Talk About Chutzpah
So Steve Landsburg totally busted Paul Krugman’s bogus critique of Eric Cantor. Specifically, in order to show that Cantor’s insistence that any disaster spending be offset by other cuts violated “basic economics,” Krugman had to initially assume that government fiscal policy was optimal. Neither Krugman nor Cantor thinks that. It is a bit like saying, “Cantor is an idiot! Suppose aliens showed up and said that if we ran a $1 billion higher deficit, then they’d cure cancer. Clearly any reasonable person can see we need higher deficit spending now.”
So what did Krugman do? He could have ignored it, but Landsburg’s blog post is picking up traction and it would have been a glaring omission in the eyes of the free-market econ bloggers (all 6 of us). So instead Krugman very lightly acknowledges the point–without conceding any wrongdoing on his part of course–and then spins it so that Landsburg is a defender of blackmail (hey that’s Walter Block’s job!):
Landsburg points out, correctly, that the proposition that a spending increase should be offset with a little bit of pain everywhere and everywhen — that is, with higher current and future taxes and lower current and future spending on many things — follows from assuming that the government starts from a position of doing the right thing. If you think the government’s priorities are all wrong, then theory doesn’t tell you much about what should happen.
But wait: Eric Cantor is the one claiming that there’s a principle here, that any spending rise on disaster relief must be offset with current spending cuts. I’m critiquing that assertion; there is no such principle. I should have been clearer on that.
Where Landsburg really goes where he shouldn’t, though, is by comparing Cantor’s proposal to denying someone goodies unless he shapes up elsewhere — he uses the example of a teenager who won’t be allowed to go to the prom unless he does his chores. Is that really a good metaphor for what’s happening here?
Remember, Cantor isn’t denying something called “the government” the right to do something it wants to do. He’s denying disaster relief to people hard hit by a hurricane. That is, he’s holding suffering Americans hostage to his goal of smaller government. And the whole point of his offsetting spending cuts thing — his invention of a nonsense principle — is to obscure the ruthlessness of the blackmail involved.
Is this really a tactic you want to defend?
I’ll let Steve defend himself, but I just want to point out that no, Dr. Krugman, Steve wasn’t so much defending Cantor’s political move. He was pointing out that your critique of it–in which you attempt, as always, to cast your opponents as complete idiots who are violating “basic economics”–was a total non sequitur, relying on an initial assumption that neither you nor Cantor believes.
Steve, if you read this first…just collect yourself. Rather than firing off some quick blog post repeating the back-and-forth, try to think of a really good analogy or illustration of Krugman’s diversionary tactic here.
Last point: The post title is a reference to the fact that Krugman routinely guffaws at the “chutzpah” of others. I don’t personally drop Yiddish bombs myself.
“and it would have been a glaring omission in the eyes of the free-market econ bloggers (all 6 of us).”
as an advocate of a fixed currency regime, can you really consider yourself a free market economist?
Yes.
It’s confusing to me to claim the free market is best suited to define the supply and demand of all goods and services with the exception of the money supply. Why not let the free market determine the money supply as well?
It’s also baffling to me why people claim fixed currencies are superior given their correlation to high unemployment, and the present dire situation in Europe. But then again, understanding floating, non-convertible monetary systems is lacking by most.
It’s confusing to me to claim the free market is best suited to define the supply and demand of all goods and services with the exception of the money supply. Why not let the free market determine the money supply as well?
It’s confusing to me to claim the state is best suited to define the supply and demand of money with the exception of goods and services. Why not let the state determine the goods and services as well?
It’s also baffling to me why people claim fixed currencies are superior given their correlation to high unemployment, and the present dire situation in Europe. But then again, understanding floating, non-convertible monetary systems is lacking by most.
European currency is not fixed, and unemployment is caused by fiat money credit expansion.
The Euro might be floating, but European currencies are fixed, that is the drachma and the peseta are fixed to the DM.
Unemployment is caused by a government deficit being too small.
