Quotation of the Day…

by Don Boudreaux on June 23, 2011

in Myths and Fallacies, Other People's Money, Reality Is Not Optional, Regulation, Wal-Mart

… is from Methinks1776 (commenting on this post):

The problem is that some women would like to force the culture to change to suit their whims rather than change themselves to fit the existing culture. The existing culture results from the demands of the business. Changing it would mean the business doesn’t work. I’m not a fan of breaking things that work just fine to suit the whims of people who don’t think that personal preferences require personal sacrifice.

Be Sociable, Share!

Comments

comments

166 comments    Share Share    Print    Email

{ 166 comments }

muirgeo June 23, 2011 at 9:11 pm

Oh baloney. The same could be said of libertarianism or free market fundamentalism. Our culture is not libertarian but you would sure like to “force” that on others. In fact, it is being forced on all of us by those with the power and the money to steal the democratic process. All those jack asses on Wall Street will claim to be libertarian in philosophy but not a one of them ends up being so in practice. Most people don’t think or care for a society set up along libertarian principles. You guys are incapable of any degree of collectivism while most have no problem with it and consider it a standard of modern culture. In fact you benefit from the collective every day but deny it just the same and take no real steps to be truly independent. Then all you do is fall back on violations of individuals and the individual being sacrosanct when some one suggests we occasionally think in terms of group needs. We consider community and the individual both to have special needs and rights. Like women’s rights to vote and to not be property. We can wrap our heads around the dualism of individual and societal needs. It IS possible for individualism to violate the rights of groups. The Koch brothers are a great example of that. Supposed libertarians but they see it as their right to use their money to bend policy to their desires and against the desires of a far greater number of community minded people and against the democratic nature that this culture and society are supposed to support. . Sure you can claim they are not true libertarians but that’s the whole problem… your defunct worthless philosophy ultimately is just a Trojan horse for these types of people to accumulate massive power and wealth with no real regard for group or individual rights. Your just their modern day vassals…

Ken June 23, 2011 at 9:41 pm

muirgeo,

“The same could be said of libertarianism or free market fundamentalism.”

No it can’t. Libertarianism and free markets are about live and let live, adapting to new situations and allowing others to act as they like.

“Our culture is not libertarian ”

Yes it is.

“In fact, it is being forced on all of us by those with the power and the money to steal the democratic process.”

This doesn’t make sense.

“All those jack asses on Wall Street will claim to be libertarian in philosophy but not a one of them ends up being so in practice.”

Who?

“Most people don’t think or care for a society set up along libertarian principles.”

Of course not. Most people are like you and get off on power, wanting to force others to act as you like, instead of living as they please. This is why libertarianism and limited government is NECESSARY for a functioning society.

“In fact you benefit from the collective every day but deny it just the same and take no real steps to be truly independent. ”

We benefit from voluntary cooperative action. Being a libertarian doesn’t preclude the notion of acting in concert with others, a concept you can’t seem to get your head around.

” We consider community and the individual both to have special needs and rights.”

Communities, countries, governments, etc. DON’T HAVE RIGHTS. Individuals have rights, inalienable and natural.

“Like women’s rights to vote and to not be property.”

A clear example of an INDIVIDUAL right.

” It IS possible for individualism to violate the rights of groups.”

What does this even mean?

“Supposed libertarians but they see it as their right to use their money to bend policy to their desires”

Yes, evil things like the repeal of the Patriot Act, gay rights, end the “war on drugs”, end the police state, cut defense spending, etc.

Yet another vacuous, ahistorical, and ignorant post by muirgeo.

Regards
Ken

Slappy McFee June 24, 2011 at 9:11 am

Thank you Ken, for this:

“We benefit from voluntary cooperative action. Being a libertarian doesn’t preclude the notion of acting in concert with others, a concept you can’t seem to get your head around”

BTW, it’s also a concept that some libertarians do not grasp.

vikingvista June 24, 2011 at 11:54 am

Particularly the “anarchy = chaos” crowd.

Michael Mace June 24, 2011 at 12:38 pm

Well said. Thank you Ken.

Not Sure June 23, 2011 at 10:06 pm

“your defunct worthless philosophy ultimately is just a Trojan horse for these types of people to accumulate massive power”

Based on your posts, you appear to have no problem with accumulating massive power when the right people (read: people who think like you) are wielding it to shape society in the image you feel is correct.

What you seem incapable of understanding is that that power, once concentrated, can be (actually, will be) used against you, even as you continue to advocate for greater concentration.

muirgeo June 24, 2011 at 1:27 am

“What you seem incapable of understanding is that that power, once concentrated,…”

What you don’t understand is that I want power diffused across ALLL the people with a well set up representative democracy. What we have is power concentrated by the wealthy elite like we have had through all of history and that is the end result of so-called libertarian policies.

Libertarianism and Monarchy ultimately are one and the same.

SheetWise June 24, 2011 at 4:44 am

“What we have is power concentrated by the wealthy elite like we have had through all of history and that is the end result of so-called libertarian policies.”

I’m interested … explain how wealth gives people power?
I’m serious.

muirgeo June 24, 2011 at 9:07 am

That’s funny….seriously. Have you heard of these people called lobbyist who make their customers money by sending our soldiers to wars for oil. How about the lobbyist who wrote medicare part D for Pharma? Do you remember the bailout of Wall Street or all the policy and interest rate changes that lead to it…my gosh… our you serious??? The wealthy have set up a casino economy and you are nothing more then a player.

Ken June 24, 2011 at 11:19 am

Wealth doesn’t make you powerful. Bill Gates was the richest man in the world for years, but had less power than the typical local politician. After all, all Bill Gates can do is offer you a piece of software to buy. You buy it or you don’t. However, that local politician, who often is of modest wealth, can tell you how much water is allowed to flow through your toilet per flush, what schools you can and can’t send your kids to, which roads get repaired and which don’t, the minimum lot size of your yard, the maximum height (and minimum) of your house, etc.

The list is almost endless and clearly demonstrates wealth does NOT give you power.

Regards,
Ken

SheetWise June 25, 2011 at 12:15 am

Muirgeo –

I really don’t like this comment -reply format that terminates after the point of disagreement has been established — but it’s what we have.

“That’s funny….seriously. Have you heard of these people called lobbyist who make their customers money by sending our soldiers to wars for oil.”

Without addressing the motivations you ascribe, doesn’t a quid pro quo business model such as you describe require elected officials to sell their influence? Despite all of the rhetoric and name calling — would you be willing to wager on your parties reputation? I suggest the number of convictions of elected and appointed officials in the last twenty years. I’ll give you 3:2 odds, without any research. How much do you want?

“How about the lobbyist who wrote medicare part D for Pharma?

??? You’ve clearly got more research to do here.

“Do you remember the bailout of Wall Street or all the policy and interest rate changes that lead to it”

I think there was some deregulation that led to it — but that was the Clinton administration. I do remember. It was disgusting. And who was it that Wall Street supported in the last election?

“The wealthy have set up a casino economy and you are nothing more then a player.”

The wealthy will always be a byproduct of a healthy economy, and that’s a good thing — as long as they earned their money. And who was it that Wall Street supported in the last election?

Anotherphil June 24, 2011 at 1:12 pm

Libertarianism and Monarchy ultimately are one and the same.

