweetie.
Except for the above post you have not as yet exhibited any sort of deep thought, don’t kid yourself.
You want deep thought?
Why don’t you answer the many responses you’ve gotten on the last few threads?
You like spewing your simplistic garbage over and over and then run away from answers…not mention critical thinking. When you do answer, it’s almost always to softballs like the one methinks threw you there. The only reason you were able to answer is because he mocked your need for attention. When people actually address your post, you either come back with a trollish diversionary response or you don’t respond at all. You must have about 30 responses to you in the last few threads alone in which people took your points head on. And we’re still hearing crickets.
BTW, you aren’t the least bit curious as to how one arrives at the libertarian position. You’ve seen far too much material to have no clue. And your posts show you are either a troll or that you have no clue. Neither is good. One reflects poorly on your integrity and the other reflects poorly on your reasoning skills.
I’m curious how one arrives at the libertarian viewpoint.
No, you’re not.
This site has proven to me that for the most part libertarians are very superficial thinkers.
You’ve proven to us that you have the shallowest of comprehension, constrained by your left partisan temper.You think libertarians are shallow because you are unable to see past the veneer of interpretation you impose upon our arguments.
Your interpretations are as shallow as your comprehension, as deep as the mirror of your projections.
Why don’t you answer the many responses you’ve gotten on the last few threads?
The muirdiot only argues straw man arguments.
Once someone destroys the straw man and addresses the muirdiot head on he ceases to reply.
For example his arguments against limited government take the form of a no-government straw man or a crony-capitalist straw man.
He then proceeds to slay those straw men with vigor, and then proclaims victory.
What a maroon.
Sam.
“You think libertarians are shallow because you are unable to see past the veneer of interpretation you impose upon our arguments. ”
Well worded. I like that.
Moron,
You’ve been bitching about this for five long (excruciatingly long) years. If you want to know the answers to your increasingly more stupid questions, dig back in the archives starting in 2006, when we were first faced with your mental defecation, and read the responses from well-meaing individuals who took the time and expended the energy to explain all this to you.
For those who have not been regulars on the blog that long, the pattern goes like this: A semi-literate plea for an explanation, followed by increasingly less readable mental vomit calling libertarians stupid, a refusal to engage in anything resembling an intellectual exchange and then disappearing off the thread. Rinse and repeat.
I remember one particular thread where Don Boudreaux engaged this rodent in conversation in a futile attempt to help this him gain some – ANY – understanding. After three exchanges, the moron wrote something so stunningly idiotic that it was clear he wasn’t even in the same universe. When I saw it, it literally took my breath away. I stared, slack-jawed, for a full minute before I could believe what I was staring at.
This idiot will never go away because he’s been banned from too many blogs. But, unless you love to scroll through line after line of word salad, I recommend you not demand answers from this blob. If you have not seen that old movie, the blob swallows everything in its path.
breast-fed?
I thought the muirdiot came to be by fission, like all other bacteria.
Brotio had it right in his earlier post.
Actually for the first time since I have frequented this blog, you have set up the beginnings of a cogent argument.
In my view most libertarians are indeed a lot of Don Quixotes tilting at windmills. It is not at all possible in my view to have a real Libertarian state in the modern world unless it would be very very small.
However, that does not mean that the libertarian arguments are wrong. It is still correct and useful to continue to strive and push your own government towards more personal freedom and less centralized control.
For even if government is at best, just the biggest robber baron out there, there are still degrees of liberties and freedoms that you can negotiate if you have any political power.
I currently see the need to, at every opportunity and at every turn, deny and then strip away every bit of power obtained by political means. It’s not earned and people can’t handle it without abusing it. We can have a mayor but he can’t claim somones property to make a town square.