The Euro might be floating, but European currencies are fixed, that is the drachma and the peseta are fixed to the DM.
To be fixed to a floating airplane, doesn’t mean you’re on the ground.
Unemployment is caused by a government deficit being too small.
Government is great, government is good, let us thank it for our loot, amen.
No Mammy, unemployment is caused by prevailing wage rates being higher than the rates that would clear the market given the demand for labor.
Surpluses are caused by prices being too high given the demand.
Unemployment is currently in double digits, and the deficit is larger today than it has ever been, and the deficit is higher today than it was in the past when unemployment was lower.
And no, I don’t buy the “then that just means the deficit should be larger today” nonsense. You MMT morons would have the government run a large enough deficit that drops unemployment to zero, and you’d say that the deficit was still too small.
Inflation is not a full employment policy.
The only relevant point is that fixed currencies without a common fiscal policies are a problem, as evidenced by Russia, Argentina and the Eurozone crisis.
Unemployment means taxes are too high, i.e. deficits are too small.
Even a moron like you should get that.
The only relevant point is that fixed currencies without a common fiscal policies are a problem, as evidenced by Russia, Argentina and the Eurozone crisis.
Hahaha, so everything you said so far, forget that because yeah, it’s stupid and wrong, because what you have been saying all along, in magical land, is that countries that can’t print their own money, but spend and borrow too much, will eventually hit a crisis.
Wow, such profound wisdom from the MMT camp.
Next thing you’ll say is that the only way inflation financed cash balances can increase, is if there is inflation.
Unemployment means taxes are too high, i.e. deficits are too small.
No, unemployment means wage rates are too high.
It does not mean deficits are too low and it doesn’t mean taxes are too high.
Lower deficits and higher taxes can accompany full employment, as long as the price of labor is low enough such that the existing demand for labor can clear the market for labor.
You’re ignoring prices, supply and demand, basically you’re ignoring economics. You’re an idiot.
Did you browse through the comments section of Dr. Landsburg’s post? Even his critique is being laid thread-bare by a lot of commenters.
I read a lot of people who don’t know that when you cut spending, its marginal benefit goes up (not down). Is that what you mean?
What a schlemiel.
” That is, he’s holding suffering Americans hostage to his goal of smaller government”
This of course illustrates what is right to the heart of welfare statism. The premise that the misfortune of one person is a direct/just/valid claim to the fortune of others i.e. altruism.
I believe in altruism. I don’t believe in taking money from one guy at gunpoint and giving it to somebody else. In fact I think it is scandalous that the proponents of the latter, rely on the goodwill justifiably given to the former.
So then which of the two beliefs reigns supreme, the belief in freedom from coercion or the belief that the meek shall inherit the earth?
If it is your position that moral virtue ultimately consists of giving to those in need, superseding the virtue of leaving people free to suffer or prosper the consequences of their own actions then on what grounds can you object when the freedoms of some are sacrificed to ensure that the meek get what is entitled to them?
> If it is your position that moral virtue ultimately consists of giving to those in need …
Ok, voluntary action to give to the needy with no coercive taking. I’m not sure Bob’s position is that all of moral virtue consists of such.
> … superseding the virtue of leaving people free to suffer or prosper the consequences of their own actions
It’s not clear what you mean by supersede. These virtues can exist side by side. Perhaps one is held to be higher or more important than the other.
> … on what grounds can you object when the freedoms of some are sacrificed to ensure that the meek get what is entitled to them?
Seems like a non sequitur to me. Have we established that the meek are in fact entitled to anything? That the meek shall inherit the earth seems more of a prophecy than a prescription for government. I don’t think Bob subscribes to the idea that we must engage in coercive action to *ensure* that the prophecy is fulfilled.
Finally, there are always grounds to object to the sacrifice of freedom (or anything) if alternatives exist without such sacrifice.
“It’s not clear what you mean by supersede. These virtues can exist side by side. Perhaps one is held to be higher or more important than the other.”