This might be the stupidist think you ever said and your academy of idiocy is a pantheon.

yet another Dave June 24, 2011 at 2:03 pm

I want power diffused across ALLL the people with a well set up representative democracy.

So you want to diffuse power by concentrating power in the hands of a few people selected by popularity contests!!!!!

What you wish for is definitionally impossible. Are you capable of understanding your utopian fantasy’s inherent self-contradiction?

John Sullivan June 24, 2011 at 8:00 pm

Muirego,

Libertarian policies don’t allow the wealthy to secure legislative advantages (power) for themselves. A libertarian rule of law tends to diminish the concentration of power. For all practical purposes, we aren’t even close to being a libertarian society anymore.

Your problem is that you see something that you ‘claim’ you don’t like, such as you say above– ‘the concentration of power’, yet your political solutions are to concentrate power even more.

So, you have time and again proven that you are not against the concentration of power, per se, if it is wielded towards the redistribution of wealth in ways that will satisfy your feelings of envy toward those doing better than you.

You don’t like libertarian politics because they would force you to compete on a level playing field with others. This exists to a degree in your life now, and you’d rather not expand it to encompass more things in your life.

Your quasi-socialism suits your ability level. When was the last time you saw a homeless man petitioning for a lower capital gains tax rate? And just as Unions try to poltically force everyone to buy products with over-priced labor built in, greedy capitalists aslo seek political advantages over their rivals. You vote your wallet, and obviously, there isn’t much in it.

We all seek to improve our circumstances, but the difference between you and me is that you need socialism for yourself to prosper and I don’t. I need to keep losers like you at bay.

But at least you display an IQ high enough to argue for policies that are suitable to your prospects of survival. You argue for yourself. There’s nothing wrong with that, so, good luck and keep trying.

cmprostreet June 25, 2011 at 8:30 pm

“Libertarianism and Monarchy ultimately are one and the same.”

This is like saying purple and gravity are the same temperature.

Babinich June 23, 2011 at 10:38 pm

We’re supposed to take a guy with a FDR avatar seriously?

muirgeo June 24, 2011 at 1:28 am

Yeah … you were lucky enough to be born into the fruits of his great society.

MWG June 24, 2011 at 2:11 am

Good thing I’m not Japanese, right muir?

WeekendAtBernankes July 21, 2011 at 8:05 pm

The great society was Johnson’s bit.

FDR prolonged the Great Depression. Are you aware that we are the only country that suffered a “Great Depression” during this time?

You can trace the current debt crisis right straight back to the wayward policies implemented during FDR’s administration.

Oh, and by the way: Guess who’s administration came up with ‘redlining’?

muirgeo June 24, 2011 at 9:11 am

I am working on this list. But so far I’ve got this.

FDR/ Reagan 30 years hence;

1973 2011

Unemployment 4.9% 9.1%
GDP % quarterly change 10.8% 1.8%
Top marginal tax rate 70% 35%
Trade Balance -$6 billion -$660 billion
Public debt .7 trillion 14 trillion
Debt to GDP 25% 90%
Real minimum wage $8.00 $6.00
Intergenerational Income Mobility high lower
CEO to worker pay ratio 25 200

Ken June 24, 2011 at 10:11 pm

Classic cherry picking of data. This is what’s known as lying with statistics.

Regards,
Ken

Dan J June 25, 2011 at 12:10 am

No kidding, especially, when you have to add in bush and Obama to the equation.

Kirby July 21, 2011 at 8:26 pm

Well Muirgeo, if we just hire everybody into the military and provide them with $500,000 a month, tax 99%, and print more money, we would have 0% unemployment, astronomical gdp and marginal tax rate, an amazing trade balance (after all, the Iraquis are paying for the bullets they recieve, right?), a low public debt (as we said, the government gets $450,000 per capita per month), low debt to GDP, huge minimum wage ($6m salary as a minimum wage? Amazing) and a CEO to worker pay of 1.

Russ Nelson June 23, 2011 at 10:50 pm

Your posting would make more sense if I replaced every single word with “blah” or “Blah” as needed.

Rudy June 23, 2011 at 11:16 pm

Murdiego, by claiming I benefit from the “collective” everyday, are you referring to the massive federal debt and interest payments that are hoisted upon me and my children’s future?? Or are you referring to the federal printing presses that run out of control printing more and more devalued green backs??

vikingvista June 24, 2011 at 12:31 am

I think he’s talking about the warm feeling you get when you fork over 20-40% of everything you earn to the IRS.

BTW, did you remember to send the IRS a thank you card last April?

muirgeo June 24, 2011 at 1:34 am

Oh the rich don’t pay 40%… they ay 15%… you … their defender and me get to pay 30 or 40%.

You are one of their bonafide ankle grabbers. They love guys like you… true believers… faithful to the cult all the way to the bottom.

vikingvista June 24, 2011 at 3:57 am

Ooooh. So it was the rich who extorted all that money. I could’ve sworn the letterhead said “IRS”. Silly me. Or does that stand for “Immensely Rich Society”?

muirgeo June 24, 2011 at 9:16 am

VV,

The IRS is just their collection agency. They love that debt…. it’s mostly their banking and military industrial profit…. but yeah you pay it to them through the IRS and they fund their media with it too to make you angry with the poor and the elderly so you think its them that are screwing you so you hate the poor and the elderly because they are very good at brainwashing…you’re is squeaky clean… or it’s like a flashdrive memory easy to erase and easy to fill. You really shouldn’t hate your grandma…. unless she is a banker on wall street or a weapons contractor.

Methinks1776 June 24, 2011 at 9:18 am

I see Muirdiot has been free-basing all night again.

Methinks1776 June 24, 2011 at 9:20 am

Muirdiot,

You’re a doctor. Supposedly. You can’t get cleaner stuff than this? Maybe one of your 400 cats defecated in your stash. Again.

vikingvista June 24, 2011 at 10:56 am

Muirde,

Interesting post–if I were a psychiatrist. Consider Haldol 5mg IV.

Kirby July 21, 2011 at 8:28 pm

you’re insane. The rich would pay 70% if Obama had his pandering ways. And obviously the majority of voters are rich white men, right?

muirgeo June 24, 2011 at 9:46 pm

You guys are in denial… I’ts like the TARP never happened or the Wars never happened.. really really biizzzzare on your part. Really I amean you are infantile. You literally have to refute clear facts with ad homs and silliness. Maybe it works for other silly-minded people reading this blog but you REALLY are the ones who appear to be free basing…

The TARP never happended??? Really. WTF??? Th eITRS started the wars??? You guys are pathetic and calling me names will not make me the stupid person you want me to be…. between us.. it’s clear who has no credibility here. I’s clear who can’t handle the facts and reality. If reasonable people are watching they realize it too.

muirgeo June 24, 2011 at 1:32 am

No the debt is a result of the power brokers asserting their control over YOU, ME, the Fed and the government. But you don’t want them to be bound by any rules so this is what you get. You gets unregulated derivatives, boom and bust economics, wealth transfers from the working class to the rich and bailouts for the rich,… privatize profits and socialize losses. THIS IS WHAT LIBERTARIANS do when let loose in the real world. It’s a stupid stupid dangerous belief… and you guys are cheering for more of the same.

Peter McIlhon June 24, 2011 at 1:42 am

“THIS IS WHAT LIBERTARIANS do when let loose in the real world.”