Murgeo- I think libertarians are, if maybe not “practical”, at least honest about what they see as the root causes of the problems that so many people bitch about. They wouldn’t be the easiest to implement because you have to have… Oh I hate to use the word, “faith” that people can take care of their own need without a micromanaging central authority. Will we end up with a society of roving bandits and extortion payments? I think that’s where the central authority can help by securing property rights. But why not limit this central authority to just that and letting individuals make the rest of the decisions. Doesn’t seem that impractical to prevent our government from forcing us to marry someone of the opposite sex if we dont want to, forcing us to buy health insurane we don’t want to. Buying from people we don’t want to…
Much greater faith, against all historical experience and modern revelations about violent monopoly, is needed to believe government can long remain limited.
Muirgeo,
You have never responded to the proposal to devolve almost all power to the sates while the Federal government is restricted to enforcing the right of free movement of people and property between states.
This would force the state governments to compete to serve the citizens. Each citizen could “vote” with their feet.
If empowered to do so the states would check the power of the federal government and competition would check the states power.
States governments would need the ability to control Federal power by recalling the federal representatives of the state and by controlling the purse strings of the Federal government.
Hey I could agree that that might be the “great compromise”. It’s a compelling idea but I’d have to admit I don’t fully understand the implications it might have for the power struggle between corporations , the extremely wealthy and the working class.
It is impossible to know ahead of time how it would evolve, but do you agree that it would force governments to serve citizens. Something that you claim to strongly favor.
Ultimately I hope this is the model adopted throughout the world.
I don’t expect offensive violence, shoplifting, vandalism, poor judgement, bad table manners, or stupid malicious pediatricians to ever completely go away. That doesn’t mean I become an advocate for them.
Hey John I have many more replies then I can answer. I have regularly invited people to continue an ongoing discussion on ANY topic using a given thread or my own blog. Vidyohs and Lowcountryjoe both took me up on it but THEY ultimately walked away from the discussion. Vidyohs in particuliar RAN from the discussion on property rights because I quickly had him backed into a corner trying to explain WHERE his property rights came from…
The problem is the arguments and debates often take longer time then the thread stays up on the blog.
Anytime John if you want to follow through a particular subject I’d be glad to. But don’t tell me I’m not answering your questions because I get 10 replies for everyone you post to me.
People ran from you? You have no followers on your blog – “Blank spot instead of a brain”?
you mental midget.
“Hey John I have many more replies then I can answer.”
No you don’t. You’re just lazy and stupid. If you actually followed up on posts and answered people instead of starting more BS discussions that amount to the same level of nonsense, you also wouldn’t have so many replies to get to. ”
I have regularly invited people to continue an ongoing discussion on ANY topic using a given thread or my own blog.”
Who cares? There’s nothing with the here and now. It’s just a trollish cop out on your part.
“Vidyohs and Lowcountryjoe both took me up on it but THEY ultimately walked away from the discussion. ”
And I can just imagine how that went down. If your silly posts that .people actually address that you don’t reply to are any indicator, I’d leave too. Who’d want to be stuck on a lonely blog with YOU. Yuck.
“The problem is the arguments and debates often take longer time then the thread stays up on the blog.”
Oh don’t act so courteous you little twit. If you cared about not wasting space, you wouldn’t post. But debates do take time and you wouldn’t know that by your behavior here because you never finish them. You are so transparent. Give it up. I have many of responses to you. Go answer them instead of starting new posts.
“Anytime John if you want to follow through a particular subject I’d be glad to”
Then answer my posts already. You are such a pathetic little weasel.
He has plenty of time to post a long-winded reply about why he has no time to respond to you, but no time to actually respond to you.
I really wish the good professors would make just one exception to their no ban policy. Maybe they can have a one ban per year limit. Maybe even take a vote. However they did it, it would really clean up the comments.
“…because I quickly had him backed into a corner trying to explain WHERE his property rights came from…”
Do (did) your contentions rest on the premise that such rights don’t exist or were you just trying to let your detractors knock themselves out of the fight without having to discuss the topic at hand?
Wow – this is an impressive comment that just slams the door on the Libertarian. The fact that so many are responding shows just how damaging your comment is to their argument. It is absolutely crushing.
Deep down, they know that their views are not practical and your comment forces them to examine that reality. Your comment has dampened their excitement for their unsustainable ideology.