I mean exactly that. Which one is more important?
Clearly, the entire subjective value theory apparatus is based on an ordinal measurement scale based on a person’s emotional hierarchy so which state of affairs is more important in regard to ones choice of actions? Freedom or Altruism?
If altruism is more important than freedom then Krugman/liberals et al are moral to force those who have to give to those who do not and those who are opposed are immoral and are guilty of “holding suffering Americans hostage”.
It seems to me that those who believe in altruism cannot also believe in freedom, not if they wish to avoid charges of hypocrisy.
Cognitive dissonance is a vice that is not unique to the left.
dogmai wrote:
It seems to me that those who believe in altruism cannot also believe in freedom, not if they wish to avoid charges of hypocrisy.
When I first read that, it sounded like nonsense. But then I thought I should be charitable, and try to give you the benefit of the doubt. Yet I didn’t want you to get mad at me for such statism, so now I’m back to thinking your statement is nonsense.
“But then I thought I should be charitable, and try to give you the benefit of the doubt.”
But why do you assume that I need your charity or your agreement or your sanction. I do not, just as you do not need mine. Isnt that what we mean by freedom as opposed to statism?
@crossofcrimson,
“I’ll just take that as a “I don’t care to listen to this.”
Actually, I did listen to it and all of my arguments still stand.
If all ends are not only hypothetical but are subjective as well then, logically, the only form of human interaction that can follow from that is aggression for what the subjective value theory means in practice is that no one person can have any claim to a legitimate i.e. inalienable right to the ends of his choice, his “right” to those ends can only come from the sanction of his fellow men and if they disagree with his choice of ends and are not willing to let him be then he has no “right” to pursue them against the wishes of those in power be it a minority or a majority. It is nothing more than a formula for outright tyranny since it essential means that either one agrees with the consensus or one is wrong/false/evil and must be prevented from actions that frustrate the goals of the consensus. Freedom does not flow from a mob of subjectivist. Not ever.
I would suggest that you read this instead of listening to Mr. Long’s straw men made of a host of floating abstractions and stolen concepts.
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~lormand/phil/teach/rand/readings/Binswanger%20-%20Life-based%20teleology%20and%20the%20foundations%20of%20ethics%20(highlights).pdf
“If all ends are not only hypothetical but are subjective as well then, logically, the only form of human interaction that can follow from that is aggression for what the subjective value theory means in practice is that no one person can have any claim to a legitimate i.e. inalienable right to the ends of his choice, his “right” to those ends can only come from the sanction of his fellow men and if they disagree with his choice of ends and are not willing to let him be then he has no “right” to pursue them against the wishes of those in power be it a minority or a majority.”
That sentence alone is proof that you didn’t listen to the lecture. This point is explicitly, and in detail, addressed in the lecture. I’m tired of running around in circles with someone who isn’t willing to listen. If, instead of actually addressing the points made in response to your objections you simply repeat the objections (as if they weren’t addressed at all), then this has stopped being a productive conversation. I apologize for taking up space on Bob’s blog by even trying. Take care.
@crossofcrimson,
“That sentence alone is proof that you didn’t listen to the lecture. ”
Well, just so you know, I can tell you, explicitly, that he did not, in fact, address this in the lecture.
That is, if you mean by address, he stated something to the effect (and I paraphrase) that “values do not reside in objects nor in the subject, they are neither here nor there nor are they anywhere”. wow. thanks for that. really.
If you qualify such meally mouthed nonsense as legitimate refuation of objectivist value theory they you are absolutely correct that this conversation will go nowhere and is a waste of both our times.
Dogmai, do you think people ought to tell the truth?