I forgot that only Libertarians control the three branches of our government. I also forgot that EVERYBODY on Wallstreet lives their lives by Libertarian principles. So in this ‘real world’ Libertarians control everything and because of them, our country is in shambles.

*Facepalm*

muirgeo June 24, 2011 at 9:17 am

Yeah keep your face in your palm….cover your ears and eyes because that is what they want.

SheetWise June 24, 2011 at 4:47 am

“You gets unregulated derivatives, boom and bust economics …”

I thought unregulated derivatives was a gift from Clinton.

muirgeo June 24, 2011 at 9:18 am

yep they were…. clinton gets a LOT of blame for the trade and wall street policy that are killing us.

cmprostreet June 25, 2011 at 8:53 pm

To summarize:

Libertarianism and monarchy are the same thing. When allowed to let loose in the real world, they result in unregulated derivatives, boom and bust economics, and wealth transfers from the poor to the rich. For example, see the recent crisis and current economy (caused by libertarianism). Lastly, the world has never had a libertarian or monarchist society.

All information in this post is from muirgeo, I merely compiled it.

Kirby July 21, 2011 at 8:29 pm

Obama is libertarian. Bush was libertarian. Clinton was libertarian. Suuuure.

Gil June 23, 2011 at 11:17 pm

That’s a quality cat thrown into the Libertarian pigeons.

Sam Grove June 24, 2011 at 1:09 am

Our culture is not libertarian but you would sure like to “force” that on others.

Evidence of cluelessness.

In fact, it is being forced on all of us by those with the power and the money to steal the democratic process.

Evidence of being disingenuous.

muirgeo June 24, 2011 at 1:35 am

Look at what’s gone down in Wisconsin…. The people have figured it out and things will change or guys like the Koch brothers will have much to worry about.

SheetWise June 24, 2011 at 4:49 am

As far as I can tell, the only thing that happened in Wisconsin is an out-of-control union learned that the right to negotiate does not equate with the right to win.

Kirby July 21, 2011 at 8:29 pm

hear hear!

Babinich June 24, 2011 at 5:46 am

How weak and pathetic: all you can do is demonize and threaten.

All so very easy to do from behind a keyboard.

Justin P June 24, 2011 at 1:06 pm

Don’t forget he is a doctor. How much time do you think he spends with patients seeing how often he posts on here?

Kirby July 21, 2011 at 8:30 pm

Oh no, he is the good doctor.

mcwop June 24, 2011 at 8:50 am

The same exact thing happened here in Maryland, but the perp was a Democrat, so there was collective silence. I have no problems with unions, but I do have a problem with all the regulations around unions. You have every right to form a group and strike. But I also believe workers have the right to ignore the union, and for a business to as well.

Dan J June 25, 2011 at 12:13 am

Other workers have right to not join a union and be forced into paying the extortion money.

SheetWise June 27, 2011 at 1:31 am

DanJ –

You actually stated that correctly. Did you mean to?

Kirby July 21, 2011 at 8:31 pm

Oh, was that where that governor fired all of the teachers and hired them again in order to get rid of ‘first hired, last fired’ and renegotiate their contracts?

Dan J July 21, 2011 at 8:35 pm

@Sheetwise

Please explain.

Typing on an iPad is not easy.

I believe the statement, from June 25th, to be vital in securing individual liberty.

Say June 23, 2011 at 9:24 pm

There is nothing wrong with voluntarily forming groups, whether it be in the form of unions or corporations. What you fail to realize, muirgeo, is that you must force people to conform to your idealistic form of society. The Koch brothers are not stealing money. They are engaging in voluntary transactions. The manipulation of the government is now rampant because of regressives such as yourselves that have insisted on growing the size of government in order to force unnecessary changes in society at the whim of “experts.” Libertarians believe in free markets and being pro free market, not pro-business. The sooner you get your head around this idea, the sooner you may realize how the government abuses the size of the taxpayer base to allow private companies to assume larger and larger amounts of risk. The poor subsidizing the rich is absolutely cruel. Enjoy watching your Obama Treasury department officials continue to swing through the revolving doors. You can have your angels of bureaucracy, muirgeo. I will place my faith in the freedom of the individual.

muirgeo June 24, 2011 at 1:37 am

“What you fail to realize, muirgeo, is that you must force people to conform to your idealistic form of society.”

I’m not forcing anybody. I’m pushing for more representative democracy of ALL the people. You guys are the ones who hate democracy.

Morbius June 24, 2011 at 3:26 am

Absolutely I hate democracy, so should every sane person on the planet.

The Greeks knew thousands of years ago that democracy is nothing more than mob rule where a majority FORCE a minority to live their way.

This is what you are advocating and don’t seem to understand it, taken to it’s logical extreme a democracy is a society where: if 50.01% of the people vote that the other 49.99% are now slaves to the majority, that’s it they are slaves.

now i grant you that is an extreme example but it illustrates how democracy works.

in our current ‘culture’ if you can call it that, the people are kept in a constant state of heightened fear in order to keep a majority voting in favor of totalitarianism.

Economics and politics are not the same but are married at the hip. While a democratic process has value a “national democracy” like the traitor Lincoln imposed through his war against secession has no value at all.

Do us all a favor and study the swiss federation, a little education added to your posts would make them much more palatable.

vikingvista June 24, 2011 at 10:22 am

Next vote, 50.01% of that 50.01% (or 25.1%) enslave 74.9%. And after each iteration of democracy, a smaller minority winds up enslaving a larger majority. You wind up with the so-called “will of the people” being that the people supposedly want to be enslaved to a tyrant and have democracy abolished.

SheetWise June 24, 2011 at 5:14 am

“Democracy is not freedom. Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to eat for lunch. Freedom comes from the recognition of certain rights which may not be taken, not even by a 99% vote.” — Marvin Simkin

Dan J June 25, 2011 at 12:34 am

I luv that quote.

Greg Webb June 25, 2011 at 11:41 pm

Excellent quote!

B.Stone June 24, 2011 at 9:58 am

Had every Athenian citizen been a Socrates, every Athenian assembly would still have been a mob.
James Madison – Federalist No. 55, 1788

Dan J June 25, 2011 at 12:19 am

Democracy- as in majority (mobs) rule is an effective means of creating oppression.
Pure democracy is baaaaaddd.
And, beyond a shadow of doubt, muirgeo and progressives force others into their schemes. They limit choice and force participation. That is all they know. They abhor individualism. They abhor federalism. The recognition that their schemes fail on volunteer participation. They fail in forced participation ,too, but they can manipulate and shuffle for much long when they have the cluster of millions to create confusion for others.

Kirby July 21, 2011 at 8:38 pm

You should read John Adams. Let me help you out a little:

-A government of laws, and not of men.

-There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty.

-My country has contrived for me the most insignificant office that ever the invention of man contrived or his imagination conceived.

W.E. Heasley June 23, 2011 at 9:30 pm

Me Thinks makes a most excellent point.

Male, female, Martians, and even crazy old Uncle Paul Krugman are free to choose. If one prefers a certain corporate or business culture, many cultures are available e.g. from Microsoft to Citibank. From Exxon to Starbucks. If no culture is suitable, then self employment is an option and create your own environment.

However, no particular environment is going to be perfect. Even the self employment rout is not perfect, as were one to hire employees, would those employees prefer or match perfectly to the environment the self employed person has chosen/produced?