Oh good. A troll convention.
Riiiiiiiight. We’ve all been outsmarted by the muirbot. In fact, I can already feel the conversion to muirprickism beginning within me… Beekuz, jeez, if weed only under stood the ekonomik catstrofe of raygun’s unregalatated Libertopia, weed’uv realIzed that the grate philosofer Muirpot was right, nad all of our famileez deserved to be killled.
LMAO!!
….so hard It took me 3 minutes to compose myself enough to tell you that.
Same here!
“Isn’t the libertarian ultimately just complaining about the very nature of man? Is his argument with ‘bad evolution’ relevant?”
Not complaining, just recognizing. I’m not sure what a “liberal” is (although I know one when I see one), and I’m not sure what a “libertarian” is (but I know it’s not a liberal).
The nature of man is the nature of man. Liberals think they can change that. Others simply respect it.
“And apparently I can’t even ask what THEIR solution is because such is against the orthodoxy… to have solutions or to set up conditions of the state. This is why I see the libertarian view as irrelevant except for those with power and wealth to use the view to urge society to be set up to their advantage.”
Yes — in your world view we are governed by Ron Paul and Sarah Palin, not Barack Obama and George Soros.
“To me the question is does the state represent the will of the people?”
Good question. Have you answered it yet? Need any help?
“How best to set up society to the greatest benefit of all. THAT is what I believe the founding fathers were trying to do and did so however imperfect.”
The founding fathers intent was to honor the founding principles — which was to limit the federal governments role, and defer rights to the people, and from the people to the states.
“For example his arguments against limited government take the form of a no-government straw man or a crony-capitalist straw man.”
The argument was, as I remember about who gives us rights… where do they come from… YOU ultimately made my point for me showing that we at least needed limited government to assure our rights…. Rights come from government and are enforced by governments. We decide what rights we have… the purpose of government IS to give and protect our rights. Without government your rights are as big , or as strong or as smart as YOU are…. and the point is there will ALWAYS be some one bigger , and stronger and smarter than you THUS THE NEED FOR GOVERNMENT.
So now that we’ve established the need fro government maybe you can all shut up about how awful government is and we can advance the discussion to HOW to order government… BUT OH WAIT we CAN’T have THAT discussion because libertarians are against a planned society or government planning…
Are you seeing the problems I am seeing with this silly philosophy… any one care to defend it at a slightly deep level then “JUST BECAUSE I DON’T like paying taxes”?
I’m sure I’m about to step into some manure here, but we’ll see.
Is there any possibility of anyone here convincing you that Libertarianism isn’t about having no government? Also, is there any possibility of anyone here convincing you that crony-capitalism, wherein big business is in bed with politicians, is antithetical to the free-markets and Libertarianism? Lastly, is there any possibility of anyone here convincing you that there is no monolithic “government,” and that the government is made up of many individuals who, like those in the private sector, act in their own self-interest?
If the responses to those questions are in the negative, there is no possible way to bridge the gap.
You know, the worst part about the Manuregeo is that you can’t even fertilize your garden with it.
I’m sure I’ll leave out a few, but we’ve accumulated quite a list of terms of endearment for our Dear Ducktor. Starting with the newest one, and then in no particular order:
1. Manuregeo
2. Muirpot
3. Muirdouche
4. Muirduck
5. Muirtard
6. Muiron
7. Muirpid
8. Morongeo
9. Muirbot
10. Muirdiot
11. Muirdolt
12. Yasafi
13. Torquemuirduck
You forgot one of the originals, muirhuahua. The teacup brained village idiot.
TFI should be on there as well.
Some of those are quite elegant. I’ll have to keep that list. I type fast and “Muirdiot” just rolls off the fingers without thinking about it.
Lets see…
Yes to the first. I believe the first questions to be true.. but it ends up being self contradictory when examined to greater detail.
Yes to the second but my thesis is that any libertarian society would quickly devolve into a crony capitalistic society. That’s why no libertarian societies exist… ever… and many crony capitalistic ones do.