Yes, of course. Voluntary cooperation between individuals is impossible if the object of their cooperation can never be accurately established between them. How the proponents of a subjective value theory square that with freedom is conundrum that I will leave to you to reconcile.
dogmai,
This will help if you haven’t bothered looking into it yourself:
http://mises.org/media/1739/Objective-and-Subjective-Value
@Crossofcrimson,
Im familiar with the idea from Mises Human Action, I just disagree that freedom as an organizing principle is the conclusion that follows from such a premise for if it is a given that the ends aimed at are purely subjective in nature, then it cannot ever be established that two or more cooperating individuals agreed, voluntarily, to combined thier means to achieve it, since, by definition, the ends of the other party were inherently unnown to each other.
Well, if so, then it is impossible to ever determine who among the individuals were honest or dishonest, since such terms necessarily presume an objective means of establishing the truth of their common ends and estimating which actions were contrary to them and which actions were not.
That is why I responded to bobmurphy’s question on truth the way I did, since I presumed it was a trick question and I do not like trick questions.
Oh my gosh everyone! Dogmai above said he thinks people ought to tell the truth.
Therefore, if anyone ever lies, Dogmai thinks the government should come in and force the person to tell the truth. This plays right into the hands of the liberals, who tout “truth-in-advertising” laws.
What a statist that Dogmai is. Really man, I can’t believe you think our duty to tell the truth supersedes freedom.
“Im familiar with the idea from Mises Human Action…”
I’ll just take that as a “I don’t care to listen to this.” Just because it’s a Mises.org link it does not mean it’s an exposition of LVM’s views. The link is to a lecture given by Roderick Long as part of his “Foundations of Libertarian Ethics” series. He’s an expert on both praexeology and Objectivism (as well as other general philosophical disputes regarding the nature of “objective” and “subjective value). I offered it because it offers (in part) a response to the objections you’ve repeated once again. If you’re so caught up in your own ideas that you won’t even take the time to listen to a plausible response then I would guess that most of us that are responding here are just wasting our time.
@bobmurphy
“Really man, I can’t believe you think our duty to tell the truth supersedes freedom.”
Ah, but I never said that and you avoided answering the question.
I believe that, in a political context, freedom supersedes any other ought.
You on the other hand have yet to state your position on whether or not you think altruism supersedes freedom for if you do then it cannot be true that one’s right to choose ones values comes before ones duty to sacrifice for those in need as Krugman’s liberal conscience thinks we should.
I think the answer hinges on your definition of altruism. If we’re relying on the classical definition of “selflessness” then involuntary “sacrifice” is not altruistic. And even from the perspective of the party wielding force, I would argue that this action too is not altruistic in the classical sense – as the sacrifice in question is not made by such an enforcer, and as the enforcing of such a sacrifice on the behalf of others would require subjugation of others on behalf of the enforcer’s preferred ends…something that doesn’t seem quite selfless.
An adherence to altruism might lead you to personally sacrifice, or to intentionally fail to resist when others trespass against you. But that’s not quite the same thing as saying an altruist should support trespass against others – even to egalitarian ends. To use a religious analogy, it’s kind of like the difference between Christ telling his followers to turn the other cheek and Christ telling his followers that it’s OK to run around back-handing innocent people as long as it leads to some egalitarian end.
Again, a lot of this hinges on your definition of altruism, whether wholly forced actions could constitute personal virtue(s), etc. But I don’t think to imagine both freedom and altruism being able to coexist within the same framework. I hear the Libertarian Left is quite active these days…
Altruism means “other-ism” and its defining characteristic is the denial of the self.
That means that whatever is said to be held as a “value” by a person, he/she would only gain moral worth by giving it up. Virtue is defined by the act of giving up the values that one holds for the sake of others. Why? Because those others lack them. Choice is not required. Whether or not one chooses to give up those values is immaterial to the question of virtue. Virtue is gained by giving up those values, by force if necessary.
That is what I mean by altruism.
“Altruism means “other-ism” and its defining characteristic is the denial of the self.”
Right – selflessness.
“Virtue is defined by the act of giving up the values that one holds for the sake of others.”