The question in all environments is: should jobs suit the firm and the firm’s profitability (the firm as a going concern) -or- should jobs be molded to suit the personal preferences of the particular prospective hire(s) and profit and going concern viability of the firm a secondary proposition? Do we create goods and services for the end consumer or do we create goods and services at the convenience and personal preference of the employee? Does the firm seek profit by supplying goods and services that are valued by the consumer or does the firm seek profit by supplying goods and services through many and varied personal preferences of its employees?

It would appear that in the vast majority of cases round pegs find round holes and square pegs find square holes. That the pegs move around from time to time as other square or round holes are even a better fit. However when he round peg that insists on fitting a square hole somehow, someway it’s the fault of the hole not the peg.

Kirby July 21, 2011 at 8:41 pm

However, with government, you are forced to choose one firm and one firm only, and never to leave it without violence. Poor metaphor.

Mark June 23, 2011 at 9:36 pm

Intriguing. I “hoope” that I spelled it right!

mitt romney hater June 23, 2011 at 10:02 pm

It is amazing what s loser and idiot muirgeo is, trolling this site all day making ridiculous posts, though he has never ever influenced one single person in his life. He is probably one of those doofuses who is paid by one of George Soros’s dubious outfits to do this stuff and sound like an idiot

Libertarianism doesn’t force anything upon anyone, jackass. its very definition is allowing everyone to do whatever the hell they want to.including allowing you to sound like a complete jackass.

Damn you for bringing me to ad hominem attacks. But someone’s gotta do the right thing once in a while. Go suck a sausage with venereal disease

Dan H June 23, 2011 at 10:15 pm

“Forcing” libertarianism is a big contradiction. Muirgidiot proves again why he’s the finest product the public education has to offer.

Libertarianism is the absence of force dummy.

muirgeo June 24, 2011 at 1:38 am

Libertarianism and monarchy are the same. Why do you support monarchy?

Peter McIlhon June 24, 2011 at 1:47 am

That’s dumb. You’re dumb.

P.S. While being childish, ad hominem sure are fun.

muirgeo June 24, 2011 at 2:23 am

No it’s not lets go at it.

Do you believe in Monarchy? Monarchs are just people exercising their property rights. They, or their families own all the property so everyone else on that property works for them. They must be extremely productive individuals to have all that property right? I mean they got it with no government aid or rent for there was no government… they ARE their own government. Just like we now say a mans home is his castle… they just had bigger castles…. what’s wrong with that?

Tell me why that’s wrong and careful not to paint yourself into a corner.

I am not dumb… I am just more used to thinking obliquely, deeper and into all aspects of a subject. People like you never think through your positions and just call people like me dumb because you’ve accepted what you know as the standard unbendable malleable truth and thus don’t think through your positions in any detail. You get all of your positions form others and never formulate any of your own that are original.

Morbius June 24, 2011 at 3:32 am

actually you’ve even managed to besmirch the concept of a constitutional monarchy, now that’s impressive.

all they are is exercising property rights? and you say you are not dumb? taking you at your word on that you must think we are all dumb.

i’ll tell you this, a monarchy has one major advantage over our system, the way the ruler is selected.

I’m not in favor of being ruled but i would rather it be by someone who can be identified as being responsible instead of this sick fantasy we live in the USA of “the people are the government”.

Yes give me a benevolent king any day, it’s infinitely preferable to mob rule, and if they mess up we know who to take to the gallows.

In the USA when our rulers mess up, it’s “golden parachute time” at all of our expense.

This is what you advocate, and i do not use this word lightly, Fool.

Not Carl Sagan June 24, 2011 at 3:43 am

Muirgeo,

Let’s take a look at some countries with monarchies. And see how they fare to the happiest countries.

10. United States: No Monarch
9. Netherlands: Monarch Queen Beatrix
7. Canada: Monarch Queen Elizabeth II
6. Sweden: Monarch King Carl XVI Gustaf
5. New Zealand: Monarch Queen Elizabeth II
4. Australia: Monarch Queen Elizabeth II
2.Denmark: Monarch Queen Margrethe II
1. Norway: Monarch King Harald V

Now let’s use your famously simplified and bastardized logic and come to the conclusion that in order for a country to be happy it must have a monarch. Which is clearly why the U.S. is only ranked 10th.

muirgeo June 24, 2011 at 9:27 am

Thanks Morbius,

There’s one libertarian who prefers monarchy…. any other libertarians want to prove they are not monarchist. And I am talking about Feudal Monarchs more than the more modern constitutional monarchs.

What would you guys have to say tho the Feudal Monarchs that wouldn’t be against your principles or the arguments you make here. You want to argue their land and wealth weren’t rightfully gained? THAT’s MY argument for the current monarchs but you don’t buy it. That’s why this comparison quickly has libertarians painting themselves into a corner replying with glib remarks or ad homs.

vikingvista June 24, 2011 at 11:04 am

An oppressed individual doesn’t take solace from his oppression coming from a temporary king’s manipulation of democracy rather than a lifelong king’s direct command.

muirgeo June 24, 2011 at 9:51 pm

No address the Kings property rights. He has a claim to his land. Why is it not legitimate in your eyes?

And I’ll ask you to explain how the Wall Street billionaires claim to his $10 billion of property is any more legitimate than the Kings.

Kirby July 21, 2011 at 8:43 pm

Let it be a monarchy, let it be a dictatorship, let it be socialism, let it be mob rule. Just as long as it doesn’t interfere with the lives of its victims, I don’t care what type of government it is.

Gil June 24, 2011 at 6:55 am

Is Hoppe dumb? After all, what’s wrong with families privately owning land and renting it out to others?

SheetWise June 24, 2011 at 5:16 am

Put … the … bottle … down.

muirgeo June 25, 2011 at 9:15 am

No it’s ok. I’m drinking Smart Juice. What? You thought I was the one drinking the Stupid Juice….naaahh.

SheetWise June 25, 2011 at 5:23 pm

Ahhh yes … now it comes into focus. Evian water …

Ken June 24, 2011 at 2:19 pm

muirgeo,

THERE… ARE… FOUR… LIGHTS!!!!

Regards,
Ken

Dan J June 25, 2011 at 12:35 am

Collectivism and communism is the same. Why do u support communism?

Kirby July 21, 2011 at 8:44 pm

Collectivism and ETERNAL HELLFIRE are the same. Why do you support ETERNAL HELLFIRE?

Methinks1776 June 23, 2011 at 10:22 pm

Thank you, Muirdiot. All that was missing from this day was a tsunami of schizophrenic mental diarrhea.

Dan H June 23, 2011 at 10:39 pm

I think he clearly has issues. I’m starting to feel sorry for him. Not because we gang up on him, but because I believe in every individual, and I hate to see someone subscribe to the false premises and believe the false promise of the Statists. Every mind that is dulled by this thinking is a wasted existence.