Yes to the third and that is my whole point here… that what matters is HOW we set up the government. The idea of hating government is like hating blood… we need it so lets make it work the best we can rather then trying to get rid of it.
So 3 yeses with caveats that basically result from the difference between theory which you all love and practice which you all LOVE TO IGNORE.
Anyway I can’t reply to you any more my full attention is devoted to answering John V’s questions.
No. You simply started a strawman about no-government. You can’t change what’s there. Give it up, you little twit.
Come on John I will not reply to any more post except yours.
The government gives you your rights. Is there a question here did not answer?
I loved this thread when you actually ended your argument buy claiming you would CALL THE GOVERNMENT to protect you.
Come on dude.. I am not going away until I’ve answered ALL of your questions on my claim and THE FACT that it is the government that gives and protects your rights.
Again there is no straw man. My point is that if there is NO government you have NO rights.
Again, it’s a strawman. The argument is not that there should be no government. That’s your arguement to fight against…and nobody anyone else’s.
And The government doesn’t give you your rights. It protects them.
And nobody is saying otherwise. And BTW, you still haven’t answered anyone on anything other trying to shoehorn this silly trite argument into every discussion.
I’m saying otherwise. Government also excels are robbing you of rights. In fact, it’s way better at that than protecting them.
and in case you haven’t noticed, John V, he doesn’t know what a “strawman” is.
“Government also excels are robbing you of rights. In fact, it’s way better at that than protecting them.”
Well, that’s the danger of inviting the vampire into your home…as the saying goes. In principle, it serves as an enforcer and protector of rights. That fact that it goes beyond that is a problem of people allowing it to happen.
“That fact that it goes beyond that is a problem of people allowing it to happen.”
One reason why “rule of law”, as typically conceived, cannot be a fundamental principle of civilized society.
because libertarians are against a planned society
For sure, but that’s the extent of your comprehension.
um….if you think that its comprehension of “planned society” and yours is even close, you’re dreaming again, Sam.
No more replies from you OK…. It’s just me and John V from here on out.
in your rich and colourful fantasy life, it’s just you and John V.
But, I think I see him gagging at the thought.
And you still aren’t answering anything.
BTW, this little joke that only you could possibly find funny about only replying to me has given you more to respond about than all real discussions combined.
What is it about violence against the innocent that even HE cannot understand? I’m having a hard time deciding if he refuses to recognize that issue because violence is the god he worships, or because he’s just too plain stupid. Both maybe.
Actually, I don’t really care anymore. Instead of pondering the cow pie in my path, I think I’ll just step over it.
and the point is there will ALWAYS be some one bigger , and stronger and smarter than you THUS THE NEED FOR GOVERNMENT.
Oh, now I understand why you have such a….thing…for government giving you things. At some core level, deep inside your shit-for-brains, you actually understand that you are too stupid and too weak to make anything of yourself. You need government to use its monopoly of violent force to stomp everybody else down to your weak, pathetic level so that you don’t feel so bad about yourself.
got it.
Seth,
You wrote,
“So, the course of action is to argue that redistribution increases inequality instead of calling it robbery?”
Yes.
And, you wrote,
“how does Hayek explain that it (redistribution) increases inequality?”
He doesn’t. None of them do. That is the new idea.
Seth,
You wrote,
“DG Lesvic — excellent work.”
I assume that you were referring to the “forbidden” theory of redistribution, that it doesn’t reduce but increases inequality.
Mencken, Williams…and, don’t forget Spooner.
“Yes to the second but my thesis is that any libertarian society would quickly devolve into a crony capitalistic society.”
Typically you have it backwards and inside out. A thesis is a coherent argument-but since nothing you say is coherent.
How long do you think it will be before Jeff Imeltis back at the White House?
Then of course there’s libertarian icons like Robert Rubin, Franklin Raines.. oh never mind they are all leftists sucking on the government teat, until they move on for big bucks…
His “thesis”??
LOL.
You misheard “th” for “f”.