Ah – this kind of beckons to Rand. If we’re talking about about altruism as absolute selflessness then it’s a self-destructing concept; as altruism is one of many values one may personally hold and yet it would seem absolute altruism would require us to give up our personal preference for altruism itself. Of course, I think Rand’s view was a bit more complicated than that, but the point stands that you cannot adopt a value that would require you to repudiate the adoption of personal values. A preference to abide by the preferences of others is still a personal preference.
“Choice is not required. Whether or not one chooses to give up those values is immaterial to the question of virtue. Virtue is gained by giving up those values, by force if necessary.”
I think it’s completely material to the question of virtue. How can a virtuous act arise in the absence of action itself? By your definition, if I push someone in front of a bus to save twenty other people who would have been hit, the person I pushed was virtuous – and yet he did not act at all. By the same token, I’m a virtuous man if I go home today and find that a poor man has broken into my house and taken my belongings. I suppose by the same logic, had I, instead of pushing him into traffic, taken the man from my first example and simply crept up behind him and pulled down his pants in front of passing children, we could then call that vice on behalf of that man as well. Maybe we could have said that his failure to resist could constitute some kind of vice….or, in the previous example, that his failure to resist could constitute some kind of virtue – but clearly choice and deliberative action on his part are necessary.
“seem absolute altruism would require us to give up our personal preference for altruism itself. ”
Right. And Kant held that such a mindless act was the essence of duty for duty’s sake. Pure altruism for altruisms sake, not for ones own.
How can a virtuous act arise in the absence of action itself?
There are two schools of thought on that. In the values inherent sense, values are inherent in those acts apart from the people who make them, adding to the total sum of “virtue” that is achieved.
In the subjective sense, virtue is defined by acting towards social or collective norms, especially when those norms are contra to ones owns individual desires.
If the collective has to impose those norms on you, even though you disagree with them, then you are still being “moral” by acting by edict even though you would not have acted that way on your own i.e. welfare statism.
“Right. And Kant held that such a mindless act was the essence of duty for duty’s sake. Pure altruism for altruisms sake, not for ones own.”
Then this is largely the source of the issue. You seem to be using the Randian use of the term (which is fair enough). But it’s not precisely what most people mean by altruism so there is a bit of a disconnect where we are arguing past each other. Pure altruism, in the absolute sense – as the opposite of egoism – is a bit of a self-destructive term for the reasons mentioned.
“If the collective has to impose those norms on you, even though you disagree with them, then you are still being “moral” by acting by edict even though you would not have acted that way on your own i.e. welfare statism.”
This is where we’re still going to disagree. I believe if you are being literally forced then there is no true volition on your part – you are merely a proxy for their actions. If someone with a gun comes up to you and forces you, by threat of violence, to snatch the purse of the person in front of you, I hardly think we would say that such an action was the resultant of YOUR vice. they may believe that what you’re doing is “morally” preferable, but it still lacks the volitional context to claim virtue on behalf of the person forced.
This will help as well:
http://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/ari/nico/nico027.htm
@crossofcrimson,
“This is where we’re still going to disagree. I believe if you are being literally forced then there is no true volition on your part”
Tell me why volition matters in regards to altruism.
If, to use your example, someone pulls a gun on me to force me to rob someone else against my will then it can be said that my value was to “not” commit robbery.
But if the person with the gun was acting on a social edict or some intrinsic imperative (such as a religious dogma) that stated that robbery was moral then that person with the gun was only forcing me to act “morally” and it would be self-sacrifical on my part for the very reason that I did not want to do it.
Just to clarify, I meant that it was sacrifical on my part, from the perspective of the altruist code, for the very reason that I did not want to do it.
In other words, I held a different value than the gunman (not to rob) and would only be moral by giving up that value because it was held by others and demanded of me. that is altruism.
“Tell me why volition matters in regards to altruism.”