Muirgeo… Go out, be as productive as you can… Provide your fellow man something of value that he is willing to trade his labor and talents for. Do this as best as you can, and make as much money as you can doing this. Don’t feel guilty that you have made money offering a service to someone else which they were voluntarily willing to pay you for. Rejoice over it. Reward yourself by taking that money to take the Mrs on a date, and then get some action. And don’t feel guilty about it, because you didn’t harm anyone. Live up to your potential…. and lastly, I’ll stay out of your business if you stay out of mine. You keep your money and spend it as you wish, and I’ll keep my money and spend it as I wish.

vikingvista June 24, 2011 at 12:32 am

Don’t feel sorry for the malicious. The ignorant, misguided, and just plain stupid, sure, but not the malicious.

muirgeo June 24, 2011 at 2:27 am

Dan… seriously.. you don’t need to feel sorry for me… I’m a very happy and lucky guy… I 3 kittys, 2 dogs, 2 bunnies and a bird… and the rest of my lovely family. but what you wrote…. that’s like a creationist feeling sorry for me as an adherent to natural selection…. really… seriously it’s me feeling sorry for you trapped in that mind with the thought others gave you and none of your own original thoughts… you might as well be a dog or a robot.

vikingvista June 24, 2011 at 4:00 am

…and traumatic brain injury. All one big Addams family, I’m sure.

SheetWise June 24, 2011 at 5:21 am

“… I’m a very happy and lucky guy… 3 kittys, 2 dogs, 2 bunnies and a bird… and the rest of my lovely family.”

Is this list is in the order they value you — or the order you value them?

Kirby July 21, 2011 at 8:48 pm

Nah, dogs always value people more than cats.
Also, don’t be mean to Muirego. He honestly can’t help it. However, Muir, try this: You can live your life, and I can live mine, but if you try to show up with a gun at my door to redistribute my wealth, you’re no longer helping the common good: you and me.

Gordon Richens June 24, 2011 at 7:43 am

“I’m a very happy and lucky guy… I 3 kittys, 2 dogs, 2 bunnies and a bird…seriously it’s me feeling sorry for you trapped in that mind with the thought others gave you and none of your own original thoughts… you might as well be a dog or a robot.”

How liberating it must be for you to be in the company of creatures that quietly accept your habit of projecting your cognitive processes upon them without talking back.

Shidoshi June 24, 2011 at 11:10 am

Down is up and up is down. I think original thoughts, Muirgeo.

muirgeo June 24, 2011 at 9:53 pm

It’s not helpful if they don’t fit with reality.

Slappy McFee June 24, 2011 at 1:48 pm

A doctor, a parent and evidentally the owner of a petting zoo. Just how do you find time to post on CafeHayek?

Methinks1776 June 24, 2011 at 2:18 pm

LOL :)

muirgeo June 25, 2011 at 9:19 am

Me and my dog blog together…. while I’m in here straitening you guys out she’s outside blogging through the fence at the two little jackasses over there. She tells me they are clueless and dumber than dirt… but she loves to blog with them just the same.

Stone Glasgow June 23, 2011 at 11:40 pm

I think everyone is missing Muir’s point. He is saying that a lot of people don’t feel comfortable in a Libertarian world. They really do want to live with people who force them to do things they wouldn’t otherwise do. Many people feel good about being forced to pay taxes and being forced to avoid drugs, and they are happy that everyone else is in the same enslaved boat.

Many people want to live in marriages with others around them, all of them shaking sticks at each other, shaming each other, and paying tribute to their all-powerful leaders with personal sacrifice, or the sacrifices of others. Libertarians cannot imagine wanting to live in a world where they tell others how to live, and others in turn tell them how to live, but the reality is that most left-leaning people do in fact find some comfort and satisfaction in being controlled (and controlling others).

vikingvista June 24, 2011 at 12:39 am

Yes, a lot of people embrace the essence of evil. I will remain as intolerant of it as I possibly can be.

Gil June 24, 2011 at 1:40 am

No. Methinks seems to have said people should change to suit the dominant culture than be whingebags. Muirgeo then telll Libertarians our culture isn’t Libertarian so why don’t Libertarian change instead of complaining.

Stone Glasgow June 24, 2011 at 2:42 am

What is a “whingebag?”

Methinks1776 June 24, 2011 at 8:21 am

Gil, it doesn’t for one second surprise me that you can’t understand the very big difference between corporate culture and society at large.

vidyohs June 24, 2011 at 9:53 am

Actually Gil, you present once more the understanding that when it comes down to true reasoning ability, you are just so looney left, a muirhuahua clone.

What you, muirhuahua, and all the looney left are totally invested in the idea that every inter-human action must be forced if it isn’t voluntary as part of the daily dogma. Therefore, none of you can grasp the most obvious element of the libertarian (freedom loving individuals) ideology, which is acceptance or persuasion and laissez faire to everything that is not a violation of natural rights. No force, either the individual comes to the table voluntarily or he stays away, but no one will force him to act any different until he violates natural law.

That is just such a simple concept that all of us this side of the left-right rift can not comprehend how you on the other side can be so stupid.

Historical data overwhelms us with documented proof that forcing people to do things is always self-defeating and deadly to a society. The death may be prolonged and painful, or it can be sharp, short, and equally painful, but it will happen.

Let’s be specific and look at muirducks favorite whine. If the collectivist truly are as magnanimous as they like to believe of themselves, and they want to build a road for the use of the people, all the people. Why don’t they build it and not worry about who pays for it, after all they built it and they get the use out of it, isn’t that enough for a truly magnanimous group of people? Now, if they can’t afford to build the road on their own, and they can’t persuade all the people, why don’t they then accept the fact that their beloved democracy spoke against them. LOL, of course we know that doesn’t happen, looney lefties never accept democracy when it speaks against them, that’s what liberal courts were created for. If democracy works against the looney left, they sue to block the democracy decision. Happens every time.

But, I digress. Let’s get back to the logic in Methink’s quote. The logic looney lefties are incapable of seeing much less understanding.

Clearly Methinks is saying that women who voluntarily walk into situations that are not tilted in their favor have choices: 1. Stay out. 2. Immerse themselves in it and accept it as it is and do their best with it. 3. Dive in, accept it as it is, and utilize their brains and skills to prove that the culture can change, and that they do belong because their performance is equal to, or better, than their male competition, thus persuading the change that surely will follow.

3 Choices and no force, all available to not just women but to all of us as well.

But, that is not the looney left way. Nope, if a whiny group has a problem, the looney left tries to correct it with a law. Counterproductive privilege is created with the law, and all elements of production began to suffer. It has happened with every “privilege law” that has been passed, from affirmative action to forced dealings with unions.

Get a clue, Gil, there is still time for you find salvation in the light of reason.

Gil June 24, 2011 at 11:23 pm

Oh yes only Libertiarians see injustices and others only see nothing because they’re blockheads.

Kirby July 21, 2011 at 8:51 pm

You’d definitely be one of the people helping to make society better:
Who cares about Hitler? I don’t want to be a whingebag do I?

muirgeo June 24, 2011 at 2:33 am

“Libertarians cannot imagine wanting to live in a world where they tell others how to live, and others in turn tell them how to live,….”

So do you or don’t you live in such a world… do you pay attention to stop lights? Do you contract out you sewer water or do you clean it yourself?

You say you can’t imagine… It appears to me you have a huge imagination….OH LOOK AT ME…. I AM A SINGULAR INDIVIDUAL… I DID ALL THIS MYSELF… I DON”T LIVE IN A COLLECTIVE… I AM FREE..I HAVE LIBERTY LOOK AT ME…. I THINK JUST LIKE ALL THE OTHER MINDBOTS TOLD ME TOO…

Stone Glasgow June 24, 2011 at 2:40 am

Muir, I certainly do not think I am free, or that I did anything by myself, or that I live in a Libertarian world.

muirgeo June 25, 2011 at 9:21 am

Then stop suggesting that libertarianism would or could provide or for that matter avoid those things. It’s NOT a solution…..only a pipe dream. We have the real world out there to deal with.

