The Chutzpah of the “Do Something” Crowd

(Austrian) Economics, Corporatism, Nanny Statism, Vulgar Politics
Share

Supporters of free markets are often attacked for their “Do Nothing Principle” position, which tends to deeply upset policy wonks and media talking heads alike. Obviously this is buncombe, and to the contrary it is these would-be do-somethingers who are intellectually or ideologically incapable of grasping the sweeping scope of necessary changes that free market advocates are calling for.

For example, the charge that “Hangover Theorists” are selfish moralizers who want poor and middle-class families to needlessly suffer during a recession is prima facie incorrect. The interlocutor is simply misled by my yawning enthusiasm for his policy prescriptions into thinking I have no “serious” and “realistic” plan to help society, and that I want to “do nothing.”

Do nothing you say?

To the contrary, I advocate doing a lot, including the complete abolition of the Federal Reserve, the US Treasury, the US Federal Mint, the US departments relating to labor, trade, banking, securities, etc. It is those who want to merely tweak a bit here and there who are hem-hawing over making serious policy changes, and who have the gall to accuse me of advocating to “do nothing”!

The Chutzpah of the “Do Something” Crowd Read Post »

The Shutdown and What It Means To You

Anti-Statism, Humor, Statism
Share

With all the hysteria in the mass-media in concern to the shutdown, your friendly Libertarian Standard blogger is here to deliver a public service announcement to allay any dissonance you may be needlessly experiencing.

You, dear citizen, will not be regaining any freedoms you might have had before; anything that otherwise might have been permitted to you before as a natural, human right will not necessarily be allowed again because of this unfortunate shutdown event.

THESE FOLLOWING ITEMS WILL BE UNAFFECTED BY US GOVERNMENT SERVICE CUTS:

  • The freedom to retain the full gain of property you’ve obtained through voluntary means. Our dedicated IRS agents will be working round-the-clock to ensure that you pay your full due (and then some). Sadly, due to current budgeting woes, money you’ve lent us interest-free (thanks again!) in advance will be held hostage due to despicable, greedy taxpayers shamelessly(!) refusing to fork over more of their property.
  • There will no freedom to enter or leave your invisible jail without permission papers from your ever-so-gracious wardens. You will have to defer your furlough plans until passport services are resumed.
  • You will not be free to trade with people living in other territories without paying our bridge trolls the proper custom. Any privacy you think you may have to be secure in either your person or property is out of the question once you are within the marked territories of the bridge trolls or their Uruk-hai siblings at the TSA.
  • The freedom to consume foodstuffs or chemicals for your pleasure and even health will be strictly prohibited without the specific permission of our Surgeon General. Any pleasurable activities that are as yet unknown are categorically forbidden by emergency measure. Yes, Granny may die because the FDA couldn’t approve her medicine in time, but so what, somebody might get high in the meanwhile, and we couldn’t have that, no sirree.

Always remember- a government shutdown affects YOU, not them.

The Shutdown and What It Means To You Read Post »

Secondhand Statism

Anti-Statism, Education, Libertarian Theory, Statism
Share

A common charge leveled at free-market advocates is that, if as FMA’s claim  the free-market could/would be superior to the existing “mixed economy”, then why hasn’t it already been widely adopted due to it’s supposed superiority– and furthermore, FMA’s should accept that this shows that their minority position is rightly deserved to be such. Obviously, this is a weak claim, but in my estimation a fairly common one.

I can think of a number of reasons why this charge is without merit. For one, it assumes that the knowledge regarding the operational structure necessary for a freed-market [sic] is widespread. A casual glance at political commentary that emanates from likes of expert talking-heads, down to the teeny-boppers in school reveals that many people conflate a Dickensian perception for a free society.

Secondly, the claim is based on a flawed understanding of the concept of rationality. Rationality does not mean for someone’s actions to be considered “normal”. To illustrate this, think of a smoker, who we will assume for this day and age is well aware of the dangers of cigarette smoke. Most people would say the smoker’s actions demonstrate irrationality, but as Ludwig von Mises taught, all purposeful action is rational by definition. In other words, the smoker is aware of the costs to his actions, but in his estimation, the immediate benefits outweigh those long-term risks (the costs) that he is willing to undertake.

In this sense, the smoking habit is rational. To claim otherwise is akin to dictating to another person what is their favorite ice cream flavor, despite whatever that person may say about his own likes. What people actually mean regarding the smoker, is that if the smoker presumingly values his good health and lifestyle as much as they do, then how could he possibly still choose to smoke. But this is a disagreement over ends, and not the means advocated to obtain those ends. Quite correctly, a smoker could agree with the anti-smoking advocate in concern to the effectiveness of the means, and would simply prefer different ends. (It’s likely that he would prefer good health too, but in his preference scale, the immediate enjoyment of a smoke is more highly preferred than to a distant risk.)

Another explanation is that the smoker is simply not aware of the severity of the risks involved and in effect he doesn’t have enough knowledge to internalize those costs into his decision process. Presumingly, once he is made aware he would make the attempt to change his habits– but it’s still subject to a cost-benefit analysis! (A person on or nearer his deathbed may choose to continue smoking, while someone with long-term life expectancy may choose to value the good health of a protracted life associated with quitting the habit.)

The only valid way to term the smoker’s habit as irrational would be if the smoker’s means were knowingly incompatible with his ends. Meaning, that if there was a person who valued his good health above the enjoyment of the smoke and yet continues to smoke, then can we term his actions irrational, and such a person would be in need of psychiatric help. Of course, most people who continue to smoke might only claim to value their good health above all, while their actions simply demonstrate, or reveal their higher-ranked preference is for smoking.

To get back on subject, the interlocutor was in effect asking the FMA, are you really saying that all state-supporting people are irrational– how can the FMA hold that 99% of the population is irrational? To this the FMA can genuinely respond in the negative, that he does not think statists to be irrational. After all, the FMA can be charitable to assume that most statists believe statism to be beneficial. And just like with smoking, prior to the knowledge of the risks and costs being acknowledged and understood by the public at large, the FMA is likewise trying to educate others about the inherent dangers and costs of statism.

Secondhand Statism Read Post »

Passing a BillMeNow For Later

(Austrian) Economics, Business, Nanny Statism
Share

Jeremy B. White of the NY Observer writes:

“City Council Member Brad Lander introduced a bill today that would require banks to help pay for the upkeep of foreclosed homes by posting bonds with a minimum value of $10,000.”

What he failed to write was that if this bill were to pass, new mortgage applications would either require a $10,000 fee to cover for foreclosure contingencies, or more likely just include a risk premium for that $10,000 bond. Even if the bill would ban sticking the potential mortgager with that bill, it would compel banks to be even stricter in their lending standards than they would have been otherwise, thus cutting off otherwise qualified applicants from buying homes, foreclosed or otherwise.

In either scenario, the tendency will be to have empty foreclosed homes sitting longer in unkempt vacancy than in the counterfactual situation in which the government didn’t meddle as much.

Don’t you love well-intentioned, yet clueless legislators?

Passing a BillMeNow For Later Read Post »

Scroll to Top