For the same reason you wouldn’t call something that is stolen from someone a gift – if it’s being forced you aren’t “giving” up value…it’s being taken from you. And for the same reason that if someone pushes you into someone else and they fall out a window and die it wouldn’t be a vice on your part. The whole concept behind virtues (even altruism) is the culpability of moral agency. If you are not free to act as a moral agent, then there is neither virtue or vice in your actions. It’s like saying a gun is evil for shooting someone – the gun is not capable of acting in a moral capacity (and neither is a human being if they have no choice in the matter). It doesn’t gain the moral capacity for virtue and vice simply because someone else used it to their own moral ends. Virtue makes no sense without volition – the passage from the link I provided is instructive.
“If, to use your example, someone pulls a gun on me to force me to rob someone else against my will then it can be said that my value was to “not” commit robbery.”
Then, by that same absurdity, someone breaking into my house when I’m not home and taking money is virtuous on my behalf….because I see a “value” in keeping my money. Saying that the actions of OTHER PEOPLE can make me more or less virtuous seems nonsensical – in fact it seems I could be in a coma and become more or less virtuous. Again….moral agency….
“In other words, I held a different value than the gunman (not to rob) and would only be moral by giving up that value because it was held by others and demanded of me. that is altruism.”
This is equivalent to saying that someone has the quite virtuous trait of tolerance simply because I’m pointing a gun at him and telling him that if he says one word, I’ll blow his head off. In that situation, he could literally be the most intolerant person in the world, but we’d be forced to say that he’s tolerant. Without free-standing moral agency, the label of virtue has no meaning.
@rossofcrimson,
I am not disagreeing with you about moral agency. I am saying that such a thing has no part in the altruist moral code. You are artificially inserting moral agency into the code when it is not there to begin with. In the altruist moral code, the standard of value is essentially a “zero”. To the extent that you possess a value you gain no moral credit, to the extent that you lose them, you gain moral virtue. Agency has nothing to do with it insofar as moral worth is concerned. All that matters is that there was a net net loss to the actor, that thier desired ends, whatever they are or were, were given up for the sake of ends that they desired less or did not desire.
I don’t think I’m getting anywhere with you here. I think you’re using many of the terms you’re employing (value, virtue, altruism), in a way that’s contrary to how we understand or use them. We’re just arguing past it each other. If you take a look at either of the links I sent you, some of our objections might make more sense to you.
@crossofcrimson,
I think you take for granted the meanings of many of those concepts and you do not bother to check to see what they refer to. Take morality for example. Morality is code of values to guide mans choices and actions. If morality states that action X is desireable i.e. a value, then that is the action associated with moral virtue. Actions that are non-X or anti-X are not moral or immoral, respectively.
In your examples, you simply assume actions are “good” only when chosen. Ok. but that has nothing to do with altruism. Altruism states that an action is good when it is not for the self, choice has nothign to do with it. If it does I have yet to hear a coherent argument for it.
“In your examples, you simply assume actions are “good” only when chosen.”
No, I don’t. Try reading what I write.
“Altruism states that an action is good when it is not for the self, choice has nothign to do with it.”
But when it’s done involuntarily then it is EXPLICITLY for the self. If you weren’t being threatened in some capacity, you wouldn’t be doing it. It really shouldn’t be that hard to understand.
@crossofcrimson,
“But when it’s done involuntarily then it is EXPLICITLY for the self. If you weren’t being threatened in some capacity, you wouldn’t be doing it.”
No, its not. A person who is faced with a choice of “your values (e.g. Money) or your life” is facing a choice of two negatives, one greater than the other.
I actually find this line of reasoning offensive because its fundamentally a “blame the victim” line of reasoning.
It is absurd to maintain that this “lose a little or lose everything” is a selfish choice since it is the self of the victim that is being reduced, not enhanced.
Such a simple concept as what constitutes a gain vs. a loss should not be too hard to understand given that this is primarily an economic blog.
“No, its not. A person who is faced with a choice of “your values (e.g. Money) or your life” is facing a choice of two negatives, one greater than the other.”