Morbius June 24, 2011 at 3:41 am

well let’s just discuss one of your points.

have you traveled outside the USA much? I have.

One thing that fascinated me in Ukraine was how much better the traffic flowed when i was there in 2005 and 2006.

This was not for a lack of vehicles, i lived in DC and i can tell you their roads were as packed as ours but traffic flowed.

what truly shocked me was the lack of paint on the road, yield signs, there were some stop lights but not many. Really it’s as close to a laze-fare way of setting up a road system as can be imagined.

Before I saw it i would have imagined such a set up to be nothing but a carnage and death trap, but the opposite is true. When people are not given this strict structure of rules they negotiate their way through traffic and were more efficient and more polite. From what i could tell safer as well since i never saw a major accident or heard of one.

Why is this?

I can only surmise it is because the drivers don’t have the false sense of security that our system gives drivers. I am always surprised when a driver does not look before pulling out when a light turns from red to green, as if the red light in the crossing lane is going to physically stop any car. Bad news, it won’t. I am equally amazed by people who walk across a cross walk without looking. Call me dumb but i missed the part in physics where paint on a road stops a 3000 pound vehicle traveling at 40 mph, can anyone point me to a source for how this works?

Obviously these things don’t work, and the entire system depends on everyone playing along “just so” to the rigid rules set up by the system.

Of course most people do follow the rules, because there is a constant threat of violence from the state if we fail to.

But i’m quite certain that if you even understand what i’m talking about you won’t get the point.

Methinks1776 June 24, 2011 at 8:22 am

Oh, good. In his drug induced mania he found the caps lock again.

muirgeo June 25, 2011 at 9:22 am

YEAP…1776…THAT’s FUNNY!

muirgeo June 25, 2011 at 9:23 am

OOPS>>>SHOULD BE YEAP !&&^ THAT”S FUNNY!

Kirby July 21, 2011 at 8:52 pm

Again, stop lights directly correlate to making sure that the Chinese don’t encroach on our marked and sprayed territory.

Whiskey Jim June 24, 2011 at 10:24 pm

@Stone Glasgow

Your statement is true.

The thing about free markets, implied by Methinks comment, is that they allow folks to arrange any kind of employment or family life they feel most comfortable in.

Unfortunately for the rest of us, Progressive and socialist societies do not.

The problem with Progressives is not necessarily that they think so strangely and inefficiently. It is that they insist we all live like them.

Don Boudreaux June 24, 2011 at 10:27 pm

Yep.

muirgeo June 25, 2011 at 2:05 am

That’s false… we progressive advocate an agreed on set of rules that apply to all and that afford the best opportunity for the randomly born person to succeed. A libertarian society will still have rules but ultimately will require everyone to acquiesce to a corporate authoritarian culture as wealth and power concentrates ever more. It will favor those born into wealth much more than those NOT born with such access. Thus is will be MORE of a society of privilege than of merit. to I’ve yet to hear one of you give a rational explanation of how concentration of wealth and power DOESN’T happen in a libertarian society. You act as if you wanted to you cold go head to head with CITI bank or Walmart or ADM…. you can’t.
It is the libertarian who insist a majority of people live in poverty as the wealthy’s ever present unending pool of labor to be paid starvation wages or die.

brotio June 25, 2011 at 3:29 am

we progressive advocate an agreed on set of rules that apply to all ..

Is that why you support corporate welfare for Chrysler, GM, GE, and ADM; but not for AIG, or Goldman-Sachs?

muirgeo June 25, 2011 at 9:27 am

No bro but it is why side by side our two positions appear as clairvoyance and jackassedness sitting in a room together.

Stupid spell checker doesn’t think that adjective for you is a word. Oh yes it is… and you’ve defined it.

brotio June 25, 2011 at 4:40 pm

Of course, you didn’t explain how your rules apply equally to everyone while allowing and celebrating corporate welfare for Chrysler, GM, GE, and ADM; but not for AIG, and Goldman-Sachs.

Quack… Quack… Quack…

Kirby July 21, 2011 at 8:57 pm
Greg Webb June 25, 2011 at 11:52 pm

“The problem with Progressives is not necessarily that they think so strangely and inefficiently. It is that they insist we all live like them.” No. Progressives (really, Regressives) insist that we live like they want us to live while the elites (and all Progressives think that they are part of the elite) deserve to live better than the rest of us. For example, the Soviet Union where the elite comrades were the nomenclatura who got special privileges compared to the rest of the comrades who didn’t get those special privileges.

Peter McIlhon June 24, 2011 at 1:44 am

Cafehayek needs to install a ‘like’ button because I’m too lazy to write the actual word, except of course to go on to explain why I’m too lazy to write it.

muirgeo June 24, 2011 at 1:53 am

Yes mam,

I was thinking about you and 1776. Do you have a clue what the revolution was about? Do you know what happened to the overbearing corporations of the day and to the rich tories that sided with them? Your side had its ass handed to it back then. You were not on the side of the revolutionaries then and you won’t be this time.

Did you see the nurses marching on Wall Street yesterday?

Did you see the teachers marching last month?

Get used to it because those crowds are gonna get bigger and bigger and more angry… read a little history if you think this is all fun and games laughing while families drown….

Morbius June 24, 2011 at 3:44 am

wow i love it, reading your posts is amazing.

so you really believe more of what has made the country so sick is going to save us? really?

so how do you answer the charge that your blessed Socialism is the ONLY idea in history with a body count that DWARFS all religions combined?

guess you gotta break a few eggs to make an omelet huh? or in this case kill a few hundred million people?

Gordon Richens June 24, 2011 at 3:08 pm

Sorta like the “hair of the dog” cure. However all you get in the end is a bald dog.

Craig S June 24, 2011 at 9:33 am

Get used to it because those crowds are gonna get bigger and bigger and more angry…

Awesome, so we’ll be like Greece. When are you libs going to learn, there is no magic unicorn. Basically what these people are protesting is that they want other people to give them stuff, healthcare, education what ever. I find it ammusing that wanting to keep what you earn is called selfish, but demanding other people give you stuff is not.

Whiskey Jim June 24, 2011 at 10:26 pm

I used to believe that when Europe began falling, the world would consciously begin a focused attempt to understand why socialism does not work.

I no longer believe that.

mitt romney hater June 24, 2011 at 1:35 am

muirgeo: most of us think you should suck a sausage and choke on it and get trichonisis. So by your beliefs, shouldn’t you have to oblige us? After all, individual interests/desires (ie. libertarianism) should be subservient to the “democratic process” — ie. the will of the majority — no matter how tyrannical they may be…. I don’t mean to be facetious; I am just demonstrating the absurdity of the worship of the democratic process. Seriously, do yourself a favor and watch this video of Don speaking about Public Choice Economics http://www.newmedia.ufm.edu/gsm/index.php?title=El_an%C3%A1lisis_de_las_decisiones_colectivas If you keep an open mind, you will realize that what is often touted as the “will of the people,” “majority rule,” and the “democratic process,” is often nothing of the sort.

————————————————————————————

Now, on a separate but somewhat related note: I live in NY, which is currently going through a big public debate on whether the state should recognize queer marriage. The majority of Americans in every poll oppose it, but its advocates have suddenly taken up complaining about a “tyranny of the majority.” I find it amusing that all those Leftists who advocate the “democratic process” in everything else, are suddenly talking about Tyranny of the Majority now that it suits their agenda ;-)

Gil June 24, 2011 at 1:44 am

Methinks’ quote clearly states that women should suck sausages instead of getting uppity. So should they have the right to be vocal of what they see as injustices in a system or what?

muirgeo June 24, 2011 at 9:32 am

Majority of Americans support gay marriage in poll

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/21/us-gay-marriage-poll-idUSTRE74K0B520110521

You’ve quickly proved yourself irrelevant.

mitt romney hater June 24, 2011 at 1:38 pm

That is the first poll I have seen with those results. I can’t say I am shocked; same-sex marriage has consistently gotten more support, unfortunately. But anyway, I assume that if a majority indeed opposed it, you would then have to oppose it as well; after all, majority rule is the be-all end-all, right?

Not Carl Sagan June 24, 2011 at 5:33 pm

Muirgeo,

But wasn’t gay marriage banned by the voters of your oh so tolerant state, California? And was it not also done through your favorite mechanism, democracy? Yet I assume you agree with Judge Walker’s ruling overturning the ban.

brotio June 25, 2011 at 3:32 am

Not surprising that our Dear Ducktor chose not to answer you.

Quack… Quack… Quack…

Kirby July 21, 2011 at 8:59 pm

Take that poll in 1800 and see how progressive we would have become

mitt romney hater June 24, 2011 at 2:51 am

muirgeo: it is such a cop-out to simply accuse those who disagree with you of not thinking for themselves. Nobody with an opposing view ever thought for himself and came to that conclusion on his own; he only repeats the “standard” truth he is taught to believe, rigt? Only muirgeo thinks for himself and has “original” views. Puhleez.

You have every right to your opinion and to disagree with others’, but it is very disingenuous of you to misrepresent the other side. Libertarianism is not monarchy; quite the opposite. Libertarians believe neither in the supremacy of minority will — ie. monarchy — nor in the supremacy of majority will — ie. democracy. Rather, we believe in individual freedoms. The minority need not follow the majority, NOR the other way around. everyone have the freedom to do what he pleases (so long as it doesn’t infringe on another’s freedom). I don’t understand why you believe the choice is either minority will or majority will. There is a third (much better) way: Individual will. Yes, you should have the right to your individual beliefs, no matter how much most of us here think you are full of crap…. You’d be best off sticking to arguing the substance of the issues, than in resorting to typical crap of accusing those who disagree with you of not thinking for themselves.

sandre June 24, 2011 at 3:13 am

Muirdouche has been bombarding us with his unique muirdouchean economics for the last half a decade. Muirdouchean economics stands on 4 strong unbreakable pillars/principles – 1. relentless stupidity, 2. non-sequiturs 3. disingenuity and 4. name-calling

MarketJohnson June 24, 2011 at 3:36 am

Economic Libertarianism, on a long enough time line, leads to monopoly, which, in any country where money is equivalent to political power, is monarchy.

Now, have at it, hivemind.

Peter McIlhon June 24, 2011 at 6:10 am

I’m curious. Why is this so, and how long would it take? Also, Libertarianism’s goal (one of them) is to seperate government from private business (see crony capitalism) so I don’t understand your point. Really I guess, just explain what you wrote.

I just hope you aren’t confusing open competition and innovation with monopolization.

Craig S June 24, 2011 at 9:38 am

Economic Libertarianism, on a long enough time line, leads to monopoly,

Really, provide examples of where this has happened, with out government assistance.

kyle8 June 24, 2011 at 6:31 am

Once again you all have let the small minded, petty, would be tyrant Muirgeo hijack a thread. I admit he is marginally useful in illustrating the utter bankruptcy of those who want to control others.

But ultimately he is more useful as an admonition to not feed the trolls.

Ryan Vann June 24, 2011 at 6:53 am

You need wading boots to ford the slober river created by this thread.

Scott June 24, 2011 at 8:06 am

Ignore muir. He adds nothing to the debate, because he is simply argumentative by nature. There is no logical discussion with people like him. He would disagree about the color of the sky if it got a response here.

joe cushing June 24, 2011 at 8:30 am

I kept scrolling and scrolling looking for comments about the blog post at the top but I found non. I thought it was an interesting topic. The post was about culture within a firm, not culture within society. Does anyone have anything to say about the post? I’d like the auther to add some info–like some examples of cultures and what women want to change them too. I get his point in abstract but I can’t think of an example myself to see if I agree or not.

Methinks1776 June 24, 2011 at 9:14 am

Hi, Joe. Once Muirdiot has one of his mental breakdowns on thread, it’s usually a goner.

The post from which Don pulled my quote is about Wal-Mart. In that case, women objected to being treated the same way as men. Managers at a certain level are often transferred to different stores. There are very good reasons for doing this. Women with children to care for find this burdensome. I say “too bad”. So did the Supreme Court.

Corporate culture is emergent. It doesn’t exist to specifically keep women out, it exists because each business requires something different of its employees. Wal-Mart doesn’t move managers around for the hell of it or to keep women out of the ranks of management. Investment bankers don’t pull all-nighters to keep women out. Firefighters need to be able to carry grown men out of burning buildings. These are just the requirements of the job. Some women would like the employer to accommodate their needs rather than accommodating the employer’s. On a case by case basis, I can understand why an employer might do that. There’s little I wouldn’t do to accommodate my star employees. But, to require accommodation based on social, racial or gender group one belongs to is to force the employer to pay for the personal lifestyle choices of those groups. Is it reasonable to impose the costs of your lifestyle choices on others?

muirgeo June 24, 2011 at 9:54 am

The case isn’t about sexual discrimination. That IS illegal. This case is about filing class action law suits. It’s one more victory for corporate power and control.

Ken June 24, 2011 at 2:24 pm

False.

Kirby July 21, 2011 at 9:03 pm

The case is about how much people should force their employer to pay them for not acommodating their every need

Trapper_John June 24, 2011 at 10:56 am

“Corporate culture is emergent.” True, and a good point, but what if it emerges in a way contrary to norms established for equity of race and sex? The examples you give are valid and dependent on ability and/or choices (if a woman can lift as much as a man, she can be a firefighter). But what of the discriminating store owner? If his customers are also racist/sexist/etc., perhaps his business model emerges in an unjust way. Think of the lunch counters in the South back in the 1960′s and earlier. Is there a role for government intervention in toppling ensconced societal norms as carried out by private individuals?

vikingvista June 24, 2011 at 11:43 am

“contrary to norms established for equity of race and sex…But what of the discriminating store owner? If his customers are also racist/sexist/etc.,”

What you are describing is necessarily a small minority market, since it violates norms. The economic effect is therefore likely small.

Let the oddballs have their peaceful way. The alternative, government imposition of a particular behavior upon everyone, is not only an initiation of force against the peaceful, but it can force bad behavior as well as good. A classic example is Jim Crow laws which violently prohibited business owners and city managers who did not want to enforce segregation from opening up their facilities to certain customers. It shut the door on improvement.

The irony of federal Civil Rights laws (or of any statist infinite regress) is that merely expanding the domain of imposed behavior is no guarantee that the imposed behavior will be always be good. It is only a guarantee that there will be fewer options for the victims of that behavior to escape or effect change.