Life is also something you value – and it’s the value you’re choosing to act on in that instance. You value your life more than the money. When you choose to give up the money (instead of taking a bullet to the head) the action is a means to the ends of preserving your life; which you “selfishly” (in the Randian sense) value.
“I actually find this line of reasoning offensive because its fundamentally a “blame the victim” line of reasoning.”
I haven’t blamed the victim at all in anything I’ve written. I’m not sure who’s comments you’ve being reading, but you haven’t been reading mine closely if you’ve gotten that out of them.
“It is absurd to maintain that this “lose a little or lose everything” is a selfish choice since it is the self of the victim that is being reduced, not enhanced.”
But it is, comparatively, the more (rationally) “selfish” choice in that situation. No one is making the argument that the “self” in this situation isn’t being reduced regardless of the choice – however he is clearly making the choice that ultimately reduces him less….it’s unfortunate that he had to make this choice…..it’s still a choice, in that situation, that is made in his self-interest.
“Such a simple concept as what constitutes a gain vs. a loss should not be too hard to understand given that this is primarily an economic blog.”
No one is arguing that it isn’t a loss. You’re simply chasing your own tail because you’ve failed to read the responses carefully.
But, as I pointed out in my response above, this conversation has moved beyond the point of being productive. I’m sure we can pick up on it somewhere else when I have more time for this kind of back-and-forth.
As others have mentioned, yours is a curious definition of altruism if it requires coercion.
Within this universe of discourse, I think it’s safe to assume that if it’s not voluntary, it’s not altruism.
I don’t think it’s safe to assume that. See above. Altruism means self-sacrifice, if one must to be forced to sacrifice then one is just as moral as one who has sacrificed voluntarily. I don’t see how the aspect of force or choice alters the nature of the virtue gained by the loss of value involved. Do you?
“if one must to be forced to sacrifice then one is just as moral as one who has sacrificed voluntarily.”
So, by your judgment, when someone is murdered they are committing self-sacrifice???
not by my judgement but by the standard of altruism. that is why it is an abhorrent inverted morality.
@dogmai
> Altruism means self-sacrifice, if one must to be forced to sacrifice then …
You are the only one introducing force into the topic. Self-sacrifice can be voluntary, and this is what everyone here means by the term. If it makes it clearer for you, let’s not call it altruism but “voluntary self-sacrifice”.
@Rick Hull
“Self-sacrifice can be voluntary,”
Yes, but it also can be non-voluntary. spliting the concept into two categories does not change the fundamental nature of the concept. It is still self sacrifice, it is still moral on its own terms.
If you don’t believe in “taking money at from one guy gunpoint and giving it to sombody else” (to use your metaphor), then you also don’t believe that people who don’t (go to/send their children to) school should have to pay property taxes to the school disrtrict. And people who aren’t at risk of being robbed shouldn’t have to pay for police. Of course, that would eliminate roads, navigable waterways, airports, etc. And we’d all still be at risk of developing polio.
But, hey, that is what personal freedom is all about.
The fact that we have economists at all (free market or otherwise) is due, in large part, to the massive post-WWII expansion in higher education funded by the tax payers.
If you’re pointing out that my views logically lead to pure market anarchy, I agree. Now what? (And on principle I don’t take government money, even including working at state schools.)
The premise that goods/services such as infrastructure can only exist via the forced organization of the state is false. Free markets are perfectly capable of producing nearly all of those things on their own. There are very few exceptions, anarchist objections to the contrary notwithstanding.
I wish we had some economists before WWII.
Hey bob, was suprised you didn’t blog about the non-farm unit labor cost # that came out today: +3.3% q/q vs 2.3% exp and 2.2% last quarter.
Avg hourly earnings tomorrow. .2% exp
Hey AP:
…………../´¯/)
…………./¯..//
…………/….//
……/´¯/’…’/´¯¯’)¸
…/’/…/…./……./¨¯\
.(‘(…´…´…. ¯~/’…’)
..\……………..’……/
…’\……………. _.·´
…..\……………(
……\……………