A safer solution to Jim Crow laws was not to broaden coercive authority, but to diminish it.

Methinks1776 June 24, 2011 at 12:35 pm

…but what if it emerges in a way contrary to norms established for equity of race and sex?

You mean like the owners of Scores strip club in Manhattan not hiring male strippers or Hooters refusing to hire male waiters and designers refusing to use morbidly obese models to show their clothes on runways? I don’t have a problem with it.

And established by whom? Is it government’s role to establish norms and if norms are established by society, then – as VV points out – anyone not adhering to them is by definition a small minority. What possible reason could there be to waste time money and energy in coercing these people because their preferences don’t match that of the majority? Let them die out in their own time.

The government can’t force preferences. Nor does the government have any right to force business owners to bear the cost of the government’s preferred social norm on business owners. It does have an obligation to insure non-discrimination in the public sphere. A public library, for example, cannot discriminate against anyone. You cannot tax a person to pay for something and then not let them use it.

muirgeo June 24, 2011 at 9:36 am

Yes the culture inside a firm is authoritarian.

Ken June 24, 2011 at 6:41 pm

muirgeo,

False. One of the defining features of authoritarianism is force. No firm in the US can force you to do anything. You may choose to cooperate with the management team and other employees or not, the same way they can choose to cooperate with you. But at no time can they force you to do anything. If a cooperative agreement cannot be met, a firm may fire you or you can quit, both of which is simply a refusal to cooperate. Neither of which uses the application of force.

Under authoritarian governments, force is regularly used. Just ask the Kurds. And authoritarians use force to prevent people from leaving the country. This was the purpose of the Berlin Wall and all the barbed wire separating East Germany from West Germany. Neither the wall’ nor the wire’s purpose was to keep West Germans out.

Regards,
Ken

Gil June 24, 2011 at 11:19 pm

Puh-lease. Love it or leave it is fun when you get to define it apparently.

Ken June 25, 2011 at 12:12 am

Gil,

What are you talking about? I can’t think of anything that is love it or leave it, nor have I defined anything as such.

Regards,
Ken

brotio June 25, 2011 at 2:03 am

Ken,

Yasafi is very fond of the Nixonian mantra, “love it or leave it”. If Nixon had been a Democrat, he’d rank up there with St Franklin of Roosevelt in Yasafi’s list of top Righteous Rulers.

joe cushing June 24, 2011 at 10:07 am

Ok, that makes sense. I agree. I used to work as a walmart manager and I found women depertment managers, an hourly position of managing stuff moreso than people, were not interested in moving up to management. WM department managers are in a rare position in retail were a person works mon to fri from 7 to 4. The managers work a rotating life sucking schedule that is hard even for a single person with no kids. So whenever I see these papers pointing to promotion stats at walmart, I always know that it is the Women who don’t ask and not the managers overlooking the women. You have to give up a lot to get a little for that first promotion into management.

Methinks1776 June 24, 2011 at 10:50 am

Exactly. I found the same dynamic working in I-banks. Many women stayed in support positions where they could negotiate for more flexible schedules and less time traveling to meet clients in order to achieve a work/life balance. Those who didn’t make that choice were only hindered by their abilities and ambition.

Whiskey Jim June 24, 2011 at 10:56 pm

This is true of management in almost any industry.

In some ways, I struggle with the idea. A lot of men have missed their children’s childhoods in pursuit of their careers, and it is a terrible trade-off. But if you want to perform the job well, you can not have both.

To your comment which inspired this thread, people have choices. It is still a nasty choice. I was single for the first half of my career, I enjoyed the work and I am good at it. I gave up my career and all the money when I had a child. There was no way to have both given my situation.

To sue Wal-Mart for choices is a simplistic and statist view of the world. I believe I can voice your comment from the other side of the coin:

To think that adding value is easy and can be accomplished in flex time or without giving extraordinary effort is naive. Many management positions can only be accomplished with comparatively heroic hours. Ask most entrepreneurs what their hourly wage is. Concentrating on the outliers who become millionaires or billionaires does not paint an accurate picture.

If I had to guess, women with children would explain Wal-mart’s manager disparity by sex.

Scott June 24, 2011 at 11:27 am

Good point joe. Reality on the ground is so often different from the behind the desk suppositions.

mitt romney hater June 24, 2011 at 1:43 pm

muirgeo: you have still failed to explain how libertarianism supports rule by the few and powerful…. True, there are many powerful corporations who get special favors on the public dime from their politician enablers in our society, but that has nothing to do with libertarianism. Our society is not libertarian, dude….

You sound just like those people who eg. blame the “free market” for the economic meltdown of ’08, even though our economy is so heavily regulated, it can hardly be called a free market. I fully agree that neither corporations nor anyone else should get any special favors from politicians; Russ Roberts has deemed that “not capitalism; it’s ‘crony capitalism.’ ” But that is the very OPPOSITE of libertarianism

mitt romney hater June 24, 2011 at 1:48 pm

RE: the Wal mart case: muirgeo is actually correct (!) that the ruling was related not to sex discrimination, but to class actions. The Court did not rule on the substance of the claims; it only said that all the women could not be put into one class. Because Wal mart gives individual store managers wide discretion in promotions, so even if discrimination did take place, it was in individual decisions on a case-by-case basis, not a single corporation-wide policy…. Of course, nutjobs on the Left will complain about this being a victory for evil corporations, but the fact is it would have been unfair and inconsistent with the law governing class actions to have all the women in 1 class. Of course, the knee-jerk muirgeo response is that it must be bad cuz it rules in favor of the corporation; there is no attempt to look at this issue itself and decide whether it was ruled correctly, right?

mitt romney hater June 24, 2011 at 1:54 pm

just to further explain the Wal Mart case: the point is that since individual store managers have wide discretion in deciding who to promote, any possible discrimination was the result of the individual manager(s) decision, not a single policy across the corporation. Therefore, each case would have to be decided separately, as to whether there was discrimination in that instance. It would be completely unfair to have ‘em all put into one class, considering that Wal Mart’s defense in each case would be different; they can’t be expected to defend so many cases with a single defense, when the circumstances of each individual case warrant separate defenses….

—————————————————————————

We’d all be far better off if the gov’t repealed all these nonsensical laws that interfere with private business decisions. Even if this “discrimination” did exist, private individuals and companies should be free to do whatever the hell they want to… But of course, these laws may never be repealed, cuz they are loved by the leftist race-hustlers in Congress, and the tort lawyers who have them in their back pocket.

Austin Austrian June 24, 2011 at 5:27 pm

Among my accumulation of favorite quotes is this:

“Jobs are not the property of the worker or even the employer, they belong to the final customer.”–Chucklehead (somewhere in the Cafe Hayek archives, perhaps channeling the proprietor himself)

John Sullivan June 24, 2011 at 9:24 pm

Aren’t the “demands of busines”, as described by methinks, essentially the demands of consumers, the majority of which are women, and who conduct most of the consumer purchasing for their families? Yes.

Regarding the ownership of jobs, they aren’t property, so they can’t be owned.

The existence of jobs and what they pay, however, are ultimately traced to the action of consumers.

Mesa Econoguy June 25, 2011 at 5:34 am

I never trust what I thinks.

Previous post:

Next post: